This is not true. I'll bet I've acknowledged more often than you that all kinds of systems work for a lot of people. I question the explanation, not the fact.
pj
chgo
Perfect aim - review
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
- Status
This is not true. I'll bet I've acknowledged more often than you that all kinds of systems work for a lot of people. I question the explanation, not the fact.
pj
chgo
Schon267,
Do you not understand what PJ is saying here? I have viewed this forum for many years. While I must admit that I do not remember specifically reading any of your posts, I definitely do remember reading many of Patrick's. I remember them because they are among the few on this forum that are intelligent, well reasoned, logical expressions of thought that generally convey quite clearly his ideas on the subject in question.
It sounds like you are implying one of several things:
1) You don't like PJ's "style" of logical argument, and would prefer he wrote in a different style (more like yours?)
2) You do not understand what he is trying to say. It seems obvious to me that his answer to your question is that "I am no less qualified than these other people-my being a human who can think and talk and express my opinion politely on a public forum makes me at least equal and "worthy" as anyone else on here"
3) Logic is not something that interests you? Or is not something that you have practiced or learned about, or perhaps just don't know it when you see it?
Schon, I certainly am not trying to attack you in any way. I realize what I just wrote could easily be taken in a smart ass way, and that is a danger of posting my ideas on a forum. Seriously though, I am just saying it matter-of-factly, not intending any offense. I don't know you or know anything about you or your other posts. I'm just curious because I see statements like yours from many posters and I'm just curious why the concept of "answering a question with a question" would be troubling for someone. Also because I generally enjoy reading PJ's posts, I wanted to speak up in his defense (not that he needs it!)
Anyway, again no offense intended,
KMRUNOUT
[/QUOTE]
It would seem that you have set up a desk for yourself right next to Patrick's, only the plaque on your desk says "Reviewer of Reviews". I think you might have made the plaque yourself...
Schon, here you have come to the real issue. What Patrick wrote in his review does not in any way depend on any knowledge of pool whatsoever. Patrick was critiquing the clarity of the explanations. This means that the DVD could have been about aiming in pool, or about building a helicopter. The subject material really has no bearing on whether that material is delivered clearly or not. The second item Patrick critiqued was the novelty of the information. Seeing as Patrick has 7000 posts and is well known on this forum, it would be fair to assume that he has a fairly good knowledge of *what* topics have been discussed on the forums before, and hence would be pretty well informed about whether the info on the DVD was new. Finally, Patrick critiqued the value of the DVD. It was his opinion that the price was not justified by the clarity, novelty, or production values of the DVD. If you notice, none of these things require any knowledge of pool really. Instead, they require knowledge of learning, logic, and clarity of expression. These things Patrick consistently displays in his posts. Thus I would point to this concept as his "qualifications" for posting the review.
Oh, I suppose that the other qualification is that he signed up with a user name and password to post his opinions on this forum, just like you and I. I'm pretty sure that *really* this is the only qualification necessary, as not everyone shows that they are as qualified as PJ in that other capacity described above.
KMRUNOUT
Stuckart,
I think one thing that is missing from your logic here is that the whole point of the DVD is to show how to use the information contained on it. If you watch the DVD and don't understand it, then the possibility certainly exists that the DVD is not effective. Of course, the possibility also exists that the person watching it is not particularly bright. However, to paraphrase a wiser man than I: "I will determine if someone is worth listening to by listening to them".
KMRUNOUT
However, if the menu said "100 lb steak", and it what came out was a 16oz., it may not really be necessary to "inquire" of the chef how to "understand" the serving given as being 100 lbs.
Words mean specific things. I often have conversations with people and they use the phrase "well that's not what that means to me" with respect to certain phrases. Choosing the right words is part of producing a good instructional DVD.
KMRUNOUT
Indeed...intelligence is not for everyone. I have met some pretty stupid people that play fantastic pool. I do not really remember any of these players having vast experience with *teaching* or *learning*, or communicating effectively. I realize as I type, though, that I should have ended with my first sentence...
KMRUNOUT
You understood what he was saying, didn't you? I did quite clearly.
Did Patrick bash Gene? The only thing I heard him say about Gene was that he seemed to be a sincere guy that wanted to help people.
Didn't Patrick mention that the exact same thing was already addressed at length on these forums? If Patrick explained the DVD clearly, and stated that the same explanation was already available on the forums, then two things are true. First, Patrick did in fact understand the material, and second, Patrick did not give anything away. If Patrick did *not* explain the DVD clearly, then he didn't give anything away. So either way, he didn't give anything away.
Patrick in no way suggested that Gene should not promote his DVD. He suggested that we should not buy it. Likewise, if Mike or the moderator have a problem with PJ's review, I'm sure they will remove it. How is your method of attacking Patrick's review *any* different than the claims you make about Patrick? Are you not being the azbilliards review watchdog?
Actually, since its Patrick's review, and he chose to review the DVD for (among other things) value, then actually it is specifically Patrick's business, and all of ours to the extent we are interested.
It does. Good luck to you too. We certainly all learn in our own way. Sharing what we learn can sometimes be helpful to others. Sometimes not.
KMRUNOUT
Tap tap. Well put.
Wow, we found PJ's brother. Where has info like Gene's been discussed on this forum before? Don't say do a search, PJ said it now prove it.
There are mainly two requirements for being a good teacher (instructor): good knowledge, and good communication skills. Patrick Johnson has repeatedly demonstrated that he is in possession of both. And there are no edicts that say he cannot possess and share these qualities without obtaining them from an official certifying agency. I think anyone (including me) could learn a lot from PJ if he were to give lessons.
Roger
So I have a question.
Do you believe someone that doesn't understand the material should post to a forum of potential customers and provide incorrect information about what is contained in the DVD?
I see nothing wrong with PJ writing a review for a product that has already been reviewed by many. My issue is that he has appeared to divulge secret information about the contents of the video, but in reality has made a libel claim.
Agreed! I have certainly learned some things from PJ posts over the years, and I have him quoted extensively in my FAQ pages.
Good post,
Dave
These are untrue statements - why are they necessary unless you have no real argument? I've rarely posted in any thread about Perfect Aim and I haven't said anything against it before this review because I didn't know anything about it until I saw the dvd (despite the endless threads about it). Doesn't that fact alone mean a factual review was long overdue?
pj
chgo
The only incorrect information we know about is your unsupported accusations. I think the real question here is why do feel it's necessary? If supporting Gene's technique and dvd requires you to make stuff up, what does that say for Gene's dvd or for your ability to understand it?
pj
chgo
Rather than argue, talk with your GREEN. Anyone who want is FREE to buy the "Perfect Ainin" DVD, anyone who think it is not a good value save your GREEN.
Personally I think you got a ship load of info here for FREE. Talk advantage of it before Dr. Dave Start Charging $80.00 to ACCESS his GREAT WEB SITE!!!!!
Again thanks PJ's for your review or as they say your impression, and opinion.
Personally I think you got a ship load of info here for FREE. Talk advantage of it before Dr. Dave Start Charging $80.00 to ACCESS his GREAT WEB SITE!!!!!
Again thanks PJ's for your review or as they say your impression, and opinion.
WOW, you going to stick to that story?
WOW, you got any facts to the contrary? Or are you just another accuse-and-run driveby poster?
pj
chgo
Hi Patrick,
I have not seen Genes information before. Either on video or online. I did google searches of what you called his technique on your first post and the only pool related things that came up were on Dr Daves FAQ website. His site did not have the same information Gene's dvd did. The video that Mike Page made had similar information, but it was missing a core concept of Gene's.
Here is your quote from your first post about this:
That’s really all there is to the technique, and it’s obviously nothing new to AZB (and not proprietary intellectual property). Aligning the CB’s edge with the overlap point on the OB is simply the well known “double overlap” or “double offset” system, and positioning the eye directly over this line is one of several possible eye positions that have been extensively discussed and debated here. Gene seems to think that his opinion about the correct answer to this narrow question is worth $80 - I don’t think it’s worth very much at all, but maybe that’s just me.
I ask you to post links of where this has been discussed extensively, as you say it has in your first post.
To remind you, I have tried to find the information and I could not. I'm not just trying to jerk you around.
I have not seen Genes information before. Either on video or online. I did google searches of what you called his technique on your first post and the only pool related things that came up were on Dr Daves FAQ website. His site did not have the same information Gene's dvd did. The video that Mike Page made had similar information, but it was missing a core concept of Gene's.
Here is your quote from your first post about this:
That’s really all there is to the technique, and it’s obviously nothing new to AZB (and not proprietary intellectual property). Aligning the CB’s edge with the overlap point on the OB is simply the well known “double overlap” or “double offset” system, and positioning the eye directly over this line is one of several possible eye positions that have been extensively discussed and debated here. Gene seems to think that his opinion about the correct answer to this narrow question is worth $80 - I don’t think it’s worth very much at all, but maybe that’s just me.
I ask you to post links of where this has been discussed extensively, as you say it has in your first post.
To remind you, I have tried to find the information and I could not. I'm not just trying to jerk you around.
- Status