I can already hear you screaming - of course it is!

I most definately think it is. But the way some people have been responding to some of my critiques of magicians and effects, I'm starting to think many feel otherwise.
I posted that the David Roth left something to be desired for me. The responses I received implied I had no idea what I was talking about and that David Roth is the finest coin magician in the world. Someone went so far as to ask who I thought I was making such defamatory comments.

People, art is subjective. It's what makes art art. Magic is an art, not a science. Thank God. By questioning David Roth's appeal, I'm supporting magic as an art, and in my opinion elevating the status of magicians including Roth. Andy Warhol has been blasted by more critics than you count. It's the polarized opinions that elevate him to cult status. To me Bill Malone(not Sam Malone) performing Sam The Bellhop is grating. From my perspective, he's an annoying perfomer perfoming an annoying non-magic trick. If you disagree with my comments about Roth and Malone, you disagree. But let's drop the scientific mentality. Otherwise that's what magic becomes.

Hey Platt. Check out this thread:

http://www.themagiccafe.com/archive1/vie......27&9

And you are correct in your premise that magic is subjective and open to opinion. And while we respect and encourage the open voicing of opinions here, I for one don't appreciate you weilding yours like a two handed sword.

For example:

How most people would express their opinion: "Personally, I don't care for Bill Malone's magic or his performing style."

or

How you express your opinion: "Personally, I find Bill Malone grating and annoying."

See the difference?

My comment to you had nothing to do with science (or censorship for that matter). It had to do with respect, tact, and professional courtesy. Are you with me now?

As this has been addresses extensively in another topic, I encourage you all to post any further responses there (see Yakandjak's post, above).