Newsgroups: alt.magic Subject: Re: alt.magic.secrets Reply to Tilman From: Pete@pete.Pete (Pete R.) Date: 6 Jun 1995 00:01:59 GMT tilman@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) writes: >Anyway, I covered that point in a previous post. Magicians secrets are >not trade secrets, because no attempt is made to hide them. There are no >non-disclosure agreements, no precautions to keep bad magicians off TV, >etc. Attempts *are* made to hide them, however in many cases it can't be legally enforced. >1. David Copperfield said that he enjoy people who go to his performance >just to know how it's done, because he gets more audience. DC also said >that after a magazine exposed a levitation, he was afraid no one would >come. Instead, people came again to see new tricks. People e-mailed me >who were gone to DC's show BECAUSE they had read my paper (see below). One example proves nothing, and if people went to see him because of you exposing something, they went for a different reason than most, and had they seen the effect, they would not have enjoyed it on the same level. >2. Exposure creates new tricks. More accurately, exposure ruins effects and forces magicians to scramble to do something else, and their success is not guaranteed. I'm tired of seeing you drive around in that same old car of yours (or in a better car than I have), so I beat the shit out of it with a sledgehammer and set it on fire, thereby forcing you to buy a new car. See, aren't you happy, you have a new car now! Nice logic. Not only is it none of your business, but perhaps his old car was working fine for him, and he can't afford a new car. If you want to destroy the old one, you at least owe it to him to *give* him a new one. >3. OK, it does probably slightly hurt business. How much ? It's probably If you admit this, then it doesn't matter how much, the issue is you have no right to cause problems for other people, and to do so means you simply have no respect for others. It's easy to be this way when you can sit behind your keyboard and not suffer the consequences of such disrespect that you would face in person, but someone with class wouldn't do it. >not possible to make a statistic. Poundstone has published three books, >did anyone here on the usenet had less income after those books were >published ? I guess not. You guys (and no gals ?!) are simply whining >because you wouldn't be so "special" anymore. Magicians work hard to be able to entertain, and any magician that *tries* to make the audience feel inferior will suffer the consequences, but your own inferiority complex is not a justification for lashing out at *all* magicians. You feel inferior, the magician doesn't feel special, he simply has pride in the fruits of his hard work like anyone does with anything else they have labored at for years. Do you feel jealous of tennis pros, or scientists, or successful businessmen because they have worked hard to achieve what they have? You probably do. >4. Did you ever think about audience members like me who see such a show >and feel weird because no one will answer the question how it is done ? ^^^^^ Finally, we see the truth about you, your attitude makes sense. Your inability to cope with that "weird" feeling is *your* problem, not the magicians'. Better to try to change the rest of the world than correct your own mental aberrations. >5. Even *if* your argument was 100 % right, would you really think I >would change my mind and not try to find out secrets, just because my >(legal) hobby is alleged to hurt your business ? This is also a matter >of free speech. Here we really see what a mental child you are. If the argument is 100% correct, a responsible adult would not ignore it. You have the freedom to pursue learning how magic is done, but freedom of speech does not give you the right to disseminate intellectual property, infringe copyrights, and so forth any more than I have the right to freely swing my fist through the space occupied by your head. >I don't want to be a performer. I am not a nice guy who can "fascinate" >people with a magic performance. I do not have the skill to train tricks >over and over again. I don't want to lick the feet of a senior magician >until he gets down to tell me how the real stuff is done. I don't want Pfft. Your impression of magicians is a product of your own mental problems, I have found magicians willing to share with anyone who has an interest in learning how to *do*, not just those people who want to know because their inferiority complex makes them feel stupid. The beauty of magic is that it is your *intelligence* that fools you, not your *lack* of intelligence. You know that what you are seeing cannot be true, and that creates the weird feeling. But I don't expect you to understand this because you are not secure enough in your intellect to enjoy that "weird" feeling rather than be threatened by it. This reaction to magic separates people into two camps. I find that those people who are intelligent and friendly will always enjoy magic, while those who are basically dickheads, regardless of how intelligent they are, end up feeling threatened and frustrated by magic and so dislike it. Those with serious inferiority complexes go so far as to lash out at the art of magic rather than learning how to feel more confident or at ease. In any case, a well-balanced person can live with not knowing how an effect is done, in fact he would rather puzzle over it forever than be told the secret. I don't know exactly how Copperfield flies, and I have no need to know because I will never attempt to duplicate it. I am quite comfortable with not knowing, and I don't want anyone to tell me. You, on the other hand, are a pathetic, insecure, breast-fed til the age of 15 Hosenscheisser, a coward, for those who don't speak German, because you lash out at the world from the safety of your computer rather than respecting the rights of others, accepting responsibility for your actions, and behaving as a mature adult in the world community. A man who has no desire to perform magic, and can't even enjoy being mystified should direct his attention elsewhere. A man with character will most likely enjoy magic, but if he doesn't he will forget about it and walk away rather than spend his time attempting to ruin it for others or vindictively destroying their livelihood. Since you have no character either, I suggest you direct your energies toward working out your mental problems with a therapist. Perhaps someday you will develop some character and self-esteem, then you may be able to forget about magic and no longer be driven to distraction. Good luck. Newsgroups: alt.config,alt.magic Subject: Re: alt.magic.secrets From: Pete@pete.Pete (Pete R.) Date: 6 Jun 1995 01:10:54 GMT tilman@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) writes: >>I doubt either you or Becker would have the nerve to defend your position >>in front of a live group of magicians who use or helped create the effects >>you intend to expose. The fact that you must cower behind your computer >>screens should perhaps clue you in to the fact that your contemplated actions >>are unethical. Just because you can sit at your keyboard and publish >OK, but why then is your e-mail address forged ? >Pete@pete.Pete is not a valid address. I have no choice, as I do not have mail service which I can use for net discussions. Soon I will have such an address, which I will of course display, then we can have as many fine arguments as you like. >Since you're from Berlin, you might have a look at >http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/zauber/ to see what kind of stuff is >exposed. My responses to you have been based upon what I have seen you say here, and I have not been impressed. I do not support unrestricted publication of magic secrets for the many reasons I have stated, and I welcome all debate on the subject. However, you and Becker have both given me reason to expect that you will simply ignore logical arguments and do what you want anyway, so I have little respect for your character or ethics. I have seen your page. I don't care to read about your theories about how things are done, but I find it particularly ironic that you say: "Weitergabe ohne Änderung und für nicht-kommerzielle Zwecke frei." Whichs means that the document may be freely distributed provided it is not altered or used for commercial purposes! You must be joking! You yourself would like to give away the intellectual property of others, things people have spent countless thousands of hours on, and you have the nerve to say you don't want your own insignificant little document messed with?!? What a hypocrite! You also give the reasons for your document as things like "I hate secrets, I hate seeing something and not knowing how it's done". Truly you are a man of deep convictions. You also say that the many card, coin tricks, and so forth are available in library books (true for many) but not the "big illusions". The reasons for this are quite simple. There are so many sleights with cards alone, for instance, that only someone with a true interest in card magic can really learn of them, and so the criterion that only those with a true interest will really learn is satisfied. With big illusions, though, there are not nearly so many ways to do things, just many variations on a theme, and if those few themes are known, many great effects lose their impact. Of all magic, the big stage illusions are the ones that should be kept secret, few will ever perform them, so there is no need for many people to know, and as you yourself say they are the things which are seen by the most people! Giving those things away does maximum damage to the art. In my judgement, a man who admits he does not wish to learn how to perform these things, admits that he does not even like to be fooled, but has the patience to research them and put together web documents with his theories as to how things are done has too much free time, and some serious mental problems. Your lack of ethics and character and indeed your general attitude is easily explained by a lack of self-esteem. You do not like to be fooled, because you feel stupid or inferior, so you are driven like a madman to discover the secret of the effect, even though you have no desire to learn to do it yourself. This is truly sad. If you truly believed yourself to be intelligent, you would not be threatened, you would merely be amused at being fooled. Magic fools us because we *are* intelligent, not because we're stupid. You don't need to learn magic secrets, you need to learn how to believe in yourself whether you are fooled or not. People who want to perform are justified in spending so much time on magic, but you, you're just a sick person. You really need to get a life, my friend, and spend your time on things you like, not lashing out at things you hate. Get a therapist. Newsgroups: alt.magic Subject: Re: alt.magic.secrets From: Pete@pete.Pete (Pete R.) Date: 14 Jun 1995 21:37:02 GMT tdarcos@access2.digex.net (Paul Robinson) writes: >Yes it is. You claim it's wrong for someone to disclose a third party's >method of performing a trick. I say it's only "wrong" if you violate a >contract not to do so. If you find out independently, it's not wrong to >sell or give away the secret to someone else. This is an opinion that I >have vs. one you have. No more, no less. It isn't *legally* wrong, but yes, it's a matter of opinion. It's also a matter of class and character, and as I have said before it is no surprise whatsoever to find people with no class willing to do just about anything, and even pointing to each other's behavior as moral support and/or justification. >Wrong analogy. There is a difference between illegally releasing private >information of an individual which they had to break the law to get, and Again addressing legality, but you can obtain information on people via legal means. The point is that legality is not the sole factor which distinguishes right from wrong. No analogy is perfect, but they are used to illustrate a specific point. The point I was trying to make is that in this case it's not like two religious groups arguing, because they can respect each other's opinions and co-exist. This situation is more like a room filled with smokers and non-smokers, it isn't possible to simultaneously respect the rights of both groups. It may be perfectly legal to light up, but only an asshole would do it, and we seem to have a few of those around here. >: I don't think it will cause great harm only because the exposure will in >: all likelihood not be that great, >Oh, wait a minute, I saw you palm that card! You don't get away with it >that easily! >Either there is an objection because it will cause harm, injury or damage >to the reputations and livelihoods of magicians, or there is no great >harm, in which case the real argument is a desire to impose censorship on The degree of harm is unknowable, but in any event it's not the basis for my objection. The objection is because particular individuals have no moral problem with negatively impacting others, whether financially or emotionally, and this group would attract such people. Tilman Hausherr, for example, has stated that even if it were possible to *prove* that exposure adversely impacts magicians, he doesn't care and would go ahead and do it anyway. So, he's an asshole, and so is anyone else with that sort of attitude, end of story. I see nothing wrong with a desire to keep secrets from such people. I would support Tilman's right to investigate the methods if he is so interested in them, but I think it's low class for him to be so unconcerned about any potential impacts. He says he wouldn't spoil a performance by blurting out how something is done, but IMO it's not much better if you tell the secret to someone who would. If he is not one of those people who would gladly ruin something with childish glee, he is certainly supporting those people. Your censorship argument isn't a positive "pro" argument, it's a knee-jerk reaction; magicians are against, which smacks of elitism or censorship to you, so you're then for it. IMO, most magicians are not concerned about all exposure, just exposure to complete dickheads. Call that censorship if you will, but IMO it seems reasonable to put up certain obstacles to help weed out those who aren't serious about knowing, and hopefully keep out those who just want to use that information in a harmful way. >Which you have just done the exact same thing. Ignored the other side's >argument, then provide a piss-poor and self-contradictory opinion to the >proposal in the first place. What argument? The only arguments I have seen are the barely relevant "it seems like censorship, so I don't like it", or a ridiculous assertion that flies in the face of common sense like "people will like a show more if they know how everything is done". Those are no less 100%-unsubstantiated-not- logically-supported-pull-it-out-of-quadrant-J37-of-your-rectal-orifice opinions than anything said on the other side. I have stated my opinion and I don't believe that it contradicts itself. I am not universally against exposure, just pointless or malicious exposure. Though I believe the group will certainly be used for such purposes, the *number* of people ultimately involved is not the basis for that opinion. I am arguing about the general concept of exposure, it's a foregone conclusion that I can't impact whether or not the group is used. I simply see people behaving like assholes, and I call it like I see it. >Oh, people never go out to see movies they've seen before, and pay to see >them again? I have. Once I went to see a movie twice, after seeing a Not quite, I didn't say people *don't* see movies more than once, I said the analogy breaks down because magic is not equivalent to a movie. If you truly enjoy an effect just as much when you know the secret, then I believe you are in a very small minority. If people like Tilman can't sleep at night, then they have every right to investigate to their heart's content, but I think broadcasting these things to the whole world is not a positive endeavor. For example, I did peruse the secrets group the other day, and one individual was posting his thoughts on DC's Flying illusion, and he actually said something to the effect of "it is with a heavy heart and much sadness that I attempt to expose this beautiful illusion and potentially ruin it for many people". Now what the hell is that? If he feels bad about it, what reason is there to do it? The only possibilities that come to mind are that he gets some secret pleasure in attempting to destroy something that took a great deal of work to perfect, or that he just wants to impress people and make them think he is intelligent by virtue of his analysis. In either event, he paints a very pathetic picture of himself. If this is the sort of person or behavior you are defending, that's pretty sad. ======== Newsgroups: alt.magic Subject: Re:Building Plans, Interlude, Origami, etc./WORLOCK From: worlock777@aol.com (WOrlock777) Date: 26 Feb 1996 23:31:57 -0500 >>>Subject: Re: Building Plans, Interlude, Origami, etc. From: tilman@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 11:39:27 GMT In <4gmj4i$q8r@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, Magicmor@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Davis) wrote: >I know some of you look for great prices on illusions too! Well we >build the best[compare anytime] and yet beat most others prices. We >are now building the Jim Steinmeyer illusion "Modern Art". As his<< >>What is the "audience description" of that illusion ? Tilman<< **** I can't believe this scumbag, after exposing 40 pages of magic on the Internet, which the site was just published in a German Computer Magazine,PC Praxis, has the balls to be on Alt. Magic and has the balls to ask Jeff Davis about a prop? Why so you can ad it to page 41? I'm going to really go out of my way to meetyou in Berlin pal.....I'm sure you'll get your rocks off over this the way you do over everything else. Sorry I don't understand how &^%$ heads like you and Becker have to ride on Copperfield's coat tails to make money, or in your case get noticed. Is it really your place to ruin other peoples jobs and lively hoods? What if you had all these Military secrets, would you put them on the net to? Only if you wanted to end up in the X-Files....Hey I don't see anyone coming over to where you work and jumping on the bed. By the way you can spout your intellect all you want. It's obvious you feel inferior to David and magic in General. I had your whole web site translated. I'm told you write in your native tongue very poorly....Oh that's a surprise. Why am I basting you. I don't think a lot of the people out there realize who you really are, and they should know when there is a traitor among them. Folks remember this guys name TILMAN HAUHSERR AKA scum of the earth. I don't know who's worse this putz or H Becker? PS if it gets your jollies up you can respond to this anyway you like. I won't get in a immature amateur debt with a &^%$ head like your self as you have nothing to defend but your guilt.................................Everybody else Keep the faith WOrlock777@aol.com ======== Newsgroups: alt.magic Subject: Tilman Hosenscheisser (was Re: Building Plans, Interlude, Origami, etc./WORLOCK) From: pete@wank.org (Pete R.) Date: 1 Mar 1996 19:14:37 GMT tilman@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) writes: >>the balls to ask Jeff Davis about a prop? Why so you can ad it to page 41? >>I'm going to really go out of my way to meetyou in Berlin pal.....I'm sure >In the case anything happens to my ass, then it must have been you. >Could it be that you are the guy posting as "Pete@pete.pete" a few >months ago ? That guy logged in thru the FU Berlin. :) No Tilman, I'm still here. It seems you're still making friends. :) I visited your web site and was surprised and amused that you kept my posts from our argument about exposing secrets (under the label "sicko" for anyone who wants to read them). Reading them again I was quite impressed with my arguments. :) I don't blame you for being unable to counter them, you had no logic on your side. You insisted that you would continue to expose magical secrets even if it was *provably harmful* to the art and entertainment value of magic or to the careers of magicians, which simply proves that you are an asshole, and implies various other mental malfunctions. I find it strange that you are sufficiently interested in magic that you put effort into researching effects, yet you have no interest in performing magic or adding to the art. That's quite strange, but you certainly have the right to be curious and indulge your hobby. However, while you claim that you would not be one to deliberately ruin a performance, you make it possible for others to do so, ignoring any responsibility there. To someone with character, the responsibility to share that knowledge with only those people who would add to the art rather than detract from it would be obvious, but for you, well... perhaps you just hope to impress people with your analysis, or you feel important by being a "controversial" figure when in reality you are a sad little nobody, or perhaps there is some other juvenile mentality operating. You have a lot of nerve speaking with adults as an equal. Needless to say, if this person or any of your other "fans" ever manages to teach you some manners, I will certainly be applauding. You need some sort of therapy, perhaps the spanking your parents never gave you would do it. :) >Btw, if you had read the document, you would have noticed that the >German magic circle isn't amused, but isn't really angry either. They >said that experience has shown that angry letters don't help. That's because angry letters rely on the notion that you have enough character to listen to objective criticism, and realize that your actions are offensive. We know in your case relying on your character is a waste of time. If they could *force* you to be more discriminating in who you distribute information to, I'm certain they would. People like you make one actually wish for censorship of the Internet. Admit it, the only reason you do what you do is that you think no one knows where you live. If you could be held more accountable for your vanity-driven publishing enterprise, you would respect the opposing viewpoint a bit more. Quite sad, I do hope you grow out of it someday. In the meantime, carry on with the excuses, you're still just a child with a new way to get attention. ======== Newsgroups: alt.magic Subject: Re: Tilman Hosenscheisserslot From: COKER@PHYSICS.UTEXAS.EDU (William R. Coker) Date: 3 Mar 1996 20:33:07 GMT In <4h7iat$9kj@fu-berlin.de> pete@wank.org writes: < [Tilman,] perhaps < you just hope to impress people with your analysis, or you feel important < by being a "controversial" figure when in reality you are a sad little < nobody, or perhaps there is some other juvenile mentality operating. You < have a lot of nerve speaking with adults as an equal. Tilman is indeed a case for study. However, he is interesting to have around. I just wonder how long we are likely to have the use of him. Sooner or later, he is going to come to the attention of mental-health professionals in whatever area he inhabits. (Switzerland? Isn't that where they make cheese and hide money for crooks?) WRC