discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrLs

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Frankly,

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scarlet

scar·let (skärlt)
n.
1. A strong to vivid red or reddish orange.
2. Scarlet-colored clothing or cloth.
adj.
1. Of a strong to vivid red or reddish orange.
2. Flagrantly immoral or unchaste: scarlet thoughts.


I don't give a

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/damn

damn (dm)
v. damned, damn·ing, damns
v.tr.
1. To pronounce an adverse judgment upon. See Synonyms at condemn.
2. To bring about the failure of; ruin.
3. To condemn as harmful, illegal, or immoral: a cleric who damned gambling and strong drink.
4. To condemn to everlasting punishment or a similar fate; doom.
5. To swear at.
v.intr.
To swear; curse.
interj.
Used to express anger, irritation, contempt, or disappointment.
n.
1. The saying of "damn" as a curse.
2. Informal The least valuable bit; a jot: not worth a damn.

Off you go to the "Outer Limits".........

Big J---

When you guys go over the edge, you really go over the edge, don't you.

When you can't pull off your "highly educated" charade, you get just as nonsensical as the rest of them.

Good show. You are also your own best debunker!

Thanks for all your help!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Frankly,

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scarlet

scar·let (skärlt)
n.
1. A strong to vivid red or reddish orange.
2. Scarlet-colored clothing or cloth.
adj.
1. Of a strong to vivid red or reddish orange.
2. Flagrantly immoral or unchaste: scarlet thoughts.


I don't give a

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/damn

damn (dm)
v. damned, damn·ing, damns
v.tr.
1. To pronounce an adverse judgment upon. See Synonyms at condemn.
2. To bring about the failure of; ruin.
3. To condemn as harmful, illegal, or immoral: a cleric who damned gambling and strong drink.
4. To condemn to everlasting punishment or a similar fate; doom.
5. To swear at.
v.intr.
To swear; curse.
interj.
Used to express anger, irritation, contempt, or disappointment.
n.
1. The saying of "damn" as a curse.
2. Informal The least valuable bit; a jot: not worth a damn.

Off you go to the "Outer Limits".........

Why are you getting all giddy over such simple nonsense?

Oh, that's right, I almost forgot---you're an LRL promoter, too!

And, as usual, your own best debunker!

Thanks!

 

[EddieR]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Frankly,

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scarlet

scar·let (skärlt)
n.
1. A strong to vivid red or reddish orange.
2. Scarlet-colored clothing or cloth.
adj.
1. Of a strong to vivid red or reddish orange.
2. Flagrantly immoral or unchaste: scarlet thoughts.


I don't give a

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/damn

damn (dm)
v. damned, damn·ing, damns
v.tr.
1. To pronounce an adverse judgment upon. See Synonyms at condemn.
2. To bring about the failure of; ruin.
3. To condemn as harmful, illegal, or immoral: a cleric who damned gambling and strong drink.
4. To condemn to everlasting punishment or a similar fate; doom.
5. To swear at.
v.intr.
To swear; curse.
interj.
Used to express anger, irritation, contempt, or disappointment.
n.
1. The saying of "damn" as a curse.
2. Informal The least valuable bit; a jot: not worth a damn.

Off you go to the "Outer Limits".........

Why are you getting all giddy over such simple nonsense?

Oh, that's right, I almost forgot---you're an LRL promoter, too!

And, as usual, your own best debunker!

Thanks!

Oh, so now I'm not allowed to express amusement? Get over yourself...we got over you a long time ago.

As I stated before (of course the skeptics have demonstrated memory loss in the past, sometimes severe), People are just tired of the way you treat others on here. You want scientific proof of everything, but....

You are not a true scientist, you do not practice the scientific method (you demonstrated that when you started slamming a member who claimed he had made a working LRL....you made fun of him without even examining his device). So yes, I expressed amusement when Judy flushed you from the punchbowl, so to speak.

And, just in case that bad ol' skeptic memory loss is prevalent in your world tonight.....I'll express it again.

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Oh, so now I'm not allowed to express amusement? Get over yourself...we got over you a long time ago.

As I stated before (of course the skeptics have demonstrated memory loss in the past, sometimes severe), People are just tired of the way you treat others on here. You want scientific proof of everything, but....

You are not a true scientist, you do not practice the scientific method (you demonstrated that when you started slamming a member who claimed he had made a working LRL....you made fun of him without even examining his device). So yes, I expressed amusement when Judy flushed you from the punchbowl, so to speak.

And, just in case that bad ol' skeptic memory loss is prevalent in your world tonight.....I'll express it again.

Ah, there you go with your "Innocent Eddie" whine again.

I am not the one who says what's allowed and what's not. I just noted the childishness which you displayed, as usual. You should have thrown a "tee-hee-hee" in there, to boot! Hoo-boy!

No, I have said before that I'm not asking anyone for any proof at all. But when someone says they are finding treasure with a transistor hot-glued to a coathanger, I will point out the nonsense of that, unless they are willing to prove it, of course.

Yes, I know that you would like for people to be able to fantasize, and to recommend that others pay to get scammed, but that's entirely your little problem.

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

LRL Promoters---

I didn't post anything to this section for a week or two, just to see how it would go.

And how did you all spend that time? You spent it crying about how terrible the people are, who post facts and reality. And how you wanted new moderators, or your own untouchable LRL scamming section.

And you whined about how there wasn't anyone talking about LRLs, yet you didn't talk about LRLs the whole time, and still aren't!

If your upset that honest people don't like crooks, whose fault is that?

It's called "Reality." Get used to it!

Meantime, your all still going around in circles, crying about stuff that has already been covered before many, many times.





And there are still no theories posted about your non-existant "LRLs"!

 

[EddieR]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Oh, so now I'm not allowed to express amusement? Get over yourself...we got over you a long time ago.

As I stated before (of course the skeptics have demonstrated memory loss in the past, sometimes severe), People are just tired of the way you treat others on here. You want scientific proof of everything, but....

You are not a true scientist, you do not practice the scientific method (you demonstrated that when you started slamming a member who claimed he had made a working LRL....you made fun of him without even examining his device). So yes, I expressed amusement when Judy flushed you from the punchbowl, so to speak.

And, just in case that bad ol' skeptic memory loss is prevalent in your world tonight.....I'll express it again.

Ah, there you go with your "Innocent Eddie" whine again.

I am not the one who says what's allowed and what's not. I just noted the childishness which you displayed, as usual. You should have thrown a "tee-hee-hee" in there, to boot! Hoo-boy!

No, I have said before that I'm not asking anyone for any proof at all. But when someone says they are finding treasure with a transistor hot-glued to a coathanger, I will point out the nonsense it that, unless they are willing to prove it, of course.

Yes, I know that you would like for people to be able to fantasize, and to recommend that others pay to get scammed, but that's entirely your little problem.

How about showing where I have recommended that others pay to get scammed? Show the proof of your claim. I have discussed your asinine savior's (Randi) website, where he begs for donations, I suppose that is the one you mean? I wasn't telling people to send money.

Now, if that is not the posts referred to, then please, by all means, quote me where I recommend that people pay to get scammed. Please do that....or admit that you have lied (again) and made this story up too. Of course, if you refuse to answer this one, it will simply show that you are avoiding the issue, (like Ted does when cornered) but it will also show everyone here that you have no basis for your libelous claim.

Now before you go off on answering me with a question....just simply quote where I have ever recommended that others pay to get scammed. Simple, huh?


Of course, you will refuse to do it, I don't jump through hoops for you, blah, blah, blah, but the simple truth (do you know what "truth" means?) is that you cannot quote me on that because I have never said it. Refusal to post a quote will be considered as an admission of guilt, as will silence on the matter.

 

[werleibr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

I would like to ask only one question to see if the scholars on here can answer.

My house is over three thousand, seven hundred and a few other miles from the North Pole or magnetic North Pole. Why do you doubt dowsing but yet pull out a compass and you say that small piece of metal picks up the North Pole over 3,700 miles away. Yet you say that someone dowsing can not pick up gold or silver from a few miles or even several feet away? Just curious.

Franklin---

First, a compass does not respond to "the North Pole," it is aligning itself with the magnetic lines of flux present wherever your compass is. So there is no distance involved.

As I have said many, many times before, I have no specific reason to doubt that somebody somewhere can locate stuff while dowsing, and maybe even do it on a reliable basis. Although I have never seen it actually happen.

Yet the resident wench apparently cannot read, or has severe memory problems, and would rather post childish insults than actual facts. How she intends to engage in any kind of sincere discussion like that, is beyone me. Actually, I thing she is just posting as a confusion factor. We'll see.

I might add that, while I'm not interested in the dowsing section at this time, I have seen those who profess dowsing abilities here in the LRL section, post stories of success while refusing to prove any of their claims, and at the same time responding only with insults. To me, that smells of con artist.

I can only recommend that you judge for yourself.

EE you also forgot to mention some things about the megnetic north pole. It moves and is not stationary, it is not close to true north. You could be at the True north pole and the compass will point north, but you will really be walking south. Or you can be in alaska the compass is off by 20 to 30 degrees from true north.

Megnetic fields can be felt and act on object.

Elements do not resinate at a finding frequency in the ground. If they did why would the mining industry use it extensivly?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

http://www.thecompassstore.com/whatisdec.html

To understand declination you must first realize that there are two North Poles. There is a True Geographic North Pole at the top of the world, and a Magnetic North Pole. The Magnetic North Pole is always moving. It has been as much as 1,200+ miles from true north, but in 2005 is only around 500 miles from the True North Pole.

We typically say that a compass points to Magnetic North, not True North. Technically, that is not exactly true. The compass actually points in the directions of the horizontal component of the magnetic field where the compass is located, and not to any single point. Knowing the difference (measured in angular degrees) between true north and the horizontal trace of the magnetic field for your location allows you to correct your compass for the magnetic field in your area. This angular difference is called your declination.

Declination varies from 0 to 30 degrees in most populated regions of the world. These declination values usually change slightly over time, as the earths plates shift. The actual value of declination and its annual rate of change for your area will usually be shown on your map. This will be expressed as either an Easterly or Westerly declination, depending on your location.

Below is an actual declination chart from 1990, showing the worldwide declination situation in 1990. The current declination values for today will be very close, if not identical, to the values below. For current and more accurate declination values, visit our "Find your declination value" page. Once you have your correct declination value, you should check out our How To Use Your Declination Value page.
This can be found at the bottom of most accurate maps

 

[werleibr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

So art you did not beleive me on how a compass gives you megnetic north and not true north and that there is declanation?

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Ah, there you go with your "Innocent Eddie" whine again.
...
Yes, I know that you would like for people to be able to fantasize, and to recommend that others pay to get scammed, but that's entirely your little problem.

How about showing where I have recommended that others pay to get scammed? Show the proof of your claim. I have discussed your asinine savior's (Randi) website, where he begs for donations, I suppose that is the one you mean? I wasn't telling people to send money.

Now, if that is not the posts referred to, then please, by all means, quote me where I recommend that people pay to get scammed. Please do that....or admit that you have lied (again) and made this story up too. Of course, if you refuse to answer this one, it will simply show that you are avoiding the issue, (like Ted does when cornered) but it will also show everyone here that you have no basis for your libelous claim.

Now before you go off on answering me with a question....just simply quote where I have ever recommended that others pay to get scammed. Simple, huh?

Of course, you will refuse to do it, I don't jump through hoops for you, blah, blah, blah, but the simple truth (do you know what "truth" means?) is that you cannot quote me on that because I have never said it. Refusal to post a quote will be considered as an admission of guilt, as will silence on the matter.

Innocent Eddie---

You misquoted me again. (See the red text, above.) Or maybe you have trouble with the American English language, like so many other LRL promoters do.

You are clearly biased in favor of the LRL fraudsters, therefore you are, at minimum, a shill for them. Which makes you as guilty as they are. But at least they do theirs out in the open, while you try to covertly slink around in the shadows, pretending to be merely "open minded" and thus innocent.

Like the others, you need a good dictionary, a grammar book, and to learn how to diagram a sentence. But I think you would still prefer to make up your own meanings to what debunkers say, so you can attempt your Straw Man Fallacies, which are so typical to your ilk.

And, once again, you have managed to attempt to change the focus of a thread away from it's topic, and onto you obsession with me. Like I've told you many times before---forget about me...you are not my type! Sorry that I'm not letting you down easier than that, but you will find out eventually that life gives you what you deserve, so it might as well be now.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

~werleibr~

So art you did not beleive me on how a compass gives you megnetic north and not true north and that there is declanation?

Just giving you the name of what you were trying to explain...I was taught how to read a map in 1950...Do you need to know anything else about maps?...Art

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

RDT---

You can imagine how much I hate to disappoint you, but---News Flash: There are no theories applicable to LRLs!

Only the rambling gibberish which you see above.

 

[werleibr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

~werleibr~

So art you did not beleive me on how a compass gives you megnetic north and not true north and that there is declanation?

Just giving you the name of what you were trying to explain...I was taught how to read a map in 1950...Do you need to know anything else about maps?...Art

Why did it need a name? I had summerized everything you had posted. You gave nothing new. Congrats on being taught in 1950 after being born in the 30s. Want a medal for that? I was born in the '85 and taught in '99. Does that make me special, no, just needing to use it at a younger age for what i did for enjoyment and were we lived.

 

[EddieR]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Ah, there you go with your "Innocent Eddie" whine again.
...
Yes, I know that you would like for people to be able to fantasize, and to recommend that others pay to get scammed, but that's entirely your little problem.

How about showing where I have recommended that others pay to get scammed? Show the proof of your claim. I have discussed your asinine savior's (Randi) website, where he begs for donations, I suppose that is the one you mean? I wasn't telling people to send money.

Now, if that is not the posts referred to, then please, by all means, quote me where I recommend that people pay to get scammed. Please do that....or admit that you have lied (again) and made this story up too. Of course, if you refuse to answer this one, it will simply show that you are avoiding the issue, (like Ted does when cornered) but it will also show everyone here that you have no basis for your libelous claim.

Now before you go off on answering me with a question....just simply quote where I have ever recommended that others pay to get scammed. Simple, huh?

Of course, you will refuse to do it, I don't jump through hoops for you, blah, blah, blah, but the simple truth (do you know what "truth" means?) is that you cannot quote me on that because I have never said it. Refusal to post a quote will be considered as an admission of guilt, as will silence on the matter.

Innocent Eddie---

You misquoted me again. (See the red text, above.) Or maybe you have trouble with the American English language, like so many other LRL promoters do.

You are clearly biased in favor of the LRL fraudsters, therefore you are, at minimum, a shill for them. Which makes you as guilty as they are. But at least they do theirs out in the open, while you try to covertly slink around in the shadows, pretending to be merely "open minded" and thus innocent.

Like the others, you need a good dictionary, a grammar book, and to learn how to diagram a sentence. But I think you would still prefer to make up your own meanings to what debunkers say, so you can attempt your Straw Man Fallacies, which are so typical to your ilk.

And, once again, you have managed to attempt to change the focus of a thread away from it's topic, and onto you obsession with me. Like I've told you many times before---forget about me...you are not my type! Sorry that I'm not letting you down easier than that, but you will find out eventually that life gives you what you deserve, so it might as well be now.

Of course I'm not your type. We all know what you Randi boys like. Since you are biased toward Randi's ways...well...you are just sick. No wonder you don't like therapists! Now we know! Afraid of what might come out?

As usual, you are backing out on showing any proof of what you "think" (lol)

Typical troll.

 

[EddieR]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Ah, there you go with your "Innocent Eddie" whine again.
...
Yes, I know that you would like for people to be able to fantasize, and to recommend that others pay to get scammed, but that's entirely your little problem.

How about showing where I have recommended that others pay to get scammed? Show the proof of your claim. I have discussed your asinine savior's (Randi) website, where he begs for donations, I suppose that is the one you mean? I wasn't telling people to send money.

Now, if that is not the posts referred to, then please, by all means, quote me where I recommend that people pay to get scammed. Please do that....or admit that you have lied (again) and made this story up too. Of course, if you refuse to answer this one, it will simply show that you are avoiding the issue, (like Ted does when cornered) but it will also show everyone here that you have no basis for your libelous claim.

Now before you go off on answering me with a question....just simply quote where I have ever recommended that others pay to get scammed. Simple, huh?

Of course, you will refuse to do it, I don't jump through hoops for you, blah, blah, blah, but the simple truth (do you know what "truth" means?) is that you cannot quote me on that because I have never said it. Refusal to post a quote will be considered as an admission of guilt, as will silence on the matter.

Innocent Eddie---

You misquoted me again. (See the red text, above.) Or maybe you have trouble with the American English language, like so many other LRL promoters do.

You are clearly biased in favor of the LRL fraudsters, therefore you are, at minimum, a shill for them. Which makes you as guilty as they are. But at least they do theirs out in the open, while you try to covertly slink around in the shadows, pretending to be merely "open minded" and thus innocent.

Like the others, you need a good dictionary, a grammar book, and to learn how to diagram a sentence. But I think you would still prefer to make up your own meanings to what debunkers say, so you can attempt your Straw Man Fallacies, which are so typical to your ilk.

And, once again, you have managed to attempt to change the focus of a thread away from it's topic, and onto you obsession with me. Like I've told you many times before---forget about me...you are not my type! Sorry that I'm not letting you down easier than that, but you will find out eventually that life gives you what you deserve, so it might as well be now.

If you had a smidgen of mastery over the English language, you would know that the way you wrote your post could be taken as the way I perceived it. Anyway, you say you "know" that I want people to be able to fantasize, let's start with that one. How do you "know"? You always whine about proof, well...here is your chance to provide your own.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

~werleibr~

Why did it need a name? I had summerized everything you had posted.

The name of what you were trying to explains is declination...Now people who did not know what you were talking about know how to get the proper information.

You gave nothing new. Congrats on being taught in 1950 after being born in the 30s. Want a medal for that? I was born in the '85 and taught in '99. Does that make me special, no, just needing to use it at a younger age for what i did for enjoyment and were we lived.

Thank you ..Yes I am an old xart

So art you did not beleive me on how a compass gives you megnetic north and not true north and that there is declanation?

You ask the question...

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Of course I'm not your type. We all know what you Randi boys like. Since you are biased toward Randi's ways...well...you are just sick. No wonder you don't like therapists! Now we know! Afraid of what might come out?

As usual, you are backing out on showing any proof of what you "think" (lol)

Typical troll.

Since I don't know much about Randi, I can't say much about him. Of course you are the one trying to wedge him into the discussion, as another of your off-topic Straw Man Inventions. You do seem to be obsessed with him, also, though.

When you say "Of course I'm not your type," are you admitting that you are female? That would be the only way your statements would make sense. But please, I'm not interested in your sex, and I don't think this forum is the place to discuss it. Maybe one of those alternative Websites. Jeeez! Ugh!

As for "therapists," that word indicates someone who helps people. Big J has already admitted that sickology does not exist to help anyone. So you again are changing the meaning of my statements. You should go see Big J, and let her work some of her eugenics on you. The want to reduce the population of the World by 90%, and you would make a good first volunteer. I'm sure she would enjoy it, too.

Anyone reading, is encouraged to judge my statements for themselves. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, except to "Think for yourself."

Your intentions are so obvious anyway, that nobody really needs convincing.

You are your own best debunker!

Thanks for all your help!

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Ah, there you go with your "Innocent Eddie" whine again.
...
Yes, I know that you would like for people to be able to fantasize, and to recommend that others pay to get scammed, but that's entirely your little problem.

How about showing where I have recommended that others pay to get scammed? Show the proof of your claim. I have discussed your asinine savior's (Randi) website, where he begs for donations, I suppose that is the one you mean? I wasn't telling people to send money.

Now, if that is not the posts referred to, then please, by all means, quote me where I recommend that people pay to get scammed. Please do that....or admit that you have lied (again) and made this story up too. Of course, if you refuse to answer this one, it will simply show that you are avoiding the issue, (like Ted does when cornered) but it will also show everyone here that you have no basis for your libelous claim.

Now before you go off on answering me with a question....just simply quote where I have ever recommended that others pay to get scammed. Simple, huh?

Of course, you will refuse to do it, I don't jump through hoops for you, blah, blah, blah, but the simple truth (do you know what "truth" means?) is that you cannot quote me on that because I have never said it. Refusal to post a quote will be considered as an admission of guilt, as will silence on the matter.

Innocent Eddie---

You misquoted me again. (See the red text, above.) Or maybe you have trouble with the American English language, like so many other LRL promoters do.

You are clearly biased in favor of the LRL fraudsters, therefore you are, at minimum, a shill for them. Which makes you as guilty as they are. But at least they do theirs out in the open, while you try to covertly slink around in the shadows, pretending to be merely "open minded" and thus innocent.

Like the others, you need a good dictionary, a grammar book, and to learn how to diagram a sentence. But I think you would still prefer to make up your own meanings to what debunkers say, so you can attempt your Straw Man Fallacies, which are so typical to your ilk.

And, once again, you have managed to attempt to change the focus of a thread away from it's topic, and onto you obsession with me. Like I've told you many times before---forget about me...you are not my type! Sorry that I'm not letting you down easier than that, but you will find out eventually that life gives you what you deserve, so it might as well be now.

If you had a smidgen of mastery over the English language, you would know that the way you wrote your post could be taken as the way I perceived it. Anyway, you say you "know" that I want people to be able to fantasize, let's start with that one. How do you "know"? You always whine about proof, well...here is your chance to provide your own.

Wrong, Innocent Eddie, it only means one thing.

I know that you want that, because your posts are biased toward those who do that. The proof is documented, right here on this forum, in black and white. Just go back and read your own posts. Duh!

Are you now going to deny it?

If you are saying that people aren't fantasizing about LRLs, then are you outright claiming that LRLs work? (Rather than merely supporting those who do?)

Why be vague about your intentions? Quit slinking around in the shadows, and state what you stand for!

 

[EddieR]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Ah, there you go with your "Innocent Eddie" whine again.
...
Yes, I know that you would like for people to be able to fantasize, and to recommend that others pay to get scammed, but that's entirely your little problem.

How about showing where I have recommended that others pay to get scammed? Show the proof of your claim. I have discussed your asinine savior's (Randi) website, where he begs for donations, I suppose that is the one you mean? I wasn't telling people to send money.

Now, if that is not the posts referred to, then please, by all means, quote me where I recommend that people pay to get scammed. Please do that....or admit that you have lied (again) and made this story up too. Of course, if you refuse to answer this one, it will simply show that you are avoiding the issue, (like Ted does when cornered) but it will also show everyone here that you have no basis for your libelous claim.

Now before you go off on answering me with a question....just simply quote where I have ever recommended that others pay to get scammed. Simple, huh?

Of course, you will refuse to do it, I don't jump through hoops for you, blah, blah, blah, but the simple truth (do you know what "truth" means?) is that you cannot quote me on that because I have never said it. Refusal to post a quote will be considered as an admission of guilt, as will silence on the matter.

Innocent Eddie---

You misquoted me again. (See the red text, above.) Or maybe you have trouble with the American English language, like so many other LRL promoters do.

You are clearly biased in favor of the LRL fraudsters, therefore you are, at minimum, a shill for them. Which makes you as guilty as they are. But at least they do theirs out in the open, while you try to covertly slink around in the shadows, pretending to be merely "open minded" and thus innocent.

Like the others, you need a good dictionary, a grammar book, and to learn how to diagram a sentence. But I think you would still prefer to make up your own meanings to what debunkers say, so you can attempt your Straw Man Fallacies, which are so typical to your ilk.

And, once again, you have managed to attempt to change the focus of a thread away from it's topic, and onto you obsession with me. Like I've told you many times before---forget about me...you are not my type! Sorry that I'm not letting you down easier than that, but you will find out eventually that life gives you what you deserve, so it might as well be now.

If you had a smidgen of mastery over the English language, you would know that the way you wrote your post could be taken as the way I perceived it. Anyway, you say you "know" that I want people to be able to fantasize, let's start with that one. How do you "know"? You always whine about proof, well...here is your chance to provide your own.

Wrong, Innocent Eddie, it only means one thing.

I know that you want that, because your posts are biased toward those who do that. The proof is documented, right here on this forum, in black and white. Just go back and read your own posts. Duh!

Are you now going to deny it?

If you are saying that people aren't fantasizing about LRLs, then are you outright claiming that LRLs work? (Rather than merely supporting those who do?)

Why be vague about your intentions? Quit slinking around in the shadows, and state what you stand for!

If you would/could read, you would know "what I stand for". The right to be able to hunt/ discuss hunting without the bother of childish imbeciles butting in whining for proof of this, proof of that. Now go get back on your Big Wheel and go play.

BTW, you are posting against me on your OPINION. Your opinion is not proof. Grow up.

 

[EddieR]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Of course I'm not your type. We all know what you Randi boys like. Since you are biased toward Randi's ways...well...you are just sick. No wonder you don't like therapists! Now we know! Afraid of what might come out?

As usual, you are backing out on showing any proof of what you "think" (lol)

Typical troll.

Since I don't know much about Randi, I can't say much about him. Of course you are the one trying to wedge him into the discussion, as another of your off-topic Straw Man Inventions. You do seem to be obsessed with him, also, though.

When you say "Of course I'm not your type," are you admitting that you are female? That would be the only way your statements would make sense. But please, I'm not interested in your sex, and I don't think this forum is the place to discuss it. Maybe one of those alternative Websites. Jeeez! Ugh!

As for "therapists," that word indicates someone who helps people. Big J has already admitted that sickology does not exist to help anyone. So you again are changing the meaning of my statements. You should go see Big J, and let her work some of her eugenics on you. The want to reduce the population of the World by 90%, and you would make a good first volunteer. I'm sure she would enjoy it, too.

Anyone reading, is encouraged to judge my statements for themselves. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, except to "Think for yourself."

Your intentions are so obvious anyway, that nobody really needs convincing.

You are your own best debunker!

Thanks for all your help!

LOL! You know exactly what I mean when I say I'm not your type. (I'm too old)...but anyway... you are just sick.

Oh, by the way, about those alternative websites....which ones do you control/contribute to?