CTE/ PRO ONE with Stan Shuffett

[GetMeThere]

What an unimaginative perspective.


Because I can't have it with you? Frankly that doesn't break my heart. And frankly you're wrong. There are many posters on this forum interested in that question, and they've asked all the questions you're asking many times over - to the point that they're tired of the same old merry-go-round. You haven't been around long enough to know them or to know how redundant you're being.


You only "take them at their word" about things you want to argue about.
For instance, you deny that CTE can really be useful to them though they insist it is.


If all the CTE users you know claim benefits from CTE, and all of them use it in a way that you don't understand, why would you try to change the way they use it before you understand it?

To understand the actual benefits of CTE we need to learn from those who benefit from it. You'll get nowhere (this should be obvious by now) by denying categorically that CTE can be useful, especially by denying it before you know anything about it.


I imagine there are lots of things you've never heard of. What makes you think you know what's best for CTE users? What if some of the real benefits from CTE depend on belief in it? Why should anybody care whether you like that or not?

pj
chgo

I don't know what to say about all of the above, except...you occasionally seem to confound your own truths and motivations with wider ones. I have my interests and motivations, and you have yours. You seem to resent that I don't embrace yours, while I have no needs regarding how you deal with mine.

I notice you leave out a quote--about John Barton, and the implication that you may be WRONG about a widespread effect of CTE objectively helping people. I can only say that my requirements for evidence may be more stringent than yours. I don't lightly approach the idea that a delusion might help people. And I think it's important to take people directly at their word: they wish to claim that CTE WORKS for the reasons they SAY it works. For me it's only honest to tell them they're wrong about how it "works." My goal is to have an honest discussion about facts--and your further twist, from my perspective, only seems to muddy an otherwise straightforward discussion.

Don't you think you (and Dr. Dave) might tend to confuse people by saying "CTE works?" I think I've seen at least some examples of that being true.

 

[Neil]

I don't know what to say about all of the above, except...you occasionally seem to confound your own truths and motivations with wider ones. I have my interests and motivations, and you have yours. You seem to resent that I don't embrace yours, while I have no needs regarding how you deal with mine.

I notice you leave out a quote--about John Barton, and the implication that you may be WRONG about a widespread effect of CTE objectively helping people. I can only say that my requirements for evidence may be more stringent than yours. I don't lightly approach the idea that a delusion might help people. And I think it's important to take people directly at their word: they wish to claim that CTE WORKS for the reasons they SAY it works. For me it's only honest to tell them they're wrong about how it "works." My goal is to have an honest discussion about facts--and your further twist, from my perspective, only seems to muddy an otherwise straightforward discussion.

Don't you think you (and Dr. Dave) might tend to confuse people by saying "CTE works?" I think I've seen at least some examples of that being true.

You have some serious issues going on. At least Pat admits that there is a benefit to the users of it. Your just out there in la-la-land.

 

[JB Cases]

I quoted it so I could savor its brilliance whenever I'm feeling down, or not right with the world. Sometimes we just have to behold something beautiful for awhile.

Is that the fairly tale you were told in CTE fairy tale school? After seeing that I have to tell you I have....well...a doubt or two has crept into my mind about the university degree in mathematics you claim.

Or maybe you're just REALLY rusty on your work back then. If it were still fresh in your mind, I'm sure you would recall the importance to mathematics of the refutation proof of reductio ad absurdum--reduction to an absurdity.

If a conjecture leads irrefutably to an absurd situation, the conjecture can be rejected. It's a CORNERSTONE of mathematics, and has been for centuries.

This reductio ad absurdum disproof of CTE was offered by Dr. Dave, in his 3 cut shot example (you'll have to scroll down a bit to the picture of three similar shots lined up on a table.)

The point is that, by your definition, by ANYBODY'S definition that has ever been hinted at, and by implication your recent quote, CTE would give the SAME aiming setup (and thus OB hit point) for each of the THREE different shots. But we already know (from, for example, my calculations in the old "Why CTE is silly" thread) that those three shots CANNOT all be made by hitting the OB in the same place (not even close). Thus, CTE is ABSURD as you describe it, it projects the SAME AIM POINT for three DIFFERENT SHOTS that cannot be made by hitting the same aim point.

Therefore....CTE doesn't work--it is absurd and self-contradictory. If you had really completed a university mathematics degree that absurdity would be ringing in your head now like a cathedral bell.

OR.........you are missing part of the puzzle. And since neither you nor Dr. Dave has that part of the puzzle then you can't reliably draw conclusions other than to say "based on what we know" can you?

No one has ever said that the use of CTE produces the same contact point on every shot. No one would ever say that.

However it's easy to see how you can make that assumption when you stop at step one which is find the Center to Edge line.

And since you don't know the details of step two or three, or even step one for that matter, your conclusion is based on a false presumption.

So you respond demanding the missing piece of the puzzle, to which we say go get it.

Because obviously physics is not being defied here. So all you are left with is an incomplete formula and your assumption that subconscious adjustment is what produces different contact points on different shots.

I am sure that you were taught in school not to make assumptions based on partial information. It's ok though, everyone does it, it's human nature. However when someone REALLY wants to know how something works they go out and gather together all the pieces of the puzzle.

Sitting back and demanding to be given those pieces rarely works, in academia as well as real life.

 

[JB Cases]

CTE Debate in pictures:

 

[jmurphy]

And it's ignorance that CTE DEPENDS UPON for its existence and following.

I am sorry I tried to stay out of it but your BS has gone way to far.....
If someone can teach you to shoot the ball in the pocket using CTE or any other method that's great and all you have to take away from the lesion is that it works. Stevie Moore and Landon Shuffett is all the evidence anyone should need that this aiming system works if you are taught the mechanics of it.
Trying to say something is not valid because someone can't explain the physics is absurd.
If you can't let yourself believe something works if you can't understand the physics of it then I can only assume you get around town on a horse because 98% of people could not tell you the physics of how a combustible engine works either, yet since I have been 16 years old I have owned a car and guess what I turned the key and it just worked AMAZING!!!!!!! Oh and of course you must light up your home with candles or kerosene lanterns because I assure you that 99.99999% of the population could not tell you the physics behind electricity either, however everyone is happy to know when they flip the switch the lights come on :thumbup:

I'll leave it at this I'll bet 5K and let you play Stevie Moore 10ball 12 a head for the cash and if you beat him then you take my money and I'll be right there with you shouting how CTE sucks but if I win I get your 5K and you can go suck an egg. Deal?

 

[Mr. Wilson]

This admonition goes out to everyone:

Play nice you you won't be allowed to play with the others.

GMT, a week off is merely a warning shot since you've ignored my other counsel.

 

[mlalum]

Don't know who is crazier GMT or all the forum pool pillars that keep answering him with the same responses over and over. At least GMT - albeit nutty - is mostly civil. Some of the pillars not so much. I don't know why a couple of them don't get time off for being aggressively silly if nothing else. And why wait until page 29 to do somethiing about this massive rehash. Ah the mysterious Mr. Wilson.

 

[sfleinen]

The problem is not the subject or the active debaters, it's the heckling crows

Don't know who is crazier GMT or all the forum pool pillars that keep answering him with the same responses over and over. At least GMT - albeit nutty - is mostly civil. Some of the pillars not so much. I don't know why a couple of them don't get time off for being aggressively silly if nothing else. And why wait until page 29 to do somethiing about this massive rehash. Ah the mysterious Mr. Wilson.

mlalum:

+1. In defense of Mr. Wilson, lively/spirited debate is a GOOD THING. It's the lifeblood of a good forum. A well-run forum is one that allows spirited debated to go, well, unabated to a degree. Maybe "unabated" is the wrong word, because that "stepping in" part DOES happen. Perhaps unfettered is a better word? Unimpeded?

The problem we have here are all the heckling crows who perch on their wire above, and poop down on the participants below. A healthy spirited debate, no matter how civil and level-headed the participants are, ultimately turns ugly when you're constantly getting hit in the head with poop. These are the real problem on these boards, NOT the folks like GetMeThere, PJ, Lou, JB, et al.

Although I'm only a member here myself, I do offer this public service message to all those heckling crows: get off your wire, and participate in the discussion. Offer value. Share knowledge. If you can't, just stay out -- don't poop down on the active value-adding participants below.

Respectfully,
-Sean

 

[Tony_in_MD]

If I get flamed on this well so be it.

Your argument sold a lot of Cuetec's during Earls run.

I don't need to see someone winning a major event by using a system to want to learn it and grow as a player.

I will wait for Stan's DVD or hooking up with Scott Lee this spring to learn CTE.

I tend to agree with GetMeThere but I'm not going to say bad things about anyone.

My only suggestion is to prove CTE by winning a major tournament with it. If you have perfect aim, you shouldn't have much trouble playing good enough position to win.

 

[cookie man]

The point is that, by your definition, by ANYBODY'S definition that has ever been hinted at, and by implication your recent quote, CTE would give the SAME aiming setup (and thus OB hit point) for each of the THREE different shots. But we already know (from, for example, my calculations in the old "Why CTE is silly" thread) that those three shots CANNOT all be made by hitting the OB in the same place (not even close). Thus, CTE is ABSURD as you describe it, it projects the SAME AIM POINT for three DIFFERENT SHOTS that cannot be made by hitting the same aim point.

Therefore....CTE doesn't work--it is absurd and self-contradictory. If you had really completed a university mathematics degree that absurdity would be ringing in your head now like a cathedral bell.

This says you have no idea what CTE is, Really you have learned absolutely nothing the last three weeks, Are you unteachable or too ignorant to understand.

 

[cookie man]

mlalum:

+1. In defense of Mr. Wilson, lively/spirited debate is a GOOD THING. It's the lifeblood of a good forum. A well-run forum is one that allows spirited debated to go, well, unabated to a degree. Maybe "unabated" is the wrong word, because that "stepping in" part DOES happen. Perhaps unfettered is a better word? Unimpeded?

The problem we have here are all the heckling crows who perch on their wire above, and poop down on the participants below. A healthy spirited debate, no matter how civil and level-headed the participants are, ultimately turns ugly when you're constantly getting hit in the head with poop. These are the real problem on these boards, NOT the folks like GetMeThere, PJ, Lou, JB, et al.

Although I'm only a member here myself, I do offer this public service message to all those heckling crows: get off your wire, and participate in the discussion. Offer value. Share knowledge. If you can't, just stay out -- don't poop down on the active value-adding participants below.

Respectfully,
-Sean

Personal grudge SEAN?

 

[eezbank]

mlalum:

+1. In defense of Mr. Wilson, lively/spirited debate is a GOOD THING. It's the lifeblood of a good forum. A well-run forum is one that allows spirited debated to go, well, unabated to a degree. Maybe "unabated" is the wrong word, because that "stepping in" part DOES happen. Perhaps unfettered is a better word? Unimpeded?

The problem we have here are all the heckling crows who perch on their wire above, and poop down on the participants below. A healthy spirited debate, no matter how civil and level-headed the participants are, ultimately turns ugly when you're constantly getting hit in the head with poop. These are the real problem on these boards, NOT the folks like GetMeThere, PJ, Lou, JB, et al.

Although I'm only a member here myself, I do offer this public service message to all those heckling crows: get off your wire, and participate in the discussion. Offer value. Share knowledge. If you can't, just stay out -- don't poop down on the active value-adding participants below.

Respectfully,
-Sean

You can't be serious Sean. The GetMeThere attacks were not limited to just an aiming system. He has attacked other members as well as instructors. Not just an aiming system. I'm at a loss for words.

Sean -1 in my book.

 

[JB Cases]

Don't know who is crazier GMT or all the forum pool pillars that keep answering him with the same responses over and over. At least GMT - albeit nutty - is mostly civil. Some of the pillars not so much. I don't know why a couple of them don't get time off for being aggressively silly if nothing else. And why wait until page 29 to do somethiing about this massive rehash. Ah the mysterious Mr. Wilson.

1. This post of yours contributes nothing to the topic.

2. This post of yours attacks other members with name calling, "crazy, nutty" which as you know and are fond of pointing out is against the rules.

3. GMT is not "civil". Were he in a pool room and made the same type of condescending comments about the people around him he would have been knocked out already.

4. Pot meet kettle.

 

[JB Cases]

My personal motivations are actually this: I simply CANNOT ABIDE not understanding something. I've been that way all my life--and it has often been a curse. So, when something doesn't "make sense"--such as in this case, when the problem is so EASY to see, yet people refuse to see it, then....I just can't give up until it's "settled" somehow.

Then why don't you go and learn the steps from a qualified instructor? Then you will have the most anyone on Earth can teach you about CTE's proper steps.

THEN you can dissect it to infinity. Because no one would be able to take away the fact that you went and go the best instruction possible on the system.

Ken, Brknrun, has done this with Hal's 3 angle system. He knows it inside and out and has seemingly figured out the math behind why it works.

I told you the same thing weeks ago in private message that I can't stand not knowing HOW it works but I can't deny that it works.

Honestly if it bugs you that much then book a lesson. Be nice to Dave Segal or the other folks on this board who know CTE inside and out and they will help you.

But to continually argue when you do not know the system won't help you.

 

[pooltchr]

In any case, since you admit you don't KNOW, you're in no position whatever to make claims about what in fact is happening.

.

I never said I didn't know. I said that when I follow the instructions as I was taught, the balls are dropping. Same as when I follow the instructions for ghost ball, contact, double distance, or any other aiming system. CTE is a very easy to learn and use system that makes ball pocketing more dependable.

Please do not put words in my mouth.

Steve

 

[lfigueroa]

Always had you figured for a bad handicapper.

Yeah, well, perhaps so. But even a bad handicapper can pick out the nags.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

The difference between the "reach" of a Kevin Trudeau and the reach of a bunch of accredited instructors is that the people whom the instructors tech can REACH back and strangle them if what they received is a bunch of nonsense.

That's what you don't get.

One more time, this is a SMALL society, we all know each other here. Screw one of us and everyone finds out about it. If Scott Lee is running around the country teaching nonsense and leaving people in his wake that aren't happy with what they got for what they paid then we'd hear about it.

If Randy G. was teaching nonsense then we'd hear about it.

If Stan Shuffet was teaching nonsense then we would know about it.

Instead the OVERWHELMING majority of people who take lessons from these guys and speak about the CTE-like system they learned have nothing but high praise for the content and the results.

For you to dismiss these people as all self-deluded and weak-minded is itself a weak argument.

Is Fred Agnir weak minded?

Is Randy Goetlicher weak minded? Is he a scam artist?

This is a concrete method that is being taught. The effectiveness is easily measurable.

I make a lot of claims with my cases. What I tell people is that I have no problem making those claims because I can back them up in person. When I sell someone a case I can look them in the eye the following year at a show and know that they are happy with their purchase and that the case did exactly what I said it would do for them.

You are stretching this out to the edge of the galaxy trying to discredit not only the system but also the people who who teach it. 9 years ago we didn't have accredited teachers out there willing to put their reputations on the line by saying that they teach Hal's systems.

Now we do and this bugs the living crap out of you. So you are now comparing them to Kevin Trudeau in an attempt to discredit them.

Well guess what? It won't work.

Because the reach is personal, 1 to 1. The student goes to the teacher or the teacher comes to the student, they know each other. This is what you can't stop with your insinuations. That you even try is low and reprehensible. But that's the path you have decided you want to be on.

So that's it? Because a dissatisfied student "can REACH back and strangle them" validates what is being taught/sold?! Is that the way you felt about every instructor you've ever had in your life? High school? College? Profession? Were every one of them excellent, or were some of them a waste of your time? It's happened to all of us.

You talk about overwhelming numbers of satisfied customers, but whenever the subject comes up just the few usual suspects chirp. I asked if they had a follow up system to see exactly how satisfied students were and whether they still employed and found value in what they were taught a year removed and, if I recall, didn't get much of an answer.

And believe me, John. *Nothing* about this discussion "bugs the living crap" out of me. It often surprises and amazes me, but "bugs me" are not words I would use to describe how I feel about the give and take here or the systems under discussion.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Neil]

mlalum:

+1. In defense of Mr. Wilson, lively/spirited debate is a GOOD THING. It's the lifeblood of a good forum. A well-run forum is one that allows spirited debated to go, well, unabated to a degree. Maybe "unabated" is the wrong word, because that "stepping in" part DOES happen. Perhaps unfettered is a better word? Unimpeded?

The problem we have here are all the heckling crows who perch on their wire above, and poop down on the participants below. A healthy spirited debate, no matter how civil and level-headed the participants are, ultimately turns ugly when you're constantly getting hit in the head with poop. These are the real problem on these boards, NOT the folks like GetMeThere, PJ, Lou, JB, et al.

Although I'm only a member here myself, I do offer this public service message to all those heckling crows: get off your wire, and participate in the discussion. Offer value. Share knowledge. If you can't, just stay out -- don't poop down on the active value-adding participants below.

Respectfully,
-Sean

Sean, while you're busy "pooping" on the rest of us, mind telling us just what "value" they have added to the discussion on CTE???? While you're at it, mind telling us how they COULD add value to something they don't even understand???

 

[duckie]

CTE is a very easy to learn and use system that makes ball pocketing more dependable.

Please do not put words in my mouth.

Steve

Here is the problem right here. Anything that takes a DVD and possible instruction from someone is not easy to use. The arrow training device is easy to use and no DVD is needed to learn it.

Man, I guess systems just take the player out of the game. As far as I know the only dependable way for me to make shots is to hit my mark and it ain't the system that does that for me. It's all me baby.

FWIW

 

[pooltchr]

You talk about overwhelming numbers of satisfied customers, but whenever the subject comes up just the few usual suspects chirp. I asked if they had a follow up system to see exactly how satisfied students were and whether they still employed and found value in what they were taught a year removed and, if I recall, didn't get much of an answer.

Lou Figueroa

I can only speak for myself, but I do conduct follow-up with my students. And since I am just starting to teach Same Aim, I haven't had much opportunity to get any feedback, but the initial reaction from a couple of my team members who I shared this with was very positive.

This forum has a history of letting it be known in no uncertain terms if anyone doesn't offer a quality product or service. Just look at the threads in the past about certain cuemakers who didn't deliver as promised. Believe me, if our students weren't happy, you would have heard about it.

Steve