Who should we emulate, exactly?

Sep 1, 2007
3,818
15
Indeed, that's what he wrote in his thread, but this whole argument started in an earlier thread (about Criss Angel releasing McDonald's aces as a single trick DVD). B_08 didn't start that thread.

Which I confess I never read because I only pop in when I have a particularly unwieldy axe to grind.
 
May 9, 2008
610
0
No one is saying that you should emulate Criss Angel or anyone just because they are famous, that was not the point of the other two threads.

The point was that it is stupid and ignorant to ignore it just because we dont like it. The truth is that Criss Angel has gotten further then most magicians could ever dream of and many magicians would love to be in his place and no matter how much we or the public think he sucks he still has a lot of people who likes him.

Its stupid to just ignore that fact instead of asking, What did he do to get the recognition he got, WHY did it work? and what can i learn from it and do with it. That was the point.

Its pretty damn obvious what most other magicians is NOT working either, and its obvious that what he did worked better then anything other magicians ever did. Why ignore the truth?

Dont come on and attack me because i dont like Criss Angel, i thinks hes embaresing. But the reality is that hes where we would want to be and we are not, and its stupid to ignore that reality.

Im pretty sure most serious musicians and film makers hates whats on the top charts, but they do take notice anyways.


"What did he do to get the recognition he got, WHY did it work? and what can i learn from it and do with it. That was the point."

This is emulation. Doing what other successful people have done to acheive a similar outcome is emulation.
 
Jan 26, 2008
423
1
Sweden
"What did he do to get the recognition he got, WHY did it work? and what can i learn from it and do with it. That was the point."

This is emulation. Doing what other successful people have done to acheive a similar outcome is emulation.

Well, no one is still getting what any of this is or has been about. Sad.

Look, im NOT SAYING THAT YOU SOULD DO IT THE WAY HE DID IT. Ok? NOT.

What im saying is that its stupid and ignorant to not look at the people who are on top in the same field that you want to become successful in and ask WHY is he where he is and what did he do to get there, why is he where he is and not me?

Why did it work for him and not for us/me? By asking that question you can learn a lot if you drop the ego and allow yourself to see.

You dont have to do it the way he did it, but you can learn a lot from understanding what made someone or something a succes.

Look, I hate Microsofts windows i just cant stand to work with it but the truth is that most people in the world are pretty happy with it and almost everyone is using it. If i wanted to make my own operating system and sell i would be pretty damn ignorant if i did not ask the question,

"Why is microsoft leaders on the market? Why are they still doing so well when there are alternatives that are way better then windows?"

And then the most important question,

"What can i learn from it, how can i apply that to what i am doing and make it better?"

Same thing can be applied to the Criss Angel discussion.
 
May 9, 2008
610
0
Walmott, what you're not understanding is to get where you want to be, a good way of getting there is to do what others have already done to get there. You should take advice from people who are at in life where you want to be. Do what they did to get where they are at. That is how emulation works. There's nothing wrong with that. Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel (the road to success), emulation is a great way of getting there. I'm not saying you need to be a carbon copy of that person, but you can take similar steps that they took to get where they are at to get to where you want to be. I think we're saying the same thing, we're just saying it a different way. You can emulate their roadmap to success, not specifically that person. Dressing like Criss Angel, talking like Criss Angel, doing the same type of effects as Criss Angel will not make you as successful as Criss Angel. However taking steps like making contacts, networking, becoming a people person, becoming a people praiser, and having a positive attitude, people will start to gravitate towards you. It's obvious that Criss didn't get where he is because he's an amazing magician.
 
Walmott, what you're not understanding is to get where you want to be, a good way of getting there is to do what others have already done to get there. You should take advice from people who are at in life where you want to be. Do what they did to get where they are at. That is how emulation works. There's nothing wrong with that. Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel (the road to success), emulation is a great way of getting there. I'm not saying you need to be a carbon copy of that person, but you can take similar steps that they took to get where they are at to get to where you want to be. I think we're saying the same thing, we're just saying it a different way. You can emulate their roadmap to success, not specifically that person. Dressing like Criss Angel, talking like Criss Angel, doing the same type of effects as Criss Angel will not make you as successful as Criss Angel. However taking steps like making contacts, networking, becoming a people person, becoming a people praiser, and having a positive attitude, people will start to gravitate towards you. It's obvious that Criss didn't get where he is because he's an amazing magician.

YES YES YOU ARE ARGUING THE EXACT SAME POINT. Are you even reading walmott's posts? Obviously, yes, but seriously. You had it already. Why keep writing that? You two are actually in agreement at this point.
 
Nov 20, 2007
4,434
6
Sydney, Australia
Oh my goodness.

Brad and Steerpike's conversation was interesting. The rest of it is mundane and repetitive. What is so difficult about engaging someone else's post?

So far, the posts have been...

A: I think this...

B: Well I think this...

A: I think this...

B: No, you don't understand, I think this...

A: But really, come on now, I think this...

In conclusion, Draven's post is thirded.

 
Apr 5, 2009
874
1
26
Illinois
Oh my goodness.

Brad and Steerpike's conversation was interesting. The rest of it is mundane and repetitive. What is so difficult about engaging someone else's post?

So far, the posts have been...

A: I think this...

B: Well I think this...

A: I think this...

B: No, you don't understand, I think this...

A: But really, come on now, I think this...

In conclusion, Draven's post is thirded.

and i second this. which means i 4th dravens.
 
Jan 16, 2008
379
0
Interesting thoughts Brad, and (can I resist it?) -- STEER WELCOME BACK! Sounds like your axe doesn't need THAT much grinding...not as aggressive as before eh?

Anyways, would either Brad or Steer like to continue? I'm learning quite a lot from this thread.

Keep it up guys.

PS. Brad I love your indentation and post structure.:D
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,818
15
Taking that axe against Brad would be a waste because when all is said and done, to paraphrase Tim Minchin, "we'd as soon be a week back in time for all the chance either of us will change our minds."

As soon as I'm done here though I'm going back into hibernation. I came back for B's topic because a man should not have to stand alone just because his opinion is unpopular.
 
Dec 14, 2007
823
2
Hey guys,

Will be busy next few days but will pop in when I can. First, glad the thread is still active and we haven't resorted to attacks yet.

Let's ask some questions:

First, I believe this was b's opening line (as quoted by Steer)

"I love the art of magic and it is heart breaking to me that for a profession as old as ours, we are still kept as a side show. A big part of why Criss Angel is so famous, is that he has no other competition today. That's our fault. "

So, why does Criss have no competition?

Now Steer says he would turn to Rick for advice on the entertainment landscape - I am inclined to ask what his qualifications or experience with the larger entertainment world would be. Remember, it's important to know where your information comes from. Further, this is pretty much nothing more than a veiled personal attack, something i would hope we could manage to avoid. I would expect better from you. If you don't think my information is accurate, please say so. Tell me why I am not qualified to discuss what is happening on the entertainment landscape.

Does he - do you - know that Criss has a demand in his A and E agreement that forbids any other program with magical content to air on A and E or any of it's sister networks?

I worked with a producer who was pitching a show of an historical nature that had an element of magic in it. History Channel loved the idea - but Criss won't let any other magic on TV.

Oddly, he did promise he would back a MAgic Castle series, but as soon as he convinced the Castle to give him an award and allow him to use his place for filming his show, he rescinded the offer. (Of course, there is more behind it than that.)

So, want to know why Criss has less competition - because he won't allow it.

Yet we are considered "bad people" for criticizing him.

Likewise, when one young mentalist got a tv deal Criss called him and threatened him with a lawsuit from "the firm". Said that he wouldn't be allowed to do any stunts "in his domain." When asked what that meant, Criss said mind reading, PK, metal bending etc. He was telling this to someone who had been doing metal bending since before Criss had probably ever heard of the concept.

So, when we ask - why no competition - we can't assume because it is always because of an incompatibility with public taste or an inability to connect with the audience.

Sometimes it's because people in power are actively protecting their interests. So it comes back, not to talent - not to relevance - but to who you know and who they are.

This post sums up (I think) the thrust of the other threads content and is worthy of exploring:

(see next post)
 
Dec 14, 2007
823
2
continued from above

No one is saying that you should emulate Criss Angel or anyone just because they are famous, that was not the point of the other two threads.

The point was that it is stupid and ignorant to ignore it just because we dont like it. The truth is that Criss Angel has gotten further then most magicians could ever dream of and many magicians would love to be in his place and no matter how much we or the public think he sucks he still has a lot of people who likes him.

Its stupid to just ignore that fact instead of asking, What did he do to get the recognition he got, WHY did it work? and what can i learn from it and do with it. That was the point.

Its pretty damn obvious what most other magicians is NOT working either, and its obvious that what he did worked better then anything other magicians ever did. Why ignore the truth?

Dont come on and attack me because i dont like Criss Angel, i thinks hes embaresing. But the reality is that hes where we would want to be and we are not, and its stupid to ignore that reality.

Im pretty sure most serious musicians and film makers hates whats on the top charts, but they do take notice anyways.

First, Walmott should not be the subject of personal attacks because he asked a question.

But There are some assumptions in here that I think are worth thinking about.

First the idea that looking at what he did in order that one may also do it is emulation. But that semantic issue aside, I think the bigger picture is to ask - is this what we want to emulate?

Criss is famous. Celebrities are people who are famous for being well known. (Wish I could remember who wrote that.) And if you want to be a celebrity then I think that following Criss's path is a valid one. Of course, so is Paris Hilton's and Kim Kardashian's.

Taking that path has a price. Most people are not willing to have sex on tape just to be known and get into the best clubs. Criss Angel is - metaphorically speaking.

Likewise, there are many magicians whose sole goal is to make money. I have known many of them. Some of them are average magicians, many not even that. But they do know how to market and sell and work a lot of shows - once. The buy things like the Dave Dee courses and simply grind out, sometimes, a healthy living.

But ultimately are these people magicians, or are they people who are selling a magic act? Is Criss a magician, or a celebrity who is using magic as his gimmick.

Now, if your goal is to make money or be famous - the path is there.

But some people have other goals. Some people get into magic because they love the art, because it can be a vehicle for self expression, because they enjoy entertaining an audience, because they want to do something interesting.

These people may never be famous in the public consciousness, but at the end of their lives, they might end up having GIVEN more to people, GIVEN more to magic, made more interesting choices than someone who is only in it in order to achieve fame or money.

Many of the great artists we revere died penniless. How much more barren our cultures would be if they were told not to follow their vision - in spite of the financial consequences, but to emulate the popular and successful.

These are the people who, when their stories are told, are looked upon with respect even by laypeople. There have been many histories of magic told (most aired right before many of you would have been born). After their airing when people would hire me, they would do so because they saw something special in magic, they wanted to talk about its history and how it worked (big picture.) They didn't use words like douche, or greasy, or even camera tricks.

Those were the days.

Now some people may use the argument of numbers and claim that the artists represented on those histories were failures because thousands of people did not know who they are - like they do Paris Hilton or Heidi or Spencer or a mom that had a lot of kids.

But when we look back at our lives and ask, did we leave this place better or worse than when we found it, I think most of them can put a check in the 'better' box.

In short, not everyone wants to be where Criss is and to call that a "reality" is simply speculation fueled by unfounded mind reading.

Now collegehumor is not the ultimate thermometer of the entertainment world, but I do think that it represents a lot of the commentary to be found.

Here are the articles on Criss from TMZ:

http://www.tmz.com/person/criss-angel/

Again, these guys are known to be snarky, but again, this is what a lot of the entertainment industry think about Criss.


So, we are left with the question, how did Criss get where he got? Well, lots of people get famous for lots of reasons. Some people buy their own shows, have enough money behind them to get the advertising and even fake the numbers. Did you know there is a NYT bestseller broker? For the right money, he will guarantee your book a spot on the NYT best seller list.

We can't believe everything we read in someone's press kit. There are a lot of back room deals and business that goes into the business of show - that are completely independent of talent. And tv seems less and less concerned with talent. They like trainwrecks. And once you have built a person to the point of having name recognition (which Criss does among a small slice of the populace) then you are invested. It is hard to walk away from an investment, no matter how badly it may tank. - - - Just ask Cirque.

If anything, reality tv has taught us that some people will watch anything and there is money to be made advertising to every demographic. The opening episode of the last mindfreak series pulled in 1.2 million people - peanuts in the tv world - but still a valuable sector for advertising. (Steer, talk to Rick ,he will tell you all about the role of advertising to demographics and the value per customer that networks place on their viewership.)

Of course, we also have to remember that different shows pull different demographics. Criss is NOT loved by everyone - and I am not just talking about magicians. (for the record, I think the 'magicians hate his style' line is old. I, for one, was very excited the first time I saw Criss work. I thought the illusions were inventive and the look really creative. While I found the rocker magician character uninspired - tons of those - what he did with his magic was novel. So the issue is not style (and for the record, I think goth girls are totally hot), it is with unskillfully executed magic, poorly constructed plots, a now one dimensional character, and a lack of relevance to anything meaningful to sentient adults - yelling that something is 'extreme' to the camera is hardly drama or showmanship.)

The fact that Criss has received such scathing reviews and is lampooned as strongly as he is is testament to the fact that for a large population, Criss is NOT relevant in spite of Steer's claim.

So, does it make sense to suggest we should advocate emulating a man whose choices clearly do NOT resonate with a large percentage of the population simply because - for whatever reason - he managed to land a tv show.

I can't say that I think that is the smartest position - UNLESS you want to target the same demographic in which case he is a model worth studying.

I don't.

So, aside from how his work impacts future generations of magicians and their relationship with the tv audience, he is largely irrelevant to me. Hate is not the opposite of love. Indifference is.

I will confess that I am concerned about how Criss has privileged his own needs over those of the trust built between magician and tv audience over decades and find this irresponsible and reprehensible.

But that may not be important to many of you.

I tend to be a big picture guy.

But let's leave Criss and look at the bigger picture - why are so many magicians lampooned and our art not taken seriously? Why are there only one or two magicians in the public eye at a time?

Has this historically been true?

Has TV changed things and how, why?

Is the very notion of "many magicians" antithetical to the concept of "magic" as an art that is, and I use this word in it's most literal sense, super-natural?

Why did Copperfield opt to not participate in the WGM specials? Why did he opt to not have his one man specials while they were popular?

Could the reason behind the limited number of magicians in the popular mind somehow systemic to the underlying message behind the art itself?

Could a magician be "completely normal" and still be a successful magician? Is that what the public even wants?

And is TV really the measure of success for a magician or any artist? Is popular, commercial success the yardstick by which we should measure someone's worth? And is magic - a media which requires the experienced discrepancy between what one knows cannot happen and what one is actively experiencing to have happened - ever really succeed in anything but a live environment?

When we talk about magic on tv - are we, even in the best of instances, talking about magic at all. Or is it a picture of magic?

Is a picture of a Van Gogh a Van Gogh?

Having unexpectedly turned the corner at the MOMA and nearly walked into Starry Night - an image I had seen hundred of times in books and on posters - only to have my breath literally taken away when I saw it in person, I can tell you that I do not think it is the same.

Maybe what Criss is offering is not magic. It lacks that palpable discrepancy. It is a picture of a picture of a magic show.

Which doesn't mean it doesn't succeed for some people as a tv show - but I don't think that's what a "magician" wants to emulate.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,818
15
Now Steer says he would turn to Rick for advice on the entertainment landscape - I am inclined to ask what his qualifications or experience with the larger entertainment world would be. Remember, it's important to know where your information comes from.

Let me answer that with another question. Do you know who Rick Maue is? Have you ever spoken to him?

I once sat down with Rick and Docc Hilford and the topic of the Magic Cafe came up. When Rick was the special guest there, Docc said he was amazed that he wasn't getting the same kind of crap, backtalk and sass that the Cafe is notorious for. He said he realized it was because Rick was right about everything, and everyone could tell. Talking back to him would just invite humiliation.

Further, this is pretty much nothing more than a veiled personal attack, something i would hope we could manage to avoid. I would expect better from you. If you don't think my information is accurate, please say so. Tell me why I am not qualified to discuss what is happening on the entertainment landscape.

It's not an attack to say that a man can't be the best at everything, Brad. If I have questions about the history of magic, I will ask you. But over the last three years, when it comes to business, I have never received better guidance than from Rick. I can never repay him for everything he's done for me just by agreeing to sit and talk with me for a few hours a couple of times a year.

Does he - do you - know that Criss has a demand in his A and E agreement that forbids any other program with magical content to air on A and E or any of it's sister networks?

I imagine Rick knows that. I didn't, because I never asked. Though I question why you didn't divulge this information sooner as it's relevant to Baller's discussion. You made allusions before to this fact. That you didn't tell us until now strikes me as rather rude.

So, want to know why Criss has less competition - because he won't allow it.

Yet we are considered "bad people" for criticizing him.

No, it's simply counterproductive to complain. And Criss has used amoral tactics to secure his place now, but what competition did we give him when he was still fighting to get that contract in the first place? Before he deadlocked A&E? You haven't provided an adequate answer to that question.

In regards to your second successive post, let me say only this: Black metal is suffocating due to a lack of mainstream exposure. I don't want that to happen to magic, and I would like to see more done about it. Complaining about those who have stolen the spotlight isn't helping.
 
Dec 14, 2007
823
2
I do know Rick. He is one of the most well liked mentalists among magicians that I know. He gives freely of his ideas and many of the attendees of mindvention really enjoy his work. I would suspect that has a lot to do with how well he was received on the Cafe. I do not, however, know anything of his connection to the larger world of show business, or what expertise he has on those matters. And he might be quite expert, but your implication is that I lack information simply because I have never shared any of it with you.

There are lots of people who know lots of things that haven't shared them with you. Hardly a reason to imply they don't because they haven't.

But this is off topic and I just wanted to point out that I felt this was a personal attack, the kind which prevents topics like this from being productive. I have expressed my concern.

As to not sharing information when I did(n't) - hardly rude. But then again, I don't see how name calling helps us keep topics productive. I had my reasons, the main being trying to build a direct line of thought among so many competing issues and posts. It was not information I felt contributed to the points I was making at the time. Pattern of revelation. Sadly, the post that was leading up to that point was submitted seconds after the thread was closed. (And it was a good post, if I say so.)

As to you accusation that I did not provide an answer, I will say I did not know that was my job. Just because people give an answer doesn't mean it is the correct one. And my point is that we cannot assume that landing a TV show proves anything about quality, talent, relevance, or whatever. I may not know what the answer is, but that doesn't mean that we can't rule out what it isn't.

There are many reasons networks make decisions they do. For example, one magician got a tv spot because they wanted their own David Blaine. Ironically, Derren Brown pitched his show to the same company and was turned down. It wasn't until Derren and Blaine became famous and successful that this company developed any interest in a magician. (Specifically, they wanted their own Derren since they missed out. They wanted to ride of Blaine's coatails and insisted in following that formula. It was Blaine's success they wanted to coopt.)

And do you know why this particular magician got the gig?

Talent?

Relevance?

Nope.

They wanted someone who would work cheap, sign away all his rights, and wasn't white.

Yep. Don't call me racist. I'm not the network exec who put that out there. They wanted to tap into specific demographics and felt that a magician - any magician - who wasn't white would get the job done. (In truth, I do not know if that was the 'network' speaking or the person who produced the show to sell to said network.)

So, what was A and E looking for?

who knows? the point is, it's not always about talent, relevance, or anything like that.

It's easy to over simplify. It's easy to look at someone's PR kit and make assumptions about what happened, but that doesn't mean it is true.

Now, I did pose why I think why Angel is here and others aren't. I didn't state it outright, because where is the fun in that?

I encourage people to consider the questions I asked and see if that might help you explore the concept. I have a theory, but honestly, since I wasn't in the A and E boardroom, it's only a theory. I'm not comfortable proclaiming it as fact. But regardless, it's something worth pondering.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,818
15
Brad, you crossed the T yourself. Rick has always been very straightforward with me. You said yourself that he gives freely of his knowledge and experience with no strings attached. That is why I defer to him.

It is not name calling or ad hominem to say that I found your behavior rude. I would expect a man of your stature to know that. Do not disappoint me.

As for suggesting answers, it is the responsibility of everyone involved in the discussion to toss out theories and hypotheses so that they may be weighed on individual merit. I'm sorry you chose to withhold your theories. It might have saved us all a lot of time had you decided to share instead. Ah, but now we get into, "What if," territory, and that only leads to wasting more time.
 
Dec 14, 2007
823
2
But that's the point ( at least I think it is)

"What if" is speculation.

So is "what is" when the poster has nothing to back it up.

Equally, so is 'what is' when there are many factors not even considered by the poster declaiming beliefs as fact.

What I hope to do, and all I can do, is offer some information and perspective many may not have access to.

And will try in all cases to back both up with facts and appeal to logic.

To paraphrase edison, while I may not be able to offer a definitive answer (not that anyone could) I can successfully help eliminate WRONG answers.

There is value in that.

And I still do not know how to weigh any of rick's information as I have never heard him speak of anything more than his own mentalism effects and his position of psychics.

I am left to wonder what is accomplished by mentioning him other than to imply he is an expert and I am not. I do not know what he has to do with this thread. Has he given you information about criss or this specific issue? If so, please credit him when you repeat it.

Having said that! I am sure he is very giving. I am sure you think I am rude.

Neither says anything about the relevance or accuracy of our information or the knowledge base either of us have acquired.

Likewise, you accused me of rudeness because I did not share all the information I had on another thread. This is a canard. A distraction. For one, I don't see how it is rude. More importantly by turning the discussion to me (as your most recent post does) it distracts us from any sort of meaningful conversation on the topic at hand.

I would like to see this thread maintain focus.

Let's stay on topic, shall we.
this is not about me.

It isn't about you.

Let's stick to ideas, ok?
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,818
15
I was speaking to the idea of, "What if you had given us your theories instead of complaining about us?"

By mentioning Rick, my point was that I get what you're trying to do, but I believe your skillset is better served in other topics. There are people whose opinions on this issue I believe carry more authority than your own. And I say this because you present yourself as the authority whether you intend to or not. I am saying that there are alternative viewpoints and based on experience, I have found them more useful.

And the reason I called you rude for withholding information is because you gave me the impression of doing it for self-serving purposes. That you were more concerned with your "fun" than genuinely helping anybody. So with that in mind, I told people of an alternative source of information who is easier to get a straight answer out of. What good is being right if you just jerk people around, in other words.

As for sticking to the ideas, you asked questions of my meaning and intent and I answered. What did you expect?
 
Dec 14, 2007
823
2
I was speaking to the idea of, "What if you had given us your theories instead of complaining about us?"

By mentioning Rick, my point was that I get what you're trying to do, but I believe your skillset is better served in other topics.

And what gives you the experience and or knowledge to know who I am or what skillsets I may possess. Again, this is more of the same assumption laden conclusions that I see here and on the cafe. I don't recall complaining about anyone. I do take issue when people make statements that are not backed with anything, but by phrasing it as 'us' you make it sound as if it is personal. It isn't. Good information is good information regardless of where it comes from.


There are people whose opinions on this issue I believe carry more authority than your own. And I say this because you present yourself as the authority whether you intend to or not. I am saying that there are alternative viewpoints and based on experience, I have found them more useful.

Who are they and what do they say on the matter? I am sure there are people out there who are more of an authority than I am on many things - but ultimately, that has nothing to do with anything. Either what I say is backed up with facts and logic or it isn't.

If you have contradictory facts, please present them. Otherwise, all you are doing is attempting to impugn my character and authority. And I don't think I would even have a problem with that if I thought for a moment you knew anything about my experiences that may or may not grant any degree of authority.

I have presented my information and the conclusions I have drawn. I have backed them up with appeals to facts and logic. If you disagree, please offer contrary information backed up with appeals to facts and logic.

If you can't, then I don't know what there is to say.

And the reason I called you rude for withholding information is because you gave me the impression of doing it for self-serving purposes. That you were more concerned with your "fun" than genuinely helping anybody. So with that in mind, I told people of an alternative source of information who is easier to get a straight answer out of. What good is being right if you just jerk people around, in other words.

Again, mindreading.

Please don't assume you know what I or any one else thinks or what my or anyone else's motivations may be unless you have a statement from us. It is baseless, groundless, and in some ways the ultimate personal attack.

There are many sources of alternative information, and I encourage people to look at any which are informed from a position of knowledge of the facts. I don't believe Rick has chimed in here. Nor am I aware that you have shared any of his ideas. So, I don't know what relevance there is in mentioning him.

If you disagree with what I have written, please offer facts to the contrary.

As for sticking to the ideas, you asked questions of my meaning and intent and I answered. What did you expect?

And I appreciate you answering them. Unfortunately, I had to ask in reaction to your posts which, as I have explained, served only to distract from the topic at hand and boil down to what are essentially personal attacks.

I'm not mad.

I'm ready to move on. But I wanted to take this opportunity to point out how those types of posts are the ones which lead to off topic flaming that fail to address the ideas which are intended to be the topic of discussion.

But we've covered that now and can move on.

Do you have anything substantive to add to this discussion? Do you have any facts which contradict those offered? Do you have alternative conclusions based on facts?

We can even go back to one of our points of contention - when you look at the statements made by satirists and social commentators about magic and magicians, what do you see and why do you think those are the qualities they choose to focus on?

Just trying to keep things substantive.

I appreciate your help in the matter
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results