woof!
Bronze Member
- Dec 12, 2010
- 1,185
- 413
- Detector(s) used
- BS detector
- Primary Interest:
- Other
I say LRL's are fraudulent, so where's my Chuckiegram?
For about a year now, I've been using the F-word on this forum- "fraudulent". LRL's are fraudulent, not because of the swingy thingy, but because of the bogus electronics.
Suppose that for the last year I'd been posting that Garrett metal detectors (for instance) were "fraudulent". Not complaining that they don't always work as well as a customer wishes they would, not complaining that some of the advertising includes a bit of hyperbole, not whining that an occasional unit something went wrong with it, not beating a drum over a particular sale where something allegedly went wrong on the money end. Nope, saying that the machines themselves were outright frauds-- that they do not detect metal.
If I were to do that as openly as I diss LRL's here, I would probably hear from Charlie's lawyers real quick. Garrett metal detectors aren't fraudulent. They do detect metal and nobody disputes it, not even me, and I work for a competitor!
Back around 2002, I was very active in the old TNET dowsing-LRL forum (sorry, as far as I can tell it's not archived). So it's not like the manufacturers of LRL's don't know who I am and what I say. Even had personal correspondence with several of 'em, and friendlier than you might expect. One was even fishing to hire me, though probably for something of a more scientific nature.
Here's the kicker. In this entire time, I have not received one, not one, threat of a lawsuit from an LRL manufacturer or distributor of same. For a while, I was begging for a "Chuckiegram" like at least a couple other LRL debunkers got, and Chuckie never came through. If he wanted to insult me, that was the right way to do it.
The bottom line is that one can refer to LRL's as "fraudulent" with absolute impunity, because the things are fraudulent and nobody knows that better than the manufacturers thereof themselves. As far as I can tell, Chuckie even stopped sending Carl "Chuckiegrams" because with every "Chuckiegram" Chuckie exposed himself to even more ridicule. And in a funny twist of marketing verbiage, Chuckie now denies that he's involved with "LRL's". And in a funny way that's sort of true: nowadays the "item" he sells is not an apparatus, it's permission to swingy the thingy on which the readout explicitly states the thingy itself belongs to Chuckie. If that ain't the business model, perhaps one of Chuckie's buddies will post a clarification.
* * * * *
And then there's Thomas. I've been praising the Gravitator advertising ever since the bad old days, and (since the ad has hardly changed over the years) I still praise it. It tells the whole story of what an LRL is, even though the advertisement doesn't say anything about LRL's or even dowsing. The guy oughta go to prison for the Deekle, but the Gravitator advertisement is such a valuable teaching piece that I'll be disappointed when we no longer see it. Since our products cross paths in the marketplace and neither of us is a small potatoes player, Thomas undoubtedly knows how I am and probably even reads some of my posts. After nearly 10 years, I've never received any complaint from Thomas and don't expect to any time soon. Thomas is smart, Chuckie's a bozo, but even Chuckie finally figured out the hard way what Thomas knew the whole time. Which is don't do battle on debunker turf, it draws too many spectators to a losing contest.
--Toto
For about a year now, I've been using the F-word on this forum- "fraudulent". LRL's are fraudulent, not because of the swingy thingy, but because of the bogus electronics.
Suppose that for the last year I'd been posting that Garrett metal detectors (for instance) were "fraudulent". Not complaining that they don't always work as well as a customer wishes they would, not complaining that some of the advertising includes a bit of hyperbole, not whining that an occasional unit something went wrong with it, not beating a drum over a particular sale where something allegedly went wrong on the money end. Nope, saying that the machines themselves were outright frauds-- that they do not detect metal.
If I were to do that as openly as I diss LRL's here, I would probably hear from Charlie's lawyers real quick. Garrett metal detectors aren't fraudulent. They do detect metal and nobody disputes it, not even me, and I work for a competitor!
Back around 2002, I was very active in the old TNET dowsing-LRL forum (sorry, as far as I can tell it's not archived). So it's not like the manufacturers of LRL's don't know who I am and what I say. Even had personal correspondence with several of 'em, and friendlier than you might expect. One was even fishing to hire me, though probably for something of a more scientific nature.
Here's the kicker. In this entire time, I have not received one, not one, threat of a lawsuit from an LRL manufacturer or distributor of same. For a while, I was begging for a "Chuckiegram" like at least a couple other LRL debunkers got, and Chuckie never came through. If he wanted to insult me, that was the right way to do it.
The bottom line is that one can refer to LRL's as "fraudulent" with absolute impunity, because the things are fraudulent and nobody knows that better than the manufacturers thereof themselves. As far as I can tell, Chuckie even stopped sending Carl "Chuckiegrams" because with every "Chuckiegram" Chuckie exposed himself to even more ridicule. And in a funny twist of marketing verbiage, Chuckie now denies that he's involved with "LRL's". And in a funny way that's sort of true: nowadays the "item" he sells is not an apparatus, it's permission to swingy the thingy on which the readout explicitly states the thingy itself belongs to Chuckie. If that ain't the business model, perhaps one of Chuckie's buddies will post a clarification.
* * * * *
And then there's Thomas. I've been praising the Gravitator advertising ever since the bad old days, and (since the ad has hardly changed over the years) I still praise it. It tells the whole story of what an LRL is, even though the advertisement doesn't say anything about LRL's or even dowsing. The guy oughta go to prison for the Deekle, but the Gravitator advertisement is such a valuable teaching piece that I'll be disappointed when we no longer see it. Since our products cross paths in the marketplace and neither of us is a small potatoes player, Thomas undoubtedly knows how I am and probably even reads some of my posts. After nearly 10 years, I've never received any complaint from Thomas and don't expect to any time soon. Thomas is smart, Chuckie's a bozo, but even Chuckie finally figured out the hard way what Thomas knew the whole time. Which is don't do battle on debunker turf, it draws too many spectators to a losing contest.
--Toto
BTW, thanks for using a fly, because I hate the taste of night crawlers.
