Why skeptics doesnt show proof?

[GuyinWH]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

HI guywh: You posted -->Besides personally being able to; why would I need to?
************
The answer is so obvious that it is embarrassing, for your EGO, since nothing else has been forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
you also posted --> nor from the looks of it do you have the knowledge to even try.
*************
Speaking of try, try me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You also posted -->In the meantime, make do with whats on here its about 5X more than enough to prove your fake gizmos all wrong.
************
May I ask what "gizmo's" do I have ?

Don Jose de La Mancha GH

Took the advice above and have you on ignore now.
Your posts get more worthless by the minute evidently.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

HI, interesting to know that you can't compete in a simple, basic discussion. The others are now aware of your basic inabilities.

Don Jose de La Mancha GH

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

OK, I've got one. (Another one.)

An answer to the question asked by the title of this topic.


The reason skeptics don't show proof, is because the LRL promoters would merely say, "That doesn't mean anything." That's easy to say, isn't it?

It's the standard childish answer.

I think I'll add it to the list!





ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

OK, I've got one. (Another one.)
An answer to the question asked by the title of this topic.

The reason skeptics don't show proof, is because the LRL promoters would merely say, "That doesn't mean anything." That's easy to say, isn't it?
It's the standard childish answer.

So that is the answer for lack of proof…thank You

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

So that is the answer for lack of proof…thank You

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that it's impossible to prove a negative. And that seems to be the totality of what you are attempting to rely on. Sorry, won't work.

And for RDT--- No, the point in court is for the prosecution to prove that a person is guilty, not the other way around! A person is regarded as innocent, otherwise.


And, artie, I might as well also mention that the burden of proof is always on the claimant (you), not the other way around. (Same principle as the courts.)


So your request for proof that LRLs don't work is absolutely invalid.




ref: #20 Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Hi EE my friend: you posted-->And for RDT--- No, the point in court is for the prosecution to prove that a person is guilty, not the other way around! A person is regarded as innocent, otherwise.
***************

sigh, you failed to clarify which system of justice you are using, down here we use the Napoleonic code, guilty until proven innocent.
Almost like defining something as conventional or nano -biological.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

And, artie, I might as well also mention that the burden of proof is always on the claimant (you), not the other way around.

What makes you think that I am the claimant ?.. Am I the one claiming that All LRL’s are fraudulent ? Am I the one claiming that they are just Dowsing tools ?
I am just a owner/operator who locates and recovers treasure with them…Art

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

And, artie, I might as well also mention that the burden of proof is always on the claimant (you), not the other way around.

What makes you think that I am the claimant ?.. Am I the one claiming that All LRL’s are fraudulent ? Am I the one claiming that they are just Dowsing tools ?
I am just a owner/operator who locates and recovers treasure with them…Art

Of course you know that I'm talking about your claims about LRLs. I'm not claiming anything, just asking for proof of your claims. And so far you haven't any.

Sorry.

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Hi EE my friend: you posted-->And for RDT--- No, the point in court is for the prosecution to prove that a person is guilty, not the other way around! A person is regarded as innocent, otherwise.
***************

sigh, you failed to clarify which system of justice you are using, down here we use the Napoleonic code, guilty until proven innocent.
Almost like defining something as conventional or nano -biological.

Don Jose de La Mancha

After extensive research on "nano," I have finally honed my expertise in that field. Doubled it, in fact.



















"Nano-nano"

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

JH---

When are you going to show some real proof?

 

[GuyinWH]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-importance
self-importance - an exaggerated opinion of your own importance
egotism, swelled head
conceitedness, vanity, conceit - the trait of being unduly vain and conceited; false pride
superiority complex - an exaggerated estimate of your own value and importance

Thanks for defining yourself in plain words, but thats not what this threads about.

How very PeeWee Herman of you, WH "I know you are, so what am I

Evidently, 'WH' shares the same traits as Eddie, Art and LT (fenixdigger)


(another example of the goose/gander thing....get my point)

Nah just testing to see if they like a dose of their own medicine...
but do you not notice NEW kooks came out on that one?

Whos this judy kook?

Another worthless "proofer" that's gonna post pics of tictacs she found with her LRL?

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Guy---

Nope. JH doesn't talk about LRLs.

JH just tries to psychoanalyze everyone.

Nobody seems to know why....

 

[fenixdigger]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

OK, I've got one. (Another one.)

An answer to the question asked by the title of this topic.


The reason skeptics don't show proof, is because the LRL promoters would merely say, "That doesn't mean anything." That's easy to say, isn't it?

It's the standard childish answer.

I think I'll add it to the list!

Now, where have I seen this before?





ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Hi EE, you posted to wh regarding Judy -->JH just tries to psychoanalyze everyone.

Nobody seems to know why....
***************

That is precisely why, most in need do 'not' recognize it. Snicker. For the record she 'is' a titled professional scientist, but not one dedicated to tightening loose screws. May I point out the indelicate usage of inappropriate words by wh to various members for your edification of a few screws needing to be tightened. Your's seem to be up to specifications.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[GuyinWH]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Hi EE, you posted to wh regarding Judy -->JH just tries to psychoanalyze everyone.

Nobody seems to know why....
***************

That is precisely why, most in need do 'not' recognize it. Snicker. For the record she 'is' a titled professional scientist, but not one dedicated to tightening loose screws. May I point out the indelicate usage of inappropriate words by wh to various members for your edification of a few screws needing to be tightened. Your's seem to be up to specifications.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Yeah sure whatever man,.

Titled professional scientist? .... a what?
What's her title and degree?
"Titled professional scientist" doesn't say anything.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Morning wh: you posted -->Titled professional scientist? .... a what?
What's her title and degree?
"Titled professional scientist" doesn't say anything.
***********************
A) that is for her to say, 'if' she wishes. I will not breach a confidence.

Err may I ask your's?

Mine? Nothing, just a tropical tramp, bum, living from day to day between hangovers..

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

RDT---

What kind of a "professional scientist" would consider psychology to be a real Science?

That would be a self-contradicting viewpoint.

But, beyond that, why is Big J even here, in the first place?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Noon here, HI swr, you posted -->It is a circular argument. There is no end
*****************
Clarify, since you are a self posted 'sceptic', and so far, a self proclaimed / verified EE.

You can start by posting a provisionally acceptable, photograph of your 'EE title', and a few accompanying bits of data to show that it is truly one, not a $20 dollar purchase.

The same applies to wh etc.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[GuyinWH]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Morning wh: you posted -->Titled professional scientist? .... a what?
What's her title and degree?
"Titled professional scientist" doesn't say anything.
***********************
A) that is for her to say, 'if' she wishes. I will not breach a confidence.

Err may I ask your's?

Mine? Nothing, just a tropical tramp, bum, living from day to day between hangovers..

Don Jose de La Mancha

great thanks for not clearing that up

wonder why i took you off ignore.

So shes a nothing and you admit you aren't anything either.
Thanks for clearing THAT up.

I'm going to keep my private life private for the time being, granted I've already stated what I am and what I do on various occasions so thats what post history is for. I'm not into flaunting anything, specially given the circumstances where it would mean nothing in the face of
charlatanry and kookery.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

~SWR~

We should all keep our private lives private. That includes all proponents and opponents. I have no intentions at all of bring any portion of my "real life" business into the forum.

We are all aware of that...Art