Those that have been scammed..

[EE THr]

~Art

Gee..Please tell us what is better proof than we have put on this board?

~EE~

We've been through that dozens of times before. Since you can't understand that, it's no wonder that you don't understand that nobody believes all your fake unscientific "proof." For a better explanation, see---

Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?

No...We have tried to explain LRL’s to you...It is not our problem that you can not understand
~Art~

Happy users seems to be real good proof and the lack of unhappy consumers helps..

~EE~

You have no happy users on this board---only a few LRL promoters & schills.

Gee...I am a happy users and not a promoter or schill.
~Art~

Please tell us what it has to do with Those that have been scammed..and the discussion about LRL’s?

~EE~

Again you can't read. Eddie asked about it, and claimed there was no proof of it. I guess he doesn't understand the difference between cheap talk and real proof, any more than you do.

It!! ! !!
~Art~

Sorry the reason is to simple for you to understand..Your lack of proof aides them

~EE~
Other than making no sense whatsoever, your reply is nonresponsive to my question. As usual.
~Art~

More isnults without data. (IWOD.) Because you have no actual data to offer as a rebuttal.

~EE~

More isnults without data. (IWOD.) Because you have no actual data to offer as a rebuttal.

pro•mot•er
  <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/P08/P0826000" target="_blank"><img src="http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" alt="Promoter pronunciation" /></a> prəˈmoʊ tərShow Spelled[pruh-moh-ter] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person or thing that promotes, furthers, or encourages.
2.
a person who initiates or takes part in the organizing of a company, development of a project, etc.
3.
a person who organizes and provides financial backing for a sporting event or entertainment.
4.
Chemistry . any substance that in small amounts is capable of increasing the activity of a catalyst.
5.
Also called collector. Metallurgy . a water-repellent reagent enhancing the ability of certain ores to float so that they can be extracted by the flotation process.

So now posting on the internet and answering your questions is promoting?...
~EE~

Once again, you make it totally obvious that you can never prove that your LRLs actually work, and instead try to substitute lies in order to divert attention away from the fact that anyone who believes your line of BS has been scammed.

It is obvious that LRL’s work so who is lying?...Art

​

Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?​

Nope!​

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?
A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.​

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[EddieR]

...not to mention you lie like a rug.

Wrong. I answered Arts silly question with a generalization which is commonly considered accurate among those fimilar with various reasons pertaining to whether or not lawsuits are brought.

While you, on the other hand, pleaded innocent to being in favor of LRLs, and whined that the debunkers shouldn't be contradicting you, because your were just an "unbiased" bystander. But now that you have been seen trying to twist my words around, and claim that my statement above is a lie, over and over, it is clear that you are mearly another LRL con artist shill.


If you believe that my referenced statements are not true, you can post your proof that they are not, instead of your nonsensical cry baby blathering.

FalacEE,

Again....I said that I could not speak about (judge) anything I have not used. Only an idjit would attempt that. I'm not in favor of any device I haven't used. I am in favor of a person going about their business as they like as long as they don't hurt anyone.

Please post where I SPECIFICALLY said that "debunkers should not be contradicting me". I can't wait to see it, 'cause I never said that. You've been caught in ANOTHER one. You don't seem to learn well from experience.

Since I didn't say that---the only way you can post any type of "proof"---is calling your post another one of your "generalizations" (in other words, you've been caught "twisting my words around")....i.e another fallacy.

Again....please quote the post where I used those words you have attributed to me.

 

[EE THr]

Again....I said that I could not speak about (judge) anything I have not used. Only an idjit would attempt that. I'm not in favor of any device I haven't used. I am in favor of a person going about their business as they like as long as they don't hurt anyone.

Please post where I SPECIFICALLY said that "debunkers should not be contradicting me". I can't wait to see it, 'cause I never said that. You've been caught in ANOTHER one. You don't seem to learn well from experience.

Since I didn't say that---the only way you can post any type of "proof"---is calling your post another one of your "generalizations" (in other words, you've been caught "twisting my words around")....i.e another fallacy.

Again....please quote the post where I used those words you have attributed to me.

You don't remember pleading for a truce? Claiming that you were just an innocent, unbiased, bystander, and only wanted to be fair?

How soon they forget!





P.S. Quit trying to change the subjedt of the topic. Anyone who has ever believed your story that LRLs work has been scammed.

 

[EE THr]

ER---

Here's a link you will like.

Why People Don't Sue More Often?

 

[EddieR]

Again....I said that I could not speak about (judge) anything I have not used. Only an idjit would attempt that. I'm not in favor of any device I haven't used. I am in favor of a person going about their business as they like as long as they don't hurt anyone.

Please post where I SPECIFICALLY said that "debunkers should not be contradicting me". I can't wait to see it, 'cause I never said that. You've been caught in ANOTHER one. You don't seem to learn well from experience.

Since I didn't say that---the only way you can post any type of "proof"---is calling your post another one of your "generalizations" (in other words, you've been caught "twisting my words around")....i.e another fallacy.

Again....please quote the post where I used those words you have attributed to me.

You don't remember pleading for a truce? Claiming that you were just an innocent, unbiased, bystander, and only wanted to be fair?

How soon they forget!





P.S. Quit trying to change the subjedt of the topic. Anyone who has ever believed your story that LRLs work has been scammed.

I never "pled" for a truce. I said that arguing was getting nowhere.

Oooops....ya forgot to post the quote where I said "debunkers should not be contradicting me." Howzabout ya take care of that real quick-like....just so's people won't think it's another "make believe" post of yours. Wouldn't want people thinking ill of you, ya know.

How can a reply to the subject of your post be considered changing the topic?

 

[EE THr]

Again....I said that I could not speak about (judge) anything I have not used. Only an idjit would attempt that. I'm not in favor of any device I haven't used. I am in favor of a person going about their business as they like as long as they don't hurt anyone.

Please post where I SPECIFICALLY said that "debunkers should not be contradicting me". I can't wait to see it, 'cause I never said that. You've been caught in ANOTHER one. You don't seem to learn well from experience.

Since I didn't say that---the only way you can post any type of "proof"---is calling your post another one of your "generalizations" (in other words, you've been caught "twisting my words around")....i.e another fallacy.

Again....please quote the post where I used those words you have attributed to me.

You don't remember pleading for a truce? Claiming that you were just an innocent, unbiased, bystander, and only wanted to be fair?

How soon they forget!





P.S. Quit trying to change the subjedt of the topic. Anyone who has ever believed your story that LRLs work has been scammed.

I never "pled" for a truce. I said that arguing was getting nowhere.

Oooops....ya forgot to post the quote where I said "debunkers should not be contradicting me." Howzabout ya take care of that real quick-like....just so's people won't think it's another "make believe" post of yours. Wouldn't want people thinking ill of you, ya know.

How can a reply to the subject of your post be considered changing the topic?

When quoting someone directly, it will appear inside these punctuation marks: "quote."

That's why they call them quotation marks! Big surprise!

I'm getting a little tired of schooling you. Try reading a book now and then, or take a grammar course, or something.

Or a person can just put it in a quote box, by clicking in the upper right corner of a post. (Someone needs to tell art this, by the way.)

So, where do I say that the statement was a direct quote?

The vast majority of your posts have been trying to invalidate debunkers by nit-picking. See #39 in Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?. You spend more time with attempted personal attacks, than you do discussing actual topics. That's the trademark of a Troll.

 

[EddieR]

Again....I said that I could not speak about (judge) anything I have not used. Only an idjit would attempt that. I'm not in favor of any device I haven't used. I am in favor of a person going about their business as they like as long as they don't hurt anyone.

Please post where I SPECIFICALLY said that "debunkers should not be contradicting me". I can't wait to see it, 'cause I never said that. You've been caught in ANOTHER one. You don't seem to learn well from experience.

Since I didn't say that---the only way you can post any type of "proof"---is calling your post another one of your "generalizations" (in other words, you've been caught "twisting my words around")....i.e another fallacy.

Again....please quote the post where I used those words you have attributed to me.

You don't remember pleading for a truce? Claiming that you were just an innocent, unbiased, bystander, and only wanted to be fair?

How soon they forget!





P.S. Quit trying to change the subjedt of the topic. Anyone who has ever believed your story that LRLs work has been scammed.

I never "pled" for a truce. I said that arguing was getting nowhere.

Oooops....ya forgot to post the quote where I said "debunkers should not be contradicting me." Howzabout ya take care of that real quick-like....just so's people won't think it's another "make believe" post of yours. Wouldn't want people thinking ill of you, ya know.

How can a reply to the subject of your post be considered changing the topic?

When quoting someone directly, it will appear inside these punctuation marks: "quote."

That's why they call them quotation marks! Big surprise!

I'm getting a little tired of schooling you. Try reading a book now and then, or take a grammar course, or something.

Or a person can just put it in a quote box, by clicking in the upper right corner of a post. (Someone needs to tell art this, by the way.)

So, where do I say that the statement was a direct quote?

The vast majority of your posts have been trying to invalidate debunkers by nit-picking. See #39 in Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?. You spend more time with attempted personal attacks, than you do discussing actual topics. That's the trademark of a Troll.

You didn't say it was.

So it was just your opinion, then...written as if it were fact. Okay.

 

[EE THr]

You didn't say it was.

So it was just your opinion, then...written as if it were fact. Okay.

No, it was, in essence, what you were saying. Or I should say, what you were whining about.


So you continue to nitpick, trying divert attention away from the fact that anyone who has believed your claims about LRLs has been scammed.

Good work. You remain your own best debunker.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

So you continue to nitpick, trying divert attention away from the fact that anyone who has believed your claims about LRLs has been scammed.

You have been ask before...Please prove your claim that LRL’s are a scam?..

 

[EddieR]

You didn't say it was.

So it was just your opinion, then...written as if it were fact. Okay.

No, it was, in essence, what you were saying. Or I should say, what you were whining about.


So you continue to nitpick, trying divert attention away from the fact that anyone who has believed your claims about LRLs has been scammed.

Good work. You remain your own best debunker.

Nitpick? Not at all. If you say I said something, I want to know where you saw it.

Of course, NOW it's "in essence" .....so following your logic, since you supported Randi's tests and "debunking" style in the past (in essence, of course), then I suppose that you support his ....interests.

Okay. Whatever floats your boat.

Just out of curiosity....what ARE my claims about LRL's? That should be easy for you to look up.

Getting back on the subject....

 

[EE THr]

Nitpick? Not at all. If you say I said something, I want to know where you saw it.

Of course, NOW it's "in essence" .....so following your logic, since you supported Randi's tests and "debunking" style in the past (in essence, of course), then I suppose that you support his ....interests.

Okay. Whatever floats your boat.

Just out of curiosity....what ARE my claims about LRL's? That should be easy for you to look up.

Getting back on the subject....

Innocent Eddie---

Your claims are that you are unbiased, and just want to be "fair."

But now your true colors have come through, showing that you are actually an LRL Promoter shill, because all of your posts are in favor of them.

Unfortunately, since you can't prove that your fraudulent devices work, you must spend your time attempting to shift focus off that fact, by trying to change the subject to personal attacks.

You failed in masquerading as a bystander, you failed in understanding grammar, and now you are failing to address the topic.

But your lame attempt to evoke an emotional response from your nonsensical illogic, does confirm that you are merely Trolling, and not even very good at that, either.

And you remain your own best debunker.

So thanks again, and keep up the good work!

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Unfortunately, since you can't prove that your fraudulent devices work, you must spend your time attempting to shift focus off that fact, by trying to change the subject to personal attacks.

We have ask you 5000 times to prove your claim that LRL’s made for treasure hunting are fraudulent...You keep telling us that it is a fact. Please provide us with this information that you claim you have?.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Dace_amazing3.htm
In part three, “The Media Skeptic: Encouraging a skeptical media attitude,” we learn how to become a media authority: “Becoming an expert is a pretty simple procedure; tell people you’re an expert. After you do that, all you have to do is maintain appearances and not give them a reason to believe you’re not.”

. Even scientists themselves, it turns out, are no match for the diabolical paranormalists. Only skeptics, educated by James “Amazing” Randi and other magicians, are capable of spotting the tricks of the trade. “Scientists are easily fooled,” explained Randi, “because they think they know.” But only skeptics really know.

And the best of all

As we know, it works a little differently in science. You can’t just say you’re an expert in, say, paleoanthropology unless you’ve actually done the work, either at an accredited university or on your own. By contrast, a skeptic need only form a club with like-minded people. “As head of your local skeptic club, you’re entitled to call yourself an authority. If your other two members agree to it, you can be the spokesperson too.”

You are are a Randi Clone...Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Unfortunately, since you can't prove that your fraudulent devices work, you must spend your time attempting to shift focus off that fact, by trying to change the subject to personal attacks.

You are wrong again, Art.

Science works this way: 1.) You make a claim. 2.) Others don't believe it. 3.) You provide scientific proof of your claim.

But since it's obvious that you don't really understand "science," you try to peddle your stories as a substitute for real proof.

And then we explain to you what real scientific proof is.

Then you change the subject, and accuse us of who-knows-what---because anything will do, you think, to throw the discussion off-topic, and try to hide the fact that you can't provide any proof at all, because your LRLs just don't work.

...Around-and-around in circles you go. Are you getting dizzy yet?

 

[EddieR]

Nitpick? Not at all. If you say I said something, I want to know where you saw it.

Of course, NOW it's "in essence" .....so following your logic, since you supported Randi's tests and "debunking" style in the past (in essence, of course), then I suppose that you support his ....interests.

Okay. Whatever floats your boat.

Just out of curiosity....what ARE my claims about LRL's? That should be easy for you to look up.

Getting back on the subject....

Innocent Eddie---

Your claims are that you are unbiased, and just want to be "fair."

But now your true colors have come through, showing that you are actually an LRL Promoter shill, because all of your posts are in favor of them.

Unfortunately, since you can't prove that your fraudulent devices work, you must spend your time attempting to shift focus off that fact, by trying to change the subject to personal attacks.

You failed in masquerading as a bystander, you failed in understanding grammar, and now you are failing to address the topic.

But your lame attempt to evoke an emotional response from your nonsensical illogic, does confirm that you are merely Trolling, and not even very good at that, either.

And you remain your own best debunker.

So thanks again, and keep up the good work!

Again...and this in response to your post about my "LRL claims", so it is in fact "on topic"---What are my claims about LRL's? And just so you don't go making stuff up again, please quote my claims. All of them, please.

If you don't do it, it will appear as if you have made up another claim. Your choice.

 

[EE THr]

Again...and this in response to your post about my "LRL claims", so it is in fact "on topic"---What are my claims about LRL's? And just so you don't go making stuff up again, please quote my claims. All of them, please.

If you don't do it, it will appear as if you have made up another claim. Your choice.

No, Innocent Eddie, you don't get to make the rules up, for what means what.

And I'm not going to jump through hoops for you.

So, now you are saying that LRLs really don't work. Good for you!

Thanks.

 

[EddieR]

Again...and this in response to your post about my "LRL claims", so it is in fact "on topic"---What are my claims about LRL's? And just so you don't go making stuff up again, please quote my claims. All of them, please.

If you don't do it, it will appear as if you have made up another claim. Your choice.

No, Innocent Eddie, you don't get to make the rules up, for what means what.

And I'm not going to jump through hoops for you.

So, now you are saying that LRLs really don't work. Good for you!

Thanks.

Thanks for admitting you made it up!

And now you are saying LRL's DO work? What's up with that?

 

[aarthrj3811]

You are wrong again, Art.

Science works this way: 1.) You make a claim. 2.) Others don't believe it. 3.) You provide scientific proof of your claim.

Then why have you not provided scientific proof of your claims?..After all..You claim that all LRL’s are fraudulent, they don’t work and many other claims.

But since it's obvious that you don't really understand "science," you try to peddle your stories as a substitute for real proof.

Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1][2][3][4] An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained

I think I understand ...We provide reliable knowledge that we logically and rationally explained...You have presented no relievable knowledge just your own personal opinions..

And then we explain to you what real scientific proof is.

All I have saw from you is your guess of what scientific proof is

Then you change the subject, and accuse us of who-knows-what---because anything will do, you think, to throw the discussion off-topic, and try to hide the fact that you can't provide any proof at all, because your LRLs just don't work.

If asking and answering questions is changing the subject I am guilty

...

Around-and-around in circles you go. Are you getting dizzy yet?

I do not fly so how am going to get dizzy..Gee..I just answered an off subject question.. Art

 

[EE THr]

Thanks for admitting you made it up!

And now you are saying LRL's DO work? What's up with that?

Your gibberish isn't interesting anymore.

Stick to the topic.

When you attack the LRL debunkers, and defend the LRL promoters---that makes you one.


Let's just clear this up right now---

Do you or do you not claim that LRLs work?

 

[EE THr]

You are wrong again, Art.

Science works this way: 1.) You make a claim. 2.) Others don't believe it. 3.) You provide scientific proof of your claim.

Then why have you not provided scientific proof of your claims?

I have made no claims. I've only said that I don't believe your claim that LRLs work.

Since you cannot prove your claim that LRLs work, you lose by default. Therefore, since you have proven that LRLs don't work, I don't need to prove anything.

Sorry. But you can't fight fact with fiction. And your fiction has lost.

 

[EddieR]

Thanks for admitting you made it up!

And now you are saying LRL's DO work? What's up with that?

Your gibberish isn't interesting anymore.

Stick to the topic.

When you attack the LRL debunkers, and defend the LRL promoters---that makes you one.


Let's just clear this up right now---

Do you or do you not claim that LRLs work?

Sorry. I don't jump through hoops for you.

What you are calling an "attack"....is when I merely questioned the source of your claims you made earlier. So you try to twist words around, trying to make everyone feel sorry for you, as if you are a "victim".

I was not attacking you personally, I just wanted an explanation as to what you were basing your claims on. You then started hedging, because you KNEW you made them up, and had been called on it.

Before that, we had been civil toward one another, as per agreement. I told you that I had obtained the original device that I used when I found my ring, and had performed some informal tests with it. I never got around to posting the results, though.