Yaniv, ff you cannot take criticism, then don't publish. You appear to be the only author who cannot take criticism. Is your ego so fragile?
As for your self promotion, ker-mawn..., you have been expounding this manuscript under your own name and under several alias in different internet forums since December. This is in extremely bad taste and very uncool. If the work is good, then it will stand up by itself.
In answer to your questions, I have indeed read some of the reviews including Mr Swiss's. Banachek's review needed some degree of qualification and Jermay's review needs updating based on some of his recent comments.
In many ways, Swiss's review echoes mine only he was not so explicit in his statements. I have no such qualms. Here's a quote from Swiss's review which you will no doubt take out of context and use to support your case:
'This is something that can be very effective and unquestionably strong.'
Swiss, I believe, refers to the effect of divining a spec's drawing over the phone. Yes, the effect is strong, but whether your method is the best for achieving this effect is arguable. I proffer that it isn't. It's not even close. Walking on water is a great effect, a miracle even, but if you are using 5ft long styrofoam shoes to do so, it detracts from the effect and makes the effect a joke.
Your second question, as to whether I used TWID. Yes, I've tried it on a dozen or so guinea pigs. I failed on 10 of them and on the other 2 I just took a guess. Go figure. The effect is not sure fire but then again, neither are Luke Jermay's, however, with Luke's effects you have a much, much stronger chance of success as you have so much more on your side than a mitigated failure if it goes wrong. I maintain that you cannot perform an effect where the chance of failure is so high.
Yaniv, don't you read your own manuscript? Here's a direct quote from TWID:
'There is another option: blaming her for your mistake. As the saying goes, attack is the best defence: "I think you are trying to confuse me!" Driving her into a corner. Before the spectator can even think about what has happened, you keep her mind busy with your verbal attack. Ask her to make the drawing again, as if it will help her concentrate better, without really saying this of course."
Aren't those your words?
In response to Craig, mentalism is not just about guessing. It is about, inter alia, using invisible advantages to ascertain information you shouldn't appear to possess then reveal that information in such a way as to appear miraculous. Progressive anagrams, although I hate them, are one way of ascertaining this information in a structured, surefire way. TWID is firmly within the realms of intuition and guesswork combined with a way of mitigating failure. There are too many variables for it to work reliably. You do NEVER perform an effect like this where failure is more likely than success. In fairness, Yaniv's methodology does raise this effect from a 90% degree of failure to maybe a 60% chance of failure but that is still unacceptable if you are a paid mentalist. $45 for a near 50/50 chance of success? Better to just take an educated guess. It is ill conceived from the start and this type of effect is fundamentally flawed. I'm sure that Craig's attempt to modify the effect is noble but I can't help but think it is akin to polishing a turd.