Rick Ruhl wrote:
But to make not only sexist comments
What comment was sexist?
Do you know what sexist means?
Rick Ruhl wrote:
But to make not only sexist comments
billmccloskey wrote:"Both have made their mistakes and both deserve second chances"
"Yes ,by now we are A L L aware that Char has made some HUGE Stumbles , This is bound to happen as a newly Single woman ."
Man, you guys are crazy.
First, no one "deserves" a second chance. I have a one strike and you are out rule when it comes to ripping people off. Did she do something special to earn this "second chance"?
and newly single women do not, as a rule, "stumble" by stealing 10's of thousands of dollars from people.
Here is what she deserves: she deserves to make restitution, she deserves never to work in the magic field again, she deserves to suffer the consequences of harming other people. That is what anyone deserves who decides on a life of crime. period.
NYCJoePItt wrote: I've seen the loyalty, friendship, and blessing bestowed onto Mr. Pendragon on the forum.
Bill Mullins wrote:
That doesn't make Charlotte a villain any more or less than Jonathan.
Jonathan Pendragon wrote:I felt an obligation, but it wasn't easy to hand over the broom harness and Fire Cage which I designed. I have tried help all when I can, even to the point of sending three of the few illusions I have left to Charlotte so that she can perform grand illusion in her own show. In the eyes of the law she is still my wife and while our divorce is in progress I will continue to remain civil. And when it's over I wish her the best in her career and new life as I make mine with my beloved West and our "Aussie" Lark.
Chip has shown himself to be a good, honest and fair man. I thank him for his patience as I worked to bring the illusions home. Please take care of my them, they have had a distinguished career.
mrgoat wrote:Bill Mullins wrote:
That doesn't make Charlotte a villain any more or less than Jonathan.
No, it is the scamming and theft that makes her a villain.
Dustin Stinett wrote: We decided that his comments about Char (but not necessarily those about him) were such that we thought it would be best to delete the thread.
Tom Stone wrote:...and then the followup of beginning to market his innovations under her name, without credits or permissions.
GlennWest wrote:Tom Stone wrote:...and then the followup of beginning to market his innovations under her name, without credits or permissions.
Again...can you prove this?
Tom Stone wrote:GlennWest wrote:Tom Stone wrote:...and then the followup of beginning to market his innovations under her name, without credits or permissions.
Again...can you prove this?
I asked if you had any doubt on the honesty of those who got scammed. Reply to that first.
You remember they made a DVD set before all ruckus? They described the origin of several items there, in agreement. Look it up.
The ads can still be found. No credit is named there. And, according to the staff at Murphy's, no crediting is inside the instructions either.
Permission? Jonathan's wife posted here that they had contacted lawyers regarding the items. Pretty clear that no permission had been granted.
Do you have any reason to doubt any of this?
Tom Stone wrote:Firstly, you need to see a doctor and check your ears.
Secondly, I am not making an accusation, I am stating facts.
Rick Ruhl wrote:Until anything is proved in a court of law, the correct word is 'alleged' act. Any other word can be potentially libelous to the poster.
There are two sides to every story, and what lies in the middle is the real truth.
I believe, this is the case here.
GlennWest wrote:mrgoat wrote:Bill Mullins wrote:
That doesn't make Charlotte a villain any more or less than Jonathan.
No, it is the scamming and theft that makes her a villain.
Speaking of that, I saw a guy who says he originated the Tony Sagittarius character at a comedy club recently. He's touring the Canada/US comedy circuit for the next few months. Maybe you can track him down.
Richard Kaufman wrote:Let me gently guide you all back to the subject of this thread, which is a video on YouTube. Any other comments following this post that do not address the video will be deleted.
Speaking as a layman, with many years' experience of not being a magician, I saw a box with a trapdoor in the top
Brad Jeffers wrote:Speaking as a layman, with many years' experience of not being a magician, I saw a box with a trapdoor in the top
When you watch this performance, do you also see a box with a trapdoor in the top?
Just curious.