CTE Stepping Cue Ball.

[Dan White]

And you're obsession with Stan continues. Stan has had professional scientists and engineers to his house. They all have agreed that CTE works exactly how Stan describes it.

lol

They all had success using CTE. Could they do the math on it, no. But then again CTE is a visual system and the math most likely will never be done for it. That's been long established. There has been no hiding about that. Full disclosure has been out there.

Better tell that to Renegade. He says he has the math worked out... only we're not worthy to see it. Guess that included you.

Now instead of your constant wrong accusations why not get out of your mom's basement, go to a pool hall and actually try and learn CTE so maybe at some point this year you will actually make a useful post concerning CTE.

If I'm wrong it should be easy to prove how.

 

[Dan White]

Or you could get help with your obsession.
Is this a discussion forum or a personal vendetta forum

I'm sure you don't see the irony in this coming from you.

 

[cookie man]

lol

Better tell that to Renegade. He says he has the math worked out... only we're not worthy to see it. Guess that included you.


If I'm wrong it should be easy to prove how.

It’s already been proven. You are dead wrong. But how can it be proven to someone that can’t make two balls with the system. That’s right. Thousands are having success using the system as described but poor Dan can’t make two balls with it so it can’t possibly work.

 

[cookie man]

I'm sure you don't see the irony in this coming from you.

I don’t see the irony with your obsession. I think it’s kinda sick to be honest

 

[Dan White]

I don’t see the irony with your obsession. I think it’s kinda sick to be honest

I'd wager you have posted considerably more on CTE in the last 6 months than I have.

 

[Renegade_56]

Better tell that to Renegade. He says he has the math worked out... .

When did I say that?

You should have been in Stan's class when he was teaching little kids to read.

 

[Dan White]

When did I say that?

You should have been in Stan's class when he was teaching little kids to read.

You said, among other things, that you could prove that CTE works with your CAD program. CAD is based on math. I also asked you to prove the math and you declined, saying I wasn't worth it.

 

[Dan White]

It’s already been proven. You are dead wrong. But how can it be proven to someone that can’t make two balls with the system. That’s right. Thousands are having success using the system as described but poor Dan can’t make two balls with it so it can’t possibly work.

Why does my opinion bother you so much? Seems like I'm not the only one obsessed around here. You have access to a facebook page with 1000+ CTE users all loving it and each other. What more do you need?

 

[Renegade_56]

You said, among other things, that you could prove that CTE works with your CAD program. CAD is based on math. I also asked you to prove the math and you declined, saying I wasn't worth it.

I didn't actually; selective reading on your part, yet again. An example of my point, would be that I can take a set of balls, an object ball and cue ball, at a random location on a pool table, that would be be a perfect 1/2 ball hit in fractional aiming, and by adding a third variable, such as moving the eyes relative to that 30 degree shot line, focus on center cue ball from that new visual and address center cue ball, then stroking down that visual would either thicken or thin the apparent 30 degree cut, depending on where the vision is now relative to, but not on, the original 30 degree shot line. And yes, it's very easy to draw out in cad. I never said I could prove CTE works, Stan did that many years ago. I said I can draw out in cad how it can mathematically make sense. There is no solution that anyone could ever define, which is why engineers have said they cannot solve it mathematically. It is different for every shot, every person's physical stature, every person's vision, and so on. You could take 100 people and execute a shot, record all the relevent variables for every one, and draw it out in cad to be mathematically correct for every one, and yet, with every single one pocketing the ball, the mathematics describing their vision to the shot would all be different.

 

[cookie man]

I'd wager you have posted considerably more on CTE in the last 6 months than I have.

As I am a user and supporter of CTE so you would think that would be a safe bet. It would be a reasonable opinion that I would have more posts on the subject.
Now considering you don’t use CTE, have never learned CTE, and don’t support the use of CTE begs the question, why in the hell would you have any posts on CTE ? But you have lots and lots of posts on CTE, none of them relevant, mostly just pot shots because of your obsession against CTE. Most would say that’s kinda stupid on your part and you should seek medical help

 

[cookie man]

Why does my opinion bother you so much? Seems like I'm not the only one obsessed around here. You have access to a facebook page with 1000+ CTE users all loving it and each other. What more do you need?

Your opinion doesn’t bother me at all. I kinda feel sorry for you just like the others that came before you, most of which had to finally seek medical help to get over there obsession

 

[Dan White]

You said, among other things, that you could prove that CTE works with your CAD program. CAD is based on math. I also asked you to prove the math and you declined, saying I wasn't worth it.

I didn't actually; selective reading on your part, yet again.

Tell you what, I can actually prove CTE works with CAD, can you prove it doesn't?

Before you say you weren't referring to the CAD program, you also said you can prove CTE with math:

Proving why the CTE method by applying a visual reference from a third angle projection to a 2 dimensional angle is really not that difficult.

It's just math and pretty much anything can be proven to either work or not with math.

 

[Dan White]

As I am a user and supporter of CTE so you would think that would be a safe bet. It would be a reasonable opinion that I would have more posts on the subject.
Now considering you don’t use CTE, have never learned CTE, and don’t support the use of CTE begs the question, why in the hell would you have any posts on CTE ? But you have lots and lots of posts on CTE, none of them relevant, mostly just pot shots because of your obsession against CTE. Most would say that’s kinda stupid on your part and you should seek medical help

It's more interesting that you get so upset that someone has a different opinion than you on CTE. Are you a masochist? You spend all day in a forum where CTE is barely ever discussed anymore. How much time do you spend in the CTE facebook page? Probably none at all. I think you prefer to argue.

 

[Dan White]

I didn't actually; selective reading on your part, yet again. An example of my point, would be that I can take a set of balls, an object ball and cue ball, at a random location on a pool table, that would be be a perfect 1/2 ball hit in fractional aiming, and by adding a third variable, such as moving the eyes relative to that 30 degree shot line, focus on center cue ball from that new visual and address center cue ball, then stroking down that visual would either thicken or thin the apparent 30 degree cut, depending on where the vision is now relative to, but not on, the original 30 degree shot line.

Of course, but so what?

And yes, it's very easy to draw out in cad. I never said I could prove CTE works, Stan did that many years ago. I said I can draw out in cad how it can mathematically make sense. There is no solution that anyone could ever define, which is why engineers have said they cannot solve it mathematically. It is different for every shot, every person's physical stature, every person's vision, and so on. You could take 100 people and execute a shot, record all the relevent variables for every one, and draw it out in cad to be mathematically correct for every one, and yet, with every single one pocketing the ball, the mathematics describing their vision to the shot would all be different.

I'm beginning to think we are talking about two different things. What is it about the CTE method that links the random ball positions to the center of the pocket? In Poolology it is the inscribed angle theorem. How are the balls tied to the correct shot line by using CTE?

 

[Renegade_56]

Of course, but so what?


I'm beginning to think we are talking about two different things. What is it about the CTE method that links the random ball positions to the center of the pocket? In Poolology it is the inscribed angle theorem. How are the balls tied to the correct shot line by using CTE?

Magic.

 

[Dan White]

Magic.

Another CTE troll. Ho hum.

 

[Renegade_56]

Another CTE troll. Ho hum.

Nope, I'm a CTE believer and user, the troll would be you.

 

[cookie man]

It's more interesting that you get so upset that someone has a different opinion than you on CTE. Are you a masochist? You spend all day in a forum where CTE is barely ever discussed anymore. How much time do you spend in the CTE facebook page? Probably none at all. I think you prefer to argue.

I think it’s funny as hell that you think I’m upset at someone who knows nothing about CTE but is as obsessed as hell about it.
I get notifications whenever something is posted on the Facebook group as well as the other groups. I don’t have to post much there because Stan answers all questions for free. Can’t beat that service no matter how hard you try.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I don’t have to post much there because Stan answers all questions

And you don’t do answers anyway.

pj
chgo

 

[Renegade_56]

And you don’t do answers anyway.

pj
chgo

lets see if you do, so answer this. Why do you think CTE doesn't work?