Derren Brown Trick or treat

[skipjack]

I clearly used the term in relation to the tricks and not a written description of them. The same features that make any not-over-the-phone effect "excellent".

What features? Anything visual, such as sleights, can't be seen over the telephone. Even most jokes don't work very well over the telephone.

 

[skipjack]

So you "withdraw" your reference to the Bullet Catch now that you were caught lying?

I'm not certain that the explanation came directly from Penn. When I played the video again, I noticed that the camera at times followed the performer rather than the marked bullet, for example, corresponding closely to the explanation I'd read separately. The effect was just one amongst others, and I preferred the more zany effects.

 

[DJM]

Wow, you just changed your storyline.. like you haven't done that all through the thread about different issues.

You are either a self-deluded person who believes all his nonsense or a troll who likes to annoy other people. I really hope for you that it's the second option.

Either way, I advice you to seek some help.

 

[Bob Klase]

What features? Anything visual, such as sleights, can't be seen over the telephone.

If sleights are seen then they're being done wrong.

The main feature is that the person on the other end of the phone has experienced something that seems to be impossible. That's one of the main features of any magic.

 

[Garrette]

In what way "impressive"?

"Impressive" in the same sense you used the word "remarkable" without defining it.

Effects sold cheaply have to fit into a small box, so the cups can't be large enough to contain an orange.

In this, you are wrong. But I didn't say I bought a cheap effect; I said I used coffee cups. Not sure about where you are, but I can get coffee cups for as cheap as 25 cents. These weren't that cheap, though. Can't remember exactly what I paid, but probably in the vicinity of 3 dollars each.

I'm now calling troll.

 

[Azrael 5]

I'm now calling troll.

14 pages too late!

 

[Garrette]

14 pages too late!

Hah. No opinion matters but mine.

No decree is official until I bless it.

Carry on, but please see the edicts I published last night.

 

[skipjack]

If sleights are seen then they're being done wrong.

Not necessarily; a one-handed shuffle in full view may legitimately be called a sleight.

The main feature is that the person on the other end of the phone has experienced something that seems to be impossible. That's one of the main features of any magic.

Anything less trivial? Even juggling, memory feats, mental calculating feats, contortionist feats, and feats of balance/strength/endurance/speed/echo location may seem virtually impossible, but they're not usually called magic. How can cards feature, given that the magician doesn't even know whether the cards exist (since he can't see them)?

I didn't say I bought a cheap effect; I said I used coffee cups.

I didn't state you bought a cheap effect. I didn't deny you used coffee cups, but the handles of the cups might tend to reduce the elegance of the effect. If effects are sold which don't fit into a small box, the cost of storage and delivery tends to be (and usually is) higher. You are making a habit of "responding" to things that I didn't state, instead of, say, explaining how you could "impress" using cards that only the spectator touches (other than by self-working effects, such as the poker hand effect).

 

[Bob Klase]

Not necessarily; a one-handed shuffle in full view may legitimately be called a sleight.

If you put your pet cat in the microwave for 5 minutes it may legitimately be called dinner.

If you want to discuss technical terms then learn what they mean (a one-handed shuffle in full view is a flourish, not a sleight). If you're ignorant about terminology in magic then you can legitimately call many things a sleight when they aren't. If you want to debate what they mean then find somebody else to argue with.

Anything less trivial? Even juggling, memory feats, mental calculating feats, contortionist feats, and feats of balance/strength/endurance/speed/echo location may seem virtually impossible

I didn't say "virtually" impossible. Read what I wrote- if you insist on adding things I didn't write then you can also provide your own answers.

Anyone with an IQ above 70 knows that what a juggler is doing may be very difficult, and may take years of practice, but they know it's not "impossible" and no intelligent person would call it "virtually impossible".

but they're not usually called magic.

I didn't say juggling or memory feats are usually called magic. "Responding" to things that I didn't state seems to be more than a habit for you- it's more of a lifestyle.

How can cards feature, given that the magician doesn't even know whether the cards exist (since he can't see them)?

When doing the tricks I mentioned I will know whether the cards exist. But I'm not getting into methods or descriptions. How I know doesn't really concern you- if you want find out then read some magic books.

You are making a habit of "responding" to things that I didn't state

Like saying "virtually impossible" when I wrote "impossible"? Or bringing up jugglers and memory feats because they do things that are "virtually impossible" (which you wrote) and not "impossible" (which is what I actually wrote)?

instead of, say, explaining how you could "impress" using cards that only the spectator touches (other than by self-working effects, such as the poker hand effect).

I wonder what makes you think that anyone here is interested in trying to explain that to you, even if they thought you'd be capable of understanding the explanation. You asked if we could

think of any way of arranging for anything remarkable to come from a deck of playing cards that's inspected, handled and shuffled only by the spectator

I said I could think of several ways- that answered your question. You can take it or leave it. If you're really interested in knowing then one book you could look into is Roy Johnson's book 'Pure Gold'- one of the tricks I use is in there (and I just checked- it was reprinted not long ago- you can order it from England for just £13.00.

 

[skipjack]

If you want to discuss technical terms then learn what they mean (a one-handed shuffle in full view is a flourish, not a sleight).

I didn't say I wanted to discuss technical terms. That is your invention. I didn't say I was using "sleight" as a technical term; that is also your invention. I am aware of the technical term "flourish", but chose not to use it.

I didn't say "virtually" impossible. Read what I wrote.

I wasn't quoting you or suggesting that you meant "virtually", so there was no reason why I shouldn't use that term.

Anyone knows that what a juggler is doing may be very difficult, but they know it's not "impossible".

I didn't state that any feat of juggling is virtually impossible, let alone impossible. Is it possible to juggle a hundred separate objects at once without dropping any?

I didn't say juggling or memory feats are usually called magic. "Responding" to things that I didn't state seems to be more than a habit for you.

It's you that did that. I didn't make any suggestion that you'd referred to juggling or memory feats. Some such feats would be regarded as beyond human power, i.e., impossible, until they've actually been seen happening. Something doesn't have to be in obvious contradiction of simple, well-known laws of nature (or of mathematics) in order to be regarded as impossible. For example, any "knowledge" obtained by "mind-reading" might be correct by luck, so it's never an impossibility.

When doing the tricks I mentioned I will know whether the cards exist. But I'm not getting into methods or descriptions.

A telephone conversation can't establish that cards exist. At best, the conversation can suggest they do because what's said is consistent with the use of cards. No such conversation could distinguish between real cards and a card emulation program running on a PC. Such a program can even reproduce the sounds that real cards make.

Like saying "virtually impossible" when I wrote "impossible"? Or bringing up jugglers and memory feats because they do things that are "virtually impossible" (which you wrote) and not "impossible" (which is what I actually wrote)?

As noted above, I wasn't quoting you. I just used an example of my own.

I said I could think of several ways- that answered your question.

I didn't ask for a detailed description. Over the telephone, there are limited ways of making something seem impossible. Descriptions in books are nearly always grossly exaggerated.

 

[DJM]

Guys, let's stop feeding the troll and hopefully he will go away. His only purpose here is to argue with everyone and show us his ignornace in anything related to magic. Nothing more than that.

 

[skipjack]

DJM, you're implying that if there are mistakes in what I've written, everything I write is wrong. That doesn't follow. What does "ignornace" mean? Or can't you spell?

 

[skipjack]

If sleights are seen then they're being done wrong.

So Penn & Teller are doing sleights wrongly when they deliberately show and draw attention to a series of sleights being done?

 

[Bob Klase]

I didn't say I wanted to discuss technical terms.

No, you didn't say you wanted to discuss technical terms. You just started misusing them.

I didn't say I was using "sleight" as a technical term; that is also your invention.

No, it's not my invention. You used the term incorrectly to dispute what I wrote. All you did was prove once again that you really don't know what you're talking about.

I am aware of the technical term "flourish", but chose not to use it.

Obviously you choose not to use it because that would have made it clear that your previous statement was false. By setting up another strawman you figured you could actually fool some people into thinking you did know what you were talking about.

I wasn't quoting you or suggesting that you meant "virtually", so there was no reason why I shouldn't use that term.

No reason except that it was another attempt for you to make something you'd said previously look like it might actually be correct. Didn't work this time either.

I didn't state that any feat of juggling is virtually impossible, let alone impossible.

I didn't claim that's what you said. Another strawman bites the dust.

Is it possible to juggle a hundred separate objects at once without dropping any?

That has nothing to do with your question or my answer.

It's you that did that. I didn't make any suggestion that you'd referred to juggling or memory feats.

Correct- you're the one that threw out irrelevant suggestions about juggling and memory feats.

Some such feats would be regarded as beyond human power, i.e., impossible, until they've actually been seen happening.

Still nothing to do with your question or my answer. However, some feats would be regarded as 'impossible' even after they've been seen happening- that's why it's called "magic".

Something doesn't have to be in obvious contradiction of simple, well-known laws of nature (or of mathematics) in order to be regarded as impossible.

Most magic appears to be impossible. It's obviously not in contradiction of simple well know laws of nature. So once again your rambling has nothing to do with your question or my answer.

For example, any "knowledge" obtained by "mind-reading" might be correct by luck, so it's never an impossibility.

Again, so what?

A telephone conversation can't establish that cards exist.

The question asked about doing a trick ("something remarkable") with a deck of cards that's shuffled and handled only by the spectator. If the spectator at the other end of the phone can emulate a deck of cards exactly, it makes no difference if the cards exist or not. So what again.

As noted above, I wasn't quoting you. I just used an example of my own.

Another bad example that has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

I didn't ask for a detailed description.

Half true. When you wrote:

instead of, say, explaining how you could "impress" using cards that only the spectator touches

you only implied that you wanted an explanation. So rather than not give you a detailed description, I'll not give you any description- detailed or otherwise.

Over the telephone, there are limited ways of making something seem impossible.

Did I claim there were unlimited ways? One way can be enough.

Descriptions in books are nearly always grossly exaggerated.

Really? I've read over 1000 books on magic and your claim that "descriptions in books are nearly always grossly exaggerated" is grossly exaggerated.

Descriptions in advertisements for magic tricks are often grossly exaggerated. Perhaps in your next post you can claim that when you use the word "books" that you really book "books and advertisements ". By then most of us will be ignoring you.

 

[Bob Klase]

What does "ignornace" mean? Or can't you spell?

Attacking spelling and typing errors is a common tactic used by trolls to divert attention from their own ignorance.

 

[DJM]

DJM, you're implying that if there are mistakes in what I've written, everything I write is wrong. That doesn't follow. What does "ignornace" mean? Or can't you spell?

I've already said in this thread that English isn't my first language, so obviously spelling mistakes are bound to happen. In this case it was just a simple typo.

You are even more ignorant than I thought, and not just about magic.

 

[Garrette]

I didn't state you bought a cheap effect.

So when you said:

Effects sold cheaply have to fit into a small box, so the cups can't be large enough to contain an orange.

it was for no reason at all? I had discerned that your comments have no value, but it is refreshing to hear you admit it yourself.

I didn't deny you used coffee cups, but the handles of the cups might tend to reduce the elegance of the effect.

So now you're back to making things up and adding conditions not previously there. I suppose Penn & teller's use of clear cups can't be elegant, either? You would be wrong if you say that, and you would be wrong to base a conclusion of elegance or inelegance on the simple presence of cup handles.

You are further wrong for moving the goalposts.

If effects are sold which don't fit into a small box, the cost of storage and delivery tends to be (and usually is) higher.

1. Assumes facts not in evidence.

2. Even if true, so what?

You are making a habit of "responding" to things that I didn't state,

No. I am responding exactly to what you say. The fact that you cannot remain on point and contradict yourself and create strawmen and move the goalposts is an indication of the hollowness of your arguments, not mine.

instead of, say, explaining how you could "impress" using cards that only the spectator touches

I did explain it. I explained it by saying "impress" means what your use of "remarkable" meant. If you care to define "remarkable" in such a fashion that "impress" will no longer work as a synonym in this context, feel free. But do not expect me to cave to your ridiculous demands of providing more specificity than you have done yourself.

(other than by self-working effects, such as the poker hand effect).

More moving the goalposts. Self-working effects can be very impressive. For what it's worth, the method I have in mind is not self-working.

 

[JonWhite]

A telephone conversation can't establish that cards exist. At best, the conversation can suggest they do because what's said is consistent with the use of cards. No such conversation could distinguish between real cards and a card emulation program running on a PC. Such a program can even reproduce the sounds that real cards make... (snip)....
Over the telephone, there are limited ways of making something seem impossible.

What????

Err...so if a tree falls in a forest and no-one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? How does that help?

I may only know a couple of over the 'phone effects, but they're seemingly impossible enough for non magic folks as long as they follow the moves. What's the point of doing otherwise?

No-one but you would consider bluffing by using a PC emulation program.

Not necessarily; a one-handed shuffle in full view may legitimately be called a sleight.

Your lack of understanding the terminology is right alongside your lack of magic understanding generally.

I didn't deny you used coffee cups, but the handles of the cups might tend to reduce the elegance of the effect.

Personally I think the idea of doing the effect using common everyday objects adds to it rather than detracts.

 

[skipjack]

No, you didn't say you wanted to discuss technical terms.

Ha!

No, it's not my invention.

It is. I wasn't using sleight in its most technical sense. The sleight (or flourish, if you like) isn't visible via a telephone line.

I didn't claim that's what you said.

You wrote: "Or bringing up jugglers and memory feats because they do things that are "virtually impossible" (which you wrote)". I didn't write that they do things that are virtually impossible. You provided an invented context for two words that I used differently.

That has nothing to do with your question or my answer.

So what? I didn't claim it did.

However, some feats would be regarded as 'impossible' even after they've been seen happening- that's why it's called "magic".

Putting quotes round the word acknowledges that they're not impossible, and a term such as "magic" or "illusion" reinforces that.

"Most magic appears to be impossible. It's obviously not in contradiction of simple well-known laws of nature."

If it doesn't appear to contradict known laws, and that's obvious, in what way does it "appear to be impossible"? Anyway, effects such as Derren's Russian Roulette are not seemingly impossible at all, but merely seemingly risky.

You use "so what" replies as a device for avoiding giving proper answers.

The question asked about doing a trick ("something remarkable") with a deck of cards that's shuffled and handled only by the spectator. If the spectator at the other end of the phone can emulate a deck of cards exactly, it makes no difference if the cards exist or not. So what again.

Like that. It wasn't I who claimed the magician could verify by telephone that the cards really exist. If there's "no difference", he can't.

. . . that has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

I didn't claim it did.

One way can be enough.

Nobody has given any way (just made claims).

I've read over 1000 books on magic and your claim that "descriptions in books are nearly always grossly exaggerated" is grossly exaggerated.

Why read so many?

I found the following in one book:

"Tricks with coins are always effective . . ."

"No better trick than this could be proposed as a test of a performer's ability in the presentation of a trick with cards."

and, illustrating a typical (and blatant) falsehood,

End of description of effect: ". . . the (performer) maintaining complete silence."
Start of explanation of method: ". . . the feat being carried through in absolute silence, but . . ."
(after that, it's explained that the performer talks!! Despite that, the performer is supposed to draw the audience's attention to his silence!)

 

[skipjack]

I've already said in this thread that English isn't my first language, so obviously spelling mistakes are bound to happen. In this case it was just a simple typo.

Its being a typo implies that it isn't caused by English not being your first language.