Naysayers vs. Yeasayers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Neil said:
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.
Click to expand...

Only claiming the existence of a proof does not qualify as proof...especially when you say that it is "far" beyond your ability to construct a proof. You are passing your speculation off as a proof.
 
Neil said:
Don't go by what Dr. Dave or PJ have posted, it's not even what CTE says to do.
Click to expand...
I had told myself I wouldn't participate in these threads any longer, because they always seem to deteriorate into childish, unprofessional, personality-attacking exchanges with little or no substantive or productive discussion.

However, I will correct any false statements made concerning me.

You are wrong. Each procedure summary on my CTE resource page came directly from a CTE proponent. These are not my words or interpretations. They are direct quotes from CTE authors, instructors, or strong proponents.

Now, in the case of Stan's version of CTE, I have added some interpretation and extrapolated a little from what was presented through the examples on the DVD. I also used my own terminology to help simplify the summary, while relating it to Stan's terminology. Regardless, my interpretation and summary has been ridiculed for "giving away for free" all of the useful information available on Stan's DVD. It don't think this is the case, but I do believe it is a reasonable interpretation (and useful summary) of Stan's basic CTE approach. For someone interested in learning and working with the method, the examples provided by the DVD, along with the diagram-based shot summary, can be useful training tools.

Regards,
Dave
 
lfigueroa said:
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
Click to expand...

Maybe hatred isnt the right word but you sure get things going in a different direction and im pretty sure everyone knows how you feel on cte so why with all the appearances in the cte threads.
Why not just sit back and laugh at us and keep it to yourself .I think people are wanting to get better at the game and there's others really trying to help them.
 
Most healthy sceptisism about aiming systems comes not from the system alone but from the "side effects" that come with it...
 
8pack said:
Maybe hatred isnt the right word but you sure get things going in a different direction and im pretty sure everyone knows how you feel on cte so why with all the appearances in the cte threads.
Why not just sit back and laugh at us and keep it to yourself .I think people are wanting to get better at the game and there's others really trying to help them.
Click to expand...


Well, why are any of us here... to chat about pool, no?

More specifically, what about all the guys that keep pushing CTE? Everyone knows how they feel too, but that doesn't stop them from incessantly starting aiming threads and poking naysayers in the eyeballs at every opportunity, now does it? I know, i know it's *the naysayers* who are the bullies, while the CTE taiiban just wants to stone everyone to death who doesn't agree with them.

Joey, Spider, John, Neil, and their chorus line: Champ, Cookie, Petey, Pablo, Mickey, and Murdoch. Please go preach to them about the virtues of silence, first ;-) Then get back to me.

Lou Figueroa
 
8pack said:
Maybe hatred isnt the right word but you sure get things going in a different direction and im pretty sure everyone knows how you feel on cte so why with all the appearances in the cte threads.
Why not just sit back and laugh at us and keep it to yourself .I think people are wanting to get better at the game and there's others really trying to help them.
Click to expand...

This is what Lou F does after Stan comes on here and Lou doesn't like the exchanges and the result is Lou 58 year old acts like 8 year old tries to get Stan back with those childish posts.
 
Last edited:
lfigueroa said:
Well, why are any of us here... to chat about pool, no?

More specifically, what about all the guys that keep pushing CTE? Everyone knows how they feel too, but that doesn't stop them from incessantly starting aiming threads and poking naysayers in the eyeballs at every opportunity, now does it? I know, i know it's *the naysayers* who are the bullies, while the CTE taiiban just wants to stone everyone to death who doesn't agree with them.

Joey, Spider, John, Neil, and their chorus line: Champ, Cookie, Petey, Pablo, Mickey, and Murdoch. Please go preach to them about the virtues of silence, first ;-) Then get back to me.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
58 years old :) and is not in aiming threads to chat
 
Last edited:
lfigueroa said:
Well, why are any of us here... to chat about pool, no?

More specifically, what about all the guys that keep pushing CTE? Everyone knows how they feel too, but that doesn't stop them from incessantly starting aiming threads and poking naysayers in the eyeballs at every opportunity, now does it? I know, i know it's *the naysayers* who are the bullies, while the CTE taiiban just wants to stone everyone to death who doesn't agree with them.

Joey, Spider, John, Neil, and their chorus line: Champ, Cookie, Petey, Pablo, Mickey, and Murdoch. Please go preach to them about the virtues of silence, first ;-) Then get back to me.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

Your right Lou, we are all here to talk pool and give are opinions .
By the way who are ,mickey and Murdoch?Sounds like your trying to add to our camp name's that belong in your,s ,especially this mickey fellow.:D
 
:D
sfleinen said:
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. ;)



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.



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
Click to expand...

Tu Shay! (Where's the emoticom for "I know I spelled it differently than the way it is typically spelled"?
 
WOW! , I've been on AZB only a couple months (love it by the way), but I cant understand why so many people are always debating aiming systems.:confused:

I see aiming systems very much like "religion", if you get something out of it that helps you, great! If you dont, also fine! just leave it alone.

Whats the H--- is the big deal? all of them are optional tools for anyone who chooses to use them, nothing more, nothing less.

I admit I didnt read this entire thread, because I dont want to.

All I ask is that every thread about aiming be properly labeled as such (unlike this thread), so I can easily identify them and ignore them......
:banghead:
 
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...

Your little 1,2,3 tells the whole story of what you believe.

Here's the bottom line. CTE/Pro1 works and works well. When you and the rest of the NAYSAYERS agree with that we'll make some progress on what the problem REALLY is.

The only proof that anyone needs is if their game improved from learning CTE/Pro1. That proof is in the many people who have learned it and who have said it improved their game.

If you want some mathematical proof, you're going to be waiting a long, long time. In fact, if that's what you want, you should provide it because no one else is going to.

Quit wasting your time dodging the real truth and that is that CTE/Pro1 has helped some people improve their pool game.
 
dr_dave said:
I had told myself I wouldn't participate in these threads any longer, because they always seem to deteriorate into childish, unprofessional, personality-attacking exchanges with little or no substantive or productive discussion.

However, I will correct any false statements made concerning me.

You are wrong. Each procedure summary on my CTE resource page came directly from a CTE proponent. These are not my words or interpretations. They are direct quotes from CTE authors, instructors, or strong proponents.

Now, in the case of Stan's version of CTE, I have added some interpretation and extrapolated a little from what was presented through the examples on the DVD. I also used my own terminology to help simplify the summary, while relating it to Stan's terminology. Regardless, my interpretation and summary has been ridiculed for "giving away for free" all of the useful information available on Stan's DVD. It don't think this is the case, but I do believe it is a reasonable interpretation (and useful summary) of Stan's basic CTE approach. For someone interested in learning and working with the method, the examples provided by the DVD, along with the diagram-based shot summary, can be useful training tools.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
But you also have a lot of misleading stuff that adds to the confusion.
 
JoeyA said:
Here's the bottom line. CTE/Pro1 works and works well.
Click to expand...



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unsubstantiated


The only proof that anyone needs is if their game improved from learning CTE/Pro1. That proof is in the many people who have learned it and who have said it improved their game.
Click to expand...




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo


If you want some mathematical proof, you're going to be waiting a long, long time. In fact, if that's what you want, you should provide it because no one else is going to.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension


Isn't that what I said? Do you not read any of these posts, or do you just hit the reply button and have at it with no regard to what was previously stated?


I think some people just post to post, just to be heard and nothing else. More of them are finding their way onto my ignore list.
 
Grilled Cheese said:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unsubstantiated







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension


Isn't that what I said? Do you not read any of these posts, or do you just hit the reply button and have at it with no regard to what was previously stated?


I think some people just post to post, just to be heard and nothing else. More of them are finding their way onto my ignore list.
Click to expand...

You still don't get it.
People have reported these improved results in large numbers. They are independent of each other in most cases and I accept what they say. You can whine about no proof all you want. If forum members say they improved their game, because of CTE/Pro1, I am happy for them. Whether that is unsubstantiated IN YOUR OPINION or not is not a concern for me.

You are just another anonymous debater hiding behind a screen name.
 
JoeyA said:
You still don't get it.
People have reported these improved results in large numbers. They are independent of each other in most cases and I accept what they say. You can whine about no proof all you want. If forum members say they improved their game, because of CTE/Pro1, I am happy for them. Whether that is unsubstantiated IN YOUR OPINION or not is not a concern for me.

You are just another anonymous debater hiding behind a screen name.
Click to expand...



Another one bites the dust.....



*PLONK*
 
lfigueroa said:
Well, why are any of us here... to chat about pool, no?

More specifically, what about all the guys that keep pushing CTE? Everyone knows how they feel too, but that doesn't stop them from incessantly starting aiming threads and poking naysayers in the eyeballs at every opportunity, now does it? I know, i know it's *the naysayers* who are the bullies, while the CTE taiiban just wants to stone everyone to death who doesn't agree with them.

Joey, Spider, John, Neil, and their chorus line: Champ, Cookie, Petey, Pablo, Mickey, and Murdoch. Please go preach to them about the virtues of silence, first ;-) Then get back to me.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...



Well said.

:thumbup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top