Talk:Chinese linking rings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm removing the scrolling to the Magician's Oath and further scrolling to details about magic tricks. In my opinion, there is not enough information here for someone to actually learn how to do the trick, and knowing the psychological principles behind an illusion does not necessarily spoil a performance, since a good performer should be able to cause the audience to suspend belief, and surprise the audience with what happens next. It is actually more surprising when someone thinks they know how it's done, and the magician invents a new technique that appears to contradict it. GUllman 04:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

Please take a look at Talk:Out of This World (card trick)#Request for comment. Bovlb 2005-07-06 04:42:41 (UTC)

Get rid of theses sections exposure is bad??!?!??!?!?!??!?!

An encyclopedia's job is to inform, not to keep secrets. The spoiler warnings are more than sufficient. Hiding magic secrets is as unencyclopedic as hiding Scientology secrets or using censorship. As soon as we start being cowed by interest groups in what we will or won't include in our encyclopedia, Wikipedia immediately loses all credibility. -Silence 18:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No key ring?

I've been wondering if the illusion could be preserved without a key ring. Hackwrench 16:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)