The deceitfulness of the LRLs

[EE THr]

...I post the entire conversation....

Just lazily clicking on the quote button, rather than cutting out at least most of what everyone has already read, especially if it doesn't apply to your reply, is considered to be a rude clogging up of a thread page. Especially when the old text is five or ten messages long, or more. Everyone has already read what has been said, and if they need to review it, it's easier to read in the messages themselves.

You're just too lazy to clean it up before hitting the Post button.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

But Eddie claims that he is unbiased, and has no views.

No that is false..He has stated that he wants to learn the real facts.

He has never mentioned finding treasure with LRLs.

That is a complete falsehood...His very first post was a testimonial about find his lost ring in a hay field

Apparently, since you don't have any logical information to support your imaginary devices

What imaginary devices are you talking about..You have stated that you were skeptical from seeing photo’s of a device in an ad..Is that what you are now claiming was an imaginary fact?

you want to simply apply a "one size fits all" motive for promoting LRLs---

No..That seems to be what you want people to believe as you have been told many time that they all are all different

even to those who claim they don't promote them.

See the above as that is another false statement

See, Eddie---Even Art has observed that you favor the LRL scam.

Wrong..Art believes that Eddier has an open mind and is not blinded by skeptic believes.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Just lazily clicking on the quote button, rather than cutting out at least most of what everyone has already read, especially if it doesn't apply to your reply, is considered to be a rude clogging up of a thread page. Especially when the old text is five or ten messages long, or more. Everyone has already read what has been said, and if they need to review it, it's easier to read in the messages themselves.

You're just too lazy to clean it up before hitting the Post button.

Poor boy..I guess he object to posts that forces him into making excuses because he has nothing to spin or twist..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Just lazily clicking on the quote button, rather than cutting out at least most of what everyone has already read, especially if it doesn't apply to your reply, is considered to be a rude clogging up of a thread page. Especially when the old text is five or ten messages long, or more. Everyone has already read what has been said, and if they need to review it, it's easier to read in the messages themselves.

You're just too lazy to clean it up before hitting the Post button.

Poor boy..I guess he object to posts that forces him into making excuses because he has nothing to spin or twist..Art

Either you have such low regard for your pal Eddie, that you think he is incapable of answering his own posts; or you have such a need to insult people that you compulsively butt in all the time.

 

[EddieR]

Okay, to begin with: Your "want" explanation leaves a lot to be desired. If you consider me asking questions "wanting", then yep, I "want". If someone posts what they perceive as truth, and I see something that may be a flaw in it, then I may question it.

Then you say I only question the ones against LRL's. True enough, to a point. Reason is, you guys are asking the questions of the LRL guys...I'm reading the answers. Why should I ask the same questions?
Also, you say I "accept" what the LRL'ers are giving as "proof". Where have I stated that I accept it as proof? If I accepted it as proof, don't you think I would be saying that LRL's work? But I never say that, because I don't know if they do or not, as I have only used one (and I posted here that it didn't work) and can't speak for any of the other devices. What you have done here is post your opinion about me accepting proof.

Now for ownership of the LRL I used: You have your facts above backward. When I told of my experience, I said that my neighbor showed me how to use it, and I found my ring. At some point, I'm not sure of the date, he gave it to me as he said he had derived enough from it and wanted to pass it on. I did the same later, but was able to borrow it again to really test it. I posted here that it did not perform as advertised. The reason that it was four months ago when I changed my mind is because that is when I tested it. I didn't read reports, look at schematics, watch a video, or take somebody's word for it. I tested it personally.

Here are some of the posts documenting the ownership:

Thread: Those Who Have Been Scammed post #48 & #50
Thread: The Question LRL'ers Refuse To Answer post #349
Thread: Discussion On The Various Possible Theories That May Be Applicable To LRL's post #375

Just wanted clarification on your ownership because it never was clearly stated. You had originally stated you used a LRL, then you said you still had it but you were at work and it was at home, then you said that it was your neighbors, then finally you said a friend passing threw had it. Look at my last posts.. I posted in chronological order.

They may be in order, but that doesn't matter if you left some out, does it? If you will read the threads I posted, I said in 2009 that someone gave me the LRL. I'm sorry that I don't use this forum as a daily journal. I don't post every single move I make each day, so a lot happened in those years between first using the LRL and the time that I tested it.

I suppose now would be a good time to do an "EE style" post, wouldn't it?

Here ya go: I am not the subject, stick to LRL's that's what the subject is (whine).....what is your obsession with me? (whimper).....stop trying to invalidate me (grovel)

In all seriousness, I'm surprised that EE hasn't called you out on this post, seeing as how he is so adamant that the postings be about LRL's and not people....unless he's biased.....I guess we'll see, won't we?

I couldn't care less whether you believe me or not about the LRL. I don't really understand what you are looking for, other than some way to invalidate me. And if that be the case, that's fine. I don't care, as you have already established yourself as someone seeking to prove LRL's don't work, instead of seeking information on the phenomenon in general.....

which makes you biased, so we know what your postings will consist of.

 

[EddieR]

...I post the entire conversation....

Just lazily clicking on the quote button, rather than cutting out at least most of what everyone has already read, especially if it doesn't apply to your reply, is considered to be a rude clogging up of a thread page. Especially when the old text is five or ten messages long, or more. Everyone has already read what has been said, and if they need to review it, it's easier to read in the messages themselves.

You're just too lazy to clean it up before hitting the Post button.

My, my. An insult!

If you can't accept the explanation I gave, oh well.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Either you have such low regard for your pal Eddie,

No...I like Eddies post a he has an open mind

that you think he is incapable of answering his own posts;

No..I think that Eddie has no trouble expressing his thoughts..

or you have such a need to insult people that you compulsively butt in all the time.

Just posting the truth about LRL’s and see no reason not to post the truth..If the person takes the truth as an insult Then it is their problem...

Today you seem to think that you are in control of what we can post..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Either you have such low regard for your pal Eddie,

No...I like Eddies post a he has an open mind

that you think he is incapable of answering his own posts;

No..I think that Eddie has no trouble expressing his thoughts..

or you have such a need to insult people that you compulsively butt in all the time.

Just posting the truth about LRL’s and see no reason not to post the truth..If the person takes the truth as an insult Then it is their problem...

Today you seem to think that you are in control of what we can post..Art

Why would I try to control people who consistantly prove, by their own self-contradictions, the truth that LRLs and MFDs are fake? Thanks for the help!

 

[EE THr]

...I post the entire conversation....

Just lazily clicking on the quote button, rather than cutting out at least most of what everyone has already read, especially if it doesn't apply to your reply, is considered to be a rude clogging up of a thread page. Especially when the old text is five or ten messages long, or more. Everyone has already read what has been said, and if they need to review it, it's easier to read in the messages themselves.

You're just too lazy to clean it up before hitting the Post button.

My, my. An insult!

If you can't accept the explanation I gave, oh well.

So, now you're saying that it's my fault that you are too lazy to tidy up your posts, but would rather be rude?






P.S. Again, when are you going to post about the Section topic, which is LRLs?

I've provided an entire thread just so you could post something meaningful, but it's been a whole day, and you've contributed nothing!

 

[werleibr]

They may be in order, but that doesn't matter if you left some out, does it? If you will read the threads I posted, I said in 2009 that someone gave me the LRL. I'm sorry that I don't use this forum as a daily journal. I don't post every single move I make each day, so a lot happened in those years between first using the LRL and the time that I tested it.

I suppose now would be a good time to do an "EE style" post, wouldn't it?

Here ya go: I am not the subject, stick to LRL's that's what the subject is (whine).....what is your obsession with me? (whimper).....stop trying to invalidate me (grovel)

In all seriousness, I'm surprised that EE hasn't called you out on this post, seeing as how he is so adamant that the postings be about LRL's and not people....unless he's biased.....I guess we'll see, won't we?

I couldn't care less whether you believe me or not about the LRL. I don't really understand what you are looking for, other than some way to invalidate me. And if that be the case, that's fine. I don't care, as you have already established yourself as someone seeking to prove LRL's don't work, instead of seeking information on the phenomenon in general.....

which makes you biased, so we know what your postings will consist of.

I left nothing out. Why don't you go back and read what I had posted? It is you my good man that is leaving things out of your remarks.

First time you mention using an LRL was in the thread: Those that have been scammed post #20.
Then you mention that it was a Lectra Search in post #22 of the thread: Those that have been scammed.
Next you state that you still had the Lectra Search at your home in post #37 of the thread: Those that have been scammed.
Then in post #48 of the thread: Those that have been scammed, you once again state you still had it, but have not used it in a long time. And that the fellow you got yours from just gave it to you.
Next in Post #50 the thread: Those that have been scammed, You state he did well with it, so well that he retired at age 47, insinuating that he got to retire early because he found so much treasure with his LRL.
The above happened Dec 24 2009 until Dec 27 2009.
Now in the thread: Any Carl Anderson dowsing rod success stories? Post #13, You first state that it originally was your neighbors and he had shown you how to use it.
This was March 21st 2011

Then April 25th 2011 in the Thread: The Question LRL'ers Refuse To Answer , post# 253, You state that you would get inconsistent results from your tests that you had just completed.
Next on May 26 2011 you state that someone gave you the LRL , this was in Thread: Discussion On The Various Possible Theories That May Be Applicable To LRL's post #375
Then on May 27th 2011 you stated that you gave away the LRL to another person. This was in Thread: The Question LRL'ers Refuse To Answer post #349

Now for why I had asked about your ownership of the LRL If you read this in chronological order as I have put forth you will see how owned the LRL, then you state that the LRL was your neighbors when you utilized the device which insinuated that he only let you borrow it during this time. All I was trying for you to clarify was that after he let you borrow it that he just let you keep it or did he take it back for some amount of time before giving the LRL to you and then you giving the LRL away to someone else. That was all I was trying to ask when I put up the question

Can you clear up your ownership of said Lectra Search?

You see now how the chronological order of when you originally gave out the information for your ownership of the LRL can be called into question? You started with a story at C then continue to E then go to D then to A and B. And now since I have put forth the question and you have replied you have now gone in a lineal fashion from A to E.

Now you stated that

If someone posts what they perceive as truth, and I see something that may be a flaw in it, then I may question it.

and then go on to state

Then you say I only question the ones against LRL's. True enough, to a point. Reason is, you guys are asking the questions of the LRL guys...I'm reading the answers. Why should I ask the same questions?

The reason you don’t ask or criticize LRL guys is because you are reading their answers to the questions? And you are not asking why a lot of the LRL user answers contradict each other or have flaws in them? Instead you go after the ones who point out the Flaws in LRL user logic. Looks like you have a flaw in how you question things. See why you seem like an LRL promoter here? Question only one side about the evidence and not the other.

Now onto why you are the subject and not the LRL; YOU ASKED US FOR IT! YOU wanted the documentation of where you said what. So I honored your request and put forth the evidence that you so desired. Then from said evidence I had a question that I would have like some clarification on. This was a simple request I asked correct?

And yes you are correct that I am someone who is trying to show how the ways that they state an LRL work are not true at all. That there is no such thing as an LRL, or in other terms no such thing as and Electrically enhanced dowsing rod.

 

[EddieR]

They may be in order, but that doesn't matter if you left some out, does it? If you will read the threads I posted, I said in 2009 that someone gave me the LRL. I'm sorry that I don't use this forum as a daily journal. I don't post every single move I make each day, so a lot happened in those years between first using the LRL and the time that I tested it.

I suppose now would be a good time to do an "EE style" post, wouldn't it?

Here ya go: I am not the subject, stick to LRL's that's what the subject is (whine).....what is your obsession with me? (whimper).....stop trying to invalidate me (grovel)

In all seriousness, I'm surprised that EE hasn't called you out on this post, seeing as how he is so adamant that the postings be about LRL's and not people....unless he's biased.....I guess we'll see, won't we?

I couldn't care less whether you believe me or not about the LRL. I don't really understand what you are looking for, other than some way to invalidate me. And if that be the case, that's fine. I don't care, as you have already established yourself as someone seeking to prove LRL's don't work, instead of seeking information on the phenomenon in general.....

which makes you biased, so we know what your postings will consist of.

I left nothing out. Why don't you go back and read what I had posted? It is you my good man that is leaving things out of your remarks.

First time you mention using an LRL was in the thread: Those that have been scammed post #20.
Then you mention that it was a Lectra Search in post #22 of the thread: Those that have been scammed.
Next you state that you still had the Lectra Search at your home in post #37 of the thread: Those that have been scammed.
Then in post #48 of the thread: Those that have been scammed, you once again state you still had it, but have not used it in a long time. And that the fellow you got yours from just gave it to you.
Next in Post #50 the thread: Those that have been scammed, You state he did well with it, so well that he retired at age 47, insinuating that he got to retire early because he found so much treasure with his LRL.
The above happened Dec 24 2009 until Dec 27 2009.
Now in the thread: Any Carl Anderson dowsing rod success stories? Post #13, You first state that it originally was your neighbors and he had shown you how to use it.
This was March 21st 2011

Then April 25th 2011 in the Thread: The Question LRL'ers Refuse To Answer , post# 253, You state that you would get inconsistent results from your tests that you had just completed.
Next on May 26 2011 you state that someone gave you the LRL , this was in Thread: Discussion On The Various Possible Theories That May Be Applicable To LRL's post #375
Then on May 27th 2011 you stated that you gave away the LRL to another person. This was in Thread: The Question LRL'ers Refuse To Answer post #349

Now for why I had asked about your ownership of the LRL If you read this in chronological order as I have put forth you will see how owned the LRL, then you state that the LRL was your neighbors when you utilized the device which insinuated that he only let you borrow it during this time. All I was trying for you to clarify was that after he let you borrow it that he just let you keep it or did he take it back for some amount of time before giving the LRL to you and then you giving the LRL away to someone else. That was all I was trying to ask when I put up the question

Can you clear up your ownership of said Lectra Search?

You see now how the chronological order of when you originally gave out the information for your ownership of the LRL can be called into question? You started with a story at C then continue to E then go to D then to A and B. And now since I have put forth the question and you have replied you have now gone in a lineal fashion from A to E.

Now you stated that

If someone posts what they perceive as truth, and I see something that may be a flaw in it, then I may question it.

and then go on to state

Then you say I only question the ones against LRL's. True enough, to a point. Reason is, you guys are asking the questions of the LRL guys...I'm reading the answers. Why should I ask the same questions?

The reason you don’t ask or criticize LRL guys is because you are reading their answers to the questions? And you are not asking why a lot of the LRL user answers contradict each other or have flaws in them? Instead you go after the ones who point out the Flaws in LRL user logic. Looks like you have a flaw in how you question things. See why you seem like an LRL promoter here? Question only one side about the evidence and not the other.

Now onto why you are the subject and not the LRL; YOU ASKED US FOR IT! YOU wanted the documentation of where you said what. So I honored your request and put forth the evidence that you so desired. Then from said evidence I had a question that I would have like some clarification on. This was a simple request I asked correct?

And yes you are correct that I am someone who is trying to show how the ways that they state an LRL work are not true at all. That there is no such thing as an LRL, or in other terms no such thing as and Electrically enhanced dowsing rod.

Looking back at the posts, I can see where it could be confusing. However, if you will notice, most of the info I gave was in response to questions from others. If I had posted the entire story at the same time, it would have made more sense. However, the events transpired over a length of time, and more detail was added in different posts.

To clarify: The neighbor brought the Lectra-Search to me to look for my ring (he was working with me in the field that day when I lost it). He showed me how to hold it, and how to triangulate the signals. The ring was found in a short time. I talked to him later about the device, asking him to explain how it worked. He said he had no idea, really just theories. Anyway, I kept talking about it and he called me later (I don't know the time frame here) and told me I could have the Lectra-Search. Never really using it that much, just playing with it off and on, I finally gave it away to a friend (detecting buddy) that was moving away. Later I borrowed it back when he came to visit family, tested it based on what I had read on the forum, and that's when I posted that it DID NOT work as advertised.

There you have it.

The part about the post being about me and not LRL's was a joke based on EE's posts.

 

[werleibr]

Looking back at the posts, I can see where it could be confusing. However, if you will notice, most of the info I gave was in response to questions from others. If I had posted the entire story at the same time, it would have made more sense. However, the events transpired over a length of time, and more detail was added in different posts.

To clarify: The neighbor brought the Lectra-Search to me to look for my ring (he was working with me in the field that day when I lost it). He showed me how to hold it, and how to triangulate the signals. The ring was found in a short time. I talked to him later about the device, asking him to explain how it worked. He said he had no idea, really just theories. Anyway, I kept talking about it and he called me later (I don't know the time frame here) and told me I could have the Lectra-Search. Never really using it that much, just playing with it off and on, I finally gave it away to a friend (detecting buddy) that was moving away. Later I borrowed it back when he came to visit family, tested it based on what I had read on the forum, and that's when I posted that it DID NOT work as advertised.

There you have it.

The part about the post being about me and not LRL's was a joke based on EE's posts.

Thank you for the clarification, Now hopefully the stories will stay together by both parties and not get diluted and twisted.

And the joke based on EE's post.. I had a feeling it was that, but not to sure. So in the words of homer DOH.

 

[EddieR]

Looking back at the posts, I can see where it could be confusing. However, if you will notice, most of the info I gave was in response to questions from others. If I had posted the entire story at the same time, it would have made more sense. However, the events transpired over a length of time, and more detail was added in different posts.

To clarify: The neighbor brought the Lectra-Search to me to look for my ring (he was working with me in the field that day when I lost it). He showed me how to hold it, and how to triangulate the signals. The ring was found in a short time. I talked to him later about the device, asking him to explain how it worked. He said he had no idea, really just theories. Anyway, I kept talking about it and he called me later (I don't know the time frame here) and told me I could have the Lectra-Search. Never really using it that much, just playing with it off and on, I finally gave it away to a friend (detecting buddy) that was moving away. Later I borrowed it back when he came to visit family, tested it based on what I had read on the forum, and that's when I posted that it DID NOT work as advertised.

There you have it.

The part about the post being about me and not LRL's was a joke based on EE's posts.

Thank you for the clarification, Now hopefully the stories will stay together by both parties and not get diluted and twisted.

And the joke based on EE's post.. I had a feeling it was that, but not to sure. So in the words of homer DOH.