Cons of each

magicfiend8612 · **Posted:** Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:18 pm

fallingblood wrote:

Yeah, I won't make the mistake of doing so again.

Pfft you attack anyone who disagrees with you're topics. :roll:

fallingblood · **Posted:** Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:41 pm

magicfiend8612 wrote:

fallingblood wrote:

Yeah, I won't make the mistake of doing so again.

Pfft you attack anyone who disagrees with you're topics. :roll:

What you said has nothing to do with the comment that you quoted. Also, I rarely attack people, unless they attacked me first. That's simply because I get annoyed with people.

magicfiend8612 · **Posted:** Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:23 pm

fallingblood wrote:

magicfiend8612 wrote:

fallingblood wrote:

Yeah, I won't make the mistake of doing so again.

Pfft you attack anyone who disagrees with you're topics. :roll:

What you said has nothing to do with the comment that you quoted. Also, I rarely attack people, unless they attacked me first. That's simply because I get annoyed with people.

Complete bull**** and you know it. Lets see some of these remarks you've made.

"and don't be a jackass"
"Also, if you don't like my opinions, shut your eyes, and don't look at them"
"Are you incompetent? Can you understand English? Have you read a thing I have said? Don't ask such a stupid question after I have already answered it once. I'm not going to play games." - You said that to me after I said "uhh so wheres the proof" when you clearly didnt provide ANY proof whatsoever.

I didnt attack you first and I didnt even bother to attack you afterward.

I have an idea fallingblood, why dont you take you're own advice and quit being a jackass.

fallingblood · **Posted:** Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:26 pm

The first quotes came from someone who attacked me in the first place. He had nothing to say except insults.

You had nothing constructive to say either. If you had read my initial post, you wouldn't have had to ask that question. You did so just to be an annoyance. Now I'm done arguing with you. It's a waste of time. So say whatever you want, it doesn't matter any more.

magicfiend8612 · **Posted:** Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:50 pm

fallingblood wrote:

The first quotes came from someone who attacked me in the first place. He had nothing to say except insults.

You had nothing constructive to say either. If you had read my initial post, you wouldn't have had to ask that question. You did so just to be an annoyance. Now I'm done arguing with you. It's a waste of time. So say whatever you want, it doesn't matter any more.

I read you're initial post. How the edited wouldnt have I had to ask that question. YOU DIDNT PROVIDE ANY PROOF AT ALL. You're delusional if you think cold hard proof is "OTHER MAGICIANS DID IT".

Ok fine back down. Gtfo. I dont care. You do nothing but attack, flip-flop, and contradict you're own posts.

fatlard_kfc · **Posted:** Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:32 pm

fallingblood wrote:

Negatives about Angel:
Made a bad decision of one of his homages.
Relies on large amounts of money to create huge reactions
Seems to like to flaunt that he knows celebrities
Portrays a lot of his stuff as original, when it's not
Portrays a lot of his stuff as if it's done by real magic
Many of his products are overpriced ($10 for a pack of his cards)
Has led to exposure (his leviation)
Exposed the three shell game (which has both positive and negative effects)
His show is starting to become lame
Has spawned a whole bunch of Angel want to bes
(I'm not including camera tricks or paid actors because I have seen no reliable proof)

Negatives about Blaine:
Doesn't do any original tricks (he only does effects created by others)
The whole Tarquin Churchwell/David Blaine thing (check my thread relating to it)
Personally I hate his presentation (to me, he comes off as an idiot, or that he's in a continuos daze, as if he has no idea what's happening)
Has spawned many Blaine wannabes.
Doesn't include much magic in his shows
Protrays himself as superhuman (just my opinion)
Got paid four million dollars for a failure.
Also seems to like to flaunt who he knows

The point of this thread is simply to show that both magicians have their drawbacks. Neither one is perfect, nor are they as bad as the opposing sides would make you want to believe. They have faults, like all other magicians. Now can we stop debating who is better? And why they suck or rock?

dude... heres a dayumn question , lets see you do better on tv , how would youuuuuuuuuu do any better... thats right ... hush up a big jabroni

lknight · **Joined:** 21 Jul 2006 **Posts:** 3

who is david blaine. I have never heard about him

lknight · **Joined:** 21 Jul 2006 **Posts:** 3

fallingblood wrote:

The first quotes came from someone who attacked me in the first place. He had nothing to say except insults.

You had nothing constructive to say either. If you had read my initial post, you wouldn't have had to ask that question. You did so just to be an annoyance. Now I'm done arguing with you. It's a waste of time. So say whatever you want, it doesn't matter any more.

fallingblood · **Posted:** Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:50 am

fatlard_kfc wrote:

fallingblood wrote:

Negatives about Angel:
Made a bad decision of one of his homages.
Relies on large amounts of money to create huge reactions
Seems to like to flaunt that he knows celebrities
Portrays a lot of his stuff as original, when it's not
Portrays a lot of his stuff as if it's done by real magic
Many of his products are overpriced ($10 for a pack of his cards)
Has led to exposure (his leviation)
Exposed the three shell game (which has both positive and negative effects)
His show is starting to become lame
Has spawned a whole bunch of Angel want to bes
(I'm not including camera tricks or paid actors because I have seen no reliable proof)

Negatives about Blaine:
Doesn't do any original tricks (he only does effects created by others)
The whole Tarquin Churchwell/David Blaine thing (check my thread relating to it)
Personally I hate his presentation (to me, he comes off as an idiot, or that he's in a continuos daze, as if he has no idea what's happening)
Has spawned many Blaine wannabes.
Doesn't include much magic in his shows
Protrays himself as superhuman (just my opinion)
Got paid four million dollars for a failure.
Also seems to like to flaunt who he knows

The point of this thread is simply to show that both magicians have their drawbacks. Neither one is perfect, nor are they as bad as the opposing sides would make you want to believe. They have faults, like all other magicians. Now can we stop debating who is better? And why they suck or rock?

dude... heres a dayumn question , lets see you do better on tv , how would youuuuuuuuuu do any better... thats right ... hush up a big jabroni

I don't think you got the point of this thread. If you reread the last paragraph, you will hopefully see the point I was trying to make.

Mad_Hatter713 · **Joined:** 07 Jul 2006 **Posts:** 75

fallingblood wrote:

DarkHero916 wrote:

First off don't call me a jackass.

And second I'm sure you're not perfect and no one here thinks they are perfect. You are pointing out the obvious. Instead of pointing out others drawbacks you should work on your own drawbacks.

Also you said you were in the mood to argue, but you don't anyone to argue with you. He tried to make a point and you shot him down. You are the jackass.

You came in here to do nothing more then start an arguement. I don't want an arguement. The one line you read was a typo on my part, but if you read everything else I said, you would clearly see that it was a typo. As I have repeatedly said I don't want to argue. My first post even said that we shoudln't debate this anymore. I was stating a simple point, and you came in hear and first insulted me, and then tried to start an arguement.

So just leave it alone. I made my point, and that was it. I'm just sick of people debating on who sucks/rocks.

Youre both "Jackasses" Now shutup and go play in traffic, i dotn even know why this fight started but it sounded really immature.

fatlard_kfc · **Posted:** Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:22 am

fallingblood wrote:

fatlard_kfc wrote:

fallingblood wrote:

Negatives about Angel:
Made a bad decision of one of his homages.
Relies on large amounts of money to create huge reactions
Seems to like to flaunt that he knows celebrities
Portrays a lot of his stuff as original, when it's not
Portrays a lot of his stuff as if it's done by real magic
Many of his products are overpriced ($10 for a pack of his cards)
Has led to exposure (his leviation)
Exposed the three shell game (which has both positive and negative effects)
His show is starting to become lame
Has spawned a whole bunch of Angel want to bes
(I'm not including camera tricks or paid actors because I have seen no reliable proof)

Negatives about Blaine:
Doesn't do any original tricks (he only does effects created by others)
The whole Tarquin Churchwell/David Blaine thing (check my thread relating to it)
Personally I hate his presentation (to me, he comes off as an idiot, or that he's in a continuos daze, as if he has no idea what's happening)
Has spawned many Blaine wannabes.
Doesn't include much magic in his shows
Protrays himself as superhuman (just my opinion)
Got paid four million dollars for a failure.
Also seems to like to flaunt who he knows

The point of this thread is simply to show that both magicians have their drawbacks. Neither one is perfect, nor are they as bad as the opposing sides would make you want to believe. They have faults, like all other magicians. Now can we stop debating who is better? And why they suck or rock?

dude... heres a dayumn question , lets see you do better on tv , how would youuuuuuuuuu do any better... thats right ... hush up a big jabroni

I don't think you got the point of this thread. If you reread the last paragraph, you will hopefully see the point I was trying to make.

why dont you make like a banana ... and s***

Dejavue2161 · **Joined:** 14 Jul 2006 **Posts:** 28

I agree with the list you made and I am glad you made this topic. I like both magicians. They are both really good in what they do. Though:

"His show is starting to become Lame" under the Angel Negatives shouldnt really be there. Everything else seems pretty good.

Cons of each

Who is online