[crit]

I so desperately want to vote this guy out now.

[fingers]

Originally Posted by crit

I so desperately want to vote this guy out now.

Straight into a psychiatric ward?

[rusticgal]

Well tbh we need to get all the dullards out first.... at least he adds some sort of entertainment.

[fingers]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

Well tbh we need to get all the dullards out first.... at least he adds some sort of entertainment.

That is the very real danger from these cultists, acting like they are harmless buffoons until it is too late to do anything about them.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by fingers

That is the very real danger from these cultists, acting like they are harmless buffoons until it is too late to do anything about them.

i agree ,he needs to go ,whilst ever hes in there people with think hes"harmless" and hes is far from it ,he should not be allowed to advertise his sect on national tv

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

i agree ,he needs to go ,whilst ever hes in there people with think hes"harmless" and hes is far from it ,he should not be allowed to advertise his sect on national tv

I would hardly call it advertising, he comes across as a bit of a fruit loop.

Would many people be persuaded to join his 'cult' or sect as you call it from his performance in the house?

I think most right minded people and a good few wrong minded ones simply put him down as a crank, well meaning, well intentioned, but a crank nonetheless.

[chuff me dizzy]

Dick going from hm8 to hm8 telling them how much he loves them

[fingers]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Dick going from hm8 to hm8 telling them how much he loves them

His wheezing gives the game away, he wheezes when he's lying!

[smudgie]

His laughing is so fake, and when he asks if "did you see my legs moving..it was the angels pulling them" I could not believe it.
He has lost the plot.

[fingers]

Charlatan: someone who professes knowledge or expertise, esp in medicine, that he does not have;
A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud;
a flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers with tricks or jokes.

[flamingGalah!]

I honestly think he is mentally disturbed, probably long lasting damage from years of drug & alcohol abuse. He needs help...

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by fingers

Charlatan: someone who professes knowledge or expertise, esp in medicine, that he does not have;
A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud;
a flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers with tricks or jokes.

Yes.
This is what I tried to explain to you earlier. You really don't need to rub your own face in it.

Its important to identify problems first before you can solve them.

[flamingGalah!]

But Dave claims he can cure cancer & other illnesses, he obviously cannot, so he is a FRAUD is he not???

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by flamingGalah!

But Dave claims he can cure cancer & other illnesses, he obviously cannot, so he is a FRAUD is he not???

No.
It is obvious to him that he has done that and it can be done again. So it is not FRAUD.

I'm not sure why you are confused about this because you would constantly be using and applying this idea in your daily life. Applying to yourself and to others around you.
In your lifetime its probably going to happen that a Doctor will be convinced some kind of medication will cure something, prescribe it and its even possible that at some time along the process you and him will even become convinced it is working,
but,
later it will be found that it was not working at all and maybe even was doing more harm than good.
You will never describe this as FRAUD, never accuse the Doctor of FRAUD,
and,
for that matter you will never consider your own self as having been a FRAUD when you reported to the doctor that YOU thought it was working at the time and for a while.

So I don't know why you are confused over this David thing as if you don't know how to apply 'FRAUD' in this case or what the difference is between FRAUD and 'being incorrect' or 'mistaken'?

[flamingGalah!]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

No.
It is obvious to him that he has done that and it can be done again. So it is not FRAUD.

He hasn't done anything of the sort as it is IMPOSSIBLE to cure someone of throat cancer by simply placing your hands on their throat! So yes he IS a FRAUD... As it cannot be done in the first place it CANNOT be done again...

As for the rest of your post, if you kindly re-write it so that it makes sense I may reply to that bit too...

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

No.
It is obvious to him that he has done that and it can be done again. So it is not FRAUD.

I'm not sure why you are confused about this because you would constantly be using and applying this idea in your daily life. Applying to yourself and to others around you.
In your lifetime its probably going to happen that a Doctor will be convinced some kind of medication will cure something, prescribe it and its even possible that at some time along the process you and him will even become convinced it is working,
but,
later it will be found that it was not working at all and maybe even was doing more harm than good.
You will never describe this as FRAUD, never accuse the Doctor of FRAUD,
and,
for that matter you will never consider your own self as having been a FRAUD when you reported to the doctor that YOU thought it was working at the time and for a while.

So I don't know why you are confused over this David thing as if you don't know how to apply 'FRAUD' in this case or what the difference is between FRAUD and 'being incorrect' or 'mistaken'?

Utter,total 100% BS

[crit]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

No.
It is obvious to him that he has done that and it can be done again. So it is not FRAUD.

I'm not sure why you are confused about this because you would constantly be using and applying this idea in your daily life. Applying to yourself and to others around you.
In your lifetime its probably going to happen that a Doctor will be convinced some kind of medication will cure something, prescribe it and its even possible that at some time along the process you and him will even become convinced it is working,
but,
later it will be found that it was not working at all and maybe even was doing more harm than good.
You will never describe this as FRAUD, never accuse the Doctor of FRAUD,
and,
for that matter you will never consider your own self as having been a FRAUD when you reported to the doctor that YOU thought it was working at the time and for a while.

So I don't know why you are confused over this David thing as if you don't know how to apply 'FRAUD' in this case or what the difference is between FRAUD and 'being incorrect' or 'mistaken'?

Id love to respond to this but youre not really very coherent. Purposely I suspect as you really cant defend the indefensible so youve just resorted to posting utter drivel.

[fingers]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

Yes.
This is what I tried to explain to you earlier. You really don't need to rub your own face in it.

Its important to identify problems first before you can solve them.

Just because HE believes his own bullsh!t doesn't make him any less of a charlatan, maybe imbecile describes him better?

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by fingers

Just because HE believes his own bullsh!t doesn't make him any less of a charlatan, maybe imbecile describes him better?

Yes it does make him less of a 'Charlatan' and you can see this idea constantly in Courts of Law.
IF you actually believe some bull**** you won't be charged with fraud or misrepresentation etc.

IF simply being 'wrong' made someone a fraud then every pharmaceutical company, every doctor and every hospital would be confirmed 'frauds' and being charged with 'fraud'.
But they are not.
Because (for example) at the time, Doctor Jones did sincerely believe that prescribing boloxifiian tablets would lend cure to conligers syndrome,
and,
it is 'beside the point' that Dr. Jones got confused over what he was reading in his journal and had a wrong idea about how this worked.
He is not a 'fraud' or 'charlatan'.

btw.. this is also why mentally insane people who believe they are Prince Henry are NOT considered to be 'liars' or 'defrauding' or ever accused of identify theft.
It is simply because they believe they are Prince Henry YOU do not call them frauds.
Now 'intellectual hypocrite' would be an interesting name we could discuss here don't you think?

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

IF simply being 'wrong' made someone a fraud then every pharmaceutical company, every doctor and every hospital would be confirmed 'frauds' and being charged with 'fraud'.

But they are not.
Because (for example) at the time, Doctor Jones did sincerely believe that prescribing boloxifiian tablets would lend cure to conligers syndrome,
and,
it is 'beside the point' that Dr. Jones got confused over what he was reading in his journal and had a wrong idea about how this worked.
He is not a 'fraud' or 'charlatan'.

btw.. this is also why mentally insane people who believe they are Prince Henry are NOT considered to be 'liars' or 'defrauding' or ever accused of identify theft.
It is simply because they believe they are Prince Henry YOU do not call them frauds.
Now 'intellectual hypocrite' would be an interesting name we could discuss here don't you think?

Jesus Christ... get a fucking life.

[flamingGalah!]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

Yes it does make him less of a 'Charlatan' and you can see this idea constantly in Courts of Law.
IF you actually believe some bull**** you won't be charged with fraud or misrepresentation etc.

IF simply being 'wrong' made someone a fraud then every pharmaceutical company, every doctor and every hospital would be confirmed 'frauds' and being charged with 'fraud'.
But they are not.
Because (for example) at the time, Doctor Jones did sincerely believe that prescribing boloxifiian tablets would lend cure to conligers syndrome,
and,
it is 'beside the point' that Dr. Jones got confused over what he was reading in his journal and had a wrong idea about how this worked.
He is not a 'fraud' or 'charlatan'.

btw.. this is also why mentally insane people who believe they are Prince Henry are NOT considered to be 'liars' or 'defrauding' or ever accused of identify theft.
It is simply because they believe they are Prince Henry YOU do not call them frauds.
Now 'intellectual hypocrite' would be an interesting name we could discuss here don't you think?

I couldn't understand a bloody word of any of that either...

When you can write something that makes any sort of sense come back & try to prove your point...

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Jamie888

The Monk is laughing like a hyena saying he is posessed by the holy spirit..he has just about cleared the room....growing up as a catholic i understand the influence the church can have on you but he has taken it to another level and added his own crap which is worrying...very worrying...think Waco and you will be on the right track....

Firstly let me pull you up on one pint,he is NOT a monk

[monx]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Firstly let me pull you up on one pint,he is NOT a monk

You can pull me a pint anytime! lol

[-Sue-]

Dave only does 2 things wrong... everything he says & everything he does... be glad tos ee the back of him... I actually want him out more than I do Ben...

[Chels]

I think it's mint how he's an ex football hooligan haha!