Maybe We Can Agree?

[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?

S'ok Eddie...you just keep playing the dumb card. You've been proven wrong...that there are shills posting in these threads.

You cannot stand being wrong....and will continue with the games. I'm done.

You are wrong, and not man enough to admit it. Typical Eddie.

If someone would show me the proof that I'm wrong, I would admit it. You should know that from the past.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[EddieR]

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?

Alright. EE, are you calling me a con artist? Are you calling me a shill?

 

[EE THr]

good grief

 

[EE THr]

Alright. EE, are you calling me a con artist? Are you calling me a shill?

Are you talkinna me? Are you talkinna me?
















P.S. You forgot "troll."

 

[EddieR]

Alright. EE, are you calling me a con artist? Are you calling me a shill?

Are you talkinna me? Are you talkinna me?
















P.S. You forgot "troll."

No, I didn't forget "troll". I know that you directly called me that. And coming from someone of your caliber.....well, let's just say I consider it a compliment. I think it's hilarious that you are so afraid to own up to your dumb mistakes and lies. Well, not so hilarious....just pitiful.

 

[EE THr]

I think it's hilarious that you are so afraid to own up to your dumb mistakes and lies.

Well, I have made a few mistakes on here, but I admitted it each time. And they weren't all that dumb, just remembering something not exactly correct, and stuff like that, I think.

And I don't recall telling any lies. I don't think that is necessary, because it only confuses the issues.

Of course if you have evidence to the contrary, please post it, and I will gladly stand corrected.


I posted the links to, and usually included, the definition of all three of the terms to which you referred. I used them correctly. If you find the truth offensive, who's fault it that?




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]

I think it's hilarious that you are so afraid to own up to your dumb mistakes and lies.

Well, I have made a few mistakes on here, but I admitted it each time. And they weren't all that dumb, just remembering something not exactly correct, and stuff like that, I think.

And I don't recall telling any lies. I don't think that is necessary, because it only confuses the issues.

Of course if you have evidence to the contrary, please post it, and I will gladly stand corrected.


I posted the links to, and usually included, the definition of all three of the terms to which you referred. I used them correctly. If you find the truth offensive, who's fault it that?




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?

But you still haven't explained which definition you were referring to.

 

[EddieR]

But you still haven't explained which definition you were referring to.

What does it matter. Stop trolling the thread looking for an argument.

Good grief. Grow the floor up and move on.

YOU talk about other people trolling? YOU?

Gimme a break! Remember those words you wrote....."grow the floor up and move on". You'll be seeing them....

 

[EE THr]

I think it's hilarious that you are so afraid to own up to your dumb mistakes and lies.

Well, I have made a few mistakes on here, but I admitted it each time. And they weren't all that dumb, just remembering something not exactly correct, and stuff like that, I think.

And I don't recall telling any lies. I don't think that is necessary, because it only confuses the issues.

Of course if you have evidence to the contrary, please post it, and I will gladly stand corrected.


I posted the links to, and usually included, the definition of all three of the terms to which you referred. I used them correctly. If you find the truth offensive, who's fault it that?




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?

But you still haven't explained which definition you were referring to.

Yeah, I did explain. I had to teach you how to use a dictionary, but I guess you didn't get 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?

 

[EE THr]

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?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Yeah, I did explain. I had to teach you how to use a dictionary, but I guess you didn't get it.

Hey EddieR..Did he just tell you to “hang the answer in your ear?”

 

[EddieR]

~EE~

Yeah, I did explain. I had to teach you how to use a dictionary, but I guess you didn't get it.

Hey EddieR..Did he just tell you to “hang the answer in your ear?”

Nah...He's just stalling for time and wishing I would quit calling him out on it. Typical "oh no....got busted".

Or maybe he doesn't know the meaning after all and is hoping someone will explain it.

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Yeah, I did explain. I had to teach you how to use a dictionary, but I guess you didn't get it.

Hey EddieR..Did he just tell you to “hang the answer in your ear?”

Nah...He's just stalling for time and wishing I would quit calling him out on it. Typical "oh no....got busted".

Or maybe he doesn't know the meaning after all and is hoping someone will explain it.

I posted the link for you, remember? What a twiggit!



If you are claiming that I used the word incorrectly, say so. If not, then what's your silly problem?



And on the photo, I was talking about the one of the girl named "Eddie."





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]

~EE~

Yeah, I did explain. I had to teach you how to use a dictionary, but I guess you didn't get it.

Hey EddieR..Did he just tell you to “hang the answer in your ear?”

Nah...He's just stalling for time and wishing I would quit calling him out on it. Typical "oh no....got busted".

Or maybe he doesn't know the meaning after all and is hoping someone will explain it.

I posted the link for you, remember? What a twiggit!



If you are claiming that I used the word incorrectly, say so. If not, then what's your silly problem?



And on the photo, I was talking about the one of the girl named "Eddie."





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?

Yep, you posted the link. But you evidently can't read what it says. I simply asked (evidently not simply enough) which definition you were referring to in your post. I'm typing slower, maybe you'll understand this time.....nope.

BTW, there is no pic of a girl named Eddie....no matter how much you wish. I don't swing that way.

You live your life the way you want, but leave me out of it.

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Yeah, I did explain. I had to teach you how to use a dictionary, but I guess you didn't get it.

Hey EddieR..Did he just tell you to “hang the answer in your ear?”

Nah...He's just stalling for time and wishing I would quit calling him out on it. Typical "oh no....got busted".

Or maybe he doesn't know the meaning after all and is hoping someone will explain it.

I posted the link for you, remember? What a twiggit!



If you are claiming that I used the word incorrectly, say so. If not, then what's your silly problem?



And on the photo, I was talking about the one of the girl named "Eddie."





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?

Yep, you posted the link. But you evidently can't read what it says. I simply asked (evidently not simply enough) which definition you were referring to in your post. I'm typing slower, maybe you'll understand this time.....nope.

BTW, there is no pic of a girl named Eddie....no matter how much you wish. I don't swing that way.

You live your life the way you want, but leave me out of it.

Don't flater yourself, Edith.

 

[EE THr]

I simply asked (evidently not simply enough) which definition you were referring to in your post.

A n d I s i m p l y r e p l i e d : The way to use a dictionary is to look up the word, and apply the definition which fits.

Is there a word or phrase in that which you don't fully understand?



That's just the way it's done. That's the way everybody else does it. Do you think you are "special"?

Do you think that everyone who reads a book, emails the author about every word in the book that has more than one meaning? Nooooooooooooooooo. They don't, do they! So why should you? If you have read the dictionary link that I gave you, and you still don't understand, whose fault is that?





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]

BTW, there is no pic of a girl named Eddie....no matter how much you wish. I don't swing that way.

Oh, sorry.

I was referring to the photo that said "Eddie" at the bottom. Had dark hair, in a cut that some people would call "butch" these days. Sort of heavy set, with a rounded face. It looked kind of like your avatar. This was an adult, but, as it appeared, had never once shaved on the face. Hmmmmmmm. Is there more than one Eddie on Big J's facebook?

Just asking because I wouldn't want to make a mistake, and upset you.

 

[EddieR]

I simply asked (evidently not simply enough) which definition you were referring to in your post.

A n d I s i m p l y r e p l i e d : The way to use a dictionary is to look up the word, and apply the definition which fits.

Is there a word or phrase in that which you don't fully understand?



That's just the way it's done. That's the way everybody else does it. Do you think you are "special"?

Do you think that everyone who reads a book, emails the author about every word in the book that has more than one meaning? Nooooooooooooooooo. They don't, do they! So why should you? If you have read the dictionary link that I gave you, and you still don't understand, whose fault is that?





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?

Oh it's totally understood. You are AFRAID to admit the way you used it. Or...you don't know what you meant when you were typing. That's a possibility, I guess.

 

[EddieR]

~EE~

Yeah, I did explain. I had to teach you how to use a dictionary, but I guess you didn't get it.

Hey EddieR..Did he just tell you to “hang the answer in your ear?”

Nah...He's just stalling for time and wishing I would quit calling him out on it. Typical "oh no....got busted".

Or maybe he doesn't know the meaning after all and is hoping someone will explain it.

I posted the link for you, remember? What a twiggit!



If you are claiming that I used the word incorrectly, say so. If not, then what's your silly problem?



And on the photo, I was talking about the one of the girl named "Eddie."





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?

Yep, you posted the link. But you evidently can't read what it says. I simply asked (evidently not simply enough) which definition you were referring to in your post. I'm typing slower, maybe you'll understand this time.....nope.

BTW, there is no pic of a girl named Eddie....no matter how much you wish. I don't swing that way.

You live your life the way you want, but leave me out of it.

Don't flater yourself, Edith.

Well...I think we have found our communication problem involving the dictionary. I don't know what YOUR dictionary has in it, but mine has the word "flatter". In your dictionary, what is the definition of the word "flater"?

 

[EddieR]

BTW, there is no pic of a girl named Eddie....no matter how much you wish. I don't swing that way.

Oh, sorry.

I was referring to the photo that said "Eddie" at the bottom. Had dark hair, in a cut that some people would call "butch" these days. Sort of heavy set, with a rounded face. It looked kind of like your avatar. This was an adult, but, as it appeared, had never once shaved on the face. Hmmmmmmm. Is there more than one Eddie on Big J's facebook?

Just asking because I wouldn't want to make a mistake, and upset you.

I have no idea about that one.