sick and tired of flatulent magic reviews -

Discuss the latest news and rumors in the magic world.

Postby Guest » 01/23/04 11:02 AM

If you're sick and tired of the usual inflated, self-indulgent, flatulent magic reviews - head over to
I have candid comments about the following.
Stay tuned for Predator, Heirloom and Devination - in the works.
Bill Nagler

3-d cash dvd
art of floating dvd
baxt better newspaper tear
bending coin
cigarette up the nose
borodin's cezanne code
completely cold
double vision
ebony and ivory
the elevator
eugene's last dollar
expert deck
flight 204
hundy-500 dvd
invisible watch
just passin thru
kenton's kollosal
magician's nightmare
mental yarn
one & only
out of body
raxon billet switch
silver bullet
silver shifter
suspended dimension dvd
telekinesis for dinner
visibill dvd
whispering deck
the box
capehart 3 ring routine
the contortionist
cube libre
deck that shuffles itself
gambler's third lesson
it's the rules
kap's chinese sticks
long and short of it
magic switchboard
moe's miracles with cards
riser traditionals
sheet's trevor lewis's homing card
total coincidence
totally nuts
williamson's rocky

Postby Ryan Matney » 01/23/04 11:46 AM

I love it! Keep it up. Although, I do like reading reviews that are a bit longer, on some of those you said all there is to say.
David Acer's Swiss Pack-Now Shipping!
Ryan Matney
Posts: 768
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hurley, Va

Postby Pete Biro » 01/23/04 05:36 PM

Great site... :D
Stay tooned.
User avatar
Pete Biro
Posts: 7125
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hollyweird

Postby Guest » 01/23/04 05:50 PM

Wonderful, keep it coming. Succinct and to the point!

Postby Richard Kaufman » 01/23/04 06:48 PM

The descriptions are too brief to be of real value except to those who already know what the items are. For someone looking to buy, who doesn't know much about the items, the descriptions say too little. And the strident negative statements based entirely upon subjective opinions derived from Nagler's own habits (or attire) make the comments even less valuable.
For example, the Cigarette Up the Nose, which is a great item, is dismissed in a snarky manner because one has to wear a jacket. Well, the majority of people doing paying gigs for the public DO wear a jacket, and so do plenty of other magicians no matter who they're working for, so the remark is meaningless.
Most reviews are not "flatulent." They spend the time REQUIRED to deal with the various good or bad points of an item in detail so the purchaser has a clearer idea of what the item is and whether it is a good choice for him or her. One or two sentences serve no one except the person trying to gain attention for tossing off sarcastic remarks.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 22227
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Wolfgang » 01/23/04 07:58 PM

The "reviews" look more like a way to direct traffic to a website that deals in magic tricks than real reviews. More like a gimmik than something real meaningfull. :(
User avatar
Posts: 137
Joined: 11/01/08 09:05 PM
Location: Henderson, NV

Postby Bizzaro » 01/23/04 08:15 PM

Can't please everyone. Might as well please yourself too.
Posts: 82
Joined: 04/21/08 01:05 AM
Location: Earth.. I think.

Postby Brian Morton » 01/23/04 10:35 PM

Does the world really need something that tells you less instead of more?

If I'm going to spend my money on something, I want a review of someone who has spent more than the time it takes to write one sentence on thinking whether it is good or not.

Just my .25 worth (plus tip).

brian :cool:
User avatar
Brian Morton
Posts: 389
Joined: 03/12/08 11:43 AM
Location: Bawlamer, Merlin

Postby Glenn Farrington » 01/23/04 10:53 PM

I'm with Richard on this one. But thats the beauty of the internet. Anyone with an opinion can make it public. But lets face it, any review is still the opion of the person who wrote it. I completely disagree with the review on this site of 3fly but I also disagree with a lot of movie reviewers on the flicks I've seen. To each his own and thank god for freedom of speech.
Comedy's Easy...Dying Sucks.
User avatar
Glenn Farrington
Posts: 630
Joined: 01/24/08 01:00 PM
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Guest » 01/24/04 10:20 AM

I'm with Richard.

Postby Guest » 01/24/04 10:26 AM

Oh, and I also have this latent fear that he will acquire and review my new "street magic" topit that is made out of carefully-altered, precision-fit wife-beater-tank-top underwear.

A jacket would completely destroy the overall effect.

Postby Richard Kaufman » 01/24/04 10:32 AM

Another of the reviews on the site I disagreed with is Sylvester the Jester's new Topit. I think it's a brilliant idea to develop a way to work a Topit into your own costume so you can achieve the same effects without a jacket. The idea with the suspenders is great, really great, and it looks great when he does it. I'm really not sure what the DVD is like, but that doesn't invalidate the value of the concept. Neither does the fact that Bill Nagler doesn't wear a costume with suspenders. Most of us don't, and so that version of the Topit won't work for us. However, it can be adapted to use with regular suspenders and a dress shirt. You get none of what I've written in Nagler's snarky two-line put down.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 22227
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby John McDonald » 01/24/04 11:30 AM

suspenders? The word means something else in Little Britain .... :D just kidding

I thought ... bd1b3eaf1a was the place to share your opinions so that others could reply..
Best John
John McDonald
Posts: 371
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Chester, UK

Postby Dustin Stinett » 01/24/04 11:31 AM - I do not like these self-indulgent reviews because they are written in all lower case. Why does this site exist?
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
Posts: 6386
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Brad Henderson » 01/24/04 02:21 PM

As one of the official reviewers of I try to pull no punches and be as honest as possible WHILE backing up each and every claim I make so readers can decide for themselves how much weight to give my words.

I would be honored should you decide to puruse my work.
Brad Henderson
Posts: 2907
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: austin, tx

Postby pduffie » 01/24/04 03:00 PM


Regarding Sylvester the Jester's new Topit: I recommend you try to see the DVD. I bought it and it IS totally obvious what he's doing. And I do mean "totally." It doesn't matter if it looks good live - it's the DVD that Bill Nagler commented on and this concept just doesn't work in front of a camera.

BTW - I like Sylvester a lot and so this was a huge disappointment.


Posts: 383
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: UK

Postby Timothy Hyde » 01/24/04 06:57 PM

Seems obvious to me -

The guy gets stiffed for $35 on the expert deck and decides to spend the next two weeks getting even with a "fraud alert" campaign on - Electronic Grymoire, Magic Cafe, this Forum and who knows where else. Just taking it to the next level.

Actually I don't mind totaly subjective reviews, be they for magic or movies, but I like to know a bit more about the performing background / style of the person writing them etc, before they become of any value. I may not agree with everything that Swiss or Close writes, but it is valuable point of view as long as they remain consistant and I know where they're coming from.

As Richard points out most working magicians would find the "jacket required" point a non issue.
Most working mentalists would find the objections to Becker & Earles clever Double Vision tool equally a non issue.
The Secret Notebooks of Mr Hyde - Vol 1 & 2 -
User avatar
Timothy Hyde
Posts: 173
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Australasia

Postby Guest » 01/25/04 12:14 AM

I have seen "bad" tricks look very good in great performers hands. Its not the prop that makes the magic its the performer that stands for the entertainment. If you cant entertain then keep away from magic props.

I had the four linking ring and my routine was very boring, but, then I saw Shoot Ogawa do his Ninja Rings and it looked like real magic with the same rings I did boring magic with.
The point is almost anythig can turns into magic if the performer is good enough to take it to right level of artistic creation.

Many of the tricks on your list is very powerful in the hands of a "good" performer !
If you cant perform magic do something else...

Postby Guest » 01/25/04 05:03 AM

Originally posted by Timothy Hyde:
As Richard points out most working magicians would find the "jacket required" point a non issue.
No doubt true for working magicians.

Not necessarily true for many hobbyist magicians (such as myself).

I really don't like effects that require a jacket. Such effects are not damned out of hand by me, it's just that I'd like to know that they require a jacket, and so I know that they're (almostly certainly) not for me.

Similarly, a few routines require lapping. I rarely perform while seated at a table, so such routines aren't usually for me. Agian, that doesn't make them bad, just means that they aren't suitable for me.

Hobbyists spend money too, y'know. The difference is that we don't recoup it in performance fees.


Postby Jeffrey Cowan » 01/25/04 12:13 PM

To paraphrase an old expression: opinions are like noses; everyone has one. This site confers little value in my opinion because, as RK noted, Nagler provides few or no facts to support his proferred opinions. I am intimately familiar with at least 4 of the effects on this list and have performed them for laymen at length. I couldn't disagree more with the stated opinions, which seem to reflect a lack of experience/expertise in performing these effects. If one has not performed an effect at length, it's difficult to recognize nuances and/or incremental improvements that can take it to another level.
-- Jeffrey Cowan
Jeffrey Cowan
Posts: 194
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Santa Monica, CA

Postby Guest » 01/25/04 12:55 PM

Bill Nagler is a physician, specializing at the moment in diets, I believe. I believe, physicians to be the most preponderant hobbyist in magic. He's offering a hobbyist's opinion. When he says, a jacket is required, shouldn't that be included in the ad?
Since the vas majority of buyers of magic are hobbyists , who'd probably like to know if a jacket is required
Magic is currently overflowing with crony reviews posted on line. I tend to ignore most of them
The hard copy publications, seem to offer more comprehensive reviews. But from what I read, Close, is notr that knowlwedgeable when it comes to mentalis, Swiss, IMO seems to have an anti-mentalist bias, with mental card magic possibly an exception
Since Nagler's views are free, it seems to me they offer a counterpoint to many others. They appear to be his honest opinion. With no axe to grind
Perhaps the best alternative, since magic, has become relatively expensive. When I started there were a lot of good tricks for a dollar and under
Even allowing for inflation, they're much more expensive
Probably the best alternative, is to read as many diverse views as posible before making a purchase

Postby Erik Hemming » 01/25/04 01:52 PM

I thought Bill posting his site here was a courageous thing to do. I don't necessarily agree with his reviews...particularly his negative reviews...but I thought it added something to the discussion.

Since we've been kicking around the Dan Sylvester DVD as an example, I'll toss in my 2-cents.

Kevin James in introducing the DVD--and Sylvester later in his explanation--both articulate the limitations of the Suspended Animation DVD. 1) The DVD includes a recreation of some footage shot (and lost) years earlier. 2) It is a technique that Sylvester developed, but has never really exploited because he normally works with a jacket. Thus, there are no "routines", per se.

That being said, it delivers everything it promises. Like the "Sylvester Pitch," it is an innovative and thoughtful technique that will be beneficial to many magicians out there who work for real audiences.

When I first watched the DVD, I was a little taken aback at how exposed the moves were. I think that initial reaction came from watching Sylvester perform the moves repeatedly, at fast pace, for a few minutes. If you are familiar with the Topit, you catch the work, immediately.

But I think that's a fault more with stilted "magician's eyes" than with the technique itself. I showed the same sequence to my kids. They loved it and demanded to see it three or four times. They did not catch the work.

I understand and will freely admit the underlying issues posed by Bill (and supported by Peter Duffy.) I just think they're wrong in their assessment and refusal to consider how it will play for real human beings. The DVD was well produced and delivered what it purported. So, for my money, it was worth the price charged.

The point here is that a review--particularly a short one--should be part of the discussion and not the whole discussion. (Thanks, Genii!)

As to doesn't always indicate a lack of thought.

There's an old story about Winston Churchill. He was asked how long it took to prepare for a public appearance. His was response was, paraphrased:

If I may speak for two hours, I am ready immediately. If I must limit myself to one hour, I shall need a week's preparation. For one half hour, a month. And for anything less than ten minutes, I require at least six months notice.
So, finally, thanks to Bill for contributing. I'll keep checking back to see what he thinks.

Erik Hemming
Posts: 128
Joined: 01/19/08 01:00 PM
Location: Madison & Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Postby Guest » 01/27/04 10:38 AM

I just added Predator (review and an improved setup that makes Psycho Killer faster and easier to do that Paul liked) and my handling of Dean's Box (Dean said he would get back to me with his comments) to Impossible Devination and Heirloom are in the works.

Postby Tim Trono » 02/05/04 05:54 PM

Bill, I find your site to be blatant exposure and ethically and morally disgusting. You fail to give much of the full picture so lets take a little further look so that others may get a better idea that there is more involved here than meets the eye.

You fail to mention the fact that Murphys Magic Supplies closed your account down as we had concerns about you being a legitimate dealer, proposed some reasonable guidelines, and you subsequently refused to follow those. [Edited for Content by Dustin Stinett] And as apparent retaliation you immediately, almost within one day, put up your site particularly targeting items (at that time) that we are distributing exclusively or producing.

Lets take a more careful look at your reviews. In reviewing Just Passin Thru (which by the way receives rave reviews from the likes of Michael Weber, Michael Close, Paul Harris, Kenton Knepper, and NUMEROUS others but I guess we should listen to you the doctor????!!!), you state it is marconick dowel penetration poorly recycled it is painfully evident that 1) you did not read the manuscript and see acknowledgment to Marconick and that 2) you are dreadfully backwards in your analysis. The basic idea was published in the 1960s in Marconicks Original Magic edited by Peter Warlock. His handling, though the initial source and very clever for the time, was fairly rudimentary. Mr. Niedzwiecki developed his idea completely independently of Marconick but we felt it ethically correct to acknowledge the Marconick handling. Have you actually LOOKED at Marconicks Original Magic and compared the two? ANYONE comparing Mr. Marconicks handling to Mr. Niedzwiekis handling will agree it has been taken significantly further really to a whole new level. Again, all of this was run by some of the top names in magic BEFORE it was released and they agreed it was a vast improvement and overall a wonderful and important release. Now I realize everyone has their own tastes and what one likes another may hate BUT I feel that with you providing such skewed and inaccurate and terse information you are not helping anyone make an intelligent and informed decision.

Lets examine a few more items you discuss on your site. In reference to the Baxt Newspaper Tear you state, the gaff (which requires rubber cement) needs to be remade every 3-4 times you do it. anderson's original takes less time to make up and looks better. clincher was I asked gene what he thinks of this. ask him.. So I took the liberty of contacting Paul Gross, owner of Hocus Pocus, today and discussing your review with Paul since his company produces and distributes this. Paul was surprised (well not really due to some of the recent history) to hear your negative comments. Paul advised that on 10/25/04 you contacted Hocus Pocus and expressed interest in the item in question and asked theyd be willing to take it back if you were not happy with it to which they responded they would. On 11/7/04 you ordered it. On 11/22/04 you sent a note to Hocus Pocus which states Baxt Newspaper Tear is 1st significant improvement on the GA [Gene Anderson}. Very glad you priced it perfectly. Wish I had been in on the pricing discussion. Love stuff like this, especially when you hit it out of the ball park. How many have you sold so far? Paul advised that you went on to praise it several more times but I wont belabor the point. Should I point out and discuss your animosities currently towards Hocus Pocus to see how that might possibly play in such an about face?

And just on the question of your qualifications to review You just openly put down Cigarette Through Nose and bash it because you have to wear a jacket with no further discussion. But then I guess David Roth, Michael Skinner, Penn Jillete, Paul Harris, Shoot Ogawa, and so many others are wrong. Mac King upon seeing this immediately wanted to add it to his show. So we should apparently take the expertise of a diet doctor on this and the other items and not listen to the professionals?

What upsets me Bill is that:
you have several agendas going on that you are not making your readers aware of generally and that are apparently influencing your reviews.
That you ARE exposing secrets
That you are bashing products without taking the time, energy, or ethical stance to thoroughly examine the products and giving a very shortsighted. Thats one of the problems with the internet there is absolutely NO accountability. If you feel you owe it to save the magic world you should ethically at least take more than 2 seconds to post some inane one or two sentence comments that clearly do not help the purchaser make an educated purchase.
That you are doing a round about on various items (there are more than what is discussed above) after outside agendas with others came into play.
What qualifies you to be a reviewer really? I dont mean this disrespectfully but what does qualify you?

I find postings such as yours to be morally reprehensible.

Tim Trono
Tim Trono
Posts: 101
Joined: 07/16/08 03:50 AM

Postby Glenn Farrington » 02/05/04 06:38 PM soon as I saw Tim's name here I rushed in. Ok...the gloves are off...too bad it wont be long after this Richard will come in and tell everyone to break it up...until then...lets see some blood.

(Sorry...just had another kid...havent slept in days...entertainment is sparse and I keep seeing things move in the corners of my eyes)
Comedy's Easy...Dying Sucks.
User avatar
Glenn Farrington
Posts: 630
Joined: 01/24/08 01:00 PM
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Guest » 02/05/04 08:38 PM

I wholeheartedly agree with Tim's thoughts on the matter.

I see Bill's site as nothing more than a collection of biased, vulgar, and horribly thought out ramblings. Some of his reasons for bashing the many products that he has are absolutely ridiculous, such as the "Cigarette Up Nose" using a jacket. I could piss patterns in snow that are more coherent than some of the stuff being written on this site.

Bill is blatantly exposing a number of things, including Bob Kohler's pet routine "Ultimate 3 Fly", which sent me through the roof. I don't know if Mr. Kohler is already aware of this act being committed against him, but if not, he needs to be notified immediately.

Just my thoughts,

Postby Guest » 02/05/04 08:39 PM

The site isn't really that good either. It's poorly designed and quickly thrown together...much like the reviews. It seems like everyone has to have a website these days.

Postby Dustin Stinett » 02/05/04 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Glenn Farrington:
...too bad it wont be long after this Richard will come in and tell everyone to break it up...
Well, Richard still can if he wants, but I am not going to as of yet--though I will be keeping an eye on this to see where it goes from here (which I suspect will lead to this thread being locked). I also edited out some of Mr. Tronos post; particularly a most accusatory (and opinion-based) passage regarding Mr. Naglers status as a dealer. As for those I left in place, Mr. Trono knows hes ultimately responsible for his words and I suspect that hes confident he can support those statements he has made as fact. How Mr. Nagler reacts to Mr. Tronos post will determine the future of this thread.

Given the mixed reaction to Mr. Naglers site, I also believe it fair to allow someone whose items have apparently been targeted the opportunity to answer here (this is certainly not unprecedented). Obviously, Mr. Tronos comments put a different spin on what might be the motivation behind the site, and it is up to each of us to take in all of the evidence put forth. My first question is, are there any items exclusively from Murpheys listed in the section of positive reviews?

(Prepared for a long night.)
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
Posts: 6386
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Richard Kaufman » 02/05/04 09:38 PM

I think the thread is playing out in an interesting way. It's a an example of the Internet at its most pure: a person posts information, creating a path for reaction. The path of the reaction cannot be controlled.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 22227
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Pete McCabe » 02/05/04 11:12 PM

I will really be interested to hear how Bill justifies divulging the secrets of some of these tricks. I wonder how Bill would fill if he put something on the market and someone who didn't like it revealed the secret on their website. My guess is he would think much less of this person than he does of himself.
Pete McCabe
Posts: 2138
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Simi Valley, CA

Postby Guest » 02/06/04 09:42 AM


Nagler's site is TOTALLY biased and is guilty of Nagler-centric tunnel vision.

AND, Nagler may have an axe to grind against inventors, suppliers, etc., of these tricks.

BUT I don't really think Nagler is "exposing." Purchasers need information on the performance capabilities of products, and cannot rely on the puffery of dealer statements. And, like it or not, the bricks-and-mortar magic shops are going the way of the buggy whip. Thus a purchaser cannot see the performance of the product live. I believe that if the "secret" of an effect is that it merely reworks an older effect, then the secret, itself, is not something that is worth paying for. If, on the other hand, the old secret is re-worked with incredibly good and useful technology, then the PRODUCT may be worth paying for. It is important to understand these things before buying. I really do not think that providing the modus operandi of an effect, in particular by reference to a different effect, is an unethical exercise.


Postby Glenn Farrington » 02/06/04 06:45 PM

There should be no argument about him exposing. He absolutely is. When you buy a trick don't forget you are buying the secret behind it that someone took the time to develop. Whether you think its a good method or not is irrelevant, it should not be exposed.

Lets not forget that exposing just isn't in reference to laymen. It should not be exposed to magicians either. The only difference is that we have the conscious choice and ability as to whether or not to buy the secret, whether its a book, trick, magazine or lecture.

You can review a trick without revealing the would you like movie reviewers to tell you how the film ends.

However...thanks to the beauty of the internet I showed a magi recently double vision...his reply...oh yeah...that's the trick I read about from that guy on the genii forum...aren't you just looking at __________ to figure out what to say.

So don't tell me its not
Comedy's Easy...Dying Sucks.
User avatar
Glenn Farrington
Posts: 630
Joined: 01/24/08 01:00 PM
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Guest » 02/06/04 08:14 PM

I am in full agreement with Glenn as to whether or not this is exposure.

Opus, you cannot tell me or anyone that the blurb written on Bill's site about Ultimate 3 Fly isn't pure and blatant exposure.

I have a lot of respect for people who are generous enough to market their closest and best effects to the magic community. Especially one that is of the quality of Ultimate 3 Fly. And to have some hack directly naming the gimmicks used in the routine is disgusting.


Postby Jonathan Townsend » 02/06/04 09:22 PM

I found the site a bit juvenile and amusing.

His opinions are his own, and the way he expresses his opinions reflect upon him.

I can't speak to any great sense of shared ethics in magic regarding respecting other people's work. You can walk into almost any magic shop and buy a 'glorpy', 'chop-chop cup', 'zombie' and MANY other products produced without the consent of the inventor or their estate. The comments of those who have nothing of their own to show in the market of ideas and routines seem shrill and ill-considered.

Andrew mentioned a coin trick reviewed on the site. I have seen the basic gaff used twice before and in neither instance, was it used to achieve the effects in the provided routine. A brutal if not hostile review made in the form of a comment... perhaps. As reviewers go he may be opening himself up for similar comment.

Then again, taking the nature of the argument given against the fellow and his site; it would seem to be the ethic in this community to reward theft of intellectual property and a great crime to speak out in such a way that could diminish the sales of said stolen property.

Are people more interested in crying over spilled milk, or would they prefer to speak out against those who steal the cattle?
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time
Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 7164
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby Erik Hemming » 02/08/04 12:11 PM

I hope this isn't too off the point....

What is a review for, anyway? And what is valid criticism? How far should criticism be carried?

At the most basic level, I think a review is a snapshot of the reviewer's reaction to a product/book/movie/you-name-it. It tells us SOMETHING about the item being reviewed, and SOMETHING ELSE about the reviewer.

The SOMETHING revealed in the review may--or may not--be helpful to the reader. A good, thorough reviewer will generally lay out--implicitly or explicitly--a set of criteria by which he or she reviews the material. Whether the reader agrees with either the criteria the reviewer selects, OR with the reviewer's conclusions, is entirely dependent upon the reader's requirements. (The reader may not even require a reasoned review: Some reviews are amusing based solely on the style of the review without regard to any other criteria.)

Bill has posted a list of items he thinks are "rip-offs" and those he likes. SOME of the reasons Bill thinks what he thinks are posted in his reviews. He has established a set of criteria. We know he doen't like long reviews because of the title of this thread. So, we have short, cutting reviews based on whether Bill like a product, or not.

Readers then react...along a wide continuum...based on their requirements. If you have read this far in the thread, you know that a number of people like the reviews. In sum, they are pithy and to the point. Many people don't like them because they are, variously, "self-indulgent," "blatant exposure and ethically and morally disgusting," or "too brief to be of value except to those who already know what the items are."

Different people, different standards. Our standards are revealed in what we write and how we write.

Again, I think Bill was courageous in posting here, because he put himself and his opinions on the line by offering us ONLY his opinions with the barest framework of argumentative support.

Let me suggest, again, that Bill brings SOMETHING to the discussion. And, as I implied above, he brings SOMETHING ELSE.

He posted the reviews on his web site and invited us in. We are free to view them, or not. He invites reply, so discussion is warranted. But at the same time, Bill is publishing not discussing his reviews. Bill's site is as much about Bill as it is about the items he is reviewing.

This is appropriate, he is the author, editor and publisher of his views. He is asking us to read them, not to subscribe to them.

The people who labor to create and market these effects will be either pleased or disgusted by the reviews. The people who share information for a living will likely be apalled at the lack of reasoned substance. (Even Michael Close's "hemidemisemiquavers" aren't that short.) But those of us who groove on the mass of funky, cranky opinion out there, read it, nodded, shook our heads, giggled, and were done.

There is an old Zen story, paraphrased:

There were two pious, celebate monks who were walking down a muddy street after a heavy rain. At one corner, they came to a huge lake-like puddle and a beautiful woman, paused in front of it, daunted by it. Without hesitating, one of the monks picked her up carefully in his arms and carried her safely to the other side, depositing her, unbesmirched.
After they had walked a few blocks in pregnant silence, one monk turned to the other--who had carried the lady--and asked, pointedly, "How could you sully and endanger your vow by picking up that woman, and holding her close? The other replied, "I put her down three blocks ago. Why are you still carrying her?"
Bill posted some reviews. Good or not, accurate or not, intellectually sufficient or not, are ad hominem remarks necessary?

Erik Hemming
Posts: 128
Joined: 01/19/08 01:00 PM
Location: Madison & Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Postby Brad Henderson » 02/08/04 01:40 PM

Reviews, by definition, carry a connotation of being truthful. Tim Trono has pointed out that Bill's reviews may not be truthful and therefor suspect. It is disingenious to call something a review and instead use that as a means to hurt others.

Given the "pithy nature" of his reviews, one is left to wonder whether his opinions are based on calculated observations on the piece under consideration, or the work of someone with an agenda. He would have been better served in this regard to have written reviews which defended his allegations. Not only would they have been easier for the reader to decide if they agreed with his assessment, but it would have given his reviews greater credibility.

We are all entitled to our opinions. However, if we wish for our opinions to have impact, it is OUR responsibility to insure they are presented in a fashion that will move others as our intent dictates. It is clear Bill wants to influence others. Why else take the time to invite us to the site or even write them up if you didn't? He knows what he thinks, why post those thoughts unless he wants others to know and consequently make decisions based thereon?

As it stands, Bill's "reviews" and site are a falure simply becasue they are not presented in a manner to have a meaningful influence on any but the most credulous and inexperienced of readers.

If Bill's intentions are to contribute to the magical community by sharing his thoughts, it is my entitled opinion that he should present his reviews differently in order to achieve that goal.
Brad Henderson
Posts: 2907
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: austin, tx

Postby Glenn Farrington » 02/08/04 09:40 PM

Yeah I got a Zen story for you:

If two monks are in the middle of the forest discussing how great the reviews on Bill's site are and nobody sees a tree fall on it ok to expose magic?
Comedy's Easy...Dying Sucks.
User avatar
Glenn Farrington
Posts: 630
Joined: 01/24/08 01:00 PM
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Guest » 02/08/04 10:54 PM

Oh no Nagler doesn't like my trick, Im ruined! :rolleyes:

I have a question....

Nagler often speaks of freudulent, rip off, and flatulent, when he speaks of the products he gives bad reviews for, He is obviously very familiar with these terms so what I really want to know is....

How come Nagler doesn't review the Irv Wiener effects that he renamed, repackaged and then resold word for word back in the seventies?

Perhaps he thought everyone forgot?

Oh well keep up the good work Nagler.


Postby Guest » 02/09/04 02:27 PM

Reviews of Heirloom and Impossible Devination are up on, and the Berglas Effect using Predator.

Postby thumbslinger » 02/09/04 03:27 PM

holy toledo. I'm pretty fresh in this game, but it doesn't take a phd or even highschool diploma to see that Mr. Nagler sure is mad!

Obviously, besides his claims of getting ripped off, he must have some other unresolved issues with certain people.

The tag to visit the magic circle jerk is like wearing a little fist pik in ones hair. Underground movements are moving!

I hope he does reply to the post by Tim.

Nothing is worse than when a scathing review or comment is directed towards somebody in particular and that person doesn't respond directly to said post. Even if to simply say, "you're all wrong" or "I choose not to continue this."

It just leaves the groundwork for rumors which can ultimately lead to even worse situations.
Hey....hey.. it's just for fun, next lifetime you won't even remember who you were.
Posts: 29
Joined: 10/25/08 07:05 PM
Location: Austin, Tx


Return to Buzz