A real CTE shot for you to try.

Do you think if a Pro made 100% of his shots while touting CTE that that would prove that CTE is a completely objective aiming system?

I do not.

Why is it that so many on the CTE side seem to have so much trouble with logical fallacies?
 
French Roots said:
However, it is not the difference of onion regarding aiming that shows ones character. It is what they say & do during the discussion of such that is indicative of their character.
Click to expand...
Yes we have a quite clear measurement of the character that you are presenting to us. Weighed and measured.

We do not care about your roots, your skin color, or anything about you other than what you wrote. And what you wrote is nothing new and follows the same tired dogmatic criticism that has been endlessly submitted by the small band of critics.
 
What John Barton posts regarding CTE is meaningless by his own guidelines.

Why do CTEers seem to think that what others post regarding CTE is to settle disputes? It is not. What others post is mostly for the purpose of countering falsehoods being stated so that those interested have both sides upon which to base THEIR decisions.
 
French Roots said:
However, it is not the difference of onion regarding aiming that shows ones character. It is what they say & do during the discussion of such that is indicative of their character.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, nor do plenty of researchers that have studied the effects of text messaging and online communication when it comes to human psychology. All too often people write things they would never say in person, personal insults to people they don't even know.

It's funny, and a shame, that something as trivial as a smartass comment among a handful of people in a small forum like this actually makes some people think they know a person. Lol.
 
Last edited:
BC21 said:
I don't think so, nor do plenty of researchers that have studied the effects of text messaging and online communication when it comes to human psychology. All too often people write things they would never say in person, personal insults to people they don't even know.

It's funny, and a shame, that something as trivial as a smartass comment among a handful people in an small forum like this actually makes some people think they know a person. Lol.
Click to expand...
I disagree. unless some were taught or just think it is okay to behave badly in some places. If one intentionally behaves a certain way, I think that is indicative. We are interacting with other human beings here in these forums. How one conducts themselves can certainly be indicative. I am much more of a counter puncher. If someone hits me, then I am going to defend myself... & that includes hitting them back. The thing about here in these forums is that one can be hit even if they try to walk away. I have been reading posts from this cast of characters for many years if not a decade or more. I can tell who the good guys are & who are not. The only caveat to that is intelligence. Some may not have the intelligence to interact here without feeling a bit inferior so they attack. Does that mean they are of the 'bad guys"? Perhaps & perhaps not.

I guess I agree with you in that no definitive determination can be made, but an assessment can be made based on what is available. That assessment may be correct or not.
 
French Roots said:
Do you think if a Pro made 100% of his shots while touting CTE that that would prove that CTE is a completely objective aiming system?

I do not.

Why is it that so many on the CTE side seem to have so much trouble with logical fallacies?
Click to expand...
Then why do you cite a "stat" and percentage of success for a segment in one of my dozens of videos?

John Barton recently made a video to try to demonstrate how accurate CTE is & he only pocketed 3 of 14 shots for a 21.5% success rate. That is less than 1 out of 4. He could not even make a simple cross side bank. Yet CTE is supposed to be an "objective system" that "objective.
Click to expand...

What were the shots, what was the context?

Simple cross side bank? I guess you have never missed a shot in your life right? Never mishit a shot? Never aimed wrong?

See, you come on here talking about alleged false premises and try to use my stats cherry picked from one part of one video and calculate a success percentage from that but I don't see you giving Stan credit for making 15 bank shots in a row using cte.

If I drive erratically is it the car's fault or my fault? Well, it could be the car's fault but it's more likely that it is operator error. Same thing with any aiming system that works. If the user has a stretch of missed shots then it doesn't mean that the system does not work. It means that the operator is probably doing something wrong.

But instead of looking at it scientifically and contrasting with sample sizes you choose to cherry pick the data and make a comment that attempts to disprage by citing a stat based on that highly selective and extremely small bit of data. But you also ignore the video examples of users who are demonstrating very high success rates which is really bad "science".

So really you're just another knocker wearing a disguise and whining about being attacked for your message as if your message was something true and important that you had to share with the world.

That's my premise and I am sticking to it because you have provided ample evidence to support it in your first posts.
 
French Roots said:
I disagree. unless some were taught or just think it is okay to behave badly in some places. If one intentionally behaves a certain way, I think that is indicative. We are interacting with other human beings here in these forums. How one conducts themselves can certainly be indicative. I am much more of a counter puncher. If someone hits me, then I am going to defend myself... & that includes hitting them back. The thing about here in these forums is that one can be hit even if they try to walk away. I have been reading posts from this cast of characters for many years if not a decade or more. I can tell who the good guys are & who are not. The only caveat to that is intelligence. Some may not have the intelligence to interact here without feeling a bit inferior so they attack. Does that mean they are of the 'bad guys"? Perhaps & perhaps not.

I guess I agree with you in that no definitive determination can be made, but an assessment can be made based on what is available. That assessment may be correct or not.
Click to expand...
Hit away anon. Interesting to see you claim you are a counterpuncher.

I am clearly the bad guy in your eyes. And I don't care because your opinion is 100% meaningless to me. I know where I stand on this topic and why. I know the things I have done to attempt to understand the why behind these systems.

So frankly, your assessment of me and my comments are worthless to me. Now, I already understand that you probably don't care what I think and that's also fine. But know this "counterpuncher", every nasty little comment you make about me that I see is likely to be responded to in ways that you might like. Oh sure you'll say you're not going to engage and it doesn't matter.... But the fact that you have chosen to whine about being personally attacked shows that you care.

I don't attack you personally, just the content and the content is lacking. Pretty sure you're someone who has been part of this conversation before but even if not it doesn't matter as the content of your character is fully clear by your actions.

So please continue to knock me. Nothing you have said there is original either.
 
French Roots said:
What John Barton posts regarding CTE is meaningless by his own guidelines.

Why do CTEers seem to think that what others post regarding CTE is to settle disputes? It is not. What others post is mostly for the purpose of countering falsehoods being stated so that those interested have both sides upon which to base THEIR decisions.
Click to expand...
Yes that's right, what I post is meaningless to determine whether cte works or not. The sole purpose of my posting is to introduce others to the concept of objective aiming systems and encourage them to try them out.

My personal success rate using it is simply my personal thing which includes all of the variables that go into the shot process. So I might be real good one day and real inconsistent the next day. Another person might be real good every day because they are better at all of the other aspects involved in shot making as well as the aiming.

Countering falsehoods? Ok, what falsehoods? I haven't seen you counter a single falsehood yet.

In order to do that you would need to prove that the claim is false. What claim have you proven to be false?
 
Also, for the record, there is nothing, not one single word that I have written here in this aiming section that I would not say to the addressee in person.

If I ever met a person who identified as French Roots from AZB and wanted to talk about aiming I would say the exact same things if that person wanted to insist on reiterating the nonsense they posted here.

And we can bet super super high on that. I am quite proud of the fact that I say what I mean to say in the same way online and offline.

On the contrary, several posters on azb throughout the years have been meek as baby lambs when they have been in my presence after making threats to my person on the forum.

I do certainly agree that distance and safety allow people to abandon the decorum and civility that they might otherwise display in real life setting. That's not me. I am civil in discussion unless I feel like incivility is called for and I have no problem repeating anything I said on here in person.
 
JB Cases said:
I got that this was your conclusion. It was wrong then and still wrong today.

You don't listen. And that not listening leads you to make wrong conclusions.

As for your description of what you claim Hal was doing to you.....I say that you are wrong and because Hal was trying to instruct you over the phone it is far more likely that your interpretation of what the instructions were was the problem.

I have documented my first encounter with Hal and said that I wouldn't have gotten anything from him except a feeling that he was a crazy person if I hadn't "emptied my cup" so to speak and just followed directions without a preconception.

I believe what Hal was asking you to do was let your eyes lead and your body would follow as Stan puts it.

This is very hard to do for a "by the book" person rooted in classical 2d geometry to explain the alignment to a pool shot. Those people are hardwired to think from the pocket backwards through the object ball to the cue ball cue to the arm. I believe you are one of them and that this is why you are unable to grasp CTE.

Which brings us back to the subconscious (adjustment) right?

This is the heart of your opposition, that if you strictly follow the directions then you cannot achieve different outcomes with the same input.

And you would be right if you were following strict directions for fractional aiming where the aim and the hit are identical. All of the lines in a fractional hit system can be drawn in 2d perfectly and will always produce the exact same result assuming a perfectly coordinated sighting and execution.

However the directions are not for a fractional hit method. The directions are for a fractional perception method that gives the user multiple vectors that result in different outcomes based on a concept that has been named "stepping" by Stan.

This is counterintuitive because pool knowledge and subsequent intuition is built on the 2d modeling of pocket-ball-ball-cue-arm lines to explain aiming.

So until you empty your cup you will continue to say things like got tired of cranking my neck. Guess what? I got tired of it too but I did it anyway until that particular body move is fluid. Was a matter of muscle memory and practice.

Anyway, my main point remains that if your goal is to disprove CTE using your rigid framework then you are going to fail to disprove CTE to anyone but those locked into that framework. The rest of the world is results-oriented and they have the ability to appreciate wonder at things that work but whose absolute mechanisms are not fully understood yet.
Click to expand...
mohrt and I both have an interest in learning the "why." When you say you are results oriented that means you don't care about the "why." Maybe that is why it looks to you like I am attacking CTE. The reality is that you have no idea what you are talking about in terms of the "why." Everything you wrote above is speculation or a guess. You have no evidence to back it up -- it only acts as a catchall way of saying that we don't know what we are talking about so that you don't have to engage in the topic.

As far as Hal goes, mohrt said Hal used to say to just "whack it." Yep, that's about what he told me. Don't worry about all that stuff. Just whack it.
 
Last edited:
JB Cases said:
I do certainly agree that distance and safety allow people to abandon the decorum and civility that they might otherwise display in real life setting. That's not me. I am civil in discussion unless I feel like incivility is called for and I have no problem repeating anything I said on here in person.
Click to expand...
I think too many people forget this and let their text get out of hand. I know I am more careful not to type anything I wouldn't say in person. I can give you credit in this regard, as well. You're not a bad guy, maybe just a bit lost in the woods. ;)
 
French Roots said:
I disagree. unless some were taught or just think it is okay to behave badly in some places. If one intentionally behaves a certain way, I think that is indicative. We are interacting with other human beings here in these forums. How one conducts themselves can certainly be indicative. I am much more of a counter puncher. If someone hits me, then I am going to defend myself... & that includes hitting them back. The thing about here in these forums is that one can be hit even if they try to walk away. I have been reading posts from this cast of characters for many years if not a decade or more. I can tell who the good guys are & who are not. The only caveat to that is intelligence. Some may not have the intelligence to interact here without feeling a bit inferior so they attack. Does that mean they are of the 'bad guys"? Perhaps & perhaps not.

I guess I agree with you in that no definitive determination can be made, but an assessment can be made based on what is available. That assessment may be correct or not.
Click to expand...

You can disagree all you want. We all have opinions. There is plenty of research on internet bullying and online personas. It's interesting stuff.

Many people are recluse, quiet and shy in real life, never voicing their opinions, never standing up for themselves physically or verbally when someone pushes them or says something offensive to their face. But online they are outgoing, opinionated, and quick to retaliate with witty or hateful or offensives comments.

So what is their true character? What are they really like?

That's easy...they are who they are in person, not online. They have friends and family that know them well, unlike some stranger on the internet who only knows a tiny fraction of their character based on emotional reactions to derogatory or belittling comments directed at them personally or directed at something they enjoy doing.
Dan White said:
I think too many people forget this and let their text get out of hand. I know I am more careful not to type anything I wouldn't say in person. I can give you credit in this regard, as well. You're not a bad guy, maybe just a bit lost in the woods. ;)
Click to expand...

Yep....We all have opinions and we all react differently online when those opinions are challenged or when we are belittled personally. There is plenty of research on internet/online personas. It's interesting stuff.

Many people are recluse, quiet and shy in real life, never voicing their opinions, never standing up for themselves physically or verbally when someone pushes them or says something offensive to their face. But online they might be very outgoing, opinionated, and quick to retaliate with witty or hateful or offensives comments.

So what is their true character? What are they really like?

That's easy...they are who they are in person, not online. They have friends and family that know them well, unlike some stranger on the internet who only knows a tiny fraction of their character based on emotional reactions to derogatory or belittling comments directed at them personally or directed at something they enjoy doing.

Judging or assessing someone's character based on heated comments made here in the aiming forum is nothing but a hasty generalization. You don't really know the person.
 
BC21 said:
You can disagree all you want. We all have opinions. There is plenty of research on internet bullying and online personas. It's interesting stuff.

Many people are recluse, quiet and shy in real life, never voicing their opinions, never standing up for themselves physically or verbally when someone pushes them or says something offensive to their face. But online they are outgoing, opinionated, and quick to retaliate with witty or hateful or offensives comments.

So what is their true character? What are they really like?

That's easy...they are who they are in person, not online. They have friends and family that know them well, unlike some stranger on the internet who only knows a tiny fraction of their character based on emotional reactions to derogatory or belittling comments directed at them personally or directed at something they enjoy doing.

Yep....We all have opinions and we all react differently online when those opinions are challenged or when we are belittled personally. There is plenty of research on internet/online personas. It's interesting stuff.

Many people are recluse, quiet and shy in real life, never voicing their opinions, never standing up for themselves physically or verbally when someone pushes them or says something offensive to their face. But online they might be very outgoing, opinionated, and quick to retaliate with witty or hateful or offensives comments.

So what is their true character? What are they really like?

That's easy...they are who they are in person, not online. They have friends and family that know them well, unlike some stranger on the internet who only knows a tiny fraction of their character based on emotional reactions to derogatory or belittling comments directed at them personally or directed at something they enjoy doing.

Judging or assessing someone's character based on heated comments made here in the aiming forum is nothing but a hasty generalization. You don't really know the person.
Click to expand...
I think your comments &/or what you are relaying are over generalizations. How did they conduct those studies? The conclusions that they made are their "opinions". In real life some hold themselves back because of real life consequences. Here, bad guys can say all kinds of things that are derogatory & insulting with no real consequences. So which is there real self?


How about this? Here on AZB there have been some bad characters who have acted badly for maybe a decade or more.
 
Last edited:
BC21 said:
You can disagree all you want. We all have opinions. There is plenty of research on internet bullying and online personas. It's interesting stuff.

Many people are recluse, quiet and shy in real life, never voicing their opinions, never standing up for themselves physically or verbally when someone pushes them or says something offensive to their face. But online they are outgoing, opinionated, and quick to retaliate with witty or hateful or offensives comments.

So what is their true character? What are they really like?

That's easy...they are who they are in person, not online. They have friends and family that know them well, unlike some stranger on the internet who only knows a tiny fraction of their character based on emotional reactions to derogatory or belittling comments directed at them personally or directed at something they enjoy doing.

Yep....We all have opinions and we all react differently online when those opinions are challenged or when we are belittled personally. There is plenty of research on internet/online personas. It's interesting stuff.

Many people are recluse, quiet and shy in real life, never voicing their opinions, never standing up for themselves physically or verbally when someone pushes them or says something offensive to their face. But online they might be very outgoing, opinionated, and quick to retaliate with witty or hateful or offensives comments.

So what is their true character? What are they really like?

That's easy...they are who they are in person, not online. They have friends and family that know them well, unlike some stranger on the internet who only knows a tiny fraction of their character based on emotional reactions to derogatory or belittling comments directed at them personally or directed at something they enjoy doing.

Judging or assessing someone's character based on heated comments made here in the aiming forum is nothing but a hasty generalization. You don't really know the person.
Click to expand...
PS Some on a certain side of this 'disagreement' basically almost always resort to trying to bully here & some have even made personal threats or suggested such. I can not recall seeing any of that from the main characters on the other side of this "disagreement".
 
French Roots said:
PS Some on a certain side of this 'disagreement' basically almost always resort to trying to bully here & some have even made personal threats or suggested such. I can not recall seeing any of that from the main characters on the other side of this "disagreement".
Click to expand...
Who on the pro-side of the aiming "debate" has ever made a physical threat against another person? I can't recall it happening but then there have been months and maybe up to a year where I haven't opened AZB at all so I obviously haven't seen every interaction between users. But in general I have never, not even in the most heated, insulting exchanges FROM BOTH SIDES, seen anyone make a threat of violence based on aiming disagreements.
 
French Roots said:
PS Some on a certain side of this 'disagreement' basically almost always resort to trying to bully here & some have even made personal threats or suggested such. I can not recall seeing any of that from the main characters on the other side of this "disagreement".
Click to expand...
A certain purveyor of a certain aiming system said he wanted to slap me... but then if he was wrong I could slap him. Who thinks like that? Maybe a grade school teacher who didn't like to spare the rod?
 
French Roots said:
PS Some on a certain side of this 'disagreement' basically almost always resort to trying to bully here & some have even made personal threats or suggested such. I can not recall seeing any of that from the main characters on the other side of this "disagreement".
Click to expand...
Resort to bullying? WTF do you consider "bullying" in an exchange of words? Words can certainly be hurtfully used and the more personal information that is known the more that such personal information can be used in attempts to discredit, to deflect from the topic, or to straight up LIE about someone. These things can certainly be annoying and hurtful but do they rise to the level of bullying?

Right now you are, I think, not telling the truth here. Unless you have some concrete and clear examples I don't see where there has been bullying or personal threats.

Scientifically speaking, you should provide evidence of your claims otherwise we can dismiss them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top