Same Old Same Old

Patrick Johnson said:
.

But despite Stan being the one who wants to attack me, I don't wish that on him. Stan, I know you don't trust me, but get some objective advice. The imbeciles goading you on here would be thrilled for you to throw yourself under the bus for a pie-in-the-sky chance at their personal revenge for some past slight. No skin off their noses.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Who might those imbeciles be out of curiosity?

Also just out of curiosity and unrelated to this issue, do you happen to know another pool player in the Chicago area named Ed Sharp? I think he might have played at Chris's at times when you were there.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I'm friends and acquaintances with lots of attorneys, few of whom charge as little as $300/hr these days. Fortunately for me, some of them are good enough friends to take a case as easy as this on the come - they'd wait to be paid by Stan. So much for any profits he's made from CTE.

But despite Stan being the one who wants to attack me, I don't wish that on him. Stan, I know you don't trust me, but get some objective advice. The imbeciles goading you on here would be thrilled for you to throw yourself under the bus for a pie-in-the-sky chance at their personal revenge for some past slight. No skin off their noses.

And, by the way, if you think threatening lawsuits will chill discussion about the nonsense descriptions of how CTE works, think again. I'll still offer my opinion, and I'm not the only one. AzB isn't your bought-and-paid-for billboard; it's a discussion forum.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

We all know one thing, YOU will not step up to the plate and debate CTE as nonsense with a $40,000 to your $2000 bet......

Stan Shuffett
 
JB Cases said:
There was nothing to see. You found one stroke issue on a shot that wasn't aimed using CTE.

The rest of the shots you criticized were done with a straight stroke.

Colin Colenso put out a video showing that pivoting and swiping across the ball has little effect on the resulting pocketing when a KNOWN line is carefully marked and the bridge is fixed to the line. You just ignored that.

So the point is, if we accept Colin's demonstration, that even if there was the tiniest amount of stroke deviation from dead straight that doesn't necessarily CORRELATE to the SUBCONSCIOUS gearing you claimed it happening.

In other words the shooter chooses a line and goes with it and you can't say that they are subconsciously doing anything based on their stroke. Even if there were deviations to talk about which in Stan's video there aren't on any of the CTE shots.

Video One - analyzing your "analysis" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THkFF7FBGBA

Video Two - again debunking your attempt to discredit Stan. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4DDQ0NUC5U

And finally in response to your continued claim - the video magnified 500% and shown 75% slower than normal - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcch-egS9Qk

I am sure that I can slow it down even more if you're still not convinced.

You need to stop thinking that Stan is "gearing" these shots in some way.
Click to expand...

I realized much of the time I spent in this forum was combating inconsistencies in your posts, this being no exception. I'm not debating you any more because you have difficulty following a logical path. That being said, I did enjoy your link to the computer guys who solved a 50 year old math problem. Interesting even though I didn't understand half of it.
 
duckie said:
Any system that offers no way, no method to know why you missed is useless.

Dan, you need to work on speed control, not aiming. This from watching your part 1 video. How many times have you practice that combo to get the speed right? Yet you are trying to get something to work and failing. Why?

Your game is stalled until you get CTE out of your head.
Click to expand...

What video are you talking about?

I agree that speed control is important, but CTE is not in my head. It is a curiosity that I find interest in.
 
stan shuffett said:
We all know one thing, YOU will not step up to the plate and debate CTE as nonsense with a $40,000 to your $2000 bet......

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...
You're right; I won't co-star in your promotional video with you - the fact that you even think it could mean anything makes it clear that we'd never agree on a bet even if I was interested in your money (I'm not).

Anyway (as I've said over and over), why not just "step up to the plate" here on AzB and have a rational, non-inflammatory discussion about it? Trying to go all Jerry Springer with it just shows you want to grandstand, not discuss.

And, again (and again and again), I don't say all of CTE is nonsense - it's the claims of its "total objectivity" that I've always disputed. Another basic misunderstanding that shows we're on different wavelengths.

pj
chgo
 
Dan White said:
I realized much of the time I spent in this forum was combating inconsistencies in your posts, this being no exception. I'm not debating you any more because you have difficulty following a logical path. That being said, I did enjoy your link to the computer guys who solved a 50 year old math problem. Interesting even though I didn't understand half of it.
Click to expand...

It's ok Dan, I don't need you to debate me. When you or anyone else posts something I feel like commenting on then I will do so.

As for your idea that I can't follow a logical path....well that's your wrong opinion. You decided to pick on one shot where Stan aimed it wrong NOT USING CTE and "appeared" to possibly steer the cueball and then falsely claim that Stan steered all of his shots that WERE AIMED USING CTE, coming to the conclusion that Stan MUST BE subconciously adjusting to make the shots because his brain knows that the shots are not aimed right.

When I show you in super slow motion magnified 500% that you are WRONG you say I am incapable of following a logical path.

You can make critical videos and I can make videos that analyze your conclusions.

The viewers can then decide for themselves what information they want to go with.

I see that you haven't made a curtain video doing any of the random shots Stan did. Wonder why? Think it might be a little more difficult than you claimed to throw out random balls and make them without a miss with a curtain blocking the pocket if you're just going by feel? I do and it looks like you do to.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
You're right; I won't co-star in your promotional video with you - the fact that you even think it could mean anything makes it clear that we'd never agree on a bet even if I was interested in your money (I'm not).

Anyway (as I've said over and over), why not just "step up to the plate" here on AzB and have a rational, non-inflammatory discussion about it? Trying to go all Jerry Springer with it just shows you want to grandstand, not discuss.

And, again (and again and again), I don't say all of CTE is nonsense - it's the claims of its "total objectivity" that I've always disputed. Another basic misunderstanding that shows we're on different wavelengths.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I do not blame you for not wanting to debate me at a table. You are in an extremely weak position by NOT knowing what CTE really is. You'd be sporting a fork very quickly.

Having said all of that, I am officially naming you as CTE MVP. If it were not for you, I do not think I could have had the necessary drive and perseverance to reach the end with CTE.
YOU, PJ, MVP will be quite responsible for my book going to all 50 states and all around the world. THANK YOU! I may not sue you after all. You, SIR!!! are my MVP.......

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:
Dan White said:
I don't want to rehash the history that led to the making of that video. I found a good one of Gerry Williams shooting the 5 shots and I haven't analyzed it yet. From a first watch it looks like his cue is straight on all the shots.

I'm torn between not spending any more time on this because, honestly, I pocket balls pretty nicely. On the other hand I find the whole debate interesting and if I can shed some light on it with video or whatever then that is a good thing.

When I have the inclination I'll analyze Gerry's video and post it and I might do one of myself trying to demonstrate CTE so you can tell me what I'm doing wrong, which could be a lot. That doesn't change the fact that nobody can explain the system. I wish more people were like morht and just said it can't be explained and the only way to make it work is to I guess force your mind to see the perceptions like they are all the same (or something like that).
Click to expand...

Maybe not explained but it can be taught very easily.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
You're right; I won't co-star in your promotional video with you - the fact that you even think it could mean anything makes it clear that we'd never agree on a bet even if I was interested in your money (I'm not).

Anyway (as I've said over and over), why not just "step up to the plate" here on AzB and have a rational, non-inflammatory discussion about it? Trying to go all Jerry Springer with it just shows you want to grandstand, not discuss.

And, again (and again and again), I don't say all of CTE is nonsense - it's the claims of its "total objectivity" that I've always disputed. Another basic misunderstanding that shows we're on different wavelengths.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Why don't you start by debating without being inflammatory?

And then SHOW where the lack of objectivity is in the system.

Surely you can't be basing your entire premise on the idea that the mind is "unknowable" and therefore the subjectivity that you "know" is there can't be demonstrated but you know it's there in the unknowable subconscious mind?

If that's your foundation then perhaps you should bow out of the discussion entirely.

Because as we have said I zillion times.....the proof is in the results.

Make more shots, make tougher shots, win more games.

It's that simple.

You're right no one knows what's really happening in the brain, not me and NOT YOU.

I know that given a simple set of instructions and a different way to look at the shot I MAKE MORE SHOTS, MAKE TOUGHER SHOTS, and WIN MORE GAMES.

Why should I even care what my brain is doing since my goals are reached? Why should you care since the goals of any pool player are reached if they get those results.

99% of top players can't tell you WHY the balls react the way they do. They don't know the math behind pool. They get up and shoot using whatever mental tools they like to use and get the results they want.

Who cares if a method is 80% objective, 99% objective, or is a funky zulu dance before every shot with a shot of whiskey......if the RESULTS are clear that the player MAKES MORE SHOTS, MAKES TOUGHER SHOTS, AND WINS MORE GAMES why knock it.

Encourage people to try it, to learn it, to ENJOY PLAYING POOL.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
You're right; I won't co-star in your promotional video with you - the fact that you even think it could mean anything makes it clear that we'd never agree on a bet even if I was interested in your money (I'm not).

Anyway (as I've said over and over), why not just "step up to the plate" here on AzB and have a rational, non-inflammatory discussion about it? Trying to go all Jerry Springer with it just shows you want to grandstand, not discuss.

And, again (and again and again), I don't say all of CTE is nonsense - it's the claims of its "total objectivity" that I've always disputed. Another basic misunderstanding that shows we're on different wavelengths.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

So in other words what you're saying if I understand what you're attempting to convey is...CTE works like a charm for every cut between 1 degree to 88 degrees
as long as the word "objective" is left out, correct?

I don't think it's the case so here are my thoughts.

When if this crap going to end with you whether it's objective or not? It HAS BEEN...IS...and will continue TO BE at an IMPASSE, DEADLOCK, DEAD END, STALEMATE, MEXICAN STAND OFF.

Pick any word you wish from above because they'll all work.
 
lfigueroa said:
I happen to be good friends with a couple of attorneys, one is a Fed. And what I've heard from them is that there is a glut of attorneys out there. Some can barely keep the lights on and will take any case, regardless of legal merit and probability of success. For too many of these guys it has become a matter of survival and they will do anything for billable hours.

And what many don't know, until they hire an attorney, is that every time you call or speak to them, every minute they work on your case, or write and file a motion, or even just make copy of something or sit in a courtroom waiting for the judge or another case to finish up, the meter is running at a rate of $150 - $300 an hour.

Cases of any complexity will take months to unwind, between initial consultations, discovery, motions to dismiss, hearings, depositions, and maybe eventually an actual trial. You are basically looking at a five figure investment from the get-go and that first digit can go up way fast.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

Same for the defendant
 
SpiderWebComm said:
...do you happen to know another pool player in the Chicago area named Ed Sharp? I think he might have played at Chris's at times when you were there.
Click to expand...
Hey, look who's sane this morning! Did you know it's Sunday and your WackSpidey personality was out of its cage the past couple days? Just a heads up...

pj
chgo
 
duckie said:
Any system that offers no way, no method to know why you missed is useless.

Dan, you need to work on speed control, not aiming. This from watching your part 1 video. How many times have you practice that combo to get the speed right? Yet you are trying to get something to work and failing. Why?

Your game is stalled until you get CTE out of your head.
Click to expand...

Where is your game at? Wanna play some
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Hey, look who's sane this morning! Did you know it's Sunday and your WackSpidey personality was out of its cage the past couple days? Just a heads up...

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Huh? What is this attack all about? All I did was ask you a simple question and then name calling from you? What a nasty reaction.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...you really do need some mental help.
 
it's easily explained Dan. FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS and you will begin to perceive the lines described.

It's TWO LINES.

Start with one and follow the directions to see the other one. Bend into the shooting stance with the cue pointing to a half-tip away from center, pivot to center and shoot the ball.

Jesus I can DESCRIBE ghost ball on a white board and then watch players FAIL using it until they gain experience ON THE TABLE. Some people will need MORE INSTRUCTION to make GB work, some will need devices to "see" the GB.

Instead of all this whining on your part just buy the DVD and study it. Everything you need is on it if you have the tiniest bit of intelligence which you obviously have.
 
Stan, it's time we made ACTUAL promotional videos.

These guys keep claiming we are "selling" something so let's actually SELL something.

They won't do anything to stop it. Let's make it all slicker and add in testimonials from CTE users and video clips of them using it at the table. Pros and Amateurs alike.

All this back and forth could be much more productive if we use it to up our game even more.
 
JB Cases said:
Stan, it's time we made ACTUAL promotional videos.

These guys keep claiming we are "selling" something so let's actually SELL something.

They won't do anything to stop it. Let's make it all slicker and add in testimonials from CTE users and video clips of them using it at the table. Pros and Amateurs alike.

All this back and forth could be much more productive if we use it to up our game even more.
Click to expand...

I will make it to OK and your ideas are on the table......sounds like a plan to me...:)

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
And I bet the cute little tyke used up all your capital letters. Kids will be kids... :)

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I would have thought a simple yes or no would have been your response to the question. Your brain really is out there in the cosmos.

OK, since you don't care to answer the original question sensibly about Ed, lets try this one again.

So in other words what you're saying if I understand what you're attempting to convey is...CTE works like a charm for every cut between 1 degree to 88 degrees
as long as the word "objective" is left out, correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top