Maybe We Can Agree?

[EE THr]

The LRLers are bent on ignoring the topic, as described in my original post, and think that it means that this topic was provide as a place for them to agree that the Emperor's Clothes look just fine.


Wrong!


Stick to the topic or go back to your own topics, shills!





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?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

~SWR~

Hum....even though the "frequency changing calculator" myth has been busted...you guys still prance around pretending to be "treasure hunters". Will wonders never cease...real treasure hunters use real treasure hunting tools...not calculators

Busted by who ?..We are real Treasure Hunters..What are you?..
Re: I want to build an LRL or MFD
Reply To This Topic #15 Posted Today at 04:33:14 PM

 

[EE THr]

Between the last time I reminded the LRL promoters of what this topic was, and now, not a single one has posted anything on topic! That tells me they are just trolling and spamming this thread, because it scares them stiff! What a bunch of twiddles!



Now that the LRL promoter shills and con artists have diverted this thread off topic, as is their purpose, I'll go ahead and restate the topic here---

Will they prove themselves to be trolls, or will they actully respond to the topic?

Let's see....




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?








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]

Why don't they want to state what their swingy-thingy LRLs actually are?

 

[aarthrj3811]

The LRLers are bent on ignoring the topic, as described in my original post, and think that it means that this topic was provide as a place for them to agree that the Emperor's Clothes look just fine.
Wrong!
Stick to the topic or go back to your own topics, shills

We have not ignored the topic..We have answered your questions and have disagreed with you..Art

 

[EE THr]

The LRLers are bent on ignoring the topic, as described in my original post, and think that it means that this topic was provide as a place for them to agree that the Emperor's Clothes look just fine.
Wrong!
Stick to the topic or go back to your own topics, shills

We have not ignored the topic..We have answered your questions and have disagreed with you..Art

Negative, con-artie. Either you didn't read the questions, or you don't understand simple English.

There are two option type questions.

But the third asks you what you want to say they are! How can someone disagree with that?



Quit being a twit, and answer on-topic.






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]

Why don't they want to state what their swingy-thingy LRLs actually are?

Dowsing has already been discredited by Science, and LRLs have already been proven to be fraudulent devices.

Where can it go from there? Certainly not uphill.

Bingo!



That's why they can't answer!

 

[aarthrj3811]

~SWR~

Dowsing has already been discredited by Science, and LRLs have already been proven to be fraudulent devices.

Please give us a list of which scientist have discredited Dowsing? Please give us a list of convictions of any person that has been tried in a court of law for selling Fraudulent LRL’s..Art

 

[EE THr]

The LRLers are bent on ignoring the topic, as described in my original post, and think that it means that this topic was provide as a place for them to agree that the Emperor's Clothes look just fine.
Wrong!
Stick to the topic or go back to your own topics, shills

We have not ignored the topic..We have answered your questions and have disagreed with you..Art

Please post a (real) quote where you have answered any of the three questions rationally, with a straight forward answer.






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]

con-artie;

But the third asks you what you want to say they are! How can someone disagree with that?

You never answered this question.

You are avoiding it.

You are a Cowardly Con Artist.









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]

~Art~

Please give us a list of which scientist have discredited Dowsing? Please give us a list of convictions of any person that has been tried in a court of law for selling Fraudulent LRL’s..Art

~SWR~
I think it is best we part ways...again. I find that I can no longer tolerate your repetitive asinine questions. You've never provided a list of Scientist who have credited dowsing, nor have you ever supplied a list of Court Rulings in favor of fraudulent Long Range Locators.
~Art~

We have not ignored the topic..We have answered your questions and have disagreed with you..Art

~EE~
Please post a (real) quote where you have answered any of the three questions rationally, with a straight forward answer.
Thank you ..Art

 

[EE THr]

~Art~

Please give us a list of which scientist have discredited Dowsing? Please give us a list of convictions of any person that has been tried in a court of law for selling Fraudulent LRL’s..Art

~SWR~
I think it is best we part ways...again. I find that I can no longer tolerate your repetitive asinine questions. You've never provided a list of Scientist who have credited dowsing, nor have you ever supplied a list of Court Rulings in favor of fraudulent Long Range Locators.
~Art~

We have not ignored the topic..We have answered your questions and have disagreed with you..Art

~EE~
Please post a (real) quote where you have answered any of the three questions rationally, with a straight forward answer.
Thank you ..Art

You flunked again, con-artie.

You never answered the questions, then you lied about it.


You're getting to easy to catch. It's almost no fun anymore!




But this is still kinda fun---



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?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

allo: EE swr posted -->Dowsing has already been discredited by Science
************
Frankly that is sheer nonsense. I wonder where he managed to dredge that up, circa 1800?
And further more since it actually worked /works for me I could actually care less what
anyone else says. If I could find my wedding ring 9 times out of 10 tries,
in a test, why should I?

However I am the first to admit that It is not consistant for me. Hence useless for testing,
9 out of 10 one day, 0 the next. Too many psychological factors involved.

Most prominent successful dowser was Moses he he

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[aarthrj3811]

~Art~

Please give us a list of which scientist have discredited Dowsing? Please give us a list of convictions of any person that has been tried in a court of law for selling Fraudulent LRL’s..Art

~SWR~
I think it is best we part ways...again. I find that I can no longer tolerate your repetitive asinine questions. You've never provided a list of Scientist who have credited dowsing, nor have you ever supplied a list of Court Rulings in favor of fraudulent Long Range Locators.
~Art~

We have not ignored the topic..We have answered your questions and have disagreed with you..Art

~EE~
Please post a (real) quote where you have answered any of the three questions rationally, with a straight forward answer.
Thank you ..Art

You flunked again, con-artie.
You never answered the questions, then you lied about it.
You're getting to easy to catch. It's almost no fun anymore!

Thank You For the honest answers..Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

Frankly that is sheer nonsense. I wonder where he managed to dredge that up, circa 1800?
And further more since it actually worked /works for me I could actually care less what
anyone else says. If I could find my wedding ring 9 times out of 10 tries,
in a test, why should I?

You are correct Real Deal..
History
The term "ideo-motor reflex" or "ideo-motor response" was introduced in the 1840s by the eminent Victorian physiologist and psychologist William Benjamin Carpenter. Carpenter was a friend and collaborator of James Braid, the founder of hypnotism.
Braid soon assimilated the ideo-motor theory into hypnotism and it became the central theory of hypnotic suggestion. In The Physiology of Fascination (1855), Braid writes,

 

[aarthrj3811]

Please give us a list of which scientist have discredited Dowsing? Please give us a list of convictions of any person that has been tried in a court of law for selling Fraudulent LRL’s..Art

Real simple questions EE that has been ask of you and SWR after your statements. Sorry that you can not answer them but that is what happens on Treasure Hunting Forums…art

 

[EE THr]

Please give us a list of which scientist have discredited Dowsing? Please give us a list of convictions of any person that has been tried in a court of law for selling Fraudulent LRL’s..Art

Real simple questions EE that has been ask of you and SWR after your statements. Sorry that you can not answer them but that is what happens on Treasure Hunting Forums…art

Off-topic, con-artie.

Answering a question with another question is a merely a classic Straw Man Fallacy tactic, used by con artists, scammers, frauds, and their shills. Being as you are doing it on a forum, it also makes you a troll, as your reply is, as I stated above, off-topic, and also because it's irrelevant to the validity of LRLs.


Please stick to the topic questions, in the post above your nonsense.






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]

Answering a question with another question is a merely a classic Straw Man Fallacy tactic, used by con artists, scammers, frauds, and their shills. Being as you are doing it on a forum, it also makes you a troll, as your reply is, as I stated above, off-topic, and also because it's irrelevant to the validity of LRLs.

And a very good job you are doing..
Art

 

[EE THr]

Answering a question with another question is a merely a classic Straw Man Fallacy tactic, used by con artists, scammers, frauds, and their shills. Being as you are doing it on a forum, it also makes you a troll, as your reply is, as I stated above, off-topic, and also because it's irrelevant to the validity of LRLs.

And a very good job you are doing..
Art

Thank you.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~SWR~
Quote
Dowsing has already been discredited by Science, and LRLs have already been proven to be fraudulent devices.
Please give us a list of which scientist have discredited Dowsing? Please give us a list of convictions of any person that has been tried in a court of law for selling Fraudulent LRL’s..Art

So you and SWR are admitting that you can not name one Scientist that has discredited Dowsing. You are also admitting there are no convictions of any person that has been tried in a court of law for selling Fraudulent LRL’s…Thank You very much..Art