Some Rational, Reasonable, Truthfully Logical, Cognitive Thought Regarding CTE
- Thread starter French Roots
- Start date
Have you ever posted here under another name?
How good do you play?
Do you ever answer questions?
Yep it is... owning it 100%.
You were the lead asshat that shat the same old crap in my efforts to understand the CTE method. Not too sure how civil it is to take unprovoked pot shots at people there Mr. "Counter punch"....lol
I wouldn't expect much... He can't even come up with a refreshing angle on the same old comments.
I wouldn't worry too much anyway. Based on heritage I'm sure he'll give up in short order.
French Roots
Member
If you sincerely want what you say you do, then the place for such is on Stan Shuffett's site.Yep it is... owning it 100%.
You were the lead asshat that shat the same old crap in my efforts to understand the CTE method. Not too sure how civil it is to take unprovoked pot shots at people there Mr. "Counter punch"....lol
However, did you not say that you did not buy the book because you do not need an aiming method badly enough to spend $100?
Since you are so sensitive & do not seem to realize what happens to threads, then start a new one & I will not post in it, unless I slip up and if I do, then just remind me and I will delete my post.
Don't believe that's for you to decide. Although I'm sure you'll attempt to claim it is and I'm foolish to think otherwise.
Yes... That is exactly what I said, but to add clarity, I don't need an aiming system period. I respect other's people methods enough to want to understand them. Hense my thread that you crapped in. If Stan's content was considerbly cheaper I would purchase it. Much like I did spend the $10 on Poolology.
I'm incredibly sensitive, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't bring that up again...
Nah, fool me once.... Asked you twice to stop and you still opted to feed you ego. Can't imagine why you'd attempt to contain yourself now.
French Roots
Member
Well, at least I was sincere & willing.Don't believe that's for you to decide. Although I'm sure you'll attempt to claim it is and I'm foolish to think otherwise.
Yes... That is exactly what I said, but to add clarity, I don't need an aiming system period. I respect other's people methods enough to want to understand them. Hense my thread that you crapped in. If Stan's content was considerbly cheaper I would purchase it. Much like I did spend the $10 on Poolology.
I'm incredibly sensitive, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't bring that up again...
Nah, fool me once.... Asked you twice to stop and you still opted to feed you ego. Can't imagine why you'd attempt to contain yourself now.
The decision is yours... as are all decisions concerning you.
I think he’s someone who got banned and came back under a different name, he was a Root also
CTE is the cocaine of aiming.
It works....then suddenly it doesn't.
I used it for over a week a few years ago, in my limited understanding of it. It worked so good I quit aiming normally.
Then in an 8 ball game, I had to shoot a normal, easy shot and forgot how I aimed. Seriously. I quit CTE.
Hello, my name is Jeff, I'm a CTE aholic.
It works....then suddenly it doesn't.
I used it for over a week a few years ago, in my limited understanding of it. It worked so good I quit aiming normally.
Then in an 8 ball game, I had to shoot a normal, easy shot and forgot how I aimed. Seriously. I quit CTE.
Hello, my name is Jeff, I'm a CTE aholic.
Last edited:
Yes Rick the Root
Rick AKA English came back as French Roots. Got caught and got banned.
Thanks and I wondered about that.
CTE is a tool, like any tool, you must practice using it to become a master, of CTE.
My neighbor was a world class wood carver. His subjects were birds.
Man made birds out of Bass Wood, if I had Bass Wood, and his tools, all I would produce is kindling.
Neighbor has 50 years experience doing wood carving.
My neighbor was a world class wood carver. His subjects were birds.
Man made birds out of Bass Wood, if I had Bass Wood, and his tools, all I would produce is kindling.
Neighbor has 50 years experience doing wood carving.
Fire is from the gods! The sun revolves around the earth. You lose a part of your soul when you sneeze.
Sometimes there are phenomena which are mysterious and the effect is ascribed to the "gods" which are later dissected and figured out.
The assumption that you make is that it cannot work and the question that should be asked is HOW does it work and let's figure that out. Let's isolate every step and figure it out but instead the critics would rather do "thought experiements" rather than actual experiments.
From a practical perspective the CTE users are doing quite well making balls and enjoying pool. They have zero need to help the critics understand the underlying mechanics. In fact there is an incentive to encourage the criticism so that the numbers of players adopting CTE is less than it might otherwise be. But the opposite actually occurs and people come to CTE through the criticism and end up trying it and liking it and not worrying about whatever the critics have to say.
I do not know why the shot line appears so consistently when the balls are moved in parallel. In my gut I feel that there is a mechanical reason but that that reason has to do with perception and what Stan calls gearing. But the phenomena is clearly provable from player to player so somewhere in there there is a common denominator that is consistent. The easiest answer is that it is some sort of subconscious "adjustment" but adjustment FROM what?
The shot line is not visible. There are only three shots where the shot line and the aim lines are perfectly parallel. The straight-in and the half-ball hit and the edge-to-edge shots. In those cases the shot line is derived easily because of the ability to connect the objects. However ONLY the straight-in shot connects to the pocket along the same line.
So then aiming by using imaginary balls is an endeavor that requires imagination and estimation. When someone creates a way to look at the cueball and the object ball and derive a shot line that works consistently through a consistent step-by-step objective process then that process has great value. So you can take great offense at the word objective but for the user that is exactly what it is. And how exactly it works mechanically is truly less important than it works. Figuring out exactly how it works would be certainly be awesome and would bridge whatever this divide is but knowing that it does work should be a source of both satisfaction for those who use it and a source of curiosity for those who like to explore the underpinnings of things. In no way should a great system that works be a source of animosity for anyone who claims to love pool and wants to see pool grow.
Sometimes there are phenomena which are mysterious and the effect is ascribed to the "gods" which are later dissected and figured out.
The assumption that you make is that it cannot work and the question that should be asked is HOW does it work and let's figure that out. Let's isolate every step and figure it out but instead the critics would rather do "thought experiements" rather than actual experiments.
From a practical perspective the CTE users are doing quite well making balls and enjoying pool. They have zero need to help the critics understand the underlying mechanics. In fact there is an incentive to encourage the criticism so that the numbers of players adopting CTE is less than it might otherwise be. But the opposite actually occurs and people come to CTE through the criticism and end up trying it and liking it and not worrying about whatever the critics have to say.
I do not know why the shot line appears so consistently when the balls are moved in parallel. In my gut I feel that there is a mechanical reason but that that reason has to do with perception and what Stan calls gearing. But the phenomena is clearly provable from player to player so somewhere in there there is a common denominator that is consistent. The easiest answer is that it is some sort of subconscious "adjustment" but adjustment FROM what?
The shot line is not visible. There are only three shots where the shot line and the aim lines are perfectly parallel. The straight-in and the half-ball hit and the edge-to-edge shots. In those cases the shot line is derived easily because of the ability to connect the objects. However ONLY the straight-in shot connects to the pocket along the same line.
So then aiming by using imaginary balls is an endeavor that requires imagination and estimation. When someone creates a way to look at the cueball and the object ball and derive a shot line that works consistently through a consistent step-by-step objective process then that process has great value. So you can take great offense at the word objective but for the user that is exactly what it is. And how exactly it works mechanically is truly less important than it works. Figuring out exactly how it works would be certainly be awesome and would bridge whatever this divide is but knowing that it does work should be a source of both satisfaction for those who use it and a source of curiosity for those who like to explore the underpinnings of things. In no way should a great system that works be a source of animosity for anyone who claims to love pool and wants to see pool grow.
From the user perspective it is.
Could it be like walking a tightrope?? I mean, the instructions can certainly be objective, but the walker must first develop excellent balance in order to perform well. And that part is subjective.
No, fully in accordance with the dictionary meaning.