Hey Vinny

Hey Vinny, sometimes your magic is rather refreshing. This however is not:



A convoluted mess of methods only to get around the DL issue. And these are not my assumptions. He himself said it on the Green Monster

"This is a ambitious card routine with out the use of a double or tripple lift using all of my controls except for the Hop"

So, as one would assume I expected honest criticism. I expected people saying that the moves are telling a whole story on it's own. A story that leaves the performer in a not so magical light. I can see those moves as fake explanations of gambling moves like hand mucking and so on. But not a truly deceiving actions. The moments are wrong and the jerky motions truly signal the spectators that something tricky has been going on.

I expected all that but instead I read this:

"Great stuff as ever Vinny"

"Love the card handling. Can you point me in the direction of what books can show me some of them sleights. Don't want to spoil anything here, but one move I absolutely loved!
Great work."

"Nice work."

"Just a beautifully bold series of moves that makes this classic effect POP again and again. Great job, Godfather. Ain't nobody doing this stuff any better than you, IMHO."

"Vinny, as usual you just kill me. This is GREAT stuff. I'd love to get the handlings. Not only do you have great chops, but you're so generous to share this with the rest of us."

"Great job Vinny. Love your stuff. Would you also send me the handling? Thankx a lot."

"Vinsmagic - I am a relatively new poster, but would like to add to the accolades. A very nice variety of controls! Loved it!"

"Very nice, especially good for those who seen the ambitious trick and are now assuming it must be a double, this will make em rack their brain as its obvious no double"

So I'm Starting to think that I must be retarded for not liking this, when I read Bozo's comment:

"I've always held that the ambitious card is a classic due to the clarity of effect and a seeming lack of handling. WTF was that?"

Finally a sane person. I thought... but oh Bozo felt the wrath of The Green Monster:

"Bozo, Nice! 47 posts in, and you decide that this is the place to mark your territory? Show us what you have to contribute to this thread and we will show you a level of respect commensurate with your contribution (unlike the level of disrespect that you have shown to Vinny)."

So did I get that right? Because Bozo has not contributed he deserves less respect that Vinny? Hell I can criticize any move without being able to do it. Without having contributed anything. If somebody paints a horse and it looks like a cat and I say that the horse looks like a cat, nobody in the right mind would accuse me of not being able to judge it correctly, because I haven't done my share of horse drawings. But the accused troll, that is Bozo, defends himself by posting this:

"Lest I be accused of trolling. There may (or may not) be value in what Vinnie is offering. I simply find these moves inappropriate in the context of an AC routine. They are too fast, too covered, and there is (again, to me at least) more ambiguity than clarity of effect. pardon my WTF remark. That was rude."

So he details more precisely why his declaration of shenanigans is just. A fair comment, saying that the moves are inappropriate in the context of an ACR. I agree. An ACR should not be about not knowing what happened, but about knowing that nothing happened. Vinny failed to see that initial construction flaw. So Bozo is no troll at all. But he disagrees with the majority so he is the asshole here.

And then Bozo gets attacked ad hominem by the dick himself:

"I don't mean any harm here, but it is a bit difficult to take a critique from Bozo seriously... sey"

Oh yes, you mean to harm. But you don't know the difference. So I forgive you.
But maybe I see it all wrong. What's your opinion on that DL-free master piece?