The Questions LRLers Refuse to Answer

[EE THr]

Big J---

They are very simple questions.

Don't try to change the topic.

If you want to discuss a different topic, go someplace where that crap is the topic.


Like I said before: The question is for LRL users. You aren't one.




Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

fenix(es)---

If none of you there at your shop can give any real answers to the topic questions (or just don't want to), that's fine.

But if you're not here to answer and be on topic, then what are you doing in this thread?






Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[EE THr]

If anyone who actually uses an LRL would like to actually answer the topic questions, here they are again---

1. Why don't you take Carl's test?

2. What do you feel is wrong with Carl's test?

3. What do you think is a fair test?

(Very simple and straightforward questions. These are not trick questions.)







Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[EE THr]

P.S. My prediction is either no answers at all, nonsensical answers, insults, or amateur sick-ologists attempting to psychoanalyse the questions or the challengers.

We'll see what actually happens....








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?

 

[Saturna]

P.S. My prediction is either no answers at all, nonsensical answers, insults, or amateur sick-ologists attempting to psychoanalyze the questions or the challengers.

More like a guarantee, than even a prediction.

 

[fenixdigger]

Ahh Judy; Looks like someone took my post, reworded it a little and reposted it. Transference at it's finest. You go boys !!!

These LRL non users are hot. Wanna be like them when I grow up. Maybe I should start eating lead based paint now to get a head start.

Here's something we'll call The Sho-Nuff Test

1) Take 2 silver coins, 1 or 2 L rods (can be coat hangers), 5 paper towels, 4 steel washers, 1 non believer.

2) Put the 1 silver coin on the ground, put the other one and the 4 washers in separate paper towels and wad them up.

3) Throw the 5 waded up paper towels 25-50 ft away from the sample, wait a few minutes and walk around the sample 6 ft. from it with the rod on the sample side.

4) Check to see how well you "guessed".

You did not have to go anywhere, buy an LRL, and you can still come here and lie about the results. But remember, the Shadow knows. Let's see how many "experts" will spend 10 min, and 5 paper towels to see. Prediction time

 

[EE THr]

P.S. My prediction is either no answers at all, nonsensical answers, insults, or amateur sick-ologists attempting to psychoanalyse the questions or the challengers.

We'll see what actually happens....

I see, ask a question then disqualify any answers before they make them. Hmm.



http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,390641.msg2800221.html#msg2800221

"No matter what answers one may give to your questions, they will always be wrong in your estimation."




Yup. Bingo.

Big J---

I knew that you would think that "no answers at all, nonsensical answers, insults, or amateur sick-ologists attempting to psychoanalyse" qualify as real answers!

Seeing that you have previously stated that reality is not real, and nothing actually means anything, and so forth. So you live in the realm of non-reality. That's evident by your non-answer.

So, another prediction comes true! Thanks for your cooperation.

Have yet another un-real day.







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]

Ahh Judy; Looks like someone took my post, reworded it a little and reposted it. Transference at it's finest. You go boys !!!

These LRL non users are hot. Wanna be like them when I grow up. Maybe I should start eating lead based paint now to get a head start.

Here's something we'll call The Sho-Nuff Test

1) Take 2 silver coins, 1 or 2 L rods (can be coat hangers), 5 paper towels, 4 steel washers, 1 non believer.

2) Put the 1 silver coin on the ground, put the other one and the 4 washers in separate paper towels and wad them up.

3) Throw the 5 waded up paper towels 25-50 ft away from the sample, wait a few minutes and walk around the sample 6 ft. from it with the rod on the sample side.

4) Check to see how well you "guessed".

You did not have to go anywhere, buy an LRL, and you can still come here and lie about the results. But remember, the Shadow knows. Let's see how many "experts" will spend 10 min, and 5 paper towels to see. Prediction time

fenixes (which one are you today?)---

What does any of that have to do with the topic?

I'll give you a hint: Nothing.

You're just trying to avoid the questions of the topic, by creating a diversion.

Same old lame tactics!








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]

RDT---

All the open mindedness and broadening will still not change conjecture into fact. Only standard Scientific proof will establish something as fact.

If you want to state "maybes," with broadmindedness, that's great; as long as you don't swerve off the path of reality and start trying to use "ifs" as facts. That will take you over the edge and into the abyss of confusion and failure.

Maybe for today....but discoveries tomorrow may set that so called "proof" on it's rear end. This is done constantly. If "standard scientific proof" were the "be all end all", then it could never be proven wrong, correct? And yet, new discoveries are made all the time that kills off the old "scientific facts".

In a nutshell, if the "scientific fact" is proven wrong.....then it was just a belief in the first place!

 

[fenixdigger]

Ok, I hit the show button, regrettably. But I will answer this one.

What does it have to do with this thread? That question on it's own is the answer. If you had to ask, you didn't understand.

How can you understand any comprehensible answer if you don't have the basic idea? You can't!!

If someone has a REAL interest in this, they would walk out the door, spend 10 mins. and see for themselves what's up.

Both Art and I have given simple exercises to try, to show a phenomena you can reproduce many times.

When Carl and others would give an idea to prove something like ideomotor and random chance, I was on it like a tick. I'd even take it past what they were saying. Not just once, but to the point of overkill. He would say try 5 spots, I'd do 10. He'd say check a 10 ft. circle, I'd do 15. Guess what? Guess why??

Here's the why. I am interested in this for more than a place to argue or self treat a psychosis. You can "guess" at the what part.

If you are bed ridden, wheel chair bound, or institutionalized (as I suspect some of the posters are), get some one to do it for you. SEE FOR YOURSELF. That should be the only proof that is acceptable. Your test, not someone else's.

Last chance to get off ignore. Your turn to be a man.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE THr~

1. Why don't you take Carl's test?
2. What do you feel is wrong with Carl's test?
3. What do you think is a fair test

Then you admit that we have given answers to your post.

I don't consider nonsense to be real answers.

Our answers are not expectable to you..May be some other skeptic can give you an answer that is expectable to you…Art

 

[EddieR]

Hmmmmmm. I'm seeing another pattern here.

It seems that for proof, the LRL promoters tell us about all their successful hunts, and give the "testimonials" of "other people," and then say, "trust us to be telling you the truth."

Then they get all upset if we don't "trust" them, but instead we simply ask for real proof, like any normal person would.

But then when someone legally offers a prize, with a written contract guaranteeing it, for successful performance, suddenly they don't trust that.

So the LRLers refuse to guarantee what they say, yet they don't trust someone who does guarantee what he says.

That seems very unbalanced. They are saying, "You must trust me, but I won't trust you."

Sure matches the pattern of a con game, to me.

What else could a person with common sense think?

So, whose fault is it that people think they are con artists? That's right. (Duh.)

Oh well.

It is what it is. They are what they are. As simple as that.


ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

Oh, there's a pattern all right. First....we read: LRL guys never find anything. Then, when the reply is made that things HAVE been found, it's contested. When stories are posted about other people finding things, it's contested. As far as LRL'ers saying "trust us to be telling you the truth"....please quote that post, as i do not recall EVER seeing one that said that. Or perhaps.....you are just making things up? If not, I apologize.....just post that quote for me.

Now, let's get to the part of your post about "normal people". I hate to break it to you, but a "normal person" could care less about proof of whether a LRL works or not, (outside of a mild interest of course)....unless it is affecting them personally. Most normal people don't go nosing into other people's lives.(I'll bet you are really on top of religious people, aren't ya?) But someone who hasn't used one, is not using one now, and probably will never use one....what the heck do they care if somebody wants to go out and hunt treasure with a calculator or whatever? It doesn't affect you in any way, so why butt into their life? IMO, nosing into others beliefs just to show you have a nose is just a sign of NLOYO....(No Life Of Your Own).

 

[EE THr]

RDT---

All the open mindedness and broadening will still not change conjecture into fact. Only standard Scientific proof will establish something as fact.

If you want to state "maybes," with broadmindedness, that's great; as long as you don't swerve off the path of reality and start trying to use "ifs" as facts. That will take you over the edge and into the abyss of confusion and failure.

Maybe for today....but discoveries tomorrow may set that so called "proof" on it's rear end. This is done constantly. If "standard scientific proof" were the "be all end all", then it could never be proven wrong, correct? And yet, new discoveries are made all the time that kills off the old "scientific facts".

In a nutshell, if the "scientific fact" is proven wrong.....then it was just a belief in the first place!

ER---

That stuff we all know.

Try sticking to the topic instead of dredging up old posts so you can take up space with a vanilla reply.







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]

Ok, I hit the show button, regrettably. But I will answer this one.

What does it have to do with this thread? That question on it's own is the answer. If you had to ask, you didn't understand.

How can you understand any comprehensible answer if you don't have the basic idea? You can't!!

If someone has a REAL interest in this, they would walk out the door, spend 10 mins. and see for themselves what's up.

Both Art and I have given simple exercises to try, to show a phenomena you can reproduce many times.

When Carl and others would give an idea to prove something like ideomotor and random chance, I was on it like a tick. I'd even take it past what they were saying. Not just once, but to the point of overkill. He would say try 5 spots, I'd do 10. He'd say check a 10 ft. circle, I'd do 15. Guess what? Guess why??

Here's the why. I am interested in this for more than a place to argue or self treat a psychosis. You can "guess" at the what part.

If you are bed ridden, wheel chair bound, or institutionalized (as I suspect some of the posters are), get some one to do it for you. SEE FOR YOURSELF. That should be the only proof that is acceptable. Your test, not someone else's.

Last chance to get off ignore. Your turn to be a man.

fenix(es)---

You are just avoiding the topic question again.

make your own topic if you want to give instructions.







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]

~EE THr~

1. Why don't you take Carl's test?
2. What do you feel is wrong with Carl's test?
3. What do you think is a fair test

Then you admit that we have given answers to your post.

I don't consider nonsense to be real answers.

Our answers are not expectable to you..May be some other skeptic can give you an answer that is expectable to you…Art

Nonsense, artie. Just give some realistic answers to the simple questions.

Any 5th grader could do 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]

Hmmmmmm. I'm seeing another pattern here.

It seems that for proof, the LRL promoters tell us about all their successful hunts, and give the "testimonials" of "other people," and then say, "trust us to be telling you the truth."

Then they get all upset if we don't "trust" them, but instead we simply ask for real proof, like any normal person would.

But then when someone legally offers a prize, with a written contract guaranteeing it, for successful performance, suddenly they don't trust that.

So the LRLers refuse to guarantee what they say, yet they don't trust someone who does guarantee what he says.

That seems very unbalanced. They are saying, "You must trust me, but I won't trust you."

Sure matches the pattern of a con game, to me.

What else could a person with common sense think?

So, whose fault is it that people think they are con artists? That's right. (Duh.)

Oh well.

It is what it is. They are what they are. As simple as that.


ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

Oh, there's a pattern all right. First....we read: LRL guys never find anything. Then, when the reply is made that things HAVE been found, it's contested. When stories are posted about other people finding things, it's contested. As far as LRL'ers saying "trust us to be telling you the truth"....please quote that post, as i do not recall EVER seeing one that said that. Or perhaps.....you are just making things up? If not, I apologize.....just post that quote for me.

Now, let's get to the part of your post about "normal people". I hate to break it to you, but a "normal person" could care less about proof of whether a LRL works or not, (outside of a mild interest of course)....unless it is affecting them personally. Most normal people don't go nosing into other people's lives.(I'll bet you are really on top of religious people, aren't ya?) But someone who hasn't used one, is not using one now, and probably will never use one....what the heck do they care if somebody wants to go out and hunt treasure with a calculator or whatever? It doesn't affect you in any way, so why butt into their life? IMO, nosing into others beliefs just to show you have a nose is just a sign of NLOYO....(No Life Of Your Own).

ER---

Just more mindless jabber to avoid the three simple questions.

Just as I predicted!

Jeez, I hadn't even replied to your post previous to this one yet, either. Are you just trying to fill up space on the thread or something?

Your comments are merely a lame attempt to elicit an emotional response in order to change the subject.

Internet Troll, Wikipedia.

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."







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]

So once again back to the actual topic---

If anyone who actually uses an LRL would like to actually answer the topic questions, here they are again---

1. Why don't you take Carl's test?

2. What do you feel is wrong with Carl's test?

3. What do you think is a fair test?

(Very simple and straightforward questions. These are not trick questions.)







Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[EddieR]

So once again back to the actual topic---

If anyone who actually uses an LRL would like to actually answer the topic questions, here they are again---

1. Why don't you take Carl's test?

2. What do you feel is wrong with Carl's test?

3. What do you think is a fair test?

(Very simple and straightforward questions. These are not trick questions.)







Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

Here ya go.

1. I would take Carl's test if he were here. I also might fail it, as my hunts in the past were not always successful. Since I didn't have a 100% success rate in the field, I shouldn't expect more during a test.

2. In my opinion, I think Carl's test is properly set up.

3. In my opinion, I think Carl's test is fair.

There ya have it. Answered and done.

Now you can quote that post that I asked you to earlier....or were you making that up?


By the way, what type of LRL do you have? What brand, model, etc?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Well lookie here....Miss go to Facebook and create a site to insult/attack/humiliate LRL opponents

Another claim from the skeptics..This getting very interesting…Art

 

[EE THr]

Now you can quote that post that I asked you to earlier....or were you making that up?

By the way, what type of LRL do you have? What brand, model, etc?

What post are you referring to?

You don't seriously think I would pay for an LRL, do you?