Re: Question re zapper models!

**** Your response was just as I expected it would be, selectively cutting and pasting the questions you choose to respond to, avoiding all the others, and completely avoiding the substantive issues I have been raising while hiding behind your motto "I'm the technical expert".

>- *** On the contrary, you are very much competing, just as I am competing.

Actually, I am not. I do not sell zappers for use on humans and have not for a year and a half. I do sell them for water treatment purposes. The old sites remain up for information purposes.

**** Do you really expect ANYONE on this forum to believe this nonsense? Water treatment? Give me a break! Where are your postings on this forum about water treatment? This statement is obviously designed to keep the FDA at bay. It is nothing more than that.

**** This is the

>- *** This is technically correct. Which is why I chose to produce a wave that is squarer than square, in the metaphoric sense, and remains square because it is stabilized

First, it is misleading and false for you to claim that a square wave can be squarer than square. Yours is not a true square wave.

**** In typical fashion you have misquoted me in order to mislead the readers on this forum. What I actually said in the previous posting was "Which is why I chose to produce a wave that is squarer than square, in the metaphoric sense, and remains square because it is stabilized." You conveniently removed "in the metaphoric sense" when you quoted me. This is typical of how you try to manipulate this forum. When I use "the metaphoric sense" I mean that my wave is far better than your so-called square wave. Plain and simple. It it very clear that I am not making any literal claims here, which is what you are trying to mislead people into believing. You are the one who is misleading and false here and that is crystal clear.

Additionally, the wave that you think so highly of has only half the power of any frequency compared to a true square wave.

**** It is not that I think so highly of it, it is because people are getting excellent results with it. That is what counts. And that is the central point you avoid completely in these postings. Which belies your claim of being merely an objective observer who is only interested in scientific facts. It should be very clear to all who read this forum that your comments are essentially manipulative and commercially motivated. You avoid this subject completely. It is clear that you are a skilled manipulator on this forum.

Also, it does not produce even harmonics as you claim. Instead, it produces a second set of odd harmonics.

**** I am not making any claims. It is Dr. Richard Lloyd who did the testing and I am reporting this for people to read about. Even if he were incorrect it would not change for one nanosecond the superior effectiveness of The Ultimate Zapper, a subject you avoid like the plague. You avoid discussing the bottom line, which is the superior effectiveness of The Ultimate Zapper, except to declare "no proof" in the hopes that people will ignore the facts and believe you.

Lastly, you are only comparing your stabilized output to the cheaper models of zappers. ParaZapper CCa has a stabillized output due to the CCa technology. We just do not make such a big dealabout the stabilizing because the current boost is more important.

**** So, only one of your models has a stabilized wave. Why is this model more expensive? Is it less effective or more effective than your cheaper models? You don't "make such a big deal about" stabilizing the wave but you have gone to all the trouble of producing it and charging more for it. I wonder why? If it's not such a big deal why did you go to all the trouble and ask people to pay more for it?

**** Which all shows, once again, that your comments are misleading and manipulative. The Ultimate Zapper's stabilized wave is a big deal. It is one of its signature features that help make it the most effective zappers in the world.

**** I note that your references to your zappers as only being marketed as water purification devices and not for use on humans or animals, and my responses to your remarks, have been censored from these postings. Has free speech been suspended on the forum? If you are only marketing your devices for water purification why did you go to all the trouble of producing a model with a stabilized wave and why are you charging more money for this model? Does it purify water more effectively? Can you answer these questions honestly or do your time constraints prevent you from doing so?

**** There are so many issues that I have brought up in these postings that you have completely avoided answering because of your "time constraints", issues about MS and other serious illnesses which you show absolutely no personal knowledge about yet talk about authoritatively, issues about the importance of detoxification, issues about electroporation which have attempted to misrepresent, issues about the incontrovertible evidence for the superior effectiveness of The Ultimate Zapper, and so many others, that this forum's readers should be very careful about allowing themselves to be manipulated by your often careless statements which are underlined by an arrogant and disrespectful attitude. I discuss all of these issues, and many more, on over 30 information pages on my site.

**** Those who have read my site closely and who know about my story of recovery from Multiple Sclerosis and Crohn's disease appreciate the information I provide on my site. Those who have purchased The Ultimate Zapper appreciate the results they obtain with it, and have done so for going on 12 years. No amount of misrepresentation and manipulation can ever deny those facts. You can run behind the cloak of technical expertise, but you cannot hide there. The truth of the results that people obtain with The Ultimate Zapper is there for all to see in the testimonial archive on my site at


http://zap.intergate.ca/testimonials.html


Sincerely,
Ken Presner
http://zap.intergate.ca