Re: Fri. 5/9 'Will it Float?' Sorcery

Donz5 wrote:

> On May 11, 1:53 pm, Marcia R.spamlessinlasve...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > Donz5 wrote:
> > > On May 11, 11:31 am, Tom W <blee...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > randwill wrote:
> > > > > "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote...
> >
> > > > >> so you think Paul was a co-conspirator...
> >
> > > > > No, but nothing in the presentation negates that possibility in
the
> > > > > audience's mind.  Using the gl***** of a randomly selected
audience member
> > > > > would have been less suspicious.
> >
> > > > > Paul may have been a co-conspirator in that he possibly ran
through the
> > > > > segment with P&T in rehearsal. That would have been a good time
for Penn to
> > > > > tell him that he didn't have any lines in the bit.
> >
> > > > Whether or not you like Penn & Teller, they are scrupulous in
their ethics. If
> > > > they want to impress their peers in magic, and it's clear over all
these years
> > > > that they do, they are going to have to play by the basic rules
which means no
> > > > previous contact with audience volunteers.
> >
> > > > That said, I was wondering if they had rehearsed the trick with
Paul which took
> > > > me out of the trick itself. I think the problem was that he wasn't
a good
> > > > participant. I also think that if his incessant talking was
affecting the trick,
> > > > Penn would not have hesitated to tell him to shut up.
> >
> > > > Tom W
> >
> > > I doubt they even had a rehearsal, at least on stage; Monday
> > > afternoon's rehearsal time was devoted to Lance Burton's act for the
> > > Monday broadcast. And if there were a rehearsal, based on past
> > > practice, most likely another staffer, perhaps an intern, was used
in
> > > Paul's place.
> >
> > > I saw nothing illegitimate in the act; no duplicate gl*****, no
prior
> > > coordination with Paul. What I saw were two master entertainers
> > > presenting multiple and simultaneous sleight-of-hands. That's what
> > > they do.
> >
> > I understand you are never going to acknowledge our point of view.  We
are not SAYING
> > there were 2 pairs of gl*****.  We are just saying that when the
responses to Dirk
> > Arthur's trick was...There must have been 2 ducks or 2 tigers...how
much easier would
> > it have been to have a duplicate pair of gl***** when the assistant
was someone with
> > the show.  That was my first reaction before thinking more about it.
> >
> > Marcia
>
> My post wasn't about "never ... acknowledging [your] point of view";
> it was about expressing mine.

OK.  :-)