Stan's Curious Curtain Video

[lfigueroa]

Two things:

First off, anyone with an ounce of pool experience can look at that video, take one look at the discoloration of the reinforcer and humongous chalk mark next to it, and only conclude someone wailed away from the same CB position, at the same OB, over and over over again. Then maybe a camera was turned on.

Second off, there is not one single person on this Board who would not be laid low by the swift justice of El Kabong for what Stan has said to Dan in posts #7, #12, and #18 in this thread, and gone on a long, forced sabbatical. Now personally, I don't care one way or the other but this instance of Stan flagrantly violating Board standards is so egregious I can't let it slide without comment.

First off......GFY! You are likely the biggest nit on the forum......Do not twist my words and try to and make me look like a liar.........I put the curtain up and executed the shots the first time. I practice what I demo for students.......teaching and demo is tough and the same goes for the distractions that go with videoing. I was proud to make them in my first video attempt........Get a life! Nit!

Stan Shuffett

I said on video that I made the shots on my first curtain attempt. That is true. I went to my table directly after a break for lunch and did the set up and was successful on my first series. I was proud to mention that fact because that is quite atypical.....So if you think I am I liar........GFY!

Stan Shuffett

I am not exactly sure what your MO is but my bottom line is that I did those shots in one take and if you don't like it...FO.

I do not remember my exact routine that morning other than I decided to hit those shots because they were requested. I don't know what your idiotic implication exactly is but if you are questioning my integrity I'd be happy for you to do it to my face. Only a first order fricken nit would peel away at that video and try and tear me down with chalks marks on a dot.......

And then to top it all you tell me that I know my boook is not coming out this year. What is that all about???

Stan Shuffett

Lou Figueroa

 

[stan shuffett]

Two things:

First off, anyone with an ounce of pool experience can look at that video, take one look at the discoloration of the reinforcer and humongous chalk mark next to it, and only conclude someone wailed away from the same CB position, at the same OB, over and over over again. Then maybe a camera was turned on.

Second off, there is not one single person on this Board who would not be laid low by the swift justice of El Kabong for what Stan has said to Dan in posts #7, #12, and #18 in this thread, and gone on a long, forced sabbatical. Now personally, I don't care one way or the other but this instance of Stan flagrantly violating Board standards is so egregious I can't let it slide without comment.

Lou Figueroa


Lobbying for my banning. You are part of a group that has been launching veiled attacks at me for years. As a man, I am going to stand up for myself when I am unfairly treated. Dan's posting of that video was nothing more than another one of his uncover attacks and here you are with your follow-up.......You can GFY, too. I am happy to depart and leave this venue for you and Dan to have for your pleasure.00
I am no good here any longer. ....This is my official goodbye to AZ except possibly for future ads.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Can't take the attacks any more!

Stan Shuffett

 

[Neil]

Two things:

First off, anyone with an ounce of pool experience can look at that video, take one look at the discoloration of the reinforcer and humongous chalk mark next to it, and only conclude someone wailed away from the same CB position, at the same OB, over and over over again. Then maybe a camera was turned on.

Second off, there is not one single person on this Board who would not be laid low by the swift justice of El Kabong for what Stan has said to Dan in posts #7, #12, and #18 in this thread, and gone on a long, forced sabbatical. Now personally, I don't care one way or the other but this instance of Stan flagrantly violating Board standards is so egregious I can't let it slide without comment.

Lou Figueroa

Exaggerate much there Lou? You know as well as I do that much, much, much worse has been said without any repercussions. Funny how you don't even address the fact that Dan has repeatedly called Stan a liar just in this thread alone. His whole purpose of the thread was nothing more than an attack on Stan. And here you are, jumping right on his bandwagon. What you two get out of trying to get rid of one of the very best posters on here is beyond me. But, trying to tear him down won't lift yourself up any higher, it will only make you lower than you are now.

 

[lfigueroa]

Two things:

First off, anyone with an ounce of pool experience can look at that video, take one look at the discoloration of the reinforcer and humongous chalk mark next to it, and only conclude someone wailed away from the same CB position, at the same OB, over and over over again. Then maybe a camera was turned on.

Second off, there is not one single person on this Board who would not be laid low by the swift justice of El Kabong for what Stan has said to Dan in posts #7, #12, and #18 in this thread, and gone on a long, forced sabbatical. Now personally, I don't care one way or the other but this instance of Stan flagrantly violating Board standards is so egregious I can't let it slide without comment.

Lou Figueroa


Lobbying for my banning. You are part of a group that has been launching veiled attacks at me for years. As a man, I am going to stand up for myself when I am unfairly treated. Dan's posting of that video was nothing more than another one of his uncover attacks and here you are with your follow-up.......You can GFY, too.


Stan Shuffett

I'm not lobbying for anything.

I am pointing out how you appear to repeatedly get a free pass with your hysterical, over-the-top responses to those that politely critique your system. Dan -- and for that matter most everyone else on the side of those who have doubts about the merits of your system -- have been nothing but civil to you. Have they questioned, critiqued, and found flaws and problems? Sure but they have not gone overboard as you have.

So now, with your latest post, you're doubling down. So be it and may the chips fall where they may.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Neil]

I'm not lobbying for anything.

I am pointing out how you appear to repeatedly get a free pass with your hysterical, over-the-top responses to those that politely critique your system. Dan -- and for that matter most everyone else on the side of those who have doubts about the merits of your system -- have been nothing but civil to you. Have they questioned, critiqued, and found flaws and problems? Sure but they have not gone overboard as you have.

So now, with your latest post, you're doubling down. So be it and may the chips fall where they may.

Lou Figueroa

If you really think his post was civil in the least, you must be one of those liberals. You know, those types that see a speck in someone else's eye while totally disregarding the beam in their own eye.

This entire thread should be deleted because is is nothing more than another attack on Stan. And, the thread has no bearing whatsoever on the actual merits of the video in question.

 

[Dan White]

Lobbying for my banning. You are part of a group that has been launching veiled attacks at me for years. As a man, I am going to stand up for myself when I am unfairly treated. Dan's posting of that video was nothing more than another one of his uncover attacks and here you are with your follow-up.......You can GFY, too.

LOL. That right there is funnier than anything I've seen in the Funny Pic thread lately!

I am happy to depart and leave this venue for you and Dan to have for your pleasure.00
I am no good here any longer. ....This is my official goodbye to AZ except possibly for future ads.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Can't take the attacks any more!

Stan Shuffett

Stan takes his marbles and stomps off in a cloud of dust. I can only imagine what a normal conversation might have looked like:

Dan: Stan, I notice in your video you said you did it on the first try, but the reinforcer is dark and there is a lot of chalk on the cloth, indicating that you actually practiced the shot quite a lot before getting it right. What gives?

Stan (in a normal universe): Oh yeah, I remember that shot. I had just gotten some new rails and new cloth so I had to get used to them. Even CTE is subject to table conditions. I did practice the shot in the morning until I got it right then broke for lunch. When I came back I hit the camera and wouldn't you know I did it on the first try! I didn't mean to give the impression that CTE works on all cloths and rails without practice. Maybe I should mention that so people don't get the impression that CTE is a miracle system.

See, I said the same thing Stan did without any GFO's or FO's. All the anger makes me wonder, though.

Here, I can act like Stan, too. I'll give $10,000 to anybody who bets that this is really Stan's last post.

 

[Dan White]

If you really think his post was civil in the least, you must be one of those liberals. You know, those types that see a speck in someone else's eye while totally disregarding the beam in their own eye.

This entire thread should be deleted because is is nothing more than another attack on Stan. And, the thread has no bearing whatsoever on the actual merits of the video in question.

I'm beginning to see the MO here. You start throwing around accusations and swear words and insults, hoping the other party does the same. That muddies up the waters enough so that the moderators will make the thread disappear.

It won't work in this case because 1) the original subject was a completely valid comment and 2) the only insults being thrown are from Stan.

As for you, you flat out said I called Stan a liar repeatedly in this thread. Please direct me to those instances. I never assume motives. When I see something like this I keep an open mind and give the other side a chance to explain things. You will note that when Stan said the reinforcer is dark because he shoots other shots from that spot, I said I could buy that reasoning. You did see that, right? I then asked again about the chalk marks, because those didn't jive with his explanation.

Of course I recognized that this thread would be controversial, but I posted it anyway because I wanted to know the answer. It is interesting, though. I thought that Stan might have a good explanation for the chalk marks until very recently in this thread. You, on the other hand, seem to think Stan is lying because you are projecting your own thoughts onto me. "Dan is calling Stan a liar," says Neil. I never said that, I only probed for a real answer. Apparently Neil thinks Stan might be a liar. Think about that. It's called projection.

 

[Kid Dynomite]

Where is English?

Now

Lou and OP are under attack for being a non-believers .

The Stan groupies are back at it!

Kd

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[mohrt]

Quickly looking back at the beginning of the post, I see,

a) Dan bringing up the question of the discoloration of the felt in front of the marker, as this indicates repeated shots from this location.

b) Stan replying to say he frequently uses this marker for practice shots. Furthermore he had done some shooting earlier (with a student), then went to lunch, then came back and videoed the shots, and was successful first attempt. To me, first attempt indicates he was not practicing these shots earlier in the day. And the marks were from, well, exactly what Stan said.

So, I *think* that is was clear why there were marks on the table, and what Stan did that day in relation to the shots at question. Was it not? Would it make a difference if he cleaned up the table first?

I do agree that questions on this forum can quickly turn to arguments, because words alone can easily be taken with false/inaccurate meanings and intentions. One person's questions may be sincere (or not), and taken in a positive (or negative) tone from others reading them. Happens here a lot :/

 

[cookie man]

Where is English?

Now

Lou and OP are under attack for being a non-believers .

The Stan groupies are back at it!

Kd

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

MUCH MUCH MUCH rather be a Stan groupie then an ENGLISH groupie.
A new low for you.

 

[lfigueroa]

Exaggerate much there Lou? You know as well as I do that much, much, much worse has been said without any repercussions. Funny how you don't even address the fact that Dan has repeatedly called Stan a liar just in this thread alone. His whole purpose of the thread was nothing more than an attack on Stan. And here you are, jumping right on his bandwagon. What you two get out of trying to get rid of one of the very best posters on here is beyond me. But, trying to tear him down won't lift yourself up any higher, it will only make you lower than you are now.

No, there has not -- only in the minds of the day-vo-tays. And Dan did not call him a liar, he raised some interesting and valid questions about Stan's methodology.

Lastly, words matter. And that's why it is generally consider that some words, such as those used by Stan, cross the line.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

If you really think his post was civil in the least, you must be one of those liberals. You know, those types that see a speck in someone else's eye while totally disregarding the beam in their own eye.

This entire thread should be deleted because is is nothing more than another attack on Stan. And, the thread has no bearing whatsoever on the actual merits of the video in question.

Of course that's the answer I would expect from you: sweep it under the rug.

Lou Figueroa

 

[cookie man]

Recently JB posted to one of my videos asking me to perform the shots in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJTJh05FEKw&t=0s

In looking at it, I noticed something curious. If you look at all the hole reinforcers on the table they are pure white, except the one the cue ball sits on. In addition, there is a patch of chalk dust in a triangular pattern in front of the reinforcer. Anybody who uses reinforcers knows that the cloth turns darker after the cue ball runs over it enough times, and chalk builds up on the table after many, many tip/cue ball impacts. I think we can all agree that these statements are clearly true. As a side note, I have the same color cloth and Masters chalk turns dark grey on the cloth.

How does this happen when, according to the video, this is Stan's first attempt at this shot? To the cult members, this may be a laughable thing to bring up, but sometimes the best theories in science are doomed when they can't explain the simplest, most innocent observations. Anybody care to take a stab at it?

So the question seems to be first attempt ever? If you thought that then lol.
Or first attempt while filming? Which appears to be correct given the testimony.
PS. Wheres the video of your attempt?

 

[lfigueroa]

LOL. That right there is funnier than anything I've seen in the Funny Pic thread lately!




Stan takes his marbles and stomps off in a cloud of dust. I can only imagine what a normal conversation might have looked like:

Dan: Stan, I notice in your video you said you did it on the first try, but the reinforcer is dark and there is a lot of chalk on the cloth, indicating that you actually practiced the shot quite a lot before getting it right. What gives?

Stan (in a normal universe): Oh yeah, I remember that shot. I had just gotten some new rails and new cloth so I had to get used to them. Even CTE is subject to table conditions. I did practice the shot in the morning until I got it right then broke for lunch. When I came back I hit the camera and wouldn't you know I did it on the first try! I didn't mean to give the impression that CTE works on all cloths and rails without practice. Maybe I should mention that so people don't get the impression that CTE is a miracle system.

See, I said the same thing Stan did without any GFO's or FO's. All the anger makes me wonder, though.

Here, I can act like Stan, too. I'll give $10,000 to anybody who bets that this is really Stan's last post.

You are dreaming.

Lou Figueroa
on both counts

 

[cookie man]

Why do you have to practice a shot that is in DVD1 and that relies solely on selecting one of your visuals on your home table? If you guys could stop seeing red for a moment you'd realize that's a pretty good question.

It is a good question, you are right.
Why do we as pool players practice shots we already know?

 

[lfigueroa]

I'm beginning to see the MO here. You start throwing around accusations and swear words and insults, hoping the other party does the same. That muddies up the waters enough so that the moderators will make the thread disappear.

It won't work in this case because 1) the original subject was a completely valid comment and 2) the only insults being thrown are from Stan.

As for you, you flat out said I called Stan a liar repeatedly in this thread. Please direct me to those instances. I never assume motives. When I see something like this I keep an open mind and give the other side a chance to explain things. You will note that when Stan said the reinforcer is dark because he shoots other shots from that spot, I said I could buy that reasoning. You did see that, right? I then asked again about the chalk marks, because those didn't jive with his explanation.

Of course I recognized that this thread would be controversial, but I posted it anyway because I wanted to know the answer. It is interesting, though. I thought that Stan might have a good explanation for the chalk marks until very recently in this thread. You, on the other hand, seem to think Stan is lying because you are projecting your own thoughts onto me. "Dan is calling Stan a liar," says Neil. I never said that, I only probed for a real answer. Apparently Neil thinks Stan might be a liar. Think about that. It's called projection.

nevermind.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Kid Dynomite]

It is a good question, you are right.
Why do we as pool players practice shots we already know?

Exactly, with a foul proof system available then practice SHOULD be a thing of the past!!!

But, we still see missed shots ever day from everyone!

So, system errors or user errors exist! Can't escape the human factor. But, these systems are foul proof! LOL

KD

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[Neil]

Exactly, with a foul proof system available then practice SHOULD be a thing of the past!!!

But, we still see missed shots ever day from everyone!

So, system errors or user errors exist! Can't escape the human factor. But, these systems are foul proof! LOL

KD

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

`Those are your words, no one else's. So, you go right ahead and discredit them all you want to. You guys learned real well from Rick. Make crap up, then discredit it and blame it on CTE and it's users. So sad.

 

[Neil]

I'm beginning to see the MO here. You start throwing around accusations and swear words and insults, hoping the other party does the same. That muddies up the waters enough so that the moderators will make the thread disappear.

It won't work in this case because 1) the original subject was a completely valid comment and 2) the only insults being thrown are from Stan.

As for you, you flat out said I called Stan a liar repeatedly in this thread. Please direct me to those instances. I never assume motives. When I see something like this I keep an open mind and give the other side a chance to explain things. You will note that when Stan said the reinforcer is dark because he shoots other shots from that spot, I said I could buy that reasoning. You did see that, right? I then asked again about the chalk marks, because those didn't jive with his explanation.

Of course I recognized that this thread would be controversial, but I posted it anyway because I wanted to know the answer. It is interesting, though. I thought that Stan might have a good explanation for the chalk marks until very recently in this thread. You, on the other hand, seem to think Stan is lying because you are projecting your own thoughts onto me. "Dan is calling Stan a liar," says Neil. I never said that, I only probed for a real answer. Apparently Neil thinks Stan might be a liar. Think about that. It's called projection.

Well, you accomplished exactly what you set out to do. You got Stan to leave. Are you happy now? You never wanted to know the answer, and you know it. We all know it. You posted it only because you saw a cheap shot to take at Stan. Your sole motive was to destroy, not build up the forums or anything else. You accomplished your goal. As far as you saying he is a liar, you know you did. You are so sad that you not only deny it, but you actually accuse me of being the one that said Stan was a liar. Which is just another lie by you.

Big congrats on achieving full :"Rick": status as far as any credibility on here goes.

 

[Dan White]

Quickly looking back at the beginning of the post, I see,

a) Dan bringing up the question of the discoloration of the felt in front of the marker, as this indicates repeated shots from this location.

b) Stan replying to say he frequently uses this marker for practice shots. Furthermore he had done some shooting earlier (with a student), then went to lunch, then came back and videoed the shots, and was successful first attempt. To me, first attempt indicates he was not practicing these shots earlier in the day. And the marks were from, well, exactly what Stan said.

So, I *think* that is was clear why there were marks on the table, and what Stan did that day in relation to the shots at question. Was it not? Would it make a difference if he cleaned up the table first?

I do agree that questions on this forum can quickly turn to arguments, because words alone can easily be taken with false/inaccurate meanings and intentions. One person's questions may be sincere (or not), and taken in a positive (or negative) tone from others reading them. Happens here a lot :/

I appreciate your intention with this post, but I have to say you pretty much mischaracterized everything Stan said. Go back and read a little more carefully. You will find that you are directly contradicting things even Stan conceded.