Well I should be shot then. Do tell us what programmes you find funny
BIB. Me too! To me it was just pure Saturday night entertainment! Thought it was really funny. Even if it was staged, then in my opinion, it did what it was supposed to do ... Make people laugh!
Find out if the poster is, has, or has ever thought about doing a card trick and then use that to claim that nothing they ever say on any other subject can be taken seriously as they think lying to people is OK.
Seriously? SERIOUSLY? That the level of debate here?
Don't have an argument?: Simply discredit the other person instead. MPs do it all the time.
So we're clear...you as a magician of 30 years standing are telling me that stage hypnotism is real ?
Did I say that? Ive merely pointed out the errors in your argument. Twice.
My opinion is hypnosis is a halfway point between real and fake,the contestants are playing along(because hypnosis cant make you do something you wouldnt normally do) but also the suggestion given to them by Keith Barry is making them do things they dont realize. They are all screened as to their personalities,so in effect they are just exaggerating their normal selves but are not acting.
Find out if the poster is, has, or has ever thought about doing a card trick and then use that to claim that nothing they ever say on any other subject can be taken seriously as they think lying to people is OK.
Seriously? SERIOUSLY? That the level of debate here?
Don't have an argument?: Simply discredit the other person instead. MPs do it all the time.
How can there be a debate with you? You are going to be here every week (as you have been so far) endlessly defending something you refuse to waver on and probably have vested interest from being involved in the industry in some way.
Find out if the poster is, has, or has ever thought about doing a card trick and then use that to claim that nothing they ever say on any other subject can be taken seriously as they think lying to people is OK.
Seriously? SERIOUSLY? That the level of debate here?
Don't have an argument?: Simply discredit the other person instead. MPs do it all the time.
Discredit you ?
Look I realise that lording it up on Digi is all you have...6000 posts in a year ...wow!
But no one is trying to discredit you. You bring all this on yourself by the arrogant condescension and sarcasm when people disagree with your views.
But the fact that you view this as some form of attack on your standing (on a crappy Internet forum) tells me there's no sensible conclusion.,.so the debate is yours, oh king of digi !!!
Did I say that? Ive merely pointed out the errors in your argument. Twice.
My opinion is hypnosis is a halfway point between real and fake,the contestants are playing along(because hypnosis cant make you do something you wouldnt normally do) but also the suggestion given to them by Keith Barry is making them do things they dont realize. They are all screened as to their personalities,so in effect they are just exaggerating their normal selves but are not acting.
Agreed, I have made daft generalisations!
But my inherent sense is that it's all largely playing along.
Is it fake, only in the same way as a magic trick is fake, that doesn't make it fake entertainment.
I disagree with you fundamentally with the acting bit. My view is that when the hypnotist tells someone "you're a duck" they are being encouraged to act like a duck, they don't believe they are one for a moment
The acting bit is interesting because true actors probably wouldn't be caught out! What we have here is volunteer show offs trying to act out the scenarios given to them and naturally doing it badly !!
What utter and complete fake tripe this "joke" of a show is. Surely to goodness, NO-ONE actually believes it is "real" and takes it seriously do they?!!!! More "lowest common denominator quality" Saturday night TV!!
What utter and complete fake tripe this "joke" of a show is. Surely to goodness, NO-ONE actually believes it is "real" and takes it seriously do they?!!!! More "lowest common denominator quality" Saturday night TV!!
Thank you Professor ytsejam for your major contribution to the debate.
I particularly enjoyed your complete lack of any knowledge of the subject to support your argument.
And loved the twist of putting down, as not as intelligent as you, anyone who doesn't share your unsupported view.
Well I should be shot then. Do tell us what programmes you find funny
things like:
would i lie to you
QI
8 out of 10 cats does countdown
have i got news for you (although on a decreasing scale these days)
no one, and i mean no one can tell me this drivel-laden offering featuring idiots pretending to be hypnotised is anywhere near as funny as any of the above, period!
The show is mildly entertaining and shouldn't be taken too seriously. It is funny to watch people behave stupidly, whether they are acting or not.
But I'm having a real problem liking Keith Barry. To me he comes across as smug, arrogant and cheesy. He is starting to get on my nerves every time he is on the screen. I'm not sure if I'll continue watching purely because of his unlikeability.
Thank you Professor ytsejam for your major contribution to the debate.
I particularly enjoyed your complete lack of any knowledge of the subject to support your argument.
And loved the twist of putting down, as not as intelligent as you, anyone who doesn't share your unsupported view.
Great work! Well done!
You will fit in here very well indeed.
The poster didn't put anybody down.
Now you're using underhand tactics to debate with somebody after accusing somebody else of doing something similar.
The poster didn't put anybody down.
Now you're using underhand tactics to debate with somebody after accusing somebody else of doing something similar.
They that it was "lowest common denominator" TV and so TV suitable for 'lowest common denominator' viewers.
As for ANY debate, there seems to be a total lack of any. I have poster a long post explaining the facts of hypnosis and so far the other side of the 'debate' seem to consist of 'Yarr Booo it suck and der is no suck fing! And how can anyone be stopid enough to think it's anyfing but fake". I'm plying that anyone not agreeing with their unsupported view is stupid. Yet they post nothing to back up their claim of fakery.
So, so far there has been no debate. Only facts posted countered by unsupported nay sayers.
They that it was "lowest common denominator" TV and so TV suitable for 'lowest common denominator' viewers.
As for ANY debate, there seems to be a total lack of any. I have poster a long post explaining the facts of hypnosis and so far the other side of the 'debate' seem to consist of 'Yarr Booo it suck and der is no suck fing! And how can anyone be stopid enough to think it's anyfing but fake". I'm plying that anyone not agreeing with their unsupported view is stupid. Yet they post nothing to back up their claim of fakery.
So, so far there has been no debate. Only facts posted countered by unsupported nay sayers.
Anyway, enough silliness, back to the show.
There are varying interpretations of what 'the lowest common denominator' means. It is supposed to mean something which appeals to as many people at once as possible. I've used the term myself from time to time and meant it in exactly that way.
You chose to use an interpretation which subverts what it is supposed to mean.
It doesn't mean that the poster was putting anybody down. They could well have meant that it is formulaic, lazy 'catch-all' television designed to appeal to the biggest mainstream audience possible who thrive on familiarity and predictability.
The 'lowest' part of the term doesn't have anything to do with the person in question being lower in intelligence, or class, or anything like that, it is about a mathematical figure.
As for debate, you're not interested in debate. You're dominating the thread trying to force your own point of view and have tried to put down and undermine posters whose point of view doesn't accord with your own.
The point you're trying to force is that hypnotism is real. But when a poster says that they think that the show is phoney and a bit crap, you're pulling them up for lacking facts and knowledge about hypnotism. As though if you can make people accept that hynoptism is real then they'd have to admit that what we see on this show is real. The two things are not the same thing. Somebody may believe that hypnotism is real, but that the practice they see on this TV show isn't.
Maybe he forgot how to hypnotize people that day so resorted to trick cards instead
The guy said that he could see what the word was, but couldn't say it.
So if he could see what the word was, he must have been able to read it, so how would him forgetting the correct order of the alphabet prevent him from saying it?
There are varying interpretations of what 'the lowest common denominator' means. It is supposed to mean something which appeals to as many people at once as possible. I've used the term myself from time to time and meant it in exactly that way.
You chose to use an interpretation which subverts what it is supposed to mean.
It doesn't mean that the poster was putting anybody down. They could well have meant that it is formulaic, lazy 'catch-all' television designed to appeal to the biggest mainstream audience possible who thrive on familiarity and predictability.
The 'lowest' part of the term doesn't have anything to do with the person in question being lower in intelligence, or class, or anything like that, it is about a mathematical figure.
As for debate, you're not interested in debate. You're dominating the thread trying to force your own point of view and have tried to put down and undermine posters whose point of view doesn't accord with your own.
The ridiculous thing is that even experts disagree about what's going on but with nothing other than "I know better than you" we are supposed to listen to some anonymous Walter Mitty type who has said nothing that demonstrates he's an expert on anything.
And you can be sure that he'll avoid anything factual like a plague such as why Barry is doing magic tricks and pretending it's hypnotism.
I've posted different links to this mysterious art, including how you can learn it for £23 but Walter likes to pretend that everybody else is proving nothing whilst avoiding the fact that he isn't either.
The guy said that he could see what the word was, but couldn't say it.
So if he could see what the word was, he must have been able to read it, so how would him forgetting the correct order of the alphabet prevent him from saying it?
He could see a word but not necessarily the one you were seeing
What utter and complete fake tripe this "joke" of a show is. Surely to goodness, NO-ONE actually believes it is "real" and takes it seriously do they?!!!! More "lowest common denominator quality" Saturday night TV!!
You are not wrong. This is so poor it is beneath giving it credence by discussing it.
I saw a hypnosis show with a group of friends in a working man's club once. Two of my friends went up on stage and did outrageous stuff. When they got back to their seats I asked what it was like being hypnotised, and both admitted that they hadn't been, they just went along with it as they didn't like to offend by walking off stage.
There's always some elements of each participant's behaviour, supposedly under hypnosis, that jars. For example, the woman who was told to check cakes for 'soggy bottoms,' and then, only at the very end, did she also start feeling people's bums for comic effect. The woman with the phone in her shoe seemed intent on blasting out her responses in a way that made no sense except as a deliberate bit of TV showing off. Several just seem to forget what they're supposedly programmed to be doing and then remember again.
I liked the way where they all "slept", they all slumped in a funny way, except the lady on the end who was always sat straight, with just her head bowed and her hands on her knees.
When they sleep standing, the man just supports their head and they are able to stand unaided so really theres no reason they should slump down so much in their seats except to make people laugh.
Comments
BIB. Me too! To me it was just pure Saturday night entertainment! Thought it was really funny. Even if it was staged, then in my opinion, it did what it was supposed to do ... Make people laugh!
Find out if the poster is, has, or has ever thought about doing a card trick and then use that to claim that nothing they ever say on any other subject can be taken seriously as they think lying to people is OK.
Seriously? SERIOUSLY? That the level of debate here?
Don't have an argument?: Simply discredit the other person instead. MPs do it all the time.
Did I say that? Ive merely pointed out the errors in your argument. Twice.
My opinion is hypnosis is a halfway point between real and fake,the contestants are playing along(because hypnosis cant make you do something you wouldnt normally do) but also the suggestion given to them by Keith Barry is making them do things they dont realize. They are all screened as to their personalities,so in effect they are just exaggerating their normal selves but are not acting.
How can there be a debate with you? You are going to be here every week (as you have been so far) endlessly defending something you refuse to waver on and probably have vested interest from being involved in the industry in some way.
Discredit you ?
Look I realise that lording it up on Digi is all you have...6000 posts in a year ...wow!
But no one is trying to discredit you. You bring all this on yourself by the arrogant condescension and sarcasm when people disagree with your views.
But the fact that you view this as some form of attack on your standing (on a crappy Internet forum) tells me there's no sensible conclusion.,.so the debate is yours, oh king of digi !!!
Agreed, I have made daft generalisations!
But my inherent sense is that it's all largely playing along.
Is it fake, only in the same way as a magic trick is fake, that doesn't make it fake entertainment.
I disagree with you fundamentally with the acting bit. My view is that when the hypnotist tells someone "you're a duck" they are being encouraged to act like a duck, they don't believe they are one for a moment
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=157289&forum=22
The acting bit is interesting because true actors probably wouldn't be caught out! What we have here is volunteer show offs trying to act out the scenarios given to them and naturally doing it badly !!
Thank you Professor ytsejam for your major contribution to the debate.
I particularly enjoyed your complete lack of any knowledge of the subject to support your argument.
And loved the twist of putting down, as not as intelligent as you, anyone who doesn't share your unsupported view.
Great work! Well done!
You will fit in here very well indeed.
things like:
would i lie to you
QI
8 out of 10 cats does countdown
have i got news for you (although on a decreasing scale these days)
no one, and i mean no one can tell me this drivel-laden offering featuring idiots pretending to be hypnotised is anywhere near as funny as any of the above, period!
:cool:
But I'm having a real problem liking Keith Barry. To me he comes across as smug, arrogant and cheesy. He is starting to get on my nerves every time he is on the screen. I'm not sure if I'll continue watching purely because of his unlikeability.
The poster didn't put anybody down.
Now you're using underhand tactics to debate with somebody after accusing somebody else of doing something similar.
They that it was "lowest common denominator" TV and so TV suitable for 'lowest common denominator' viewers.
As for ANY debate, there seems to be a total lack of any. I have poster a long post explaining the facts of hypnosis and so far the other side of the 'debate' seem to consist of 'Yarr Booo it suck and der is no suck fing! And how can anyone be stopid enough to think it's anyfing but fake". I'm plying that anyone not agreeing with their unsupported view is stupid. Yet they post nothing to back up their claim of fakery.
So, so far there has been no debate. Only facts posted countered by unsupported nay sayers.
Anyway, enough silliness, back to the show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuDul51AZP8&feature=youtube_gdata - Video Tube for YouTube - Android
Maybe he forgot how to hypnotize people that day so resorted to trick cards instead
I'd start with wiki who seem just a bit sceptical :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stage_hypnosis
Of course embedded with that article you'd realise that you also need to sort out that no nothing Kreskin who also seems to have a contrary view .
And then theres Penn and Teller who rank it as the lowest of the low:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhPYSsXaLm8
Oops
And I posted this link earlier to a learn hypnosis site which gives a clear indication of what they think is going on.
http://www.learnstagehypnosis.com/
There are varying interpretations of what 'the lowest common denominator' means. It is supposed to mean something which appeals to as many people at once as possible. I've used the term myself from time to time and meant it in exactly that way.
You chose to use an interpretation which subverts what it is supposed to mean.
It doesn't mean that the poster was putting anybody down. They could well have meant that it is formulaic, lazy 'catch-all' television designed to appeal to the biggest mainstream audience possible who thrive on familiarity and predictability.
The 'lowest' part of the term doesn't have anything to do with the person in question being lower in intelligence, or class, or anything like that, it is about a mathematical figure.
As for debate, you're not interested in debate. You're dominating the thread trying to force your own point of view and have tried to put down and undermine posters whose point of view doesn't accord with your own.
The point you're trying to force is that hypnotism is real. But when a poster says that they think that the show is phoney and a bit crap, you're pulling them up for lacking facts and knowledge about hypnotism. As though if you can make people accept that hynoptism is real then they'd have to admit that what we see on this show is real. The two things are not the same thing. Somebody may believe that hypnotism is real, but that the practice they see on this TV show isn't.
The guy said that he could see what the word was, but couldn't say it.
So if he could see what the word was, he must have been able to read it, so how would him forgetting the correct order of the alphabet prevent him from saying it?
The ridiculous thing is that even experts disagree about what's going on but with nothing other than "I know better than you" we are supposed to listen to some anonymous Walter Mitty type who has said nothing that demonstrates he's an expert on anything.
And you can be sure that he'll avoid anything factual like a plague such as why Barry is doing magic tricks and pretending it's hypnotism.
I've posted different links to this mysterious art, including how you can learn it for £23 but Walter likes to pretend that everybody else is proving nothing whilst avoiding the fact that he isn't either.
He could see a word but not necessarily the one you were seeing
You are not wrong. This is so poor it is beneath giving it credence by discussing it.
When they sleep standing, the man just supports their head and they are able to stand unaided so really theres no reason they should slump down so much in their seats except to make people laugh.
Jeremy Kyle Show gets slaughtered for this