I changed my definition to be more specific. Today, the most common use of the word refers to card flourishes, but there are still pros and people like me who use the word to refer to card magic. So, the word can be correctly applied to either of the two.
How's this?
- Thread starter AgentKuo
- Start date
- Status
I changed my definition to be more specific. Today, the most common use of the word refers to card flourishes, but there are still pros and people like me who use the word to refer to card magic. So, the word can be correctly applied to either of the two.
Since you clearly do not listen to reason and are only debating with me for the sake of it, I will utilize my time more wisely elsewhere.
So you're saying that I'm incorrect if I use 'cardistry' to refer to card magic? Yet there are professional magicians who still do the same. You can't argue with the pros. And since there are some pros who define it as card magic, and other pros who define it as card flourishing, I think it's perfectly logical to say that they are all correct.
Yeah, but Andrei and Kuo have been saying that since the beginning. You have to take one side. You basically just forfeited by agreeing to what they said and tried to come to a compromise.
I didn't forfeit anything and I'm not trying to compromise. I thought about what Andrei said and I changed my opinion in a way that only partially agrees with him. Originally, I was on the side that views cardistry as only card magic. Andrei is on the side that views cardistry as only flourishes. Even with my new opinion, I'm still on a different side as him, because I view cardistry as card magic and card flourishing, while he only views it as card flourishing.
There 2 publications and approximately 4 people in this world that refer to cardistry as a primary reference to magic, including yourself - have a good day.
Yeah, I got that. Which he's wrong about by the way. If there's anyone doing any listening, it's me. I LISTENED to some of the points he made, thought long and hard about them, and decided that's it's illogical to view cardistry as only card magic, since a lot of people, including professionals, recognize it as card flourishing. If I wasn't acknowledging anything he said, I never would've changed my views on cardistry.
Since I changed my opinion, the new debate was about whether cardistry should refer to card magic and card flourishing, or just card flourishing. The points that Andrei made as to why it should only refer to card flourishing, were very contradictory and hypocritical. I quote him on this.... "However, if you want to keep up with present times and respectably acknowledge the hard work of all the individuals who pushed the art of cardistry, you may want to reconsider it's primary definition."
1) In present times, there are still professional magicians who use the word to refer to card magic. I realize that more people use it to refer to card flourishing, but my point is that it's original definition is still used today.
2) How am I disrespecting or failing to acknowledge anyone who pushed cardistry as a non-magical art? I clearly changed my opinion to acknowledge cardistry as magical AND non-magical. He's the one who is failing to show any respect to the people who invented cardistry and intended for it to be a purely magical art. He just threw its origins out the window and claimed it to refer to ONLY card flourishing, when there are still famous card magicians who use the word to refer to card magic. That's blatant disrespect to not only the people who invented the word, but also those people who still use its original meaning today.
There are more than two publications. Rusduck had an entire magazine dedicated to cardistry as a magical art. And there's a book about cardistry containing a bunch of card tricks from famous magicians like Alex Elmsley. But it doesn't matter how few references their were, because there are also very few written references of cardistry as non-magical. Regardless, both of our points are opinionated, so I don't know why you keep acting like I'm wrong about everything.
Although it may be true that you have been listening, from the posts you made, it seems you were doing a lot of talking first. In other words, you spoke your mind before giving what he said thought.
Well, for one thing, there was never a "new debate". From the beginning it has been about the definition of the word and the context it is used in.
Which Andrei already stated and acknowledged. (read below).
I don't think any of us have any proof that anyone intended it to remain a strictly magic art. Unless you can quote some text stating "'cardistry' should only refer to the magical art of manipulating cards" I believe this point is completely irrelevant.
This is what I'm talking about about not listening. Because this quote screams "I DIDN'T REALLY READ WHAT ANDREI SAID! I'M JUST KIND OF GUESSING AT THIS POINT!"
Mostly in response to your earlier posts:
Andrei made his points in response to yours. You stated that the original meaning of the word, which referred to cardistry as a magical art, was always going to be the correct definition, and Andrei responded to that point. You're taking his response out of context and making it sound like Andrei blatantly stated that "Cardistry" only referred to card manipulation as a non-magical art, when in fact, in context, what he was saying was strictly in regard to what you said. His point was about words, including "cardistry", changing over time. Not the definitive definition of the word. (This, I say again, was in response to you saying that "Cardisrtry" in its original context referred to a magical art.)
-So in the defense of Andrei, you can't say his point was that "Cardistry only refers to the non-magical art of card manipulation" without saying that his point was that "The term 'Cardistry' has evolved to the point where the majority of people will say that it refers to the non-magical art of card manipulation in today's society." (which you aren't doing.) He clearly acknowledges the changes that the definition have gone through over time (just read his posts).
He even stated "In today's world, a majority consensus will tell you cardistry is the non magical manipulation of playing cards."
-He clearly acknowledges that not everyone views the term "Cardistry" as the non-magical art, but makes the observation that most people do, including himself.
Actually, he did blatantly say that the definition of cardistry is the non-magical manipulation of playing cards. "Based on those achievements, especially in the relatively short amount of time, the non magical manipulation of playing cards is the definition - if you're living in today's world." That quote right there proves that he said the definition of the word is 'the non-magical manipulation of playing cards'. Also, I said, "Today, the most common use of the word refers to card flourishes, but there are still pros and people like me who use the word to refer to card magic. So, the word can be correctly applied to either of the two." To which Andre responded, "Since you clearly do not listen to reason and are only debating with me for the sake of it, I will utilize my time more wisely elsewhere." That also implies that he defines the word as strictly non-magical, and that I'm flat out wrong. He wouldn't have said that if he thought that cardistry also referred to card magic.
What he said was that he defines it that way, and that most people will agree with him. Most people "in todays world".
Well, I'm not going to vouch for him here. But it was pretty clear in the beginning that you were't listening to reason. I don't understand why Andrei chose the one post that showed you were thinking about what had been said to point that out.
You said that Andrei didn't blatantly say that cardistry is a non-magical art. I was just pointing out that you overlooked the statement where he did say that. It is how he defines it, otherwise he would agree with me. But we already how he viewed cardistry anyway, so it's not really important right now.
In the very beginning posts I wasn't listening to reason. But I did change my opinion later on, and it was more logical. That's why Andrei's response to the quote I previously mentioned, makes no sense at all.
As I said before, he was responding to you. I didn't overlook his statement. I was just clearing up that he did, in fact, acknowledge that a small amount of people still use it to refer to magic.
Yes he definitely did acknowledge it, but I think he was trying to say that because very few people view cardistry as magical, it's incorrect to view it as magical. Which makes no sense. Even if most people view it as non-magical, the magical definition has to at least be a correct, alternate definition. And towards his later statements, he acknowledged that people used it in a very sarcastic manner. It was his last comment that pissed me off.
You have made several assumptions all of which are incorrect. I had clearly stated it was part of history. Cardistry as magic is not an alternative definition, it is an OUTDATED definition which is not the same as incorrect. My last comment was neither sarcastic nor cynical - it was accurate to a large degree. Lastly, it doesn't make any sense to refer to magic as "cardistry" when you can just use "magic" - don't ya think? In fact, I highly doubt you or the other four individuals use "cardistry" as a primary to reference magic in real world situations.
Last edited by a moderator:
It also makes sense to refer to card flourishing as just 'card flourishing', rather than cardistry. I remember that there was a poll held somewhere (it might've been theory11, but I'm not sure) asking how you would define the non-magical manipulation of playing cards. Magic and XCM were towards the bottom, as expected, but cardistry wasn't at the top. Flourishing was how most people would define the non-magical manipulation of playing cards.
How was your last comment largely accurate? Although there are only a handful of references to cardistry as magic, there are a lot more than two. And there are a lot more than four people who refer to cardistry as magic. Paul Gordon and a lot of people affiliated with him still refer to cardistry as magic. A ton of people who follow De'Vo refer to cardistry as magic. And there are a few people that I know through YouTube who do the same.
Yes, it's mostly an outdated definition. But that doesn't make it incorrect, which you said yourself. With that being said, I can correctly use it to refer to magic.
Last edited by a moderator:
Flourishing is a different discussion, make a new topic in the forums if you want to discuss that.
"Handful", "a lot more", "a lot of people", "few people through youtube" are not exactly convincing phrases to prove your point.
Doing this for a decade, I have never personally came across anyone who uses "cardistry" as their primary choice of words. The people you're referring to with the exception of Paul Gordon (debatable) do not use cardistry to reference magic either - they use magic. If they do however, ninety-nine out of a hundred times will be an attempt to prove their point for the sake of argument rather than the fact that they constantly use it as a primary term - such as this case. I'd love to see the results of you going to a magic convention or any other informal gathering and use cardistry as a go to term.
Glad we settled it.
You truly have an issue with admitting that I'm right about anything.
"Flourishing is a different discussion, make a new topic in the forums if you want to discuss that." Good job completely evading a valid point that I made, because you know that you can't possibly come up with any good response.
"Handful", "a lot more", "a lot of people", "few people through youtube" are not exactly convincing phrases to prove your point."
They are completely convincing phrases in proving my point. You said that there are approximately four people in the world who use the word 'cardistry' to refer to magic. I said your statement was sarcastic, while you claimed it to be largely accurate. If it were largely accurate, there would only be four people in the world who refer to cardistry as card magic, give or take a few.
Paul Gordon and affiliates = About 3-5 people including Paul Gordon.
Me and some YouTube people = About three people.
De'vo and his fellow artists = Five people, and that doesn't include the people who agreed with the forum post where he said that 'cardistry' referred to only magic.
That's AT LEAST 11 people. When you take into account some people on De'Vo's forum who agree with him, we have about 20-30 people. That still doesn't include anyone else in the world who refers to cardistry as magic. Approximately four means about 2-6 people, not 20-30, or even more.
"The people you're referring to with the exception of Paul Gordon (debatable) do not use cardistry to reference magic either - they use magic. " This is the same with people who are card flourishers. A lot of them use the term 'flourish' to refer to their art, rather than 'cardistry'. Also, I don't regularly use cardistry as a reference to magic. I don't really use the term much at all. However, because I originally learned that the term referred to card magic, I always think of card magic when I hear the word.
"Glad we settled it." Not sure what you mean here. You said that as a response to only part of the full statement I made. The part that you responded to makes it look like I said something completely different to what I really did. Do you mean that we settled this entire debate, and that cardistry can also refer to card magic? Or are you trying to make it out like I agreed with you and it can't? Because if you put the full statement together, I clearly didn't do that.
"Flourishing is a different discussion, make a new topic in the forums if you want to discuss that." Good job completely evading a valid point that I made, because you know that you can't possibly come up with any good response.
"Handful", "a lot more", "a lot of people", "few people through youtube" are not exactly convincing phrases to prove your point."
They are completely convincing phrases in proving my point. You said that there are approximately four people in the world who use the word 'cardistry' to refer to magic. I said your statement was sarcastic, while you claimed it to be largely accurate. If it were largely accurate, there would only be four people in the world who refer to cardistry as card magic, give or take a few.
Paul Gordon and affiliates = About 3-5 people including Paul Gordon.
Me and some YouTube people = About three people.
De'vo and his fellow artists = Five people, and that doesn't include the people who agreed with the forum post where he said that 'cardistry' referred to only magic.
That's AT LEAST 11 people. When you take into account some people on De'Vo's forum who agree with him, we have about 20-30 people. That still doesn't include anyone else in the world who refers to cardistry as magic. Approximately four means about 2-6 people, not 20-30, or even more.
"The people you're referring to with the exception of Paul Gordon (debatable) do not use cardistry to reference magic either - they use magic. " This is the same with people who are card flourishers. A lot of them use the term 'flourish' to refer to their art, rather than 'cardistry'. Also, I don't regularly use cardistry as a reference to magic. I don't really use the term much at all. However, because I originally learned that the term referred to card magic, I always think of card magic when I hear the word.
"Glad we settled it." Not sure what you mean here. You said that as a response to only part of the full statement I made. The part that you responded to makes it look like I said something completely different to what I really did. Do you mean that we settled this entire debate, and that cardistry can also refer to card magic? Or are you trying to make it out like I agreed with you and it can't? Because if you put the full statement together, I clearly didn't do that.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status