A Critique of Dr. Dave’s Review of Stan Shuffett’s CTE/Pro One Aiming System
I find Dr. Dave’s review of Stan Shuffett’s CTE/Pro One aiming system to be poor at best lacking in the most elementary concepts of research and the utilization of key source data. Dr. Dave states that he used two sources for his write up – Stan’s CTE/Pro One Aiming System DVD and ”many posts in recent CTE and Pro One threads” on AZ. The glaring omission in the source data he used is, of course, Stan Shuffett who publicly announced he was available for discussion or answering questions on CTE/Pro One. If Dave’s paper were being graded by any college professor I believe Dave would get an F on the paper due to poor utilization or lack or proper utilization of the sources available. Now if the three sources available to Dave are the DVD, threads on AZ, and Stan Shuffett and if the objective is to get the most knowledge possible before writing a review on the CTE/Pro One Aiming System which source would be the best to use? Doesn’t take a PhD to figure this one out does it? It’s the one David totally ignored. Remember, Dave is not writing a report on the DVD and if it is good or bad or if it gets the points of CTE/Pro One to the viewers accurately and concisely. He states he is reviewing the CTE/Pro One aiming system itself so the DVD is just one source for this information. The only possible reason for not contacting Stan would be if Dave thought that the DVD was so good that it completely and clearly explained CTE/Pro One and that, hence, contacting the primary source would yield no additional information. From Dave comments on the DVD this does not appear to be the case.
Did Dr. Dave “do his best” as he states? I don’t think so. I sure hope that was not his best. Was this an “accurate and fair description” as Dr. Dave states? I think the key word here is fair. What can “fair” mean other than fair to the person whose work he is reviewing, namely Stan Shuffett? Once again the answer is a resounding no it was not fair as he did not once contact Stan.
Sorry Dave, you do indeed get an overall F on your write-up due to extremely poor use of the sources available. Now no one thinks that Dave is anything but a very smart person. But the way he handled this evaluation makes one wonder if he had some other agenda going on in his head. Could it be “Professional Jealously” that San solved the CTE mystery before he did? Or is it just some ego thing that Dave thinks if Stan gets credit for his knowledge people might think he is the number one instructor in the US and not Dave. One wonders.
And now even today Dave is posting his questions on AZ. Come on Dave, you can’t be that stupid. If you really wanted answers you’d be talking to Stan not those on AZ. It’s really very clear that you are just trying to muddy the waters. You’re too transparent on this. Got real questions, call Stan. Want to cause problems, ask them on AZ. I, for one, am very disappointed in Dave. I may sell my Video Encyclopedia of Pool Shots (which, by the way, is very good) only because I am losing respect for Dave very quickly.
I find Dr. Dave’s review of Stan Shuffett’s CTE/Pro One aiming system to be poor at best lacking in the most elementary concepts of research and the utilization of key source data. Dr. Dave states that he used two sources for his write up – Stan’s CTE/Pro One Aiming System DVD and ”many posts in recent CTE and Pro One threads” on AZ. The glaring omission in the source data he used is, of course, Stan Shuffett who publicly announced he was available for discussion or answering questions on CTE/Pro One. If Dave’s paper were being graded by any college professor I believe Dave would get an F on the paper due to poor utilization or lack or proper utilization of the sources available. Now if the three sources available to Dave are the DVD, threads on AZ, and Stan Shuffett and if the objective is to get the most knowledge possible before writing a review on the CTE/Pro One Aiming System which source would be the best to use? Doesn’t take a PhD to figure this one out does it? It’s the one David totally ignored. Remember, Dave is not writing a report on the DVD and if it is good or bad or if it gets the points of CTE/Pro One to the viewers accurately and concisely. He states he is reviewing the CTE/Pro One aiming system itself so the DVD is just one source for this information. The only possible reason for not contacting Stan would be if Dave thought that the DVD was so good that it completely and clearly explained CTE/Pro One and that, hence, contacting the primary source would yield no additional information. From Dave comments on the DVD this does not appear to be the case.
Did Dr. Dave “do his best” as he states? I don’t think so. I sure hope that was not his best. Was this an “accurate and fair description” as Dr. Dave states? I think the key word here is fair. What can “fair” mean other than fair to the person whose work he is reviewing, namely Stan Shuffett? Once again the answer is a resounding no it was not fair as he did not once contact Stan.
Sorry Dave, you do indeed get an overall F on your write-up due to extremely poor use of the sources available. Now no one thinks that Dave is anything but a very smart person. But the way he handled this evaluation makes one wonder if he had some other agenda going on in his head. Could it be “Professional Jealously” that San solved the CTE mystery before he did? Or is it just some ego thing that Dave thinks if Stan gets credit for his knowledge people might think he is the number one instructor in the US and not Dave. One wonders.
And now even today Dave is posting his questions on AZ. Come on Dave, you can’t be that stupid. If you really wanted answers you’d be talking to Stan not those on AZ. It’s really very clear that you are just trying to muddy the waters. You’re too transparent on this. Got real questions, call Stan. Want to cause problems, ask them on AZ. I, for one, am very disappointed in Dave. I may sell my Video Encyclopedia of Pool Shots (which, by the way, is very good) only because I am losing respect for Dave very quickly.