Shoot Ogawa or "Houston, we have an ethics problem."

[Guest]

Steve,
Well written and refreshingly honest abut the limitations. I was one of the early Brooke puchasers but never had the energy to split the nylons nor the courage to present it if I had.
I recall meeting you at Allentown (Cnhanin was alive and there too) and you were practicing in a darkened corner and, as with the above honesty and ingenuousness said," I hope this doesn't show. I don't have the nerve to try it out there "[in a well lighted room]. I think it was your first effort--but what an effect. I did come to agree with Herb Downes of Cold Reading fame that the climax ws when that little rod finally popped out over the edge of the tube.
Good to her of and from your again. Hee in Media we havee a lot of great guys, Aron Shields,Marc DeSouza, John Cassidy (Balloons and Children and great) Eric (there goes the memory), Steve Reynods (cards) Ed Voorhees (our version of the Dai VErnon mentor) and oodles of others. You, I recall, were from Hazelton?
Marty Kaplan

[Ian Kendall]

Hello again,

This topic cropped up in a recent issue of Magic, where a Japanese magician give the local's side of the story (which would seem to dispel the cultural difference angle). He seemed quite damning of Shoot's exposure shows, which were recognised by the AMA as such. In the Editor's reply it was said that Shoot had been exonerated by the AMA because the shows were 'educational' and not 'exposure', and the proof of the clean slate was the fact that Shoot had been named Close up magician of the year (or something).

Problems with this:

1. Shoot seems to be using Michael Close's definition of education (How to play the piano; hit the keys in the right order - Workers 3 Essay on learning and Power of palming video). There is a huge difference between showing how something is done and showing how to do it, and very little difference between the former and exposure.

2. A certain amount of hypocricy is evident on the part of the AMA in giving an award to someone they have identified as responsible for exposure. Is anyone from the AMA going to explain why the sudden change of heart? Probably not. Again, it seems Shoot has powerful sponsors.

However, until someone can get Shoot to a computer and we hear his side, or even Kohler's, we'll be going round in circles. Again.

Take care, Ian
Not holding his breath on this one...

[Guest]

Thank you, Ian....We do need to get Shoot to a computer and ask him to respond to the comments here.....Whatever he says is better than what most of the comments are here....At least they pertain to the perceived problem....

Now, just so folks know....I am a WAM supporter and was one of a couple of people at the SAM convention who stood up and raised hell until SAM agreed to continue to support WAM. That means that I am against "exposure", but it does not mean that I am against allowing the accused an opportunity to respond to some pretty harsh comments....

Are we a brotherhood/sisterhood, or just talk???

opie

[Guest]

Originally posted by opie:
...Are we a brotherhood/sisterhood, or just talk???

I don't know Opie. Has anyone asked John Cornelius how he feels about children amusing themselves to see who can pop a coin the highest?

The simple question posed earlier seems too hard for many to believe or address. Maybe we have forgotten some of our background as a group. One of the few things that makes us 'US' is our respect for the knowlege and paternity of that knowlege that allows us to seemingly accomplish the impossible.

One of our few common rules is that we do not show our methods or present such information in tv commercials. We agree to to leave the details to the illusions we see on David Copperfield's TV specials out of our public conversation. Or at least I did want to believe such.

[Guest]

John is a fellow Texan and friend of mine....He too would probably like to hear why somebody would infringe on his muscle pass....

I am not defending Shoot, but I refuse to belittle him until I know more....

One of the things that makes us "U.S.A." is supposed to be our willingness to allow an accused his say....

Did you yankees in New York secede, or what?

opie

[Guest]

Originally posted by opie:
Did you yankees in New York secede, or what?
opie

Opie, I get annoyed at the inconsistant moral character sometimes displayed in this group. So far I have made no statement about Shoot, his teacher, producer or even the specials. What got me was how just a few weeks ago someone had a poll about discussing methods and mechanics of commercially available products on this BBS, and now here we are turning a blind eye to outright exposure in public.

Some of this might better be discussed offline. I can be reached at JONTOWN@AOL.COM What's your email?

[Guest]

I know my following comment really is tangential to the thread topic, but...

I would not consider the muscle pass "John's" though he popularized it with "the coin that falls up".

Although the muscle pass pre-dates Arthur Buckley's PRINCIPLES AND DECEPTIONS (1948), I believe it is first found in print therein.

The oldest use of it is rumored to be with an English magician from the 1800's named Charles Bertram, though the move apparently pre-dates him.

As for Shoot's issue...

I have more than enough spouted my mouth off about how I feel about exposure in other threads. In my mind its wrong.

I believe Shoot made a mistake. One I would hazard to guess he regrets from reading the article. No matter how much he would repent from his sin, I doubt he will ever find the forgiveness of everyone. One rarely does. Even when he does find forgivness in some eyes, the consequences of his actions are unavoidable - case in point: the very existance of this thread. I am sure Shoot is pretty aware that this issue will crop up through out the rest of his career. No level of forgiveness will be able to take that consequence away.

Shoot is extremely talented in my opinion. Though this issue will be a stumbling block, I don't think it is going to keep him down.

[Todd Lassen]

Back in Febuary I received an email that had been forwarded to me. It was from Mr. Mutobe, one of Japan's great coin men. Mr. Mutobe is the mentor of Akira Fuji for one, whom alot of us rememeber was the very nice gentleman here fooling the crap out of us a few years ago.

The subject of Mr. Mutobe's email was Shoot Ogawa. This was the first I had heard of the exposure issue. He also stated that Shoot and his agency had taken his "Mutobe Palm" and published it in a book without even notifying him.

I think Mr. Mutobe would be a great person to invite here to tell his story. He DOES speak japanese and is also familiar with the culture. Maybe he can shed some light on how lovingly this behavior is accepted amongst Japanese magicians.

Best personal regards,
Todd Lassen

[Guest]

Jonathan, I don't want a pen pal, son; I just pointed out that Shoot deserves a hearing, and I don't even care to discuss that any more....

opie

[Guest]

No one has prevented Mr. Ogawa from presenting his side. It has, in fact, been encouraged. But, as with the U3F issue earlier, it seems that let it die down and blow over is the tactic of choice in that camp.

Personally, I always think it's better when people explain themselves in these circumstances. But perhaps there is no good explanation.

Best,

Geoff

[Guest]

Originally posted by Geoff Latta:
<snip> But perhaps there is no good explanation.

Geoff;
Perhaps greed?
Jim

[Guest]

Jim,

Yeah, that's kind of what I meant.

Still, I think addressing the issue plainly, even if all it winds up to be is accepting responsibility for one's actions, and maybe promising not to do that kind of crap again, would earn some respect back. If only because that's hard to do. I think it would be in everyone's interest to remember that people in this business have long, long memories.

Best,

Geoff

[Dustin Stinett]

There is, of course, another possibility: The parties involved do not feel compelled to explain themselves on this, or any other, forum. Perhaps they know that doing so only leads to flame wars that no one wins and often further degenerate into mere crap-slinging contests (that have, at best, a vague connection to the original subject) that ultimately have to be locked and/or deleted by the likes of me (who is then berated for stepping on everyone's "freedom of speech").

My brain hurts just thinking about it.

Dustin

[Guest]

Originally posted by DustinStinett:
There is, of course, another possibility: The parties involved do not feel compelled to explain themselves on this, or any other, forum.

How very true! Once the powers-that-be decide you're exempt from official censure, why bother? In magic, as in so very many things, the only truly important opinions are the ones of those with the power to say "Yes."

Thousands of us have the power to say 'No.' From the hobbyist who chooses whether or not to buy product--to you, Dustin, the keeper of all things right and proper on this board--and everyone in between. Our opinions are as flatulence in a hurricane compared to the dozen-or-so people with the power of 'Yes'.

I wouldn't account to us, either.


TP

[Guest]

Originally posted by TedPabst:
...many things, the only truly important opinions are the ones of those with the power to say "Yes."

Ted, I agree about having the power to say "yes" to what I choose, with my wallet and respect too.

Also, I choose to honor my teachers by respecting the basic ethics of;

1) not exposing methods to the general public
2) respecting the paternity of the ideas and methods that are entrusted to me

The benefits of holding this tradition are legion. I have the honor to count Sol Stone, Ken Krenzel, David Roth, Howie Schwartzman, Geoff Latta... as my teachers. I have the great honor of being able to thank them for helping me with the very best material I perform.

As I hold these beliefs and traditions to be significant in this art, I also try to pass these values on to those who wish to learn what I have to offer. I also try to stay away from those who have not accepted these principles. I may have been mistaken in requesting feedback from some, and have paid dearly with MY OWN MATERIAL. Such is the price of responsibilty.

I can state from experience that the quality of feedback from those who value ideas has been significantly greater than from those who treat other people's unpublished work as a commodity.

I can also state from experience that the general public is not capable of offering technical feedback on methods. As such it seems odd to offer them such details. The general public does seem open to offering feedback on presentations. Perhaps we could focus our public discourse on presentations and get more feedback from them about what they like and how things make sense to them.

[Dustin Stinett]

Ted,

Who are the "powers that be" (the dozen who say "yes") who can dispense "official censure"? I certainly hope you don't mean the other moderators or me: we merely sweep up after the parades of tirades--you know, the poor bastards who follow the horses and elephants. Fortunately, this thread has not gone there, and I hope it doesn't. Rational discourse, whether heated or not, is always welcome here. I would like nothing more than to hear "the other side."

Jonathan; your post is downright inspirational.

My opinion on exposure is a little less fanatical these days. There was a time--not too long ago--when I felt books like Magic for Dummies and the Complete Idiot's Guide to Magic were forms of exposure due to the mass-market-stack-it-high-sell-it-cheap marketing programs of their publishers. Fortunately, I was proved wrong about those books and I no longer feel that way. Gratuitous exposure (the masked magician type, and that of which Ogawa now stands accused) is now merely distressing to me. While it does tend to weaken the art, I've learned that the art of magic will survive--it always has. Of course, I would prefer it if every magician would stand by his oath: I know I do.

The issue of material, presentation and even character theft is, in my mind, far larger and destructive to the art than exposure. In this case (The Ninja Rings), what has been offered up is certainly compelling. All the more reason for me wanting to hear the other side of the story.

But I stand by my original post and so I fear we will not get that other side. Hopefully I am wrong.

Dustin

[Guest]

Dustin,

Nobody "owes" anyone here (or anywhere else, for that matter) an explanation. But it would be a nice gesture. It wouldn't undo the damage done by the exposure, but it might help with the damage to Mr. Ogawa's reputation. In that sense, it's more in his interest than in anyone else's.

Best,

Geoff

[Guest]

Here is the question I would be curious about...

Did Masahiro Yanagida ever see Capehart's routine before he came up with his Ninja Rings handling?

Or did Masahiro Yanagida come up with the routine while playing around with small 4.5" rings half way across the world? If he was not aware of Capehart, I could see why he would not have credited him for the crash link or block link.

In either case, if Mr. Yanagida independently came up with the moves or did really steal them, I would imagine he would have told his students (Including Dan Fleshman, Shoot, Kieko, etc.) that the routine was completely his.

Did Fleshman credit Capehart? Did Reed McClintock's "Defiance" manuscript credit Capehart for the links? Or after Fleshman's, McClintock's, and Ogawa's materials came out someone recognized the Capehart links and brought it to light?

Said another way - were the Capehart link references omitted on purpose going all the way back to Yanagida, or was it truly an oversight? If Mr. Yanagida did steal certain moves and did not credit them, and did not inform his students, how responsible are his students for the misinformation?

I know this would not be the first time material was released by multiple performers before some of our magic historians brought to light someones prior work.

Dan

[Guest]

I didnt start this brouhaha, I think Shoot did, but as the originator of this thread I would like to add a little too what Ive read since my initial post.

To call what Shoot did "educational" is silly. Any member of the Castle or magic community that chooses to rationalize Shoots actions by calling the shows "educational programming" is, in my opinion, being dishonest, disingenuous or is in deep denial. If Shoot had such a strong desire to enlighten and educate why didnt we see him on Japanese T.V. teaching his material. He has a nice rope routine, but we didnt see it performed or explained. We saw the Professors Nightmare. Shoots famous for his coin work, but Japanese audiences werent let in on the secrets of any of his breakthrough matrix work. No, the work Shoot chose to share with his studio audience, sorry, I mean "student audience", was from the writings of Slydini and John Cornelius. We didnt see Ninja Rings, we saw the Classic Force. He apparently sees no harm in violating one of the most basic tenets of magic, that of not revealing secrets, but what would his opinion be if we chose to do the same with his own work. Kohler and company have already made that perfectly clear. If you want to be "educated" to Shoot's work you've got to pay to play, because the "sharing" of information is clearly a one-way street that leads straight to the pockets of Shoot and those who back him.

Its true that "Our Magic" was written for the public, though I disagree with Maskelyne and Devant that magicians make the best audiences. My aim is to mystify, amaze and entertain, not demonstrate skill. Still, the purchasing of secrets has long been an accepted method of entre to the magic community. You can find Mark Wilsons book in every bookstore in the country and I have no problem with that. We have to begin somewhere and many of us began by picking up a book in a bookstore, library or magic shop, but lets not confuse that with what Shoot has done. Kellar said, "The end of all magic is to feed with mystery the human mind, which dearly loves mystery," but where is the mystery in a bunch of kids having contests to see who can flip a coin the highest? How does that remotely elevate our art? It doesnt. It does just the opposite, it denigrates the craft by turning a brilliant and mystifying effect into a stunt any teenage kid can do. Its what "Our Magic" would refer to as false art, an imitation of an imitation.

What Shoot did was exposure, plain and simple, and if people want to continue to call it otherwise, fine, but lets not hear any complaining the next time someone else less talented or less likable decides to do the same. And lets not forget that exposure is not the only lapse of ethics Shoot has been charged with. I began this thread because of the failure to pay credit, not to mention money, to magicians like Chris Capehart and Mutobe. Is it possible that Shoot or Yanagida were unaware of a ring move published in "Stars of Magic?" Possibly, but let's not forget that Yanagida's reputation precedes him. But if Shoot was unaware of Capehart, that clearly wasn't the case with Mutobe's Palm. The bottom line is Shoot has repeatedly published and profited off of the work of others without permission. I don't know what action Capehart will take, but I know for a fact that one of the reasons Mutobe gave for not accepting an invitation to participate in an upcoming convention was that he refuses as a matter of principle to appear anywhere Shoot does.

So what can be done? I can tell you what I would do. Id take away his "Close-Up Performer of the Year" award, revoke any memberships to fraternal organizations, cancel all his lectures and convention appearances and Id ask all dealers and magicians to boycott his product. Hes talented and can clearly make a living performing for lay people, but hes lost the right to profit off of magicians. Its not enough to be talented, youve also got to do the right thing. Shoot has repeatedly chosen to do otherwise.

Will any of that happen? I doubt it. I remember hearing a stand-up comic tell a joke on the Tonight Show years ago about the Pope going into prison to meet the man who shot him. The comic asked the question, "If youre that guy, what do you say? Uh, sorry, I thought you were a deer." I suspect Shoot will say hes sorry and that he didnt know he was exposing or stealing material. Hell say he thought he was shooting deer. And I suspect, like the Pope, well forgive him. And thats okay, but lets not forget that before the Pope forgave anyone, the shooter went to prison. Why? Because the Vatican understands that if the guilty arent held responsible its hard to go after the next deer hunter who goes on Japanese TV taking shots at the Pope with a muscle pass.

Ray

[Guest]

Ray,

You have two seperate issues going on here.

1. Exposure. My throughts: Shoot did an exposure show. Everyone knows it. There are consequences he faces because of it. People react in different ways depending on how egregious people personally feel exposure is.

2. Ninja Rings credits. If Mr. Yanagida saw Capeharts work before he had his Ninja Rings routine and then used the moves and did not credit Capehart, that is also wrong.

It still brings to question how responsible are Fleshman, McClintock, and Ogawa for not crediting in their materials if they were ignorant of the (supposed) stealing?

[Guest]

I hate to get back into the fray, but I just cannot stand the squalling by people who have not been hurt by Shoot....

I hasten to repeat that I abhor exposure, but, just to level the field here, so that Shoot might feel comfortable about coming in and giving his side, let us compile a list (I love lists; they have the comforting power to level piles of excrement) of everyone who has lost at least a dollar because of Shoot's exposures.....

Okay, okay, just to be fair, let us also compile a list of people who have gotten booked because of the popularity magic has gotten from the FOX and other exposures.....(I am sorry, Zanny, but I have to do it; you know I support WAM, but not BS)....

Now, based on my Economics and Masters in Management background, we should be able to chart how much positive or negative effect these exposures have actually had on the working pro, WHO IS WORTH A CRAP....(Now, this is scientific, so we don't even want to eliminate any of the crappy "pros"....

....I am sorry....I have these afternoon martinis and they make me start reliving my sophomore statistics classes and pitting them against my second Masters in Rhetoric and Human-Behavior studies....

Anyway, let us see what we come up with (sorry about the dangling prep)....(Richard, that outta get you another 50 posts on this hummer...hehehe..)

opie

[Guest]

Originally posted by Dan Watkins:
Ray,

You have two seperate issues going on here.

1. Exposure. My throughts: Shoot did an exposure show. Everyone knows it. There are consequences he faces because of it. People react in different ways depending on how egregious people personally feel exposure is.

2. Ninja Rings credits. If Mr. Yanagida saw Capeharts work before he had his Ninja Rings routine and then used the moves and did not credit Capehart, that is also wrong.

It still brings to question how responsible are Fleshman, McClintock, and Ogawa for not crediting in their materials if they were ignorant of the (supposed) stealing?

Dan,

With all due respect I am addressing only one issue here, that of repeated ethics vilolations by Shoot Ogawa and why the magic community chooses to do nothing about it. I'm not talking just about exposure shows or just about stealing material, I'm talking specifically about what appears to be Shoot's propensity toward both.

Did Yanagida see the Capehart routine? I don't know. What I do know is that, like Shoot, this is not the first time Yanagida has been accused of doing this either. I'm not saying that "where there's smoke, there's fire" but I think we should get our kids out of the house just to be safe. Even if Yanagida came up with the routine on his own, which I personally find doubtful, he was at the very least sloppy with his attempts to credit. And there in lies the problem. I can't speak for Fleshman, but as one of the few who saw Reed McClintock's manuscript before he pulled it from the market, I can tell you that Reed credited Ogawa, Fleshman, Yanagida, Keiko Kobayashi, Vernon, Richard Ross and Ron Corn in his manuscript. His routine also includes his own "mid-air spinning link." Why didn't he credit Capehart for Capehart's work? Because he took Shoot and Yangida at their word that the work was theirs. What Reed also did, that Yanagida and Shoot repeatedly have not, was to ask their permission to publish. Permission he received, and though Shoot and Kohler may choose to say otherwise, I've seen the emails and Shoot clearly said that he and Yanagida had no problem with Reed including "Defiance", Reed's handling of the Ninja Rings, in his lectures.

As for all of the above named artists properly crediting Capehart, I'll just say that had Yanagida done his job, there wouldn't be a problem or question about Ogawa, Fleshman or McClintock properly crediting anyone.

Like I said, this isn't two issues, it's only one and his name is Shoot Ogawa.

Ray

[Guest]

It seems that ya'll want to shoot Ogawa.
gibby :whack:

[Guest]

Thank you Gib....but I hope that is not the case...Actually, the argument kind of reminds me of the old man who was seen at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. A lady CNN reporter approached him and asked him how often he was at the wall to pray. He responded that he was there every day he could get there....She then asked him for what he prayed, and he responded that he wished that all people in the area could come together as friends.....She then asked what he really thought about that, and he said, "It's like talking to a &*&^%#@$ wall!!!!"........opie

[Guest]

When I saw Chris Capehart do the Silent Link in which one solid ring is hit twice with an audible "clink" upon the other and on the third downward strike, the upper ring penetrates noiselessly, I knew it looked familiar. It was all the rage in the 1960's and in the mid 1970's almost every street performer was doing it from Billy McQueen, Caesar Garcia, RJ Lewis,etc....
The best with the move was the originator, Roy Benson. Check the November 1966 edition of Genii Magazine on page 127. It's called 'The Silent Link' by Roy Benson.

[Guest]

Doug....and if the truth be known, the originator of all the Ninja "moves" were probably more closely related to Shoot than Roy....

...but that is not the problem here....The problem here is that a brother magician did some extensive research and opened a whole bunch of "knowledgable" eyes about a trick which has been revealed in more magic sets than the thumb tip.....The Linking Rings....duh!

....but that is not the problem either...The problem seems to be that Shoot took a move that was part of a "hand-washing" procedure (albeit one improved by Cornealius) and showed everybody in Japan how to do it.....Damn! It caused at least 400 young Japanese magicians to learn it and find a hobby in magic....Damn! Now they will be competing at international conventions with guys who have been living on the laurels of being able to do ten different double lifts....Oh hell!

......I can just see a little Japanese kid standing on the Leno show making a coin pop up from one hand to another....(The new millionaires; they have it so easy).....

...Come on people....Give Shoot a chance to come on here and at least say that he might regret what he did.....(whatever it was.....)

opie

[Guest]

Originally posted by opie:
....The problem here is that a brother magician did some extensive research and opened a whole bunch of "knowledgable" eyes about a trick which has been revealed in more magic sets than the thumb tip.....The Linking Rings....duh!

Actually, that's not the problem here. The problem is he did no research here. At least not any credited research. But as you say, "that's not the problem here either."

The problem here is that youre a member of WAM who opposes exposure unless it inspires 400 young Japanese kids to take up magic. Then exposure is okay. Exposure is apparently also okay if it increases bookings "because of the popularity magic has gotten from the FOX and other exposures," but would not be acceptable if it had a negative effect on "the working pro, WHO IS WORTH A CRAP." One could then infer that exposure that only hurts amateurs, worth a crap or otherwise, is acceptable. Especially if it inspires 400 more amateurs who will also fail to fall under your exposure protection.

Its also okay to expose other artists work if its only part of a "hand-washing" procedure (albeit one improved by Cornealius). The Professor's Nightmare, Muscle Pass, Thumb Tie and Classic Force are also all exposable, but which illusions are fair game? I know the Zig-Zag has been published and revealed so many times that even a member of WAM couldn't possibly think it should be protected, right? Will WAM, IBM, SAM or the Castle be releasing guidelines as to which effects are exposable and which are not?

Maybe it was just the "afternoon martini" talking, but you should know the issue at hand is not a matter of "of everyone who has lost at least a dollar because of Shoot's exposures", its a matter of having respect for the craft. Exposure hurts the craft of magic. Theres a reason we keep our secrets. As for giving Shoot a chance to tell his side, this thread has been up for a week and the issue has been out for years. Shoot and company have had plenty of time to respond. Still do. Still wont. And why should he? Hes playing the Castle this week, hes moving product and has a full schedule and even members of WAM dont seem to care. I began this thread looking for an answer as to why Shoot is getting a pass and I think I got it. He doesnt expose, he educates, he doesnt steal or fail to give proper credit, he re-invents, and he honestly, truly, swear-to-God thought the Pope was a deer.

Ray

[Guest]

Ray, you will not find in any of my (or your ramblings) anything that says I approve of exposure of anything. I asked the question of who was hurt. I did not answer it. I am still waiting for that answer.

But you are right that it has no bearing on whether or not a person has a right to respond to charges.

We all see Shoot's actions as an infraction of ethics. No doubt about that! But the pathetic hysteria that is being aroused about a victimless infraction is laughable. The real crime is the effeminate slapping of a man when he is down and the refusal to even admit that he has a right to respond....

opie

[Guest]

Has anyone taken the time to invite Shoot Ogawa here?

I took the time to do so earlier in the day....

Has anyone taken the time to invite Chris Capeheart here?

I am looking forward to some clarity and resolution very shortly...

Please play nice?
Magic is afterall, a gentleman's diversion.

[Guest]

Originally posted by opie:
Ray, you will not find in any of my (or your ramblings) anything that says I approve of exposure of anything. I asked the question of who was hurt. I did not answer it. I am still waiting for that answer.

But you are right that it has no bearing on whether or not a person has a right to respond to charges.

We all see Shoot's actions as an infraction of ethics. No doubt about that! But the pathetic hysteria that is being aroused about a victimless infraction is laughable. The real crime is the effeminate slapping of a man when he is down and the refusal to even admit that he has a right to respond....

opie

Opie,

Effeminate slapping? Man who is down? If Shoot is down then slap me silly. We should all be so down. As for victimless infractions, let me be clear. The victim here is Mutobe. The victim here is Chris Capehart. The victims here are the Japanese magicians who felt harmed by Shoots three exposure shows. More importantly, the victim here is a craft you appear to disdain and have little respect for. You cant say its okay for Shoot and not okay for Valentino. You cant say this is a minor infraction and that Valentinos was a big deal. I dont know a single close-up man, or any magician for that matter, who was harmed by any of Valentinos specials. In fact, I know shop owners who say sales increased after the programs aired. Does that make the Fox specials okay? Of course not.

As for refusing "to even admit that he has a right to respond" Ive never said he couldnt, just that I dont believe he will. I welcome his explanation almost as much as I welcome your explanation of why its not okay, but no big deal.

Cheers,

Ray

[Guest]

You don't read well, do you? I'll just leave it at that....Duh!

opie

[Guest]

Opie,

Just for the record, so everyone knows who's who and what's what, are you pals with Shoot or his handlers/business associates? Your posts would make a lot more sense that way. Just curious.

Best,

Geoff

[Guest]

Geoff,
I don't know Shoot or his associates, but I probably would like to meet him. Anyone who can take a trick which is hundreds of years old, collect several moves for it (which BTW are more than likely also hundreds of years old), give it a modern hip hop name, place a huge price which at least triples the price the little-kiddy-size set of rings were a couple of decades ago, and make the magic fraternity think he has something "new" is my kind of person.

My point is and has been that the man deserves to be heard. My verbalization of the worst-possible harm he might have done the fraternity has shown me that we need to find someone who has lost something before we go dragging Shoot through the streets. I do not see the list being compiled. There has been no tort to anyone, and, if anything, magic may be more popular as a result of his exposures.

BUT, he was wrong! I would be the first to stand up and say, "Shoot, you were wrong to expose on tv that trick that everybody already knows. You were also wrong to expose that muscle pass, not only from the ethics standpoint, but also for the harm to those poor kids who are going to have bruises on their hands. And I understand that you exposed other tricks as well....Shame on you! We are upset at you, but we want to hear your side of the story. So, what do you have to say?"

Other than that Geoff, I am just here to have a good time; why are you here?

:0p

[brownbeauty]

Opie,
Lot's of talk from you, yet, still no word from Shoot! How long do we wait? The silence is deafening.

Rudy

[Guest]

"....a veek?"

0pie

[Guest]

While Shoot is the object of this dialogue, the motivation and emotional resonance is directed at an issue, and not 'that' person.

A few weeks ago we had a somewhat heated dialogue about discussing the gaff involved in a coin trick. There was much discomfort expressed at the mere mention of the exact nature of the gaff and things got worse when the technology and paternity of the details were investigated.

The outcome was a consensus that it would be 'bad' to disucss such things in that way.

We've been asked to look at our acceptance of some actions that brought/taught details of some principles to the general audience via television.

Burried under this doublethink is a question about what material is okay to discuss and how... even here on this BBS.

Did John Cornelius consent to teach his coin joke on television? Would that make this conversation different?

Yes, under this is some deeper issue about what material it is acceptable to appropriate, and once taken, what is acceptable to DO with the material.

Is it okay for me to post about my unpublished work in any detail I choose? How about YOUR unpublished work? How about YOUR published work from twenty years ago? How about taking this discussion to the general public with my material? Would that be okay? How about YOUR material?

Now, what about OUR behavior where we won't discuss something here openly... and yet we condone the display and actual communication of mechanics to the general public?

CrimeStop!
DoubleThink?
is this BlackWhite enough for you?

I respect the utility of two faced cards as mechanics of entertainment for the general public. I find it simpler to form an opinion of a person by looking at what they 'do'. People are free to say whatever they believe serves their interests. People act according to their principles.

This has nothing to do with guys showing off with their bracelets. This has everything to do with people acting according to their beliefs.

The 'indiferent' cards have been exposed and we can discuss our values if we choose.

[Guest]

"While Shoot is the object of this dialogue, the motivation and emotional resonance is directed at an issue, and not 'that' person." - Jonathan

No contest...Exposure is wrong, regardless of whether or not it harms anyone. I don't think anybody here will disagree with that. Unfortunately, the motivation and emotional resonance here seems to be directed at shooting Shoot.....

...I would like to hear what the man has to say....If I don't buy his response, you might see me put on my WAM hat; then you would see how an old college rhetoric teacher beats a dead horse....

I am a fanatical devotee of magic, and I commend you on your zeal. But let us not crucify somebody, nor allow those, who are not really even remotely interested or connected, to come in and stomp on a fellow magician, before he has had his say.

opie

[Guest]

...I would like to hear what the man has to say....If I don't buy his response, you might see me put on my WAM hat; then you would see how an old college rhetoric teacher beats a dead horse....

What could he say to get you to "Buy" his response?

[Guest]

Hi people!

I would just like to drop in a little response here.

1) Opie- You continually say you are against exposure, then you make light of the exposure that Shoot did. For an experienced rhetortician, this would seem to be an obvious conflict to leave so exposed.

2) Mr. Watkins - I recall the thread on u3fly and Kohler and Lassen. As I recall, you were quite livid about exposure of "the secret" in that thread. As were several others. In my opinion this was simply a method to shut the thread down, but if I am wrong and you are really that concerned about the exposure commited by shoot, then I can expect to see some public comments from you. After all, if you got that excited about just mentioning the name of a gimmick on a semi-private site, this must just have your blood boiling.

3)Geoff Latta- Accusing Opie of being in the employ of Shoot or Kohler is totally uncalled for. I am sure Opie has sources of income totally independent of either gentleman. Which is not to say he would not accept a small honorarium if tossed his way.

4)To all defenders of Shoot and Kohler- If this had been you or me or any of numerous other "no-names", we would have been roasted over the coals. But we don't have a best selling dvd and lecture tour, etc. Just like if it has been us instead of OJ in that white Bronco ten years ago. Without the money, the last words we would hear would be, "They are pulling the switch!".

[Guest]

Well stated Doomo!
Steve V