Doubt kills growth

[EE THr]

Scientific?

You skeptics are so biased, like notorious skeptic from the midwest said "I am totally unbiased." Whoever BELIEVES that is about a GULLIBLE as it gets. You missed your calling in politics.

Note: Normally, people put a name at the top of their messages, so people know who they are replying to. Or they will place at least a portion of a quote, in the proper quote box format, to indicate that, and to give others a way to see the actual quoted message (by clicking on the word "Quote).

Those who rely on confusion, seem to refrain from making themselves clear, in their method of posting replies.

You continue to be your own best debunker.

[Ads]

TreasureNet.com is the premier Treasure Hunting Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!

[EE THr]

~EE~

I was talking about this---
Quote from: EE THr on Yesterday at 05:54:19 pm

...the very, very, best advertisement---getting the most bang for their buck---would be to post the results of a Free Scientific Test.

Which Signal has ignored in this thread....

Darn..I thought I read a reply from Signal giving his terms for taking a test..It seems that a lot of people do not believe your theory is the correct...You have to realize that beggars seldom get what they are asking for... Art

There is no "theory" to it. A free test is a free test.

Nobody is talking about Signal's "terms" as being any part of "Scientific." In fact, it's as illogical as it gets. But it's a good example of you LRL promoters being your own best debunkers!

[EE THr]

~signal_line~

Scientific?

You skeptics are so biased, like notorious skeptic from the midwest said "I am totally unbiased." Whoever BELIEVES that is about a GULLIBLE as it gets. You missed your calling in politics.

Good to see you back...I see that we have found a subject that we agree on...this is the sorriest group of skeptics that Randi ever assigned to us..Yes they are like politicians ..You can’t believe anything that they say...Art

When a person or group has only very few facts to support their position, they will resort to filling in missing facts with insults.

But when they have no factual evidence at all, they will attempt to rely totally on insults, without posting any facts at all---like you have just done, above.

Thanks for continuing to be your own best debunkers!

[EE THr]

I'm a bit surprised that (some) LRL users still seem to take Carl serious other than skeptics.

Carl has a good test. But anyone can easily just claim it's somehow "not right." These claims never make any sense, but LRL promoters try to make them anyway. What else can they do?---They certainly can't pass a real Scientific test!

But nobody has had anything negative to say about my suggestions for a test. Even you can do that one, hung. So why don't you?

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Note: Normally, people put a name at the top of their messages, so people know who they are replying to. Or they will place at least a portion of a quote, in the proper quote box format, to indicate that, and to give others a way to see the actual quoted message (by clicking on the word "Quote).
Those who rely on confusion, seem to refrain from making themselves clear, in their method of posting replies.
You continue to be your own best debunker.
There is no "theory" to it. A free test is a free test.
Nobody is talking about Signal's "terms" as being any part of "Scientific." In fact, it's as illogical as it gets. But it's a good example of you LRL promoters being your own best debunkers!
When a person or group has only very few facts to support their position, they will resort to filling in missing facts with insults.
But when they have no factual evidence at all, they will attempt to rely totally on insults, without posting any facts at all---like you have just done, above.
Thanks for continuing to be your own best debunkers!
Carl has a good test. But anyone can easily just claim it's somehow "not right." These claims never make any sense, but LRL promoters try to make them anyway. What else can they do?---They certainly can't pass a real Scientific test!
But nobody has had anything negative to say about http://my suggestions for a test. Even you can do that one, hung. So why don't you?
Nothing new here..Just more of EE’s conCarl has a good test. But anyone can easily just claim it's somehow "not right." These claims never make any sense, but LRL promoters try to make them anyway. What else can they do?---They certainly can't pass a real Scientific test!

But nobody has had anything negative to say about http://my suggestions for a test. Even you can do that one, hung. So why don't you?

Nothing new here..Just more of EE’s confused logic..What’s wrong EE..Have we been able to put a lot of information about LRL’s on here that you can not spin and twist?....Art

[Carl-NC]

Mike, ya done gone all quiet on us... didja find my offer to let you design the test to be too scandalous to consider? Or do you just have everyone on "ignore"?

[woof!]

Looks like he went over to the dowsing forum to hawk his LRL's. As long as he doesn't post that they're actually LRL's and not plain vanilla dowsing rods, he'll probably get away with it. Of course when people PM him and find out how much he's asking for the lipstick on the pig, they may choke.

I post in the dowsing forum now and then, too. We'll see how it goes.

--Toto

[aarthrj3811]

??

[woof!]

Art's right with the . Signal told the guy he'd become a twirler, but the post ain't there no mo.

--Toto

[werleibr]

Art's right with the . Signal told the guy he'd become a twirler, but the post ain't there no mo.

--Toto

I read that also.