Maybe We Can Agree?

[EE THr]

Just wonderin'....since there have been many posts mentioning "shills" that work for the manufacturers of LRL's......

If someone claims that there are "shills" posting here, can they provide proof of that? Can they provide proof OF THEIR CLAIM that there are manufacturers shills on this forum?

I'm not talking about "in my opinion there are shills here". I want to see proof of the claim.

You need to understand what a shill is.

I have posted the evidence.

Here is some more---



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 which definition are you referring to?

Hmmmm..........

Knock knock. Anybody home?

Shall I ask it again? Which definition of "shill" are you referring to when you use it here?

Whichever one(s) apply. Don't you know how to use a dictionary?


Stay on topic, or go to your own thread, troll.




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!

[EE THr]

Just wonderin'....since there have been many posts mentioning "shills" that work for the manufacturers of LRL's......

If someone claims that there are "shills" posting here, can they provide proof of that? Can they provide proof OF THEIR CLAIM that there are manufacturers shills on this forum?

I'm not talking about "in my opinion there are shills here". I want to see proof of the claim.

Why? You refuse to validate your claims...yet you want others to jump through hoops?

Other than the shills who work for H3 Tec, 'hung' who claims he was friends with the owner/creator of Mineoro and the various screen names Dell Winders used to post incognito....what "proof" would you require to satisfy your quest?

A claim was made. Proof is required. Opinions don't cut it. And just because someone is friends with someone doesn't mean they are working for them.

Claims (actually insinuations) have been made that there are people on this forum that are on the payroll of LRL manufacturers. How about some proof of that.

To paraphrase.....with minor changes...

"Show the proof or be a doof"

Been there, and done that, too.

See #26, in the link below, doof.


Then, stick to the topic, or go on your own thread.




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?

 

[EddieR]

Just wonderin'....since there have been many posts mentioning "shills" that work for the manufacturers of LRL's......

If someone claims that there are "shills" posting here, can they provide proof of that? Can they provide proof OF THEIR CLAIM that there are manufacturers shills on this forum?

I'm not talking about "in my opinion there are shills here". I want to see proof of the claim.

Why? You refuse to validate your claims...yet you want others to jump through hoops?

Other than the shills who work for H3 Tec, 'hung' who claims he was friends with the owner/creator of Mineoro and the various screen names Dell Winders used to post incognito....what "proof" would you require to satisfy your quest?

A claim was made. Proof is required. Opinions don't cut it. And just because someone is friends with someone doesn't mean they are working for them.

Claims (actually insinuations) have been made that there are people on this forum that are on the payroll of LRL manufacturers. How about some proof of that.

To paraphrase.....with minor changes...

"Show the proof or be a doof"

Been there, and done that, too.

See #26, in the link below, doof.


Then, stick to the topic, or go on your own thread.




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?

#26 says you "strongly suspect". So? Where is the proof? Heck, I "strongly suspect" that not a one of you guys are really EE's. Or if you are, you are not very good at it and are currently unemployed...thus you sit at the computer all day, trying to instigate arguments.

As for your "list"...good grief. Take out the "CA" tag and insert anything you like. All your list consists of is basic human traits with your own little spin thrown on them.

By the way, your retort to me was a #12 and a #22.

 

[fenixdigger]

Now Eddie, This is the last time I'm going to say you have a lot of nerve posting truthful and non delusional statements. Art has also been guilty of this (as have I).

 

[EE THr]

By the way, your retort to me was a #12 and a #22.

Sorry, ER. #12 & #22 refer to means of diverting off the topic.

Then, stick to the topic, or go on your own thread.

So, stick to the topic, or start your own thread, troll.






And find an eight year old to teach you how to use a dictionary, too!




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~

Then, stick to the topic, or go on your own thread.

Sorry, ER. #12 & #22 refer to means of diverting off the topic

.

So, stick to the topic, or start your own thread, troll.

Re: Maybe We Can Agree?
Are you telling us that if we disagree with you and start our own topic you will not participate?


We do not agree with you..Is that on topic ?...Art

 

[EddieR]

By the way, your retort to me was a #12 and a #22.

Sorry, ER. #12 & #22 refer to means of diverting off the topic.

Then, stick to the topic, or go on your own thread.

So, stick to the topic, or start your own thread, troll.






And find an eight year old to teach you how to use a dictionary, too!




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?

My, a bit touchy, aren't we? Interesting.....resorting to name calling when bested. What number is that?

Sure, I'll stay on topic now. But expect me to call you out when you try your slimy diversionary posts to try to reroute the conversation.

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Then, stick to the topic, or go on your own thread.

Sorry, ER. #12 & #22 refer to means of diverting off the topic

.

So, stick to the topic, or start your own thread, troll.

Re: Maybe We Can Agree?
Are you telling us that if we disagree with you and start our own topic you will not participate?


We do not agree with you..Is that on topic ?...Art

Whatever it is that I said, that you are asking about, just reread it, and that's what I'm saying.

 

[EE THr]

My, a bit touchy, aren't we? Interesting.....resorting to name calling when bested. What number is that?

Sure, I'll stay on topic now. But expect me to call you out when you try your slimy diversionary posts to try to reroute the conversation.

Wrong, ER. You diverted off topic, using the lame excuse that you didn't like a word that I used. The real problem was that you didn't know what it meant, and were too lazy to look it up.

Then you tried to continue the diversion, even after I provide you with a link to the definition.

And you still are.




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?

 

[EddieR]

My, a bit touchy, aren't we? Interesting.....resorting to name calling when bested. What number is that?

Sure, I'll stay on topic now. But expect me to call you out when you try your slimy diversionary posts to try to reroute the conversation.

Wrong, ER. You diverted off topic, using the lame excuse that you didn't like a word that I used. The real problem was that you didn't know what it meant, and were too lazy to look it up.

Then you tried to continue the diversion, even after I provide you with a link to the definition.

And you still are.




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?

Wrong. I think the voices in your head that read these posts to you are pulling one on ya. I asked a simple question, asking for proof of shills being on here. Of course, that wasn't provided as everyone knows, you just make this stuff up as you go.

Anyway, instead of simple proof of your (baseless) claim, you posted a link to a definition. In all fairness, I clicked the link. The word shill can be used different ways. Evidently you didn't know that. So I simply asked which way you were using it. And as usual, when caught in a big one, you ran.

Now, how about that proof? Failure to provide it is an admission that you lied again.

Predictable.....

 

[EE THr]

Anyway, instead of simple proof of your (baseless) claim, you posted a link to a definition. In all fairness, I clicked the link. The word shill can be used different ways.

And I said to pick one which applies.

That's how you use a dictionary.

What's the problem?



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?

 

[EddieR]

Anyway, instead of simple proof of your (baseless) claim, you posted a link to a definition. In all fairness, I clicked the link. The word shill can be used different ways.

And I said to pick one which applies.

That's how you use a dictionary.

What's the problem?



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 I asked YOU which way YOU were using it. Reading comprehension problem? Surely even YOU can answer that question.

Or perhaps you just used it without knowing what it meant? That seems very likely.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HIO room, EE. you are talking about reading comprehension, may I suggest that you, and swr, also learn to slow down and READ ! You forgot to include the Piezo motor, sigh.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

Anyway, instead of simple proof of your (baseless) claim, you posted a link to a definition. In all fairness, I clicked the link. The word shill can be used different ways.

And I said to pick one which applies.

That's how you use a dictionary.

What's the problem?



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 I asked YOU which way YOU were using it. Reading comprehension problem? Surely even YOU can answer that question.

Or perhaps you just used it without knowing what it meant? That seems very likely.

The word is the word. Figure it out.

In the meantime---



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]

HIO room, EE. you are talking about reading comprehension, may I suggest that you, and swr, also learn to slow down and READ ! You forgot to include the Piezo motor, sigh.

Don Jose de La Mancha

That's what my reply was about, RDT.

 

[EddieR]

Anyway, instead of simple proof of your (baseless) claim, you posted a link to a definition. In all fairness, I clicked the link. The word shill can be used different ways.

And I said to pick one which applies.

That's how you use a dictionary.

What's the problem?



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 I asked YOU which way YOU were using it. Reading comprehension problem? Surely even YOU can answer that question.

Or perhaps you just used it without knowing what it meant? That seems very likely.

The word is the word. Figure it out.

In the meantime---



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 problem. I figured it out long ago. I was just wondering if you had the cajones to admit it.

Nope. No surprise, either. When cornered, they always turn tail.


(you might want to look this word up......FAIL).

 

[EE THr]

Anyway, instead of simple proof of your (baseless) claim, you posted a link to a definition. In all fairness, I clicked the link. The word shill can be used different ways.

And I said to pick one which applies.

That's how you use a dictionary.

What's the problem?



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 I asked YOU which way YOU were using it. Reading comprehension problem? Surely even YOU can answer that question.

Or perhaps you just used it without knowing what it meant? That seems very likely.

The word is the word. Figure it out.

In the meantime---



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 problem. I figured it out long ago. I was just wondering if you had the cajones to admit it.

Nope. No surprise, either. When cornered, they always turn tail.


(you might want to look this word up......FAIL).

Wrong again. My post is correct as it stands.

There are probably thousands of words in American English that have more than one meaning. It's the reader's job to either understand them, or look them up.

When you read a book, do you email the author to ask how he meant each of those words which have more than one meaning?

The way you use a dictionary is to look up the word, then apply the definition which fits best. Everyone else has been doing that all along. Are you "special"?

Try Googling "How to Use a Dictionary." Maybe you'll find something there to help yourself.

But you'll probably want to email the Website to ask how they meant each word!

Better yet---



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?

 

[EddieR]

Anyway, instead of simple proof of your (baseless) claim, you posted a link to a definition. In all fairness, I clicked the link. The word shill can be used different ways.

And I said to pick one which applies.

That's how you use a dictionary.

What's the problem?



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 I asked YOU which way YOU were using it. Reading comprehension problem? Surely even YOU can answer that question.

Or perhaps you just used it without knowing what it meant? That seems very likely.

The word is the word. Figure it out.

In the meantime---



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 problem. I figured it out long ago. I was just wondering if you had the cajones to admit it.

Nope. No surprise, either. When cornered, they always turn tail.


(you might want to look this word up......FAIL).

Wrong again. My post is correct as it stands.

There are probably thousands of words in American English that have more than one meaning. It's the reader's job to either understand them, or look them up.

When you read a book, do you email the author to ask how he meant each of those words which have more than one meaning?

The way you use a dictionary is to look up the word, then apply the definition which fits best. Everyone else has been doing that all along. Are you "special"?

Try Googling "How to Use a Dictionary." Maybe you'll find something there to help yourself.

But you'll probably want to email the Website to ask how they meant each word!

Better yet---



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?

Why would I need to ask the author of a book what a word means? All the books I've read were authored by people who were very literate, and have good command and understanding of language. You, on the other hand....well......

FAIL.

 

[EddieR]

Wrong. I think the voices in your head that read these posts to you are pulling one on ya. I asked a simple question, asking for proof of shills being on here. Of course, that wasn't provided as everyone knows, you just make this stuff up as you go.

Anyway, instead of simple proof of your (baseless) claim, you posted a link to a definition. In all fairness, I clicked the link. The word shill can be used different ways. Evidently you didn't know that. So I simply asked which way you were using it. And as usual, when caught in a big one, you ran.

Now, how about that proof? Failure to provide it is an admission that you lied again.

Predictable.....

Sure...proof was provided. You are the one who chose not to accept the employee's posting on behalf of H3 Tec (shills) as the required proof.

Then, you made up some pansy-azz rule that close friends do not count as shills. It may be your rule...but, not everybody has to play by the rules you make up.

How many more posts are yo going to make, crying that no proof was given?

Accusations are not proof. Who is the employee that posts here? Is it Art?....because he was specifically called a shill in past posts.

I'm not making any rules up. Why would you think that? Going by the way it was posted (friends being shills) is just plain nuts. Just because a person has an interest in something, or believes a certain way, or thinks a certain way, does that mean that they support everyone that has the same traits?

 

[EddieR]

Wrong. I think the voices in your head that read these posts to you are pulling one on ya. I asked a simple question, asking for proof of shills being on here. Of course, that wasn't provided as everyone knows, you just make this stuff up as you go.

Anyway, instead of simple proof of your (baseless) claim, you posted a link to a definition. In all fairness, I clicked the link. The word shill can be used different ways. Evidently you didn't know that. So I simply asked which way you were using it. And as usual, when caught in a big one, you ran.

Now, how about that proof? Failure to provide it is an admission that you lied again.

Predictable.....

Sure...proof was provided. You are the one who chose not to accept the employee's posting on behalf of H3 Tec (shills) as the required proof.

Then, you made up some pansy-azz rule that close friends do not count as shills. It may be your rule...but, not everybody has to play by the rules you make up.

How many more posts are yo going to make, crying that no proof was given?

Accusations are not proof. Who is the employee that posts here? Is it Art?....because he was specifically called a shill in past posts.

I'm not making any rules up. Why would you think that? Going by the way it was posted (friends being shills) is just plain nuts. Just because a person has an interest in something, or believes a certain way, or thinks a certain way, does that mean that they support everyone that has the same traits?

Jesus Christ...you are making rules up. Who better to shill for a manufacture of a controversial product than a close friend or confident.

I cannot believe you are playing the dumb card in regards to the three (3) H3 Tec employee's who posted on this board.

Are these friends on the company payroll?