Nearing Completion of Evaluation of RS system (not)

To refrase my previous question........who cares????

Why don't you just continue this whole topic on your own site? Together with Singer and your 4 or 5 other contributors.

Lurker that's a good idea. Arc from now on please discuss Singer only on my Forum.

I believe it is unethical, and at least bordering on a scam, to pretend to be a consumer reporter when you're really just a paid advertiser. Any real reporter, especially a consumer advocate, that accepted money in order to provide a bias in a news report should be drummed out of the business as it gives honest reporters a bad name.


But we digress from talk of gambling systems. Money, could you give two or three examples of the Dancer strategy that you follow?

I know that's a very good idea. Because then you can actually stick to your end of the deal and stay away......like you said you would earlier.....

And by the way this reponse just shows, once again, you're Singer's puppet. Bringing in Arci right away. I think he can and will decide for his own if he will contribute on your site.

Jesus, how the hell did this thread end up being 39 pages long....what have you people been talking about?

Why didn't you just delurk over there rather than bringing it back here?

Umm, . . . as best DonDiego can recall FrankKneeland's love-life.

Singer's system is a scam. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is. Not it's not. Yes it is.

There's only one person to blame: the person who asked Frank to do an evaluation of the Singer system. It wasn't me and it wasn't Singer. So who was it?

Now that's funny, it was already here way before me.......about 34 pages. This topic didn't need me to bring it back. Certain others were bringing it back time after time. With the same old questions or with "new" questions because "new" information was available.