Naysayers vs. Yeasayers

Status
Not open for further replies.
I did not read this thread because I have an idea of what its about, but I will make a post in it.

Me personally when I want to get into a discussion about a topic that interests me, I will then try and gain as much knowledge on that topic as I can before considering even debating the topic with a person knowledgeable in that topic!

Now if the situation came up and I'm getting into a discussion on a topic I really know nothing about, I would not push my uninformed opinion because all I would do is frustrate the knowledgeable person to the point where he gives up and I will walk away just as uninformed as I was when the discussion started and to make matters worse, I left an impression on someone that "I am not so bright!"

now I know this a forum and anyone could join and I could be debating against serial killers, kings, queens, jealous instructors, genius, the not so bright, the idiot you see in the pool hall every time your there, the shit disturber or people with a personality disorders,etc. Now this site needs the lurkers with real sincere interest to step up, say they are interested in learning about a topic, and not let people with personality disorders kill topics you are interested in!

I can shoot cte/pro1 and I would like to talk about this with people with similar interests and share my experience and hear their experiences, it may be helpful to each of us. Pool is a hobby for me, cte interests me, and there are others who think as I do! I could not give a flying @#$% how you play pool or how good you are! I'm just looking for guys with similar interest that I have to chat with and if you do not like my particular interests I have in pool, go @#$% yourself and go find like minded people that have the same interest you have!
 
JoeyA said:
Then you have lost the aiming system debate because others have improved their pool game. You apparently believe the yeasayers are lying. LOL.............
Click to expand...


:rolleyes:


The irony of your post in wanting to talk about why these threads go down the sh*tter, is that it is intentionally misrepresenting comments like yours that kills the threads.


Apparently, you failed to read this part:


Grilled Cheese said:
The difference is that some people want proof, others are fine with less.


Less means a lot of things. It can be improvement in their game as you mentioned, but that could be from a number of factors. It could be trust in authority. It could be confidence. Improvement doesn't necessarily mean it was or is the system that is doing it based on what the system claims it does.
Click to expand...


I came across in my post as level headed, sincere and fair. But in defense of my position. It is people, like yourself, that like to misrepresent and this leads to a lot of conflict on the board.


Practice what you preach, and try and refrain from being a hypocrite. Then we can just discuss the differences and the questions at hand. Rather than sift through the personal attacks.


Thanks.
 
JoeyA said:
Unfortunately, our sport doesn't have the funding to put Stan shuffett into one of those research projects where they hook the player up to equipment designed to watch the movements of their eyes and body like they have done for basketball and such. Maybe and maybe only then can the "proof" that a FEW are so want to have.
Click to expand...

Well, that's an exaggeration, Joey. I don't think cue sports have nearly the physical science demands that active sports like basketball do. I was getting more at the "standardized training doctrine" aspect, not hooking players up to monitoring equipment. I think you overextended your artistic license a bit to this one. ;)

JoeyA said:
Until the proof is provided, I suggest the naysayers give the ridiculing a rest, give the people and instructors who teach aiming system A LOT MORE RESPECT than they currently give them in this forum. At the very least, the forum will move toward a more peaceful fraternity and perhaps less banning will take place as well.

A few of the naysayers have switched gears and are saying that aiming systems work. (Too many people say they do for the naysayers to deny it). A few of the naysayers have slacked up on their mean-spirited comments. Some have stopped altogether. THE LATTER IS a good step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

I would agree -- there definitely is a positive change afoot these days, in the toning-down of the mean-spirited comments. I would even agree -- to a point -- that your observation of naysayers backing off their "it doesn't work" claims. However, it could either be the groundswell otherwise is just too much to ignore, or it could be that people are just getting sick and tired of these threads.

I've always maintained my stance -- with challenge proposal shots on a snooker table -- that fundamentals, not aiming, is more important to focus on. Even way, way back in the early days of my involvement in these threads. The only time I ever got involved, was when the "cat's meow" thing came into play -- that this aiming system was a panacea for all things pool. Even now, with the toned-down atmosphere, there are blogs with claims that aiming is the "most important, a cornerstone" of good pool, with a gratuitous (and passing) wave-of-the-hand to fundamentals as a "yeah yeah, we all know a good stroke is important" checkbox-fulfillment thing.

Myself, I just got sick of these threads, and for a good long while, avoided them like the plague. When I'd login in the mornings and check the forum thread listing over a cup of coffee, and I'd see three new aiming system threads that popped up like mushrooms after a rain, I roll my eyes, go "not this again!", avoid them, and go about checking the other threads out. But lately I'd noticed these things got much more civil, and I open them to check them out.

JoeyA said:
I agree with you a lot about many things and always look forward to reading your rather long-winded replies. :D:D:D j/k. You make a lot of sense and explain yourself very well.
Click to expand...

Well Joey, the same thing can be said of you with your yaysayer/naysayer manifestos that Rodney Dangerfield (in the movie "Back to School") would hold in his hand, weigh it, and grade it as an "A" for sheer poundage. ;) However, I mirror the same compliment back to you in that they are always well-written (albeit no-doubt slanted in one direction), and you explain yourself quite well as well.

-Sean
 
Neil said:
** snipped the reptition **
Click to expand...



Neil,


It seems that at this time, we will not come to an agreement as to what is or isn't sufficient proof. You've stated repeatedly that there's a mountain of proof. I've stated repeatedly, that what has been presented is not proof at all. You are satisfied with what is out there. I am not.


Therefore, this places you amongst the believers or those who have accepted the system, and its claims. That's fine. It places me among the skeptics.

Consequently, that means that the discussion of whether or not CTE actually does what it says, the search for proof and such carries on without you. It is now the realm for people like myself and others to roam around in, debate, research and fiddle with until we can find a proof or come to a point where we feel we have exhausted all options. One option that has been exhausted (several times actually) is asking the believers or those who accept the system to ASSIST and participate in describing the system, finding a proof, or showing how it works. This has proved to be a total failure over the years. Input from system users does not satisfy some skeptics like myself and others. It is logical to ask the users and believers for their input. Because of all the testimony given and praise for the system. I, and most of the skeptics, have no reason to believe the system users are lying. But that does not mean the system is doing what is claimed of it. They may be experiencing benefits from other causes.



That leads to only a few possibilities:


1. The system works, but the users, believers and those who accept it cannot properly describe or prove it.

2. The system works, but the users & believers have explained it fine, it is the skeptics who cannot grasp it.

3. The system does not work, and the users and believers are wrong.



I strongly doubt #2. 1 & 3 are more probable. I'm leaning that #3 is the most likely right now. But that's just my view.


Whatever the case, it is clear that input from system users has not served to prove, to skeptics, that the system works. Instead, it has lead to more confusion as there are more variations of the system, the procedures of the systems etcetera.



Neil, in closing - there's really nothing you and I can gain from interacting with one another at this point. Not unless either you, or I comes across a new or better description or explanation, or perhaps a proof.
 
I take offense to the claims about lies.


The reason lie detector tests fail, is because the person being tested does not believe or know they are lying. Which, in effect, means they are not. Instead, they are not being FACTUAL. There's a difference. The difference is intent.


A person learns an aiming system that claims it gives them the correct line of aim. They play, they get better and play better. However, that system doesn't provide the line of aim. That person then goes on to attribute their better play to the system that makes those claims. Is that person lying? Not at all. They are merely mistaken. They are experiencing positive effects or benefits from other aspects not directly related to the specific claims of that system.


If they want to cite those side effect benefits as reason to use the system, fine. That's great. That has not been disputed. What is being disputed are other claims about the aiming system.


I never once thought to myself "JB is a total liar" ..or "Stan is liar" ..or "Neil is lying about his results" ...never! NEVER NEVER EVER.
 
Grilled Cheese said:
Neil,


It seems that at this time, we will not come to an agreement as to what is or isn't sufficient proof. You've stated repeatedly that there's a mountain of proof. I've stated repeatedly, that what has been presented is not proof at all. You are satisfied with what is out there. I am not.


Therefore, this places you amongst the believers or those who have accepted the system, and its claims. That's fine. It places me among the skeptics.

Consequently, that means that the discussion of whether or not CTE actually does what it says, the search for proof and such carries on without you. It is now the realm for people like myself and others to roam around in, debate, research and fiddle with until we can find a proof or come to a point where we feel we have exhausted all options. One option that has been exhausted (several times actually) is asking the believers or those who accept the system to ASSIST and participate in describing the system, finding a proof, or showing how it works. This has proved to be a total failure over the years. Input from system users does not satisfy some skeptics like myself and others. It is logical to ask the users and believers for their input. Because of all the testimony given and praise for the system. I, and most of the skeptics, have no reason to believe the system users are lying. But that does not mean the system is doing what is claimed of it. They may be experiencing benefits from other causes.



That leads to only a few possibilities:


1. The system works, but the users, believers and those who accept it cannot properly describe or prove it.

2. The system works, but the users & believers have explained it fine, it is the skeptics who cannot grasp it.

3. The system does not work, and the users and believers are wrong.



I strongly doubt #2. 1 & 3 are more probable. I'm leaning that #3 is the most likely right now. But that's just my view.


Whatever the case, it is clear that input from system users has not served to prove, to skeptics, that the system works. Instead, it has lead to more confusion as there are more variations of the system, the procedures of the systems etcetera.



Neil, in closing - there's really nothing you and I can gain from interacting with one another at this point. Not unless either you, or I comes across a new or better description or explanation, or perhaps a proof.
Click to expand...

Are you by chance a politician?? I ask that, because you sound just like one. You never answer any direct questions, just beat around the bush with them, and then try and spin it so the empty words you keep regurgitating sound justifiable.

And, as far as putty the "whole enchilda" out there. It is available for you to purchase. That's not marketing, that's just common decency. No one should be putting all of what someone else has made for purchase, available for free. It's just not right. Happens all the time, but that doesn't make it right. The info is there, you just don't care enough to want to learn it to even buy a used copy at a reduced price from anyone.

You want the proof? Then do it yourself, quit complaining that no one is giving it to you for free. All the steps for CTE are on the forums. You just have to wade through a lot of other stuff to find it. Don't go by what Dr. Dave or PJ have posted, it's not even what CTE says to do. Try spending just 5 minutes of actual thought about it, and you will have the proof you so desperately need if you can be objective at all.
 
Grilled Cheese said:
I take offense to the claims about lies.


The reason lie detector tests fail, is because the person being tested does not believe or know they are lying. Which, in effect, means they are not. Instead, they are not being FACTUAL. There's a difference. The difference is intent.


A person learns an aiming system that claims it gives them the correct line of aim. They play, they get better and play better. However, that system doesn't provide the line of aim. That person then goes on to attribute their better play to the system that makes those claims. Is that person lying? Not at all. They are merely mistaken. They are experiencing positive effects or benefits from other aspects not directly related to the specific claims of that system.


If they want to cite those side effect benefits as reason to use the system, fine. That's great. That has not been disputed. What is being disputed are other claims about the aiming system.


I never once thought to myself "JB is a total liar" ..or "Stan is liar" ..or "Neil is lying about his results" ...never! NEVER NEVER EVER.
Click to expand...

And, why should you think that, when we weren't. Just to be clear. If you are referring to what I posted, then I am calling YOU a liar. A liar in the fact that you really would use it and want to learn it, but are just waiting for proof that it mathematically works. You have proven AND STATED a number of times on here that that is NOT your intention at all.

As others have stated, if you don't want to use an aiming system, SO WHAT? Aim any way you want to. But, since you DON'T like aiming systems, think they are for losers,ect., then why even bother posting in any aiming thread? All you want is to sow discontent on here. You have proven it over and over. No matter what system on aiming someone posts on here, you say it won't work like it says because they didn't show any math to it. Guess what? Even ghost ball won't work by the math unless the ball is dead straight in.

So, quit saying others are the hyprocites on here when everyone knows you are. You keep saying to forget aiming, and worry about the stroke. Where's your proof of that?
 
Neil said:
And, why should you think that, when we weren't. Just to be clear. If you are referring to what I posted, then I am calling YOU a liar. A liar in the fact that you really would use it and want to learn it, but are just waiting for proof that it mathematically works. You have proven AND STATED a number of times on here that that is NOT your intention at all.

As others have stated, if you don't want to use an aiming system, SO WHAT? Aim any way you want to. But, since you DON'T like aiming systems, think they are for losers,ect., then why even bother posting in any aiming thread? All you want is to sow discontent on here. You have proven it over and over. No matter what system on aiming someone posts on here, you say it won't work like it says because they didn't show any math to it. Guess what? Even ghost ball won't work by the math unless the ball is dead straight in.

So, quit saying others are the hyprocites on here when everyone knows you are. You keep saying to forget aiming, and worry about the stroke. Where's your proof of that?
Click to expand...


This is something you guys always fall back on: it's out there you just have to really want it and have an open mind. But what's out there doesn't prove diddly do-da. It's like saying there's a system out there that will make you dance like Fred Astaire, but all that's out there are instructions for The Chicken Dance.

Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
This is something you guys always fall back on: it's out there you just have to really want it and have an open mind. But what's out there doesn't prove diddly do-da. It's like saying there's a system out there that will make you dance like Fred Astaire, but all that's out there are instructions for The Chicken Dance.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

You have the DVD, and you are saying all the steps are NOT out there? You may not have understood how to properly implement those steps for various reasons, but that doesn't mean the steps aren't there. If someone wants the math, all they have to do is get the DVD, and objectively go through each step carefully, and then apply whatever math would be applied. Personally, I have no desire, or even knowledge, on how to go about doing that. But, when you have something that does work, and the steps on how to do it, then someone can figure it out. The biggest problem would be doing the math on visuals. There's got to be a way to do it, but it would be far beyond my, or even most peoples ability to do so.
 
I know that most systems work to get you in the ball park of the pocket for a lot of good reasons. I have tried most of them and continue to use them when certain shots come up. If I would hear the yaysayers of these systems just say...the system gets you real close but on a lot of shots you have to use a little feel...then I'd be fine with it. Johnnyt
 
Johnnyt said:
I know that most systems work to get you in the ball park of the pocket for a lot of good reasons. I have tried most of them and continue to use them when certain shots come up. If I would hear the yaysayers of these systems just say...the system gets you real close but on a lot of shots you have to use a little feel...then I'd be fine with it. Johnnyt
Click to expand...

Have you personally ever asked a yaysayer that question before?
 
Grilled Cheese said:
Neil,


It seems that at this time, we will not come to an agreement as to what is or isn't sufficient proof. You've stated repeatedly that there's a mountain of proof. I've stated repeatedly, that what has been presented is not proof at all. You are satisfied with what is out there. I am not.


Therefore, this places you amongst the believers or those who have accepted the system, and its claims. That's fine. It places me among the skeptics.

Consequently, that means that the discussion of whether or not CTE actually does what it says, the search for proof and such carries on without you. It is now the realm for people like myself and others to roam around in, debate, research and fiddle with until we can find a proof or come to a point where we feel we have exhausted all options. One option that has been exhausted (several times actually) is asking the believers or those who accept the system to ASSIST and participate in describing the system, finding a proof, or showing how it works. This has proved to be a total failure over the years. Input from system users does not satisfy some skeptics like myself and others. It is logical to ask the users and believers for their input. Because of all the testimony given and praise for the system. I, and most of the skeptics, have no reason to believe the system users are lying. But that does not mean the system is doing what is claimed of it. They may be experiencing benefits from other causes.



That leads to only a few possibilities:


1. The system works, but the users, believers and those who accept it cannot properly describe or prove it.

2. The system works, but the users & believers have explained it fine, it is the skeptics who cannot grasp it.

3. The system does not work, and the users and believers are wrong.



I strongly doubt #2. 1 & 3 are more probable. I'm leaning that #3 is the most likely right now. But that's just my view.


Whatever the case, it is clear that input from system users has not served to prove, to skeptics, that the system works. Instead, it has lead to more confusion as there are more variations of the system, the procedures of the systems etcetera.



Neil, in closing - there's really nothing you and I can gain from interacting with one another at this point. Not unless either you, or I comes across a new or better description or explanation, or perhaps a proof.
Click to expand...

This is almost the same post (word for word) you posted almost 2 years ago in the CTE Aiming thread!! What do you want? There's video's, picture's, testimonials and instructors other than Stan teaching this now!! Is fractional aiming proven...no!! Is perfect aim proven....no!! Is shaft aiming proven...no!! Is contact point to contact point proven...no!! Etc, Etc!! Why aren't you and others in these threads asking for nothing more than one thing "proof" and not in other threads asking the same questions? All the material is there for the taking, you just choose not to use it! Fine be done with it! No one is gonna spoon feed you!! If it's all "feel" with no "proof," like Champ says, move on with whatever you use!! Good luck and good shooting!!
 
JB Cases said:
How about we ALL go on aiming system vacation for a month? All of you who are guilty know who you are. So on the honor system and on Valentines Day how about at least for 30 days you just quit talking about it on here? Spend the time at the table honing your arguments for when the month is up.

I am in. Are you?
Click to expand...

I think I can go for a month without discussing aiming.

In fact, why don't we play it like "the quiet game" and the first one to break has to give everyone else five bucks? :)
 
lfigueroa said:
This is something you guys always fall back on: it's out there you just have to really want it and have an open mind. But what's out there doesn't prove diddly do-da. It's like saying there's a system out there that will make you dance like Fred Astaire, but all that's out there are instructions for The Chicken Dance.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

Lou is it cte you have a problem with or aiming systems in general.
Sometimes i feel its not even that.You show a real hatred in these threads sometimes.I dont mean any disrespect towards you and i have seen you play and i think you play very well but ones ability to play doesnt make his way the right way and the only way to get things done.
Maybe someday someone will cross your path and show you something you never thought about aiming .:smile:
 
Last edited:
8pack said:
Lou is it cte you have a problem with or aiming systems in general.
Sometimes i feel its not even that.You show a real hatred in these threads sometimes.I dont mean any disrespect towards you and i have seen you play and i think you play very well but ones ability to play doesnt make his way the right way and the only way to get things done.
Maybe someday someone will cross your path and show you something you never thought about aiming .:smile:
Click to expand...


I think there are a number of aiming systems that are perfectly legit... it's just that CTE is not one of them :-) And if you're detecting hatred I guess I will have to go back to using more smiley faces :-)

Lou Figueroa
 
Johnnyt said:
I know that most systems work to get you in the ball park of the pocket for a lot of good reasons. I have tried most of them and continue to use them when certain shots come up. If I would hear the yaysayers of these systems just say...the system gets you real close but on a lot of shots you have to use a little feel...then I'd be fine with it. Johnnyt
Click to expand...

I have 2 lines for ya!! Haha!!
Feel is muscle memory!!
Sighting is aiming!!
 
I am at the point now that I could care less how anyone aims.
The only person to go out of there way to help me was spidey.
Want to hear some crazy sh1t....... I did gain 2 balls.
Do I care who believes it .... NO
But the people I play pool with no nothing of CTE other than it turned me
into a diff player. I could already play but I didnt have the PSR and consistency I have now. The big diff I think is that I was looking for something to organize my game , I guess you could say. I also believe some need it and some dont. It is there and it is real. Why people cant just let it go I have no idea, CTE players are not trying to sell anything and naysayers arent wanting to buy anything. So what is the argument about? Hell if I know
I have friends like Sean on one side and EZ and others on the other side.
It is all just pool
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top