Derren Brown Trick or treat

volatile said:
Pssst! Teek's a lady!
Click to expand...


....and after the last umpteen pages I can only assume that skipjack lives under a bridge and eats goats, fol-de-rol!

Commendable perseverance by Azrael, DJM, Bob, etc in the promotion of common sense in the face of extreme absurdity though.

:D
 
Sorry Teek, forgot you are a woman. :) And thanks to volatile for the correction.


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



God, each post makes you seem like a bigger fool. You need a big talent for that.

Please tell me, how did I misquote Teek if I didn't even quote her?! Do you have any brain?! Do you see quotation marks in my post?! NO? Then maybe because it WASN'T a quote. It was taking her post and describing it in my own words. It's called paraphrasing for God's sake! And because you probably have no idea what it means, here's the definition:

par·a·phrase (păr'ə-frāz')

n.

  1. A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning.
  2. The restatement of texts in other words as a studying or teaching device.
This is her original post, this time using QUOTES.

"Right. I know how the russian roulette trick was done. I am not going to reveal the method here because the forum rules don't allow it and also because I'm not a spoilsport. But I will say that you are getting absolutely nowhere with this line of debate."

Here's a closer explanation because you are such an idiot:

"I know how the russian roulette trick was done." -She knows the secret.

"I will say that you are getting absolutely nowhere with this line of debate." - If she told the secret, it could help solving the argument. Right now she can only imply it because of the forum rules.


I explained what she meant using my own words, nothing more than that. And even if it's not what she meant it's still not a misquote, because I DIDN'T quote her in the first place! I was PARAPHRASING!!!

Did you even go to school? I think I learned these things when I was in the second grade. Maybe open a book one time so could see what quotes are all about.

How do you want us to take you seriously if you can't understand basic things such as this?! Go back to grade school, learn some new words and how to form sentences, then go back to this forum.

Until then stop making a fool of yourself, you sound like some uneducated child.
 
DJM said:
At about 4:37 you can see smoke at the left side of the screen once Derren pulls the trigger, smoke that's coming out of the gun.
Click to expand...
At about 4:37, Derren extends his arm fully to his right, causing the revolver to go out of view of the camera by about a foot. It is still off-screen when it is "fired". Possibly that isn't the case for the original broadcast on a wide-screen television, but that's what happens in the version on youtube. I looked at the immediately following frames and could see no smoke at all.

DJM said:
"I will say that you are getting absolutely nowhere with this line of debate." - If she told the secret, it could help solving the argument.

Paraphrasing in that way (without repeating the original wording) is a form of quotation (a paraphrased quotation). You're not, however, just paraphrasing, but changing the meaning by removing any hint of "getting absolutely nowhere" and adding the suggestion that knowing the secret would help. It wouldn't. The gun is "fired" off-screen and the firing sequence is extremely brief, making it difficult for most viewers to assess what they've seen. How the magician knew which chamber was loaded is irrelevant at that point.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
There is smoke at 4:37, left side of the screen.

When you go back to grade school ask the teacher to show you how to notice things like this.
 
Paraphrasing in that way (without repeating the original wording) is a form of quotation (a paraphrased quotation). You're not, however, just paraphrasing, but changing the meaning by removing any hint of "getting absolutely nowhere" and adding the suggestion that knowing the secret would help. It wouldn't.
Click to expand...

It's obvious you have no idea what paraphrasing even means, so it's just a waste of time. Go back to school and learn exactly what you need to know, I never wanted to be a teacher.

And I didn't say that knowing the secret would help, I said it COULD help. If you can't see the difference than you are even more ignorant than I thought. It's obvious to me that's what Teek meant, and that was my explanation to it. We'll find from her if it was correct. Even if it's not, It was NOT a misquote in any form. As I didn't quote her. You can't always make your own definitions, realise that already.


About the gun, the fire itself is on screen and that's what important. If you are so blind you can't see it, it doesn't mean others are as well.
 
Last edited:
skipjack said:
I didn't claim to be literal minded.
Click to expand...

No you didn't. You didn't claim to be stupid either- but whether or not you claim is irrelevant to whether or not it's true.

skipjack said:
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?
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with the topic.

skipjack said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's certainly possible, and also irrevelant.
 
DJM said:
There is smoke at 4:37, left side of the screen.
About the gun, the fire itself is on screen and that's what important.
Click to expand...
When Derren's arm is fully extended, the gun is not on-screen. That is when Derren presumably pulls the trigger and the bang is heard. The gun doesn't fire while on-screen (at least on the computer screen). Hence any smoke is not seen coming from the gun when it is fired. When Derren retracts his arm and places the gun back on the table, the gun is in view briefly and is not smoking. Why on earth does the gun go off-screen at all at the critical time?

Paraphrasing is "expressing in other words, but preserving the meaning". You stated what someone said, but didn't say that you were paraphrasing, so you were being misleading, which is what counts, not whether "misquoted" is the best term.

The "would" or "could" issue is irrelevant, since neither was in the original statement. Knowing the secret is unrelated to the issue of whether the gun was fired on-screen or whether Derren fired it at all.
 
Last edited:
skipjack said:
It's relevant in that it also involves interpreting information provided and because I would like others' views on that matter, on the reliability of majority verdicts, etc.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should start a different thread on that outside of the Conjuror's forum. Or do you want to change the topic to divert attention from your failure to convince anyone that you can provide intelligent discussion?
 
Just a brief comment as I am busy banging a (14 Daily mail)nail into my eyes it's much preferrable than reading skipjack.
On the issue of smoke.The armourer fires the "live round" at 1:52 there is clearly smoke.This same gun is then presented to Derren.
At about 9:30 there is smoke leading back into the frame from the left as he fires the gun.No doubt.

skipjack said:
I watched the whole show on television and have subsequently watched the last few minutes of the video in full-screen mode. I wasn't convinced at all that the revolver was fired by Derren.
Click to expand...
No ,you're quite right.The fellow with the suit and goatee beard was an imposter.
At 9:54 James puts his hand to his heart and exhales which suggest he has had a fright,was startled etc.Just to poo poo skipjack's earlier statement about the spectator not appearing worried(note I am paraphrasing,as I can't be bothered to trial back thorugh the thread).
 
I ain't no lady. I do have ladyparts though.

So I was right, you are no older than 18. And getting younger by the post. Shall we knock that down to 16?
 
Wow, that was a stupid presentation without any tension.. and looked pretty pointless. I guess that's why Derren is considered the best mentalist in years.

Skippyjack, here's another video of the roulette, this time the smoke can be seen around 9:30-9:31.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylAHWVuPNus

Even one of the replies there mentions it:

chuckbuster77 (1 month ago)
Actually, if you look at 9:31, as he fires, you can see the smoke from the explosive charge as it's fired (just next to his hand which is off screen).


Ask someone else to watch it with you, a family member or a neighbour, or anyone else who is smarter than a 4 year old. Ask them to show you were the smoke is, and they would be happy to tell you.

It's obvious that watching smoke on screen is too complicated for you to handle.


Paraphrasing is "expressing in other words, but preserving the meaning". You stated what someone said, but didn't say that you were paraphrasing, so you were being misleading, which is what counts, not whether "misquoted" is the best term.
Click to expand...

Would you stop being so stupid?! A person doesn't need to inform in advance that he's paraphrasing, it should be obvious anyway (hint: you use quotation marks for quotes).

It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that I was paraphrasing what Teek said. I'm pretty sure that's what she meant, but even if it isn't I didn't change her words.. because I was using MY OWN words. Open a book, any book, to see the difference between paraphrasing and using quotes.


And then go back to school, PLEASE.
 
Last edited:
Bob Klase said:
Perhaps you should start a different thread on that outside of the Conjuror's forum. Or do you want to change the topic to divert attention from your failure to convince anyone that you can provide intelligent discussion?
Click to expand...
I specifically wanted the views of magicians.
 
DJM said:
Even one of the replies there mentions it:

chuckbuster77 (1 month ago)
Actually, if you look at 9:31, as he fires, you can see the smoke from the explosive charge as it's fired (just next to his hand which is off screen).
Click to expand...
When the armourer fires, you see some smoke, but the supposedly "live" round causes no recoil. One can't see if the smoke comes from the end of the gun barrel (so one doesn't even know if the barrel is hollow) and the bang at this stage, as at the end, is not very loud; there's clearly no need for ear defenders at all. Assuming that a blank was fired then, it seems a rather weak blank which probably wouldn't injure Derren even if fired directly at him (especially if the barrel is not hollow). There was comment earlier about Derren's careful preparation, etc. Why, then, doesn't he make sure the revolver is in shot when he fires it, and why have the loader seated where he is in the line of potential fire and doesn't have an unobstructed view? I watched again, as you requested, but couldn't pause the video at the key point. Even if I had done so, and had managed to see smoke, that wouldn't establish the smoke had come from the revolver, since Derren's entire hand and the revolver are off-screen. There are plenty of recordings available of real gunshots, so the quality of the bang proves nothing as to whether it is pre-recorded. The Simon Drake video is significantly different, but seems to work for his audience. No ear defenders there.

DJM said:
A person doesn't need to inform in advance that he's paraphrasing, it should be obvious anyway (hint: you use quotation marks for quotes).
Click to expand...
Quotation marks are needed only for direct speech, not indirect speech. It wasn't just paraphrasing, as the meaning was quite different. That's why it was misleading, which is what I was trying to convey. You simply guessed what Teek might have had in mind, but certainly hadn't stated.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom