Dear Mr. Loomis,
I have read your post and agree with only two statements in it: The one where you say that Gene Anderson is a kind and decent human being; and the one where you say you are no gentleman.
The kind of human being you are seems self evident. Why are you expressing anger when fine gentleman Gene Anderson himself has not? My newspaper trick is not a blatant rip-off as you proclaim; and as for your comment that it does not work anywhere near as well as Genes original, its not supposed to. This is because it is not intended to be Gene Andersons Newspaper tear and nowhere is it advertised as such. Whats your problem, then?
You know, for a man who says hes been a friend of Genes for 30+ years (your words), all readers of these posts should note that when I spoke to Gene immediately upon reading your bitter attack, he had no knowledge of your post, or that you had took it upon yourself to speak for him.
I agree with you when you wrote my trick certainly does not allow for the very clean paging through and display of the newspaper beforehand that Gene Andersons method has. THIS IS PRECISELY ONE OF THE REASONS WHY MY TRICK IS NOT A BLATANT RIP-OFF OF GENE ANDERSONS. Further my gimmick is totally different than the one used in Genes method, ANOTHER EXCELLENT REASON WHY MY TRICK IS NOT GENE ANDERSONS. On top of that, no glue is needed in my method. STILL ONE MORE GOOD REASON WHY MY TRICK IS NOT GENE ANDERSONS. Plus with Genes method, two absolutely duplicate sets of newspapers must be used. My routine allows you not to have to get identical newspapers each time you do the trick. HEY, ANOTHER GREAT REASON WHY MY TRICK IS NOT GENES. Finally, my set-up is much quicker than Genes method. SAY DENNIS, DONT THESE LOGICALLY SEEM LIKE GOOD REASONS WHY MY TRICK IS NOT GENE ANDERSONS? (My apologies for writing in all caps, your anger that you mentioned in your post must have kept you from noticing these many obvious differences before you started typing, and I wanted to be sure to get your attention).
That you accuse me of not gaining permission for this trick becomes groundless when these differences are noted. What part did I need permission for? Does someone own the concept of newspaper tearing tricks? Does someone own the concept of having a duplicate newspaper folded up behind to replace the one that gets torn?
The advantages of my newspaper tear are the quick and easy set-up that are so important to a working full-time professional performer. If you dont like my method, maybe its because youre not a working full-time professional performer! The clean page through before the trick is not important to me, because as a working full-time professional performer I know its not necessary to run when youre not being chased. (Remember, even Gene Andersons very fine and wonderful lecture is called The Part-Time Pro). Plus after my trick you can indeed page through and show the restored paper.
Knowing full well that I stand upon the shoulders of giants; when I shot the instructional DVD that accompanies my trick, in order to be a kind and decent human being myself, I fully acknowledged Gene Andersons method and gave him full credit in every way for a terrific newspaper trick. I encourage people to buy Gene Andersons trick! Would you rather I ignored those whove gone before me?
The similarity between Genes wonderful method and mine (aside from the concept of tearing a newspaper and restoring it; and of having a duplicate piece folded up behind which no one can claim ownership of): is how the duplicate piece should be folded. It should be noted that this same fold is also used in a marketed Ton Onosaka effect where individual red and white pieces of paper become a checkerboard piece of paper, in a Danny Archer marketed effect where birthday cards become a big birthday banner, and in a marketed No-Tear newspaper trick where individual pieces of paper that are never ripped become a full newspaper. Mr. Loomis, why arent you writing angry things about them for not receiving permission from Gene?
Further, I note that you are a dealer yourself Mr. Loomis, and that you market chop cups. It is clearly established that a magician named Al Wheatley, who performed under the name of Chop-Chop invented the chop cup sometime in the 1940s, and that he did not die until the late 1960s. Did you find the heirs of Al Wheatley to ask their permission when you put out your routine and products? Or did you just look around and see that the concept of a cup and ball was pretty generic and that other people had put out chop cups and chop cup routines so you felt you could do the same too? Did you credit Al Wheately anywhere in your routine and instructions for inventing a concept you marketed? And did you find the heirs of Al Wheatley and make them presents of any of your products? Because you went so far as to write that in compensation, I only gave Gene Anderson one set of my improved effect. This seems to me to be just another example of how you dont know what youre talking about Mr. Loomis and how you should not presume to speak for others and post bitter comments without checking with them first. When I made a present of the trick to Gene six months ago it was with a letter expressing my respect and admiration for a true genius and his inspiration. There was no level of compensation involved. Gene was exceptionally gracious and didnt even want one of my tricks. It was a gift. May I ask how many products youve given away to people who inspired your routines, Dennis?
And, Mr. Loomis you wrote that the ad makes it sound as if his paper tear won some kind of major award at FISM. The trick did not win at FISM Mr. Loomis, I won the award at FISM.
I performed a comedy magic routine in which one of the many, many, tricks was a newspaper tear with a very funny kicker. At the time I won FISM, I was using Gene Andersons method. After having bottles of rubber cement break inside my case and ruin my props and costumes I subsequently at all times used my method to avoid damaging my act and to speed up my set-up. Thus it can be legitimately stated that the method sold with the Baxt Better Newspaper Tear is in my FISM award winning act, as when I perform this FISM award winning act, I use my method. But indeed, six months ago, when I spoke to Gene Anderson directly, the first ads had come out and he also mentioned the wording you spoke of.
So immediately, Paul Gross of Hocus-Pocus.com who puts out my newspaper trick as well as many other fine products agreed to change the wording of the ads, and every ad since that day no longer says anything to make anyone believe this single trick won a prize at FISM. Not my fault if youre reading old magic magazines, Mr. Loomis. Do you want me to go out and find every ad and rip out the page? When the phone company gives you an unlisted number are you angry if they dont send someone out to erase it from every phone book its been printed in previously?
Further, just yesterday, when Gene and I were politely discussing this situation, at his request Paul Gross has changed all his ads today to no longer mention my FISM prize winning act at all. If Gene Anderson and I dont have a problem, then why are you throwing a fit Dennis?
Mr. Loomis, I do admit I respect you for your defense of Gene Anderson, and that is to your credit. However, any discussion that Gene Anderson and I have had is strictly between him and I and not for you to vent your spleen on and report about in your post. Dont you have a life? That you wrote so angrily about my private dealings with Gene is not to your credit. Hocus-pocus.com has sold many hundreds of this trick and had no complaints. Many well known and famous magicians are now using my newspaper tear as they realize its value. Just because my trick is out there doesnt stop you from using Genes method. Go ahead, no one but you will have to spend time gluing and pasting for each and every show. No one will stop you. But you should be stopped from spreading vicious innuendo on the web.
As what you posted on the internet stays around forever, I felt I had no choice but to respond to your ill-founded claims. However, I do have a life, and have no more time to spare lecturing you on controlling your unfounded anger. Please do not reply to me, Mr. Loomis. I do not want you involved in my relationship and dealings with the very fine gentleman Gene Anderson. I will have no further comment on this matter.