Peace proposal

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Spider flew to Kentucky in the not so distance past.

A player can use CTE successfully and not be able to spit out every detail.

I finished 25th in the US OPEN not know every visual detail. I ran a 105 on a tight Diamond not knowing every detail. I double dipped Billy Thorpe in a GSBT Bank tournament not knowing every detail.

Bottom line: I did not have to know everything about CTE to make it work. I played with CTE and worked to learn about CTE at the same time. I did not have to put CTE on hold until I had every last piece of the puzzle. My play as I went forward was important and the same can be said for anyone that uses CTE. You, Mr. White, are a nothing burger when it comes to getting after it, unless it involves your wordsmithing and then you can spit it out like alphabet cereal. You should be on a dang cereal box.

Stan Shuffett

Let's say I give a placebo to a person with migraine headaches. If they are getting fewer headaches the worst thing I could do is tell them they are only taking a sugar pill. That knowledge might ruin the benefit. You, Stan, may know how the system works and will explain it in your book, but for guys like Cookie to go around telling other people that we don't understand anything is kind of funny. They don't know any more than I do. They only know they play better with CTE, and that's fine with me.

You know what my beef with CTE is and I don't need to keep repeating it. I only brought it up because Spider said Shishkebab can achieve multiple shot angles with the same bridge length and same pivot, which I find dubious. Maybe Shishkebab can do what Pro 1 does on a more basic level, but certainly not with the same bridge and pivot. You've said that the book will reveal the mystery and that sounds good to me. As far as I'm concerned it is a dead issue until the book comes out.

Actually, I have to say one thing. Spider said that if I set up a cut shot with Shiskebab and then I set up the same shot with the ob moved over a couple of inches that the shot can be made with the exact same bridge and pivot. Is this correct? He said he could explain it but not to me because I'm too dumb or something like that. This sounds like the mystery you are going to explain.
 

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Let's say I give a placebo to a person with migraine headaches. If they are getting fewer headaches the worst thing I could do is tell them they are only taking a sugar pill. That knowledge might ruin the benefit. You, Stan, may know how the system works and will explain it in your book, but for guys like Cookie to go around telling other people that we don't understand anything is kind of funny. They don't know any more than I do. They only know they play better with CTE, and that's fine with me.

You know what my beef with CTE is and I don't need to keep repeating it. I only brought it up because Spider said Shishkebab can achieve multiple shot angles with the same bridge length and same pivot, which I find dubious. Maybe Shishkebab can do what Pro 1 does on a more basic level, but certainly not with the same bridge and pivot. You've said that the book will reveal the mystery and that sounds good to me. As far as I'm concerned it is a dead issue until the book comes out.

Actually, I have to say one thing. Spider said that if I set up a cut shot with Shiskebab and then I set up the same shot with the ob moved over a couple of inches that the shot can be made with the exact same bridge and pivot. Is this correct? He said he could explain it but not to me because I'm too dumb or something like that. This sounds like the mystery you are going to explain.

Dubious Dan,
You should become a writer for BD with your pen name as Dubious Dan.

I don't concern myself with bridge distances and pivot amounts any longer. I would throw out there that based on Vanishing Point theory alone, it CAN be done due to the nature of how two spheres relate to each other on a 2x1, 6 pocketed table.

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Dubious Dan,
You should become a writer for BD with your pen name as Dubious Dan.

I don't concern myself with bridge distances and pivot amounts any longer. I would throw out there that based on Vanishing Point theory alone, it could done due to the nature of how two spheres relate to each other on a 2x1, 6 pocketed table.

Stan Shuffett

OK so we're back to that. I'll wait for the book.

I like Dubious Dan. It is how engineers are taught to think. It's what keeps bridges from falling over and chemical plants from blowing up. :eek:
 

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
OK so we're back to that. I'll wait for the book.

I like Dubious Dan. It is how engineers are taught to think. It's what keeps bridges from falling over and chemical plants from blowing up. :eek:

I'm a Perceptual Engineer, a Houligan if you will. It's not too late for you to join ranks, Double D!

Stan Shuffett
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
OK so we're back to that. I'll wait for the book.

I like Dubious Dan. It is how engineers are taught to think. It's what keeps bridges from falling over and chemical plants from blowing up. :eek:


lol, pool players from messing themselves up for life.

Lou Figueroa
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You here this a lot ..you have no clue about cte.
Not trying to argue here but what qualifies someone to understand it.

Follow directions and you get it to work or you follow direction and it doesn't work .

It seems on this forum only if you can make a ball with it qualifies you as understanding it I guess.

I would say there are many on here that can read..listen an follow directions wouldn't you.
What makes you so right about saying people just don't get it?


I guess you could watch the videos online of him using his system and running 100's/racks.

Lou Figueroa
or not
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I'm a Perceptual Engineer, a Houligan if you will. It's not too late for you to join ranks, Double D!

Stan Shuffett

Join the ranks? Let's publish the book first. One step at a time.

OK, after much deliberation I've decided upon the official Stan nickname. I dub thee "Sweepin' Stan" Shuffet, or Triple S for short. Whaddya think?
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You here this a lot ..you have no clue about cte.
Not trying to argue here but what qualifies someone to understand it.

Follow directions and you get it to work or you follow direction and it doesn't work .

It seems on this forum only if you can make a ball with it qualifies you as understanding it I guess.

I would say there are many on here that can read..listen an follow directions wouldn't you.
What makes you so right about saying people just don't get it?

I would say if you haven't bought the dvd or taken in person lessons, and keep asking non relevant stupid questions over and over, then you just don't get CTE and should stop making stupid accusations and summaries about it.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Stan said there are probably two people on Earth who understand how CTE Pro1 works -- mohrt and himself. Not Spider, Not Neil, Not Cookie Man.

Welcome aboard the Ship of Fools, clueless cookie man!

OK, you've done your baiting for the day so let's call it quits.

I may not understand in totality how it works, but i sure know how to use it and properly play with it. I've studied the dvd, had personal lessons, and gotten all the updates. Guess i have a clue after all.
PS i can send you a cookie if you like or a dollar
 

Low500

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I may not understand in totality how it works, but i sure know how to use it and properly play with it. I've studied the dvd, had personal lessons, and gotten all the updates. Guess i have a clue after all.
PS i can send you a cookie if you like or a dollar
----------------------
 
Last edited:

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Join the ranks? Let's publish the book first. One step at a time.

OK, after much deliberation I've decided upon the official Stan nickname. I dub thee "Sweepin' Stan" Shuffet, or Triple S for short. Whaddya think?


You're too kind, Dubious Dan. I thought you might confer with LCF and offer up something more evil like Scamin' Stan.

Stan Shuffett
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You're too kind, Dubious Dan. I thought you might confer with LCF and offer up something more evil like Scamin' Stan.

Stan Shuffett

I have no problem with you, Sweepin' Stan. I'd rather remain friendly and cordial than argue all the time. Here is my position in a nutshell (I think you already know it):

I believe you have worked sincerely at presenting an interesting aiming system to the pool world. Many played better because of it, some have not. I do not believe the system is 100% objective and that it works for the reason you say it does (the "mystery" phenonemon). I have presented some alternate ideas over the last couple of years to that effect. Many other people (like ENGLISH!) were upset that you called it an objective system and that was the ONLY REASON they were upset. You said yourself more recently that you didn't fully understand everything about CTE but you do now and that it will be revealed in your book. My reaction to that is simply to wait and see what your book says. I don't know everything and if you say your book finally explains all then who am I to disagree? If you can prove that it really is 100% objective then terrific! That will end the dispute, at least in my mind.

I would be very happy for you and CTE Pro1 if it all pans out in your book. I have never said that some people don't play better with CTE and I have never told people not to learn it.

As to your somewhat over-zealous supporters in this forum, they seem to be chasing thier tails. All of your supporters say they don't care how it works, it just does. I think cookie just said that again in another thread. Well my main interest is in how it works. So the logical fallacy is that when I suggest a couple of possible explanations, they all jump up and down and say I'm wrong. So how is it possible that they don't know and don't really care how it works yet at the same time they know my explanations can't be correct? You can say, well your explanation can't be right because of x,y,z, but they don't do that. They just shout me down and say I don't know anything. So that goes on for how many years?

That's my full story. I have no hidden agenda and I don't hate anybody here to the degree that I want to see CTE "fail." I have always simply wanted to make sense of the mystery phenomenon, period.

So hopefully that comes across in the positive spirit it was intended. Unfortunately I cannot control the few howler monkeys in the forum who enjoy the bickering and distortion of positions. But in the fog of all the back and forth I wanted to restate things for you specifically so you know I wish you well with the book release. I'm still "dubious" of the whole explanation, but I am willing to reserve judgment.

Regards,
Dubious Dan
 

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I have no problem with you, Sweepin' Stan. I'd rather remain friendly and cordial than argue all the time. Here is my position in a nutshell (I think you already know it):

I believe you have worked sincerely at presenting an interesting aiming system to the pool world. Many played better because of it, some have not. I do not believe the system is 100% objective and that it works for the reason you say it does (the "mystery" phenonemon). I have presented some alternate ideas over the last couple of years to that effect. Many other people (like ENGLISH!) were upset that you called it an objective system and that was the ONLY REASON they were upset. You said yourself more recently that you didn't fully understand everything about CTE but you do now and that it will be revealed in your book. My reaction to that is simply to wait and see what your book says. I don't know everything and if you say your book finally explains all then who am I to disagree? If you can prove that it really is 100% objective then terrific! That will end the dispute, at least in my mind.

I would be very happy for you and CTE Pro1 if it all pans out in your book. I have never said that some people don't play better with CTE and I have never told people not to learn it.

As to your somewhat over-zealous supporters in this forum, they seem to be chasing thier tails. All of your supporters say they don't care how it works, it just does. I think cookie just said that again in another thread. Well my main interest is in how it works. So the logical fallacy is that when I suggest a couple of possible explanations, they all jump up and down and say I'm wrong. So how is it possible that they don't know and don't really care how it works yet at the same time they know my explanations can't be correct? You can say, well your explanation can't be right because of x,y,z, but they don't do that. They just shout me down and say I don't know anything. So that goes on for how many years?

That's my full story. I have no hidden agenda and I don't hate anybody here to the degree that I want to see CTE "fail." I have always simply wanted to make sense of the mystery phenomenon, period.

So hopefully that comes across in the positive spirit it was intended. Unfortunately I cannot control the few howler monkeys in the forum who enjoy the bickering and distortion of positions. But in the fog of all the back and forth I wanted to restate things for you specifically so you know I wish you well with the book release. I'm still "dubious" of the whole explanation, but I am willing to reserve judgment.

Regards,
Dubious Dan

Here's what true, Doobie.

The 15 30 and 45 connect to right angles. The perceptions for those angles and even the 60 can be described, learned and repeated. Those that choose to really work with what I present will most likely experience success.
CTE is visual and anyone can assert that the process involves feel. So be it, Doob. What I can tell you is that if you connect with real CTE, and you can, you will have more fun with pool than you could ever imagine. True knowledge comes from experience. Whether you choose to visit there or not, anyone's guess. I'm doubtful though that Mr. Dubious will really get in there and get after it. I had the staying power that I don't think you'll muster up. Ya see, you're dubious already. STRIKE ONE!

Stan Shuffett
 

Neil

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I have no problem with you, Sweepin' Stan. I'd rather remain friendly and cordial than argue all the time. Here is my position in a nutshell (I think you already know it):

I believe you have worked sincerely at presenting an interesting aiming system to the pool world. Many played better because of it, some have not. I do not believe the system is 100% objective and that it works for the reason you say it does (the "mystery" phenonemon). I have presented some alternate ideas over the last couple of years to that effect. Many other people (like ENGLISH!) were upset that you called it an objective system and that was the ONLY REASON they were upset. You said yourself more recently that you didn't fully understand everything about CTE but you do now and that it will be revealed in your book. My reaction to that is simply to wait and see what your book says. I don't know everything and if you say your book finally explains all then who am I to disagree? If you can prove that it really is 100% objective then terrific! That will end the dispute, at least in my mind.

I would be very happy for you and CTE Pro1 if it all pans out in your book. I have never said that some people don't play better with CTE and I have never told people not to learn it.

As to your somewhat over-zealous supporters in this forum, they seem to be chasing thier tails. All of your supporters say they don't care how it works, it just does. I think cookie just said that again in another thread. Well my main interest is in how it works. So the logical fallacy is that when I suggest a couple of possible explanations, they all jump up and down and say I'm wrong. So how is it possible that they don't know and don't really care how it works yet at the same time they know my explanations can't be correct? You can say, well your explanation can't be right because of x,y,z, but they don't do that. They just shout me down and say I don't know anything. So that goes on for how many years?

That's my full story. I have no hidden agenda and I don't hate anybody here to the degree that I want to see CTE "fail." I have always simply wanted to make sense of the mystery phenomenon, period.

So hopefully that comes across in the positive spirit it was intended. Unfortunately I cannot control the few howler monkeys in the forum who enjoy the bickering and distortion of positions. But in the fog of all the back and forth I wanted to restate things for you specifically so you know I wish you well with the book release. I'm still "dubious" of the whole explanation, but I am willing to reserve judgment.

Regards,
Dubious Dan

Speaking of positions, you might want to edit your post as you took several different positions in it. And, you also might want to leave out the insults. ;)

edit: Here's something for you to think about- I may not know all the dynamics of just how a car engine works, but still have a pretty good working knowledge of how it works. So when someone comes along and says that there is a chipmunk under the hood running on a wheel that then turns then tires, I can say for sure that he is wrong. You are the chipmunk guy.
 
Last edited:

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Here's what true, Doobie.

The 15 30 and 45 connect to right angles. The perceptions for those angles and even the 60 can be described, learned and repeated. Those that choose to really work with what I present will most likely experience success.
CTE is visual and anyone can assert that the process involves feel. So be it, Doob. What I can tell you is that if you connect with real CTE, and you can, you will have more fun with pool than you could ever imagine. True knowledge comes from experience. Whether you choose to visit there or not, anyone's guess. I'm doubtful though that Mr. Dubious will really get in there and get after it. I had the staying power that I don't think you'll muster up. Ya see, you're dubious already. STRIKE ONE!

Stan Shuffett

Now you're just being an a-hole, Stan. I thought we could have a reasonable understanding, but I can see that is too much to ask. Unfortunate.
 

Neil

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Now you're just being an a-hole, Stan. I thought we could have a reasonable understanding, but I can see that is too much to ask. Unfortunate.

And you wonder why you have problems on here. Stan states the truth, and you call him an a-hole for it. Truth you can't handle the truth.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
And you wonder why you have problems on here. Stan states the truth, and you call him an a-hole for it. Truth you can't handle the truth.


Neil, please.

Stan has been saying much, much worse. I guess it's OK now? In any case, here's an example from Stan a couple of weeks ago:

#####
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan shuffett View Post
Yes, I have the book. The numbers are not WILD guesses. Keep your negative ass out of this thread, you fricken bashing piece of crap. There will be those that appreciate the info.

Stan Shuffett
#####

Stan has repeatedly told people to "GFY" in this forum.

How he escapes punishment is not knowable. And just taking a tour of his recent posts I note he has deleted many of them that are in a similar vein. I suggest that in the future folks quote Stan to keep an accurate record of whom is calling whom what.

Lou Figueroa
 
Last edited:

Neil

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Neil, please.

Stan has been saying much, much worse. I guess it's OK now? In any case, here's an example from Stan a couple of weeks ago:

#####
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan shuffett View Post
Yes, I have the book. The numbers are not WILD guesses. Keep your negative ass out of this thread, you fricken bashing piece of crap. There will be those that appreciate the info.

Stan Shuffett
#####

Stan has repeatedly told people to "GFY" in this forum.

How he escapes punishment is not knowable. And just taking a tour of his recent posts I note he has deleted many of them that are in a similar vein. I suggest that in the future folks quote Stan to keep an accurate record of whom is calling whom what.

Lou Figueroa

None of that justifies what Dan said.

Ever occur to you that maybe Stan regretted what he said in the heat of the moment which is why he deleted them? But,leave it to you to keep on bringing it up.
 
Top