CTE PRO ONE Contrast with Quarters System

Thanks for pointing out the thread, he has made 22 posts since yesterdays (I will think about it and get back to you Dave).

A lot of online activity for someone whose wife had cabin fever and was headed to out to MG.

Don't they call this crawfishing down south? :D


Neil said:
Stan, just ignore him. I just went at it with his nonsense in another thread. Just because I posted, he had to "take the other side". Which he did non-stop saying all kinds of rubbish. Then, when Dr. Dave stepped in, and said he was willing to do a test to prove or disprove what was being so adamantly talked about, he asked Rick, the most vocal one supporting the different method, for an example. Low and behold, Rick couldn't even come up with ONE example of using it!

He staunchly defends that type of stroke, constantly claims how great it is, but can't even come up with one simple example of using it. That proved to everyone that he has no clue of what he is even talking about on here. He is here just to sow discord. And he constantly sends pms to others to try and get them to back him. To him, and some others on here, it is just a big game. That is why he feels that he has to put up a a thumbsup icon all the time whenever he sees someone else post something against CTE. Like a thirdgrader would do. "ooh, another point for our side".

As even proved in this thread, way too many of these guys simply can't read and comprehend what they are reading. They only read what they want to be written, not what is actually written. And then they turn around and try and use it against you. Just like they did with the offer that Nob made Patrick. They twist that around into a "playing" bet, instead of what it was. They have to do that type of stuff, because they can't come up with any other response.


It's really sad that when something new and so good comes along, there have to be those that don't want to get better for whatever reason. And to make themselves feel better about lagging behind have to drag others down by preventing the new info from being accepted by others.

Like Ratta said, those that won't learn it because of some perceived slight,or even worse, because of how some phrase is worded, are only being foolish. They are willing to not benefit themselves in some feeble attempt to hurt you. You can't get much more foolish than that.

I hope you can truly keep up a good attitude with all the foolishness on here. I'm sadly at a point where it just turns me off so much that it even turns me off of pool in general some times. Too many make it no fun anymore. Way too many are only here to tear down and not build up.
Click to expand...
 
Neil said:
Rick, why call it lies when anyone can easily go to the other thread and see it is the truth? And, why do you keep citing religion when you don't even believe in Christianity? You yourself said you don't even believe in hell. That is your choice, but then why claim to be something you are not? Yes, deception is from other than God. So, why do you insist on the decepetions you do on here?

You aren't here to help or learn. All you do is twist others words to try and make them look bad. All that is is deception. Would be very refreshing to see you one time post about the truth. And, that is all I am going to say about it here. I won't allow you to drag me and this thread into one of your "holes".
Click to expand...

More 'deceptions' & mischaracterizations.

I am a Christian & I do believe.

You know the 'hell' misstatement was clarified by the word 'eternal' & you, at that time, agreed.

You continue to make definitive statements that only an Omniscient Individual could truthfully make.

I would love to see you make a post that is 100% factual with no mischaracterizations of the truth in it.

As I said elsewhere, if your memory is failing, you can't help that, but you can keep from making definitive statements as though they are fact when they are not, unless you simply choose to keep doing so for your own ulterior motives.

I think it's obvious to many why I continue to ask God to help you.

In a recent post you asked me to ignore you but then go on to write another libelous post regarding me.

Do you really expect me to ignore you when you do such, especially when it is in regard to my Christianity.

Again, May God Bless & Help You, Neil.
 
cookie man said:
Shawn I've answered several people's questions to the best of my abilities, however PJ is a lost cause. I've tried several times with him. He will never ever admit he's wrong about CTE, and believe me he is totally wrong.
Click to expand...

I get it. I used to butt heads with JB a lot back in the day. I just got to the point that I recognized he was just who he was, and that he'd never see my points, due to him just being him. I'm starting to feel that way about other posters, of late. I just don't engage them, and use some of their posts as comic relief.

Just keep it between the lines. Nob goes too far. No need to insult people's intelligence. It's a discussion forum. Not an argument forum.
 
Tony_in_MD said:
Thanks for pointing out the thread, he has made 22 posts since yesterdays (I will think about it and get back to you Dave).

A lot of online activity for someone whose wife had cabin fever and was headed to out to MG.

Don't they call this crawfishing down south? :D
Click to expand...

When did God put you or Neil in charge of setting my priorities?

I've told Dr. Dave that I don't practice that stroke & I pointed out that it might go weeks or even longer for that type of shot to come up.

I also said that it usually involves some form of a safety shot, or maybe a two way shot.

I don't shoot many plain safety shots.

When I think a shot calls for it I'll use that type of stroke.

I'll PM Dr. Dave with my thoughts when I choose to do so & NOT within a limited number of posts that YOU decide that I should.

I'll add you to my Prayer list too.

Best 2 you & All,
Rick
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
IMO CTE is objectively based. It's just not a totally objective method IMO. I just PMd you with something regarding the objective/subjective thing.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick
Click to expand...

The whole objective subjective thing with CTE is this. Even if someone thinks they are aligning two objective spots, much less four, that does not mean there is not a variance from one time to the next. Then there is a variance in the pivot on the way down. etc.

Ultimately there is a lot of feel involved, even if they dont "real eyes" it, (I had to do it) and feelings are subjective. So of course it's not really a totally objective system of aiming which is what is claimed.
 
Last edited:
(((Satori))) said:
The whole objective subjective thing with CTE is this. Even if someone thinks they are aligning two objective spots, much less four, that does not mean there is not a variance from one time to the next. Then there is a variance in the pivot on the way down. etc.

Ultimately there is a lot of feel involved, even if they dont "real eyes" it, (I had to do it) and feelings are subjective. So in reality it about as objective as back of the ball aiming.
Click to expand...

I see your point.

I guess what I mean is that seeing the two lines simultaneously vs one line puts one, or should put one, in the 'same' place more consistently. So it would seem that there are those x number of objective starting points.

IF one were to maintain that line it would seem to be an objective method for those lines & outcome angles.

For the sake of discussion, let's concede that one could consistently arrive on the 6.5mm offset from which to pivot & then pivot. That would double the objective lines if the pivot length did not influence those lines.

Again for the sake of discussion, let's assume that one could & would use a consistent length bridge say based on an objective mark on the cue. If that were done, would you say it would be objective up this point?

Best,
Rick
 
ENGLISH! said:
I see your point.

I guess what I mean is that seeing the two lines simultaneously vs one line puts one, or should put one, in the 'same' place more consistently. So it would seem that there are those x number of objective starting points.

IF one were to maintain that line it would seem to be an objective method for those lines & outcome angles.

For the sake of discussion, let's concede that one could consistently arrive on the 6.5mm offset from which to pivot & then pivot. That would double the objective lines if the pivot length did not influence those lines.

Again for the sake of discussion, let's assume that one could & would use a consistent length bridge say based on an objective mark on the cue. If that were done, would you say it would be objective up this point?

Best,
Rick
Click to expand...

I'm not willing to concede all of that so the question of it being objective if is irrelevant.
 
(((Satori))) said:
I'm not willing to concede all of that so the question of it being objective if is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I hear you.

What about if there were no pivot & one just moved in on the line of seeing the two lines simultaneously?

Would you consider that to be objective for just those shots?

Best,
Rick
 
ENGLISH! said:
I hear you.

What about if there were no pivot & one just moved in on the line of seeing the two lines simultaneously?

Would you consider that to be objective for just those shots?

Best,
Rick
Click to expand...

I think there is a reason no one is willing to give Patrick a clear description for how to obtain cte visuals. If they did it would easily be proven not to be objective.

To answer your question though, No. I think there would still be a slight variance when lining up the objects that could prove to be enough to cause a miss on shots that require precision. That is why I say aiming is not a conscious act of lining up precisely and then dropping in precisely in a conscious effort. It is more an act of lining up and dropping in with a clear picture of the outcome in your mind. This may or may not make sense.
 
Last edited:
(((Satori))) said:
I think there is a reason no one is willing to give Patrick a clear description for how to obtain cte visuals. That is all that needs to be said.
Click to expand...

I hear you.

But, I can see where one can maneuver onto the plane (3D) of a line that allows one to see the two lines simultaneously even if your spot for doing that might be different than my spot for doing it given that we might have different 'vision centers'.

I'd assume that both of us have adapted our cue position relative to our individual 'vision centers'.

I've learned a couple of things about seeing a true straight line while standing vs being down on a shot from Gene Albrecht.

I've wondered why there are no shots that would be shot from those initial lines that I think most might see as objective. I'd certainly think that there must be shots for those outcome angles.

Anyway, I guess I can perhaps see more objectivity in it than you can as I'll concede the ABC points as 'objective' even if you might see them a bit differently than I might. I understand that your A might not be my A but I'd think that we'd adjust just as we'd adjust our cue position relative to our body & our 'vision center'.

Anyway, I now have a better understanding of your position on the subject.

All the Best 2 Ya,
Rick
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
I hear you.

But, I can see where one can maneuver onto the plane (3D) of a line that allows one to see the two lines simultaneously even if your spot for doing that might be different than my spot for doing it given that we might have different 'vision centers'.

I'd assume that both of us have adapted our cue position relative to our individual 'vision centers'.

I've learned a couple of things about seeing a true straight line while standing vs being down on a shot from Gene Albrecht.

I've wondered why there are no shots that would be shot from those initial lines that I think most might see as objective. I'd certainly think that there must be shots for those outcome angles.

Anyway, I guess I can perhaps see more objectivity in it than you can as I'll concede the ABC points as 'objective' even if you might see them a bit differently than I might. I understand that your A might not be my A but I'd think that we'd adjust just as we'd adjust our cue position relative to our body & our 'vision center'.

Anyway, I now have a better understanding of your position on the subject.

All the Best 2 Ya,
Rick
Click to expand...

I edited my post to what I feel is a better description on what I think.
 
ENGLISH! said:
I hear you.

But, I can see where one can maneuver onto the plane (3D) of a line that allows one to see the two lines simultaneously even if your spot for doing that might be different than my spot for doing it given that we might have different 'vision centers'.

I'd assume that both of us have adapted our cue position relative to our individual 'vision centers'.

I've learned a couple of things about seeing a true straight line while standing vs being down on a shot from Gene Albrecht.

I've wondered why there are no shots that would be shot from those initial lines that I think most might see as objective. I'd certainly think that there must be shots for those outcome angles.



Anyway, I guess I can perhaps see more objectivity in it than you can as I'll concede the ABC points as 'objective' even if you might see them a bit differently than I might. I understand that your A might not be my A but I'd think that we'd adjust just as we'd adjust our cue position relative to our body & our 'vision center'.

Anyway, I now have a better understanding of your position on the subject.

All the Best 2 Ya,
Rick
Click to expand...

There are no shots that occur as a result of visuals minus the pivot.

Stan Shuffett
 
I made an observation. One that is factual in nature. You more than anyone should appreciate it though I totally expected your classic. response.
ENGLISH! said:
When did God put you or Neil in charge of setting my priorities?

I've told Dr. Dave that I don't practice that stroke & I pointed out that it might go weeks or even longer for that type of shot to come up.

I also said that it usually involves some form of a safety shot, or maybe a two way shot.

I don't shoot many plain safety shots.

When I think a shot calls for it I'll use that type of stroke.

I'll PM Dr. Dave with my thoughts when I choose to do so & NOT within a limited number of posts that YOU decide that I should.

I'll add you to my Prayer list too.

Best 2 you & All,
Rick
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
stan shuffett said:
There are no shots that occur as a result of visuals minus the pivot.

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...

I understand that, for CTE. I've wondered why.

Can you explain why there are no shots for those angles?

I can understand why there might not be from how one approaches a certain method.

But can you explain how are those particular angles covered through CTE?

That question is not meant as a challenge but as means in being helpful to having a better understanding. I'm sure that you know how they are covered & then perhaps an explanation of why not just go in with no pivot & shoot them.

Sincerely,
Rick
 
Tony_in_MD said:
I made an observation. One that is factual in nature. You more than anyone should appreciate it though I totally expected your classic. response.
Click to expand...

You made more than just a casual observation.

You had to go out of your normal way to actually count my posts.

To me, & I'm sure others, that would suggest that you had an agenda.
 
ENGLISH! said:
I understand that, for CTE. I've wondered why.

Can you explain why there are no shots for those angles?

I can understand why there might not be from how one approaches a certain method.

But can you explain how are those particular angles covered through CTE?

That question is not meant as a challenge but as means in being helpful to having a better understanding. I'm sure that you know how they are covered & then perhaps an explanation of why not just go in with no pivot & shoot them.

Sincerely,
Rick
Click to expand...

The correct visuals EVERYTIME take a player to a perception that requires a pivot.

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH and Satori: A question. Semantics about objectivity aside, how about the system as a whole? Do you think it works? These examples of shooting balls under curtains, do you think this is a testament of the system, or do you think it is something else? (ie. fake, or shooting with feel, etc.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top