Maybe We Can Agree?

[EE THr]

Well...I think we have found our communication problem involving the dictionary. I don't know what YOUR dictionary has in it, but mine has the word "flatter". In your dictionary, what is the definition of the word "flater"?

That's #39, right on the button.

By the way, so is your dictionary "problem," but I just wanted to see how far you would try to go with that one.




Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

BTW, there is no pic of a girl named Eddie....no matter how much you wish. I don't swing that way.

Oh, sorry.

I was referring to the photo that said "Eddie" at the bottom. Had dark hair, in a cut that some people would call "butch" these days. Sort of heavy set, with a rounded face. It looked kind of like your avatar. This was an adult, but, as it appeared, had never once shaved on the face. Hmmmmmmm. Is there more than one Eddie on Big J's facebook?

Just asking because I wouldn't want to make a mistake, and upset you.

I have no idea about that one.

So, since it's not you, you won't mind if I go ahead and post the picture?

 

[EddieR]

BTW, there is no pic of a girl named Eddie....no matter how much you wish. I don't swing that way.

Oh, sorry.

I was referring to the photo that said "Eddie" at the bottom. Had dark hair, in a cut that some people would call "butch" these days. Sort of heavy set, with a rounded face. It looked kind of like your avatar. This was an adult, but, as it appeared, had never once shaved on the face. Hmmmmmmm. Is there more than one Eddie on Big J's facebook?

Just asking because I wouldn't want to make a mistake, and upset you.

I have no idea about that one.

So, since it's not you, you won't mind if I go ahead and post the picture?

If it's on Judy's Facebook page, you should probably ask her about posting it. I don't know anything about it.

Like I said earlier, If you want to see one of me, it's here on TNet.

 

[EE THr]

BTW, there is no pic of a girl named Eddie....no matter how much you wish. I don't swing that way.

Oh, sorry.

I was referring to the photo that said "Eddie" at the bottom. Had dark hair, in a cut that some people would call "butch" these days. Sort of heavy set, with a rounded face. It looked kind of like your avatar. This was an adult, but, as it appeared, had never once shaved on the face. Hmmmmmmm. Is there more than one Eddie on Big J's facebook?

Just asking because I wouldn't want to make a mistake, and upset you.

I have no idea about that one.

So, since it's not you, you won't mind if I go ahead and post the picture?

If it's on Judy's Facebook page, you should probably ask her about posting it. I don't know anything about it.

Like I said earlier, If you want to see one of me, it's here on TNet.

To be honest, I've pretty much lost interest in that now.

So can we get back to the topic?

 

[aarthrj3811]

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3] In addition to the offending poster, the noun troll can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in "that was an excellent troll you posted". While the term troll and its associated action trolling are primarily associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels highly subjective, with trolling being used to describe intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context. For example, recent media accounts have used the term troll to describe "a person who defaces internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."
Re: When Science shouts to the deaf
Reply To This Topic #35 Posted Jun 16, 2010, 04:00:20 PM Quote

This is ME. Marc Austin... the administrator and owner of this site. I am the one who warns people against fraudulent devices.

I have never said "there is not a device capable of locating gold and silver from a distance".

I have only stated the FACT... that >I< have seen people ripped off by fraudulent devices... and I recommend spending money to chat with a geophysicist BEFORE spending ONE dime on ANY LRL. Just get a second opinion before making your purchase. The wad you save just might be your own! HMM, a new header for the LRL forum!

Now - if you have a problem running your potential purchase past someone educated in things like locating things.... well say so... so we can cut to the chase.

Now who fits these statements ?

 

[EE THr]

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3] In addition to the offending poster, the noun troll can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in "that was an excellent troll you posted". While the term troll and its associated action trolling are primarily associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels highly subjective, with trolling being used to describe intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context. For example, recent media accounts have used the term troll to describe "a person who defaces internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."
Re: When Science shouts to the deaf
Reply To This Topic #35 Posted Jun 16, 2010, 04:00:20 PM Quote

This is ME. Marc Austin... the administrator and owner of this site. I am the one who warns people against fraudulent devices.

I have never said "there is not a device capable of locating gold and silver from a distance".

I have only stated the FACT... that >I< have seen people ripped off by fraudulent devices... and I recommend spending money to chat with a geophysicist BEFORE spending ONE dime on ANY LRL. Just get a second opinion before making your purchase. The wad you save just might be your own! HMM, a new header for the LRL forum!

Now - if you have a problem running your potential purchase past someone educated in things like locating things.... well say so... so we can cut to the chase.

Now who fits these statements ?

Thanks for the perfect #13, con-artie.


Like I have said before, I've never insulted anyone first....






Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

#13.. #35.. #39..Punt

 

[EE THr]

#13.. #35.. #39..Punt

And there you go...it's a high one...deep into the backfield, past the end zone, over the goal post...and way over the stands...into the parking lot!

con-artie, you went so far on that one, you'll have to pay admission to get back onto the field!





Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Let see now..You skeptics are always comparing LRL’s to the conventional Metal detectors..Will a conventional Metal detector find and locate Treasure without a human interface ?..Art

Still waiting EE..

And there you go...it's a high one...deep into the backfield, past the end zone, over the goal post...and way over the stands...into the parking lot!

con-artie, you went so far on that one, you'll have to pay admission to get back onto the field!

To who?

 

[EE THr]

Let see now..You skeptics are always comparing LRL’s to the conventional Metal detectors..Will a conventional Metal detector find and locate Treasure without a human interface ?..Art

Still waiting EE..

I believe I did answer that one at least once.

But here it is again---

You can build a robotic metal detector, without any human touching it to give it that super magic nano bio-energy, and it still works!

You can't do that with an LRL.

And that's that!





Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

You can build a robotic metal detector, without any human touching it to give it that super magic nano bio-energy, and it still works!

You can't do that with an LRL.

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,350128.msg2508526.html#msg2508526
They have already done just that..You want to see what your partners in crime had to say about it?
So your answer is yes.. someone has to hold the conventional metal detector in their hand in order to find treasure…But because a LR L needs to be held in a hand to locate treasure in your opinion is a bad thing?

 

[hung]

~EE~

You can build a robotic metal detector, without any human touching it to give it that super magic nano bio-energy, and it still works!

You can't do that with an LRL.

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,350128.msg2508526.html#msg2508526
They have already done just that..You want to see what your partners in crime had to say about it?
So your answer is yes.. someone has to hold the conventional metal detector in their hand in order to find treasure…But because a LR L needs to be held in a hand to locate treasure in your opinion is a bad thing?

Hi Art,
Don't even need to point to Arturito.
A simple Mineoro LR detector does the job without any hand interface, except to turn it on and calibrate the knobs.

In the days of the PDC210, I used to attach it in my car window pointing outside while I was driving and had the calibration gain reduced to avoid falsings. When travelling by car and when the detector beeped, I would stop and confirm the target by recalibrating to the standard gain when outside.
In fact one of my team members now deceased used to do just that. He even built an apparatus to keep the detector still and close to the window of his car.
An occasion, not only he detected an old gold watch that caused the detector to beep when he drove by a house, but also solved a crime for the local police.
When asked permission to dig in the front yard, he found the gold watch but also a dead body which later was identified as being missed and related to a local case.
Impressive.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey hung..I have also tried to use the Ranger Tell in the car…It worked but was to distracting so I when back to using a baited dowsing rod..Saves a lot of time..Art

 

[hung]

Hey hung..I have also tried to use the Ranger Tell in the car…It worked but was to distracting so I when back to using a baited dowsing rod..Saves a lot of time..Art

Are you using gold's latest frequency starting with 8...? If so, how do you like it?

 

[aarthrj3811]

The expression anecdotal evidence refers both to evidence that is factually unreliable, as well as evidence that may be true but cherry-picked or otherwise unrepresentative of typical cases.[1] In other words, there are two distinct meanings:
(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity; the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy.
(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.
In both cases the conclusion is unreliable; it may not be untrue, but it doesn't follow from the "evidence".
So in your opinion our evidence is unreliable ?

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

You can build a robotic metal detector, without any human touching it to give it that super magic nano bio-energy, and it still works!

You can't do that with an LRL.

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,350128.msg2508526.html#msg2508526
They have already done just that..You want to see what your partners in crime had to say about it?
So your answer is yes.. someone has to hold the conventional metal detector in their hand in order to find treasure…But because a LR L needs to be held in a hand to locate treasure in your opinion is a bad thing?

Flunk!

The link you posted is for a "gamma ray" machine, not a conventional metal detector.

Jeeeze!

When are you going to cut the nonsense?




Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[EE THr]

The expression anecdotal evidence refers both to evidence that is factually unreliable, as well as evidence that may be true but cherry-picked or otherwise unrepresentative of typical cases.[1] In other words, there are two distinct meanings:
(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity; the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy.
(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.
In both cases the conclusion is unreliable; it may not be untrue, but it doesn't follow from the "evidence".
So in your opinion our evidence is unreliable ?

You and hung-up have both run your credibility ratings to well below zero, with all of your nonsense, and you have been told such on many occasions when you have been caught lying.

Now you expect people to believe something just because you made it up?

That stuff is posted in the wrong section, con-artie. It should be in Comedy Central.






Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Are you using gold's latest frequency starting with 8...? If so, how do you like it?
Yes I am..It looks real promising..It completely ignores my Micro gold samples. It will also ignore 3 gold flakes. I have did a little test at the site of an ancient river bed and was very happy..Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

You haven't provided any evidence.

Stories fabricated and posted on a internet message board without any source of validation is not evidence.

Another of your Opinions
~SWR~

There are two potential pitfalls with MFDs and both are due to the incredible sensitivity. An MFD has the ability to pick up target signals from as much as 10 miles away, though 1-3 miles is more typical. This means that it can take quite some time and effort to trace out the signal line. Once you have the target pinpointed you may have to face another problem: depth. The MFD can detect targets as deep as 100-200 feet, so locating the target is only half the battle. If a metal detector does not verify the existance of a metal target at the identified location then you should bring in excavation equipment. If no obvious target is found when you reach 200 feet, then the target was most likely subatomic gold particles - you cannot see it and most chemical analyses will not detect it either, but the MFD will.

~SWR~
~Art~

Thank you SWR for admitting that there are MFD’s produced. Also thank you for admitting that these devices can pick up targets for @ 10 miles….I want to warn NorthWind that Carls unit uses Rods and the technology is around 15 years old…
Hard to believe that SWR is now a believer

….Art

 

[hung]

Are you using gold's latest frequency starting with 8...? If so, how do you like it?
Yes I am..It looks real promising..It completely ignores my Micro gold samples. It will also ignore 3 gold flakes. I have did a little test at the site of an ancient river bed and was very happy..Art

That's good to know. But I'm more interested in the results if you have them regarding the precision on getting gold close to a lot of rusted metals.
In a couple of months we are going to join an explorer who discovered several underground jesuit tunnels. In one of those tunnels is said to be hidden an english pirate treasure. We will be taking all our arsenal of LRLs as usual and the new examiner freqs will be put to test.