Maybe We Can Agree?

Status
Not open for further replies.
EE THr said:
Maybe We Can Agree

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?
Click to expand...


It's been 10 days since I made this topic and posed this question!

Nooooooooooooooobody has any idea of what they want to claim an LRL actually is?


How can anyone claim that they do something, without stating what they even are?




:laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7:


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?
 

Evening EE. you posted -->How can anyone claim that they do something, without stating what they even are?

***********
a bit ambiguous, are you referring to the person or the 'something'?

Don Jose de La Mancha snicker
 

EE THr said:
Maybe We Can Agree

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?
Click to expand...


Well, now it's been a dozen days since I made this topic and posed this question!

And still, nooooooooooooooobody has any idea of what they want to claim an LRL actually is?


How can anyone claim that their LRL can do something, without stating what it even is?


The LRL promoters are avoiding this question like it was the plague!

Looks like a good addition to my list of Predictable Patterns, linked below.




:laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7:


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?
 

It's been two weeks now, and still no LRL promoters can answer the topic question.

As SWR says, "Silence speaks volumes"!



Since reality is basically agreement, it's clear that the LRL promoters choose to operate outside of reality. Yup, that statement sure matches up with their Predictable Patterns list, linked below.



:sign13:



:laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7:


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?
 

It's going on three weeks, now, and no volunteers from the LRL promoters to get into agreement about exactly what LRL should be called---dowsers, dowsing enhancers, or something else?

EE THr said:
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, 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?

:coffee2:
Click to expand...


So here is a chance for the LRL promoters to say what they think their devices actually are, then it will be easier to discuss them in a logical and rational manner, right?

I'm all ears!



:laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7:

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?
 

The LRL promoters cannot even define what category their devices are in, by answering the topic question in the original post!

That way, it leaves them plenty of wiggle room in their Science Fiction pseudotheories of how their hoax is supposed to work!

They can't use Science to explain them, though, because they aren't testable!

"Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world."





:laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7:

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 said:
The post are real clear..Nobody agrees with you..Question answered..Art
Click to expand...



When you someday learn how to read, you will see that I'm not asking anyone to agree with me.

Rather I'm asking you how you categorize your LRLs, as follows---


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?


Pretty simple questions artie.

Why would you avoid them, unless your LRLs are a hoax?





:laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7:

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?
 

So far, the only things the LRL promoters on here can agree on, are as follows---

1. They don't want the schematics of LRLs sent to electronic schools or colleges, for analysis by unbiased professionals.
2. They don't want the LRLs, themselves, sent to electronic schools or colleges, for analysis by unbiased professionals.
3. They don't want to state whether LRLs are dowsers, dowsing enhancers, or totally electronically operated devices; because if they defined what they are claiming, then the claims can be refuted.
4. They are deathly afraid of any kind of fair Scientific test, and tremble at the mention of "random double-blind" testing.
5. They don't like my "Predictable Patterns of Con Artists" list, because they can't avoid doing all the things listed on it!
6. Their best chance is to engage in personal attacks, of those who point out the simple fact that LRLs don't work, in hopes of creating an emotional response which will cause the challengers to follow them off-topic, and thus postpone the LRL promoters' eventual failure to perpetuate their frauds.





:laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7: :laughing7:

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 said:
Maybe We Can Agree


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?

:coffee2:
Click to expand...



Just trying to get the avoiders back on topic, again....

But then, since thay have already conceded that LRL are nothing more thatn dowsers, by insisting the challengers perform an experiment with coathangers to prove that LRLs work, maybe we don't even need this topic anymore.

Has it been answered, or not? :icon_scratch:

LRLs are dowsers? :dontknow:




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?

:coffee2:
 

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?
Click to expand...
Punt
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

NEW DRIVER FOR LRLs

⬅️ Previous Thread

Effective "short range" of LRLS

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Simplex Metal Detector

Latest Discussions

Back
Top