the most annoying person ever to post in the green

May 11, 2006 8:00 AM

Congratulations, AmbroseChapel! You're now the most annoying person ever to post in the green.
posted by dobbs to etiquette/policy at 8:00 AM (124 comments total)

True dat.
posted by smackfu at 8:05 AM on May 11, 2006

I demand a recount.
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:05 AM on May 11, 2006

*adds card tricks to list of flamewar-inducing topics*

Man, that list is getting long.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:06 AM on May 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

Community Pony Request. When you are MeTa-ing an outrageous comment or two, first copy the comment, then make your MeTa post linking to the comment, but in the first comment in your post, please paste the outrageous comment so that we curious looky-loos can see the outrageous comment after the speedy admins have done their dirty sinful business. Thank you.
posted by ND¢ at 8:14 AM on May 11, 2006

He doesn't even come remotely close to the person I find most annoying on the green, but yes, in that thread, he's definitely being a bit of an arse.
posted by iconomy at 8:16 AM on May 11, 2006

Here's the offending comment dobbs links to:

Now AC is saying it's ok for us to conclude that her recollection is inaccurate on some counts - oh, but not the others.

Someone in this conversation is unbelievable, but it's not me.

What I wrote was that such an opinion is fine, but we've heard it. We've heard it over and over again. We are dealing with the following problem:

Person A: Something happened.
Person B: No it didn't. That's my explanation.
Person A: OK, that's your explanation. Anyone else?
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.
Person B: It didn't happen.

That's what I'm saying. I'm saying you're entitled to your opinion. It's not a very interesting opinion and we may never know if you're right or not. But why do you keep on saying it?

posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:16 AM on May 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

I dunno, Ambrose has a huge chip on his shoulder from the other thread, but the folks who keep insisting that meerkatty *has* to be remembering the trick wrong - after she's stated over and over again that she's not remembering it wrong - seem to be abusing AskMe for their own reasons, too.

If you can't answer the question, shut up. Isn't that the rule?
posted by mediareport at 8:16 AM on May 11, 2006

Metatalk has turned into mfing Star Chamber.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 8:17 AM on May 11, 2006

Heh, now ThePinkSuperhero is the most annoying person ever to post in the gray.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:21 AM on May 11, 2006

Hey, don't shoot the messenger!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:23 AM on May 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

*shoots*
posted by mediareport at 8:29 AM on May 11, 2006

I agree with Ambrose's complaints. And that list wasn't annoying at all.
posted by brautigan at 8:30 AM on May 11, 2006

This is what happens when you unleash dark forces into the universe via magic.
posted by horsewithnoname at 8:32 AM on May 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

"I agree with Ambrose's complaints."

Which ones? (S)He seems so wildly incorrect and unreasonable that I'm having trouble understanding how you could agree.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:35 AM on May 11, 2006

The funny thing is that the person who asked the question AmbroseChapel is stomping around pouting in clearly gave up on the thread several days ago. If you are still following that thread, at this point it is purely for the entertainment value of AmbroseChapel's performance (guilty).
posted by nanojath at 8:36 AM on May 11, 2006

I'm having trouble understanding how you could agree.

Sarcasm, maybe?
posted by smackfu at 8:38 AM on May 11, 2006

If only there were some way to alert the mods to annoying comments without dragging it into MetaTalk...
posted by LarryC at 8:41 AM on May 11, 2006

Researchers find, there is no proper use of MeTa.
posted by TwelveTwo at 8:43 AM on May 11, 2006

...the folks who keep insisting that meerkatty *has* to be remembering the trick wrong - after she's stated over and over again that she's not remembering it wrong - seem to be abusing AskMe for their own reasons, too. If you can't answer the question, shut up. Isn't that the rule?

No, you're wrong in exactly the same way as AC (but not nearly so annoying). They're answering the question in the only possible way: pointing out that she has to be remembering wrong (because that's what magicians do—they get you to misperceive what's happening) and even suggesting ways in which the trick could have been performed. The fact that she kept saying "no, I'm sure my memory is correct" simply shows that she was well and truly duped. As someone who was victimized by a conman, I sympathize; I was quite sure I knew everything that had happened, right up until I opened the envelope and saw the torn newspaper strips. Since there's no physical evidence of that kind here, you have to go by the fact that misdirection is the only explanation that makes sense, since 1) it's standard operating procedure and 2) the "victim" is naturally going to have a hard time believing/admitting they got "taken."

The reason people "keep insisting" is that meerkatty, and then the egregious AC, kept repeating that the explanation was wrong and/or irrelevant. But it wasn't, it was the correct and only answer, and AC was being a complete ass. (Fortunately, since it's related to his traumatic experience in his own magic thread, it's unlikely to spread to his other interactions with the site.) If she had accepted the answer in the first place ("OK, I get it, now I realize the hand is quicker than the eye and I didn't actually see what I thought I saw"), there wouldn't have been all the insistence.

And brautigan, 1) you're as wrong as he is, and 2) you may think that he wasn't being annoying, but you're in a very small minority, and if you decide to emulate him you won't like the results. A word to the wise.
posted by languagehat at 8:43 AM on May 11, 2006

I will say this - The sort of stomping and pouting performance AmbroseChapel gave there is something I really miss in MetaFiter these days. I think we've gotten too homogenized. It still happens of course, but it's so rare that it truly merits a MeTa call-out.

We used to have more people willing to go completely insane right in front of us. I will lobby you that having more people going fully bonkers like AmbroseChapel would make us a more robust and creative community. I think we've gone too far in our "keep it clean" efforts.

Thank you AmbroseChapel for freaking out. Your particular crazy charm has brought some happy memories to this user.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:48 AM on May 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

We all need to be better at ignoring magicians. Arguing with them is exactly what they want.
posted by MarkAnd at 8:53 AM on May 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

I want to see iconomy's list.
posted by peacay at 8:57 AM on May 11, 2006

They're answering the question in the only possible way

"The only way I can imagine" is not the same as "the only possible way." Creationists try to use this reasoning all the time: "I can't imagine how the eye evolved; therefore it is impossible for the eye to have evolved." Please please please don't legitimize their tactics.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:59 AM on May 11, 2006

That meta-meta bullshit drives me crazy, y6y6y6!!! You know, to some people this isn't all just some textual exercise in wryly commentating the absurdity of all mediated social interactions. It's some kind of screwed up extension of our actual social beings! You know, and I refuse to play your little game, like you're going to be all
y6y6y6: "dance, dance for me little monkeys!"
and then I will be like
nanojath: "no man, this is serious, we are having a serious conversation about our identity as a community"
y6y6y6: "dance!"
y6y6y6: "dance, little monkeys!"
y6y6y6: "dance, dance!"
y6y6y6: "dance for me!"
y6y6y6: "dance little monkeys!"
y6y6y6: "dance, dance for me little monkeys!"
y6y6y6: "dance, dance!"
y6y6y6: "dance for me!"
y6y6y6: "dance little monkeys!"
y6y6y6: "dance, dance!"
y6y6y6: "dance for me!"
y6y6y6: "dance little monkeys!"
y6y6y6: "dance, dance!"
y6y6y6: "dance for me!"
y6y6y6: "dance little monkeys!"
y6y6y6: "dance, dance for me little monkeys!"
y6y6y6: "dance, dance!"
y6y6y6: "dance for me!"
y6y6y6: "dance, dance!"
y6y6y6: "dance for me!"
y6y6y6: "dance little monkeys!"
y6y6y6: "dance, dance!"
y6y6y6: "dance for me!"
y6y6y6: "dance little monkeys!"
y6y6y6: "dance, dance!"
y6y6y6: "dance for me!"
y6y6y6: "dance little monkeys!"
y6y6y6: "dance, dance for me little monkeys!"
y6y6y6: "dance, dance!"
posted by nanojath at 9:00 AM on May 11, 2006

I thought I put a link from the thread in question to this MeTa thread. Did that get deleted along with AC's comment?
posted by dobbs at 9:00 AM on May 11, 2006

I get crazy email all the time from magicians asking me to delete stuff on ask mefi because we are giving away their secrets.

magic blows.
posted by mathowie at 9:01 AM on May 11, 2006 [17 favorites]

That is hilarious. I wish I got email from irate magicians.
posted by smackfu at 9:02 AM on May 11, 2006

yeah dobbs, it wasn't an answer to the question.
posted by mathowie at 9:06 AM on May 11, 2006

Matt you should run a page on Metafilter dedicated to crazed magician rantings ala Pirate Bay's legal threats page.
posted by Ryvar at 9:06 AM on May 11, 2006

Metafilter: You're wrong, I'm wrong, We're Wrong
MetaFilter: I get email all the time from irate magicians
MetaFilter: Good ol' fashioned freak-outs since 1999
posted by blue_beetle at 9:08 AM on May 11, 2006

I get crazy email all the time from magicians asking me to delete stuff on ask mefi because we are giving away their secrets.

Holy crap. That's the weirdest, most awesome thing I've heard this week. Do they ever threaten to saw you in half, or have doves shit on your car?
posted by COBRA! at 9:12 AM on May 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

Awesome, my first chance to use the favorites functionality! Thanks, AC! :)

Also, I have an idea for a new askme question too. Yay!
posted by antifuse at 9:14 AM on May 11, 2006

I get crazy email all the time from magicians asking me to delete stuff on ask mefi because we are giving away their secrets.

Has one of them ever said "Don't make me pull a can of whoop-ass out of this hat"? Because that would be awesome.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:15 AM on May 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

I think we should post more magic questions to AskMe, in light of the magicians going crazy thing. I'm delighted to have their secrets more well-known.
posted by agregoli at 9:19 AM on May 11, 2006

yeah dobbs, it wasn't an answer to the question.

I thought it was "policy" to alert the offending party of a MeTa callout. Should he not be made aware of his breach of etiquette so it doesn't continue or happen again?
posted by dobbs at 9:20 AM on May 11, 2006

seems like email would work better.
posted by mathowie at 9:25 AM on May 11, 2006

Matt, beware of the magicians! Yipes - maybe that's why the site vanishes now and again.
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:29 AM on May 11, 2006

MetaFilter: We Spit on Houdini's Grave.
posted by JanetLand at 9:30 AM on May 11, 2006

magic blows.

This would make a better bumper sticker than one I sometimes see around:

"The Goddess is Alive and Magic is Afoot!"

Hm, perhaps there's a synergy between them:

"My Foot is Magic and I'm Being Blown by a Goddess!"
posted by scarabic at 9:35 AM on May 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

That dude got really angry. That's hilarious. Someone should be keeping track of all these guy-totally-losing-it AskMe threads for posterity.
posted by xmutex at 9:36 AM on May 11, 2006

Someone should be keeping track of all these guy-totally-losing-it AskMe threads for posterity.

maybe someone should start a blog specializing in AskMe Flameouts.
posted by COBRA! at 9:38 AM on May 11, 2006

This is where someone rolls out the 3. Profit!! joke.
posted by puke & cry at 9:45 AM on May 11, 2006

magic blows.
posted by mathowie at 12:01 PM EST on May 11


posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 10:21 AM on May 11, 2006

I have to think the Alliance is going to frown on this...
posted by Zozo at 10:40 AM on May 11, 2006

Do they ever threaten to saw you in half

Those punk magicians can't do it right, they should take some lessons from the Black Dahlia murderer.

That's how you cleave a torso!
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:47 AM on May 11, 2006

I was quite sure I knew everything that had happened, right up until I opened the envelope and saw the torn newspaper strips.

I'd love to hear the rest of that story.
posted by timeistight at 11:02 AM on May 11, 2006

Since we seem to be after revealing secrets rather than learning about and understanding magic, I guess I'll stay out of magic threads in the future. Sorry for sharing my opinions and thoughts on this, obviously it wasn't wanted or appreciated. Lesson learned.
posted by splice at 11:05 AM on May 11, 2006

I was actually driven by AC's ridiculousness to snark in the green for which I apologize. To atone though I chipped in an answer on his Mac OS X process-monitoring question.
posted by nicwolff at 11:11 AM on May 11, 2006

after revisiting and seeing ACs continued ranting that thread is pure gold, baby.
posted by puke & cry at 11:15 AM on May 11, 2006

No sarcasm from me. I understand AC's stance completely. I doubt I'd have indulged it as much however.
posted by brautigan at 11:23 AM on May 11, 2006

Thar's gold in dem der' threadz!
posted by blue_beetle at 11:29 AM on May 11, 2006

Since we seem to be after revealing secrets rather than learning about and understanding magic...

I think we all understand that magic is tricking people, and that means the only questions are about how magicians trick people. I don't really get what "learning about and understanding magic" means in this context unless you're just preparing your next dupe.
posted by MarkAnd at 11:36 AM on May 11, 2006

I was quite sure I knew everything that had happened, right up until I opened the envelope and saw the torn newspaper strips.

Dude, that wasn't your life, that was the opening of The Sting.
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:41 AM on May 11, 2006

But Splice, there's NO SUCH THING AS MAGIC!

It's all SCIENCE! SCIENCE I say.
posted by ninthart at 11:50 AM on May 11, 2006

MarkAnd, yes, it really does seem like everyone knows that magic is tricking people. That's why people are saying that meerkatty gave a description, and she said she remembered everything as described, so obviously she must be right and magicians pointing out that she's probably misremembering something are avoiding the question. mediareport says as much; if we can't answer the question, shut up. Even if all our experience says the question probably doesn't have an answer, we should just shut up anyway.

We know magic is trickery and deception. That's why when a layman insists they remember everything perfectly fine and magicians say that's unlikely because of the nature of magic, you tell the magicians to meet the layman's demands or just shut up, because obviously the layman's memory could not have been tricked or deceived. Wait, that doesn't seem logical for some reason...
posted by splice at 12:00 PM on May 11, 2006

Your standard internet magician is never going to give a good answer to "how is this trick done", so they might as well stay out of those threads.
posted by smackfu at 12:06 PM on May 11, 2006

so we've now got a flame war over CARD TRICKS??

how silly
posted by pyramid termite at 12:29 PM on May 11, 2006

no, you're silly.
posted by smackfu at 12:30 PM on May 11, 2006

i'm confused. why was that the only comment ambrose made that was deleted? that was certainly annoying, but it's not like "I don't normally swear on MeFi but, fucking hell. You patronising dick." is answering the question, either.
posted by shmegegge at 12:30 PM on May 11, 2006

Splice's summary is correct, but not entirely clear.

This situation (an explanation for a magic trick) is a special case of a larger class of phenomena. I'm not sure how to succinctly characterize that class, but I'll try.

We experience causal phenomena. These break down to, roughly and for our present purposes, Mundane, Rigorous Empirical (science), Obscure Empirical (the category including stage magic), Supernatural, and Metaphysical/Mystical.

You can already see why people are prone to having very contentious and emotional debates about this.

The very interesting characteristic of stage magic is that by definition it is Obscure Empirical, but it is intentionally made to appear as if it must be Supernatural. And yet, for the most part, this is a deception we enter into willingly and we agree to a temporary suspension of disbelief. In its temporary context, then, what we experience has a nominal supernatural (or presumed supernatural) explanation while in the larger context it has a more rigorous empirical explanation. By definition, there is "lying" involved here.

The result of this is that we must take as a given that the subjective description of the experience is necessarily objectvely false in some way. This is why AC is wrong to reject the "what happened is not what you say happened" "explanation"because by definition that's necessarily the case. A given explanation of this type may be incorrect in deciding which portion of the experience is a "lie", but as a general explanation it is necessarily correct. Thus, necessarily, AC is wrong and his critics are right.

In this particular case, however, the critics may be wrong, and AC right, with regard to which portion of the magic trick was the "lie". So, interpreting his argument most generously, it can be translated into the objection that the portion of the experience which the critics are rejecting (that the magician never touched the cards again) is not necessarily the portion of the experience which is the lie. And he's right about that, of course.

But the critics are most likely correct in their placement of "the lie" based upon other truthful explanations of similar magic tricks.

That this argument mirrors the arguments further in the metaphysical direction is useful because it provides us with a marginally less contentious model for these debates.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:00 PM on May 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

I think you're completely overanalysing things again, EB.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:36 PM on May 11, 2006

AC is wrong and his critics are right...however, the critics may be wrong, and AC right...

How about, "Everyone who participated is wrong for engaging a flamewar on AskMe."

Also, stop using the word "succinctly."
posted by cribcage at 1:39 PM on May 11, 2006

Thanks for clearing that up, EB.
posted by rocketman at 1:41 PM on May 11, 2006

Why is everybody mad about the magic?
posted by mullacc at 1:43 PM on May 11, 2006

My watch disappeared while I was reading EB's post. Classic misdirection.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:53 PM on May 11, 2006 [3 favorites]

I believe in less magic and more SCIENCE.
posted by justgary at 1:55 PM on May 11, 2006

We experience causal phenomena. These break down to, roughly and for our present purposes, Mundane, Rigorous Empirical (science), Obscure Empirical (the category including stage magic), Supernatural, and Metaphysical/Mystical

And now I finally get the opening of Rocky & Bullwinkle. Thank God that's cleared up.
posted by yerfatma at 1:58 PM on May 11, 2006

Tommy Cooper was faking it ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:03 PM on May 11, 2006

Dude, that wasn't your life, that was the opening of The Sting.

Thank god!

I think you're completely overanalysing things again, EB.

No, I think he's on target, but this may not be the right crowd. Sort of like doing a magic trick at a mime convention. Nice work with PinkStainlessTail's watch, though, EB!

splice: Oh, come on, only a couple of people took that position (and one of them is getting well and truly dissed in this very thread); I think most of us greatly appreciated your comments. I know I did. Don't go away mad.
posted by languagehat at 2:07 PM on May 11, 2006

But if you do, it would be really cool if you vanished in a puff of smoke.
posted by gigawhat? at 2:24 PM on May 11, 2006

Red smoke.
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:26 PM on May 11, 2006

Researchers find, there is no proper use of MeTa. - TwelveTwo

Meet ups.
posted by raedyn at 2:49 PM on May 11, 2006

AC is wrong and his critics are right...however, the critics may be wrong, and AC right...

Well, shit, AC was shrill and annoying, and jumped in someone's else's thread with their own chip on their shoulder. However, no-one else in that post gave the slightest bit of help. No-one knew the trick. Their only response was "you remembered it wrong".

That's fine, but if anyone in the thread was following the guidelines and answering the question as asked, they would have explained how it was done. "The magician did this then, and when you were looking at this, he did this." Presumably by someone who had actually pulled that trick on someone and understood how the misdirection took place. But we had none of that. Just "You were tricked, you don't remember it right, be happy."

Don't know the actual answer to a question as asked? Don't post.
Don't have anything helpful to say? Don't post.
Want to give an answer to a different question? Don't post.

The whole thread appears to be little more than an opportunity for some amature magicians to jump in a chuckle at the layman.
posted by Jimbob at 2:52 PM on May 11, 2006

for my next trick i shall pull a fish. out of my pants.
posted by quonsar at 2:55 PM on May 11, 2006

Somebody make this thread disappear...with magic.
posted by Falconetti at 2:57 PM on May 11, 2006

It better not be trout.
posted by TwelveTwo at 3:01 PM on May 11, 2006

Neocapitalist discourse in the performance of card tricks and magical performances

1. Neotextual cultural theory and Marxist socialism

If one examines Marxist socialism, one is faced with a choice: either reject patriarchialist narrative or conclude that the media is capable of significant form. In a sense, many theories concerning the economy, and some would say the futility, of subdialectic class may be revealed. Werther[1] states that we have to choose between neocapitalist discourse and subcapitalist dematerialism.

In the works of David Copperfield, a predominant concept is the distinction between without and within. Therefore, Debord’s analysis of patriarchialist narrative implies that discourse is a product of communication, but only if the premise of neocapitalist discourse is valid; otherwise, we can assume that the task of the artist is deconstruction. If patriarchialist narrative holds, we have to choose between Marxist socialism and textual nihilism.

However, the genre, and eventually the stasis, of patriarchialist narrative prevalent in Copperfield's invitation to "pick a card, any card" is similar to pulling rabbits out of hats. Lyotard uses the term ‘Marxist socialism’ to denote a premodernist paradox.

But von Ludwig[2] suggests that we have to choose between posttextual capitalist theory and neotextual socialism. Lacan uses the term ‘patriarchialist narrative’ to denote the rubicon, and thus the genre, of cultural narrativity.

Thus, Bataille promotes the use of postdialectic theory to modify and read class. Lyotard’s model of patriarchialist narrative implies that language is capable of intention.

2. Copperfield and neocapitalist discourse

The main theme of Geoffrey’s[3] essay on Marxist socialism is the role of the observer as artist. But if patriarchialist narrative holds, we have to choose between neocapitalist discourse and the cultural paradigm of context. Sartre uses the term ‘patriarchialist narrative’ to denote the common ground between society and consciousness.

“Society is impossible,” says Debord. Therefore, the primary theme of the works of Eco is a mythopoetical totality. The subject is contextualised into a Marxist socialism that includes sexuality as a paradox.

If one examines pretextual structural theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept Marxist socialism or conclude that reality is created by the masses. In a sense, the main theme of Dahmus’s[4] analysis of patriarchialist narrative is the role of the audience as participant. In letting a person pick a card, Copperfield analyses subdialectic discourse; in "turning them" into whichever card he predicts will appear, he reiterates patriarchialist narrative.

Thus, any number of materialisms concerning neocapitalist discourse exist. Marxist socialism suggests that language has significance, given that art is equal to consciousness.

However, the subject is interpolated into a neocapitalist discourse that includes reality as a whole. Prinn[5] states that we have to choose between patriarchialist narrative and Lacanist obscurity.

Therefore, a number of materialisms concerning a self-sufficient reality may be discovered. The subject is contextualised into a subcapitalist theory that includes culture as a paradox.

However, Sontag suggests the use of patriarchialist narrative to challenge hierarchy. The closing/opening distinction which is a central theme of Houdini's famous escape exploits emerges again in Copperfield's "disappearance" of the Statue of Liberty, although in a more mythopoetical sense.

3. Discourses of economy

In the works of magicians, a predominant concept is the concept of conceptualist language. In a sense, Marx promotes the use of neocapitalist discourse to deconstruct society. By entering closed spaces in chains and escaping from them, Houdini affirms the neodialectic paradigm of narrative; in the Statue of Liberty trick Copperfield reiterates neocapitalist discourse.

“Culture is part of the stasis of art,” says Lyotard; however, according to von Ludwig[6] , it is not so much culture that is part of the stasis of art, but rather the genre of culture. However, the subject is interpolated into a patriarchialist narrative that includes narrativity as a totality. If neocapitalist discourse holds, we have to choose between constructive libertarianism and Marxist capitalism.

Thus, many desublimations concerning Marxist socialism exist. The fatal flaw, and therefore the defining characteristic, of patriarchialist narrative prevalent in Houdini's tricks is also evident in the performance of card tricks.

Therefore, Lacan suggests the use of Marxist socialism to challenge sexism. The premise of subcapitalist modernism suggests that the purpose of the reader is social comment.

However, Derrida uses the term ‘Marxist socialism’ to denote not discourse, but prediscourse. Sontag promotes the use of patriarchialist narrative to modify and deconstruct society.

4. Marxist socialism and textual postcultural theory

If one examines neocapitalist discourse, one is faced with a choice: either reject textual postcultural theory or conclude that consciousness is used to disempower minorities. Therefore, Marx’s essay on Derridaist reading implies that sexual identity, surprisingly, has intrinsic meaning. A number of theories concerning a self-fulfilling paradox may be found.

The primary theme of the works of magicians is not deconstruction per se, but predeconstruction. Thus, von Junz[7] states that we have to choose between neocapitalist discourse and capitalist situationism. The subject is contextualised into a patriarchialist narrative that includes narrativity as a reality.

“Truth is a legal fiction,” says Debord. However, if neocapitalist discourse holds, we have to choose between postcultural discourse and Sartreist absurdity. Neocapitalist discourse implies that language serves to entrench the status quo, given that Debord’s model of patriarchialist narrative is invalid.

Thus, Hanfkopf[8] holds that the works of conjurers are an example of dialectic rationalism. The subject is interpolated into a neocapitalist discourse that includes art as a totality.

However, textual postcultural theory implies that society has significance. Many narratives concerning neodeconstructive cultural theory exist.

It could be said that the creation/destruction distinction which is a central theme of making cards and other objects disappear and reappear emerges again in Houdini's escapes from locked trunks and underwater vaults, although in a more self-referential sense. The subject is contextualised into a patriarchialist narrative that includes consciousness as a reality.

In a sense, Sartre suggests the use of textual postcultural theory to challenge hierarchy. Lacan uses the term ‘patriarchialist narrative’ to denote the difference between culture and class.

But Bataille’s critique of neocapitalist discourse suggests that consciousness may be used to oppress the Other, but only if sexuality is distinct from language. Lyotard uses the term ’subtextual discourse’ to denote a patriarchial paradox.
posted by pyramid termite at 3:04 PM on May 11, 2006

While his wording makes EB's interpretation a bit challenging to penetrate, he's bang on.
posted by raedyn at 3:05 PM on May 11, 2006

I wrote that comment ^^ before I say pyramid termite's treatise on the subject. In comparison, EB's comment seems positively breezy.
posted by raedyn at 3:08 PM on May 11, 2006

say saw
posted by raedyn at 3:08 PM on May 11, 2006

Right...... But meerkatty is *sure* Marx never touched the cards. Your arguement seems to just assume that Marx *did* touch the cards. So you haven't really gotten us anywhere.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:13 PM on May 11, 2006

Also - People are missing the obvious - It's done with electronic paper. People keep saying that the card's face can't *actually* change, but with electronic paper it can.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:32 PM on May 11, 2006

Please stop calling them 'tricks', okay?



They're illusions.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 3:35 PM on May 11, 2006

The thing is, the magicians that chimed in say straight out, 'there's no way that's all that happened, you're missing something.' They couldn't describe how the trick is done because the description is based soley on the memory of one person - the person being duped.
posted by puke & cry at 3:37 PM on May 11, 2006

They're illusions.

...that trick people.
posted by Robot Johnny at 3:37 PM on May 11, 2006

"Tricklusions", we call 'em in the biz.
posted by cortex at 3:45 PM on May 11, 2006

Tricknology?

Oh wait, maybe not.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 3:50 PM on May 11, 2006

Do magicians turn tricks?

Maybe they're the ones responsible for all the disappearing cocks in tribal Africa and East Asia.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:26 PM on May 11, 2006

They don't disappear, eventually all the dicks end up on Metafilter.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:30 PM on May 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

Wow.

This thread makes me feel proud and kinda humble, like a country music star accepting a Grammy.

Thanks for the support, those who are supporting me, especially jimbob and brautigan.

To everyone else: FH,YPD!

Etiquette and policy: is languagehat actually threatening brautigan when he says "if you decide to emulate him you won't like the results. A word to the wise."? That doesn't seem like the MeFi way. He's certainly being disingenuous about having argued with me before anyway.

As to the charge that I'm still bent out of shape over not getting an answer to my original thread, I'm really not, as I clearly said.

The key thing is the post where someone says "people are puzzled because they can't conceive of the lengths and expense magicians will go to". I read that and was at peace. Because of course you can can imagine any number of ways to do the trick (in a moving bus) if you're free to imagine specially-made windscreen wipers, accomplices clinging stunt-man-like to the outside, or the roof, of that moving bus, in radio contact via hidden mics etc etc.

I don't want to have the discussion here but here are the two points people that sum things up for me:

• people get really patronising when the subject of magic comes up -- more than practically any subject I can think of;
• to answer the question by saying "I have answered this question! You're mistaken!, You should be happy with that!", without even reading the original post is not to answer the question, and I'll thank you to stop "explaining" that a trick is a trick is a trick, which is what makes it a trick

Hey! Look behind you!

<runs away>

posted by AmbroseChapel at 5:53 PM on May 11, 2006

Heh, now ThePinkSuperhero is the most annoying person ever to post in the gray.

I think she's held that title for awhile...
posted by Dreamghost at 6:07 PM on May 11, 2006

Okay, go ahead and shoot the messenger. Just in case.

The next time I see magic discussed in AskMe, this is what I expect to see from people who've learned something from these threads:

PeopleWhoArguedAgainstAmbroseChapel: It will be hard to answer your question of "how was the trick accomplished" because we have to rely upon your report of what happened...and to do so is problematic because the heart of magic is to confuse the observer as to what he did and did not actually see.

AmbroseChapel: Assuming that the asker wasn't fooled in the most obvious way (the way which directly contradicts his account of what happened but would easily explain the trick), what other possible ways could this magic trick have been accomplished? Also, it is human nature to (usually) be quite sure of what one has witnessed, this is especially true in magic where the magician wants people to be "sure" of what they've seen, so just telling the asker that he didn't actually see what he saw is not a very tactful way of answering his question.

Feel free to cut-n-paste. I won't mind.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:26 PM on May 11, 2006

Dreamghost writes "I think she's held that title for awhile..."

Well, you have my vote now.
posted by mullacc at 6:28 PM on May 11, 2006

I NOW FIND MULLACC INTOLERABLE
posted by cortex at 6:36 PM on May 11, 2006

Good stuff EB</strong.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 6:42 PM on May 11, 2006

CORTEX IS A TERRIBLE HUMAN BEING AND JUST IMPOSSIBLE

ON PREVIEW: AND AMBROSECHAPEL FOR FAILING TO CLOSE A FORMATTING TAG PROPERLY. SHOOTIN'S TOO GOOD FOR 'EM.
posted by loquacious at 6:53 PM on May 11, 2006

If I say the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over until I derail the thread, am I answering the question? Educating my fellow AskMefites through the browbeat method? Asking for a hypothetical examination of my own issues? Providing a meta-answer?
posted by desuetude at 6:57 PM on May 11, 2006

Yes.
posted by dg at 7:11 PM on May 11, 2006

Well, you have my vote now.


posted by Dreamghost at 7:57 PM on May 11, 2006

I go away for a few days and you guys get all interesting again...Poof...just like magic!
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 9:02 PM on May 11, 2006

I get crazy email all the time from magicians asking me to delete stuff on ask mefi because we are giving away their secrets.

Oh, that's a total hoot. Fucking magicians always crack me up, demanding that everyone play by the rules of their little game. Whatever. Reminds me of the flamewars when alt.magic.secrets started up. God, that was some hilarious reading.

magic blows.

Tell it, brother.
posted by mediareport at 10:06 PM on May 11, 2006

is languagehat actually threatening brautigan when he says "if you decide to emulate him you won't like the results. A word to the wise."?

You must be kidding. I'd resent it except you've made it abundantly clear by now what a total crackpot you are, so I doubt anyone will take it seriously for a moment. And no, that's not a threat either.

Nor is that.

Feeling better now? It's OK, nobody's going to hurt you.
posted by languagehat at 6:06 AM on May 12, 2006

Ahh magic. Is there anything it can't do?
posted by Joeforking at 6:17 AM on May 12, 2006

Fucking magicians always crack me up, demanding that everyone play by the rules of their little game. Whatever.

i once read, and I stand by this wholeheartedly, that only hacks worry about that. if you're using a trick that someone else can give away the secret for, then you're not doing anything worth keeping secret, anyway. in all likelihood, you're just performing something that you read in a book in the first place.

whatever you may think of him, did david copperfield ever have a public shitfit about people trying to explain his massive acts? no. because he's not a hack.
posted by shmegegge at 7:52 AM on May 12, 2006

Sure are a helluva lot of magic hacks, then.
posted by mediareport at 8:23 AM on May 12, 2006

if you're using a trick that someone else can give away the secret for, then you're not doing anything worth keeping secret, anyway. in all likelihood, you're just performing something that you read in a book in the first place. - shmegegge

That makes sense. I remember this act I saw (Penn & Teller maybe? I'm not sure) where they did a little routine based on misdirection & slight of hand, then they showed you nice and slow exactly how they did it. Then they did it again - and even when you understood the whole thing it was still amazing. You still couldn't see it, even when you knew EXACTLY what to look for, which hand it was in all the time, etc. They were good enough that knowing the secret didn't spoil anything.
posted by raedyn at 8:58 AM on May 12, 2006

Reminds me of that old "exposing magic" show where the guy wore a mask so other magicians wouldn't kick his ass. I always thought that show was hella lame. And for some reason, that image posted by dreamghost really spooks me out.
posted by antifuse at 9:24 AM on May 12, 2006

Reminds me of that old "exposing magic" show where the guy wore a mask so other magicians wouldn't kick his ass.

Th' wife and I still go "Magic! Valentino!" (his final words on the last show) whenever we've done something particularly lame that we want to pass off as truly amazing.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:57 AM on May 12, 2006

SERIOUSLY I WANT TO PUNCH THAT MULLACC GUY IN THE MOUTH
posted by cortex at 10:09 AM on May 12, 2006

P&T did the ball-and-cups trick. Then explained how they did it. Then did it in slow motion. And then did it with clear cups. And, oh my god, it was magic. Right there, in full view, in clear glass cups, they pulled off the ball-and-cups trick completely flawlessly and without my being able to see how the hell the did it. Even though they told me.

That is magic. All else is bullshit.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:19 AM on May 12, 2006

i once read, and I stand by this wholeheartedly, that only hacks worry about that. if you're using a trick that someone else can give away the secret for, then you're not doing anything worth keeping secret, anyway.

I mostly agree, but not about the "give away the secret part". There aren't a lot of routines that I see that I can't figure out the secret quickly. That doesn't mean the people that are performing them are hacks; the real secret is in the performance itself. The script, how you involve the audience, how the performance fits within your theme for the show, etc, etc. The secret is the science, the performance is the art, the result is magic.

If you read a routine in a book and perform it exactly as written, patter and all, you're likely a hack. If you read the same routine and adapt it to your style and theme, changing the patter to match, you're an amateur. If you take away from it a concept or technique which you then integrate in your act or build a routine on, you're a magician.
posted by splice at 10:56 AM on May 12, 2006

I'm a bit late, now, but thought I should mention that Ethereal Bligh made my morning--I thought that post was just beautiful. I flagged it as fantastic. I added it to my favorites. I added EB as "muse" and "crush". I would join a fan club.

Nothing much to say about "the card-trick flamewars", except that it might be my next band...
posted by Squid Voltaire at 11:02 AM on May 12, 2006

Antifuse: the masked magician's identity was revealed in the final episode.


I'm sorely tempted to make a "how did this trick work" ask.me now.
posted by Four Flavors at 11:31 AM on May 12, 2006

When someone says "is that a threat?", languagehat, a simple "no" is enough to clear things up where I come from. I stil think the way you addressed brautigan was creepy and unpleasant.

I'll give you a choice of two sentences to read next:

1. I think you should apologise to him.
2. I think you should apologise to him. If you don't, you won't like the consequences.

Spot the difference?
posted by AmbroseChapel at 2:12 PM on May 12, 2006

as far as hackitude goes, I agree that the performance is the best part. I also believe that the best performers just don't care if someone reveals their secrets, because they're fully aware how much of it is performance, and how not ruined a good trick is if they continue to perform it well.

wish I'd mentioned that the first time, but such is life.
posted by shmegegge at 2:26 PM on May 12, 2006

Ooh! Oooh! I can spot the difference! I can spot the difference!

Do I get a cookie now?
posted by five fresh fish at 2:51 PM on May 12, 2006

No, but you do get the satisfaction of being an excellent driver.
posted by cortex at 3:21 PM on May 12, 2006

In case anyone cares what the original question asker said.
posted by meerkatty at 5:31 PM on May 12, 2006

"I'm a bit late, now, but thought I should mention that Ethereal Bligh made my morning"

Well, golly. I'm flattered. Thanks.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:48 PM on May 12, 2006

If you can't spot the difference, you won't like the consequences.
posted by smackfu at 6:38 PM on May 12, 2006

In case you were still wondering, Ambrose, there is no such thing as magic.
posted by horsewithnoname at 6:47 PM on May 12, 2006

The bell that rings inside my mind? It’s challenging the doors of time! It's a kind of magic...
posted by AmbroseChapel at 9:26 PM on May 12, 2006

The consequences, in this case, being that AmbroseChapel will think that languagehat is a big meanie. Ooh.
posted by desuetude at 7:09 PM on May 13, 2006

Hehehe. Word to the wise indeed. I love it! 'Mon the minorities.
posted by brautigan at 3:08 PM on May 15, 2006