In Defense of Tom Stone

So, the subject that has been cluttering my email box continues to be the GLOMM discussion and what exactly is going on with Tom Stone on facebook. His issue with me creating a list of magicians who have been convicted of sex crimes based on publicly available information is striking some people as bizarre, bordering on creepy.

I fully understand why his response weirds people out. If someone says, “Here’s a list of people in our industry who were convicted of sex crimes,” and someone else says, “The real problem here is the list itself!” That’s going to make you feel a little…

I admit, it’s not a great look for Tom. But before moving on from this subject, I want to defend Tom and say that I don’t believe his weird stance on this is in any way motivated by a lack of care for the victims of sexual crimes, or because he himself is any type of secret sexual predator or whatever inferences people may come to. I don’t know the guy personally, I can’t vouch for him. But I don’t think that’s what’s going on.

However, I do think I can clarify what’s behind his postings and why they seem so nonsensical.

Originally, when the GLOMM list was first posted on facebook, he called it “vigilanteism” and he would go on to express a concern that maybe there were people on the list who shouldn’t be on there. The “vigilanteism” claim is, of course, moronic. But the concern that maybe there were people being labeled as sex criminals who weren’t is valid. In my opinion, falsely accusing someone of a sex crime is on the same spectrum of heinousness as committing a sex crime. But, it was a misplaced fear as everyone on the list was a convicted sex criminal. Not only did I come out and say it, but it was easily verified too.

In fact, A GLOMM elite member even went to the trouble of creating a spreadsheet of the people on the list and detailed their crimes with links to supporting evidence. “Well, that must have put the issue to bed, yes?” No, it literally had no effect on Tom. He was still bothered that such a list exists. And it’s at that point where I believe people started to think, “Wait… why exactly is Tom so against a now verified list of convicted sex criminal magicians?” This is the point where it goes from a “weird hill to die on” to “do we need to check Tom’s hard drive?”

But I’ll reiterate again that I don’t think that’s the issue.

Because his initial claims/concerns were found to be total garbage, his new stance is that me even joking about maintaining one list that included both pedophiles and assholes is the issue.

He writes: “An anonymous person who think it is a funny joke to add innocent names to a list of horrible criminals should not be seen as an authority in the matter. […] Did he add those innocent people like he said he would? I don't know. Maybe he did, and later removed them? Who knows? I'd be a lot more at ease with it, if there were an actual person signing the document, and that the person was someone who didn't consider pedophile smears to be amusing.”

“Did he add those innocent people like he said he would? I don't know. Maybe he did, and later removed them? Who knows?”

This is kind of a weird statement from someone who claims he’s concerned about unfounded accusations.

Use your head, dingbat. Would I just add someone to the list who I thought was an asshole and never mention that I did that on this site? You may not read the site, but 1000s of other people do. Wouldn’t they have some memory of me doing this? Or do you figure I was doing it for my own secret thrill? Just adding and removing people for the fuck of it?

“I'd be a lot more at ease with it, if there were an actual person signing the document, and that the person was someone who didn't consider pedophile smears to be amusing.”

Okay, Bob Smith wrote the list. Okay? This is Bob Smith. He wrote the list. I promise you. He finds “pedophile smears” (even the ones that never occurred that you’re so concerned about) to be just awful. Not amusing at all. If you’re going to pretend that’s what your issue is, then I’m going to solve it for you. Problem solved. Now you can move the fuck on.

I guess maybe I’d be a little more sensitive to Tom’s concerns if so much of what he wrote wasn’t complete horseshit.

I’m fascinated by this description of my site and you, the audience who reads this site…

“As I recall, a lot of his material was modeled in ‘pick-up artist’ style. The book ‘The Game’ also have an audience, and I don't trust that audience either.”

Mmhmm…. okay. Sure, sure.

WHAT THE FUCK IS HE TALKING ABOUT?!?!?

Oh, you all know that material I have that is modeled on the “pick-up artist” style, right? Yeah, so much. “A lot” of my material, according to Tom, at least.

Except…I don’t write about using magic to pick up women at all other than to make fun of the idea. So what dull recess of his brain did he pull that out of? Is it just that he is so socially and interpersonally awkward that he interprets me telling a story about showing a trick to someone I’m dating, or someone who happens to be female, to be a story about me using magic to “pick up” women? Now, look, I can’t say for sure what is going on in that head of his, but it’s indisputable that he’s fantasticating “a lot” of my material being about “picking up” women. So why would he do that? I mean other than the fact that he’s desperately stumbling around trying to support an argument and failing at every turn.

It might just be a generational thing. We think of that old-school magic as being a bit of a boy’s club, but that’s just because a lot of those dudes were scared of women. That attitude still exists today with an older set of magicians. Some magicians are too busy infantilizing or sexualizing every woman they see and can’t quite wrap their head around seeing a woman as a robust equal who you might casually show a trick to for the fun of it. So if I write a post about performing for a female, they interpret it as, “I guess he just was doing that to fuck her or something?” Am I doing too much work to justify where his comments come from? Maybe. I guess he could have just been intentionally lying.

(By the way, if you’d like to see an example of the sordid and skeevy “pick up artist” content on this site, here is a post called “What Women Want” where I give my insight into the topic. My advice is that if you’re trying to meet women you should be normal and you should try to exude a positive energy. And then once you get that down you should attempt to add a little bit of mystery to your personality. Such sleazy advice, I know. No wonder Tom “doesn’t trust” this audience. You’re a bunch of sick fucks.)

But here’s where I get to defending Tom Stone, because I want to help him out of the corner he has painted himself into where he seems much more concerned with his own imagined flaws about the list rather than that there are enough names to make a list in the first place. I’m not saying this is his intention, but It comes across as someone who is trying to sweep things under the rug. But I don’t think this is an issue of Tom protecting sexual predators. I think Tom just doesn’t like me specifically. And so, if I’m doing something that goes towards holding sex criminals accountable in some small way, then Tom is forced to walk a tightrope where he is against what I’m doing without trying to come off as pro-sex-criminals. So he ends up being caught in this sad, goofy dance of trying to find something to be bothered by.

“There shouldn’t be an anonymous list like this! It’s vigilanteism! He could put anyone on this list.”

We looked and they’re all convicted sex criminals.

“Okay… well… yes… but… maybe he put innocent people on the list and removed them!”

To what end? There’s no evidence of that.

“But he said he might!”

And he’s come out and clarified that he wasn’t serious about that.

“Well… you shouldn’t joke about these things!”

And that’s the point we’re currently at. What he’s claiming to be upset about now is his own misunderstanding of a joke that I never actually followed through on.

He got so desperate for something to complain about that when someone came in and created a spreadsheet with information about the crimes and links to further information, this was his response.

Yeah, dude? Why didn’t you post this before the site even existed and before most of these people had even committed their crimes?

By the point where he was complaining about people not documenting pre-crimes, it became clear his arguing was a bit disingenuous.

The sad irony is, the original threat of the GLOMM was that I was going to associate asshole magicians with convicted sex criminals. While I never actually did that to anyone, Tom ended up doing that to himself.

I think Tom got tunnel vision because he doesn’t like me. Why doesn’t he like you, Andy? Oh, because one time I said Tommy Wonder’s advice regarding misdirection was terrible when applied to performing in casual situations.

Wait… really?

Yes, that’s my understanding. I heard from a couple people at the time that Tom was upset by that.

And that’s why he’s being so weird about this list?

I know it seems insane, but yes, I think so. 🤷‍♂️

If Tom wants to clarify any of these issues, I’ll happily publish his response (or I’ll keep it private if he prefers).