Originally posted by gopro
Oh Maki...you are beginning to bore me. I'm really glad that you know of other "experts" that can tear what Mr Chek has to say apart, but whose to say that THEY are correct.
***

Yes you are correct. Seeing as their credentials speak volumes more then Paul Cheks I would say they have not only the experience behind them but the knowledge. More so then Mr Chek. This I know for a fact. Like I said, say the word and I wil post the critiques of his work. You will see for yourself first hand if you choose not to be as stubborn as an ass that his work is flawed. So much so, that it turned me off from purchasing his work ever again. It doesn't take the brightest spark to see this.
Go Pro said,
I have already said that Paul does NOT know everything about everything...all I did say is that he is a brilliant thinker and one of the smartest men in this industry...as is Ian King, Charles Poliquin, Charles Staley, Fred Hatfield, Jeff Everson, Jerry Telle, and many others.

That is me yawning at your posts.
*** Here's what you're doing.
INDUCTIVE FALLACIE
Slothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary
Straw Man: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument
CHANGING THE SUBJECT
Attacking the Person:
1.the person's character is attacked
In other words Go Pro, you choose to ignore all my posts, attack my character and use a condescending tone with me. Your formation of rebuttals are something that need some work on.
I really don't like arguing with you because you always seem to turn things into a personal issue. Can you not just let us agree to disagree?
Btw, you should check out the "Supertraining" board. You'll be suprised how many of your "experts" post there. You might even learn a thing or two , god forbid.