A TOTAL FRAUD

Discuss your favorite close-up tricks and methods.

Postby Larry Horayne » 08/23/03 05:56 PM

Raymond Cooper should be behind bars--the name of his 'new' trick, NO STRINGS ATTACHED, is, first, VERY misleading, secondly, NO new idea, and I could go on, and on. Be warned...

www.SandySinger.com
Larry Horayne
 
Posts: 78
Joined: 07/20/08 09:22 AM

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 08/23/03 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Sandy Singer:
Raymond Cooper ...the name of his 'new' trick, NO STRINGS ATTACHED...
Is there a link somewhere to this trick? What is the effect etc.

What do you not like about it?
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6915
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby Richard Kaufman » 08/23/03 09:31 PM

Sandy, don't you think that saying someone should be in prison because they put out a trick you don't think is worth the money is JUST A LITTLE extreme?
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 21625
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 08/23/03 10:33 PM

Originally posted by Sandy Singer:
Raymond Cooper should be behind bars--the name of his 'new' trick, NO STRINGS ATTACHED,
Yes! Forget about all those child molesters, terrorists and jay walkers! Let's put magic
dealers in prison because we don't like what
they sell us! THEY-- not the rapists, thiefs
and drug dealers and the evil ones....!?!?!
:help:

Steven Youell
Guest
 

Postby Larry Horayne » 08/24/03 12:34 AM

Sandy, don't you think that saying someone should be in prison because they put out a trick you don't think is worth the money is JUST A LITTLE extreme?

Not in this case, Richard, besides, I said 'behind bars' not prison--returning some of Cooper's own medicine. The name certainly implies that NO strings are used to accomplish the levitation of anything [in tiny print, 'paper is best']. Well, isn't elastic thread considered invisible string/thread?

Oh for the good old' days, when one could see a demo in a good old' magic shop.

www.SandySinger.com

FOR Johnathan, who requested Coopers description of the effect, as it is currently being advertised:

No Strings Attached by Ray Cooper - You'll have the freedom to float a borrowed object at a moment's notice. This is the first truly spontaneous levitation ever invented.
Larry Horayne
 
Posts: 78
Joined: 07/20/08 09:22 AM

Postby pduffie » 08/24/03 01:40 AM

Description & video of something dangling here:

http://www.penguinmagic.com/product.php ... 5796ee491e

It's interesting what they list at the bottom of the page under "Magicians who bought this trick also bought:" :)
pduffie
 
Posts: 383
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: UK

Postby Chris Aguilar » 08/24/03 01:46 AM

Am I the only one that finds the background music in that video clip exceptionally annoying?

__________________________________________________________
www.conjurenation.com - 'Cards Only' Forums
Chris Aguilar
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Sacramento

Postby Ian Kendall » 08/24/03 03:24 AM

Hmmm,

From the video clip it looks like pretty much any other levitation, nice if you like that sort of thing.

It seems Sandy expected to get a genuine levitation (I can't imagine what he had in mind) but according the the blurb on the Penguin site the line 'No Strings Attached' is the payoff patter line, as the thread seems to clear itself. Also, this might be an opportune moment to requote Copperfield's poster from the London shows a few years back 'Without wings or strings, a man will fly'.

As with all these posts, has Sandy contacted Cooper with his misgivings? Did he contact the dealer from whom he bought the effect?

Take care, Ian
Ian Kendall
 
Posts: 2181
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Edinburgh

Postby Guest » 08/24/03 05:52 AM

Well, I guess that Sandy didn't expect a genuine levitation. But if an effect is marketed as No Strings Attached, it is perhaps reasonable to assume that no strings, IT, etc are attached.

But it's only perhaps reasonable. The title of an effect is a grey area.

In the Copperfield case that Ian cited, the quote came from Copperfield's advertising blurb to Joe public.

In this case, the advert is selling an effect to a performer. If the description of the effect said that no strings, IT, etc were attached, then that'd be false.

But the title of the effect, well, he could have called it what he wanted. I bought Scott Guinn's Peanut Butter and Jelly routine. Would I be entitled to complain that the effect used neither peanut butter not jam (as we call jelly over here)? - obviously not.

All in all, a grey area, I think.

Dave
Guest
 

Postby Kamus » 08/24/03 10:13 AM

The "spontaneous" claim is a bit suspect too as the trick requires a bit of a setup. Am I mistaken in thinking this is similar in methodology to an older trick "Walk away Floating Bill"?
Kamus
 
Posts: 43
Joined: 08/08/08 08:53 PM

Postby Guest » 08/24/03 10:20 AM

perhaps the no strings attached, refers to the performer? the strings are attached to the walls? just a thought.
Guest
 

Postby Dustin Stinett » 08/24/03 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Dave Le Fevre:
In this case, the advert is selling an effect to a performer. If the description of the effect said that no strings, IT, etc were attached, then that'd be false.

But the TITLE OF THE EFFECT, well, he could have called it what he wanted. I bought Scott Guinn's Peanut Butter and Jelly routine. Would I be entitled to complain that the effect used neither peanut butter not jam (as we call jelly over here)? - obviously not.
[Emphasis mine]

To this I will add two words: "Invisible Deck."
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 6205
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby mrgoat » 08/25/03 07:09 AM

To this I will add two words: "Invisible Deck."

--

Well, I think the point is a little different. Obviously Out of Sight Out of Mind is neither out of sight nor out of mind, yet poeple do not complain. The point here is that it is a levitation effect. The most popular methods of levitating a small object use thread. To call a trick that uses thread No Strings Attached suggests that no strings are attached. Clearly this is misleading.

No grey area at all.

Deliberately misleading.

If you bought a coin in bottle effect called This Doesn't Use a Folding Coin and then found out it did use a folding coin, would you have grounds to be annoyed?
User avatar
mrgoat
 
Posts: 4261
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Brighton, UK

Postby Dustin Stinett » 08/25/03 09:03 AM

I wasn't going to comment further because I'm going to end up pissing off a couple people here, but what the heck; it's Monday:

In the past, haven't I read Sandy use the phrase (or something like it), "What's happened to common sense?" With all due respect to Sandy, I think he forgot to apply it in this situation.

Think like a magician for a moment and couple that with the description and the video clip and only ONE method comes to mind: a form of thread. I simply cannot imagine a magician coming to any other conclusion (and I don't float diddley--I've never owned an IT reel or anything like it--ever). The name of the trick is just that: A NAME.

In the printed description, there is an obvious tongue-in-cheek comment that TELLS the reader it's done with thread! READ. THINK. And if that's not working ask questions before you buy.

Frankly, Mrgoat, your "example" isn't a compelling one at all. If someone really was selling something called "This Doesn't Use a Folding Coin" (and the effect description was vague and I couldn't get a clue from the demo) I would probably ask, "okay, does it bend in some way?" (which was the first thought that came into my mind) or "is the bottle gaffed or the coin?" I have never been shy about asking questions and I cannot recall ever having someone refuse to answer those types of questions.

Just now, I grabbed an old Tannen's Catalogue off the shelf and randomly opened it. The effect on the page I opened is "The Fabulous French Arm Chopper: It Chops; It Lops; It Drops!"

It ain't French and it doesn't really chop, now does it? Let's see what else I flip to:

"The Chen Lee Water Suspension."

Would you get upset when you find out that the metal cylinder wasn't really Chinese? (Of course, maybe it is these days!)

Oooh here's a good one: "Rabbit Explosion."

Do I need to go on?

These are names; just names. Hummer SUVs don't really hum (or perform the act after which, I believe, they are named). My Whirlpool dishwasher doesn't create a whirlpool to clean my dishes and my Ford Taurus doesn't have a pair of horns in front, nor do the stars guide it.

I'm done now. Go ahead and flame away--but keep it civil. Don't forget that I carry a fire extinguisher!

Dustin
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 6205
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby mrgoat » 08/25/03 12:06 PM

Originally posted by DustinStinett:

Frankly, Mrgoat, your "example" isn't a compelling one at all. If someone really was selling something called "This Doesn't Use a Folding Coin" I would probably ask, "okay, does it bend in some way?" or "is the bottle gaffed or the coin?"

[snip list of tricks]

I'm done now. Go ahead and flame away--but keep it civil.
Dustin

You seem to totally miss the point I was making. Maybe it's because I am not explaining myself clearly.

I will try with another example, and asking questions about the MO to your magic shop has nothing to do with my point.

Let's say the trick used a deck of cards where half the pack were the same card, they were short and they alternated with 26 regular cards. Let's say the description of the trick contained standard Svengali deck moves. ie: the card is selected, placed in the centre of the deck, and then it rises to the top. Now let's assume that trick is called "This Is Not A Sven Deck".

Now remember, your ability to ask questions to the supplier of this product is utterly irrelevant. Another example.

A shiny metal ball floats under a cloth and then sits on top of the cloth under the control of the magician. Let's say the trick was called This Is Not A Zombie.

Again, asking questions of your dealer is not the point.

One last example. A small silk hanky is shown both sides. Can be examined and signed by the spectator. The magician then pokes the hanky into his hand where is vanishes. The trick is called This Doesn't Use a Thumb Tip or a Pull.

The point is the name of the trick in question is called No Strings Attached, and the obvious MO is string.

This is why it is bad.

Obviously there are a gazillion (at least) tricks where the title of the trick is not an accurate description of the effect. As you pointed out in your post, there are lots. This really isn't the issue though. The issue is the name suggests the trick is not done with thread. The truth of the matter is that is exactly how it is done.

Hope that makes sense.

mrgoat
User avatar
mrgoat
 
Posts: 4261
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Brighton, UK

Postby Dustin Stinett » 08/25/03 12:54 PM

It makes sense, and I'm not missing the point. But you continue to use names of existing tricks and/or methods that only magicians (presumably) know the names of. They don't know about Zombies (like we do, anyway) or pulls. But when something floats, laymen think "strings." The presentational blow off of this trick, "No Strings Attached" (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) also happens to be the name of the trick. You are not taking everything into context in this case, and you MUST. And yes, questioning demonstrators can be part of the context, especially if you want to make an informed purchase (and that is the buyer's responsibility). The extreme examples you give are just that, extreme and definitely, purposely, misleading to magicians and would probably never happen.

But let's try this scenario for a trick named "This is not a Svengali Deck."

  • The magician has a card selected. The card is clearly cut into the middle of the deck, but it appears on top. No sleight of hand! The card will continually appear on top of the deck, even after the spectator cuts the deck! The magician (or spectator--it doesn't matter!) cuts the deck into several piles. The selected card will always be on top of the pile the spectator selects! No Force! At the end, the deck may be completely inspected! There's NOTHING to find! No Svengali deck; in fact, no "trick" deck at all! This will blow away your magic friends or others who know about Svengali decks! Comes with everything you need! Many more applications possible!

Of course the basic effects are done with a Svengali deck. Is this ad for a clever deck switch misleading? Is the NAME? I don't think so, and THAT is the point I am trying to make.

Dustin
(Cranky because he's got a cold--sorry. It's nap time!)
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 6205
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby mrgoat » 08/25/03 01:18 PM

I think we will never agree on this after that post. I don't think anyone can think it's ok to call a Sven deck "This Is Not A Sven Deck" and sell it as such.

It's lying.

I realise magic ads are full of half truths and exageration, but to sell a sven deck and call it This Is Not A Sven Deck is not on in my book.

If you think it's ok, then obviously you are entitled to that opinion. I couldn't disagree with you more if I tried.
User avatar
mrgoat
 
Posts: 4261
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Brighton, UK

Postby Dustin Stinett » 08/25/03 04:13 PM

You're correct about that--we will have to agree to disagree. But you missed the target completely. I am selling a deck switch, not a Svengali deck! Read the "ad" again. It's typical marketing (though I won't say "at its best"). You do the tricks as advertised, and "at the end," as advertised, there is "no Svengali deck." In what way is that lying?

I will remind you that you came up with the name. I merely filled in the hypothetical blanks.

Dustin
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 6205
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Guest » 08/25/03 04:57 PM

The title "No Strings Attached" is just that, a title, and it implies that this can be disproved to the audience in performance (if not, even is badly proved, then it's misleading). If "No Strings Attached" were in the descrpition (as it seems in Dustin's AD about no trick deck), then use of a string (or Svengali deck) would be deceptive and false advertising.

...my two pennies...

:whack:
Guest
 

Postby Dustin Stinett » 08/25/03 05:12 PM

Two questions:

Q: Is sleight of hand used? A: No. (Advertising is true.)

Q: At the end, is there a Svengali deck? A: No. (Advertising is true.)

The "ad copy" answers those questions exactly as I have them answered above, does it not? So how is the ad copy deceptive or misleading?
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 6205
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Guest » 08/25/03 05:23 PM

Touche...but now what is (or could there be) your no sleight deck switch (or doesn't the first part of the AD copy apply at the end)?!

;)
Guest
 

Postby Dustin Stinett » 08/25/03 05:34 PM

Actually, the deck switch I use (really!) uses no sleight of hand! (A very subtle Martin A. Nash switch).

Dustin
(But I don't use a Svengali deck...and I can't sell Marty's deck switch! So this is all academic.)
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 6205
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Jeff Eline » 08/25/03 05:50 PM

Well, for what it's worth (which is probably diddly-poo) I kinda think the name is misleading too. I'm not so jacked up about it that I want the guy in jail - I'm just chalking it up to normal magic marketing hijinx.

Most trick names and descriptions dance on the line of believability. But this one did make me pause and scratch my head - levitate... without strings...? :confused:

I'd be willing to bet that this trick sold ALOT better to amateurs that do not have a solid magic background.
Jeff Eline
 
Posts: 647
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Baltimore, MD

Postby Dustin Stinett » 08/25/03 07:44 PM

I'll grant you that: the name alone is misleading. I've used several real examples of names that, alone, could be considered misleading. But there's more to it than just the name!

Now that the cold medicine has kicked in, I'm a little less cranky, so...

I suppose that I will always have a knee-jerk reaction that favors the side of marketing because I am a marketing analyst. I can separate what is merely spin (which is what I was doing in my "ad") and flat out lies (and yes, there's a difference--a huge difference). This is not to say that I have an advantage over the average consumer: I don't because this stuff is based on common sense and experience, not a specialized education.

The key to the crap these copywriters peddle is to read. Really read what it is they are writing. The words used, and particularly the order in which they appear, are important. They know how to say what they mean but also allow you to interpret it another way should you so choose. But they have the cloak of "plausible deniability" (and the law) on their side. The only thing we have on our side is our brain. Let them beat that and you'll lose every time. Which is why we also need to use all the information available to us: Not just the snappy names and the catchy phrasing. That's why I have absolutely no issue with the "No Strings Attached" ad. I believe the advertiser has made available all of the information needed to tell, in general, what would be received upon its purchase. If the ad read, "Make any object levitate with No Strings Attached" at that was it, well then that's a different subject. If that is the message you get from the existing ad, then you are guilty of not processing all of the information made available to you. Whose fault is that?

To Jeff's point, the less experienced, particularly you youngsters out there, are more susceptible. For the youngsters, I have empathy. They get all excited and plunk down their cash expecting the miracle that will make them the next David Blaine. What young magician hasn't been there; done that? For the older but less magically experienced, it's hard to have much sympathy. They are adults who should have some worldly experience. If they think that the magic biz is any different than any other consumer enterprise, they've got it coming anyway.

Ultimately, the point is that you cannot just go by the name: you cannot go just by the ad copy: If you cannot see it demo'ed, then wait for a review in one of the magazines. Collect all the data you can. It's your money and it's up to you and no one else to protect and invest it wisely.

Dustin

(Oh, and Jeff: In the long run, all of our opinions are worth diddley-poo.)
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 6205
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Michael Jay » 08/25/03 08:06 PM

And, welcome to the wonderful world of buying magic, Mr. Singer. I am a bit surprised, after viewing your web site and seeing the length of time that you've been in magic, that you were so easily mislead by this product's advertising. However, I must strongly disagree that Raymond Cooper should be behind bars.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am just as against this false, or misleading, advertising as you are and I find his willingness to trick the tricksters to be a bit on the unethical side. However, I don't see this as his problem, I see it as yours and every other magician that spends their hard earned cash to ensure that the trick du jour makes money so that its creator can continue to sell more and newer garbage.

This is nothing more than what is to be expected in an industry where many of the pros scrub each others backs in order to continue to market garbage to the easily fooled masses. And, I wouldn't think that magicians should be easily fooled, but the longer I'm in this business (30+ years to date) the more I realize that the magicians are the easiest to fool.

No strings attached? I think its referring to the strings on your wallet...Must not have been any strings on your wallet to so easily purchase this item. Come on now, floating effects are the most hard to swallow by the general public.

I think the most telling part of the advertising is the line, "This is the first truly spontaneous levitation ever invented." Ever hear of loops? If you want a spontaneous levitation, you won't beat loops.

So, I cannot place blame on anyone but you, Mr. Singer. I would expect this from someone in the business for a year or so, but you??

Please don't take this post wrongfully, it is not intended to indict your character. I just figure if you're going to come on that strong in your post right off the top, then you are prepared for a strong post right back at you. The problem doesn't lie in the products or how they're sold, but in us, who buy these products then complain about being ripped off. It's the old, "Look before you leap" thing.

Mike.
Michael Jay
 
Posts: 57
Joined: 05/28/08 12:44 PM

Postby Larry Horayne » 08/26/03 06:12 AM

Sorry I 'mislead' you, Michael -- behind bars could be interpreted to mean, he should be working for Bill Malone.

Dustin -- considering the 'real' modus operandi of NO Strings Attached, your line, 'Really' read what it is they are writing, is VERY PUNNY...

Oh, Michael -- I may be old and experienced, but NOT old enough to still be fooled--I am a great audience!

www.SandySinger.com
Larry Horayne
 
Posts: 78
Joined: 07/20/08 09:22 AM

Postby David Regal » 08/26/03 07:20 AM

It is difficult for me to believe that the name "No Strings Attached" was used for this product for reasons other than to mislead the nave. I don't care whether this is strictly illegal or not - it is wrong, and as I said in Genii an issue ago, I am upset with the way some magic is being marketed (and RE-marketed). It is not insurmountably difficult to understand where lines should be drawn in regard to what is appropriate and inappropriate in a magic ad. As far as thread work goes, it is very difficult to design a method that leaves the impression that the object is truly floating. There are some horrible methods/handlings out there.
User avatar
David Regal
 
Posts: 433
Joined: 01/22/08 01:00 PM
Location: Burbank, CA

Postby Dustin Stinett » 08/26/03 08:36 AM

Uuuuh--I'm cranky again. (Mornings are the worst with a cold.)

I keep reading how the name is misleading: The NAME. But no one has been able to refute the fact that all the information needed to determine (within reason) how this trick works is there for the taking in the rest of the ad! I'm no genius (that I am making an argument with David Regal is proof of this fact), so if I can tell that "No Strings" uses strings, so can anyone else who takes the time, trouble and responsibility to read the ad. But I'll say it again: Everything must be taken into consideration!

Need another example? Let's look at the marketing of your Dj vu Deck. "Any Named Card Appears Under A Spectator's Hand!" If left right there, couldn't I say that's just a tad "misleading"? After all, there's a lot of procedure that happens in this wonderful effect of yours that is left out of that phrase. Of course, the complete ad fills in the blanks, so it's not misleading, and it's my responsibility to read all of that information. I cannot stop at the first phrase and then expect to get a trick where any named card simply materializes under a spectator's hand. Everything has to taken into consideration in that ad! The name and the first phrase do their job: grab the attention of the prospective consumer. The rest advises that consumer what the actual effect is. It's Marketing 101. (It's also a much better trick than "No Strings"--but that's another discussion.)

Dustin
(Has to go do some marketing now, but wants to make it clear that he has NO interest in Penguin Magic or "No Strings." Never even heard of it until this whole mess came up.)
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 6205
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Pete Biro » 08/26/03 09:11 AM

Buying "sight unseen" certainly has its risks. There is no better way than to visit a magic shop and see a demonstration.

Or read a review from a competant reviewer.

"No strings attached" to me, based on past experiences, would not mean "no strings" it would mean it isn't "attached" to anything.

I even just bought a trick at FISM that I saw demonstrated. It was 99% the gimmick, however, the demonstrator either had an "enhanced" one (a worker as we used to say) or he has been doing it for years.

So, even though I have it, and it is "as advertised" learning to do it decently is going to be a time-consuming chore.

Some time back, Pat Page and I did a routine at the Magic Circle where we read the catalog description, then did the trick, which in no way closely resembled the wonderful description.

It was a very funny evening.

Bill Schmelck (SP?) did a similar, hilarious, presentation at the Conference of Magical History.
Stay tooned.
User avatar
Pete Biro
 
Posts: 7125
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hollyweird

Postby Bill Duncan » 08/26/03 09:15 AM

Don't we usually ask questions when we purchase items like this? I know if I were spending money on a method that seemed impossible I'd confirm this with the vendor.
Me:
"This thing really uses NO threads, strings or wires?"
Dealer:
[long pause] "We don't reveal the methods..."
Me:
"Thanks. That's all I needed to know."
Bill Duncan
 
Posts: 1369
Joined: 03/13/08 11:33 PM

Postby Guest » 08/26/03 09:28 AM

One point that hasn't been mentioned is that No Strings Attached is a phrase in common parlance, with a well-known meaning that isn't its literal meaning. It doesn't mean that pieces of string aren't attached, it means that there are no conditions or limitations.

And that sort of expression does, I think, give one some leeway. If the effect were called, say, Price On My Head, it wouldn't imply that there was a sum of money balanced on top of my head, it would imply some sort of bounty for my capture. (That's not in any way a sensible example, I know - I simply plucked a phrase from the air.)

But I suspect that David Regal is right. The title of this effect is probably intended to lure beginners into buying what they believe to be a miracle. But maybe it's just a play on words. We'll never know for sure.

Dave
Guest
 

Postby Jeff Eline » 08/26/03 10:28 AM

Well, here's some more diddly-poo:

As is most often the case with these discussions, we agree on most of the points. I don't believe anyone would disagree with Dustin's points about making an informed decision - "collect all the data you can." Read and research everything about an effect, book, video, etc... That makes perfect sense.

Unfortunately, human nature, such as it is, we don't always do the most logical things.

AND, I think it's accurate to say that the title of a trick or book is probably the most important part of the marketing of an item. Much like a headline of a news article, it's there to attract and hook a sucker.. err... customer.

And even Dustin admits that the title alone is misleading. If the title is misleading and it's such an important part of the marketing - then I think you've got a problem.

Again, I agree you should do your homework. I just think the producers are dancing on thin ice.
Jeff Eline
 
Posts: 647
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Baltimore, MD

Postby Alain Roy » 08/26/03 11:21 AM

I think there is an appropriate middle ground here. Neither side is really wrong.

First, when I read the ad copy, I thought the name was referring to the presentation for the trick, since they encourage you to say, "No strings attached". Presumably the instructions should teach me to convince spectators that I'm not using a string, and that's where the name came from.

So the ad copy is not wrong.

In addition, a good buyer thoroughly investigates what they buy before making the purchase. People that don't may be burned, even when the ad copy is not at all misleading. Not everyone does that investigation, unfortunately.

That said, I would expect people to be mislead by the name of the trick. People are mislead by the "checks" that credit card companies send you, even though they say, "by spending this check, you agree to..." It's not surprising that people are mislead by this name.

Ideally, people should think though what they say and try to avoid miscommunication. Someone trying to not mislead buyers should not label this trick "No Strings Attached", because it will be misunderstood by people that don't read the carefully ad copy or don't thoroughly investigate a product before making a purchase.

It's like the public official that used the word "niggardly". It's not a racial slur, but it is easily misinterpreted as one. The official shouldn't have gotten in trouble for using it, but he also should have been wise and not used it in order to avoid misunderstandings. Similarly, people should not have been confused by the name of the trick, but it probably shouldn't have been named what it was.

-alain
Alain Roy
 
Posts: 134
Joined: 02/22/08 01:00 PM
Location: Sun Prairie, WI

Postby David Regal » 08/26/03 01:28 PM

Dustin -

The description for my Deja Vu deck would have been more clear had I said something like "A blank card is placed under a spectator's hand where it becomes a named selection" instead of "Any Named Card Appears Under A Spectator's Hand!" However, I think we are talking about two different things. When describing an effect as seen by a spectator, we are placing ourselves in a subjective mode. However, when we are making a statement to a prospective purchaser about the qualities of a product, deceptions are not kosher. You can't, for example, say "It can be done with a borrowed ring" if in fact it requires two duplicates. In the case of "No Strings Attached" it seems to be saying to a potential purchaser that strings are not used. Any justifications to the contrary are just that.
User avatar
David Regal
 
Posts: 433
Joined: 01/22/08 01:00 PM
Location: Burbank, CA

Postby Dustin Stinett » 08/26/03 02:27 PM

Originally posted by David Regal:
When describing an effect as seen by a spectator, we are placing ourselves in a subjective mode.
And I am of the opinion that names and titles are far more open to subjectivity than are descriptions. Hence names like "Invisible Deck" and "Rabbit Explosion" (this last one in particular: Yick!)

Dustin
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 6205
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Guest » 08/26/03 04:35 PM

Please click the following link to sample my most recent creation, a little thing I like to call:
Tempest in a Teapot .

It's a mental effect which transports normally sane individuals into a festering stew of irrelevant nit-picking.

Let me know if you're fooled!

--Randy Campbell
Guest
 

Postby Dustin Stinett » 08/26/03 04:57 PM

You slay me Dr. DUK! Well done (and deserved). You know how I can't resist a good debate so long as it remains civil, which this one did. All that being said, there is a new post about Penguin magic and their, apparently, less than honorable ways. Seems they are selling downloads of classic effects such as "Out of This World." That leaves a sour taste in my mouth, especially after "defending" their ad for this dangling object trick. Screw 'em.

Dustin
(Stands behind the principles of his argument, not the company involved.)

Here's the other thread:

http://geniimagazine.com/forum/cgi-bin/ ... 1;t=001221
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 6205
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Larry Horayne » 08/26/03 06:31 PM

To be perfectly fair, in my original post, I did not mention Penguin Magic -- somebody mentioned them sometime during the 'debate' and, to, further, be perfectly fair, without hesitation, Penguin told me to send it back for a full refund
-- no strings attached !

www.SandySinger.com
Larry Horayne
 
Posts: 78
Joined: 07/20/08 09:22 AM

Postby Guest » 08/27/03 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Randy Campbell:
[b]Tempest in a Teapot .

[/b]
What a great link! I anticipated it, but it still made me laugh out loud.

Reminds me of the dictionary definition of Recursion:

Recursion: see Recursion

Dave
Guest
 

Postby El Mystico » 08/27/03 02:47 AM

this reminds me of the painting of a pipe by Magritte entitled "This is not a pipe".
That was considered art, not fraud.

THIS IS NOT A REPLY FROM EL MYSTICO
El Mystico
 
Posts: 907
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Leamington Spa

Next

Return to Close-Up Magic