posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 02:49 PM
I wasnt referring to his 'magic', at least in the sense in which you are defining it.
I was thinking more of the magic he subsequently uses to debunk any thinking that wanders clear of his very clearly defined, yet demonstrably false
borders, using many similar a sleight of hand and 'look-over-there-as-I-act-here' techniques as his stage magic,
Its the lying and conning within that sphere that I was more specifically referring too.
Or did you not know that he also uses all the tricks in the book when excercising his well worn brand of debunking magic?
If you didn't, I can't say as I blame you. Many people fall for his exectution of magic within that particular field too. Though some of course also
pretend he doesn't resort to it within his debunking capacity. Either way,they would be woefully misguided of course.
Whilst all of this detracts in some ways from the excellent (IMHO) original post, in some ways it is in many ways very relevant, at least when it
comes to answering your critique.
edit on 30-11-2012 by markatUCR because: of typos
edit on 30-11-2012 by markatUCR because: