Those that have been scammed..

[EE THr]

~EE~
Re: Those that have been scammed..
Reply To This Topic #490 Posted Today at 01:02:47 PM

If you think that court cases prove anything, then how come no debunker has ever been sued or arrested for slander? Because the LRL makers can't prove that they work, that's why.

And the reason they can't prove it, is because they just don't work! (Duh!)

~EE~
Re: Those that have been scammed..
Reply To This Topic #496 Posted Today at 03:32:44 PM

If you think that court cases prove something, then how come no debunker has ever been sued or arrested for slander? Because the LRL makers can't prove that they work, that's why.

And the reason they can't prove it, is because they just don't work! (Duh!)

Your acting like SWR now...What’s wrong? I see..You can’t get your hand out of the cookie jar..
Could the reason none of the debunkers (Skeptics) have not been sued is that they are great advertisement for the whole industry..Keep up the great work...Art

No, con-Artie, it couldn't be that.

It's because your LRLs are, indeed, a scam.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

You have proven to everyone that some, if not all, of your "proof" is fabricated, so it's impossible for you to impress me now.

And you didn't try to divert attention away from your fabricated statements by drawing Art into it? Gimme a break.

My statement was common knowledge, not fabricated. That's your lie.

Art was posting before you were, in fact it was his post that I was responding to.


Those who have been scammed, are anyone who has bought an LRL, and those who believed your phony claim that you are an unbiased spectator in this matter.

The bottom line is that LRLs don't work, and you are a scammer.


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

Common knowledge? Then it should be easy to post the references from which you gained this "common knowledge"....references which show that someone purchased a LRL, wasn't happy with it, threatened to sue, so the manufacturer (or seller) gave their money back to avoid a lawsuit. That was ONE of your claims. Can you post the verifiable references?

We'll work on this one then we'll go on to the other claims.

You might want to continue your phony whining about my statement. But I'm done with it.

If you can't comprehend my answers, that's entirely your little problem. I'm not going to hold your hand and spoon feed you lessons in English.

Your LRLs don't work---you have never responded to that, have you. And that is the topic.

 

[EE THr]

~Art ~

How can they explain how there are very few complains about the devices? How can they say they are fraudulent when there are no law suits?...

~EE~
If a customer can't be BS'd into thinking that it's their own fault the device doesn't work, then the manufacturer just gives them their money back. No money loss equals no damages for which to sue.

So there are no law suits so there is no fraud
Thank you for showing that you have no knowledge about the subject....

If you have anymore personal opinions I am always glad to shoot them down...Art

First and foremost, no LRL has ever been proven to the World to actually work.

Therefore any sales or promotion of the is fraud.

Manufacturers don't post complaints about them on their Websites. (Duh!)

Many people are embarrased to file complaints, after they realise how naive they were to buy an LRL. So that narrows down the number of those who would sue.

Many people don't have the funds to sue, because it costs so much. That narrows down the number of people who would sue, even further.

If a manufacturer is notified that a person intends to sue for their money back, the maker simply refunds the money to avoid a suit.

But initial complaints are first handled with BS about interference, lack of training, and so forth, until the customer is simply worn down, thinks it's his fault, and throws the piece of junk away. The rest are handled as above.

All of the mumbo-jumbo, and outright lies, that you come up with will never overcome the fact that LRLs just don't work. They have never been proven to the World that they will actually find anything, and never will be.

As hard as you try to change the subject away from the fact that they don't work, it still remains that LRLs are a fradulent hoax. Just like the court, above, found (and so have other top science labratories and authorities).

The only way you could ever overcome that is to provide real scientific proof to the World, but of course you refuse to even try, because you know that you would fail.

...And I made four general statements, not three.

If you can't count them, I certainly don't expect you to understand them....

 

[EE THr]

G'evening EE. You posted -->And you're not even an interesting troll, at that. <-- referring to Judy.

***************
If'n yer referring to our Judy, speak for yourself. She is one extremely intelligent gal, titled and going for her PHD, besides being - blushing -very sexy.

A perfect 'B and B' package, and an excellent foil for just about what ever you wish to talk about.

It was a very elevating day in my life when I met our Judy.

Don Jose de La Mancha

I read once that most people in jail have above average IQ. Intelligence is not necessarily related to wisdom.

Her love for LRL scammers doesn't indicate any inner beauty in my book, but if her brand of trolling turns you on, that's your problem to contend with. And your intent to vouch for LRL fraud is your decision to make, and you'll have to live with that.

 

[EE THr]

Art---

If you think that court cases prove something, then how come no debunker has ever been sued or arrested for slander? Because the LRL makers can't prove that they work, that's why.

And the reason they can't prove it, is because they just don't work! (Duh!)

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

Could the reason none of the debunkers (Skeptics) have not been sued is that they are great advertisement for the whole industry..Keep up the great work...Art

Uh-oh, "Innocent Eddie the Con Artist" will be after you for not answering!

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Many people are embarrased to file complaints, after they realise how naive they were to buy an LRL. So that narrows down the number of those who would sue.

Many people don't have the funds to sue, because it costs so much. That narrows down the number of people who would sue, even further.

If a manufacturer is notified that a person intends to sue for their money back, the maker simply refunds the money to avoid a suit.

But initial complaints are first handled with BS about interference, lack of training, and so forth, until the customer is simply worn down, thinks it's his fault, and throws the piece of junk away. The rest are handled as above.

Please prove your Claims...1000’s of consumers are waiting...Art

 

[EddieR]

Art---

If you think that court cases prove something, then how come no debunker has ever been sued or arrested for slander? Because the LRL makers can't prove that they work, that's why.

And the reason they can't prove it, is because they just don't work! (Duh!)

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

Could the reason none of the debunkers (Skeptics) have not been sued is that they are great advertisement for the whole industry..Keep up the great work...Art

Uh-oh, "Innocent Eddie the Con Artist" will be after you for not answering!

I see YOU as a con artist. You have tried to make everyone believe that you have some type of training in electronics (sure ya do)... You tell your little made up "facts", hoping that everyone will believe you... (we don't) then when called out on them you turn tail and run like a spanked puppy.

Everybody KNOWS you got caught in a fib. You are just making yourself look worse.

I think it's hilarious that you have resorted to personal attacks. I just called you out on your posting without verifiable facts...a posting that you NOW call a generalization. I call it a fabrication. You evidently don't have any evidence to support ANYTHING you have ever said so ya gotta make stuff up. And then you believe what you made up. Sounds kinda pathological to me. No wonder you don't like psychiatry...it hits too close to home.

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Many people are embarrased to file complaints, after they realise how naive they were to buy an LRL. So that narrows down the number of those who would sue.

Many people don't have the funds to sue, because it costs so much. That narrows down the number of people who would sue, even further.

If a manufacturer is notified that a person intends to sue for their money back, the maker simply refunds the money to avoid a suit.

But initial complaints are first handled with BS about interference, lack of training, and so forth, until the customer is simply worn down, thinks it's his fault, and throws the piece of junk away. The rest are handled as above.

Please prove your Claims...1000’s of consumers are waiting...Art

I will when you prove your claims that LRLs work.

 

[pronghorn]

G'evening EE. You posted -->And you're not even an interesting troll, at that. <-- referring to Judy.

***************
If'n yer referring to our Judy, speak for yourself. She is one extremely intelligent gal, titled and going for her PHD, besides being - blushing -very sexy.

A perfect 'B and B' package, and an excellent foil for just about what ever you wish to talk about.

It was a very elevating day in my life when I met our Judy.

Don Jose de La Mancha

And I had almost made it through the day without
throwing up.

 

[EE THr]

I see YOU as a con artist.

Nope. Get a dictionary. I'm not selling or promoting anything.

You have tried to make everyone believe that you have some type of training in electronics

Nope again. I've never made any claims other than posting that LRLs don't work electronically. And they don't.

As I have reminded you before, I am not the topic. It's LRLs, remember? Of course you do. But since you will never be able to prove that they work, you must attempt an ad hominem attack, to divert attention away from the fraudulent aspect of your con game.

You tell your little made up "facts", hoping that everyone will believe you... (we don't) then when called out on them you turn tail and run like a spanked puppy.

I'm here, doggie. And speaking of "made up," how about your feeble attempt to masquerade as an unbiased innocent bystander? That turned out to be an outright lie, didn't it.

Everybody KNOWS you got caught in a fib. You are just making yourself look worse.

Wrong. "Everybody" knows exactly what I meant, including you. But, since you have no way of proving your lies, you can only twist what I said, and try to focus attention on your nonsensical attack on me, and off of the fact that you are a scam artist.

News Flash: It didn't work. It still remains that LRLs don't work, and you will never be able to prove that a non-existant fantasy device does anything at all.

I think it's hilarious that you have resorted to personal attacks. I just called you out on your posting without verifiable facts...a posting that you NOW call a generalization. I call it a fabrication. You evidently don't have any evidence to support ANYTHING you have ever said so ya gotta make stuff up. And then you believe what you made up. Sounds kinda pathological to me. No wonder you don't like psychiatry...it hits too close to home.

Ah, not only did my statements expose you as lying about being an innocent bystander when you are really an LRL promoter, but now they have succeeded in exposing you as a (sickology) eugenics lover. Have you killed any babies lately?

I'm sure glad I made those statements. They have shown your true nature.

Keep up the good work---you are your own best debunker!

 

[EE THr]

G'evening EE. You posted -->And you're not even an interesting troll, at that. <-- referring to Judy.

***************
If'n yer referring to our Judy, speak for yourself. She is one extremely intelligent gal, titled and going for her PHD, besides being - blushing -very sexy.

A perfect 'B and B' package, and an excellent foil for just about what ever you wish to talk about.

It was a very elevating day in my life when I met our Judy.

Don Jose de La Mancha

And I had almost made it through the day without
throwing up.

I know what you mean. I'm not even going to ask what happened to the cigar.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

I will when you prove your claims that LRLs work.

I have with photo’s, movies, 60 testimonials on here and hundreds of testimonials on the web...Your turn to prove something...Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

I will when you prove your claims that LRLs work.

I have with photo’s, movies, 60 testimonials on here and hundreds of testimonials on the web...Your turn to prove something...Art

I mean real proof.

 

[EddieR]

I see YOU as a con artist.

Nope. Get a dictionary. I'm not selling or promoting anything.

You have tried to make everyone believe that you have some type of training in electronics

Nope again. I've never made any claims other than posting that LRLs don't work electronically. And they don't.

As I have reminded you before, I am not the topic. It's LRLs, remember? Of course you do. But since you will never be able to prove that they work, you must attempt an ad hominem attack, to divert attention away from the fraudulent aspect of your con game.

You tell your little made up "facts", hoping that everyone will believe you... (we don't) then when called out on them you turn tail and run like a spanked puppy.

I'm here, doggie. And speaking of "made up," how about your feeble attempt to masquerade as an unbiased innocent bystander? That turned out to be an outright lie, didn't it.

Everybody KNOWS you got caught in a fib. You are just making yourself look worse.

Wrong. "Everybody" knows exactly what I meant, including you. But, since you have no way of proving your lies, you can only twist what I said, and try to focus attention on your nonsensical attack on me, and off of the fact that you are a scam artist.

News Flash: It didn't work. It still remains that LRLs don't work, and you will never be able to prove that a non-existant fantasy device does anything at all.

I think it's hilarious that you have resorted to personal attacks. I just called you out on your posting without verifiable facts...a posting that you NOW call a generalization. I call it a fabrication. You evidently don't have any evidence to support ANYTHING you have ever said so ya gotta make stuff up. And then you believe what you made up. Sounds kinda pathological to me. No wonder you don't like psychiatry...it hits too close to home.

Ah, not only did my statements expose you as lying about being an innocent bystander when you are really an LRL promoter, but now they have succeeded in exposing you as a (sickology) eugenics lover. Have you killed any babies lately?

I'm sure glad I made those statements. They have shown your true nature.

Keep up the good work---you are your own best debunker!

Geez...you really BELIEVE that video? Tell me, why aren't you protesting it then? You sre so full of wind you remind me of a bean eating contest....not to mention you lie like a rug.

Believe me, I'm glad you told your little fibs, too. It showed everyone what a player you are trying to be.

Keep up the good work...and make your Big Daddy Randi proud! (He's got your back)

 

[EE THr]

Geez...you really BELIEVE that video? Tell me, why aren't you protesting it then? You sre so full of wind you remind me of a bean eating contest....not to mention you lie like a rug.

Believe me, I'm glad you told your little fibs, too. It showed everyone what a player you are trying to be.

Keep up the good work...and make your Big Daddy Randi proud! (He's got your back)

The video on the truth about psychology, which you are referring to, contains proof of all of it's statements, in the forms of documentation, eyewitnesses, names, dates, and locations.

If there is any specific evidence in the film which you would like to try and refute, feel free to do so, if you have evidence which is equallly valid.

(This video is cut into ten sections, so remember to click on the next one in sequence, after the first finishes. Note: The video thumbnails along the bottom aren't in sequential order, just mouse-over them until it reads the next one, for example the first one is 1/10, so the next one will be 2/10.)

 

[EE THr]

...not to mention you lie like a rug.

Wrong. I answered Arts silly question with a generalization which is commonly considered accurate among those fimilar with various reasons pertaining to whether or not lawsuits are brought.

While you, on the other hand, pleaded innocent to being in favor of LRLs, and whined that the debunkers shouldn't be contradicting you, because your were just an "unbiased" bystander. But now that you have been seen trying to twist my words around, and claim that my statement above is a lie, over and over, it is clear that you are mearly another LRL con artist shill.


If you believe that my referenced statements are not true, you can post your proof that they are not, instead of your nonsensical cry baby blathering.

 

[EE THr]

ER---

Here a couple of links I found, that shows even more reasons why people choose not to sue---

http://www.creditmanagementarchive.com/c/credit/297612/why-don39t-people-sue-more-often

This one pertains to suing doctors, but you can interpolate. Many of these reasons apply to the statements which I made on the subject---

http://www.protectingpatientrights.com/library/ten-reasons-why-you-shouldnt-sue-your-doctor-not.cfm


If you would like more, search Google.


And there were actually a couple more good ones in those links. I could add them to my statements, if you want....



P.S. So when are you going to demand from Art, the reasons why no LRL debunker has ever been sued? Oh, that's right, you're not, because you are an LRL promoter, also!

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

I mean real proof.

Gee..Please tell us what is better proof than we have put on this board?...Happy users seems to be real good proof and the lack of unhappy consumers helps..

The video on the truth about psychology, which you are referring to, contains proof of all of it's statements, in the forms of documentation, eyewitnesses, names, dates, and locations.

Please tell us what it has to do with Those that have been scammed..and the discussion about LRL’s?

P.S. So when are you going to demand from Art, the reasons why no LRL debunker has ever been sued?

Sorry the reason is to simple for you to understand..Your lack of proof aides them

I am sure if you had anything except for your lack of knowledge you would post it...

Oh, that's right, you're not, because you are an LRL promoter, also!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promoter
Promoter may refer to:
• Promoter (entertainment), one who makes arrangements for events
• Corporate promoter, an entity who takes active steps in the formation, organization, or financing of a corporation
• Promoter (biology), a regulatory region of DNA located upstream of a gene, providing a control point for regulated gene transcription
• Promoter (catalysis), an accelerator of a catalyst, though not a catalyst itself
• Promoter (role variant), one of the sixteen personality types of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter
• Promoter (Catholic church), an office of the Catholic Church such as Promoter of the Laity, Promoter of Peace and Justice, or Promoter of the Faith (also known as the Devil's Advocate)

I reckon it’s that reading comprehension thing again..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

I mean real proof.

Gee..Please tell us what is better proof than we have put on this board?

We've been through that dozens of times before. Since you can't understand that, it's no wonder that you don't understand that nobody believes all your fake unscientific "proof." For a better explanation, see---

Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?


...Happy users seems to be real good proof and the lack of unhappy consumers helps..

You have no happy users on this board---only a few LRL promoters & schills.

The video on the truth about psychology, which you are referring to, contains proof of all of it's statements, in the forms of documentation, eyewitnesses, names, dates, and locations.

Please tell us what it has to do with Those that have been scammed..and the discussion about LRL’s?

Again you can't read. Eddie asked about it, and claimed there was no proof of it. I guess he doesn't understand the difference between cheap talk and real proof, any more than you do.

P.S. So when are you going to demand from Art, the reasons why no LRL debunker has ever been sued?

Sorry the reason is to simple for you to understand..Your lack of proof aides them

Other than making no sense whatsoever, your reply is nonresponsive to my question. As usual.

I am sure if you had anything except for your lack of knowledge you would post it...

More isnults without data. (IWOD.) Because you have no actual data to offer as a rebuttal.

Oh, that's right, you're not, because you are an LRL promoter, also!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promoter
Promoter may refer to:
• Promoter (entertainment), one who makes arrangements for events
• Corporate promoter, an entity who takes active steps in the formation, organization, or financing of a corporation
• Promoter (biology), a regulatory region of DNA located upstream of a gene, providing a control point for regulated gene transcription
• Promoter (catalysis), an accelerator of a catalyst, though not a catalyst itself
• Promoter (role variant), one of the sixteen personality types of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter
• Promoter (Catholic church), an office of the Catholic Church such as Promoter of the Laity, Promoter of Peace and Justice, or Promoter of the Faith (also known as the Devil's Advocate)

I reckon it’s that reading comprehension thing again..Art


No again, con Artie. It's your selective use of definitions, again. You have the same problem with "double-blind," remember? That's called a "lie of omission."

The real definition, for the form of the word which fits the context of my sentence, is---

"A person or thing that promotes, furthers, or encourages."

Once again, you make it totally obvious that you can never prove that your LRLs actually work, and instead try to substitute lies in order to divert attention away from the fact that anyone who believes your line of BS has been scammed.

And also once again, you are your own best debunker.

Thanks---and keep up the good work!

 

[aarthrj3811]

~Art

Gee..Please tell us what is better proof than we have put on this board?

~EE~

We've been through that dozens of times before. Since you can't understand that, it's no wonder that you don't understand that nobody believes all your fake unscientific "proof." For a better explanation, see---

Can You Scientifically Prove to the World That LRLs Work?

No...We have tried to explain LRL’s to you...It is not our problem that you can not understand
~Art~

Happy users seems to be real good proof and the lack of unhappy consumers helps..

~EE~

You have no happy users on this board---only a few LRL promoters & schills.

Gee...I am a happy users and not a promoter or schill.
~Art~

Please tell us what it has to do with Those that have been scammed..and the discussion about LRL’s?

~EE~

Again you can't read. Eddie asked about it, and claimed there was no proof of it. I guess he doesn't understand the difference between cheap talk and real proof, any more than you do.

It!! ! !!
~Art~

Sorry the reason is to simple for you to understand..Your lack of proof aides them

~EE~
Other than making no sense whatsoever, your reply is nonresponsive to my question. As usual.
~Art~

More isnults without data. (IWOD.) Because you have no actual data to offer as a rebuttal.

~EE~

More isnults without data. (IWOD.) Because you have no actual data to offer as a rebuttal.

pro•mot•er
  <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/P08/P0826000" target="_blank"><img src="http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" alt="Promoter pronunciation" /></a> prəˈmoʊ tərShow Spelled[pruh-moh-ter] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person or thing that promotes, furthers, or encourages.
2.
a person who initiates or takes part in the organizing of a company, development of a project, etc.
3.
a person who organizes and provides financial backing for a sporting event or entertainment.
4.
Chemistry . any substance that in small amounts is capable of increasing the activity of a catalyst.
5.
Also called collector. Metallurgy . a water-repellent reagent enhancing the ability of certain ores to float so that they can be extracted by the flotation process.

So now posting on the internet and answering your questions is promoting?...
~EE~

Once again, you make it totally obvious that you can never prove that your LRLs actually work, and instead try to substitute lies in order to divert attention away from the fact that anyone who believes your line of BS has been scammed.

It is obvious that LRL’s work so who is lying?...Art