"Here is my response to Lovick three days after he sent me the challenge to review his review in 2012. I never hit the "send button” since I knew that his hardened heart and dogged determination would never let him see that he was wrong. So, I waited for the perfect time and place to share this with the conjuring community." – Gregory Wilson --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Greg Wilson <[email protected]> Date: July 5, 2012 at 11:41:46 AM PDT To: Greg Wilson <[email protected]> Subject: LOVICK John, In case you're wondering specifically why we weren't so chummy for the last eight years, it wasn't the bad review in Magic Magazine. I can handle negative criticism. It was your unfair tactics, divisive rhetoric and sloppy research, stemmed from a bad faith desire to make a case against me for personal reasons that are known to both of us. This is journalistic malpractice and a stunningly feeble attempt to look fair and impartial. The proof that you were not objective was your telling remarks and rant a few days ago during our last meeting. You clearly and vociferously stated that there was a common denominator of three or four guys who all apparently leveled charges against me. This screams a bias in your mind from the outset that every case must be true, especially when you practically screamed it in my face. This is where honest and objective research should have come into play. You asked me pointedly, "Are these also a bunch of lies?” The simple answer is YES — especially in the case of Apollo Robbins! What’s most unfortunate is that you chose to believe the lie and blindly steered your readers into the direction of your agenda driven narrative to make me look like a thief and a hack. Here's the problem: You obviously went into your criticism of my In Action DVD's looking for something to be wrong. And, since the most powerful lie is the one you want to be true, this review became an intellectually dishonest and irresponsible hatchet job masquerading as fair and honest. That’s why I’ve written you and your review off as disingenuous and mean-spirited indulgence. Since the homework is hard work for you, let me break it down in print once and for all: Apollo Robbins: It's a DIFFERENT routine!!! Mine was a three-phased routine with two of the moves completely unlike anything in his routine. In fact, I lectured with that three-phased routine in 1996 when I visited his hometown of St. Joseph, Missouri for my Off the Cuff tour. I then humbly asked him for permission to use ONE phase of his Coin on Shoulder and he graciously granted permission for that. Add that up and now I have MY four-phased routine. Tell me how any of that is stealing, please. I did what I ALWAYS do — I asked for permission and gave credit on the video. It’s there for anyone to see in living color. That LIE is the very first domino. One down! Seth Kramer: I very stupidly tap danced around the crediting of this move on video by saying that it was independently conceived. That was me trying to be conciliatory. That kind and magnanimous gesture bit me in the butt. He claims to have shown me the move at the 1999 Convention at the Capitol. A) I don't remember this AT ALL. B) I had it in print TWO places before that event: Labyrinth and Magic Menu. So, if he did show me, I certainly didn't recognize it as the same move. In fact, as I already told you, John Bannon (who is a good friend of Seth's) also claims that IT'S A DIFFERENT MOVE -- making the timeline irrelevant. Two down! Joel Givens: I never heard of Joel's move until you printed your lie that I stole it from him. In fact, I never even saw it until Sessions: The Magic of Joel Givens about three or four years AFTER the review. Much to my delight, when I finally read it, it was a DIFFERENT MOVE. Even Joel himself acknowledges that they are not the same. Moreover, I've got long-time friends who know that I've had my version since 1980 or 1981. And the Double Monte phase belonging to Paul Harris WAS NOT TAUGHT on the video. It was a parenthetical add-on so I found no reason to teach it. Should I have mentioned his name anyway? Perhaps. But it never crossed my mind because, again, I very rarely use it in my normal routine. Three AND four down! Michael Weber: We've already talked about this at length and you simply believe what you want to believe. Plus, I was the first and only one to put this in print (Labyrinth 1998). In your own words, publish or perish and second place gets raspberries. Finally, Mike is a very good friend so this is not a fight as we have our own understanding of independent conception without your meddling and muddying of the waters to make me look like a thief. Five down! Daryl Martinez: Really??? Bounce, No-Bounce came out LONG BEFORE Daryl put his version on the market. Everyone is supposed to acknowledge the NON-creator of this effect in their own routines? This is silly and stupid and proof that you're just trying to add fuel to the fire and check off boxes. Michael Weber, Chad Long, Eric Mead, Curtis Kam, Danny Archer, J.B. Bobo, Jay Marshall, Chuck Fayne, Rocco, and Paul Diamond all have their own versions. Some before and after Daryl. Do I or they have to acknowledge him? In fact, if you want me to the the homework for you, this idea goes back to just after World War II and was packaged in a cylindrical cardboard container with mimeographed pages. The effect was called Goof Ball and sold for one dollar by the Gates Rubber Company out of Colorado. When Senator Crandall used to do this effect in the early sixties at the Castle bar, he also seemed to have forgotten to credit Daryl. That was another dishonest point to make your subjective case against me. Six down! Kissing Up: Instead of showing the presentational merits of this routine with a chocolate Kiss, you chose to dwell on the negative. This shows your personal bias again loud and clear. This trick is Elementary Magic 101. In my wildest imagination, even to this day, I never would have thought to give anybody credit for this routine. Chad Long didn't credit Steve Mayhew. Steve Mayhew didn't credit Michael Ammar. Michael Ammar didn't credit Charlie Miller. Charlie Miller didn’t credit the guy who showed it to Reginald Scott or any other subsequent magician who used flash paper to produce an object. This is pure insanity that you would heap this on the pile of your other fictitious uncrediting fantasies. Moreover, when Joshua Jay published this in his monthly Magic Magazine article, he didn't give credit to any predecessors either because nobody stands out as a single originator. That’s like trying to give attribution for the Double Lift and Top Change. Plus, the object and presentation I use are unlike anything ever published. In the name of justice and fair play, this is another despicable double standard. Seven down! Card to Pocket: We've talked about this in person and you're still patently wrong. This is NOT the Carlyle routine from Stars of Magic. Do your homework! You can say it to yourself as much as you want, but all the wishful thinking and pixie dust in the world is not going to make it true. Regarding Williamson, I'll be perfectly and candidly honest with you: I said he had a version because I had MY VERSION of 51 cards to pocket that is DIFFERENT. I had conceived mine before I ever heard of David or Williamson's Wonders. In fact, when it first came out, we all laughed at Hollywood Magic in Costa Mesa because they all told me that was yet another reason why I needed to surface from the "underground" and start publishing my works. In a nutshell, NOTHING here was mis-credited. I chose an unfortunate way to express it, but I was not deficient in my crediting! Moreover and most importantly, IT’S A DIFFERENT ROUTINE AND A DIFFERENT WAY to get the 51 cards to my pocket. You conveniently left out that part of your review, didn’t you? Another sin of omission. To be clear, NONE of my moves were those of David Williamson or Francis Carlyle. I just re- read Stars of Magic and challenge you to do the same. Eight AND nine down! Coin in Watch: This routine is one of the reasons I wanted you hovering over my lie detector examination. I absolutely developed this entire concept and routine on my own with ZERO knowledge whatsoever of any prior work on the subject. To me, it was revolutionary. But more outrageous is that you give credit to Gazzo, Sicher and Cohen, yet simultaneously claim that NOBODY should get credit as it SEEMS like it must have been invented long ago by someone else -- whatever the hell that means. Plus, my version is just plain DIFFERENT. Relatively ten down! Reset with a Hook: Shame on me. I absolutely should have credited my good friend Jason Randal for being the first to originate the concept of Reset with a Blackjack theme.