CTE. Why I think it works...

[stan shuffett]

Now you seem to be getting more into the realm of reality, I think.

Yes, one can see an objective straight line from a variety of subjective positions.

But one or different individuals will not see them objectively the same from those different subjective positions.

Each different subjective position will yield a different subjective perception of that SAME line.

I'll just stop there.

I hope we can stay in a civil vein without you going off as you did yesterday.

Apparently, you do not understand what I am saying.
My book is proving to be a 2 year project. I am working, on one hand to be comprehensive and on the other to have basic phrasing.
It is not feasible to start tossing little nuggets here and there about all that I have learned in 10 years......
I am practically full time for 2 years of book work plus publishing costs. I can assure you that I would not redo this for a 100G a year.
So, as I view it.......this book is about a $250G project. I am flat out NOT doing this for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If you think that is my motivation, then you have totally misread me.

I do not want my work to be lost.....too much learned to not text it up in an orderly manner.

I have gone above board to share many additional insights on YouTube. In fact, the basics for all of my knowledge can be accessed there.

Anyway, what I am doing is a thankless chore....I get hammered and made fun of and in many ways you serve to fan the flames. It hurts me and it hurts my family.....But, no matter what....I am going to finish and submit the most comprehensive study for CTE that will likely ever be presented.

Bottom line......I do not care one bit whether CTE is 98% objective or 100% objective or anywhere in between.....The system works as described.

Stan Shuffett

 

[stan shuffett]

It is difficult to always remain civil when someone is nipping at your heels or flicking your ears for nearly 6 years......In conjunction with the ones that literally hate my work and what it stands for.....No one will ever understand what I have gone through to get this juncture. I have constantly had a foot pressed right on the side of my face.

Stan Shuffett

 

[GoldenFlash]

Apparently, you do not understand what I am saying.
My book is proving to be a 2 year project. I am working, on one hand to be comprehensive and on the other to have basic phrasing.
It is not feasible to start tossing little nuggets here and there about all that I have learned in 10 years......
I am practically full time for 2 years of book work plus publishing costs. I can assure you that I would not redo this for a 100G a year.
So, as I view it.......this book is about a $250G project. I am flat out NOT doing this for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If you think that is my motivation, then you have totally misread me.
I do not want my work to be lost.....too much learned to not text it up in an orderly manner.
I have gone above board to share many additional insights on YouTube. In fact, the basics for all of my knowledge can be accessed there.
But, what I am doing is a thankless chore....I get hammered and made fun of and in many ways you serve to fans the flames. It hurts me and it hurts my family.....But, no matter what....I am going to finish and submit the most comprehensive for CTE that will likely ever be presented.
stan Shuffett

I will state (as I've done before) that I am VERY thankful for your discoveries. I lap them up like the sweet memories of teenage kissin' from long, long, ago.:clapping:
Please ignore any jackals nipping at your heels and keep on keepin' on.
As for me, "I jes' love seein' them balls keep goin' in them holes".....

 

[ENGLISH!]

Theoretically you can throw an object ball and a cb anywhere on the table and if you use any one of the 8 perceptual options, the ball will either go in a pocket, or bank towards a pocket.

It's because of the 1 by 2 dimension of the pool table. Im wondering if you were to place another pool table image over the original shot, in any orientation, and a pool table of any size (as long as it's a 1x2 dimension pool table), the ball should be going into pockets either directly or off of banks into a pocket on the "ghost" table.

I think there would be at least a pattern of cte perceptions either being pocketed on the ghost table either directly or indirectly within reason.

The point is to prove that shooting with cte perceptions will naturally take you along track lines that lead to pockets based on the geometry of a pool table.

I guess you can set up a random shot, fire in the ball from 1 to 90 degrees x amount of times.

Then you compare it to firing in the same shot but with the 8 cte options.

Then you overlay the ghost table over it, I don't think size or orientation matters as long as the two tables overlap where the cb and object ball start.

Then you see if cte is making more balls off the ghost table, versus the full 90 degrees.

If orientation of the ghost table doesnt matter and cte is still getting more balls to track towards a pocket, I'd say that'd be hard to ignore.

Tony,

Please think of this.

IF what you are suggesting would be true then you're saying that there are only 8 outcome angles required to play the game.

That's just not the case & especially for tight pockets & especially for center pocket play.

Yes there may be many ghost ball positions & resulting angles that from a certain spot on the table that will not pocket for maybe 8 or more rails, I don't really know. But... there are THE Ghost Ball positions that WILL pocket any shot because there are 90 or more of them. There is actually an 'infinite' number of ghost ball positions available.

I'll just stop there so as to not draw fire from other sources.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

PS Are you having most success with it now than you were before?

 

[ENGLISH!]

Apparently, you do not understand what I am saying.
My book is proving to be a 2 year project. I am working, on one hand to be comprehensive and on the other to have basic phrasing.
It is not feasible to start tossing little nuggets here and there about all that I have learned in 10 years......
I am practically full time for 2 years of book work plus publishing costs. I can assure you that I would not redo this for a 100G a year.
So, as I view it.......this book is about a $250G project. I am flat out NOT doing this for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If you think that is my motivation, then you have totally misread me.

I do not want my work to be lost.....too much learned to not text it up in an orderly manner.

I have gone above board to share many additional insights on YouTube. In fact, the basics for all of my knowledge can be accessed there.

Anyway, what I am doing is a thankless chore....I get hammered and made fun of and in many ways you serve to fan the flames. It hurts me and it hurts my family.....But, no matter what....I am going to finish and submit the most comprehensive study for CTE that will likely ever be presented.

Bottom line......I do not care one bit whether CTE is 98% objective or 100% objective or anywhere in between.....The system works as described.

Stan Shuffett

A rather log post shortened to the following:

Sir,

I can appreciate what you're saying & can understand & have empathy for some of which you refer.

But... you have brought some of it down upon yourself with your refusal to discuss the matter of the word objective in any rational & logical manner as you have applied it to your method.

You've put & maintained that chip on your shoulder.

Your statement of not caring if it is 98 or 100% objective because it works as described is just yet another indication that you seem to not understand the word objective in the context of which you put it in the phrase of 'an objective aiming system'.

The core nature of determining the final shot line is either totally objective or it is totally subjective & not 98% or any amount other than 100%. The key word there is the verb determining.

So, when you say "it works as describe" that then becomes an issue... even if your instructions or directions use the word perception i them. There is more than one 'description' of it in place.

You seem to not understand that rather simple fact & your failure to even discuss that in a rational logical manner is & has been at the core of your issue here.

This is a discussion forum & not a bully pulpit or a lecture podium.

The phrase of 'an objective aiming system' can be very misleading & is very suggestive of something that basically does not exist & if such a system were devised it would be way too complex for any normal human being to utilize effectively.

I'll just stop there other to say that if it is not already too late, I sincerely hope, for your sake, that you have a language expert to be the editor of your book that perhaps also plays a bit of pool.

I'm rather sure that given the history that some one will quote something from your book & it will be all on again if maters are not stated accurately & it will be done even if I pass away in my sleep tonight.

I apologize for any 'pain' that I may have caused You or Any Member of Your Family, as that has never been my intention at all.

But... I have placed my concern for the potential many others that might be mislead by the phrase of 'an objective aiming system" ahead of any concern for You as I have seen it as you having caused & perpetuated your own situation here.

Best Wishes for You & Your Entire Family,
Rick

PS I sincerely hope that you can see the realities of what I am saying here & do not just come back calling me a 'word man'. Words are all that we have with which to attempt to communicate & you will be using rather many of them in your book.

 

[Banks]

I will state (as I've done before) that I am VERY thankful for your discoveries. I lap them up like the sweet memories of teenage kissin' from long, long, ago.:clapping:
Please ignore any jackals nipping at your heels and keep on keepin' on.
As for me, "I jes' love seein' them balls keep goin' in them holes".....

I bet you do, Stan.

 

[stan shuffett]

A rather log post shortened to the following:

Sir,

I can appreciate what you're saying & can understand & have empathy for some of which you refer.

But... you have brought some of it down upon yourself with your refusal to discuss the matter of the word objective in any rational & logical manner as you have applied it to your method.

You've put & maintained that chip on your shoulder.

Your statement of not caring if it is 98 or 100% objective because it works as described is just yet another indication that you seem to not understand the word objective in the context of which you put it in the phrase of 'an objective aiming system'.

The core nature of determining the final shot line is either totally objective or it is totally subjective & not 98% or any amount other than 100%. The key word there is the verb determining.

So, when you say "it works as describe" that then becomes an issue... even if your instructions or directions use the word perception i them. There is more than one 'description' of it in place.

You seem to not understand that rather simple fact & your failure to even discuss that in a rational logical manner is & has been at the core of your issue here.

This is a discussion forum & not a bully pulpit or a lecture podium.

The phrase of 'an objective aiming system' can be very misleading & is very suggestive of something that basically does not exist & if such a system were devised it would be way too complex for any normal human being to utilize effectively.

I'll just stop there other to say that if it is not already too late, I sincerely hope, for your sake, that you have a language expert to be the editor of your book that perhaps also plays a bit of pool.

I'm rather sure that given the history that some one will quote something from your book & it will be all on again if maters are not stated accurately & it will be done even if I pass away in my sleep tonight.

I apologize for any 'pain' that I may have caused You or Any Member of Your Family, as that has never been my intention at all.

But... I have placed my concern for the potential many others that might be mislead by the phrase of 'an objective aiming system" ahead of any concern for You as I have seen it as you having caused & perpetuated your own situation here.

Best Wishes for You & Your Entire Family,
Rick

PS I sincerely hope that you can see the realities of what I am saying here & do not just come back calling me a 'word man'. Words are all that we have with which to attempt to communicate & you will be using rather many of them in your book.

CTE is a straight line system........I will call lines objective till they put me in the ground.

You are not interested in really learning CTE or you would have met with me when invited or you would have rescheduled. I can show you enough stuff now to knock your socks off but you do not deserve to see it now.......

Stan Shuffett

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

I apologize for any 'pain' that I may have caused You or Any Member of Your Family, as that has never been my intention at all.

But... I have placed my concern for the potential many others that might be mislead by the phrase of 'an objective aiming system" ahead of any concern for You as I have seen it as you having caused & perpetuated your own situation here.

Best Wishes for You & Your Entire Family,
Rick

You are less than worthless IMO. To cause one human being undue suffering over a concept that you don't even care about, and then to proclaim that you will continue to do it until he publicly changes his mind to your faulty way of thinking is just plain twisted. All over a single word that YOU and ONLY you are obsessed about.

And then to try to rub more salt in the wounds, you end with "Best Wishes for You & Your Entire Family"?

I fail to see a single redeeming thing that your heroine Fran sees about you. You flat out disgust me.:angry:

 

[ENGLISH!]

Back to the same thing...

AGAIN.

When I was still intrigued with the idea of an objective aiming system, I declined your offer to come to you due to a ruptured disc in my back & multiple significant family matters.

Then as I began to look into it more,while waiting for the release of the then upcoming new DVD, my intrigued waned & had pretty much decided that it was not as described but my mind was still open because there was supposed to be new material on the upcoming DVD.

Then it was YOU in your 5 shots perception YouTube video that completely convinced me that it was not 'an objective aiming system' & that there would be nothing forthcoming to show it to be 'an objective aiming system'.

Nothing really has change since that time.

So why would I have ever considered to reschedule...
&... it would not be a REschedule as there NEVER was a visit actually scheduled nor even an offer accepted.

There has been so much time & energy that has to be spent merely for the purpose of clarifying misleading stuff that there is no wonder that no one that sees it as not being objective has ever been convinced that it is or has even been brought to doubt regarding their conclusions.

I certainly understand why.

Lines are objective.

Almost all aiming methods use lines.

No aiming or sighting method is objective.

The requirements are too great for any method to be an objective method.

Even if one were devised it would be to cumbersome for any normal human being to utilize it.

 

[ENGLISH!]

You are less than worthless IMO. To cause one human being undue suffering over a concept that you don't even care about, and then to proclaim that you will continue to do it until he publicly changes his mind to your faulty way of thinking is just plain twisted. All over a single word that YOU and ONLY you are obsessed about.

And then to try to rub more salt in the wounds, you end with "Best Wishes for You & Your Entire Family"?

I fail to see a single redeeming thing that your heroine Fran sees about you. You flat out disgust me.:angry:

I have no Heroine living here on the planet Earth.

It seems that you've never seen the Star Trek Movies.

"The needs of the many... out way the needs of the few... or the one."

I am NOT the one that assigned an inaccurate very misleading description to anything.

As I said before "I" am not obsessed with the word. Stan & the proponents are the ones obsessed with the word.

Otherwise they would have already recanted that description that is extremely misleading & moved on from there even before I ever arrived on the seen & THEN... I would NEVER have even heard of that misleading description. Why have they not done so?

I rather wish that never had never heard of that description.

Right is right & wrong is wrong & it is wrong to possibly mislead very many with what is an inaccurate description.

Are you a religious man at all or are you an atheist?

I'm just asking to get a better idea of from where you might be coming with your hate.

Is saying someone "is less than worthless" a personal as hominem attack?

 

[chefjeff]

Does anyone understand what I'm saying?

You sound like Hal. I get the gist of it.

I hope It didn't say the wrong thing.

Jeff Livingston

 

[stan shuffett]

Back to the same thing...

AGAIN.

When I was still intrigued with the idea of an objective aiming system, I declined your offer to come to you due to a ruptured disc in my back & multiple significant family matters.

Then as I began to look into it more,while waiting for the release of the then upcoming new DVD, my intrigued waned & had pretty much decided that it was not as described but my mind was still open because there was supposed to be new material on the upcoming DVD.

Then it was YOU in your 5 shots perception YouTube video that completely convinced me that it was not 'an objective aiming system' & that there would be nothing forthcoming to show it to be 'an objective aiming system'.

Nothing really has change since that time.

So why would I have ever considered to reschedule...
&... it would not be a REschedule as there NEVER was a visit actually scheduled nor even an offer accepted.

There has been so much time & energy that has to be spent merely for the purpose of clarifying misleading stuff that there is no wonder that no one that sees it as not being objective has ever been convinced that it is or has even been brought to doubt regarding their conclusions.

I certainly understand why.

Lines are objective.

Almost all aiming methods use lines.

No aiming or sighting method is objective.

The requirements are too great for any method to be an objective method.

Even if one were devised it would be to cumbersome for any normal human being to utilize it.

Let's debate and bet in front of other players.

We can bet the farm on the 5 shots.

You make your presentation. I make mine. The onlookers vote!

You will walk away with your tail tucked between your legs.

Stan Shuffett

 

[ENGLISH!]

You are less than worthless IMO. To cause one human being undue suffering over a concept that you don't even care about, and then to proclaim that you will continue to do it until he publicly changes his mind to your faulty way of thinking is just plain twisted. All over a single word that YOU and ONLY you are obsessed about.

And then to try to rub more salt in the wounds, you end with "Best Wishes for You & Your Entire Family"?

I fail to see a single redeeming thing that your heroine Fran sees about you. You flat out disgust me.:angry:

What ever happened with that 'seeing in curves' stuff that I saw on one of the Youtube videos?

 

[chefjeff]

I feel so violated.

Jeff Livingston

 

[stan shuffett]

What ever happened with that 'seeing in curves' stuff that I saw on one of the Youtube videos?

Let's debate my info on CURVES CURVES CURVES and I am not speaking about your girly curves presentation in the NPR, whatever it is called.....but let's you and I debate that topic and if you win the debate based on what I presented in YouTube, I will award you $5G.

Stan Shuffett

 

[ENGLISH!]

Let's debate and bet in front of other players.

We can bet the farm on the 5 shots.

You make your presentation. I make mine. The onlookers vote!

You will walk away with your tail tucked between your legs.

Stan Shuffett

All you need do to covince me, PJ, Jal, Lou, 8Pack Anthony, Dan White, & others is to give a simple rational, logical explanation of what it IS that is objective that indicates that final shot line.

There are possibly 90 of them or more, shot lines that is.

Why don't you do that instead of making all of these off the wall challenges & doing all of the wolfing that you do?

How about I get 5 legal judges that have heard many false advertising cases for you to present your case to & if 3 of the 5 say that the description is inaccurate & can be misleading, then you refund all of the DVD sales proceeds plus 15% & you are prohibited from releasing your book.

I'm not being serious. I'm just showing that two can play that kind of game.

The same today as yesterday. You start off in a calm manner & then when I do not succumb & bow down to your lacking rhetoric, you then go off kilter.

Do you honestly think that you are going to convince me to your way of thinking with anything other than a rational logical explanation?

That's all that you need to do to convince ALL of the parties that do not see it your way.

Your problem is that you can not do that because the description is not accurate.

Did you miss the posts earlier where I agreed with much of what you were saying, but pointed out that I just can not agree with the inaccurate description.

Like I said, if I pass away in my sleep tonight & your book comes out with inaccuracies in it someone is going to bring them up.

The claim of 'an objective aiming system' is no small thing. It is provocative & hence will be controversial.

If you expect that to go away just because you release a book, then I think you are going to be sadly mistaken.

I gave you rather good advice earlier when I said that I hope that you have a language expert as your editor & that they also maybe play a bit of pool.

I'm not your problem. The description is your problem.

& Yes I do Wish the Best for You & Your Entire Family.

PS If you are not going give an explanation or reveal anything in the book piecemeal, then why are you making the type of posts that you are? Perhaps some neutral parties can answer that question for me.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I feel so violated.

Jeff Livingston

Did you see my post about how you lost your 'virginity' & the psychological & physical damage that would be the results.:wink:

 

[stan shuffett]

All you need do to satisfy me, PJ, Jal, Lou, 8Pack Anthony, Dan White, & others is to give a simple rational, logical explanation of what it IS that is objective that indicates that final shot line.

There are possibly 90 of them or more, shot lines that is.

Why don't you do that instead of making all of these off the wall challenges & doing all of the wolfing that you do?

How about I get 5 legal judges that have heard many false advertising cases for you to present your case to & if 3 of the 5 say that the description is inaccurate & can be misleading, then you refund all of the DVD sales proceeds plus 15% & you are prohibited from releasing your book.

I'm not being serious. I'm just showing that two can play that kind of game.

The same today as yesterday. You start off in a calm manner & then when I do not succumb & bow down to your lacking rhetoric, you then go off kilter.

Do you honestly think that you are going to convince me to your way of thinking with anything other than a rational logical explanation?

That's all that you need to do to convince ALL of the parties that do not see it your way.

Your problem is that you can not do that because the description is not accurate.

Did you miss the posts earlier where I agreed with much of what you were saying, but pointed out that I just can not agree with the inaccurate description.

Like I said, if I pass away in my sleep tonight & your book comes out with inaccuracies in it someone is going to bring them up.

The claim of 'an objective aiming system' is no small thing. It is provocative & hence will be controversial.

If you expect that to go away just because you release a book, then I think you are going to be sadly mistaken.

I gave you rather good advice earlier when I said that I hope that you have a language expert as your editor & that also maybe plays a bit of pool.

I'm not your problem. The description is your problem.

& Yes I do Wish the Best for You & Your Entire Family.

PS If you are not going give an explanation or reveal anything in the book piecemeal, then why are you making the type of posts that you are? Perhaps some neutral parties can answer that question for me.

What you can not get, and will never openly get, is that even from a slight foundational offset from one's line of sight, is that there is plenty of residual vision for seeing a straight line.

Now I do not expect you to grasp this as you have been spinning your wheels or more appropriately, pistoning your pecker, you know-your finger, to the keys of your keyboard for the past 1500 days plus.

Stan Shuffett

 

[ENGLISH!]

What you can not get, and will never openly get, is that even from a slight foundational offset from one's line of sight, is that there is plenty of residual vision for seeing a straight line.

Now I do not expect you to grasp this as you have been spinning your wheels or more appropriately, pistoning your pecker, you know-your finger, to the keys of your keyboard for the past 1500 days plus.

Stan Shuffett

These exchanges with you are basically useless.

Did you & do you even read any of what I said or say to you?

It's to the point now that nothing that you are posting has anything to do with an objective aiming system.

It's as though you have put it out of your mind.

I've played & have even coached Baseball & Golf. I know a bit about seeing from an offset.

Do you know what subjective is?

You're doing the same thing that has been going on for years. Attack the opposing side in a variety of ways in order to distract from the FACT that no reasonable, rational, logical explanation has ever been put forth.

 

[bwally]

These exchanges with you are basically useless.

Did you & do you even read any of what I said or say to you?

It's to the point now that nothing that you are posting has anything to do with an objective aiming system.

It's as though you have put it out of your mind.

I've played & have even coached Baseball & Golf. I know a bit about seeing from an offset.

Do you know what subjective is?

You're doing the same thing that has been going on for years. Attack the opposing side in a variety of ways in order to distract from the FACT that no reasonable, rational, logical explanation has ever been put forth.

Dear Sir,

I have two pieces of advice for you. In no particular order:

1. Get a life
2. Get some help as you clearly need it.

Lastly, as I am pretty sure of your reply to this (because you have NO self control), I have no desire to explain what I said to John here in this forum. And you sir, would be the very last person I would tell anyways.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk