HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mike@vpnet.chi.il.us (michael kamlet)
Subject: Re: To reveal or not to reveal...
Organization: Vpnet Public Access
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:47:57 GMT

In article <BARNETT.92Nov18090435@grymoire.crd.ge.com> barnett@crdgw1.ge.com writes:
>In article <1ebdl6INNmc8@agate.berkeley.edu> bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
>>>People don't want secrets. They think they do, but they really want mystery.
>
>>Imho, saying this to 13,000 non-magicians does more harm to the magic community
>>than revealing secrets.  "I know what you want better than you do" is pretty
>>insulting.
>
>How do you figure this does harm? If the audience knew how every trick
>worked, there would be no reason to see a magic act. This would
>certainly put a lot of magicians out of work.
>
>Do you think people would come to see a magician TWICE if they knew
>how everything worked?
>
>Have you every told a member of the lay audience how a trick worked -
>only to see a look of disappointment in their faces when they realized
>how simple the trick was?
>--
 
I couldn't agree more.  I have explained how some stuff works to a few people
and EVERY time the person is now unimpressed & disappointed. 

I also do a strait-jacket escape (usually a comedy bit) and EVERY time I
get out of it - the audience is usually unimpressed -- because it looked
so easy (that's why I do it as comedy..)  I think its because they want to
see me dislocate my shoulder in order to get out of it...:-)

.
k 

Newsgroups: alt.magic
From: femanrs@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (BRUCE MANNERS)
Subject: Re: To reveal or not to reveal...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 17 Nov 1992 10:34 EST  

In article <1992Nov17.035955.6127@r-node.gts.org>, wayne@r-node.gts.org (Wayne) writes...
>In article <BARNETT.92Nov13105053@grymoire.crd.ge.com> barnett@crdgw1.ge.com writes:
>>In article <BxM5pC.Ixs@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> djstanle@napier.uwaterloo.ca (david stanley) writes:
>>>	    In the grand scheme of things there are very few people who
>>>   read this group and I believe that those who do have a very genuine intrest in
>>>   magic.  
>>
>>According to lastest numbers, it is estimates that 13,000 people read
>>the group. This is "very few" who "have a very genuine interest in magic"?

13,000 People???

Are you saying that 13,000 people read alt.magic????  How was this number 
generated?

I think that it is more likely that 13,000 people are connected to the 
overall network and that some smaller number are subscribed (and read) alt.
magic.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

> 
>In the grand scheme of things 13,000 people isn't very many considering the
>number of people in the world. It's probably also a very small percentage of
>the number of people who watched David Copperfield's last TV special.
> 
>Generally the discussion of to reveal or not to reveal seems a bit silly.
>What people are saying is that it's not OK for me to post how to do a trick
>but it's OK for me to write a mass market paperback revealing tricks or
>go into a magic shop and buy the trick.
> 
>-- 
>Wayne Dawe
>wayne@r-node.UUCP

I generally agree with your point, but the number of people that watched DC 
last show is kind of irrelevent because he didn't expose anything.

IHMO of course

Bruce

**************************************************************************

Bruce Manners                                          Juglito, ergo sum

**************************************************************************
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: Re: To reveal or not to reveal...
Date: 19 Nov 1992 15:40:46 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.cs.berkeley.edu

mike@vpnet.chi.il.us (michael kamlet) writes:
|In article <BARNETT.92Nov18090435@grymoire.crd.ge.com> barnett@crdgw1.ge.com writes:
|>In article <1ebdl6INNmc8@agate.berkeley.edu> bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
|>>>People don't want secrets. They think they do, but they really want mystery.
|>
|>>Imho, saying this to 13,000 non-magicians does more harm to the magic community
|>>than revealing secrets.  "I know what you want better than you do" is pretty
|>>insulting.
|>
|>How do you figure this does harm? If the audience knew how every trick
|>worked, there would be no reason to see a magic act. [...]
|
|I couldn't agree more.  I have explained how some stuff works to a few people
|and EVERY time the person is now unimpressed & disappointed.  [...]

I've already replied to Mr. Barnett by mail, but several other people seem
to have misunderstood what I intended to say in the same way, so let me say
it to all of you:

My original message quoted above was *not* intended as an argument for
revealing secrets.  *All* I meant was, it's really rude to say "I know
what you want better than you know what you want" to anyone.  You can
find ways to explain and defend your policy on secrets that do not
use this offensive tone.

For example you could say "I recognize that you're curious about the way
this is done, but I feel that you'd be disappointed if ..." or you could
say "I recognize that you're curious about the way this is done, but my
continued ability to present this effect requires..." or lots of things
that don't suggest that the person asking doesn't "really" want to know.
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: Re: To reveal or not to reveal...
Date: 17 Nov 1992 18:28:54 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.cs.berkeley.edu

barnett@crdgw1.ge.com writes:
>People don't want secrets. They think they do, but they really want mystery.

Imho, saying this to 13,000 non-magicians does more harm to the magic community
than revealing secrets.  "I know what you want better than you do" is pretty
insulting.
From: barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: Re: arithmetic (was: To reveal or not to reveal...)
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:55:38 GMT
	<17NOV199210342423@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov>
	<BARNETT.92Nov17155325@grymoire.crd.ge.com>
	<1ebonjINNorq@agate.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: barnett@crdgw1.ge.com
Organization: GE Corp. R & D, Schenectady, NY

In article <1ebonjINNorq@agate.berkeley.edu> bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
>   Hmm.  At least one of these numbers has to be wrong.  1% of 190,000 is 1900,
>   so 0.8% can't be 13,000.

>   Maybe you mean 1300?  That sounds more plausible.

Sorry. You are right. I used the wrong figures.
190,000 is estimated # of people who read news.announce.newgroups,
which is 12.1% of the total readers. This gives 1,570,249 total
estimated USENET readers. .8% of that estimated number would be
12,562 - which is close to the 13,000 number I quoted earlier.

As I said, please read news.lists for more info. It's just an
estimate, because most sites don't send in arbitron numbers (i.e. the
summation of the usenet readers and what they read at each site.)
--
Bruce Barnett <barnett@crd.ge.com> uunet!crdgw1!barnett
From: barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: Re: Penn & Teller & Exposure.
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:23:31 GMT
	<1e8co4INN2ki@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>
Reply-To: barnett@crdgw1.ge.com
Organization: GE Corp. R & D, Schenectady, NY

In article <1e8co4INN2ki@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> gumby@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (David Brian Gumminger) writes:

>The second is the
>"visible illusion" on their current program.  This is a variation on the
>Mis-made lady idea except they use see-thru boxes.

I agree with David. What does the "visible ilusion" expose? A trap
door. Hardly high-tech. Everyone knows about trap doors, and magicians
now-a-days know people know about them. Therefore many illusions are
designed to "prove" that trap doors aren't used - even when they are!

While it appears to be exposing, it isn't. They have exposed other
items, like the truck running over Teller - which again doesn't expose
useful technology. 

This is the whole point. Exposure itself doesn't hurt. However,
exposure of useful technology does hurt. It hurts the magicians who
have to perform it, and the audience who watches it.

There is one more point. Some magicians feel that posting to this
newsgroup is exposure. Now suppose magician "A" tells magician "B" a
secret. And suppose magician "B" posts it on alt.magic. Magician "A"
might decide that magician "B" can no longer be trusted. Therefore
magician "A" may never reveal anything important to magician "B" again.

Magicians share with an implicit trust. Break that trust and you may no
longer be welcome.
--
Bruce Barnett <barnett@crd.ge.com> uunet!crdgw1!barnett
Newsgroups: alt.magic
From: mjamroz@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Margaret Jamroz)
Subject: Re: Penn & Teller & Exposure.
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:56:09 GMT

In article <BARNETT.92Nov16092353@grymoire.crd.ge.com> barnett@crdgw1.ge.com writes:
>In article <1992Nov14.130828.24894@news.acns.nwu.edu> mjamroz@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Margaret Jamroz) writes:
>
>>   You may want to check out their new book, Penn & Tellers, How To Play With
>>   Your Food.  They explain in some detail about their feelings regarding
>>   exposing "secrets."  
>
>Can you give us a summary of their comments?

Okay.  P&T write in their book:

"...If you want credit for being clever, you should proably not tell.  Good
tricks usually have dopey, unimpressive explanations..."

"...you can see why Houdini didn't give away tricks until he was good and
ready.  (He had a great habit of doing a trick until other magicians started
to catch on and imitate him.  Then he'd inventa cleverer method and go around
"exposing" his original method as that of cheap imposters.)"

"...If you teach a trick, go all the way.  Make sure your friend actually
learns to do it.  Rehearse until she/he does the trick well.  There are
already more than enough incompetent magicians without your adding to the
problem."

"...if you prefer to hoard your secrets and impede the advacement of Humankind
though knowledge, that's your right."


And on the subject of what to do when a person keeps bugging you about how an
effect was done:

"If they still hound you, pretend to give in.  Take the curious person into a
quiet corner.  Bring your lips to his or her ear.  Then scream at the top of
your lungs, "IT'S A TRICK!!!!"


They have a lot of other comments, but legally, I just can't type the whole
thing here.

The book's really good throughout.  All kinds of ghastly tricks involving
food, stuff about evil folks who claim to really bend spoons with their minds,
James Randi, and a trick using a melon wrapped in fiberglass tape and a high
powered rifle to explain why Oliver Stone is an idiot.

All in all, it's cool, wacky, typical Penn & Teller fare.  Get it if you have
a strong stomach.

maggie
Newsgroups: alt.magic
From: NORSSIYALU@joyl.joensuu.fi (HAKULINEN_HARRI)
Subject: magic
Organization: University of Joensuu, Finland
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:54:47 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21



I was watching htehe he   Well this was only a test don
bother sorry
From: gumby@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (David Brian Gumminger)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: Re: Penn & Teller & Exposure.
Date: 16 Nov 1992 08:55:00 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Keywords: Penn, Teller, Exposing Magic

In article <1992Nov13.170215.4072@memstvx1.memst.edu> gouldh@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>I keep hearing how Penn and Teller expose magic effects. Its interesting
>that if its so great to do that Teller has not to my knowledge exposed his
>rose routine.
>
>
>                   H. Gould


In actuallity, I can only think of two things Penn and Teller perform where
they "give away" a secret.  The first is the handstab.  They show some palming
and talk a little about false cuts and false shuffles.  The second is the
"visible illusion" on their current program.  This is a variation on the
Mis-made lady idea except they use see-thru boxes.

What follows here is my opinion of these two tricks.  The handstab is not
an intentional "giving away" or exposing of any magical effect.  It is an
attempt (and a good one) at getting laughs from the audience and at the
same time urging them not to take a magicians word when he/she tells you
that your card has been "lost in the deck."  There are other sleights they use
to get this trick to work and those they DO NOT expose.  It's almost as if
the exposing is a form of misdirection.  They tell you how to do it, so the
audience watches for it allowing them to pull something else right in front
of your face.  Not a bad idea actually.

The visible illusion, as they state in their performances, was created as a
"tribute" to all those people who got so peeved at the "exposure" in the
handstab.  The illusion is performed initially in opaque boxes and later
with the see-thru boxes.  Even watching the opaque version, I think most
people can figure this one out.  It is sooo obvious.  The see-thru version
just confirms your suspicions.  The result looks to me to be a two part
statement to the magical community.  First, give the audience a little
credit, they aren't as stupid as you might think.  How can you expose an
illusion that the audience can figure out with ease?  Second, lighten up
a little.  No one will go hungry or be unable to feed their family because
you show people you can palm a card.

Notice they never give away their best effects, nor do they give away the
effects that someone else is currently performing.  Are they exposing magic?
I don't think so.  Rather, I'd say they are exposing people TO magic.  Theres
a big difference.
  
Dave
-- 
David B. Gumminger
Kansas State University
gumby@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.magic
From: tnielson@spock.NMSU.Edu (THORIN NIELSON)
Subject: Larry Jennings book- Title etc.
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:45:27 GMT


I'm sorry.

I hope this will be of help to anyone who wants to find this book. I can't  
recommend it more. 

The Classic Magic of Larry Jennings
written by Mike Maxwell

1986, L&L Publishing, Lake Tahoe.

I think you'd have to get it at a magic shop or order it from a distributer.

I also recently bought "Counts, Cuts, and Subtleties". A "must" for  
intermediate amateurs like myself.


Thorin Nielson -
Newsgroups: alt.magic
From: wayne@r-node.gts.org (Wayne)
Subject: To reveal or not to reveal...
Organization: R-node Public Access UNIX Information System (416-249-5366)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:59:55 GMT

In article <BARNETT.92Nov13105053@grymoire.crd.ge.com> barnett@crdgw1.ge.com writes:
>In article <BxM5pC.Ixs@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> djstanle@napier.uwaterloo.ca (david stanley) writes:
>>	    In the grand scheme of things there are very few people who
>>   read this group and I believe that those who do have a very genuine intrest in
>>   magic.  
>
>According to lastest numbers, it is estimates that 13,000 people read
>the group. This is "very few" who "have a very genuine interest in magic"?

In the grand scheme of things 13,000 people isn't very many considering the
number of people in the world. It's probably also a very small percentage of
the number of people who watched David Copperfield's last TV special.

Generally the discussion of to reveal or not to reveal seems a bit silly.
What people are saying is that it's not OK for me to post how to do a trick
but it's OK for me to write a mass market paperback revealing tricks or
go into a magic shop and buy the trick.

-- 
Wayne Dawe
wayne@r-node.UUCP
From: barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: Re: To reveal or not to reveal...
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:53:25 GMT
	<BxM5pC.Ixs@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
	<BARNETT.92Nov13105053@grymoire.crd.ge.com>
	<1992Nov17.035955.6127@r-node.gts.org>
	<17NOV199210342423@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: barnett@crdgw1.ge.com
Organization: GE Corp. R & D, Schenectady, NY

In article <17NOV199210342423@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> femanrs@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (BRUCE MANNERS) writes:
>   13,000 People???

>   Are you saying that 13,000 people read alt.magic????  How was this number 
>   generated?

>   I think that it is more likely that 13,000 people are connected to the 
>   overall network and that some smaller number are subscribed (and read) alt.
>   magic.  Please correct me if I am wrong.


Well, I didn't derive the number, but that was the estimate of
subscribers in the news.lists posting. It is an estimate based on the
number of sites sending in information compared to the estimated
number of USENET sites. They estimate 190,000 USENET readers, and that
0.8% of the people read alt.magic.

For more info, read news.lists
--
Bruce Barnett <barnett@crd.ge.com> uunet!crdgw1!barnett
Newsgroups: alt.magic
From: fmah@mta.ca
Subject: Misled
Reply-To: fmah@mta.ca
Organization: Mount Allison U, Sackville, N.B. Canada 
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:28:37 GMT

Hi all,

	I'm new here.  The conversation seems to be quite interesting.  I've
been practicing magic for many months.  So, I'm fairly novice at the 
subject.  What I would like to find out is if the illusory effect Misled is
as spectacular as everyone seems to build it up to be.  I'd really like to
find out more about it if anyone can help me.  I'm free for mailing too!
I'm FMAH@macc2.mta.ca

The novice,

Frank
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: arithmetic (was: To reveal or not to reveal...)
Date: 17 Nov 1992 21:37:55 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.cs.berkeley.edu

barnett@crdgw1.ge.com writes:
>>   13,000 People???
>
> They estimate 190,000 USENET readers, and that
>0.8% of the people read alt.magic.

Hmm.  At least one of these numbers has to be wrong.  1% of 190,000 is 1900,
so 0.8% can't be 13,000.

Maybe you mean 1300?  That sounds more plausible.
Newsgroups: alt.magic
From: reid@pa.dec.com (Brian Reid)
Subject: Re: reader count
Organization: DEC Network Systems Laboratory
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 03:54:54 GMT

In article <MJOHNSON.92Nov17090232@netcom.Netcom.COM> mjohnson@netcom.Netcom.COM (Mark Johnson) writes:
>Have a look at the news.* newsgroups.  Every month a summary is
>posted of all kinds of statistics: # of articles, # of readers,
>traffic flow by site, etc etc.  Everything you could imagine
>when dreaming of a beancounter-on-methamphetamine who just
>learned how to program in C++ :-).

I'll have you know that all of my scripts are programmed in awk, not C++,
that I can't count beans higher than 7 or 8, and that if you took one look at
me in my size-40 jeans you'd know I'm not on methamphetamine.

I've always figured that Mark Johnson isn't wrong by more than a factor of 2,
either.
From: barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: Re: To reveal or not to reveal...
Date: 18 Nov 92 14:04:35 GMT
	<1992Nov17.035955.6127@r-node.gts.org>
	<BARNETT.92Nov17125452@grymoire.crd.ge.com>
	<1ebdl6INNmc8@agate.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: barnett@crdgw1.ge.com
Organization: GE Corp. R & D, Schenectady, NY

In article <1ebdl6INNmc8@agate.berkeley.edu> bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
>>People don't want secrets. They think they do, but they really want mystery.

>Imho, saying this to 13,000 non-magicians does more harm to the magic community
>than revealing secrets.  "I know what you want better than you do" is pretty
>insulting.

How do you figure this does harm? If the audience knew how every trick
worked, there would be no reason to see a magic act. This would
certainly put a lot of magicians out of work.

Do you think people would come to see a magician TWICE if they knew
how everything worked?

Have you every told a member of the lay audience how a trick worked -
only to see a look of disappointment in their faces when they realized
how simple the trick was?
--
Bruce Barnett <barnett@crd.ge.com> uunet!crdgw1!barnett
Newsgroups: alt.magic
From: j3david@student.business.uwo.ca (James David)
Subject: Enough already
Organization: University of Western Ontario
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 00:01:25 GMT

C'MON! We've beaten this one to death...why doesn't someone just start up 
a new listing, call it 'alt.magic.revealing.secrets.d'?  This forum was 
designed to discuss magic and the practice of magic...

If you want to discuss methodologies, join the mailing list 
(Bruce Barnett's that is, I don't have the address handy).  But stop with 
this incessant gibberish.  Cripes, I barely read the postings on 
alt.magic because I know that 99% of the stuff will be about the same 
whole thing...it is incredibly tiresome.  Really...this is not a 
moderated group and the decision will never be made or really 
matter...leave it up to the individual and let's move on...I'm really 
serious, let's move on to other things.

If not, then we can spend the next several months getting lost in this 
sea of opinions, losing the spirit of what this newsgroup was intended 
for...

James David -- London, Ontario, Canada/

j3david@student.business.uwo.ca (James David)
Western Business School  --  London, Ontario
From: flbbs!mike.morrell@ncoast.ORG (Mike Morrell) 
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE??
Date: 21 Nov 92 13:21:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Fleet BBS (216) 646-0655 24 hrs DUAL STD
Reply-To: flbbs!mike.morrell@ncoast.ORG (Mike Morrell) 




Has all activity stopped here or has my feedsite forgotten to add me
back into his active file??

Regards Mike
From: reid@pa.dec.com (Brian Reid)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: Re: arithmetic (was: To reveal or not to reveal...)
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:21:23 GMT
Organization: DEC Network Systems Laboratory

In article <1ebonjINNorq@agate.berkeley.edu> bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
>barnett@crdgw1.ge.com writes:
>>>   13,000 People???
>>
>> They estimate 190,000 USENET readers, and that
>>0.8% of the people read alt.magic.
>
>Hmm.  At least one of these numbers has to be wrong.  1% of 190,000 is 1900,
>so 0.8% can't be 13,000.
>
>Maybe you mean 1300?  That sounds more plausible.


13,000 is 0.8% of 1 700 000, which is the estimated number of people
worldwide who have access to the net. 0.8% is the fraction of people in the
sampled population who read alt.magic (391 out of 48160).
Newsgroups: alt.magic
From: dulcinea@cwis.unomaha.edu (Shaene Steinauer)
Subject: Re: Enough already
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 05:14:58 GMT

j3david@student.business.uwo.ca  writes:
> C'MON! We've beaten this one to death...[deleted for space]>

True.
 
> If you want to discuss methodologies, join the mailing list 
> (Bruce Barnett's that is, I don't have the address handy).  But stop with 

Good idea.

> this incessant gibberish.  Cripes, I barely read the postings on 
> alt.magic because I know that 99% of the stuff will be about the same 
> whole thing...it is incredibly tiresome.  Really...this is not a 
> moderated group and the decision will never be made or really 
> matter...leave it up to the individual and let's move on...I'm really 

Even better idea.  If we still want a FAQ, it could say, "Some of us 
would prefer secrets not be openly discussed for the following reasons...
(I don't remember them off hand.)  Those of us willing to discuss secrets
through e-mail are listed below.  (INSERT LIST OF NAMES AND MAGIC
EXPERIENCE)


> serious, let's move on to other things.

I Agree.  (OOps.  Too late.  I've kind of continued the discussion, haven't
I?)

> 
> James David -- London, Ontario, Canada/
> 
> j3david@student.business.uwo.ca (James David)
> Western Business School  --  London, Ontario

Thanks, James.


-- 
--Dulcinea
    (Shaene M. Steinauer)
    (dulcinea@cwis.unomaha.edu)
****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.magic