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

On May 15, 1:38=A0am, Crash Bandicoot <NoS...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> Donz5 wrote:
> >> Which is more believable to a home viewer who has no connection to
the
> >> taping?
>
> > I have no idea; I can speak only for myself. And you can speak only
> > for yourself. You are not "we."
>
> Way to cop out.

You asked a question and demanded an answer. I provided it. That you
don't approve of that answer isn't my concern.

>
> The answer is quite obvious, and your failure to acknowledge that is
> telling enough. Yeah, I've got a chip, because you continually nitpick
> the language of my posts in order to tirelessly defend your precious
> "Late Show"; as if admitting *one* fault with the presentation will
> somehow find it's way back to whomever you're so petrified of offending.

I respectfully suggest that you're overreacting.

>
> Why was it necessary to perform the trick using Paul's gl*****?

Because, as Penn explained, Dave turned down the op****tunity for P&T
to use his gl*****. He's always had -- or tried to have -- Dave
participate in their acts whenever he and Teller have been on his
show.

> In so doing, it introduces the *possibility* that something has been
> pre-arranged with him. If you deny that the *possibility* exists, then I
> have to question if you're playing with a full deck or not.

You ought to stop inventing strawmen. I never denied that there was
the "possibility" that someone might believe that it had all been pre-
arranged. What I wrote, and what seems to have set you off, is that
regardless of what you claimed to have been a "majority"
representation of the "home audience," I -- as much of the "home
audience" as you -- and I'll repeat once again -- had no doubt that
there had been no pre-arrangement with Paul.

I'm still not clear what you found so objectionable about my daring to
disagree with you and state my own opinion.

>
> If the trick had been performed with a *random* audience member's
> gl*****, using the released balloon method that I described in another
> post, it removes 99% of any doubt that a duplicate pair of gl***** is
> employed.

>
> The trick was weak as it was presented.... Penn's video explanation of
> why it failed was even weaker. He's ignoring the key point: Paul's
> inclusion in the trick automatically makes it suspicious. That was a
> fatal mistake, and being that it was the only trick P&T performed that
> night, the appearance was a rather lame one.

It made it suspicious to you. It didn't make it  suspicious to me. Can
you respect that?