Why skeptics doesnt show proof?

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Wow this whole thread strayed so far from it's original purpose....

Hope it gets back on track and someone explains what will be accepted as evidence that they are all a fraud...


EDIT: Don't think that this in any way suggests there is any legitimacy to these devices as we have already ascertained they are all a fraud.
This is merely for the sake of the thread at hand.

Guy---

I think that's the whole reason for the LRL promoter's "You're so mean to me that I must call you names" form of turning any discussion into a bickering contest. I think it's merely to distract people from the topic. The reason I think this is, because any discussion would soon turn to the ultimate logic, which is "prove it." And they can't afford to go there. Literally.




ref: #22, Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Hope it gets back on track and someone explains what will be accepted as evidence that they are all a fraud...

I live in the USA…A Jury of their peers have the final word and becomes case law…art

artie---

To get back on track, of your own topic, I'll ask you again, for the umpteenth time---

What physical proof, of the device itself, would be acceptable to you?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Thank you again
Psychology is the science[1] of mind and behavior.[2] Its immediate goal is to understand behavior and mental processes by researching and establishing both general principles and specific cases.[3] For many practitioners, one goal of applied psychology is to benefit society.[4][5] In this field, a professional practitioner or researcher is called a psychologist, and can be classified as a social scientist, behavioral scientist, or cognitive scientist. Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring the physiological and neurobiological processes that underlie certain functions and behaviors.
I think that's the whole reason for the LRL promoter's "You're so mean to me that I must call you names" form of turning any discussion into a bickering contest. I think it's merely to distract people from the topic. The reason I think this is, because any discussion would soon turn to the ultimate logic, which is "prove it." And they can't afford to go there. Literally.

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Thank you again
Psychology is the science[1] of mind and behavior.[2] Its immediate goal is to understand behavior and mental processes by researching and establishing both general principles and specific cases.[3] For many practitioners, one goal of applied psychology is to benefit society.[4][5] In this field, a professional practitioner or researcher is called a psychologist, and can be classified as a social scientist, behavioral scientist, or cognitive scientist. Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring the physiological and neurobiological processes that underlie certain functions and behaviors.
I think that's the whole reason for the LRL promoter's "You're so mean to me that I must call you names" form of turning any discussion into a bickering contest. I think it's merely to distract people from the topic. The reason I think this is, because any discussion would soon turn to the ultimate logic, which is "prove it." And they can't afford to go there. Literally.

That definition was written by people who have vested interests in the multi billion dollar psycho-pharmaceutical and insurance
scam industry.

Think for yourself.

 

[GuyinWH]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Thank you again
Psychology is the science[1] of mind and behavior.[2] Its immediate goal is to understand behavior and mental processes by researching and establishing both general principles and specific cases.[3] For many practitioners, one goal of applied psychology is to benefit society.[4][5] In this field, a professional practitioner or researcher is called a psychologist, and can be classified as a social scientist, behavioral scientist, or cognitive scientist. Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring the physiological and neurobiological processes that underlie certain functions and behaviors.
I think that's the whole reason for the LRL promoter's "You're so mean to me that I must call you names" form of turning any discussion into a bickering contest. I think it's merely to distract people from the topic. The reason I think this is, because any discussion would soon turn to the ultimate logic, which is "prove it." And they can't afford to go there. Literally.

Copy paste skills are wonderful Art.
Guess he's at a loss for words?

Oh and I totally agree with you EE.
They keep giving up baloney references and pseudo-science to back bogus claims yet they refuse to accept anything legitimate as if science was a big bad four letter word.

Then they put up big pseudo-science words to try to validate their claims but anyone with a high school education can tell it's all bogus trash that was made up in someones LSD induced hallucinations. They know they loose on the grounds of proof, so they only post in these threads, (and this one, one of them actually had the guts to MAKE) to try to derail whatever argument is not in their favor whichever way possible by any means possible because they fear getting exposed for the frauds that they are. It doesn't help them one bit but I sure do like watching them sink further in their lies and silly pseudo-science.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

P.S. wh : you posted -->Just the fact you're here talking about the LRL theories as if they had some sort of legitimacy tells me you don't know anything at all.
****************

Interesting , just how many theories have been presented ? As for the rest, I have flatly admitted that I don't know all about them, the developing scientists don't either, but, the leading sceptic claims that he does?? Do I detect a bit of undeserved narcissism here?.
*****************
You posted -->it's a sure bet he'd try to disqualify our degree's as degree mill degrees or fake or what have you so it's a moot point.
************
An interesting predefensive statement of something that probably has an obvious serious weakness, fault, or is an unacceptable truth. A typical Pavlovian response caused by failing previous requests. hmmm interesting.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

~EE THr~

That definition was written by people who have vested interests in the multi billion dollar psycho-pharmaceutical and insurance
scam industry.

So…Psychology is all fraudulent also..

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Dace_amazing3.htm
that they are the enlightened ones, that they are charged with the burden of defending sense against nonsense, that they alone can be counted on to stand their ground against the tide of irrationalism that threatens to engulf our civilization and undo all the gains that have been wrought in the name of Science. 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.

 

[GuyinWH]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

P.S. wh : you posted -->Just the fact you're here talking about the LRL theories as if they had some sort of legitimacy tells me you don't know anything at all.
****************

Interesting , just how many theories have been presented ? As for the rest, I have flatly admitted that I don't know all about them, the developing scientists don't either, but, the leading sceptic claims that he does?? Do I detect a bit of undeserved narcissism here?.
*****************
You posted -->it's a sure bet he'd try to disqualify our degree's as degree mill degrees or fake or what have you so it's a moot point.
************
An interesting predefensive statement of something that probably has an obvious serious weakness, fault, or is an unacceptable truth. A typical Pavlovian response caused by failing previous requests. hmmm interesting.

Don Jose de La Mancha

More drivel from our resident trash-post master.

"I have flatly admitted that I don't know all about them" <----- Then be quiet and get learned.
The rest you typed is just as useless.

"An interesting predefensive statement of something that probably has an obvious serious weakness, fault, or is an unacceptable truth. A typical Pavlovian response caused by failing previous requests. hmmm interesting."

Nope, wrong. We knew you'd respond that way, and you have proven to do this time and time again, and yet AGAIN you take up another post, hijack it with your nonsense, and somehow think you're some sort of genius...
But in your untrustworthiness and deceitfulness why would you be handed ammo to attack us personally knowing full well you're completely untrustworthy and deceitful, as you continue to prove on here? Your request is moot idea and your response is void. It would be like throwing pearls to the swine.

Oh and I said that because you still don't deny that you would definitely get onto it and claim they're degree mill degrees or you would claim they're fake. You continue to attempt to invalidate everything we post in the same way so nothing less can be expected of you.

Add to that you do not need to see our credentials just look at the previous information posted. Credentials are nothing, the proof is everything, and you have been given far more proof than you could ever need and we have been more than technical enough than is required to prove this argument (LRLs = fraud). You not choosing to accept the proof and rather choosing your own fraudulent agenda/pseudo-scientific babble is not our problem.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Morning again wh: You posted -->Actually no, a jury of their peers does not have the final word and it doesn't become case law...
*****************
A fine point, but yes they do, they can overturn an existing law if it appears nonconforming in intent or incompatible with the present case. Some times even overruling a judical decision. Most courts do not tell the jurors this while explaining their duties as a jurist / juror for obvious reasons.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[GuyinWH]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Morning again wh: You posted -->Actually no, a jury of their peers does not have the final word and it doesn't become case law...
*****************
A fine point, but yes they do, they can overturn an existing law if it appears nonconforming in intent or incompatible with the present case. Some times even overruling a judical decision. Most courts do not tell the jurors this while explaining their duties as a jurist / juror for obvious reasons.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Once again you're just as confused as Art.
You're dead wrong; read again. I'll have to explain later (or maybe someone else will) since you're so caught up in yourself.


EDIT: ahh
I'm going to have to make it REALLY simple now...

Here first of all... what is this.....

Nigerian ---


Return-Path: [[email protected]]
Received: from VOILA728.com ([81.240.252.72])
by hamjudo.com (8.12.11.Beta0/8.12.11.Beta0/Debian-1) with SMTP id
i3EB2lsn024867
for [...]; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 07:02:52 -0400
Message-Id: [[email protected]]
From: TAYLOR H J MRS [[email protected]]
To: ...
Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: LIBERIA BUSINESS
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 04:02:52 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="94d40a2b-4c6a-4e23-b62c-2c92d765844d"


Dear

I am Mrs. Jewel Howard Taylor, a wife of embattled President of war torn
Liberia, Mr Charles Taylor. My husband just stepped down as President of
Liberia some months ago, but matters were not helped when UN Special War
Crimes Court for Sierra Leone indicted my husband for war crimes in June
last year, demanding his prosecution.

Currently i and my husband have been granted asylum in Nigeria, but I
relocated my two sons (Williams & Charles Jnr) immediately in July 2003
to Sao Tome & Principe (a small oil rich island off the coast of West
Africa).

They are currently in hiding there under new identities, awaiting the
outcome of events in my country, and what will become of me and my
husband in asylum.

The reason is this,During the political crisis some years ago in Sierra
Leone (West African Country rich in diamonds), my husband was actively
involved.

Early laast year, he entrusted some large quantities of diamonds to me.
He told me if anything happened to him, I should use it to take care of
myself. Fearing its detection due to the volume, my son (Williams)
traveled to South-Africa with the diamonds (on my instructions) and sold
them, getting a total of US$18,000,000.00(eighteen Million US Dollars
only).

This money he moved through diplomatic channel to a security safe house
in Europe for protective custody under a different name.

Now,the United Nations is intending freezing all my husbands assets and
affiliate accounts and the government of Nigeria has refused issuing
neither him nor my family any visa to travel out of their country again
because of the current political situation.

This is why I need you to please either travel to Europe to claim this
money and subsequently deposit same in a reputable bank there for onward
transfer to your account, or to instruct the security company to move
the funds out of there to any of their corresponding banks or offices in
Europe or Asia for onward transfer to your account.

Once you are able to show your sincerity I will send the necessary
correspondence and documentation related to the transaction to you to
effect this. I am also willing to forfeit 25% of the funds to you 5% set
aside for miscelleneous expenses, believing you will hold 70% on trust
for me sons until we are able to leave here and join you under new
identities.

My first son Williams is 27years old (an Economist), and Charles Jnr is
only 21 years old. My only daughter Helen died in October 1999 from
complications of pneumonia.

Please note that my husband is not even aware that I sold the diamonds,
nor does he know the whereabout of the funds.

Once the funds are safely out of the netherlands I and my sons will
leave to start a new life.

If you cannot help us, simply destroy and forget I ever contacted you.

You can contact me via email([email protected]), enclosing your contacts
Numbers.

May God guide you in whatever you decide, and thank you for taking out
time to read this request.

Fondest regards.

Mrs. Jewel Howard Taylor




^^ that is fraud. It's called Nigerian letter fraud by the FBI.

That help?

big WHOOPS..
forgot to add, there was no jury no trial no nothing to determine this was a fraud.
It is a well know con and of course, as most frauds offers alot for little.

And I'll go ahead and point out the LRLs/MFDs are the same thing just different ploy to get the point across (they gain, you don't).
SO....
no, a jury of their peers does not have the final word and it doesn't become case law because in full conscience anyone can tell its a fraud. And not only that but the PEERS have already decided it is a fraud (ie any scientific entity could ascertain it).
Leave the courts out of this they have nothing to do with it.

Oh and I'm already ready for your response because I'm sure Art and Co have dished out your next few sentences already and they're the same thing. Mis-fire away.

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

artie---

Your distraction with the sickology mumbo-jumbo shows, once again, your reluctance to back up your fantastic claims.

Hope it gets back on track and someone explains what will be accepted as evidence that they are all a fraud...

I live in the USA…A Jury of their peers have the final word and becomes case law…art

artie---

To get back on track, of your own topic, I'll ask you again, for the umpteenth time---

What physical proof, of the device itself, would be acceptable to you?

So where is your anwser?

 

[GuyinWH]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

artie---

Your distraction with the sickology mumbo-jumbo shows, once again, your reluctance to back up your fantastic claims.

Hope it gets back on track and someone explains what will be accepted as evidence that they are all a fraud...

I live in the USA…A Jury of their peers have the final word and becomes case law…art

artie---

To get back on track, of your own topic, I'll ask you again, for the umpteenth time---

What physical proof, of the device itself, would be acceptable to you?

So where is your anwser?

hehe can't wait to see how they're going to derail this or give us the run-around this time.
Duck---- DODGE
duck---- dodge!!
DuCk ---- DoDdgEE!!
Their games so predictable :-D

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Your distraction with the sickology mumbo-jumbo shows, once again, your reluctance to back up your fantastic claims.

Wow

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Afternoon wh: this is getting to be fun. hehehe
You posted -->Copy paste skills are wonderful Art.
***********
Yes, swr was an excellent teacher.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
you posted --> They keep giving up baloney references and pseudo-science to back bogus claims yet they refuse to accept anything legitimate as if science was a big bad four letter word.

***************
you can of course, and will post specific data showing this ? Do I detect an interesting bit of self induced psychological amnesia? May I ask what is a legitimate science?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
you posted --> I sure do like watching them sink further in their lies and silly pseudo-science.
************
I am sure that you aren't so selfish that you wouldn't let us in on some of these lies, particularly mine . Listening with full attention and my mouth open in awe because of your unique perception abilities.

Incidentally, a beginning Psychologist would say that the quality of your posts is dropping radically, this is not indicative of high formal training, self control, or self confidence.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[GuyinWH]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Afternoon wh: this is getting to be fun. hehehe
You posted -->Copy paste skills are wonderful Art.
***********
Yes, swr was an excellent teacher.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
you posted --> They keep giving up baloney references and pseudo-science to back bogus claims yet they refuse to accept anything legitimate as if science was a big bad four letter word.

***************
you can of course, and will post specific data showing this ? Do I detect an interesting bit of self induced psychological amnesia? May I ask what is a legitimate science?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
you posted --> I sure do like watching them sink further in their lies and silly pseudo-science.
************
I am sure that you aren't so selfish that you wouldn't let us in on some of these lies, particularly mine . Listening with full attention and my mouth open in awe because of your unique perception abilities.

Incidentally, a beginning Psychologist would say that the quality of your posts is dropping radically, this is not indicative of high formal training, self control, or self confidence.

Don Jose de La Mancha

wow... ok you're going on ignore again. But not before I answer this post.
Here real simple:
"you can of course, and will post specific data showing this ? Do I detect an interesting bit of self induced psychological amnesia? May I ask what is a legitimate science?"

It's been posted about REPEATEDLY in this thread and in various others, evidently you did as I know you LRL kooks do, you choose to ignore it all.
SO..... I do detect an interesting bit of self induced psychological amnesia!

A legitimate science ... would be basically any branch of engineering including physics, geophysics, and biology. You have provided none, we have provided examples from everyone. Again; you have chosen to ignore them.

No answer for the rest, i'll let you wallow in your own foolish and prideful delusions.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

HI wh, you posted regarding jury duties --> Once again you're just as confused as Art.
You're dead wrong; read again. I'll have to explain later (or maybe someone else will) since you're so caught up in yourself.
EDIT: ahh
I'm going to have to make it REALLY simple now...
**********
Thanks for making it so simple, and here I always thought that -- quote-->


THE DEFINITION OF JURY NULLIFICATION AND ITS RAMIFICATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Definition of Jury Nullification is Not Provided to Prospective Jurors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a way that “We the People” can still defend our freedom, but this first requires a definition of jury nullification, which in short means that a jury decision can make an existing law null and void.

Yes, We the People can overturn unjust laws, however, we need to embrace the role of juror, rather than try to avoid it.

Let us remember the basis on which our country was founded. God created man, then man created the Constitution, then the Constitution created government, and then the government created corporations.


Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[GuyinWH]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

HI wh, you posted regarding jury duties --> Once again you're just as confused as Art.
You're dead wrong; read again. I'll have to explain later (or maybe someone else will) since you're so caught up in yourself.
EDIT: ahh
I'm going to have to make it REALLY simple now...
**********
Thanks for making it so simple, and here I always thought that -- quote-->


THE DEFINITION OF JURY NULLIFICATION AND ITS RAMIFICATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Definition of Jury Nullification is Not Provided to Prospective Jurors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a way that “We the People” can still defend our freedom, but this first requires a definition of jury nullification, which in short means that a jury decision can make an existing law null and void.

Yes, We the People can overturn unjust laws, however, we need to embrace the role of juror, rather than try to avoid it.

Let us remember the basis on which our country was founded. God created man, then man created the Constitution, then the Constitution created government, and then the government created corporations.


Don Jose de La Mancha

Thanks for another post from beyond irrelevance. You missed the point. Thought you knew how to read.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Hi again wh: You posted -->A legitimate science ... would be basically any branch of engineering including physics, geophysics, and biology. You have provided none, we have provided examples from everyone. Again; you have chosen to ignore them.
**************
Post where we /I have chosen to ignore any science, legitimate or otherwise. I have not. What I have done, is to question 'your' version of a particular factor included among myriads of factors in any one phase of science.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

WH, I guess that I need to

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

EE you posted -->No. Understanding is not a "psychological" process.

Psychology means "study of the spirit," which is the person, himself, not the body.

How can understanding be a "study of [anything] process"?

Understanding is simply when a person knows something, to one degree or another, about something. There are different levels of understanding. For example, a person can know that a rock is a rock, or a person can know that the rock is composed of mineral matter, or a person can know what mineral matter a certain rock is composed of, or a person can understand to a much greater degree than than---things like crystalline structure, molecules, atoms, and so forth.

It's not absolutely nothing to do with psychology. Except that Psychology likes to try to tie everything into itself, to make its collection of non-science seem more encompassing, and thus important. They should "psychoanalyze" themselves sometime! Except it would probably make them nuttier than they already are
**************

You would make my prof in pre med a bit unhappy with that definition. hheheh Incidentally one of the first cases for them is to psychoanalyze themselves.

I am at bit of a loss on your statement that it does not involve learning or understanding??

Don Jose de La Mancha

p.s. The simplest way to describe the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist is that a psychologist primarily aids the depressed patient by counseling and psychotherapy. A psychiatrist may also perform psychotherapy; but, in addition, can prescribe medications and perform ECT (electroconvulsive therapy). A psychiatrist is a medical doctor. A psychologist may hold a doctoral degree (Ph.D.) and be called "doctor"; but, is not a medical doctor (M.D.).