My Thread… Regarding The Truth about so called ‘Objective Aiming Systems’ such as CTE

[ENGLISH!]

Here you go guys.

http://pool.bz/CueTable.php

Diagram the shots that you are certain don't work in CTE and one of us will provide you with the solutions that work for them.

(Duckie, we already know you will post combinations and kick shots - don't bother. Instead of CTE I use various methods to measure them. Because as I told you, I and every CTE user still has the capability to use every other method of aiming, including a straight up guess if we want to)

This tool doesn't work in Chrome. But you can paste the links if you know how to use it or just do screenshots.

Mohrt also has a tool but the cuetable has lines that can be placed.

John,

It rather certainly seems that you just don't understand what it takes to prove matters of objectivity vs subjectivity.

What good would it do for anyone to diagram a shot & have you or someone else call out CTE, ETA with an inside pivot or sweep.

How does that prove in ANY legitimate manner whether one actually shoots the shots based purely on objective means or employs a subjective analysis & input into the execution. Things like being slightly off of the fixed line, fudging the amount of pivot or sweep, or sterring the cue, or some combination.

Why do you think that for ALL this time CTE has not been proved beyond a doubt given all of the attempts over the years. you & others have been using the wrong means.

If one keeps doing the same thing & getting the same results equals what?

I find it extremely difficult to 'believe' that you can not see that logical explanation is required for the realm of such things as to the USE of subjectivity vs objectivity & things in the physical realm of diagrams & videos offer no real proof in this type of realm in dispute.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

 

[cookie man]

Is making a reference to an individual that can not be mistaken by anyone as to who it was intended (op) & that reference being one of an 'idiot' qualify as an ad hominem attack?

When a side gets desperate in a logical debate they resort to the 'attacking the messenger' tactic & when that is made apparent & is also then failing, they resort to NAME CALLING such as referring to the 'opposition' as an idiot.

Best Wishes to ALL.

Qote from English:
"But... the real issue is that some can not seem to use reasonable rational, logic & critical non science bending thinking to make a proper determination.

I don't know why I give you a second of my time because I 'know' that there is no hope in you ever seeing the proper rational, logical, conclusion."

You've posted this over and over. You started the attacks. This statement or yours clearly says you think others are stupid.
Keep wearing the shoes Rick

 

[cookie man]

As I read these posts I feel I need to remind ALL of you that this will be a civil discussion.

From this point forward, it will result in at least temporary bans if you feel the need to add descriptives such as wacky, crazy, stupid, arrogant, ignorant etc.

The items that are added simply for defamatory effect will draw my attention.

English is in this thread and you are posting to it voluntarily. He's not stepping on your thread and for what I'm observing, has been polite.

Stop while you can.

"But... the real issue is that some can not seem to use reasonable rational, logic & critical non science bending thinking to make a proper determination.

I don't know why I give you a second of my time because I 'know' that there is no hope in you ever seeing the proper rational, logical, conclusion."

This is English's line he posts in just about every post. He is indirectly calling everyone stupid. Sorry you can't see that.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

What it would prove is that CTE coupled with good fundamentals results in an even higher degree of successful shot making.

I see... it couldn't be anything but the aiming system - until that doesn't work for you.

I guess we will forever be at an impasse when no one is good enough to talk to you.

At least until you begin to understand simple logic.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

This I will agree with.

I have nothing against anybody on here and will listen to almost every viewpoint, but he is OBSESSED.

If I were learning pool as a beginner, his posts would drive me away from reading anything on here. He disrupts things and gets TOO involved and doesn't know when to let things go...like several others on here.

I can name about 5 or 6 people here (off the top of my head) who have the same bad habit.

There is NO system that is 100% objective that has humans involved.

I can certainly agree with your last statement to some degree but would point out that the nature of something such as a process is not divided by any percentage. It is either objective in it's nature or it is not. It may have objective components but may certainly not be objective in it's nature.

I just don't like thinking of the many that might be intrigued, enticed, lured in, etc. by an inaccurate description & then waste much time pursuing that of which is just is not there.

I rather 'hate' to think about that.

My obsession, if I really have any, is with Truth.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

PS I was sort of led to open this thread. No one has to open it & no one has to read it or any specific post in it. So, I am not disrupting anything here & I rather never think of truth as being disruptive. I rather think as truth being enlightening.

If anyone is interested then they can open it... read... & then make their own determinations which is what I have always suggested.

Just as anyone that wants to buy & try CTE, can certainly do so & make their own determination from that process as well. But they will do so with an open mind, I think, if they have read what I and others like PJ , Anthony, Satorie, Dan White, Lou, & others have had to say.

As I've said with my ruptured disc in my back, it's rather easy to listen to music or television & participate here.

 

[JB Cases]

John,

Do you know what logical, reasonable, rational, critical, non science bending thinking is?

Do you know that such can be used as a means of proof & resolution for ALL disputes between individuals?

Do you know what a fallacy is?

Do you know what is meant by fallacious thinking?

fal·la·cious
fəˈlāSHəs/Submit
adjective
based on a mistaken belief.
"fallacious arguments"
synonyms: erroneous, false, untrue, wrong, incorrect, flawed, inaccurate, mistaken, misinformed, misguided; More

Do you understand that your attempts by other means will never be satisfactory until you can attach a completely logical non science bending explanation.

Your nit picking of words & phrases like 'produce an angle' will not undo what is logical.

75 angles! How does CTE 'define', 'deliver', 'produce', 'account for' or 'INSPIRE' each one needed to play the game completely successfully by a strictly 'OBJECTIVE' means?

PJ, Myself, Satorie, Anthony, etc, are attempting get everyone to apply logic.

You & your side seem to be trying to get everyone to put aside logic & simply believe.

You & others seem to be saying, don't ask questions, don't be concerned when certain questions are not or can not be answered or when answers offered don't make any logical sense.

You & others seem to be saying put all logic aside & just believe. It works for so & so & so & so, so it will work for you too because it is 'an objective aiming system'.

Well... logical, reasonable, rational, non science bending, critically thought out, thinking says otherwise given the fact 75 distinct outcome angels are required to play the game completely successfully.

Can CTE help someone play better if they drop ghost ball & employ CTE? Quite possibly so.

Can CTE help someone play better if they drop what ever other method they may be using? Quite possibly so.

Is it 'an objective aiming system' that is not depending on subjectivity for arriving at the true line of many if not most all shots?

Each individual should make their own logical determination when they hear both sides of the disputed description & keep in mind the required facts regarding the 75 distinct angles.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

There isn't any need to believe. The pool table sits there inert. The balls can be placed anywhere desired. The rails don't move, the pockets are stationary. The balls themselves don't move unless struck.

No one needs to take CTE on faith because everything needed to test it thoroughly is available to every pool player every where as long as they have access to a decent table and balls of equal size.

Again, angles don't matter. They don't. No aiming method refers to the angle of the shot and gives a formula to aim for it. Not a single one that I know of does this.

Why not?

Because no person can accurately say what the shot angle is consistently over any random ten shots. Can't do it, it's impossible. Oh some people can get closer than others but no person living can consistently do it shot after shot. So even speaking of angles, 25, 75, 180 whatever has zero bearing on the question of whether a system is objective or not. No one actively uses angles as part of their aiming process.

If they say they do then I want to hear about it and test them to see how accurately they can identify angles and then use that information to aim with. So honestly any such requirement that CTE "define" angles is merely a red herring in the discussion.

Even Ghost Ball makes no use of angles. Ghost Ball covers all angles but it doesn't define them. All you have to do is be able to accurately place a phantom ball at exactly the right size in exactly the right place shot after shot and then simply line up to replace it. Simple right? On paper it surely is.

So no, whereever you got this 75 angles thing from you can ship it back because no one thinks in angles when they play. Furthermore no angle has any bearing on any other angle. Once again each cue ball object ball relationship is a singular problem for which a solution (shot line) must be found and chosen.

Let me repeat that for the three people still reading, the shooter has to solve a single problem when facing each shot. He is not worried about the 75 degree angle shot when he is facing a 42 degree one. He needs a way to get to the shot line reliably for each shot he faces. In fact he doesn't even think in angles. The shooter thinks in terms of degrees of difficulty more than anything else.

And this is where CTE shines.

You asked

75 angles! How does CTE 'define', 'deliver', 'produce', 'account for' or 'INSPIRE' each one needed to play the game completely successfully by a strictly 'OBJECTIVE' means?

Easily. CTE has a single initial alignment, the center of the CB to the Edge of the OB. Two objective points that can be objectively connected visually. So the first step is to simply find the CTE Line clearly. The second step is to then find a second line which is the Edge of the Cueball lined up to one of the three defined aim points on the object ball, a-the first quarter division, b-the center of the CB or C-the third quarter division.

Once these two lines are firmly established, and it's pretty easy to do this the shooter then let's his eyes start out on one side and sweep over the ball with the cue stick moving with them until the cue stops at 1/2 tip away from center cue ball. The shooter then pivots into center ball and is on the shot line. The instructions are a little more detailed than that with inside and outside sweeps that thicken or thin the shot but those are also objective moves that don't change.

The shooter has zero need to be concerned with the actual cur angle as whatever it is CTE provides a solution for it since CTE starts at the cueball. And again all this bears out ON THE TABLE.

On the table is where all methods have to be worked out. This is how shooters determine the level of objectivity in a method and how reliable it is. CTE has proven itself to be 100% reliable.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Guilty.

Rick and Pat Johnson are of the opinion that no objectivity in aiming exists.

I think you know that this is not true. Even your favorite method CP2CP you called it I think is more objective than simply guessing. In fact anything other than guessing is objective to some degree.

Wrong...

at least the implication is.

Did you do that on purpose?

I have conceded that the points, etc, could be considered objective even though by strict definition they are not, they are conceivable by all & hence are objective concepts.

So... if one employs them then one would have a line based on objectivity.

Now if one can also execute the objective concept of the 1/2 pivot, one would have arrived on a line based on objectivity.

But, as you have said, one does not know if that is the objective true line for the shot. If the ball pockets, then it was. If not, then it was not.

If it does not pocket, does not mean that it was it was the wrong choice of a small selection. It just means that there was not anything objectively that influenced the shooter to get to the true objectively correct line for that shot.

So... there can be objective components used in aiming or aligning but that does not mean the the process is objective.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

 

[ENGLISH!]

If what they think were true, you might as well play the game blindfolded.

Totally inaccurate.

I seems rather apparent that you are one, too, that does not understand objectivity vs subjectivity or perhaps even what they actually are.

Best Wishes to ALL.

 

[JB Cases]

I can certainly agree with your last statement to some degree but would point out that the nature of something such as a process is not divided by any percentage. It is either objective in it's nature or it is not. It may have objective components but may certainly not be objective in it's nature.

I just don't like thinking of the many that might be intrigued, enticed, lured in, etc. by an inaccurate description & then waste much time pursuing that of which is just is not there.

I rather 'hate' to think about that.

My obsession, if I really have any, is with Truth.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

PS I was sort of led to open this thread. No one has to open it & no one has to read it or any specific post in it. So, I am not disrupting anything here & I rather never think of truth as being disruptive. I rather think as truth being enlightening.

If anyone is interested then they can open it... read... & then make their own determinations which is what I have always suggested.

Just as anyone that wants to buy & try CTE, can certainly do so & make their own determination from that process as well. But they will do so with an open mind, I think, if they have read what I and others like PJ , Anthony, Satorie, Dan White, Lou, & others have had to say.

As I've said with my ruptured disc in my back, it's rather easy to listen to music or television & participate here.

If you were interested in truth you would have worked it out on the table and been able to show exactly WHERE and HOW it doesn't work.

Stop with the "save the pool players" nonsense. This isn't about altruism on your part, it's about your obsession with the word objective.

You speak with a forked tongue on this subject and it's odious.

Let me say it in pool speak, pick your best team of amateurs from AZB who all are vocally anti-CTE with their silly assertions and I will pick a team of CTE users and will flat out bust you in an all around. That's the stone-cold BOTTOM LINE here.

This is a practical method of aiming that WORKS accurately and OBJECTIVELY. Nothing you can say, no amount of word dancing can change the ON TABLE RESULTS.

Any of you have action in shot making contests any time. Any of you are welcome to come to my training facility and show me the "holes" you claim are there or the angles that you think CTE can't handle. Bring it on the table.

But you won't because you can't. You can't get on a pool table and prove something is false when you can't even do it properly or at all. All you can do is sit around and tell people it's all a big amount of fudging to find the aiming line. Even if it were it's the best way to fudge your way into the right shot line. But that's NOT how it works.

What Pat Johnson does, literally fidgeting while down on the ball IS fudging and hunting for a shot line. It is an extreme example of it as a matter of fact. If I still have video of it I will post it so the world can see what SUBJECTIVE aiming looks like in comparison to OBJECTIVE aiming.

So with that, finally I think I have said all that I have to say on this. It's truly crazy how you manage to write just the right combination of words that I feel compelled to rebut you yet again. Thanks for this thread. I have gained some more insight though the discussion of objectivity vs. subjectivity as pertains to CTE and aiming in general.

I pretty much disagree with you about everything on this topic but at least we had a discussion about it that worked to get me thinking a little deeper on the topic. Was good that this wasn't carried on in another thread derailing and poisoning it.

Ciao, look for my videos. They have a wider reach than here but you gave me stuff to work out on video.

 

[ENGLISH!]

The cut angle, which is actually unknown to the shooter and which does not matter, nevertheless exists.

No one goes by cut angles except in very very limited situations, and even then they really don't. A true half ball hit is what, 30 degrees? and of course a straight in is zero degrees.

I never hear players using cut angles to aim shots. I have never heard an instructor tell a student "here is how you make a 17 degree shot".

So cut angles truly don't matter because they are not identified when shooting at all. No one looks at a shot and thinks, this is a 37 degree cut so therefore I have to do x-y-z.

John, all of the above is just more nit picking & diversion. How do the objectives of CTE indicate 75 distinct cut angle that are needed?

No, instead people see a shot and they use any method they know of that they like to decide on a shot line to put the cue on. CTE for example is one such method.

A CTE user simply steps up to the shot and uses the visual that works give them a shot line with zero regard for the actual cut angle.

As Hal once said, "how do you know a shot is straight in and not 2 degrees?" In other words, using the system takes all that cut angle worry out of the aiming process. And to be clear, when I say cut angle worry I am speaking of the "severity" of shots faced not actual cut angles. Obviously we all know what shots appear tough and which cause trepidation in the shooter.

CTE provides a rock solid solution in the form of a resolve to a shot line that turns out to be correct all of the time. This allows the shooter to get down with 100% trust that the aim is right regardless of cut angle. And that leads to better delivery and more shots made even for people with bad stroking techniques.

John, all above are just more very definitive statements with no real support for such & forgive me, but sort of sound like a 'bad' used car salemen.

John,

Can you not see that what you speak of, regarding confidence, lack of trepidation, etc. is just how it is with any other 'system' or method that a high level player utilizes but is in no way ANY proof or indication of an objective system just as it does not indicate that what ever a high level player is using would be indicative that they are using an 'objective system'.

If what you say here is true & for the length of time that you have been involved with it, what happened to CTE when you played LOU?

I sort of hate to bring that up, but your definitive statements without any real definitive support for them brings up the obvious 'rebuttal'.

When you say things like 'ALL of the time' & 'Rock Solid', then that applies to your match with Lou too.

Is CTE more objective than ghost ball?

Perhaps in one sense as it relates to real vision & aligning to some 'objective' markers, but not as it relates to concept.

Best Wishes to you & ALL.

 

[mohrt]

JB and Lou's one pocket match resolved nothing regarding aiming systems. It only demonstrated that Lou is a more experienced one pocket player. Recall that Lou wanted nothing to do with rotation games. One pocket was his best chance. Do you think Lou would beat JB in 10 ball?

A good matchup for the sake of aiming would be the game of horse. The players go through a series of predetermined shots unknown to them before hand. See who makes them in the least amount of tries.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Proper perception is that which works as opposed to perceptions that don't. Since you don't actually know what a CTE perception looks like in my opinion based on your writings so far you don't know what the steps actually do nor what part a perception plays in the process.

No, Rick, no one says that you must stand 4" offset to the cueball for x-perception and 3.3" for y-perception.

But once players learn how THEY see the CTE line - i.e. for me it might be a 2" offset and for someone else it's a 2.2" offset then that body placement works EVERY TIME.

That's where individual body types and visual acuity and even dominant eye plays a part.

It appears that you are not understanding my meaning or your 'examples' are not indicative of the subject matter at all.

I was not & never have been talking about where one might have to stand given there individual 'vision center' to see a visual.

Regardless of that, for each individual, there is ONLY that one place for THEM to see the 2 lines simultaneously & fix the CB & Hence the line that they are on.

That is the the same for shots 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 if the same visual of CTE & ETA is used for each as it was indicated.

Now obviously all 5 of those parallel shots can NOT be pocketed with the exact same cue line.

Each one takes an individual & distinct cue line & hence for the exact same precise 1/2 tip pivot to be executed accurately one must be on the line that is fixed by the visual of CTE & ETA seen simultaneously.

No one has given any indication of any objective influence that makes or takes the shooter into the different physical position required for each of those completely different ANGLED shots.

The reason for that is that there IS NOTHING OBJECTIVE that does that.

It's done based on one's individual subjective perception of what is required to pocket each individual shot.

If you or anyone else says that the physically different position of the shooter & the cue for each of the 5 distinctly differently angled shots that are based on CTE & ETA is NOT subjectively influence then PLEASE TELL what it is that 'objectively' influences that different physical position.

Either CTE & ETA actually do fix the CB & the shooter to make the process 'objective'...

or they do NOT & the PROCESS IS NOT OBJECTIVE.

Y'all can't have it both ways...

AT LEAST NOT IN A NON SCIENCE BENDING WAY OR LOGICALLY SO.

So... PLEASE TELL what it is that is objective that would influence the shooter to get into a different physical position based off of the same CTE/ETA visual? That is, if you THINK that there is something objective & are not just following a blind faith fallacious belief.

It is scientifically impossible for the two balls & the line that is parallel to other shots to any way 'present' themselves differently.

Either the CTE line & the other 'edge to' line are objective or they are not.

So which is it?

Best Wishes 2 You & ALL.

 

[ENGLISH!]

if the shoe fits Rick it must be on your foot

IMO,

You should receive the consequences as set forth by the guidelines.

Especially since you just double down after Mr. Wilson's post.

Best Wishes to ALL

 

[JB Cases]

John,

Can you not see that what you speak of, regarding confidence, lack of trepidation, etc. is just how it is with any other 'system' or method that a high level player utilizes but is in no way ANY proof or indication of an objective system just as it does not indicate that what ever a high level player is using would be indicative that they are using an 'objective system'.

If what you say here is true & for the length of time that you have been involved with it, what happened to CTE when you played LOU?

I sort of hate to bring that up, but your definitive statements without any real definitive support for them brings up the obvious 'rebuttal'.

When you say things like 'ALL of the time' & 'Rock Solid', then that applies to your match with Lou too.

Is CTE more objective than ghost ball?

Perhaps in one sense as it relates to real vision & aligning to some 'objective' markers, but not as it relates to concept.

Best Wishes to you & ALL.

Wilson can I please use a string of expletives?

Here you are making the SAME WRONG assertion that CTE is supposed to be some kind of magic bullet that fixes everything else.

You want to know what happened in my match with Lou?

Ok, first off I was physically beat up after traveling 24 hours in the car from New Orleans to get to the SBE and then putting in 18-20 hours days for five days straight.

Secondly when I got there and saw the assembled "team" I got upset and that affected my mood negatively. Thirdly I stupidly got into an altercation with someone I despise shortly before the match and the subsequent spike in adrenaline carried into the beginning of the match.

Fourthly I was too busy "showboating" to settle down and focus.

Lastly, I am an idiot that didn't spend enough time ironing out my deteriorating fundamentals to insure that my worst stroking habits didn't come out.

I did use CTE on every shot and I was PROBABLY on the right shot line 90% of the time but then I would simply flat out dog the stroke. So again, I know you think you are "getting me" with the continued references to my match with Lou but actually you are only proving what we have already said a zillion times, CTE doesn't fix stroking errors.

As for how five shots across the table all use the same visual solution.....I don't know YET. Since I haven't tried those shots in that order I don't know what they look like or why the shooter should be able to use the same key for all the shots. I doubt highly that it's fudging because it would really be dumb for Stan to make a video demonstrating this if it were not true.

Yes CTE is more objective than ANY other aiming method that I know of.

 

[JB Cases]

JB and Lou's one pocket match resolved nothing regarding aiming systems. It only demonstrated that Lou is a more experienced one pocket player. Recall that Lou wanted nothing to do with rotation games. One pocket was his best chance. Do you think Lou would beat JB in 10 ball?

A good matchup for the sake of aiming would be the game of horse. The players go through a series of predetermined shots unknown to them before hand. See who makes them in the least amount of tries.

Lou won't beat me in one pocket either.

I played off the air and that was why I lost. Lou didn't outplay me, I simply dogged it too much.

 

[Neil]

IMO,

You should receive the consequences as set forth by the guidelines.

Especially since you just double down.

Best Wishes to ALL

For what? The ad hominen attack you made that he called you on? You have made at least five times the amount of attacks as anyone else on this thread. As the mods told you, you want to dish it out, but go crying everytime you get it back a little.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Arrogant, omniscient, illogical, disingenuous, non-sensical comments, condescending, hogwash, hypocrites, unreasonable, false accusers, deceivers, liars, ego inflaters, lacking intellectual ability to understand.

Those are just some of the terms Rick has used to describe others in this thread. Maybe to you that comes across as polite discourse. I can assure you, it doesn't to the rest of us. Are you only reading the posts that he keeps reporting to you?

You really do seem to have issues with context & differentiating between some matters or you do what you do on purpose.

The phrase, 'you're like satan'... taken out of context would certainly seem to be of an insulting nature to some, if not most, but if put in the context of...

you're like satan, as he was once one of the most beautiful & 2nd only to God Himself. You're still that like that in the eyes of all of us here.

But it's easy to take things out of context to give a wrong impression, I think satan himself may have invented that tactic.

For the life of me, I do not understand why some would employ that tactic.

I have no idea how you have come to believe that Mr. Wilson is my 'Buddy' as you called him the other day nor how you think that he would favor me.

I'm under restrictions that HE has placed upon me.

I think everyone that is not biased can plainly see what one of your agendas are.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

 

[ENGLISH!]

In your quote above, I deleted some of the same old rehash that has been covered hundreds of times before.

Your first statement in the quote above is accusatory at best. It also is completely false. Disingenuous means deceiving. That is what you are doing while accusing others of it.

The topic is aiming using CTE. Which is nothing more than hitting one ball to make another ball go into a pocket. If the subject was getting from point A to point B and how to get there, one would talk about driving a car. In that description of how to arrive at point B from point A, there may be descriptions on how to drive a car and how to use maps. No where would there be any type of description on exactly how a car works. Nor would there be any accusations of deceit because the fine details of how a car operates where not included. Yet, you demand them from CTE. Does that sound like a reasonable demand?

Your next paragraph quoted, you state that some use a different meaning of the word objective to suit their needs and don't use the meaning that you want to use. Essentially, you are faulting us for using the proper definition of the word because it makes your whole argument null and void.

You even admit in your statement that the meaning we use is an acceptable meaning of the word. You just can't handle the truth of it, so now you are actually faulting us for using a proper word. You even state that if we continue to use an accepted definition of the word, that the journey will not be a smooth one. That alone should make it perfectly clear to the mods exactly what you are doing here. It's not about a word, it's about slandering others.

Then you attempt to make a point about leather. Yet, you didn't think it through very well. Go by any leather shoe. They are advertised as leather, yet have a lot of rubber, cloth, and stitching in them. No judge would say they are not leather shoes because they contain some other products also.

So, where does that leave us at? It leaves us at a point where CTE can be described as an objective system by the true definitions of the word objective. Does that also mean that every little detail in the system has to be objective? No, it does not. No more than a leather shoe must contain nothing other than leather. Which means, by your own examples above, you have totally blown your arguments out of the water, and therefore should no longer have any issue with CTE.

I almost immediately stopped reading this post when I quickly saw you putting your chosen definition on other's intended use of words.

So, since I stopped reading it, there will be no further response from me regarding it other than here.

It seems that you have forgotten since yesterday that I am NOT inclined to have any discussion nor conversation with you for what, I think, would be rather obvious reasons to most.

You Have a Good Evening & Best Wishes to ALL.

 

[Neil]

You really do seem to have issues with context & differentiating between some matters or you do what do on purpose.

The phrase, 'you're like satan'... taken out of context would certainly seem to be of an insulting nature to some, if not most, but if put in the context of...

you're like satan, as he was once one of the most beautiful & 2nd only to God Himself. You're still that like that in the eyes of all of us here.

But it's easy to take things out of context to give a wrong impression, I think satan himself may have invented that tactic.

For the life of me, I do not understand why some would employ that tactic.

I have no idea how you have come to believe that Mr. Wilson is my 'Buddy' as you called him the other day nor how you think that he would favor me.

I'm under restrictions that HE has placed upon me.

I think everyone that is not biased can plainly see what one of your agendas are.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

Everyone is free to read the posts themselves and make their own determinations. Wait, it seems by the fact that a number of people have already commented on your incessant name calling, that they already have made their determinations. I see you are very familiar with Satan's tactics. But, it is not I that uses them.

 

[Neil]

I almost immediately stopped reading this post when I quickly saw you putting your chosen definition on other's intended use of words.

So, since I stopped reading it, there will be no further response from me regarding it other than here.

It seem that you have forgotten since yesterday that am not inclined to have any discussion nor conversation with you for what, I think, would be rather obvious reasons to most.

You Have a Good Evening & Best Wishes to ALL.

Of course there won't be any response to it. You have been flat out proven wrong. You have no defense, so you choose to ignore. Just like you ignore the definition of objective that fits the way we use it. Go hide your head in the sand. You made it perfectly clear that you want no part of the truth.

Now that you once again have decided not to discuss, but instead only want a platform to cry on, there is no point in anyone else responding to any of your threads. Have fun stewing in your solitude.