EE THr
Silver Member
Maybe We Can Agree
It can be confusing to try to talk about two or three different things in one thread. I mean, sometimes you say something about one thing, and someone replies to your post, but somehow swings it over to something else, and gives an answer regarding that other thing. How are you supposed to respond to that?
So, people can be talking about two different things, and not even realize it! The next thing you know, it doesn't make any sense, and everyone gets ticked off simply because nobody's making sense anymore.
But maybe we can sort out some things, and maybe that will let us stay on track, and eliminate some of the confusion.
The matter does arise, of mixing dowsing with LRLs. There are different way that problems in communication can start with these two getting mixed up, or being used interchangeably. I don't think that they need to be combined in concept, in order to discuss either one.
There is a problem in talking about LRLs, when people want to use dowsing terminology.
Yet there are some who insist that they do go together.
And others who insist that they don't.
Most of these kinds of problems come up when talking about the tests. Both from people who think LRL is dowsing, and from people who say it's not.
So, look at it this way. According to Carl's test, it doesn't matter if it's considered dowsing or not, because either it passes his test, or it doesn't. The theory of how it works doesn't come into play, in his test. So there is no need to talk dowsing, when discussing Carl's test. It simply doesn't matter.
But, if there are people who find fault with Carl's test, and state dowsing reasons as being part of the problem, then they are also stating that LRLs are somehow using dowsing. The people who are stating this, apparently consider that LRLs somehow enhance the dowsing success, though.
As far as the LRL advocates go, this doesn't seem to matter, as long as they find stuff.
But it does make a difference when considering whether LRLs are fraudulently advertised, because they infer that anyone can use them, and don't state that dowsing ability is required. This concept can go around and around with problems, because of this lack of understanding and agreement.
So, can it be agreed that the free-swinging pointer type of LRLs are supposed to be dowsing enhancers?
Or can we agree that they are totally electronic devices, and not dowsing based?
Or, is there a better definition of the free-swinging pointer types of LRLs?
It can be confusing to try to talk about two or three different things in one thread. I mean, sometimes you say something about one thing, and someone replies to your post, but somehow swings it over to something else, and gives an answer regarding that other thing. How are you supposed to respond to that?
So, people can be talking about two different things, and not even realize it! The next thing you know, it doesn't make any sense, and everyone gets ticked off simply because nobody's making sense anymore.
But maybe we can sort out some things, and maybe that will let us stay on track, and eliminate some of the confusion.
The matter does arise, of mixing dowsing with LRLs. There are different way that problems in communication can start with these two getting mixed up, or being used interchangeably. I don't think that they need to be combined in concept, in order to discuss either one.
There is a problem in talking about LRLs, when people want to use dowsing terminology.
Yet there are some who insist that they do go together.
And others who insist that they don't.
Most of these kinds of problems come up when talking about the tests. Both from people who think LRL is dowsing, and from people who say it's not.
So, look at it this way. According to Carl's test, it doesn't matter if it's considered dowsing or not, because either it passes his test, or it doesn't. The theory of how it works doesn't come into play, in his test. So there is no need to talk dowsing, when discussing Carl's test. It simply doesn't matter.
But, if there are people who find fault with Carl's test, and state dowsing reasons as being part of the problem, then they are also stating that LRLs are somehow using dowsing. The people who are stating this, apparently consider that LRLs somehow enhance the dowsing success, though.
As far as the LRL advocates go, this doesn't seem to matter, as long as they find stuff.
But it does make a difference when considering whether LRLs are fraudulently advertised, because they infer that anyone can use them, and don't state that dowsing ability is required. This concept can go around and around with problems, because of this lack of understanding and agreement.
So, can it be agreed that the free-swinging pointer type of LRLs are supposed to be dowsing enhancers?
Or can we agree that they are totally electronic devices, and not dowsing based?
Or, is there a better definition of the free-swinging pointer types of LRLs?
