Derren Brown Trick or treat

[Bob Klase]

That's why Derren uses a disclaimer in some shows. However, he's chosen a disclaimer which is too simply worded

Wrong. I have it on good authority that when the disclaimer was originally written some of his staff said "Darren, that disclaimer is too simply worded. There's too many things that aren't stated specifically and people like Skipjack will make all kinds of assumptions about what you didn't say".

Apparently Brown replied "so out of maybe 5 to 50 million people who will ever see this show you think I should worry about 3 idiot nerds who will sit around like lawyers and try to nitpick every word of this disclaimer? I think not".

 

[Azrael 5]

Teek I do actually know how it was done,but I'm playing Devil's advocate by pulling skipjack's silly arguments apart-for the hell of it.

 

[Azrael 5]

Double post.

 

[tkingdoll]

Teek I do actually know how it was done,but I'm playing Devil's advocate by pulling skipjack's silly arguments apart-for the hell of it.

I already told you Azrael, pink custard was not involved. And the duck was just for distraction.

 

[Azrael 5]

I already told you Azrael, pink custard was not involved. And the duck was just for distraction.

I didn't see the duck.Was too busy counting the gorilla's basketball passes!

 

[skipjack]

For most people I'd say that's a reasonable definition.

Hence for most people Robbie Williams was an instant stooge in the show in which he appeared with Derren.

 

[skipjack]

That's why Derren uses a disclaimer in some shows. However, he's chosen a disclaimer which is too simply worded

Wrong.

It's right, since the disclaimer isn't used in some shows, and even when it is, the show may use an instant stooge or "assistants" doing acting (which is equivalent to using actors).

 

[Azrael 5]

That's why Derren uses a disclaimer in some shows. However, he's chosen a disclaimer which is too simply worded

It's right, since the disclaimer isn't used in some shows, and even when it is, the show may use an instant stooge or "assistants" doing acting (which is equivalent to using actors).

You still here?

 

[tkingdoll]

Time for kittens yet?

 

[skipjack]

How can I misquote you if I didn't even quote you?

Very easily. You implied I had asked something which I hadn't asked. That is misquoting.

I think you are probably no older than 18. Am I right?

Suppose you were a juror in a murder case. You notice that the accused is a bit shifty and does have a motive, and his "alibi" doesn't stand up. Moreover, he's been heard talking about the crime before it occurred. Apparently, he must be guilty. One problem, though. He denies the offence and points out that there's only circumstantial evidence against him. Moreover, some of the witnesses are unreliable.

Do you analyse the evidence carefully or do you just decide for yourself he's guilty and persuade your fellow jurors by use of irrelevant rude remarks, making jokes, misquoting the witness statements and the like?

 

[Bob Klase]

Very easily. You implied I had asked something which I hadn't asked. That is misquoting.

Do you know what the word "misquote" means? (Hint: "To quote incorrectly"). There is a significant difference between "quoting" and "implying" (also between "misquoting" and implying).

You tend to misuse an extremely large number of words for someone who claims to be literal minded (when you're actually "anal retentive").

Perhaps that's the source of much of your problem with Darren- you just don't know the meaning of words and how they are used to communicate.

Suppose you were a juror in a murder case

Pretty extreme example for someone who earlier claimed he didn't like extreme examples (although pretty much the whole thread had already shown what a lie that claim is). It's a TV show, not a murder case.

Do you analyse the evidence carefully or do you just decide for yourself he's guilty and persuade your fellow jurors by use of irrelevant rude remarks, making jokes, misquoting the witness statements and the like?

An either/or fallacy occurs when a speaker makes a claim (usually a premise in an otherwise valid deductive argument) that presents an artificial range of choices. For instance, he may suggest that there are only two choices possible, when three or more really exist.

Of course there are other possibilities. If you were on a jury and used the same mental capacity you've used throughout this thread then another option would be "or do you analyze and nitpick each word of every witness and make claims that failure to specifically say one thing means that the opposite thing must be true merely because you say so?

Naturally most people would say they would analyze the evidence carefully. I'm sure that you'd say that even though you've already shown doing so is beyond your capabilities.

 

[Bob Klase]

Hence for most people Robbie Williams was an instant stooge in the show in which he appeared with Derren.

No. Most people aren't so literal-minded that they ignore the meaning and intent of verbal and written communication and focus exclusively on a strict interpretation of words (and make assumptions that anything not specifically said must be true (or false depending on what you want it to be) to the point of being anal retentive.

That's why it would take so many words (and legal review) to provide a definition for the anal retentive ones.

 

[Azrael 5]

I think skipjack is Derren Brown and he is just bumping his google count.What else reason could there be for 8 pages of his inanities?

 

[DJM]

Very easily. You implied I had asked something which I hadn't asked. That is misquoting.

God, you are such an idiot that it's not even funny anymore.

misquote
verb
1. To quote something or someone inaccurately, sometimes with the intention of deceiving.

As long as TK didn't quote you, then it's NOT a misquote. And he didn't even imply that you asked him for the secret. He just said that he knows the secret, which could help solving this argument. It was a general remark. Even if he did mean something, it wasn't a misquote. Because a misquote is

misquote
verb
1. To quote something or someone inaccurately, sometimes with the intention of deceiving.


Now that should explain why you take simple words in English, twist them around, change their meanings, and then make them your own. That's why for you:

1) Assistants - People who help with the effect.

Skipjack's definition: ACTORS!!!! ACTORS!!! DERREN LIED IN THE DISCLAIMER!!! BOOOOO BOOOO! BAD DERREN!

(my disclaimer: this was obviously not a quote from Skipjack. And yes, was meant to imply that he's stupid)

2) A participant who suddenly suspects the secret in the middle of the effect, but deicides to play along so not to ruin it.

Skipjack's definition - INSTANT STOOGE!!! INSTANT STOOGE!! DERREN USED ROBBIE AS AN INSTANT SOOGE!! BOOOOO BOOO! BAD DERREN!

(my disclaimer: this was oviously not a quote from Skipjack. And yes, was meant to imply that he's stupid)


I'll try it, it's fun:

Skipjack - A JREF forum member, known mostly for his work on the Trick or Treat thread.

My definition: An ignorant boy named Jerk, who likes to skip and twist words, and criticize magicians who can eat him for breakfast. Only to find later this he's always mistaken about everything.

Oh wait, it wasn't a good example.. since it's true and all.


BTW, English isn't even my first language and it seems like I understand it much better than you.. Please go back to school or something.

 

[skipjack]

Does it matter where you can perform it legally.

Yes, it does.

The last person to do it on TV was Simon Drake.

What was his dramatic ending? Did he blow his brains out?

Why must they have? You assume Derren's effect wasn't original(the ecreening process)

There's nothing new under the sun. Not that obvious, anyway.

Why should he? More so why would James(the loader)agree to load the gun in a pre-selected chamber?

Why not? He gets to be on TV! It's the magician's responsibility to convince the audience of his abilities by making collusion seem implausible.

It was a clear process to find a "suitable person who could be influenced"

That makes it possible he could be influenced to load a particular chamber. A good witness is independent and not easily influenced.

The police have never said so.Why not if what you say is true?

Because the legality of what's done is their only concern.

 

[Azrael 5]

Kindly see post #293.

 

[skipjack]

What counts at this stage is convincing the audience that the person selected is not just a paid assistant (i.e., a stooge).

Quote: The only person that I have encountered who thought stooge is you. The screening process was there to eliminate the suspicion of stooge, don't you understand anything?

What's the point of the first sentence of your reply, given that your second sentence agrees with my point? Stating the screening process was there to eliminate the suspicion of stooge implies that it's accepted that many people would tend to think stooge and need to be convinced otherwise.

 

[skipjack]

As long as TK didn't quote you, then it's NOT a misquote. And he didn't even imply that you asked him for the secret. He just said that he knows the secret, which could help solving this argument.

Now you're misquoting TK. TK said he knows the secret; he didn't add "which could help solving this argument".

Even if you insist on the strict sense of "misquote", you have misquoted me several times.

 

[volatile]

Pssst! Teek's a lady!

 

[skipjack]

Do you know what the word "misquote" means? . . . You tend to misuse an extremely large number of words for someone who claims to be literal minded.

I didn't claim to be literal minded.

Pretty extreme example for someone who earlier claimed he didn't like extreme examples. It's a TV show, not a murder case.

The show was criticized for the way it used a gun for entertainment purposes. There have been TV shows about both fictional and real murder cases.

Naturally most people would say they would analyze the evidence carefully.

What, then, is your opinion of the system used in some courts of allowing the defendant to be convicted on the basis of a majority verdict? How safe is such a conviction?

If people are easily convinced by magic tricks in a TV show, isn't it also quite likely that they can quite easily be convinced by a skilled lawyer, even though good evidence is actually lacking?