Fraud on a vast scale (EP Times story)

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

That's not an admission. It's public knowledge.

Thank you...Then please tell us where this public knowledge can be found?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

Seriously now, what test do you want me to take? Don't even say Carl's test, because I don't even know how to use an LRL. But if I DID take Carl's test, and failed, then according to you, that would not necessarily mean LRL's don't work.

Nope. I don't particularly want anyone to take any tests. That's their problem, not mine.

You are right about testing, though. One person with one LRL, failing one test, wouldn't mean that all LRLs don't work. But that is not the purpose of testing, anyway.

There is a combination of things that mean all LRLs don't work. You appear to be uninformed---

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


Obviously, the thing with testing, is that of all the alleged LRL owners, none have ever passed a random double-blind test. NONE. If any LRL actually worked, someone would have come forward, brought a backup machine just in case, and passed a test by now. It hasn't happened, and it isn't going to happen with any LRL currently on the market.

The evidence is overwhelming. (To all but the LRL promoters, that is!)

 

[EE THr]

The topic is about LRL devices, not people....remember?

Oh, poor baby! There you are claiming to be the innocent victim, again.



ref: #28, Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

That's not an admission. It's public knowledge.

Thank you...Then please tell us where this public knowledge can be found?

Get a book on electronics manufacturing.

Hint: "Public knowledge" means that it is not a secret.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Seriously now, what test do you want me to take? Don't even say Carl's test, because I don't even know how to use an LRL. But if I DID take Carl's test, and failed, then according to you, that would not necessarily mean LRL's don't work.

Nope. I don't particularly want anyone to take any tests. That's their problem, not mine.

You are right about testing, though. One person with one LRL, failing one test, wouldn't mean that all LRLs don't work. But that is not the purpose of testing, anyway.

So then, that LRL user that failed Carl's test Wouldn't mean that all LRL's don't work. Thank you.

There is a combination of things that mean all LRLs don't work. You appear to be uninformed---

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

They never will be refuted by you. You simply deny everything anyone says.

Obviously, the thing with testing, is that of all the alleged LRL owners, none have ever passed a random double-blind test. NONE. If any LRL actually worked, someone would have come forward, brought a backup machine just in case, and passed a test by now. It hasn't happened, and it isn't going to happen with any LRL currently on the market.

The evidence is overwhelming. (To all but the LRL promoters, that is!)

ALLEGED LRL owners? So now you're not even sure if people actually OWN LRL's?

 

[Kentucky Kache]

EE, you walked into that with your eyes open, and you know it. Stop trying to sound like you knew it all along. You have admitted that a device can work fine in tests, but then fail in the field. You were played like a cheap fiddle, so don't even bother.

Awaiting your long and glorious explanation.

Cheap fiddle.... ....snicker.

Caught 'im with his pants down again, dint ya?
(Those silly Randi boys, heheh)

At one time or another, I think every skeptic on here has pretended to be just an innocent person "looking for the truth."

But they always show their real colors eventually.

They are so preoccupied with personal attacks, because they know they can't attack facts.

I'm satisfied that they always expose themselves as promoters of fraudulent tests.

And I hear some of them even have trouble telling the difference between women and men.

 

[EE THr]

Seriously now, what test do you want me to take? Don't even say Carl's test, because I don't even know how to use an LRL. But if I DID take Carl's test, and failed, then according to you, that would not necessarily mean LRL's don't work.

Nope. I don't particularly want anyone to take any tests. That's their problem, not mine.

You are right about testing, though. One person with one LRL, failing one test, wouldn't mean that all LRLs don't work. But that is not the purpose of testing, anyway.

So then, that LRL user that failed Carl's test Wouldn't mean that all LRL's don't work. Thank you.

That's obvious to anyone with any common sense whatsoever.

Like I said before, the point is that NO LRL has ever passed a scientifically administered random double-blind test.

There is a combination of things that mean all LRLs don't work. You appear to be uninformed---

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

They never will be refuted by you. You simply deny everything anyone says.

Now you are contradicting yourself, like all LRL promoters eventually do. I just agreed with you, above. Your memory span seems to be even less than your integrity.

Obviously, the thing with testing, is that of all the alleged LRL owners, none have ever passed a random double-blind test. NONE. If any LRL actually worked, someone would have come forward, brought a backup machine just in case, and passed a test by now. It hasn't happened, and it isn't going to happen with any LRL currently on the market.

The evidence is overwhelming. (To all but the LRL promoters, that is!)

ALLEGED LRL owners? So now you're not even sure if people actually OWN LRL's?

"ALL" the alleged LRL owners. Meaning the "thousands" that Art claims. Only those who fell victim to the scam would have bought them, and only the dim witted would keep trying to use them after they see that they just don't work. I doubt that it's anywhere near as many as Art claims. But if you would like to list names and phone numbers of all the alleged owners, so they can be verified, I would be willing to reconsider my conclusion.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Seriously now, what test do you want me to take? Don't even say Carl's test, because I don't even know how to use an LRL. But if I DID take Carl's test, and failed, then according to you, that would not necessarily mean LRL's don't work.

Nope. I don't particularly want anyone to take any tests. That's their problem, not mine.

You are right about testing, though. One person with one LRL, failing one test, wouldn't mean that all LRLs don't work. But that is not the purpose of testing, anyway.

So then, that LRL user that failed Carl's test Wouldn't mean that all LRL's don't work. Thank you.

That's obvious to anyone with any common sense whatsoever.

Like I said before, the point is that NO LRL has ever passed a scientifically administered random double-blind test.

There is a combination of things that mean all LRLs don't work. You appear to be uninformed---

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

They never will be refuted by you. You simply deny everything anyone says.

Now you are contradicting yourself, like all LRL promoters eventually do. I just agreed with you, above. Your memory span seems to be even less than your integrity.

Obviously, the thing with testing, is that of all the alleged LRL owners, none have ever passed a random double-blind test. NONE. If any LRL actually worked, someone would have come forward, brought a backup machine just in case, and passed a test by now. It hasn't happened, and it isn't going to happen with any LRL currently on the market.

The evidence is overwhelming. (To all but the LRL promoters, that is!)

ALLEGED LRL owners? So now you're not even sure if people actually OWN LRL's?

"ALL" the alleged LRL owners. Meaning the "thousands" that Art claims. Only those who fell victim to the scam would have bought them, and only the dim witted would keep trying to use them after they see that they just don't work. I doubt that it's anywhere near as many as Art claims. But if you would like to list names and phone numbers of all the alleged owners, so they can be verified, I would be willing to reconsider my conclusion.

Dim witted. Preoccupied with personal attacks are ya?

 

[EE THr]

KK---

It's no wonder that you and Big J see eye to eye on things, you have a lot in common---neither of you know how to use an LRL (much less why they can't work), and merely post on here as Trolls, casting nothing but attempts at personal attacks.

If you collect a paycheck for doing it, that would improve my opinion of you both, to merely being crooks, instead of full blown nut cases.

 

[EE THr]

Seriously now, what test do you want me to take? Don't even say Carl's test, because I don't even know how to use an LRL. But if I DID take Carl's test, and failed, then according to you, that would not necessarily mean LRL's don't work.

Nope. I don't particularly want anyone to take any tests. That's their problem, not mine.

You are right about testing, though. One person with one LRL, failing one test, wouldn't mean that all LRLs don't work. But that is not the purpose of testing, anyway.

So then, that LRL user that failed Carl's test Wouldn't mean that all LRL's don't work. Thank you.

That's obvious to anyone with any common sense whatsoever.

Like I said before, the point is that NO LRL has ever passed a scientifically administered random double-blind test.

There is a combination of things that mean all LRLs don't work. You appear to be uninformed---

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

They never will be refuted by you. You simply deny everything anyone says.

Now you are contradicting yourself, like all LRL promoters eventually do. I just agreed with you, above. Your memory span seems to be even less than your integrity.

Obviously, the thing with testing, is that of all the alleged LRL owners, none have ever passed a random double-blind test. NONE. If any LRL actually worked, someone would have come forward, brought a backup machine just in case, and passed a test by now. It hasn't happened, and it isn't going to happen with any LRL currently on the market.

The evidence is overwhelming. (To all but the LRL promoters, that is!)

ALLEGED LRL owners? So now you're not even sure if people actually OWN LRL's?

"ALL" the alleged LRL owners. Meaning the "thousands" that Art claims. Only those who fell victim to the scam would have bought them, and only the dim witted would keep trying to use them after they see that they just don't work. I doubt that it's anywhere near as many as Art claims. But if you would like to list names and phone numbers of all the alleged owners, so they can be verified, I would be willing to reconsider my conclusion.

Dim witted. Preoccupied with personal attacks are ya?

Name the person I attacked.

Your understanding of "personal attack" is lacking.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

KK---

It's no wonder that you and Big J see eye to eye on things, you have a lot in common---neither of you know how to use an LRL (much less why they can't work), and merely post on here as Trolls, casting nothing but attempts at personal attacks.

If you collect a paycheck for doing it, that would improve my opinion of you both, to merely being crooks, instead of full blown nut cases.

You call us dim witted, trolls, nut cases and various other things, and in the same breath say WE cast nothing but attempts at personal attacks. Do you think people can't see what you post?
You're really not helping yourself here.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Like I said before, the point is that NO LRL has ever passed a scientifically administered random double-blind test.

Yes you have said that before..And I have asked you to tell us where the information about these scientifically administered random double-blind test can be found?

"ALL" the alleged LRL owners. Meaning the "thousands" that Art claims. Only those who fell victim to the scam would have bought them, and only the dim witted would keep trying to use them after they see that they just don't work. I doubt that it's anywhere near as many as Art claims.

http://www.rangertell.com/
An estimated 4000 people use Rangertell

But if you would like to list names and phone numbers of all the alleged owners, so they can be verified, I would be willing to reconsider my conclusion.

Why would we do that?...Are you not happy just to insult the 60 plus owner/operators that have given their testimonials here on t-net?..Maybe you can get the list from Ranger Tell..Art

 

[EE THr]

KK---

It's no wonder that you and Big J see eye to eye on things, you have a lot in common---neither of you know how to use an LRL (much less why they can't work), and merely post on here as Trolls, casting nothing but attempts at personal attacks.

If you collect a paycheck for doing it, that would improve my opinion of you both, to merely being crooks, instead of full blown nut cases.

You call us dim witted, trolls, nut cases and various other things, and in the same breath say WE cast nothing but attempts at personal attacks. Do you think people can't see what you post?
You're really not helping yourself here.

Is is now supposed to be my fault that you troll this board (and probably others)?

And is it my fault that you can't read? I referred to LRL users, and you said you weren't one. What's your problem?

Anyone who would buy an obvious scam product actually is dim witted---are you claiming that is my fault too?

Since you don't post anything about LRLs, then yes, that leaves nothing but your insults. Are you also saying it's my fault that you don't know anything about LRLs? Or electronics?

And I don't need to "help myself here." I'm doing just fine, thank you.

And you are giving me much more help than I need!

You are your own best debunker!

 

[EddieR]

The topic is about LRL devices, not people....remember?

Oh, poor baby! There you are claiming to be the innocent victim, again.



ref: #28, Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

I'm not claiming anything. Geez... no wonder nobody takes you seriously. I was simply pointing out a fact (evidently I didn't do it simply enough).



Why is it so freakin' hard for you guys to understand the goose/gander concept? Is it REALLY that difficult to decipher?

Geez.

 

[EddieR]

EE, you walked into that with your eyes open, and you know it. Stop trying to sound like you knew it all along. You have admitted that a device can work fine in tests, but then fail in the field. You were played like a cheap fiddle, so don't even bother.

Awaiting your long and glorious explanation.

Cheap fiddle.... ....snicker.

Caught 'im with his pants down again, dint ya?
(Those silly Randi boys, heheh)

At one time or another, I think every skeptic on here has pretended to be just an innocent person "looking for the truth."

But they always show their real colors eventually.

They are so preoccupied with personal attacks, because they know they can't attack facts.

I'm satisfied that they always expose themselves as promoters of fraudulent tests.

And I hear some of them even have trouble telling the difference between women and men.

 

[pronghorn]

EE, you walked into that with your eyes open, and you know it. Stop trying to sound like you knew it all along. You have admitted that a device can work fine in tests, but then fail in the field. You were played like a cheap fiddle, so don't even bother.

Awaiting your long and glorious explanation.

Cheap fiddle.... ....snicker.

Caught 'im with his pants down again, dint ya?
(Those silly Randi boys, heheh)

At one time or another, I think every skeptic on here has pretended to be just an innocent person "looking for the truth."

But they always show their real colors eventually.

They are so preoccupied with personal attacks, because they know they can't attack facts.

I'm satisfied that they always expose themselves as promoters of fraudulent tests.

And I hear some of them even have trouble telling the difference between women and men.

There's more than one male LRL promoter here
Thought Judy was the only one!

None with cojones enough to take a test to prove
that LRL's work huh

 

[EE THr]

The topic is about LRL devices, not people....remember?

Oh, poor baby! There you are claiming to be the innocent victim, again.



ref: #28, Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

I'm not claiming anything. Geez... no wonder nobody takes you seriously. I was simply pointing out a fact (evidently I didn't do it simply enough).



Why is it so freakin' hard for you guys to understand the goose/gander concept? Is it REALLY that difficult to decipher?

Geez.

Let's see how far along we are with this. You don't want to talk about the LRL fraud, so you are trying to change the subject to geese and ganders?

Why does nothing coming from the LRL promoters surprise me anymore?

 

[EE THr]

Wow! It's Big J's penny powered LRL!



Amazing!

 

[EddieR]

The topic is about LRL devices, not people....remember?

Oh, poor baby! There you are claiming to be the innocent victim, again.



ref: #28, Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

I'm not claiming anything. Geez... no wonder nobody takes you seriously. I was simply pointing out a fact (evidently I didn't do it simply enough).



Why is it so freakin' hard for you guys to understand the goose/gander concept? Is it REALLY that difficult to decipher?

Geez.

Let's see how far along we are with this. You don't want to talk about the LRL fraud, so you are trying to change the subject to geese and ganders?

Why does nothing coming from the LRL promoters surprise me anymore?

Obviously YOU aren't too far along in this at all. I simply (?) pointed out what YOU have stated in the past...that the forum is about LRL's, not people. Of course, if YOU want to talk about people instead of LRL's it's okay, right? But heaven forbid somebody else do it.

(Of course, anyone with a modicum of common sense knows that the subject matter MUST include people, since a person is required to be present at some point to use a LRL)

You remind me of a spoiled little kid. Gotta have it your way every time.

Why does nothing coming from the Randi-ites surprise ME anymore?

 

[EE THr]

Obviously YOU aren't too far along in this at all. I simply (?) pointed out what YOU have stated in the past...that the forum is about LRL's, not people. Of course, if YOU want to talk about people instead of LRL's it's okay, right? But heaven forbid somebody else do it.

(Of course, anyone with a modicum of common sense knows that the subject matter MUST include people, since a person is required to be present at some point to use a LRL)

You remind me of a spoiled little kid. Gotta have it your way every time.

Why does nothing coming from the Randi-ites surprise ME anymore?

Ah...Let's just see how this works, OK?

Someone starts with a post which is factual data about LRLs.

Then the LRL promoters try to refute it.

The LRL promoters fail to refute it, as usual.

The LRL promoters then stop talking about LRLs, and change the subject to the people posting, and throw in a jab about Randi or Carl, from time-to-time.

What's to say, whey you guys aren't talking about LRLs anymore? Not much, except to point out that you have tried to change the subject, again!

Then you start whining about what you, yourselves, caused in the first place. Poor babies. Then the trolls, who know nothing whatever about LRLs, pop their ugly heads in, with a few insults, plus some nonsensical posts. It always plays out this way. Same old same old.

Then you come along and stick your two cents worth in, as though you've never seen this pattern before. What a joke!

I just looked at your posts in this thread. No data about LRLs at all. Just wise cracks, attempted nit-picking, and personal insults, as usual.

Boring!