Mr. Loonybits

[David Regal]

My teaching skills must need some fine tuning. A reviewer, whose name is not important, but we shall call Mr. Loonybits, reviewed my Ring Chain and made two statements I have to clear up:

you cannot perform the trick surrounded, even though Regal says otherwise.

I said that? Puzzled, I watched my DVD to see what was misunderstood. No, you can prepare the trick so there is nothing to see from any angle, allowing you to stroll and have complete mobility. To claim that one can do a trick with a person behind you, when the work is done behind you, would be idiotic. I guess Mr. Loonybits thinks Im just that sort of idiot. He also said:

And perhaps the biggest drawback is the fact that you really cannot wear any type of close-fitting shirt. In other words, anyone who wants to perform on the street cannot wear the tight fitting T-shirts designed to show off your muscles.

Um it can be done in a close-fitting shirt. This morning I reluctantly sat in front of my laptops webcam and performed the effect wearing a tight T-shirt. You can see it here:

The Muscular Mr. Regal

It can be done in any shirt. If you are able to remove the chain, you can do the trick. The inspiration for the prop is a great effect I had as a kid called Ringo, in which a finger ring traveled down the length of a wand, down a cord, and was stopped by a tassel but to the spectators it seemed like the ring simply appeared on the tassel. It amazed me that spectators didnt register the moving ring. With my ring chain, one can slip the loaded ring under a shirt, but one doesnt have to, as I demonstrate on the DVD. I must not have been as clear about that as I could have been, or maybe Mr. Loonybits missed that part.

The review also said unless you are in a formal show and standing behind a table, there is no way to show your hands empty following the vanish of the ring. Well, in the clip I use no table and I do not lap the ring. Maybe you dont like my vanish, or you dont think my hands appear empty. Thats okay. Mr. Loonybits must not have liked my choice of vanishes, which is fine as we all have our preferences, but he didnt say that. Instead, he came to the conclusion that convincing vanishes are not possible. The Regal Ring Chain does not vanish a ring. It is a prop to use after a ring has been vanished, when one is holding a ring unbeknownst to the audience. So, one could use the popular Clifton Ring Move if one felt that was more convincing, or a ring-vanishing prop such as a handkerchief (inexpensive and excellent).

My ring chain is, simply, a practical, fast-loading gimmicked chain. It reminds me of the many non-reel ring-to-key-chain effects that have been marketed (Einhorn, Swadling, Stewart, Dusheck, etc.) in which a dirty hand reaches for the key case. When this style of method first came out everyone was shocked that it worked, as it was so direct (and the jury came in on that approach long ago).

My ring chain has turned out to be controversial. I guess I dont mind that. I love magic and I even love Mr. Loonybits.

P.S. You can get it for $60 at my website.

[Brad Henderson]

I just hope to god magic's next [s]big marketing scam[/s] cutting edge genre is NOT "Tight Muscle Shirt Wearing" Street Magic.

[David Regal]

That's the name of my next book, dammit.

[Richard Kaufman]

Where is Mr. Looneybits review published?

[Dustin Stinett]

One guess.

[Richard Kaufman]

MAGIC? :)

[Dustin Stinett]

Yup.

[Doc Dixon]

David, I've had reviewers of my products make factual (as opposed to opinion) errors, too. I've gone back and forth in my head regarding whether to address it online as you have. With most cases I've declined, mostly because my my sole superpower is an incredible level of apathy.

What made you decide to call the reviewer on it in this particular situation?

Just curious.

Best,

Doc

[David Regal]

Doc, I'm just a little baby, that's all.

Seriously, I realize people are going to dislike tricks of mine, but when the review said I claimed the trick could be performed surrounded, I worried. I watched the DVD and saw how it might seem I was saying that, when my intent was just to show how the chain can be set up in a way that is completely hidden. Then, when the review said the trick can only be done in button-down shirts with two buttons open, I realized there was another misunderstanding - it can be done in T-shirts, and that's relevant. I want people to buy or not buy a trick based on whether or not they can use it, so it's important to me that the pros and cons are accurate. I must've been off my feed the day I shot the instructions, so I apologize to anyone who has experienced any confusion, and I'll answer any questions about the prop, whether or not you own it.

[Pete McCabe]

Don't sell yourself short, David. You're a big baby.

[David Regal]

Take that back.

[Pete McCabe]

You take it back.

[Dustin Stinett]

I know you are, but what am I?

* * * *

As someone who has never made an error of fact [ahemmmm..rrr..excuse me while I clear my throat], I would have very little issue with being called on one (had I made one)if its done either privately orif done in an open forum such as thisin a manner that does not take on the air of a personal attack.

But sometimes errors of fact are errors of perception or, better yet, errors of truth.

Errors of perception on the part of the reader are usually because of the way something was written, so the reviewer is guilty of less than perfect writing. I recently had to clarify something in this regard. Interestingly, I was accused of writing something that I in fact did not write, but the perception was that I did. I dont blame the reader.

And sometimes what is considered factual by one person is opinion to the other. For example, in my opinion David is not wearing a tight or close-fitting shirt in his video above. So it actually moves from the realm of fact to that of truth. Truth and fact are not necessarily the same.

Devoutly religious people are speaking the truth when they say God created the universe.

The devoutly atheist are speaking the truth when the say that cosmic happenstance resulted in the creation of the universe.

Whatever your version of the truth, there was, in fact, a creation of the universe: its presence is proof of that.

The only fact in David's video is that he is wearing a shirt. How it fits depends on our belief of what "tight" is.

So please tread lightly when accusing someone of making an error of fact; it just might be our version of the truth versus your own.

Dustin

[Edward Pungot]

[img:left]http://www.denofgeek.com/siteimage/scale/800/600/136250.png[/img] Who needs a shirt when you've got Mr. T

[Doc Dixon]

I know you are, but what am I?

* * * *

As someone who has never made an error of fact [ahemmmm..rrr..excuse me while I clear my throat], I would have very little issue with being called on one (had I made one)if its done either privately orif done in an open forum such as thisin a manner that does not take on the air of a personal attack.

But sometimes errors of fact are errors of perception or, better yet, errors of truth.

Errors of perception on the part of the reader are usually because of the way something was written, so the reviewer is guilty of less than perfect writing. I recently had to clarify something in this regard. Interestingly, I was accused of writing something that I in fact did not write, but the perception was that I did. I dont blame the reader.

And sometimes what is considered factual by one person is opinion to the other. For example, in my opinion David is not wearing a tight or close-fitting shirt in his video above. So it actually moves from the realm of fact to that of truth. Truth and fact are not necessarily the same.

Devoutly religious people are speaking the truth when they say God created the universe.

The devoutly atheist are speaking the truth when the say that cosmic happenstance resulted in the creation of the universe.

Whatever your version of the truth, there was, in fact, a creation of the universe: its presence is proof of that.

The only fact in David's video is that he is wearing a shirt. How it fits depends on our belief of what "tight" is.

So please tread lightly when accusing someone of making an error of fact; it just might be our version of the truth versus your own.

Dustin

Philosophical discussions aside, the important thing here, Dustin, is I'm rubber. You're glue.

PS. Cootie shield!

[David Regal]

Hey, I'm a big stupidhead, not the reviewer who did his job.

[Richard Kaufman]

Evidently the reviewer FAILED in his job because he wrote things that are not true.

[David Regal]

I get too emotional. I'm a reactor - often a problem. My wife saw what I posted and said "You can dish it out but you can't take it." She's usually right.

[John M. Dale]

[img:left]http://www.denofgeek.com/siteimage/scale/800/600/136250.png[/img] Who needs a shirt when you've got Mr. T

But can he link a ring on ANY of those chains????


JMD

[David Regal]

...in my opinion David is not wearing a tight or close-fitting shirt in his video above.

I swear, it was all I could find! And just last week I tossed out an ancient super-tight Papaya King T-shirt from back in the day (not kidding). At any rate, one's shirt can be tight with that handling because the ring is never under the shirt. The chain is under the shirt, but not the ring.

[Doc Dixon]

If this thread keeps one, JUST ONE, fat magician from wearing a "close-fitting"shirt, it will be worth it.

Doc "Could stand to lose a few pounds" Dixon

[Pete McCabe]

Maybe you should offer a free close-fitting t-shirt with each purchase.

[Dustin Stinett]

I was going to suggest that David film me doing the trick wearing that shirt he's wearing in the video. But I will bow to Doc's wishes.

[Kent Gunn]

David,

I'd like to steal the name Mr. Loonybits. It's perfect for a minor character, a magician who does kiddie shows. He and his partner, Fondles the Clown will be featured in a short story.

If Loonybits is already someone's stage name I'll keep casting about.

KG

[Doc Dixon]

Kent,

Thank you. Someone needed to get this thread back on track.

Doc

[Anthony Vinson]

You know, when I initially read the review I was left with a sense of WTF? After reading over this thread I went back and read it again with the same result. It seemed to me that, under the circumstances described, that the reviewer should've contact Mr. Regal for clarification on the points that appeared to vex him. Having not done so, the review was both incomplete and inconsiderate (of both inventor and reader). Had I been casually interested in purchasing the item prior to reading the review, my interest would have waned and perhaps even faded entirely. Had I been seriously interested in the product before reading the review, I would have been compelled to contact Mr. Regal myself for clarification. Or does that make too much sense?

[Edward Pungot]

All kidding aside, I thought I would share a wonderful anecdote from one of our veteran performers and all around nice guy. The quote comes from a reply thread on the new Hermetic Press Forum found under the topic of Mr. Richardson's first book, Theater of the Mind.

I often pretend to be modest, but I love the compliments of my peers. I do not know about you, but I am really thin skinned. If one student out of 50 gave me a poor evaluation, I would fret about this one. I later learned from my son Craig that this is part of the human condition. A small loss can upset us more than a large gain. I recall dropping a ten dollar bottle of wine on our garage floor and being mad for a few hours...even though that day I received an unexpected 500 dollar check. Not sure what this means for magic and performing.

[Steve Bryant]

Kent,

We used to have a clown here in Bloomington named Ringworm the Clown. Never saw the act.

[Kent Gunn]

"We used to have a clown here in Bloomington named Ringworm the Clown. Never saw the act."

Wait for it . . .

I'll bet he was a fungi!

Okay it's only funny if you know ringworm is a . . . , never mind, it really isn't funny.