Unfortunately as with many things, it’s easier to bend a fork than it is to straighten it.
No, I just don’t hung up on a pedantically narrow interpretation of what people say.
Magicians, illusionists, conjurers, mentalists, and so on will all readily admit–off-stage, if not always on-stage–that what they’re doing are tricks (Illusions, Michael. Tricks are what whores do for money.). Patter aside, they never claim to be doing anything supernatural.
Likewise, actors never claim to be doing anything besides acting. The very title is an indication that the actor is playing a part and isn’t actually the person in question.
Frauds like Geller and Popoff never admitted that they were doing cheap tricks. They never let up on the act. That’s the difference. And yes, they fooled a whole lot of people.
If you were cold reading people that legitimately thought you were doing something real, even after explaining things to them, then you were a fraud as well. A relatively minor one in the grand scheme of things, but still taking money from people under false pretenses. You should have hung up on that woman instead of taking $450 and giving false hope in return.
Wrestlers who claimed that there shows were real competitions were con artists. That one is pretty simple. In reality few wrestlers ever did that. And you and everyone else who uses the word ‘kayfabe’ should stop doing that because you don’t know what it means. It does not mean fake, that’s something some fools made up on the internet.
Geller didn’t simply sell tickets to his shows. He called the people who exposed the truth about him liars. He took his con game off the stage and profited whenever possible from gullible people who believed in his psychic powers, something he knew did not exist. If he kept it all on the stage I wouldn’t care, but he aided and abetted other frauds in fleecing people.
Sorry, but you don’t seem to comprehend that ‘based on’ does not require a single element of truth in the final product. It is no different than saying ‘inspired by’. Also, you don’t seem to comprehend that ‘not based one drop on a true story. Nothing like the story ever occured’ means either since you immediately contradict yourself. Do you make the same claims about Alfred Hitchcock who based Psycho on Ed Gein also?
Well, I for one feel you’re right about what I should have done and I’ve had to live with the fact that I didn’t the rest of my life thank you very much. Had I thought like you I would have taken it though. If I’m already a con artist why the hell not?
Well, people get better :). Seriously, that you realized the problem by day 2 is a credit to you. You felt something–guilt–that Popoff and his ilk are incapable of feeling.
None of this stuff is a problem as long as everyone is fully honest about what’s going on. But it’s not enough for there to be a wink and a nod, especially when money is changing hands, because the world is filled with desperate people willing to believe anything–as you no doubt know as well as anyone.
This is simply false. You might want to look up the term kayfabe.
I never said that aiding and abetting was a good thing but it doesn’t make him a con man, just an asshole which I have no problem calling him.
Ah, the lawyers defense. The fact is he promoted it based on reality when it wasn’t and he did it to sell tickets. The actions would be perfectly fine had he used the magic words.
You’re right. What don’t I comprehend besides this sentence?
I don’t understand this either and even putting the two sentences together I do’t comprehend. Can you state what you meant a tad more clearly please?
Yep, Alfred Hitchcock, not a con artist. Neither is Tobe Hooper. Not by my definition. By the common one on the thread then yes, they both are but Al’s story was far closer to the real story than Tobe was.
To be clear, I’m not claiming that Popoff isn’t a con man. He’s textbook. I don’t feel Geller is in the same category although I do appreciate the counter arguments being presented in this thread and I’m getting why they say that. Remember, I think that what Randi is doing is a superb thing so I support making sure people know it’s not real. I simply disagree with the labelling of one guy.
One last observation. The whole time I hung around that scene I never met one person who claimed not to be a believer in what they did ever though they called others outside their circle frauds all the time and wished the frauds would quit disrespecing the business. Now, normally you’d say so what but these people were over at my house all the time, in social situations, staying there, just being normal and they never once, even to each other acknowledged the con. If it’s a con then they are the most lonely conmen in existence. That’s why I mentioned self delusioned. I truly believed that these people had deluded themselves and were not trying to con people. None of these people were ever “huge” or inspiring to be. Only a handful made this their primary living.
Damnit! I just lost my long response to your whole post so I’ll be brief.
First, didn’t you read all the disclaimers at the top of that article?
The internet certainly has created some new but rather ambiguous definitions for ‘kayfabe’, but that’s just another reason to stop using it. ‘Kayfabe’ was nothing but an exclamation used by some wrestlers to mean ‘Heads Up!’. It was generally used to indicate people were watching and not to break character. This probably resulted in some fool interpreting it to mean ‘fake’ and then splattering that all over the internet. It is the equivalent of something like ‘Hey Rube!’ or ‘Your zipper is down’.
Also, Hitchcock had barely more reality in Psycho than was in Massacre. Neither of them have much at all to do with the real story.
I didn’t originally correct this because in a thread where I knew that my view would be challenged it felt good to read something non negative about me but it’s not true.
I had entered into something I wasn’t comfortable with and I stopped it. That’s not getting better. I would have continued the fairs since that level of compensation, from people searching for my skill I was fine with.
I’d have the pros ask me for readings ( gratis of course ) all the time and I did them. Even if they knew they were conning people they wanted the con ran on them. Fact is, there is considerable value in talking to a good listener and I got a rush out of making people feel good and I definitely got that from the fairs. That value simply isn’t $4.99 a minute.
The moral component was always there and didn’t change but I hadn’t hit that moral bar until I started doing it for real money. Shit got real, so to speak.
(Missed the edit window)
I see that you feel a little guilty about participating in some short cons. A little guilt may be due, but not much more, maybe not even that. You were dealing with people who wanted to be conned. It’s not even clear that you actually conned people.
Sure. I believe it. Randi demonstrated as much with his Million Dollar Challenge–the people that applied really believed in their powers. There was no small number of applicants! When they invariably failed to demonstrate their powers, they were confused and dismayed, but rarely, if ever, did they admit that their powers might not be real.
Of course Geller never took the challenge. Nor did Sylvia Browne, another fraud and target of Randi. This is one way we can tell they’re frauds instead of being merely delusional.
The fair readings I have no problem with. There is a difference between $10 (or whatever) at a fair vs $4.99 a minute. I’m sure you put on a good show at the fair, and that most of the people were just looking for some entertainment. The 900 number is designed to filter out the most desperate people and string them along as long as possible, extracting as much money as possible.
Right, people are watching so don’t break character. Don’t stay at the same hotels. Don’t ride to gigs together. Never be seen talking together and never, never admit it’s not real. Live your character at all times in public not just at shows. Having results printed in the Sports section of the paper. That’s not running a con on the people? Right.
As far as “this probably resulted in some fool interpreting it to mean ‘fake’ and then splattering that all over the internet.”
What are you talking about? Kayfabe broke before the internet became a big thing. I trained at the Hiro Matsuda gym in middle school (CWF forever!) and I knew what kayfabe was. Wrestling was a big part of my youth. If I hadn’t resembled Oliver Humperdinck more than Billy Graham I probably would have become a wrestler. I didn’t learn about kayfabe from some fool on the internet.
It went far, far deeper than working the con during the shows, it was working it in their real life. Even with law enforcement.
That’s a far cry from what you describe.
I agree but frauds are not necessarily con men? You know, I’m beginning to think that my experience with wrestling is part of what makes me not see frauds as con men. I see them as being frauds but delivering on exactly what they are being paid to deliver on, entertainment. The fraud is part of the act. I learned this when I was young. It’s hard to shake ideas learned young.
This helps reinforce my ideas of wrestling influencing my ideas about Geller but I like the way you phrased it. Wrestlers are also dealing with people who want to be conned. I feel that Geller was doing the same thing.
I have already stated that if I see any evidence of him conning people who did not want to be conned, like the faith healers do, I don’t think it makes him a con man. The former plays to the marks, the latter to the rubes.
Oh, and I do think I deserved a little guilt for the taking of the cash off the 900 number lady but not for the fairs. Not one drop.
cite? Which “gullible people” do you mean? How did he “profit” from them? Give specific examples.
cite? What “other frauds” do you mean? Give specific examples.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was brought up as an example of a fictional story presented as true. Fargo is a better example, both the movie and the TV show.
Hmmm, did you actually use a Tarot deck and read the actual cards that came up, or did you just pretend to and then picked whichever card seemed appropriate to the situation? ETA: I realize now that perhaps “live” Tarot readers may also do this via slight of hand, but perhaps not? I don’t know?
I was working from home via the telephone so no sleight of hand at all. I did use the tarot deck and I guess you could say I read them. I didn’t really care what the books would say the cards mean though. I used them to guide my probing. Worked better in person because the person would play along better but I could do it via the phone too.
The cards really are perfect for this. For example, the ten of sword drops. There’s a guy with ten swords sticking out of his back. “Hmm, looks like you have some strife in your life.”
Well no crap. Who doesn’t"? It would open them up and if not, I’d ask them what it could mean to them via leading questions and they’d usually come up with something so I’d know what they wanted to talk about. I’d drop the next card and take it from there.
If they didn’t, I’d drop the next card and see what reaction that brought. I did use the Celtic Cross layout and kept those definitions for each place pretty much by the book but this was a really good way to keep the reading moving and covering all the bases of what people were expecting to hear from a card reader.
I was really comfortable with this approach so I kept it on the phone. I have no idea how other readers would do the phone readings. I never saw anyone doing one.
So you’re trying to find your place in the pantheon of evil, and unfortunately you’re barely at the bottom level 
Yes, there are all sorts of con games going on in the world, but most fall into the category of caveat emptor. Even with Geller I don’t think he did any more than that in his shows, but he defended other con artists and accused those who pointed out his fakery as liars.
I think we’re pretty close to agreement. I don’t think what Geller did in his shows was evil nor was what I did at the fairs. Maybe what I did on the phone wasn’t truly evil either but I know that it was unacceptable to my morality and made me feel like it was a bad thing.
The difference of opinion, if it exists at all, is due to the fact that I have no idea who he defended nor who he called liars. I hadn’t thought about the guy in years. I am open to changing my opinion here and will read any cites provided to the poster above who requested them.