aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
thank You LT
thank You LT
Why skeptics doesnt show proof?
- Thread starter architecad
- Start date
Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
EE: you posted -->To believe that the physical universe has any kind of control over you, is the first step down to slavery.
************
I would rephrase that, "first step to ignorance or to an unjustified supreme ago. Why is man any different than the earth, the oceans etc. He isn't, even your blood reacts the same as the waters of the earth do. Our lovely girls also have a specific problem related to the moon. As for mental disfunctions, sheesh more nuts break loose on a full moon than normal, check any police dept.
Can you give me 'one' reason why man would be exempt ?
As for the other send me that birth date of someone that you know intimately and find out - whatcha got to lose except an outdated idea which rates with the flat earth one?
Don Jose de La Mancha
EE: you posted -->To believe that the physical universe has any kind of control over you, is the first step down to slavery.
************
I would rephrase that, "first step to ignorance or to an unjustified supreme ago. Why is man any different than the earth, the oceans etc. He isn't, even your blood reacts the same as the waters of the earth do. Our lovely girls also have a specific problem related to the moon. As for mental disfunctions, sheesh more nuts break loose on a full moon than normal, check any police dept.
Can you give me 'one' reason why man would be exempt ?
As for the other send me that birth date of someone that you know intimately and find out - whatcha got to lose except an outdated idea which rates with the flat earth one?
Don Jose de La Mancha
fenixdigger
Hero Member
- Feb 8, 2010
- 839
- 44
- Detector(s) used
- Aurora Aqua, Excalibur, Garrett CX2, Gemini-3, MFD's, Sovereign, Viper, E Trac, Dees Nutz rod, Tesoro Sand Shark. Pro pulse.
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
Be careful Real Deal, you remember what happened last time I brought that into play. This is no place to bring the truth about the
flat earth thing up. Hits way to close to home. Turns them like that full moon.
Be careful Real Deal, you remember what happened last time I brought that into play. This is no place to bring the truth about the
flat earth thing up. Hits way to close to home. Turns them like that full moon.
EE THr
Silver Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
Huh? First of all it's not my place to suggest who should or shouldn't be on TreasureNet! That's merely another #8, although I didn't insult you or anyone else. Everything I said is observably true. If you feel insulted by the truth, Who's fault is that?
Secondly, you are trying to pretend that I have said something which I didn't---again. That's a #14.
Third, your psychobabble insult is just another #22.
All in all, your reply is a just another cheap 16/18 combination.
With this much coverage of the Predictable Pattern of a Con Artist list, you certainly fall in the #24 bracket.
"Comment about the above list: Even though this list has been up for awhile, the LRL promoters continue to perform according to these Predictions! Apparently they don't care about being exposed by the scientifically accepted Proof of Prediction standard. They just can't stop themselves! Very interesting. But also very sad."
Don't be a doof---show the proof!
When will you man-up and take Carl's test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
aarthrj3811 said:
Huh? First of all it's not my place to suggest who should or shouldn't be on TreasureNet! That's merely another #8, although I didn't insult you or anyone else. Everything I said is observably true. If you feel insulted by the truth, Who's fault is that?
Secondly, you are trying to pretend that I have said something which I didn't---again. That's a #14.
Third, your psychobabble insult is just another #22.
All in all, your reply is a just another cheap 16/18 combination.
With this much coverage of the Predictable Pattern of a Con Artist list, you certainly fall in the #24 bracket.
"Comment about the above list: Even though this list has been up for awhile, the LRL promoters continue to perform according to these Predictions! Apparently they don't care about being exposed by the scientifically accepted Proof of Prediction standard. They just can't stop themselves! Very interesting. But also very sad."
Don't be a doof---show the proof!
When will you man-up and take Carl's test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
Saturna
Bronze Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
That's a funny thing coming from yourself, considering how overly sensitive you seem to be.
fenixdigger said:
That's a funny thing coming from yourself, considering how overly sensitive you seem to be.
EE THr
Silver Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
Admitting to causitivity is being responsible. To the degree that a person denies his causitivity, he is not being responsible. And the other way around. To the degree that a person chooses to have control over his life, he must, to that degree, be responsible.
You don't have to be responsible if you don't want to. But then don't whine when life "kicks you in the teeth," either.
8)
Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp said:
Admitting to causitivity is being responsible. To the degree that a person denies his causitivity, he is not being responsible. And the other way around. To the degree that a person chooses to have control over his life, he must, to that degree, be responsible.
You don't have to be responsible if you don't want to. But then don't whine when life "kicks you in the teeth," either.
8)
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
If he doesn't have enough personal "horsepower" to do that, then he should just go find his treasures and be happy with that. He surly shouldn't be trying to convince others about it, and calling them names for not "believing" in it; and he darned sure shouldn't be selling the things to the general public!
14. If the CA is really stuck for an answer, he will simply outright lie.
22. *The CA will use any means to insult "skeptics," including God, and is particularly fond of attempting to apply amateurish pseudo-psychology culminating in a statement that you are insane. The most common insult seems to be that the skeptic is "too stupid to understand how it works."
16. But the CA does care,*** a lot; enough that he then strongly insults all "skeptics."
18. The CA will use ad hominem attacks**** on the questioner, trying to invalidate him.
24. ***There is logical reason to strongly suspect that the repetitive, aggressive "user" CA is actually working for the product makers. The reasoning is that because the LRL makers can't directly state in their advertisements that their devices actually find anything, they must rely on fake "users" to make those statements for them, thus trying to distance themselves legally from the statements.
You don't have to be responsible if you don't want to. But then don't whine when life "kicks you in the teeth," either.
If he doesn't have enough personal "horsepower" to do that, then he should just go find his treasures and be happy with that. He surly shouldn't be trying to convince others about it, and calling them names for not "believing" in it; and he darned sure shouldn't be selling the things to the general public!
14. If the CA is really stuck for an answer, he will simply outright lie.
22. *The CA will use any means to insult "skeptics," including God, and is particularly fond of attempting to apply amateurish pseudo-psychology culminating in a statement that you are insane. The most common insult seems to be that the skeptic is "too stupid to understand how it works."
16. But the CA does care,*** a lot; enough that he then strongly insults all "skeptics."
18. The CA will use ad hominem attacks**** on the questioner, trying to invalidate him.
24. ***There is logical reason to strongly suspect that the repetitive, aggressive "user" CA is actually working for the product makers. The reasoning is that because the LRL makers can't directly state in their advertisements that their devices actually find anything, they must rely on fake "users" to make those statements for them, thus trying to distance themselves legally from the statements.
You don't have to be responsible if you don't want to. But then don't whine when life "kicks you in the teeth," either.
EE THr
Silver Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
artie---
Thank you very much for validating my list.
If you like quotes from my list, then you will love this one---
"Comment about the above list: Even though this list has been up for awhile, the LRL promoters continue to perform according to these Predictions! Apparently they don't care about being exposed by the scientifically accepted Proof of Prediction standard. They just can't stop themselves! Very interesting. But also very sad."
I hope that helps.
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
aarthrj3811 said:
artie---
Thank you very much for validating my list.
If you like quotes from my list, then you will love this one---
"Comment about the above list: Even though this list has been up for awhile, the LRL promoters continue to perform according to these Predictions! Apparently they don't care about being exposed by the scientifically accepted Proof of Prediction standard. They just can't stop themselves! Very interesting. But also very sad."
I hope that helps.
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_interval
Prediction intervals are used in both frequentist statistics and Bayesian statistics: a prediction interval bears the same relationship to a future observation that a frequentist confidence interval or Bayesian credible interval bears to an unobservable population parameter: prediction intervals predict the distribution of individual future points, whereas confidence intervals and credible intervals of parameters predict the distribution of estimates of the true population mean or other quantity of interest that cannot be observed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequentist_inference
Frequentist inference is one of a number of possible ways of formulating generally applicable schemes for making statistical inferences: that is, for drawing conclusions from statistical samples. An alternative name is frequentist statistics. This is the inference framework in which the well-established methodologies of statistical hypothesis testing and confidence intervals are based. Other than frequentistic inference, the main alternative approach to statistical inference is Bayesian inference, while another is fiducial inference.
Need I type more ?
In statistical inference, specifically predictive inference, a prediction interval is an estimate of an interval in which future observations will fall, with a certain probability, given what has already been observed. Prediction intervals are often used in regression analysis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_interval
Prediction intervals are used in both frequentist statistics and Bayesian statistics: a prediction interval bears the same relationship to a future observation that a frequentist confidence interval or Bayesian credible interval bears to an unobservable population parameter: prediction intervals predict the distribution of individual future points, whereas confidence intervals and credible intervals of parameters predict the distribution of estimates of the true population mean or other quantity of interest that cannot be observed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequentist_inference
Frequentist inference is one of a number of possible ways of formulating generally applicable schemes for making statistical inferences: that is, for drawing conclusions from statistical samples. An alternative name is frequentist statistics. This is the inference framework in which the well-established methodologies of statistical hypothesis testing and confidence intervals are based. Other than frequentistic inference, the main alternative approach to statistical inference is Bayesian inference, while another is fiducial inference.
Need I type more ?
EE THr
Silver Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
artie---
You should type more---about the topic.
In answer to your topic question, the reason skeptics don't show proof, is because the burden of proof is on the claimant, as you know. So, since LRLers make all the claims that their devices work, they are the ones who must show proof.
Without proof, you don't have the right to insult people who don't believe LRLs work.
You say they work. Others don't believe it. So, it's your turn---and that means show proof. See how that works? Otherwise it's just a dead-end.
Why get mad just because someone says, "show me"? That happens all the time in the business world and in everyday life, with everyone.
Why do you think that you should be the exception to that?
aarthrj3811 said:
artie---
You should type more---about the topic.
In answer to your topic question, the reason skeptics don't show proof, is because the burden of proof is on the claimant, as you know. So, since LRLers make all the claims that their devices work, they are the ones who must show proof.
Without proof, you don't have the right to insult people who don't believe LRLs work.
You say they work. Others don't believe it. So, it's your turn---and that means show proof. See how that works? Otherwise it's just a dead-end.
Why get mad just because someone says, "show me"? That happens all the time in the business world and in everyday life, with everyone.
Why do you think that you should be the exception to that?
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
In answer to your topic question, the reason skeptics don't show proof, is because the burden of proof is on the claimant, as you know. So, since LRLers make all the claims that their devices work, they are the ones who must show proof.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/claimant
claimant [ˈkleɪmənt]
n
1. a person who makes a claim
2. (Law) a person who brings a civil action in a court of law Formerly called plaintiff Compare defendant
Read this a weap…Art
In answer to your topic question, the reason skeptics don't show proof, is because the burden of proof is on the claimant, as you know. So, since LRLers make all the claims that their devices work, they are the ones who must show proof.
Mix all the words that you want you can not prove that our devices do not work..If you had any proof it would be on this board..We have proved that our Treasure Hunting devices work by photo’s of finds, movies and over 60 testimonials.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/claimant
claimant [ˈkleɪmənt]
n
1. a person who makes a claim
2. (Law) a person who brings a civil action in a court of law Formerly called plaintiff Compare defendant
Read this a weap…Art
Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
EE: you posted -->Admitting to causitivity is being responsible. To the degree that a person denies his causitivity, he is not being responsible. And the other way around. To the degree that a person chooses to have control over his life, he must, to that degree, be responsible.
You don't have to be responsible if you don't want to. But then don't whine when life "kicks you in the teeth," either.
******************
So we semi agree on that, Many things which comprise the being known as "you" are causitive from factors of which you have no voluntary control, so relax and blame them for the lrl's and the lack of physical wings.
The electrical fields which compose the sentient you are all influenced while in the formative stage
Now, back to that birth date with an honest report ----
?
Don Jose de La Mancha
EE: you posted -->Admitting to causitivity is being responsible. To the degree that a person denies his causitivity, he is not being responsible. And the other way around. To the degree that a person chooses to have control over his life, he must, to that degree, be responsible.
You don't have to be responsible if you don't want to. But then don't whine when life "kicks you in the teeth," either.
******************
So we semi agree on that, Many things which comprise the being known as "you" are causitive from factors of which you have no voluntary control, so relax and blame them for the lrl's and the lack of physical wings.
The electrical fields which compose the sentient you are all influenced while in the formative stage
Now, back to that birth date with an honest report ----
?Don Jose de La Mancha
EE THr
Silver Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
I'm not making any claim. I'm challenging your claim.
After all, who made the claim first? If you hadn't claimed your LRL worked, then nobody would have anything to challenge!
Get it? You made the claim, so you are the claimant!
Wow, you just can't make up this kind of naivety!
But can he? Hmmmmmmmmm.
aarthrj3811 said:
I'm not making any claim. I'm challenging your claim.
After all, who made the claim first? If you hadn't claimed your LRL worked, then nobody would have anything to challenge!
Get it? You made the claim, so you are the claimant!
Wow, you just can't make up this kind of naivety!
But can he? Hmmmmmmmmm.
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
~EE THr~
~EE THr~
Is this statement what Con-artist call a bait and switch ?
I do not claim that it works..I know that it works..So it all our fault that you are so mixed up..
I say you are wrong
naivety (uncountable)
EE THr
Silver Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
artie---
There you go again, back to your old ways.
#19.
#12.
Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
artie---
There you go again, back to your old ways.
#19.
#12.
Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
~EE THr~
Yes you did
14. If the CA is really stuck for an answer, he will simply outright lie.
Or change the subject Is that what you did
12. The CA says his "word" is proof enough of his success.
More insults
Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
~EE THr~
19. If on a forum, to stop further questions, the CA may also post nonsensical comments.
Yes you did
14. If the CA is really stuck for an answer, he will simply outright lie.
Or change the subject Is that what you did
12. The CA says his "word" is proof enough of his success.
More insults
Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
EE THr
Silver Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
artie---
When are you going to stop the childish game of trying to pretend that you don't claim that your LRL works?
artie---
When are you going to stop the childish game of trying to pretend that you don't claim that your LRL works?
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
No silly games by me..You are the one that claims my LRL’s do not work..Art
EE THr
Silver Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
So, now you are admitting that they don't work, since you are saying that you don't claim they do work. Make up your mind, huh?
Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
aarthrj3811 said:
So, now you are admitting that they don't work, since you are saying that you don't claim they do work. Make up your mind, huh?
Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
~EE THr~
Insult pages
Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
~EE THr~
I would just bet that the Skeptics are real glad that you claim not to be part of their Cult..Art
Insult pages
Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
Top Member Reactions
-
2031 -
1016 -
1009 -
983 -
975 -
973 -
877 -
869 -
724 -
649 -
420 -
366 -
365 -
E
347
-
344 -
332 -
301 -
289 -
287 -
286
