CTE/ PRO ONE with Stan Shuffett

[Neil]

The topic is EXTREMELY simple. Children could understand it. Every description I've seen of CTE ignores the direct relationship of OB to pocket. Every (vague) response from Stan confirms that of his system--by his refusal to claim otherwise. Thus, CTE is bunk, and what Stan MAY HAVE to say about it will be bunk.

No lessons required!

I've made this same analogy many times (mostly to Neil, who seems to have trouble learning concepts new to him): I don't need to "learn" CTE to debunk it, anymore than I need to learn how to do astrology charts to debunk astrology.

Will you be a faster learner than Neil?

The only thing you have taught me is just how big of an arse some people can be while thinking that they are actually intelligent just because they have a piece of paper saying they could afford to go to some college.

You know, if you actually do have degrees, which I highly doubt, one would think that you would actually be able to make some decent arguments. Your vision of logic is mind boggling dumb. And all you come up with is laughable hogwash. So, so sad. The spin you try and put on what others say eliminates you as a politician. Since everyone here can see right through it.

I really do want to feel sorry for you, but, to be honest, I don't. You deserve whatever you get on here. So, I've just been sitting back laughing at what you think are intelligent posts. Time to get some more popcorn.

p.s. If you ask him nicely, maybe, just maybe, Stan will let you hold his jockstrap one day. Even though you aren't worthy.

 

[GetMeThere]

GMT, Why don't you run for President, I bet you could fix this whole country.

Everyone complains about me. They find it easy and enjoyable. They NEVER offer arguments in support of the theory or principles behind CTE.

Why?

If I could figure THAT out, I should be made EMPEROR!

If CTE is so great, why is it (apparently, by the absence) so difficult to give reasons to support it?

One obvious conclusion is that you try to be NEGATIVE toward me, because you find it IMPOSSIBLE to be POSITIVE about CTE.

 

[spoonie]

aiming systems

Seems like to me that stan has come up with a new way of aiming,and some people are mad because he want tell them how to use it FREE?
I have met Stan several times over the years,strikes me as tvpe guy that
if he speaks,he has something of value to add to the topic.If the interest
would go back up to about 5%,I might go try it out myself.

 

[GetMeThere]

I really do want to feel sorry for you...

I try to avoid responding to you, Neil. It's a waste of my time. I wanted to this time because I simply couldn't suppress my IRONIC JOY AND PLEASURE at the idea of you feeling "sorry for me" over my inability to understand issues and articulate ideas.

You bring a smile to my face, and encouragement to my efforts

 

[hejests]

Everyone complains about me. They find it easy and enjoyable. They NEVER offer arguments in support of the theory or principles behind CTE.

Why?

If I could figure THAT out, I should be made EMPEROR!

If CTE is so great, why is it (apparently, by the absence) so difficult to give reasons to support it?

One obvious conclusion is that you try to be NEGATIVE toward me, because you find it IMPOSSIBLE to be POSITIVE about CTE.

I don't know CTE from a hole in the wall. What I do know though is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Just because evidence isn't readily available to support something that in itself isn't evidence against it. To think otherwise is a logic fallacy.

Formerly, this kind of reasoning is known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or an argument from ignorance.

Serge

 

[champ2107]

The topic is EXTREMELY simple. Children could understand it. Every description I've seen of CTE ignores the direct relationship of OB to pocket. Every (vague) response from Stan confirms that of his system--by his refusal to claim otherwise. Thus, CTE is bunk, and what Stan MAY HAVE to say about it will be bunk.

No lessons required!

I've made this same analogy many times (mostly to GetMeThere , who seems to have trouble learning concepts new to him) I don't need to "learn" CTE to debunk it, anymore than I need to learn how to do astrology charts to debunk astrology.

Will you be a faster learner than Neil?

fixed it for you :thumbup:

 

[JB Cases]

And just maybe they won't because of the real information about what it takes to make balls is also brought out.

CTE is just too limited as a aiming method to learn. It may work on certain shots as noted by CTE users. This means there are shots where CTE is useless.

What ya gonna do when those shots come up? Have another aiming method to use?

Keep it simple......Make the arrow training device, video yourself, and spend QUAILTY time at the table.

Its just that simple.

Is it?

So the arrow solves all the aiming problems? Can you use the arrow in play?

So when you are facing a shot you have never practiced before can you just whip out the arrow to show you where to hit the ball?

I ask because with CTE you don't need to have any devices, sorry Ghost Ball Aim Trainer people.

With CTE you have EVERYTHING you need to play any shot on the table with you at all times on every table.

Those things are;

1. the balls
2. your brain
3. your body
4. your cue

Using those 4 things and CTE you NEVER, EVER, EVER, NEVER, need the Arrow, The BAT, The Spider, The Ghost Ball Aim Trainer, or any other device to help you IMAGINE an invisible ball to line up to a shot.

Learn CTE and spend some REAL quality time at the table. All the time you would spend placing paper guides on the table to try and train yourself to see Ghost Balls can now be spent learning how to move the cue ball without worrying about whether you have properly imagined the invisible ball in the right place with the proper offset.

This is the power of CTE over Ghost Ball and all it's devices.

 

[GetMeThere]

I don't know CTE from a hole in the wall. What I do know though is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Just because evidence isn't readily available to support something that in itself isn't evidence against it. To think otherwise is a logic fallacy.

Formerly, this kind of reasoning is known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or an argument from ignorance.

Serge

Uh...thanks. But...

....assertions made without evidence (CTE works...Or, "pink unicorns make delicious soup") can be logically dismissed without evidence--or any further consideration or discussion.

I dismiss CTE as an aiming system because if offers no evidence that it aims balls AT anything. To avoid my immediate and logically valid dismissal it would have to OFFER SOME EVIDENCE that it actually IS an aiming system.

 

[JB Cases]

Everyone complains about me. They find it easy and enjoyable. They NEVER offer arguments in support of the theory or principles behind CTE.

Why don't you state the theory and principles of CTE that you feel need supporting?

You do know what CTE is and how to use it right?

 

[Neil]

Everyone complains about me. They find it easy and enjoyable. They NEVER offer arguments in support of the theory or principles behind CTE.

Why?

If I could figure THAT out, I should be made EMPEROR!

If CTE is so great, why is it (apparently, by the absence) so difficult to give reasons to support it?

One obvious conclusion is that you try to be NEGATIVE toward me, because you find it IMPOSSIBLE to be POSITIVE about CTE.

You have been given reasons to support it. You have chosen to ignore them. On the other hand, no one has given the reasons that you demand on here. Who are you to DEMAND that you be freely given what others are selling?? As several have stated previously, if you had nicely ASKED, others would have helped you. But, with your attitude, you are SOL.

You say "our " logic is faulty, ours is a dimple in a golf ball compared to your lack of logic which is close to the San Andreas fault compared to ours.

 

[Neil]

I try to avoid responding to you, Neil. It's a waste of my time. I wanted to this time because I simply couldn't suppress my IRONIC JOY AND PLEASURE at the idea of you feeling "sorry for me" over my inability to understand issues and articulate ideas.

You bring a smile to my face, and encouragement to my efforts

I see you're still having trouble with that "reading" thing. (They offer classes for that you know.) I said "I WANT to feel sorry for you, BUT I DON'T."

 

[thehammer37]

I have spoken to Hal on the phone, taken lessons from RandyG"s pool school, and his same aim Class, and from Stan, and what it does for me, is I see the shots shots correctly, I now see shots like never before. The CTE works plain and simple, once you see shots the correct way. Sure I still miss shots and shape, but that is my fault, not the system. Since coming home from my trip to see Stan I am pocketing way more balls, thus winning alot more games. today I broke and ran 4 racks of 9 ball, the improvement is evident. Stan Shuffett, does not deserve to be ridiculed about CTE period,but commended for all his hard work. But for all the people that want to say it don't work or simply don't want to be taught correcty, then just leave it alone, If you want to learn, then learn from someone who knows what they are doing, if not then like I said just leave it alone.

 

[hejests]

Uh...thanks. But...

....assertions made without evidence (CTE works) can be logically dismissed without evidence--or any further consideration or discussion.

I dismiss CTE as an aiming system because if offers no evidence that it aims balls AT anything. To avoid my reasonable dismissal it would have to OFFER SOME EVIDENCE that it actually IS an aiming system.

I don't think so. I don't think anyone is refusing to give you evidence. I think they're refusing to give you evidence for free. I'm sure you'd be able to pay for lessons from an instructor that teaches this approach and I'm sure they'd explain it fully for you.

You don't believe it works because you can't find out how it works for free?

 

[champ2107]

Uh...thanks. But...

....assertions made without evidence (CTE works) can be logically dismissed without evidence--or any further consideration or discussion.

I dismiss CTE as an aiming system because if offers no evidence that it aims balls AT anything. To avoid my immediate and logically valid dismissal it would have to OFFER SOME EVIDENCE that it actually IS an aiming system.

ok, so you agree then it is a system of pocketing balls, but just not an aiming system, am i correct?

 

[JB Cases]

Uh...thanks. But...

....assertions made without evidence (CTE works) can be logically dismissed without evidence--or any further consideration or discussion.

I dismiss CTE as an aiming system because if offers no evidence that it aims balls AT anything. To avoid my reasonable dismissal it would have to OFFER SOME EVIDENCE that it actually IS an aiming system.

Then if CTE isn't being explained as you like it to be why don't you go away?

According to you you are a Berkley trained scientist who hangs out with Nobel prize winners.

Yet you hang out here to discuss whether or not a niche aiming system has merit or not and you don't even know the steps to implement it.

I find that your actions represent a misspent adulthood.

Apparently your payoff here is some sort of mental masturbation because your claimed status in society doesn't quite match your actions.

You come from nowhere with no credentials to challenge a system that's been challenged for years. You bring nothing new to the party except another level of tenaciousness and condescension that suggests that you were somehow hurt by CTE in the past.

What I find sad is that a self-proclaimed member of academia who claims he is able to hold his own with Nobel prize winners would waste his time trying to "save" pool players from trying out an aiming system.

Seems like someone has "issues" they need to address.

 

[GetMeThere]

ok, so you agree then it is a system of pocketing balls, but just not an aiming system, am i correct?

Obviously not. Balls pocketed without somehow "aiming them" at a pocket is just coincidence. This is a discussion about CAUSES and EFFECTS, not coincidences.

There is no useful system for pocketing balls (other than a good break) that doesn't involve AIMING the balls at the pocket in some manner. There are many directions that a hit ball can take. To have them tend to be CONCENTRATED in the direction of the pocket requires an intention to direct them to the pocket. That intention is called "aiming," and it obviously requires knowledge of the position of the pocket relative to the hit ball.

 

[JB Cases]

Here is CTE:
Aim center to edge. Shift to cueball edge. Pivot back to cueball center.

Not quite.

It's

1. Sight Center of Cue Ball to Edge of OB
2. Place cue tip in line with edge of ball.
3. Pivot to Center Cue Ball

now you are aimed along the line which sends the cueball to the object ball so that the object ball will go towards the pocket.

For details find a qualified instructor who will show you the proper way to do these steps. Once learned this systems covers all shots which go directly to a pocket.

And once learned this system also provides an excellent building block to be able to judge how to send balls to any other part of the table.

My own personal testimonial is that I have devised a way to build on CTE to allow me to use it to send the object ball to any other part of the table at will.

 

[champ2107]

Obviously not. Balls pocketed without somehow "aiming them" at a pocket is just coincidence. This is a discussion about CAUSES and EFFECTS, not coincidences.

There is no useful system for pocketing balls (other than a good break) that doesn't involve AIMING the balls at the pocket in some manner. There are many directions that a hit ball can take. To have them tend to be CONCENTRATED in the direction of the pocket requires an intention to direct them to the pocket. That intention is called "aiming," and it obviously requires knowledge of the position of the pocket relative to the hit ball.

So, when i get down on the table and i want to shoot the ball in the corner pocket using cte and i make the ball. You consider this coincidence? that is your answer?

 

[GetMeThere]

I don't think so. I don't think anyone is refusing to give you evidence. I think they're refusing to give you evidence for free. I'm sure you'd be able to pay for lessons from an instructor that teaches this approach and I'm sure they'd explain it fully for you.

You don't believe it works because you can't find out how it works for free?

If you wish to put it that way, sure. They make a baseless, unsupported assertion ("my system works") and seem to insist it be accepted, honored, and respected...and paid for.

My job, which I have accepted, is to note the obvious: their assertion is baseless.

Most things honorably for sale somehow are provided with the means to judge their value. A bare assertion has no value.

I wonder, are you familiar with the ORIGINATOR of the system, who insisted that it indeed BE GIVEN FOR FREE to all? His system, also, had no basis....but at least it was accurately valued.

 

[GetMeThere]

So, when i get down on the table and i want to shoot the ball in the corner pocket using cte and i make the ball. You consider this coincidence? that is your answer?

We've been though this a million times (I know, you were too busy being insulting to actually follow the discussion).

Yes, it's a kind of "coincidence." The apparent "use" of CTE is coincident with pocketing a ball by the normal, ordinary method of "feel."