sick and tired of flatulent magic reviews - www.25offmagic.com

[Tim Trono]

It surprises me that Nagler is still allowed on this board and openly promotes his site which clearly exposes. Even when he does give a good review such as Predator he exposes it thereby hurting the product, the producer, and those of us who purchased it.

Tim Trono

[David Penn]

Michael Close's review in "Magic" exposed more about the Predator than Nagler and I don't hear anyone complaining about him. After reading Close's review (a very well-written and accurate review I might add) I bought the Predator anyway and am thrilled. I don't believe my value was compromised by either Nagler or Close.

[thumbslinger]

Good point. However, you have to subcribe to the magazine to get those comments or find it in a store of which are specialized so laymen aren't as likely to stumble upon them.

Also, burying exposer in and amongst long reviews provides some cover as well- as many of those who would reveal secrets wouldn't read such longer reviews much anyway.

Perhaps 'exposure' is exposure, but in my opinion, it totally depends upon intent and environment. ...ie magicians sharing work in a place such as the magic castle versus putting up a website for anyone to find or telling the family at a reunion..."see, see!! it's a double-faced card with a rubberband and some sticky stuff on the back that makes it work!!"

[Guest]

Mr. Penn, There is a huge difference between a website on the world wide internet as opposed to an article in a magazine for magicians of thousands of other magazines out there.

[Wolfgang]

I feel like Tim raised a couple of interesting questions and I think that the ball is now in the good doctors field to either admit that he is just a hateful wannabee or that indeed he is in it to bring magic forward.
It is obvious that the bad reviews did not make magicdom rally behind the good doctor (which he might have hoped) so now we see a change of direction with some favorable reviews added.
I personally fear that the good doctor might have taken one too many of his own diet pills...It said right on the box: side-effects could include loss of brain capacity.....

[Ryan Matney]

The Ultimate 3-fly gaff was already exposed here ages ago by Richard Kaufman and others. Old news and no need to hit the roof now.

Also, I might add that reviewers are supposed to have an opinion and that is always based on thier own beliefs and ideas. Roger Ebert isn't interested in anything supernatural so he doesn't like any movies that feature a ghost or psychic ability, etc. He also likes everything Angelina Jolie makes just because she is in it. Is he right? That's debatable. But as a reviewer you must take a definite stand on something.

Since Bill Nagler is not a professional magician (I assume) the fact that something requires the wearing of a jacket would indeed render it worthless to him. Also, I believe he was referring to the ads lack of mentioning that fact more than the actual need for it.

[Steve Bryant]

Amen. Purchasing magic tricks has been a lifelong frustration because it's often difficult to even comprehend what an effect is without knowing what the gaff is. (Virtually every $250 and up book test simply says the spectator thinks of a word and you name it. Right! Thanks to Chuck Hicock some of us can now understand what is for sale, not just the secret, but the EFFECT.) A recent example is the trick called Winter Spirit. DOES it look cool? I've no idea of what it looks like or whether it is practical. A good reviewer will at least hint as to the method (or at least problems with it). I did not purchase Ultimate 3-Fly until I knew the basic gaff and thus made an informed purchase (there was still plenty of "secret" in the handling). Of course, had the gaff been a piece of crap, I would not have purchased it. Joe Stevens has exposed many tricks over the years in a very subtle way, in his ads, by showing the gaff in the accompanying photo, without comment. Seasoned magicians will know what they are looking at. Joe understands, I think, that if the effect is worthwhile and the method is clever and satisfying, then knowledge of that method will encourage, not discourage, purchases. As long as the so-called exposure doesn't nullify the point of buying (for example, by making it simple for a magician to build the prop at home), then the information can only help the dealer in fine merchandise. Joe Porper recently showed us, at WMS, the work on his split linking ring. Everyone who saw it drooled to own one and was convinced it was WORTH $695.

[Guest]

I'm joining the chorus... I have now made it a rule NOT to purchase any effect until I know the secret or what the gaffus is. I have been burned over and over and over and over again by lying and misleading ads. Now, I wait until the 'bloom is off the rose' so to speak, and see if the effect/gaffus is around a year or two later. By then, the sh1t sinks and the good crap floats to the top. (Used to be cream, didn't it?)

It is unreasonable to expect someone to pay more than a few (less than ten, I'd say) dollars on an unknown product. Magic is the only product where you don't know what - or even see all of - what you're purchasing until you have paid! With no refund! (SECRETSES, my precioussss) Bullhockets!

My unrefundable two cents - Asrah

[Brad Henderson]

The problem is that there are a lot of people who believe that if they can figure out the secret, or it is methodologically simple, that the trick is no longer worth performing in the real world.

This is simply not true.

When I was young a magic dealer demo'ed a trick for me. I saw right through it and didn't want to buy it. He said, "Brad, of course you should be able to tell how it works, you're a magician and you think like one. But that doesn't mean it won't be a very entertaining and deceptive trick for your audiences."

I went ahead and begrudgingly made the purchase.

Later that night (ok, I was 15, I didn't have much of a practice ethic then) I presented that trick for some teachers and schoolfriends (we were on a band trip). They freaked. Not only that, but when I was in college and visited the band director who left after that one year at our school, he still remembered that exact trick out of all that I had ever showed him. It became a feature of my act and was the one trick commented on most favorably, particularly by the adults in my audience.

Attitudes as expressed by Asrah tell us that many people would "find out the secret" see it was simple and dismiss the trick. Well, it is their loss I suppose.

For example, I have added a trick to my show that I learned at WMS this year. The method is insultingly simple. Again, the kind of thing that if someone tipped it to you, you would never buy they trick. But I did, because I knew that with the right presentation it would be EXTREMEMLY deceptive. And it is.

Finally, the problem with the attitude displayed in the earlier post is this: Let's say someone has a killer routine but the method is a simple force, yet the force is very well used. Would that keep you from buying the trick? You know irts a force afterall, and a simple one at that.

See, I feel, a great use of something as simple as the criss cross force can be much more powerful and worth much more money than very clever gimmicks that really lead nowhere. But maybe that's just me.

The point of all this: There is a hell of a lot more to consider when buying magic than the secret. However, if you can't see that, then it probably doesn't really matter what I say, so never mind.

[Andy Hurst]

I think Bill's site is great. It's honest and to the point and makes up for many a misleading magic ad.

Saying that Just Passin' Thru is 'the marconick dowel penetration, poorly recycled' is not exposing it, exposing it would have been to say 'its a pencil with a **** in it'. And just because the original Marconick thing gets a mention in the instructions doesn't mean Bill shouldn't have mentioned it.

It seems to me the only people who are going to get upset are the dealers and manufacturers who plonk out piddle poor tricks or those who choose to leave important information out of an ad, or otherwise decieve.

I recently wrote about misleading ads on the foocan web site so I won't repeat myself here.

Also, lets not forget that if Mr Nagler likes something, he says so. There are a good number of positive reviews on the site too.

Of course one mans trash is anothers treasure, but I'm sure magicians aren't so stupid as to only take one mans views into account anyway. Reviews help us make buying decisions. I have bought things that the reviewers in Genii slammed and liked them, and I bought them AFTER reading a negative review. There's even an item on Bill's Drek list that I own, use and love.

Thumbs up Bill - keep up the good work!

Andy Hurst
http://www.foocan.com

[Jim Riser]

People bitch about Bill's site; but if ads had been truthful, perhaps he never would have been duped into buying items he could not use and thus motivated into creating the web site. There will always be consequences for deceptive behavior. These consequences may not be immediate. The internet can certainly speed up such consequences. Bill's site is a consequence for such behavior. Asrah mentioned that he (?) will not buy anything without knowing or seeing the gaff. I've had this philosophy for well over 20 years. Yes, I can make most items that I might want or use; but it is often more cost effective to purchase the ready made items. This is also more ethical. I have seen more than my share of junk foisted onto the buying magic community under the protection of the "you're buying the secret" ruse. I often pick up an effect that is very poorly made just for the routine - which might well be excellent. I can always remake the apparatus to suit my needs or preferences. On my site I clearly show what the magicians are getting for their hard earned money - not merely a clever b&w illustration. I believe that magicians will see more of this type of marketing in the future. Some will call it exposure; I consider it truth in advertising. Nonmagicians will not even know what the items are - if they chance upon the site. With the common use of credit cards for making purchases, the "buying the secret" deception will no longer work. Dealers relying on this line of thinking can expect charge backs to occur with ever more increasing frequency. Any trick could be done by several different methods. This would mean that there could be several "secrets". I am infinitely more concerned with the routine, the presentation, than any secret. To me the "secret" is worthless. I can develop my own secret. IMHO - the value is in the routining and plot.

In addition, it is the responsibility of the buyer to be educated about that which is being purchased. The more good books available to the purchaser of magic goodies, the better the choices which will be made (build up your library and study the books). As long as there are some remaining brick and mortar magic shops, it will be possible to view most items before the purchase. If the dealer knows that you are actually looking over an item for purchase and use in your act rather to run home and copy it, you might well be able to handle the items being considered. It does appear that these brick and mortar shops are disappearing, though. This will leave only mail order through magazine ads or via the internet. Sites such as Bill's will help alert the potential magic buyer of possible fraud or at least misleading advertising. I would suggest that dealers who could be worried about how Bill's site might affect sales reread, rewrite their unclear ads, and drop the junk items from their inventory. Carefully look at the item which was "the last straw" with Bill and got him to create the web site. This item was sold through the normal channels and should have been weeded out somewhere along the route - before customers were duped into buying it based upon false descriptions. It appears that there were those in the magic food chain that were merely after the "fast buck". There are very legitimate reasons why some of us do not sell our creations through the normal channels.

I feel that independent review sites (whether considered "reviews" or not) are an important part of the overall info that the wise magic purchaser will consider. I welcome any info.
Jim

[Mark Collier]

I agree with Jim Riser. There is waay too much deception in the advertisement of magical apparatus. I just blew $40 ordering a card in bottle from Hank Lee. I've been burned by him before so I should have known better. I went back and reread his discription.

"A signed card instantly appears inside a sealed bottle! That's how the routine plays. No fumbling. No extra steps. No misused moments. This is as clean as they come. Cleaner. It absolutely sparkles!
A reputation maker; an instant classic. Do it any time, anywhere. Youll be totally amazed when you see how clever and efficient this trick really is.
The instruction book is all-inclusive. Every nuance and subtlety is described in vivid detail. More than twenty illustrations beautifully teach the routines and help even the newest newbie understand each step.
Alternative tricks, using the same gimmicks, are also taught. This is a serious box of magic. Thats right, box of magic! The shoebox size packaging barely holds all the materials. However, once you decide which effects you want to perform, the gimmicks will fit in a watch pocket!
This is the stuff miracles are made of, a clever concept and flawless execution. "

The damn thing relies on a shuttle pass and a magnet which wasn't even supplied! The ad should at least read, "a folded card appears inside the bottle and is dumped out. It is then opened to reveal the signature"

That's a big difference from a signed card appearing in a bottle.

I do agree that a longer critique of an item would be more helpful however. Oftentimes, what won't work for one person suits me just fine.

[Tim Trono]

I am all for honest, responsible reviews good or bad. Honest and open discussion is what makes us grow and learn. The thing that bothers me in this case is the ulterior motives and the about face Mr. Nagler has done on several items as outlined before (and there are several other about faces that I don't go into). At one point he raves about the items, and then when other issues became part of the picture, there was a 180 degree "turn". This, in my opinion, is irresponsible and selfish... not productive and made to assist others.

Tim

[John Clarkson]

I guess I'm missing something. How does a man's presumed motive for an act change the usefulness of the act itself? The reviews either help me make a decision or they don't. I don't care whom the reviewer dislikes or what he eats for breakfast. And I don't particularly care if he's done (for whatever reason) a 180 degree turn in his opinion. I'd be willing to read both opinions to glean what is useful. If his reviews are misleading or unhelpful, that fact will become as apparent as the deception in many magic adverts and his impact in the marketplace will diminish.

Some of Bill Nagler's reviews were helpful to me. Others were simply empty opinion with nothing offered to support them. Some, like the complaint about needing to wear a jacket, seemed downright silly. So, with respect to Bill Nagler's site, I'll take what I can use and let Bill's confessor worry about his morals and immortal soul...

Jim Riser, thanks for your post! I, too, would celebrate the demise of the "you bought the secret" approach to selling magic. For those of you who have not done so yet, check out Jim Riser's site ( http://www.jamesriser.com ). His unvarnished (nearly disparaging) description of his new holdout system is hysterical.

Keith Lack ( http://arlenstudio.com ) also has a clear policy:

• "GUARANTEE: That's right I guarantee everything I sell. If you get an item from me and do not like it for any reason, send it back within seven days in the same condition received for a refund of your purchase price. BEWARE of those hiding behind the policy of "We are selling you the secret to the trick and therefore, no refund is possible". Those guys are selling JUNK and they know it. Think about it. If they were proud to offer their item and confident in the product they would be happy to offer you a satisfaction guarantee."

I wish more manufacturers and vendors would follow his lead.

[Guest]

I've read through this thread quickly & I may have missed something, but there are 2 issues that I don't think were addressed.

1) Who is Bill Nagler (or anyone posting opinions on the Internet) & what are his credentials to be a reviewer? This is nothing personal about Nagler. He may be the most knowledgeable person in the world or may have been in magic for 1 year or may have an ax to grind, etc. I just don't know. While he, or anyone else, is free to post their opinions & reviews on the Internet, I, for one, would like to know the background & credentials of the reviewers. Regardless of what you think of Swiss & Close, you know where they're coming from & the experience they bring to the task. Let's face it, this thread has garnered Nagler a lot of publicity & attention and may generate a lot of traffic to his site. Yet we still don't know who he is. As far as I'm concerned, he's a total stranger who's offering his opinions for free. I'm not sure how much value that has for me.

2) No one has mentioned the brick-&-mortar stores, which traditionally have offered demos of tricks to prospective customers. To me, this is far superior than reading a description OR learning the secret. With a demo, one can see how the trick looks in real life, the impact it has on others, how well it could fit in w/ one's style, etc. as well as discuss it w/ a knowledgeable party. Heck, here at our store, you can examine books as see demos of some of the tricks before you buy.

This also creates an equitable system: the consumer gets to see before buying; the dealer gets the sale without having to offer money back ; the inventor gets paid without having to reveal the secret for free.

Yet, paradoxically, Internet shoppers, looking to save a few dollars here & there, are putting the brick-&-mortar guys out of business. My observation is that many of these people end up buying tons of junk over the net anyway that they don't know enough about.

[Guest]

I think it should be said that Mr.Nagler is a little more eminent that some of you are giving him credit for.

I seem to remember that for some years he was the reviewer for the "Magic Circular" Magazine. This is the house organ of the famed Magic Circle in London.

He also wrote, I recall, a noted little book concerning the resentment that people feel when they watch a magician and ways to combat this. I cannot recall the name of the book. I have also heard Martin Breese of England say good things about him and (I may be mistaken here) I seem to recall he did a magicassette for him.

I have read reviews in a magic magazine where the reviewer used 15 words where only one was necessary. And the review seemed to be more about the reviewer himself than the product to be reviewed.

I find Mr. Nagler's short and focused reviews to be quite a refreshing contrast.

[Richard Kaufman]

It really isn't possible for magic ads to be "truthful" in the sense that most would use the term. The simple reason is that if the descriptions were step-for-step what is actually seen, then many would be able to figure out the method and would either not buy the item because they thought the method was dumb (and this is often shortsighted), or they might make one themselves.
So, it is NECESSARY for the descriptions of what happens to be "artful" in order to conceal the method.
How's that for opening a can 'o worms!

[Jim Riser]

Ah; but the ads do not HAVE to be blatantly deceptive such as the example cited in one of the posts above (folded card in pop bottle). An unglorified description of the effect might be better than what is currently being written.

Some dealers/manufacturers seem to be able to utilize truthful advertising copy successfully and remain in business. Why not all? In the not too distant future the guys with the misleading ads will be selling nothing as word will have gotten out about them and their products. We live in an era of virtually instant communication and such guys will be forced to shape up or to go out of business. Customers will demand truthful descriptions or go elsewhere. When there are 50 sites (or many more) such as Bill's complaining about the junk and false ad copy, people will begin to pay attention - no matter who thinks they are not "real" reviews. IMHO - It will be an improved scene.

Yes, I know there are many magic power players who like things exactly the way they are. But the informed customers will gradually leave these guys and their deceptive methods behind.

Someone asked "who is Bill Nagler". Based upon all of the money he has spent on magic items, I'd say he is what keeps the magic machine running - a paying customer. It is only good business to treat customers better than magicians are currently being treated (false ad copy/shoddy construction etc.)by many dealers.

Until all of the other web sites are up complaining about ripoffs, the best protection is self education. I have seen too many involved in magic who actually think they can buy a miracle. The first thing to remember is that you can not buy REAL magic. The educated purchaser will not have unrealistic expectations for what is being bought.

Jim

[Bill Mullins]

Is it just me, or does the post from "supporter" above look like the work of Mark Lewis?

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Bill Mullins:
Is it just me, or does the post from "supporter" above look like the work of Mark Lewis?

The post from supporter looks cogent and non-hostile. Does it matter 'who' put it there? If it does, then we'd all have to use our real names on the BBS.

If someone wants to call the 'exposure bluff', just call CNN with a report that magic's most current treasured secrets are available to anyone with a web browser.

IMHO the site discusses methods just enough to let a magician who feels the need to know more have some idea of what they are getting into with a product. I checked his review of Kenton Knepper's 'Kollosal Killer' and found it made more sense AFTER I knew the method than in and of itself informed me of the method.

As to why he was less than impressed with Kohler's Ultimate Three Fly... that's his opinion and he states so without getting into the politics of gaffs and routines.

As to his agenda regarding certain manufacturer's and products by creator... I don't know enough to comment.

[Tim Trono]

Mr. Nagler's "reviews" are obviously colored by bias so I am not sure how they can accurately "help", other than that they expose items which I find ethically troubling. I also find it troubling that some individuals are trying to justify this exposure. In my 28+ years of doing magic the secret was always paramount. I remember thinking when I got my Zombie that it really was supposed to float but was quite surprised when I got the package. When Michael Close, Brad Henderson, David Oliver, Joe Turner, Danny Orleans, or Jamy Swiss (or many of the other reviewers too many to mention) review a product, good or bad, we may not all agree but we can rest assured that they are writing from their experience and not with an open bias to harm or, on the flip side, to tout something because of friendships, personal interests, etc. These gentlemen are friends but I can assure you that in the past they have been extremely upfront both good and bad on items I have produced and I respect that. They give their true opinion with the knowledge and thought to back it up. From there we can do what we will with it as consumers. I have always tried to learn from their feedback as a producer (though I am no longer producing).

Mr. Nagler's goal is to do others harm period. This is absolutely apparent from his complete turn about on several items. I have seen and have the correspondence to back it up. Thus trying to rationalize anything other than the fact that Mr. Nagler is trying to do harm to others is ludicrous and trying to justify that is sad.

It's interesting that Mr. Nagler and his background is touted with such prestigious references as writing for the Magic Circular as noted above. As a matter of fact, I just received, over the past few days, a copy of a 3 page open letter from Irv Weiner to PEA members and supporting documentation about Mr. Nagler. Mr. Weiner points out that Mr. Nagler in the October/November issue 1974 issue of The Magic Circular discusses an Irv Weiner effect entitled "Impromptu Impression" which was a hit effect back to 1952-53 and was selected by Linking Ring Magazine and won an award as one of the top picks in that period. Mr. Nagler stated in his article in the Magic Circular (which Weiner included as back up at the time) "In my opinion, this one effect made the whole trip [to Boston 1974 SAM Convention] to Boston for me worthwhile". Mr. Nagler in that same article of the Magic Circular does not mention Mr. Weiner but does openly offer to sell a copy of the item as well as Mr. Weiner's "Triple Transposition" effect... both without the permission of Mr. Weiner as Mr. Weiner clearly indicates in his open letter to the PEA. Mr. Nagler then, a few months later actually "released" this effect under the name of Simulpromtu - a copy of this ad was provided in the back up documentation that the late Mr. Weiner had provided to the PEA members. So yes, Mr. Nagler did write for the Magic Circular but felt it acceptable to openly offer to sell apparently unauthorized copies without permission from the owner and then went on to "re-release" the same item under a new name a few months later and blatantly advertised it in the July 1980 issue of the Linking Ring some time later. But it seems to be OK for Mr. Nagler to try to call others to the carpet with clear hurtful motives but not to take a close look at his own doings both inside magic and out. I was also just sent an interesting article entitled "He says he'll zap your pain" in with Mr. Nagler describes his PSL Neuro Transmitter Modulator which he claims alleviates "headache pain, arthritis, cancer pain, AIDS pain - you name it, it works". This article was dated March 6, 1987. Less than a year later, Mr. Nagler had apparently abandoned this electronic headache reliever and gone on to use a brainwashing technique "successfully employed by the enemy during the Korean War to make American prisoners of war docile" to help people lose weight. Thus, in my opinion, and with some of the documentation I have received lately, it is clear that Mr. Nagler has a pattern for pandering to people's emotional needs. Likewise, it is my opinion, that he tries to make his site as something "helpful" when in fact he has clear hurtful motives behind it which really cloud any objectivity. Mr. Nagler is obviously an intelligent person as he graduated with his doctorates degree and studied as a psychiatrist, and thus it is all that much more scary that he is willing to apparently manipulate situations to his needs.

Please rest assured I say all of this not to air Mr. Nagler's dirty laundry. I do not know Mr. Nagler, have not met him, do not know what he looks like (other than an early picture in one of the articles I was presented), and do not dislike him personally. This is NOT a personal thing. I just bring this information up as it is clear that such manipulative behavior is not isolated and goes back 25-30 years. Some of the earlier things with Mr. Weiner, as an example, could be looked at as youthful indiscretion but it appears that this pattern continues to present day and is evident about faces that Mr. Nagler has done with no apparent motivation other than to harm under the guise of providing insight.

Tim Trono

[Guest]

I once saw Irv Weiner do a lecture and became an immediate and major fan.

I have no idea about the dispute between Mr.Nagler and Mr.Weiner and have no comment about it except that it seems to have happened a long time ago and I am not sure it is relevant to the present discussion.

Neither am I sure how his medical treatment methods bear upon the discussion of his reviews.

They seem to be honest opinions and whether or not we agree with them it should certainly be recognised that he has a perfect right to express them without being crucified.

There is one major difference between his viewpoint and that of a professional reviewer. He is a consumer. He has paid good money for the items. He has worked for that money. He is entitled to say what results he got.

It should be obvious that one man's good trick is another man's not so good ones. What pleases one person may not please another. This point is very lucidly made in George Anderson's wonderful "Magic Digest"

However Mr.Nagler has paid money for his products. Magazine reviewers have the items sent to them for free. They are paid for the reviews and very often sell the items for profit on e-bay, (or so I have been led to believe).
Mr Nagler makes no profit and has in fact spent time trying to be helpful to magicians and has spent money in purchasing the products in the first place.

Nobody is forced to follow the advice in the review.It can only be a guideline.However, I am familiar with one of the items he actually recommends.A book. I agree with him one hundred percent that it is a hidden gem. In fact it is so good that I think I shall let it remain hidden.

Not that I want the publisher in question to lose revenue over the matter, of course. The astute ones among you will no doubt figure it out.

[John Clarkson]

Instead of not airing Bill Nagler's dirty laundry in posts about his prior behavior and presumed motives, perhaps we could discuss specific statements on the site itself, and why we believe they are -- or are not-- harmful exposure.

[Guest]

I see nothing that can be described as exposure on Mr. Nagler's site. Whatever the criticisms of
the site are I do not think this one holds any validity whatever.

I do not espect a single secret will ever be revealed to a layman because of this site. I doubt anyone will be interested and even if they were they will forget the method within 5 minutes of leaving the site.

I think he is entitled to say what he thinks, valid or not. I understand it is called free speech. It seems to be the sort of thing that individual magicians say to each other anyway about products.

[Guest]

I agree with Mr. Clarkson.

It is one thing for the Exposure Gestapo to cry "Exposure!" and another thing to specify exactly what statements on Nagler's site are supposed to BE exposure.

Given that Nagler's site is open to the public, I don't see a problem with repeating the offensive statements here so that we may all understand what is being labelled exposure.

0pus

[Brad Henderson]

There are at least two issues to be considered, one of which is exposure. The second is the validity of the reviews, meaning whether they are sincere opinions or vehicles intended to misinform and cause damage.

Sadly, questions of intent can never be proven objectively. Ultimately, that is a question only Nagler can answer for himself. However, I think we can look at the evidence offered and form an opinion for ourselves.

To me, the question I have (and one I would like to see Nagler answer), is if the intent is to inform and help the magic community, then why not provide longer reviews containing more information and with clear support given for your opinions? To me, if your intent is to educate, then this should be a pre-requisite.

Further, if methods were alluded to in a longer review, I think we would all be more forgiving. When all one gets is a single line which points to the "gaff" coupled with a snide remark, for some of us, it cannot help but to come off as something vindictive with a less than pure motive.

Communication is a two way street. The reader must make a good faith effort to understand; the writer, to convey clearly. The only thing which is clear, as evidenced by the ongoing debate, is that Nagler failed in his duties. We don't know what his intentions were. This is and always will be failed communication.

If his intent is to educate and inform, better reviews are needed. If it is to sour others against a product, then he has succeeded.

[Guest]

I can't see that any of the posts on the site could constitute exposure to anybody, especially not non magicians.

As he has bought the goods, Mr Nagler is entitled to his opinion, and is entitled to express it. We are entitled to ignore it, or read it and take it into consideration. It really is that straightforward.

Can we move on?

[Guest]

Man, why do people take this so seriously? Oscar Wilde said "Life is too important to be taken seriously." I think he is writing the reviews many of us would like to write after we have bought something that turns out to be a really stupid trick. Are they analytical, no. Are they visceral, yes. I take them with a grain of salt but I have to say I have made some of the same purchases and he's right on.

[Brad Henderson]

The description of the Paul Harris effect pretty much tips the entire workings to the magic world. Do you think this is fair to Paul? Could he have not shown his displeasure without overtly compromising Paul's intellectual property?

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Brad Henderson:
... without overtly compromising Paul's intellectual property?

Since when has the magic community shown respect for intellectual property?

Did anyone ask Steve Ducheck (sp sorry) about using a gaff he marketed and refining it into another product?

Can you still buy a chop-chop cup without paying royalties to Al's estate?

About the only thing that is actually exposed here is our communitie's lack of integrity.

[Brad Henderson]

Your points are valid, but they are the contents of a different can of worms. It would be great if our community did a better job of policing itself, then I think more people would play fair if only because they had to. Also, I think we would be served coming to terms with what consists of a "fair use policy" for ideas and decide to what degree can one take something published or released and include it in their own marketed product. Sadly, I don;t htink there are any hard and fast rules, but making an attempt to define them is far better than living in a world of lawlessness.

There are tons of issues here, but I think they are better addressed in a separate thread so as not to detract from the questions raised regarding the intentions of Nagler's site.

I would still like to hear his definition of intent and see and explanation of how he feels that which he has posted serves that intent.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Brad Henderson:
Your points are valid, but ...There are tons of issues here, but ...regarding the intentions of Nagler's site.

Mr. Nagler can speak for himself as he chooses.

And your But(s) are of no interest.

[Brad Henderson]

Ok, lets try this again.

Your posts, Jonathan, are off topic.

No, ifs, ands or....

[Guest]

Where is Peter Biro when we need him? We are a parody of ouselves! This is the equivalent, in magic, of Saturday Night Live! (;-)

[John Clarkson]

Originally posted by Brad Henderson:

...There are tons of issues here, but I think they are better addressed in a separate thread so as not to detract from the questions raised regarding the intentions of Nagler's site.

I would still like to hear his definition of intent and see and explanation of how he feels that which he has posted serves that intent.

Bill Nagler did not open this thread with the topic "Let's speculate about my motives for having a web site." He did, however, clearly state the following: "If you're sick and tired of the usual inflated, self-indulgent, flatulent magic reviews - head over to www.25offmagic.com. I have candid comments about the following [list of effects]."

That seems like a pretty clear statement of intent. After reading it, I expected reviews that were not "self-indulgent" (i.e., highly critical) and not inflated (i.e., terse). He has not failed in his stated objective. Whether I like all his reviews is irrelevant.

On the site itself, he states that his intent is not to expose. To that end, most, if not all, of the reviews seem to assume a reader who is already "in the know." Moreover, the site is obscure; it is not so public as some posters have intimated. For instance, I did a Google Search on several of the products listed there, and the site didn't show up (at least on the first few pages of results).

Another topic fairly raised by Bill Nagler's original post is whether magic reviews (and adverts?) are, in fact, too often inflated, flatulent, and self-indulgent. Some subsequent posts have addressed that, but there is room for more.

Too often on magic forums ad hominem arguments peppered with sweeping statements about ill-defined exposure and assertions about other people's character, intent, and motivation supplant reason and dispassionate discourse. There is a comment on Bill Nagler's site about one of the posters in this thread that offends me for that very reason. I'd like the same thing not to happen here...one more time.

[Pete Biro]

Here I am. What do you want me to do? :eek:

[BlueEyed Videot]

How about 20 minutes with a deck of cards, a set of hindu cups, and some plumber's sticks? :D

[Pete Biro]

Funny you should ask. I just delivered a set of the cups to Dean Dill and I got a Video from Andrew Martin doing the Plumber's sticks at the Magi-Fest and the routine he came up with is a RIOT of LAUGHS. Made me Jealous!

[Pete McCabe]

Just for the record, since I think I was the first person in this thread to bring up the subject of exposure, I never meant exposure of precious magic secrets to laypeople. I meant exposure of the method of a currently-selling trick to magicians who constitute the target market.

A small number of the reviews on the site reveal varying amounts of the method. I haven't read Mike Close's review of the Predator, but I've read a lot of his reviews, and he seems to take great pains not to reveal any part of the method of a trick unless it's absolutely necessary for him to give a meaningful review.

The real question, still unanswered, is: what would Bill say if he put a product on the market, and a dissatisfied customer exposed the method in an online review?

[Ryan Matney]

But if the product was good and you truly valued it, you wouldn't want to expose it to anyone, espcially a magician.
Maybe the real question is: Why is so much garbage being released lately?