I aim entirely without the use of any system. Through repetition and practice, that has become automatic. I (and everybody I know) call it aiming by feel. I don't really care if you want to call it something else. What I'm unwilling to accept is the misleading claim that these systems don't do the same thing with the added assistance of "reference" alignments.
Whatever you want to call it, this part of aiming is done by both system users and non-system users, and if we can accept the real similarities and stop bickering about terminology, then we might do some constructive note-comparing that could benefit both "camps".
I've already put in a lot of effort and time into explaining how the various versions of CTE actually work when they are used effectively. To arrive at the wide range of aiming lines required to create a large range of cut angles from the limited number of initial alignments, "adjustments" (whether subconscious or not) must be made. My CTE evaluation and analysis page explains and illustrates four possible approaches for doing this. With practice and experience, one can learn to implement one or more of these approaches "naturally;" but I personally think that the people who can do this well probably don't need a formal "aiming system" anyway (although a consistent pre-shot routine, as recommended by many of the "aiming systems," can certainly be helpful).
To help those who don't use fractional systems to recognize their potentially useful aspects, I'll continue to attempt to credit these systems for what they can teach anybody - despite your continued attempts to perpetuate hostility (like by your coining and repeated pushing of the divisive labels "yaysayer" and "naysayer").
Why the secrecy?