So why is revealing magic tricks so sacred?

[Ashles]

The whole thing is predicated on the idea that you're entitled to demand answers from me that I don't want to give. Almost all the answers are available. You're just too lazy to spend the time and effort to find them and feel that I'm obligated to give them just because you want them.

But that's the central paradox.

I have no interest in demanding the answers off anyone in particular. If you don't want to give them, fine.
But then to claim they are easy to find, when the person obviously has already tried to find the answer, appears to be untrue. That's usually why the person is asking.

Finding explanations of simple magic tricks is simple. More complex (hence more interesting) magic tricks are harder to find. It's not about laziness, it's about people saying "Well it's easy to find but I'm not going to tell you."
It doesn't make sense to me because if it so easy to find what's the harm in telling?

It also casts doubt over who really does know the explanations - like the other thread about Penn and Teller's magic trick.
I find it curious that people post on a sceptical forum claiming to know how something is done, but refusing to reveal how.
Anyone could do that, whether they really do know the explanation or not.

 

[Ashles]

Ashles:
What kind of exposure (secrets of magic tricks revealed), if any, is acceptable to you? Whom, in your opinion, should have access to magic secrets?

I think the analogy of film plot details is applicable.

I could find the plot of any film very easily, but most of the places I might look will have SPOILER titles so I am unlikely to accidentally stumble across them.
I managed to successfully avoid all references to any plot for Lost for three years (because I wanted to catch up. And I still haven't seen series 4 yet.)
Avoiding spoilers is not all that hard.

Why can magic tricks not be treated similarly? If anyone wants to discuss them, fine, just mark any threads with clear spoilers so anyone who didn't want to know doesn't stumble across them (I realise this doesn't apply on this forum as I have indicated previously).

No one is implying that explanations should be demanded, just that those who want to discuss theories openly should not be treated as though they are breaking some deep moral code.

 

[tkingdoll]

I find it curious that people post on a sceptical forum claiming to know how something is done, but refusing to reveal how.

Only because it's against the rules. I suspect if it wasn't, more methods would be posted here. I'd certainly post a few if it was relevant.

I'm happy to reveal how the world's largest spoonbend was done, if anyone's interested

 

[Bob Klase]

But that's the central paradox.

I have no interest in demanding the answers off anyone in particular. If you don't want to give them, fine.

But then to claim they are easy to find, when the person obviously has already tried to find the answer, appears to be untrue. That's usually why the person is asking.

I didn't say they were easy to find, and it's certainly not easy to find the answers to *all* of them. I said

Answers in magic are given much more freely than most people think, but mostly to people who have shown an interest or put in some effort.

'People who have shown an interest' means people who have shown an interest in learning about magic in general, and performing. Not just people who have shown an interest in finding out how it's done.

Finding explanations of simple magic tricks is simple. More complex (hence more interesting) magic tricks are harder to find.

Since you're not being specific and about what trick is hard to find, I'll guess that what you mean by "more interesting" and "more complex" is what you see on TV. Obviously a lot of that isn't going to be easy to find since it's created for a TV shown and is considered intellectual property by most people who know how it's done.

It's not about laziness, it's about people saying "Well it's easy to find but I'm not going to tell you."

Once again, I didn't say it's all easy to find. On the other hand, there are a limited number of principles in magic. Study the simple magic that's easy to find and eventually you'll be able to figure out a lot of the 'complex' stuff by yourself.

It also casts doubt over who really does know the explanations - like the other thread about Penn and Teller's magic trick.

But who really cares if they know or not? I've done a lot of shows for kids and it's very common for kids (especially boys from about 8 to 12) to claim (and think) they know how a lot is done. They're usually wrong, but so what?

I find it curious that people post on a sceptical forum claiming to know how something is done, but refusing to reveal how.

In this particular sceptical forum it's against the rules.

 

[geni]

Because most people respond well to being asked politely and magicians generaly ask nicely.

Doesn't always work. I understand the magic circle sent a request to wikipedia once. They got back a fairly polite "no".

 

[Polgara]

I've spent years wandering around searching for real method behind magic. I wanted to know. Here comes the: However, I found that I wanted to know, but that I hedged in my determination and, I found that it was difficult to find real answers.

I would reveal the magic tricks. I would make the knowledge freely available.

I wouldn't be worried about boredom, or losing the fascination. I would be busy creating new magic.

Magic tricks are protected because of egos, fear of exposure, greed and self motivation. Magic tricks are also protected to keep the value of entertainment and mystery alive, to motivate people to think and consider possibilities for themselves.

That's what I know, thus far.

-I was stuck on David Eddings and Jesus Christ for several years. Then I was turned on to Neal Stephenson, Alfred Bester, Clavino and Hofstadter, barely naming a few.

I was stuck on Eddings and Jesus not because I didn't go to the library and read, but rather because I didn't know which direction to head in to find what new and other materials I needed to read.

Then I met a friend who asked me why I was stuck in Hunter mode rather than Mage mode. He was perplexed. He did not offer to teach me, nor did he turn me away. He would listen and occasionally point me in small directions. And, when I went nuts in my learning travels, he would call me and rip me back to reality.

 

[jimtron]

Because most people respond well to being asked politely and magicians generaly ask nicely.

Doesn't always work. I understand the magic circle sent a request to wikipedia once. They got back a fairly polite "no".

Speaking of Wikipedia, here's an article on magic exposure, that covers both sides of the argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(magic)

 

[Ashles]

Only because it's against the rules. I suspect if it wasn't, more methods would be posted here.

Oh absolutely. That's why I think its fairly silly for anyone to start a thread entitled "I have figured out how [XXX] trick is done" because they know full well that if anyone asks "Okay then? How?" they can simply say it is against forum rules to post the answer.
Surely it would make a little more sense to post such a thread on a forum where it was actually permitted to reveal the answer.

I'm happy to reveal how the world's largest spoonbend was done, if anyone's interested

Were they crushed by the weight of Uri Geller's inanity.

 

[rjh01]

The above link, due to a software bug does not work. This one should work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(magic)

Edit. Just read the link. I think it says just about everything.

 

[Belz...]

It's certainly a good reason for you to try to learn what you want to know. The fact that you want to know is not a good reason for me to tell you. Especially when I have reasons to not tell you regardless of whether you like my reasons or think they're good.

Yes, but a particular magician might not mind. What's the harm ?

My opinion of who's a poor magician is not "different from me"- it's "inferior" or "lacking in quality".

But it isn't, unless "lacking in quality" means "reveals my secrets".

If you review what I wrote, I said that a magician who's using magic (and not revealing tricks) merely to show how smart they are is a poor magician. Doing magic to show how smart you are is a poor reason to do magic and the only magician's I've ever seen who have that as a reason are poor magicians.

What does doing magic, or any other job, have to do with intelligence ? This isn't rocket science, either.

Knowing something you've seen or read doesn't make you smarter than someone who doesn't know it.

Precisely.

The movie analogy may fail, but as it applies to magic there are too many people who then stand outside the theater and give away the ending to people going in to see the movie.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that A) people shouldn't want to know the ending beforehand and B) people shouldn't ask about those special effects afterwards.

It may be his right. It depends on what answers he's giving. If he's telling you things that he was told in confidence and he's breaking that confidence then I would hope you'd think poorly of him.

Well, of course this makes him untrustworthy to whomever told him these things, but that's not the issue here.

And if I heard him telling you answers then it would be my right to follow him to a performance he was giving and tell everyone the answer to whatever tricks he was doing.

With any luck he's doing that, himself

So all you have to do is find someone willing to tell you whatever you want to know. Good luck.

So what you're saying is that, whenever you want to learn something, you go through all those years of school ? You must have a lot of time on your hands. I hope the taxpayers aren't the ones funding your over-education.

Personally I don't have 50 years worth of school in my future. That's why I want the people who studied these things to tell me.

 

[Bob Klase]

Yes, but a particular magician might not mind. What's the harm?

Read the link in rjh01's post for some more reasons (which you may or may not agree with).

But it isn't, unless "lacking in quality" means "reveals my secrets".

Sometimes "reveals secrets" is an indication of "lacking in quality".

If you review what I wrote, I said that a magician who's using magic (and not revealing tricks) merely to show how smart they are is a poor magician. Doing magic to show how smart you are is a poor reason to do magic and the only magician's I've ever seen who have that as a reason are poor magicians.

What does doing magic, or any other job, have to do with intelligence ? This isn't rocket science, either.

Either you didn't read what I wrote, or you read it and didn't understand it, or you understood it and you're agreeing while trying to sound like you don't agree.

Knowing something you've seen or read doesn't make you smarter than someone who doesn't know it.

Precisely.

So you did understand it. But you don't understand that you're not everyone and many people do think it makes them smarter.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that A) people shouldn't want to know the ending beforehand and B) people shouldn't ask about those special effects afterwards.

Your "wanting to know" and "someone telling you" are two different things. Only one of them is really being discussed here.

So what you're saying is that, whenever you want to learn something, you go through all those years of school?

The discussion is about magic secrets, not "something" or "everything".

You must have a lot of time on your hands.

Yes, I do.

I hope the taxpayers aren't the ones funding your over-education.

Guess that could depend on exactly what you mean by "funding" and "over-education".

Personally I don't have 50 years worth of school in my future. That's why I want the people who studied these things to tell me.

Once again you confuse what you want with what others might be willing to give you.

 

[Belz...]

Sometimes "reveals secrets" is an indication of "lacking in quality".

Doesn't that sound circular to you ?

Either you didn't read what I wrote, or you read it and didn't understand it, or you understood it and you're agreeing while trying to sound like you don't agree.

I was asking for a clarification, simply.

So you did understand it. But you don't understand that you're not everyone and many people do think it makes them smarter.

I don't really give a rat's behind what they think or why they do it. The point is it is their right to do magic and it is their right to reveal whatever technique they use for their tricks.

Your "wanting to know" and "someone telling you" are two different things. Only one of them is really being discussed here.

But one can go with the other, and that is the whole point. Nobody is forcing me to watch a magician reveal his secrets.

The discussion is about magic secrets, not "something" or "everything".

Why should it be different with magic ? If I want to learn about nuclear energy I can ask around, but if I want to learn about magic I have to learn the trade myself ?

Yes, I do.

How many diplomas do you have ? And is that really the extent of your knowledge ? I doubt it.

Once again you confuse what you want with what others might be willing to give you.

Not at all. I think you're the one who is slightly confused.

 

[Bob Klase]

Doesn't that sound circular to you ?

No. Why does it sound circular to you? It's no more circular than having a doctor with patients that die and you say "patients dying could be an indication of lack of quality in the doctor".

I don't really give a rat's behind what they think or why they do it. The point is it is their right to do magic and it is their right to reveal whatever technique they use for their tricks.

And it's their right to not reveal anything they don't want to. And others have the right to ostracize those who reveal. Everybody has rights. No point in focusing only on the ones that you like.

But one can go with the other, and that is the whole point. Nobody is forcing me to watch a magician reveal his secrets.

From what you keep writing it appears that you'd like to force magicians to reveal secrets to you.

Why should it be different with magic ?

It would make more sense to ask why it is different with magic. That's already been covered in this thread.

If I want to learn about nuclear energy I can ask around, but if I want to learn about magic I have to learn the trade myself ?

If you want to learn about magic you can ask around. Eventually you'll find people that will give you a lot of answers.

How many diplomas do you have?

Which ones count? Diplomas from college? Diplomas from army schools lasting from one week to seven months? What exactly is your point here?

And is that really the extent of your knowledge ? I doubt it.

I doubt that a diploma from anywhere would be the extent of anyone's knowledge. So what's your point again?

 

[Belz...]

No. Why does it sound circular to you?

Because it's defined with the conclusion in mind.

It's no more circular than having a doctor with patients that die and you say "patients dying could be an indication of lack of quality in the doctor".

Actually, that would be true if your standards for evaluating bad magicians would be that audiences are unimpressed by them.

And it's their right to not reveal anything they don't want to.

I never claimed otherwise.

And others have the right to ostracize those who reveal. Everybody has rights. No point in focusing only on the ones that you like.

I think you're having a hard time following this thread. The point is that exposure is taken for granted to be a taboo, while there is no reason to. I don't mind that some magicians don't want their tricks revealed, but it's no reason to be "against" revealing tricks on its face.

From what you keep writing it appears that you'd like to force magicians to reveal secrets to you.

Please quote me saying anything to that effect. Otherwise you're just making stuff up.

It would make more sense to ask why it is different with magic.

Wasn't that exactly what I asked ?

If you want to learn about magic you can ask around. Eventually you'll find people that will give you a lot of answers.

Good.

Which ones count? Diplomas from college? Diplomas from army schools lasting from one week to seven months? What exactly is your point here?

That things you know are sometimes passed along from other people who DO have the diplomas, and that your request that I somehow become a magician to understand how it works is ludicrous.

 

[malaka]

Just got done reading every post in this thread. It is a very, very fascinating (and thus far, pretty civil) thread. I’m off to read the wiki page next.

I was deeply interested in magic when I was young (teen years). I read books, learned tricks and had many “performances” for my family and friends. However, as I grew older, I began to see the "club" aspect of magic, and lost interest. By "club aspect", I mean that it seemed that most magicians were a "little too fond" of being a member of this sooper-seekrit society. It reminded me of any local "Moose lodge", where complex handshakes were also kept secret. Or a frat. Or the Masons. I thought this was all kind of silly and gave up the pursuit of magic.

Also, count me as one of ones that find things more intriguing when I know how they are done.

But, I don’t see magic tricks being exposed any time soon, partly because of the “club” aspect I mentioned above. I think it makes magicians feel “cool” to know and be a part of something that others don’t/aren’t. Like a club with a secret handshake.

However, the “business” aspect that was mentioned earlier is probably the best argument against magic tricks being exposed. If I was told the way a trick was performed, I would appreciate it and keep it to myself. However, there is no guarantee that some other bozo would ask, and be told, and then go on the news with “the scoop”, thus ruining the performers show.

It's not about laziness, it's about people saying "Well it's easy to find but I'm not going to tell you."
It doesn't make sense to me because if it so easy to find what's the harm in telling?

To me, this is an entirely separate issue: “Information hoarding”. This happens in other areas (outside of magic), too.

 

[Bob Klase]

Because it's defined with the conclusion in mind.

So a magician does tricks poorly and the audience sees how they're done- he's exposing the method, but you want to claim that's wouldn't be an indication that he's a poor magician. A magician with no showmanship or presentation skills sees that his audience isn't impressed, so he explains how they were done- but still not an indication that he's a poor magician.

Actually, that would be true if your standards for evaluating bad magicians would be that audiences are unimpressed by them.

I'd certainly use that as one standard. What standards would you use to evaluate which magicians are good and which are bad?

I never claimed otherwise.

Of course you never claimed otherwise. You do keep complaining because they don't tell you what you want to know.

I think you're having a hard time following this thread. The point is that exposure is taken for granted to be a taboo, while there is no reason to.

There have been a number of reasons given in this threads (and the wiki link). You want to claim there are no reasons simply because you don't like the reasons.

From what you keep writing it appears that you'd like to force magicians to reveal secrets to you.

Please quote me saying anything to that effect. Otherwise you're just making stuff up.

Really ? There's no good reason ? Me wanting to understand those tricks is not a good reason ?

Everything you've written is based on your wanting to know. Your whole point in this thread is that you think magicians should reveal tricks to you with only real reason being that you want to know and you don't like it when they disagree. From that alone it appears to me that you'd like to force them to reveal secrets to you.

Of course I can't quote you actually saying that- if I could then I wouldn't have written "it appears".

That things you know are sometimes passed along from other people who DO have the diplomas, and that your request that I somehow become a magician to understand how it works is ludicrous.

That is a common misconception that many people have- they think that if they just know the secrets then they will be a magician.

I never requested that you somehow become a magician- that would involve most more time, effort and money than just learning how tricks are done. And it would be a waste of time, effort and money if you have no interest in ever performing.

That things you know are sometimes passed along from other people who DO have the diplomas

The things that magicians know are sometimes passed along.

And sometime the things you know were not freely passed along from other people who do have diplomas. School teachers and college professors are paid to pass along their knowledge. And the students are required to read books, study and learn more than just what the teachers tell them.

And finally, I'm not sure why you keep bringing up diplomas. Most magicians have learned most of what they know on their own. There's no magic university hidden away somewhere that gives out diplomas to all the good magicans.

You still have just one reason that other people should tell you how magic works- you want to know. And while you keep claiming there's no reason they shouldn't, you ignore all the reasons already given because you don't agree with them.

 

[Belz...]

So a magician does tricks poorly and the audience sees how they're done- he's exposing the method, but you want to claim that's wouldn't be an indication that he's a poor magician. A magician with no showmanship or presentation skills sees that his audience isn't impressed, so he explains how they were done- but still not an indication that he's a poor magician.

What in the blue hell are you talking about now ? You said a magician who revealed those tricks would be a poor magician. I said that this is a bad standard for determining what a poor magician is, and now you're talking about a magician who's obviously bad at what he's doing as though this has something to do with what I said ?

I'd certainly use that as one standard. What standards would you use to evaluate which magicians are good and which are bad?

Same standards I use for other forms of entertainment: whether or not they entertain.

Of course you never claimed otherwise.

Then why did you bother mentioning it ?

You do keep complaining because they don't tell you what you want to know.

Where did I complain ? And is this a natural tendency you have of inventing stuff I didn't say, or is it something you practiced ?

There have been a number of reasons given in this threads (and the wiki link). You want to claim there are no reasons simply because you don't like the reasons.

Wrong again. My position is that there are no reasons why there should be such a taboo in the first place. Individual magicians may or may not want to divulge their techniques. That is their right.

From what you keep writing it appears that you'd like to force magicians to reveal secrets to you.

That quote you just showed simply was me saying that there can be good reasons for revealing magic secrets. How does that amount to me forcing anyone to do anything ?

Everything you've written is based on your wanting to know.

Well, duh. That's the whole point of the thread.

Your whole point in this thread is that you think magicians should reveal tricks to you with only real reason being that you want to know and you don't like it when they disagree.

No it isn't. I think that magicians should be allowed to reveal their tricks to me for no other reason than because I want to know, IF they want to and without fear of reprisal.

From that alone it appears to me that you'd like to force them to reveal secrets to you.

I have no idea where you got this idea, but I'm sure there are good schools that teach you how to read better.

Of course I can't quote you actually saying that- if I could then I wouldn't have written "it appears".

In that case you should stop trying to read my mind. You are very bad at it.

That is a common misconception that many people have- they think that if they just know the secrets then they will be a magician.

That's their problem. I don't want to replicate the trick, I just want to know. For example, stars are pretty but it's a whole lot more fascinating when you know what they are. It doesn't mean I want to become an astronomer or, for that matter, that I want to build stars.

And finally, I'm not sure why you keep bringing up diplomas.

It was said, I believe by you, that if someone is interested in magic they should learn the trade.

You still have just one reason that other people should tell you how magic works- you want to know.

That should be enough. Do I need some humanitarian reason, too ?

And while you keep claiming there's no reason they shouldn't, you ignore all the reasons already given because you don't agree with them.

I'm going to have to ask you for that quote from me, again, saying that we should force them to reveal their trade.

 

[Bob Klase]

What in the blue hell are you talking about now ? You said a magician who revealed those tricks would be a poor magician.

Here's what I actually said:

Surely the counter argument is magicians don't want to reveal tricks because not revealing them shows how smart they are

In many cases you're right. I consider those magicians very poor magicians.

I said that this is a bad standard for determining what a poor magician is, and now you're talking about a magician who's obviously bad at what he's doing as though this has something to do with what I said ?

You're really making no sense. I consider it one standard, not the only one. You don't have to like it.

Same standards I use for other forms of entertainment: whether or not they entertain.

Many people are able to use more than one criteria to evaluate things. Many people find Ed Wood films very entertaining. By your standard alone that means he couldn't have been a poor director.

Then why did you bother mentioning it ?

Because you don't have to make a specific claim before someone can evaluate the implications of what you write.

Wrong again. My position is that there are no reasons why there should be such a taboo in the first place.

Your position is wrong. The fact is that there are reasons- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(magic)

Once again you not only ignore reasons that have been given, you claim that they don't exist.

That quote you just showed simply was me saying that there can be good reasons for revealing magic secrets. How does that amount to me forcing anyone to do anything ?

Quote:
Everything you've written is based on your wanting to know.

Well, duh. That's the whole point of the thread.

No. The point of the whole thread is not "why shouldn't you want to know", it's why won't people tell you. If you still fail to see the difference then there's really no point in wasting any more time explaining it.

No it isn't. I think that magicians should be allowed to reveal their tricks to me for no other reason than because I want to know, IF they want to and without fear of reprisal.

Fine. Then all you have to do is find magicians that will do that. Feel free to look for them.

It was said, I believe by you, that if someone is interested in magic they should learn the trade.

No, I said nothing about learning "the trade". But if someone is interested in magic, what would you say they should learn? Astronomy?

Quote:
You still have just one reason that other people should tell you how magic works- you want to know.

That should be enough. Do I need some humanitarian reason, too ?

Wanting to know is plenty of reason for you to want to know. It's not necessarily enough reason for someone to want to tell you.

When I was a kid I wanted to know what I was getting for Christmas. That wasn't enough reason for my parents to tell me.

Quote:
And while you keep claiming there's no reason they shouldn't, you ignore all the reasons already given because you don't agree with them.

I'm going to have to ask you for that quote from me, again, saying that we should force them to reveal their trade.

That part of your reply has no relationship to the statement you quoted.

So the bottom line is: You want someone to tell you secrets. They won't tell you. You have no reason for them to tell you other than you want to know. They have reasons they don't want to tell you- you don't like the reasons so you claim they don't exist.

Life is tough.

 

[Belz...]

You're really making no sense. I consider it one standard, not the only one.

You said you considered THOSE magicians to be poor ones. That pretty much includes all of those who are in that category. I said it was an odd standard. The reason why they do it has nothing to do with how good they are.

Many people are able to use more than one criteria to evaluate things. Many people find Ed Wood films very entertaining. By your standard alone that means he couldn't have been a poor director.

He WAS a poor director AND his films are very entertaining. But they are entertaining despite his efforts, not because of them. If a magician is entertaining because he is bad, then sure, you have a point. But that's not what we were discussing.

Your position is wrong. The fact is that there are reasons- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(magic)

Once again you not only ignore reasons that have been given, you claim that they don't exist.

This is getting ridiculous. I didn't say there were no reasons NOT to reveal the trick... I said there was no reason why it was a TABOO. Please READ what I write.

No. The point of the whole thread is not "why shouldn't you want to know", it's why won't people tell you. If you still fail to see the difference then there's really no point in wasting any more time explaining it.

And there you go again. The whole point of the thread IS that there are people, me included, who want to know, and magicians willing to explain. We just don't see why it's such a big issue with the other magicians.

No, I said nothing about learning "the trade". But if someone is interested in magic, what would you say they should learn? Astronomy?

They certainly don't have to become one in order to understand the trade, as you suggested.

It's not necessarily enough reason for someone to want to tell you.

I never claimed this. How's the strawman battle going ?

That part of your reply has no relationship to the statement you quoted.

A taste of your own medecine, for sure. Will you admit that I never said it ?

So the bottom line is: You want someone to tell you secrets.

No, I don't want there to be secrets.

They won't tell you.

Some will.

You have no reason for them to tell you other than you want to know. They have reasons they don't want to tell you

Damn, you have problems with reading, don't you ? SOME of those magicians WILL tell me. The THREAD is about OTHER magicians' reaction to this, as though some sort of important moral code has been broken.

you don't like the reasons so you claim they don't exist.

You have no idea what I like or not. I asked you to stop trying to read my mind. You're no better than any psychic at it.

 

[Bob Klase]

You said you considered THOSE magicians to be poor ones.

I said "in many cases" I considered those magicians to be poor ones. Maybe you missed it because you had to interpret 2 sentences in on paragraph:

In many cases you're right. I consider those magicians very poor magicians.

I asked what your criteria was and you replied:

Originally Posted by Belz
Same standards I use for other forms of entertainment: whether or not they entertain.

But now you want to start making changes to what you just said:

He WAS a poor director AND his films are very entertaining. But they are entertaining despite his efforts, not because of them.

It seems that your answers only apply until challenged, then you start start adding qualifications.

If a magician is entertaining because he is bad, then sure, you have a point. But that's not what we were discussing.

We were discussing what criteria is used to define a poor magician. You don't get to throw out points just because they show that you were wrong.

This is getting ridiculous. I didn't say there were no reasons NOT to reveal the trick... I said there was no reason why it was a TABOO.

Then you'd still be wrong (but feel free to give a new definition of TABOO). It's not taboo.

And there you go again. The whole point of the thread IS that there are people, me included, who want to know, and magicians willing to explain. We just don't see why it's such a big issue with the other magicians.

You don't want to see. As I've said before, feel free to go find those magicians that will explain.

They certainly don't have to become one in order to understand the trade, as you suggested.

Nope, I never said anything about "the trade".

I never claimed this.

I didn't say you claimed it. I was merely telling you something you didn't appear to know.

How's the strawman battle going ?

I'm pretty sure you're winning. You're at least 3 strawmen ahead of me.

A taste of your own medecine, for sure. Will you admit that I never said it ?

Yes- I'll admit that you never wrote those exact words.

No, I don't want there to be secrets.

Okay. I don't want there to be war, disease and bad people.

Some will.

Good. Problem solved then.

Damn, you have problems with reading, don't you ? SOME of those magicians WILL tell me. The THREAD is about OTHER magicians' reaction to this, as though some sort of important moral code has been broken.

Why do you have such a problem with other magician's reactions to it then? Obviously the reactions aren't stopping those magician's that will tell you.