I've got a few nits to pick with you here, logic-wise.
I've seen Ricky's show, and yes, he juggles. It's not magic-- it's juggling. It's an exhibition of skill, which, truth be told, is often a large component of Mr. Jay's work. The eggs in the glasses at the end isn't magic, it's also an exhibition of skill, which also happened to be a featured closer of Max Malini.
They get strong responses because they are strong effects. They are also NOT MAGIC. Whether they "look magical" or not is a judgment call on the part of the viewer, and to deride anyone who disagrees as "insane" is a polemic that does nothing to help your argument.
Secondly, you state:
All good flourishes are inherently innocent and most flourish haters hate them cause the cant do them!
This is a fallacy logicians call a "straw man." You contrive to state the opinions of those contrary to your own, knock down this mischaracterization, and then posit your own reason for what you feel are their motives.
Good flourishes are good flourishes. Laypeople, hell, audiences in general, enjoy a demonstration of skill. Whether or not I can perform a flourish has nothing to do with my opinions of them in general. I tend to agree with those who think that, if you are trying to make your magic more "magical," revealing extraordinary skill tends to detract from the impossibility of the effect being presented.
It's rather obvious that because a primary part of your performance is flourishes and manipulations, you have become a passionate defender of that point of view. But your logic breaks down when you attempt to ascribe the motives of others.
You also state:
Realize when you diss flourishes or juggling you diss Ricky Jay.
Once again, no, we don't. Ricky Jay is not the physical embodiment of flourishes. He has made certain decisions regarding his character and what he chooses to perform in his show, and what he is trying to convey. He is known as a skillful performer and this exhibit of juggling goes to the heart of his character. He also performs, if I recall correctly, the Knight's Tour, Fast and Loose and an exhibition of "cheating at poker." Each of these is based upon the premise of great skill. They are related to magic, but not presented as "impossibilities."
Card throwing (something I've done for years since the first publication of "Cards As Weapons") is skill. The multiple selections use selected flourishes to dramatically reveal a chosen card. But the end result is that an audience gives him credit for great skill
I think that since Richard and his good associate Jamy Ian Swiss have both strongly implied they perceive Dan and Dave Buck as fools within the pages of their otherwise stellar magazine; he is incapable of looking at the situation/topic fairly.
I am starting to believe that you feel that the only "fair" viewpoint is one that agrees with your own.
I don't think it is quite fair that you put words ("fools") in Richard and Jamy's mouths -- you are overstating their opinions in pejorative language to make your own point.
Sometimes I feel as if the two just mentioned experts are jealous about the Twins (or other teenagers with great technical finger flicking ability- for example read Swiss's review of Josh Jay's book from a while back...) since these young card men happen to live in an age with TONS of magical media and resources free for the picking.
Safe to say, I highly doubt
that Messrs. Swiss and Kaufman are "jealous" of the abilities of the Buck Twins. Mr. Swiss was performing at a level of skill complimented by Vernon and Goshman long before the Buck Twins were born. Mr. Kaufman has associated with some of the greatest magical creators and performers the world has seen for any number of years -- he certainly doesn't need me to cite his bona fides. This part of your argument lacks any serious merit.
Perhaps the easy availability of magical knowledge today in the form of DVD, video has created youth with great skills and, arguably, talents. But the thought necessary to create credible magical
performance is something you can't get from the easy availability of secret sleights, and certainly not from a focus on flourishes, no matter how spectacular or arcane.
Lastly, in a later post you say:
No doubt. Still I think Burger and Maven don't do flourishes cause it simply doesn't fit their style, NOT because they feel it would take away from the feeling of wonder in their routines if they did use them. I don't remember them really making a big deal about dissing flourishes really? Although I don't have many of Burger's books since it's not MY style.
You make an assumption right at the start which I feel doesn't do justice to the thought that both Max Maven and Eugene Burger put into their respective performances. In fact, I would argue that they don't do flourishes specifically because "their style[s]" are such that a flashy display of skill would
decrease the sense of wonder they are trying to evoke. Simply because they have not published anything "dissing" (to use your colorful phrase) flourishes does not mean they have not come to the conclusion that it does nothing for their acts. Max and Eugene are quote possibly the most thorough examples of performers who put the maximum amount of thought into every word, action and nuance of their performances -- I can almost say without a doubt that they have given thought to the idea of the "flashy" (Ask Eugene about his humorous experience with the FISM Flasher for a hilarous anecdote that proves my point) and the flourishy and discarded them without hesitation. This is not what they are about.
Lastly, if you still feel that those who are what you consider "anti-flourish" still lack "good reasons," then I fail to see what might constitute "good reasons" might be to you.