Do The Math!

[EddieR]

Evidently you can't figure out a simple little thing like Facebook. If you want to see my pic on there, look in Judy's friends....

I did see it on Facebook. If that is a picture of a guy, he really needs some hormone shots or something.
And it does look a lot like your avatar.

And I'm not going to go off onto the topic of UFOs, even though you would rather discuss anything besides the math of LRLs.

And Randi has nothing to do with your LRL problem. You have already admitted that you can't possibly achieve reliability with them, no matter how many chances you get. And still, you don't mind them being falsely advertised, and promoted on here, to unsuspecting customers. Good going.

Any anti-fraud organization would vouch for the tactics listed there. Since we opponents are dealing with Truth, we don't need to use those con artists tricks. There is a difference. You people always ask us for facts and references, while you never provide any. Duh.

Those are not just "words" in my list, it's a compilation of trickery and evasiveactions used consistently by scammers.

Once again, for the gazzilionth time. I am interested in the theory of LRL's. I do not promote the use of them. It is an interest, that's all. Oh...since I am interested in them and post about them, then that makes me a promoter in your eyes, right?

I can't find where I called you a promoter in my post to you, can you quote it please? However, you are promoting the use of LRLs. Once again, you need to learn how to use a dictionary!

Quit posting nonsense, and stick to the thread topic. You have become as silly as con-artie.





Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

You are still looking at the wrong pic. And you wonder why we don't believe anything you say?

Maybe you are looking at the wrong persons page? Aww, doesn't matter anyway. You've already proved that your powers of observation are apparently lacking. Is that why you won't try any experiments that the other guys have posted here?

Probably.

You have referred to me in the past as a promoter. Look it up yourself. I don't jump through hoops either.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[EddieR]

Once again, for the gazzilionth time. I am interested in the theory of LRL's. I do not promote the use of them. It is an interest, that's all. Oh...since I am interested in them and post about them, then that makes me a promoter in your eyes, right? Well, since you guys are all harping about Randi's test, then you are promoting him. And to me, that means you are promoting his....um..."interests" too. Doesn't surprise me. Tell me, do you share his fascinations?

Two things.....

First off...you claimed earlier that you did not care about what was inside of the LRL you allegedly own. However....you are interested in the theory? Skewed logic...but, whatever

Secondly...please list the fascinations of James Randi. Evidently, you've been close enough to him that he has disclosed this information to you. Reliable references and sources are expected.

Sure I'm interested in the theory. But I'm not gonna go tear things open to see what makes it tick.

Randi has certain..."preferences" that have been discussed many places online. Feel free to check it out. Me....I wouldn't get near that ball of slime.

Gosh...the "things" have already been opened. Is it safe to say, that you are only interested in only partial...selected portions of things?

So....as a "professional" investigator....you don't really know if what you post is correct, or not. Just more selective learning, in other words? Myself...I'd rather not visit the sleazeball sites you promote. Why not provide some reliable references or sources validating your claim?

First off, there are no professionals in the paranormal field. There are people who have better equipment than others, but that doesn't make them professionals.

Second, I can save you some time researching something....I can tell you of a site that promotes selective learning AND is a sleazeball site, all in one. Randi's website.

Third, you say the "things" have already been opened. True enough, but all you have seen are pics, right? You didn't do it yourself? So....you don't really know if what you post is correct, or not.

Okay, I see.

 

[EE THr]

First off, there are no professionals in the paranormal field. There are people who have better equipment than others, but that doesn't make them professionals.

Second, I can save you some time researching something....I can tell you of a site that promotes selective learning AND is a sleazeball site, all in one. Randi's website.

Third, you say the "things" have already been opened. True enough, but all you have seen are pics, right? You didn't do it yourself? So....you don't really know if what you post is correct, or not.

Okay, I see.

None of that has anything to do with the math of LRLs.

You are merely attempting another Straw Man Fallacy, because you don't have any logical answers. Because your device is a fake, and so are you.



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

None of that has anything to do with the math of LRLs.

Good to see that you are still trying to promote your lame and false Theories about LRL’s..Art

 

[EddieR]

First off, there are no professionals in the paranormal field. There are people who have better equipment than others, but that doesn't make them professionals.

Second, I can save you some time researching something....I can tell you of a site that promotes selective learning AND is a sleazeball site, all in one. Randi's website.

Third, you say the "things" have already been opened. True enough, but all you have seen are pics, right? You didn't do it yourself? So....you don't really know if what you post is correct, or not.

Okay, I see.

None of that has anything to do with the math of LRLs.

You are merely attempting another Straw Man Fallacy, because you don't have any logical answers. Because your device is a fake, and so are you.



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

No it didn't have anything to do with math. I was replying to a post made to me.

(I thought I would point that out since your reading comprehension seems to be shorting out quite a bit lately).

I'm sure you know fake....like your supposed training in electronics.
Call me fake if you like....if you were a person of any importance that might bother me. But as it stands, you aren't. Deal with it.

 

[EE THr]

I'm sure you know fake....like your supposed training in electronics.

Oh! Another attempt at your favorite, the Straw Man Fallacy.

News Flash---The topic of this thread is not me.


Whenever you can't confront the actual topic, you just try to change it!

Hmmmm. Aren't you the one who was just whining about insults?

Right.

What a dork!



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

If you post something enough times it will not become the truth…I have told SWR that a few hundred times..Art

 

[EE THr]

If you post something enough times it will not become the truth…I have told SWR that a few hundred times..Art

So you don't "believe" in math?

And you don't "believe" in people who are knowledgeable in electronics (even though you admit that you know nothing about it)?

And you don't "believe" in proof?

It seems that simply don't "believe" in reality, but rather prefer your own little fantasy world.



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

So you don't "believe" in math?

Everything comes down tro math…if it is applied properly

And you don't "believe" in people who are knowledgeable in electronics (even though you admit that you know nothing about it)?

Yes I know nothing about how LRL’s electronics work..I could have also claimed that I was an EE.

And you don't "believe" in proof?

When someone comes up with proof that is believable

It seems that simply don't "believe" in reality, but rather prefer your own little fantasy world.

I know what is real to me and I leave the fantasy world to the skeptics..Art

"The door to Knowledge & Understanding, is never open to a closed, or prejudiced mind”

 

[EddieR]

I'm sure you know fake....like your supposed training in electronics.

Oh! Another attempt at your favorite, the Straw Man Fallacy.

News Flash---The topic of this thread is not me.


Whenever you can't confront the actual topic, you just try to change it!

Hmmmm. Aren't you the one who was just whining about insults?

Right.

What a dork!



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

Hey....guess what? I wasn't changing the topic, I was responding to your post. I'm really starting to feel bad even responding to you. I feel like I'm picking on the mentally challenged or something.

And I really think it's funny when you call everyone names. I figured you would have outgrown that last year....in third grade.

 

[EE THr]

Hey....guess what? I wasn't changing the topic, I was responding to your post. I'm really starting to feel bad even responding to you. I feel like I'm picking on the mentally challenged or something.

And I really think it's funny when you call everyone names. I figured you would have outgrown that last year....in third grade.

Oh, really?

What did you guys do to set off the solar flare of posts? Must have told them the truth again, I warned you about that.

Causes massive coronal ejections of transference and insults and likely a little of what I call the Erkle--"Did I do that?"

It's getting absolutely pitiful, argue, demand, insult, transfer, argue, deny, switch, argue and deny doing it, matching The 10,001

Posts Prediction. It was made straight from Freud, Pavlov, and Gestalt theories. No wonder someone hates them. This could be the

results of some repressed memories. For this amount of anger, must be deeply imbedded, and nasty. Shudder!!! Now I need a bath.

You are such a schmuck.




Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

schmuck 665 up, 111 down

buy schmuck mugs, tshirts and magnets
(1) That portion of one's penis which is cut off during circumcision,a Yiddish term (an accent of the german language used by jewish people)

(2) german word for "adornment" or "jewelry"

(3) metaphorical meaning: a prick, an asshole, etc
(1) Throw that schmuck away!

(2) necklaces, pearls, bracelets, etc
are "Schmuck"

(3) Robert Crumb calls a lot of people schmucks

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=schmuck

That seems like it is not a proper word to be used on a family web site..Art

 

[EE THr]

schmuck 665 up, 111 down

buy schmuck mugs, tshirts and magnets
(1) That portion of one's --deleted-- which is cut off during circumcision,a Yiddish term (an accent of the german language used by jewish people)

(2) german word for "adornment" or "jewelry"

(3) metaphorical meaning: a prick, an --deleted--, etc
(1) Throw that schmuck away!

(2) necklaces, pearls, bracelets, etc
are "Schmuck"

(3) Robert Crumb calls a lot of people schmucks

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=schmuck

That seems like it is not a proper word to be used on a family web site..Art

Like you just did?

What a dit!



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Like you just did?

What a dit!



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

And the insults continue

 

[EE THr]

Like you just did?

What a dit!



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

And the insults continue

But I never insulted you first, did I?

Twit.



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~SWR~

5001 LRL proponents shown to be liars and fakers. Soon to be 10,001 and then many more. 5 million will also be at their keyboards faking treasure finds.

Thank you for you view of Treasure Hunter..Art

 

[EE THr]

~SWR~

5001 LRL proponents shown to be liars and fakers. Soon to be 10,001 and then many more. 5 million will also be at their keyboards faking treasure finds.

Thank you for you view of Treasure Hunter..Art

Ah, you're trying to put words into another's mouth, again, con-artie. Is that all you can do? Yes, I know it is, because your LRLs don't work.



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[EE THr]

And speaking of Doing the Math, this one belongs here---

You see, LRLs supposedly have a big advantage there, over metal detectors. Because LRLs should be able to detect the treasure on private property, without trespassing, right? The "LR" part means "Long Range."

Yes they will and it is a problem

So, any smart LRLer would locate all those private property treasures, without even setting foot on the land, and then offer the owner half, to be shown where it is!

Yes..may be one in ten would agree to that.

Then with the eighty five hundred LRL users, which you claim, if they go hunting only once a year, that would still be 850 treasures, or cashes, or mineral deposits, found. Since we're talking about private property, they get to keep it all, so there's no reason, besides taxes, not to publish them. And, since both the land owner and the hunter would know about it, any hopes of total secrecy are nonexistent, therefore not reporting the income would be quite risky, especially since blackmail for a bigger share could come into play.

So, out of those 850, just random odds would have about half of them being publicised. But if, again randomly, only half of those 850 were considered newsworthy by the media, that would still be over two hundred treasures in the news per year, found with LRLs.

So, where are they?

Where is even one?





Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

So, out of those 850, just random odds would have about half of them being publicised. But if, again randomly, only half of those 850 were considered newsworthy by the media, that would still be over two hundred treasures in the news per year, found with LRLs.

So, where are they?

It’s your math theory…The only thing that I have noticed in my thirty years of Treasure Hunting is that I have never saw a News person in the field..Art

 

[EE THr]

So, out of those 850, just random odds would have about half of them being publicised. But if, again randomly, only half of those 850 were considered newsworthy by the media, that would still be over two hundred treasures in the news per year, found with LRLs.

So, where are they?

It’s your math theory…The only thing that I have noticed in my thirty years of Treasure Hunting is that I have never saw a News person in the field..Art

That's because you must do something newsworthy first. I don't think Tic Tacs will cut it.




Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?