talkmagic.co.uk

Argh!!

Sorry. I watched that whole ISP video thing, and then spotted the tagline at the end:

'Do you want a job after your dead?'

After my dead?

My dead what?

Misplaced apostrophes are a bit of a pet hate of mine, but I know better than to rant about them in forum posts and suchlike.

Still... on a promotional video for a (supposedly) high-profile publicity stunt, you'd think he could have hired somebody literate to proofread one piece of text!

it's hard to type with a Martini glass in one hand. he was even slurring his words... amazing for a "promo" video.

B0bbY_CaT wrote:so, do you believe "insisting" you REALLY can talk to the dead is "crossing the line" in terms of performance?

Is Callahan the same as John Edward? is John Edward worse because he claims to talk with YOUR aunt Mary rather than someone who he may have "made up" in the first place... or are they much the same?

Seems Callahan proposes enternatainment, while Edward proports "therapy". Is one more "okay" than the other or are they both full of excrement?

HERE'S WHAT MOST MISS...

Jim is using an old school logic and giving the public credit for being able to understand that he's an ENTERTAINER that is absorbed in his character. It's not the same as someone like John Edward who comes from a more religious or spiritual foundation. Nor is Jim out (to my knowledge) offering to contact Aunt Maude in order to find out where she hid the family silver, etc.

I sell my shows as "the real deal" but I likewise sew in a small ton of perspective that "validates" my claims from a more analytical or "scientific" point of view, if you would; I distinguish the difference between what it "real" and "plausible" and I likewise strive to take the boogiemen, fairy folk and angelic entities out of the equation, giving public credit for being intelligent enough to accept and digest the greater reality as to how my "Psychic" abilities are possible.

When it comes to the whole Mediumistic thing I can understand it as a performer and the theatrical as well as commercial side to the theme, I do have problems with it philosophically however, in that 95% of the world's religions and philosophic traditions teach against said things; even noted occultists of our present like Bonewits and Kraig warn folks away from thus things.

Personally, and based in part on my own experiences with this sort of thing, I don't know why anyone would want to deliberately place themselves in the position of being a "Medium" it's quite an odd and uncomfortable sensation that makes one feel exceptionally powerless. Nonetheless, I also know that the information that can come through such a "channeling" can prove healing, comforting and consoling to those that spirit seeks to communicate with. [PLEASE DON'T START DOWN THE HORSE-PUCKY PATH OF THE TYPICAL CYNIC. THIS STATEMENT COMES FROM MY EXPERIENCE; I'm NO IDIOT, I'm NOT GULLIBLE WHEN IT COMES TO SUCH THINGS AND I DO BELIEVE I HAVE A SLIGHTLY BETTER UNDERSTANDING ABOUT TRICKERY, ETC THAN MOST. SO PLEASE, LET'S NOT TURN THIS INTO ANOTHER CYNIC VS. BELIEVER BS SESSION.]

When it comes to Mr. Edward or even Sylvia Brown, I'm probably one of the only people on this forum that's had direct contact with either. Though I consider Sylvia to be a rude bar-bitch for the most part, who is out for herself and her ego more than the client, I can't say that about John. He seems to be very genuine and honestly "connected" to the angst of his patrons. I also know that though he may use some stock lines and filler here and there (a common vocational curse for any counselor) he has an uncanny hard-hit factor that moves him outside the more common "charlatan" game... at least, in my two or three direct encounters with him on the phone in his earlier career stage that was the case.

The point being that I know that there are some underhanded folks out there making a mint under the rouse of being "Psychic" or a "Medium"; what I've said is not a cover-all defense for them all. Especially anyone, such as Callahan, who has a known background in professional magic.

Sorry, but if I went out on a Mountain top and saw a burning bush that talked and was suddenly able to do literal miracles, it wouldn't be accepts as "valid" simply because of who I am and what I've done most of my life e.g. I'd have to say that Jim's marketing angle is what I said it was all along; old school tactics that actually give the public credit to know the difference up-front vs. insulting them and bludgeoning them over the head with "disclaimers' that insinuate that they are idiots and fools should they believe in anything miraculous.

Jim is just one of the higher profiled performers using this angle you will also find it with the Evansons, Scott McClellan and a handful of others scattered the world over.

I fully understand the concept of living the role for the sake of the overall effect.

It's really nothing new - as I remember, Rock Hudson pretended to be straight until the bitter end.

Ultimately, as a performer, I do believe that the public only has a right to know what you want to reveal about yourself. It's the reason why actors like Kevin Spacey give away absolutely nothing about their private lives - they want your whole perception to be the character they're presenting at work - not the latest tabloid gossip.

Jim's got a good publicity angle going here though - and all the better after reading the 'no suicides' clause.

And I think it's pretty harmless to present a random, possibly-fictitious spirit. It's a very different ball game to calling up your dead Aunt Brian.

Yes it's still morbid. It's not for everyone. But everyone doesn't need to watch.

Personally, though, I'm not a fan of his presentational style. It's his persona that puts me off rather than his claims and content.