HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bhayes@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Barry Hayes)
Subject: Re: accomplices ethical?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 20:30:32 GMT

In article <9204161331.AA11155@dduck.ctt.bellcore.com> duncan@ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) writes:
>Mike Steiner has also said:
>
>>Another point of view is that if you have an audience of 1,000 and 999 are
>>plants, and if that one audience member is suitably entertained and mystified,
>>then you have done magic.

Penn and Teller have been known to do this.  Penn has a volunteer on
stage and amid business gets him to draw a card, unseen by all.
Teller, behind them both, is working away on big electronic message
display board.  Penn fails to reveal the card a few times.  He turns
to the audience and says "Any of YOU know what the card is?" and as he
says that the sign lights up to say "Jack of Clubs".  The audience
yells out "Jack of Clubs!" and the poor guy on stage is astounded.
From: pbaker@tbag.UUCP (Pete Baker)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: Re: David Copperfield..Some answers..
Date: 5 Apr 92 21:10:38 EST
Organization: Tampa Bay Amiga Group

>The woman and man who checked out the plexi-glass box in the flying trick
>were the same two people who were in our audience at Purdue.   Interesting,
>isn't it?

Gee they really must be dedicated fans to follow his shows around like that!

and lucky too.. to be chosen twice to help out in the show.

I am very impressed!

    _  Best Regards...Pete Baker              The Tampa Bay Amiga Group [TBAG]
   {~}'                                      Serving Amigans Online Since 1986
  ( V-)   BBS   : +1 813 889 9467            2000+ PD files, MODs, GIFs, & XXX
  `|Y|'  UseNet : pbaker@tbag                 Running 14.4K Baud HST on BBS #1
  _|||_ InterNet: pbaker%tbag@tscs.com       ALL  International Calls Welcome!
From: barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: Re: accomplices ethical?
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:47:38 GMT
	<1992Apr16.174107.8782@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
	<1992Apr16.200116.18520@cirrus.com>
Reply-To: barnett@crdgw1.ge.com
Organization: GE Corp. R & D, Schenectady, NY


 IMHO----

If an illusion is performed and the audience can guess how it worked
because of a weakness in the presentation, then the illusion has a
weak spot. Most illussions have weak spots. The clever magician can
hide these weaknesses.

The magician should have a presentation that precludes the idea that
accomplices are used. If the audience concludes that the only possible
way the illusion was maintained was with an accomplice, then the
magician didn't hide the weakness well enough (The accomplice looked
like an accomplice). If an accomplice wasn't used, but the audience
believes there was one, then the magician failed in the presentation.


Dunninger and Kreskin offered a large check at every show to anyone
who could prove they used an accomplice.


There are times than an accomplice is used, and the audience has no
idea that this was the technique used. This is a good illusion.

If a performer uses an accomplice and the audience knows this, then it
isn't unethical. It's just a bad illusion.

It is another matter if a performer tells a direct lie.......
--
Bruce Barnett <barnett@crd.ge.com> uunet!crdgw1!barnett
From: dhesi@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: accomplices ethical?
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:26:10 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.

It seems to me that there is something unethical about using plants
(accomplices in the audience).  It's similar to using a camera trick on a
televised magic show.

Copperfield's trick of falling over the Niagara Falls could not have
worked except through the narrow camera angle -- so I call it a camera
trick.  So also (I suspect) were the tricks of the disappearing train and
the disappearing airplane.  Now we have a plant helping in the "Flying"
trick.

Is this the state of magic today?
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@cirrus.COM>
UUCP:  oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
From: Mike.Steiner@p1.f207.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: accomplices ethical?
Date: 15 Apr 92 08:09:47 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:143/207.1 - Sunnyvale Fido Conn, Sunnyvale CA


Rahul Dhesi writes about "accomplices ethical?" to All  [14 Apr 92 21:54]

RD> It seems to me that there is something unethical about using 
RD> plants (accomplices in the audience). It's similar to using a 
RD> camera trick on a televised magic show.

Another point of view is that if you have an audience of 1,000 and 999 are plants,
and if that one audience member is suitably entertained and mystified, then
you have done magic.

What is the difference between a gaffed deck of cards and a gaffed audience
in the long run?

Yes, using a shill in the audience does seem like cheating, but that is only
because we have been conditioned that way.
 
/207 143/207
--  
Mike Steiner
UUCP: uts.amdahl.com!kennel!207.1!Mike.Steiner
INTERNET: Mike.Steiner@p1.f207.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG
"The views expressed above are those of Mike Steiner only."
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: Re: accomplices ethical?
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:21:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.skulbINN8m8
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.cs.berkeley.edu

dhesi@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>What is the difference between magic and cheating?  It is this.
>Sometimes you are asked to take something on faith without having the
>chance of confirming it yourself, or seeing some other member of the
>audience confirm it.  If what you were asked to accept on faith turns out
>to be untrue, you were cheated and it was not magic.

Pfui.  Every time a magician pulls out a deck of cards, does the audience
get to examine each card individually, to make sure it isn't (say) a
Svengali deck?  No, they take it on faith, especially the ones who've
never heard of a Svengali deck.

Personally, I think this inspector-from-the-audience business is a drag
even if they *aren't* plants.  It slows everything down and it rubs my
nose in the fact that the magician is trying to prove himself smarter than
I rather than trying to entertain me.

P.S.  "Ethical" and "unethical" are strong words.  "Unethical" is representing
yourself as able to contact someone's dead relatives and getting the someone
to give you a lot of money.  I might even allow the use of "unethical" to
describe the practice of seriously embarrassing someone in the audience in
order to amuse the rest of the audience.  But using plants is, at worst,
unaesthetic, imho.
From: whos@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen)
Subject: Re: David Copperfield..Some answers..
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:38:59 GMT

In article <pbaker.01j6@tbag.UUCP> pbaker@tbag.UUCP (Pete Baker) writes:
>>The woman and man who checked out the plexi-glass box in the flying trick
>>were the same two people who were in our audience at Purdue.   Interesting,
>>isn't it?
>
>Gee they really must be dedicated fans to follow his shows around like that!
>
>and lucky too.. to be chosen twice to help out in the show.
>
>I am very impressed!

Just a point being touched on here, in case we  have any kibbitzers here who
don't work in magic...

If you figure out an illusion during a show, DON'T tell anyone.  Just sit there
and smirk.  People would rather be impressed than educated.

(As I said:  This has nothing to do with the people who posted the above,
just a pet peeve of mine)

-- 
Mail whos@ddsw1.mcs.com. | Whos at ddsw1? | Yes! | What? | No, whos! | Huh? |
Who? | Who what? | No, whos@ddsw1.mcs.com!  | Where? | DDSW1! | Who's there?|
Right! | Right? | Yes! | Oh, right@ddsw1.mcs.com? | No, WHOS@ddsw1.mcs.com! |
That's what I wanna find out! | What? | Who! | He's at ddsw1! | AAAAAAAAAGH!|
From: dhesi@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: Re: accomplices ethical?
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:01:16 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.

Consider some situations.

1.   Magician shows you his hands empty.  Later you discover that they
weren't, but you were fooled.  This is magic.

2.   Magician shows you a box with a million dollars in bills, and
invites bank manager to certify that this is real money.  Later you
discover that alleged bank manager was an accomplice, and alleged money
was flash paper.  This is not magic.

3.   Magician selects three volunteers from audience to think of a
number.  Then he guesses what numbers they thought of.  If the volunteers
are not accomplices, this is magic.

4.   Magician selects three volunteers from audience to think of a
number.  You a suitably amazed, but later discover that the three alleged
volunteers were all plants.  This is not magic.

What is the difference between magic and cheating?  It is this.
Sometimes you are asked to take something on faith without having the
chance of confirming it yourself, or seeing some other member of the
audience confirm it.  If what you were asked to accept on faith turns out
to be untrue, you were cheated and it was not magic.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@cirrus.COM>
UUCP:  oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
Newsgroups: alt.magic
From: tom@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu (Tom Gerace)
Subject: Re: Women magicians?
Organization: Tulane University, New Orleans, LA
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 12:27:58 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-1808]: rs1.tcs.tulane.edu

In article <Idv2n_S00WBK41Pe97@andrew.cmu.edu> "Mary R. Jensen" <mj0v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Are there any women magicians?  past or present?  Other than the
>ubiquitous assistant, of course.  If not, any (reasonable) theories on
>why not?

Two that come to mind are Melinda, who is currently appearing in
Las Vegas, and Diana Zimmerman.
I've seen Diana Zimmerman perform about 12 years ago, and she has
a beautiful act.  Pretty much standard effects, but her trademark
is (was?) bright colors and beautiful props.

Two other current women magicians have been featured in the
Linking Ring recently, but names escape me.

Tom Gerace                         tom@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu
Manager, Consultants Bureau        (504) 865-5631
and President, IBM Ring 27
Tulane Computing Services
Tulane University
New Orleans, LA  70118  USA
Newsgroups: alt.magic
From: alanchem@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Alan Scott Olson)
Subject: Again I ask...
Originator: alanchem@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:31:08 GMT

I asked this question before, but saw only vague responses on the
newsgroup.  You don't have to post an answer - email is fine.

I brought up the point that the one time I was blown away by Copperfield
was when he vanished the leer jet.  Someone mailed me that it probably was
done via the "black sheet" method?  This makes no sense since the jet was
surrounded by a ring of people.

First question:  Do you think the people were "plants"?

Next question:   How could he have done this?

- Alan

-- 
 ___________/ Alan S. Olson  UW-Milwaukee Chemistry Department \______________
/     e-mail to alanchem@csd4.csd.uwm.edu  OR  alan@alchemy.chem.uwm.edu      \
|          Want some good music?  Check out Milwaukee's own BoDeans           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: m1m3577@zeus.tamu.edu (MCCLELLAND, MICHAEL BRIAR)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: What is magic
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:33:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In several postings I have read about the ethics of audience rigging.

IMO if you can't do a trick that will amaze your friends, the people who know 
you best, then what is the point?  If you have to spend $250,000 to get a 
flying rig that takes a day to set up and only works under the most ideal
conditions and angles then to me that is not magic.  Same with an unidentified
assistant out of the audience.  The two of you might be able to work miracles
but what is the point.  There is a fine line between magic and entertainment.
Magic is a level of entertainment that requires skill.  Entertainment is a 
lesser accomplishment but may be indistinguishable from the audiences point
of view.  

In short: just cause it's entertaining and the audience can't figure it out
don't make it magic.  Do a continuous front to back palm with a dime and I
will be more impressed than if you and an unidentified assistant can "read"
each other's mind.

that's all
no catchy signature
From: v070km6q@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (John B Schutkeker)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: wanted: info on magic magazines
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:00:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


Can anybody recommend a few good magazines on the arts of
magic?  There were a few posted recently, which I neglected
to get hardcopy of, and now I regret it.  I'd be very grateful
if anybody can help me out with this, or if there's info on the
topic on a FAQ, let me know where that is.

					Thanks,
					John Schutkeker
From: v070km6q@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (John B Schutkeker)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: Re: "Magic in the Movies" list
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:22:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

jti01@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com () writes...

> Hi Folks, here's the latest revision of the "Magic in Movies" list.
> If this section gets too big, I will separate it
> out and handle as a separate list. Until then, I will include it in this
> list. When sending a new entry, please try to supply as much information
> about the movie/TV show as possible. Thanks for your support.
> 
> Please send responses, feedback, corrections, additions, gratuities to:
> 
> Jeff Isozaki (jti01@duts.ccc.amdahl.com)

OK, now for the obvious question.  From what movie was that David Copperfield
(aka. David Coprophiliac) trick where he played off against an old Orson
Welles movie, and did Orson do any magic in any other movies?

							-- John Schutkeker
Newsgroups: alt.magic
From: Mike.Steiner@p1.f207.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: Two things
Date: 15 Apr 92 08:18:05 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:143/207.1 - Sunnyvale Fido Conn, Sunnyvale CA


I need a consensus for a date for the San Francisco bay area get-together. 
We decided that sometime after Passover and Easter was a good time.  Well, Passover
will be over in a week and a half.  I propose Sunday afternoon, April 26th at
1 PM.

Second item:  I'm thinking about starting a FidoNet echo similar to this newsgroup.
 It will be primarily for people who can access BBSs, but who do not have access
to usenet, and for those people here who would like to have an additional forum--not
to replace this one by any means, but to parallel it.  Who here would be interested
in such an echo--either to call my BBS in Sunnyvale, or to call another BBS
elsewhere in the country or other part of the bay area?
 
/207 143/207
--  
Mike Steiner
UUCP: uts.amdahl.com!kennel!207.1!Mike.Steiner
INTERNET: Mike.Steiner@p1.f207.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG
"The views expressed above are those of Mike Steiner only."
From: djb@mailer.cc.fsu.edu (David Brightbill)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: Re: Another DC Question
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:26:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: mailer.1992Apr7.172627.25185
Distribution: usa
Organization: Florida State University

In article <1992Apr3.153257.4415@uwm.edu> alanchem@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Alan Scott Olson) writes:
>A question about a past DC special.
>
>The one illusion that literally "blew me away" was when DC made the
>jet disappear with the ring of people around it.
>
>Has this one been discussed/explained in this group?
>
>- Alan
>
>-- 
> ___________/ Alan S. Olson  UW-Milwaukee Chemistry Department \______________
>/     e-mail to alanchem@csd4.csd.uwm.edu  OR  alan@alchemy.chem.uwm.edu      \
>|          Want some good music?  Check out Milwaukee's own BoDeans           |
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

It seemed like a "black art" type illusion to me.  

David
 
Newsgroups: alt.magic
From: jknepley@isis.cs.du.edu (Ranseus (Jim Knepley))
Subject: Re: accomplices ethical?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 16:06:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.002610.23268@cirrus.com> dhesi@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>It seems to me that there is something unethical about using plants
>(accomplices in the audience).  It's similar to using a camera trick on a
>televised magic show.
>
>Copperfield's trick of falling over the Niagara Falls could not have
>worked except through the narrow camera angle -- so I call it a camera
>trick.  So also (I suspect) were the tricks of the disappearing train and
>the disappearing airplane.  Now we have a plant helping in the "Flying"
>trick.
>
>Is this the state of magic today?
>-- 
>Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@cirrus.COM>
>UUCP:  oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi

Specifically regarding "Flying" -- I wouldn't do the effect with just anyone.
For one:  It could be difficult to just pull someone out of the audience that
doesn't weigh too much.  Also, it would be difficult to convince them to really
go up with you (really, would you?).  It's also possible that he didn't have
to pay as much insurance with someone who has signed a disclaimer as his
stooge did.

IMHO, of course,
  Jim
From: pbernard@lucy.umd.edu (Peter S. Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: David C.
Keywords: flying
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:19:17 GMT



The woman he took with him flying,  must also have been
one of his own people. You see, if he was attached at the
waist (HIS C.G.) like when he was flying by himself, that
wood not work
when he starts carrying this woman, 
the C.G. is going to shift forward and she would be hanging below him.
So either wires were changed and/or the woman was in on the act
and also was attached.
  

            I think I will go and see "HOOK".
Organization: Freshman, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 09:16:58 -0400 
From: "Mary R. Jensen" <mj0v+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Women magicians?

Are there any women magicians?  past or present?  Other than the
ubiquitous assistant, of course.  If not, any (reasonable) theories on
why not?
Newsgroups: alt.magic
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: Re: accomplices ethical?
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:12:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.sk5hoINN51n
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.cs.berkeley.edu

To me this sounds just like the debate rock musicians used to have about
whether it was ethical to use synthesizers.  Remember that?  You'll find
"No synthesizers!" on the jackets of the early Queen albums, for instance.
These days it's considered questionable to use non-synthesized instruments.

The point is that every performer performs partly for the sake of the
audience and partly for the fun of performing.  For the most part, I'd
say, audiences don't really care how skillful a performer is; they care
about how entertaining the show is.  [I'll discuss the Milli Vanilli case
in a moment.]  A friend of mine who's a juggler tells me that some of the
biggest crowd-pleasing stunts are quite easy to do, whereas some things
that require great skill are boring to watch.  But of course it's more fun
*for the performer* to do something that pushes his or her ability.

An interesting middle ground is performing for an audience of performers
(or at least expert appreciators).  To an expert, there is a better
correlation between what's entertaining and what's skillful.  There are
enough amateur musicians to form appreciative audiences for extra-skillful
players.  Probably your typical magic audience doesn't have that many
amateur magicians in it, but I'm just guessing.

Audiences do occasionally get angry if they feel that the performer is
a complete fraud, as in the Milli Vanilli story (and, some of us old-timers
may remember, the early days of the Monkees).  But what's strange is that
the criteria for this anger vary enormously.  It used to be taken for
granted that musicians appearing on TV would lip-sync to their records and
not actually make music.  Why isn't that fraudulent?  It is now okay for
a performer to make music by sampling and rearranging someone else's music.
That would have made me angry in my youth.

For magicians the rules are even more arbitrary because, of course, in one
sense every magician is a fraud, and the audience expects that.  Also,
nobody gets upset about movies in which a non-magician actor appears to
perform magic because of video gimmickry or invisible assistants, just
as actors aren't expected to do their own risky stunts.  Houdini used
invisible assistants.

I suppose I might feel cheated if a magician advertised "no assistants" and
it turned out not to be true.  But I don't think magicians should be trying
to establish the atmosphere of challenging the audience anyway; the idea is
to *help* the audience suspend disbelief.

[Disclaimer -- I am not a performer of any kind.]
From: barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: Orson Film (Re: "Magic in the Movies" list)
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:02:33 GMT
	<1992Apr17.142256.16080@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Reply-To: barnett@crdgw1.ge.com
Distribution: na
Organization: GE Corp. R & D, Schenectady, NY

In article <1992Apr17.142256.16080@acsu.buffalo.edu> v070km6q@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (John B Schutkeker) writes:
>OK, now for the obvious question.  From what movie was that David Copperfield
>(aka. David Coprophiliac) trick where he played off against an old Orson
>Welles movie

It wasn't for a movie, it was done especially for a show.  This was
the film Richard Himber used during one (or more) of his performances.
If you look at the credits of the DC special, Himber was mentioned.

--
Bruce Barnett <barnett@crd.ge.com> uunet!crdgw1!barnett
From: v070km6q@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (John B Schutkeker)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: looking for info on Steranko
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:29:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: acsu.1992Apr17.142935.16243
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Is anyone aware of any books ever published by the renowned (but perenially
underground) Jim Steranko.  He achieved notoriety as an escape artist in
Pennsylvania in the late 60's.  Supposedly he was going to publish a book
of his escape secrets through his publishing house, Supergraphics, but they
say he never went through with it.  Also, he apparently did publish an
"underground" book (whatever that is) of his escape secrets, about the time
he was practicing extensively.

Has anyone ever heard of the book, or does anyone know it's name or how to
go about tracking down this "underground bestseller," which is what the
Rolling Stone called it?

						-- John Schutkeker
From: barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett)
Newsgroups: alt.magic
Subject: Re: looking for info on Steranko
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:20:20 GMT
Reply-To: barnett@crdgw1.ge.com
Organization: GE Corp. R & D, Schenectady, NY

In article <1992Apr17.142935.16243@acsu.buffalo.edu> v070km6q@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (John B Schutkeker) writes:

>   Is anyone aware of any books ever published by the renowned (but perenially
>   underground) Jim Steranko. 

I bought a copy of "Steranko on Cards". It is his only book that I am
aware of. It just contained card effects.  He also did illustrations
for Marvel comics (Spiderman, etc.)

--
Bruce Barnett <barnett@crd.ge.com> uunet!crdgw1!barnett