Re: IMPORTANT Why?
Posted by Petra on March 07, 2004 at 16:24:41:

Hi EQF,

You know, on average approximately every two to three weeks year round you make a statement equal to the above indicating success before testing and claiming this stuff is bigger, better and faster than anything else out there.

I think its time to put it to the test and make a prediction using your new faster, bigger and better program and let's see if this thing does work. You've got to be honest with yourself and acknowledge that no one else is interested unless it stands up to the test.

It would also be nice if you would stick to one type of language when addressing ear tones. You repeatedly say they are "warning type signals" in one place and ear tones in another. They aren't really warning signals, they are just a noise. Some noises are important, but most of them are not.

So belly up to the bar and put down your prediction ahead of time, even if no one dies in the process and let's see what you have, this time.

Petra


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: IMPORTANT Why? - EQF  04:34:37 - 3/8/2004  (21346)  (1)
        ● Re: IMPORTANT Why? You're Not Reading - Petra  18:17:59 - 3/8/2004  (21350)  (1)
           ● Re: IMPORTANT Why? You're Not Reading - Roger Hunter  18:22:38 - 3/8/2004  (21351)  (2)
              ● Re: IMPORTANT Why? You're Not Reading - EQF  06:22:16 - 3/9/2004  (21353)  (1)
                 ● Re: IMPORTANT Why? You're Not Reading - Don in Hollister  10:04:02 - 3/9/2004  (21355)  (0)
              ● Re: IMPORTANT Why? You're Not Reading - Petra  20:42:43 - 3/8/2004  (21352)  (0)