Perception...what you see ain't always real

Patrick Johnson said:
When viewing what CTE visuals? Where do we place the cue before pivoting? Parallel to what line?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I edited but since you saw my post before I edited I will answer.:)

Once the visuals are obtained in manual cte the user is suppose to focus on the cueball and dropmstraight in with 1/2 tip of parallell english. From there you pivot to center.


To answer your question mlre precisely... Once you are focused on the cueball you could imagine two parallell lines touching the edges of the cueball. Your line dropping in would be parrallell to those 1/2 tip away from center. Then pivot to center.
 
(((Satori))) said:
I edited but since you saw my post before I edited I will answer.:)

Once the visuals are obtained in manual cte the user is suppose to focus on the cueball and dropmstraight in with 1/2 tip of parallell english. From there you pivot to center.


To answer your question mlre precisely... Once you are focused on the cueball you could imagine two parallell lines touching the edges of the cueball. Your line dropping in would be parrallell to those 1/2 tip away from center. Then pivot to center.
Click to expand...
Are you saying we could start with the actual shot line and reverse engineer ourselves back to what the "visual" must be? If so, I don't understand what that accomplishes - we already know the "visual" must be related to the actual shot line in that way (assuming the pivots are performed exactly); we just don't have any agreement about how to get there if the actual shot line isn't known in advance.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
They don't agree that it's the same "visual". You have to convince them of that first.

In your own way you understand as little as they do.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I understand more than you WANT to give me credit.

The visuals yield one objective line. They do not agree with that. They do not understand what objective is.

If one envisions the bisecting line between the two 'objective' lines & place one's 'vision center' on that one & only line, then one then has a NEW center CB & the 1/2 tip offset is based off of that NEW center line. Hence one angle in each direction.

BUT... they have deluded themselves or allowed themselves to be deluded into 'thinking' that that relationship is different depending on where the balls are positioned on the table & that is not objectively possible.

So by subjective perception they position their vision center to one side or the other & get a different NEW center CB from which to make the 1/2 tip pivots.

Or.... they make a slighlyt different pivot subconsciously or they steer the cue to get a get a different outcome angle.

It also seems that they can not consider more than one possible explanation at a time or play that game as a defense mechanism.

Best Wishes.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Are you saying we could start with the actual shot line and reverse engineer ourselves back to what the "visual" must be? If so, I don't understand what that accomplishes - we already know the "visual" must be related to the actual shot linein that way (assuming the pivots are performed exactly); we just don't have any agreement about how to get there if the actual shot line isn't known in advance.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Are you considering or suggesting that there is a possibility to do so objectively, or are you just playing around?
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Then one envisions your idea of what the "visual" should be. So what? To "test CTE" you have to use the "visual" used by CTE users - and that's undefined.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

It seems you want to play games, just as some of them do.

The 'objective' visual is defined.

JB's perception of what is correct for a given shot will not be the same perception of that of say Gerry or Stan. That's the subjective part.

But you know that.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Are you saying we could start with the actual shot line and reverse engineer ourselves back to what the "visual" must be? If so, I don't understand what that accomplishes - we already know the "visual" must be related to the actual shot line in that way (assuming the pivots are performed exactly); we just don't have any agreement about how to get there if the actual shot line isn't known in advance.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I agree no one has defined what the visuals are. Line them up but dont be directly behind either line is not clearly defined. The only way to tell what the real visual is suppose to look like is to reverse engineer the pivot. You are correct. Of course on different shots a reverse engineered pivot will take us to different visuals when cte users claim the same visual is required.


But it still doesnt matter because if someone uses a different stick with a narrow shaft even if they use the appropriate bridge length.

CTE says to use cte/eta for a straight i but my pivot from there will not equal someone else's if we use different size shafts and everything is precise like a robot.


The system is not precise. It relies on the subconscious.
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
Is seeing the CTE line objective to you?
Click to expand...
Yes, and so is seeing the ETA line. It's some undefined combination of those (specifically not bisected) that makes the "CTE visual".

The fact that the "CTE visual" is undefined is how we know that CTE is feel-based. Have you been arguing all this time without knowing that?

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Yes, and so is seeing the ETA line. It's some undefined combination of those (specifically not bisected) that makes the "CTE visual".

The fact that the "CTE visual" is undefined is how we know that CTE is feel-based. Have you been arguing all this time without knowing that?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Oh Nooooooo!

ONLY PATRICK JOHNSON KNOWS what is going on & not.

The 'visual' is seeing those two lines simultaneously without favoring one or the other. THAT is the only way it can be considered objective, being on the bisecting line.

It's the variances from THAT LINE to ANY other line that has not been & is not defined other than with the non objective instructions to move or rotate until one sees the 'proper' perception for the shot at hand. Perception is subjective.

A bisecting line can be 'objective'. Any other line is where that leaves that realm & goes into subjectivity.

If you concede the CTE & 'edge to' lines as being 'objective', do you then concede that a bisecting line would also be objective or do you hold that that would be subjective?
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
It's some undefined combination of [CTE and ETA lines] (specifically not bisected) that makes the "CTE visual".

The fact that the "CTE visual" is undefined is how we know that CTE is feel-based. Have you been arguing all this time without knowing that?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
ENGLISH!:
The 'visual' is seeing those two lines simultaneously without favoring one or the other. THAT is the only way it can be considered objective, being on the bisecting line.
Click to expand...
But since Stan has said specifically that the "CTE visual" isn't the bisecting line, that gets us nowhere toward testing it.

In fact, as I've said a few times already, the "CTE visual" can't be tested because it's undefined. We can show how an objective visual could be defined, but we can't show how that differs from a "CTE visual" - because we don't know what a "CTE visual" is. Hence the disagreements.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
But since Stan has said specifically that the "CTE visual" isn't the bisecting line, that gets us nowhere toward testing it.

In fact, as I've said a few times already, the "CTE visual" can't be tested because it's undefined. We can show how an objective visual could be defined, but we can't show how that differs from a "CTE visual" - because we don't know what a "CTE visual" is. Hence the disagreements.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

You're nit picking to an extent.

I agree that other than the bisecting line other lines have not been objectively defined & hence are subjective & there are too many required to make doing so practical.

Neil's balk saying that a step or steps are left out 'begs' for that step or those steps to be objectively defined but neither they nor Stan will do that because as I just said & you know there are too many required to make doing that practical.

They will undoubtedly say what does it matter & if they are pocketing balls then it does not & should not matter... to them.

But others should not be pulled in with an inaccurate assertion.

Best Wishes.
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
You're nit picking to an extent.

I agree that other than the bisecting line other lines have not been objectively defined & hence are subjective & there are too many required to make doing so practical.

Neil's balk saying that a step or steps are left out 'begs' for that step or those steps to be objectively defined but neither they nor Stan will do that because as I just said & you know there are too many required to make doing that practical.

They will undoubtedly say what does it matter & if they are pocketing balls then it does not & should not matter... to them.

But others should not be pulled in with an inaccurate assertion.

Best Wishes.
Click to expand...

Which is a total crock. Not once did you say anything about TOI's inaccurate assertions, which were overly abundant in almost every post. Yet you have thousands of posts about ONE word with CTE that you have a problem with. :rolleyes:
 
Neil said:
Which is a total crock. Not once did you say anything about TOI's inaccurate assertions, which were overly abundant in almost every post. Yet you have thousands of posts about ONE word with CTE that you have a problem with. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Stan is not kidding around as CJ so often was when he was NOT being literal.

But keep attacking the messenger instead of addressing the 'message'.

I'm rather sure it's rather telling to everyone.
 
ENGLISH! said:
Stan is not kidding around as CJ so often was when he was NOT being literal.

But keep attacking the messenger instead of addressing the 'message'.

I'm rather sure it's rather telling to everyone.
Click to expand...

If I am attacking anything, which I'm not, it's your message. Your message is nothing more than a petty vendetta.

And, if you really expect anyone to believe that CJ was kidding around with the instructions he gave and the reasoning he gave, then the whole forum can see that you think we all are idiots. And, if CJ really was doing that, all the more reason you should have been all over him.

Go ahead and twist that all you want, I'm sure you will. Just like the last post. :rolleyes:
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I'm telling you what can and can't be tested. You're tap dancing around the fact that you clearly don't get it.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

No. I get it.

I know exactly what you're saying in regards to 'testing'.

If IT is not defined then IT can not be tested. I understood that before & I understood it when you 'said' it.

AND I agree.

However....

What I was 'saying' is that given my set up... the CTEer could not convey to the technician to align the cue in any way other than what would be objective means. No subjectivity could be relayed.

Hence, shots would not be pocketed by those OBJECTIVE MEANS that do not specifically fit a shot at hand.

That should show that when shots are pocketed by CTEers it's because subjectivity is in play.

It would be a combination of different results, one with subjectivity involved & one without.

That should make it clear that the success of those 'using it'... is NOT due to any objective nature.

Maybe that is too complex for YOU to understand.

As I think you've said before, this is not rocket science. In fact, it's just simple common sense.

I'm done playing games with veiled insults with you.

You have a good evening.
 
Last edited:
Neil said:
If I am attacking anything, which I'm not, it's your message. Your message is nothing more than a petty vendetta.

And, if you really expect anyone to believe that CJ was kidding around with the instructions he gave and the reasoning he gave, then the whole forum can see that you think we all are idiots. And, if CJ really was doing that, all the more reason you should have been all over him.

Go ahead and twist that all you want, I'm sure you will. Just like the last post. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Another post by you that addresses nothing other than attacking me, again, along with an attempt to distract & throw focus away & onto another area.

Telling.
 
Uh oh.

There must be trouble in paradise when two of CTE's biggest "haters" are going at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top