Whoa! A side of Dan White I never considered but seemingly on his brain throughout the day. (You just never know in today's world)I think Spider just made the "dick" post. He said he lies to women. I think we know what about.
The Simplest Aiming Systems to Visualize and Use
- Thread starter SpiderWebComm
- Start date
Hey, I'm full of surprises! Here's one from the other day:Whoa! A side of Dan White I never considered but seemingly on his brain throughout the day. (You just never know in today's world)
phreaticus
Well-known member
Fundamentals
So you tell someone not to lie or be deliberately ignorant and we all should just laugh and think nothing of it. Ok.I think Spider just made the "dick" post. He said he lies to women. I think we know what about.
Don't take everything so seriously.
So what’s your thought. Could using the inside half of the cb to align with the outside half of the OB from an offset position be a useful thing?
again, typical
I think visualizing any collision by any method is an application of GB
And I wouldn’t associate gb with anything. I’ve never used it and dont see any reason to use it.
Ah... please quote where I used that 3 letter acronym. Do you understand what bias means and have the ability to recognise an example of it...?
Right on... Not saying you should. Just baffled that you can look at a OB that you want to pocket and not at any point imagine the CB making contact to it. There's a difference between aiming with GB and just envisioning the collision, that said, the imagined collision still has a GB image
You didn’t actually use it but you accused me of being biased i my post because obviously you associate me with CTE.
I would say my collision has a contact point image. Amounts to about the same thing I guess
You didn't use the 3 letter acronym directly. Do you understand what "inference" means especially in the context you used it?
We do know of YOUR BIAS. (how's that for an example?) Do you need an example handed to you on a silver platter? (insert 3 letter acronym here)
That's your interpretation. I look at it as telescoping. Moving the actual OB itself forward into the correct impact position. That having been said, not important because I no longer see it that way. Only where the edge of the CB is along with the center in relationship to the OB.
Now here's one for you that doesn't use the 3 letter acronym method. Would you guess it's possible to aim (or align) the CB to OB dead center as if it were a straight in shot but end up having it make cut shots at a good number of cut angles by tip/ferrule placement and pivoting back to center CB or a little beyond? I realize you're a pool genius but have you seen that in action or even believe it's possible? Remember, no 3 letter acronym.
Last edited:
Yes please. Your bias has lumped me into group that is inaccurate
Ah "pool genius"... An unwarranted derogatory comment. ...again typical and expected. Congrats on taking so long to meet my expectations.
I won't entertain you're attempt to bait me to your level of uncivil conversation. However I will comment on your situtational aiming example.
I don't need to guess. Of course you can alter the path the CB will take with squirt or backhand shifts. If you're attempting to lead me to some great epiphany. Feel free to kick up the speed and move on to the next question.
What group is that and what IS my bias?
And here I was trying to be complimentary. Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. What are your expectations?
Nothing uncivil at all. I'm just trying to gauge your real pool knowledge, not your own perceived one.
No squirt involved. Altered path...ever so slightly but enough to link CB to OB to make every angle on the table depending on what is done, visualized, and a good stroke. I think you're beyond epiphanies since the universal knowledge regarding everything pool is internalized in the mega database of your skull.
That having been said, why don't you tell ME how the two balls are linked visually and what is done with a backhand pivot to make all angles from straight in to over 80 degrees? Remember, this has nothing to do with the 3 magic letters and its CB to OB alignment.
I don't see how that in itself is useful. You said this narrows the shot down to half the cb and half the ob. If you can't discern more than that just by looking at the balls you don't belong at a pool table. What does "offset position" really mean? Offset compared to what -- the shot line?
Shot line does not compute. You're an engineer. I don't know if it's with Amtrak or Chemical Engineering.
In addition to that, there are 20 types of engineers. EACH type of engineering has its own vocabulary synonymous with the individual category. As a chemical engineer you and an Aerospace Engineer or Nuclear engineer would have nothing in common based on your individual specialties. It would be like trying to communicate with Vladimir Putin without an interpreter.
- 1 1. Aerospace Engineering
- 2 2. Agriculture & Food Engineering
- 3 3. Architectural Engineering
- 4 4. Automotive Engineering
- 5 5. Biomedical Engineering
- 6 6. Biotechnology Engineering
- 7 7. Chemical Engineering
- 8 8. Civil Engineering
- 9 9. Computer Engineering
- 10 10. Electrical and Instrumentation Engineering
- 11 11. Electronics and Communication Engineering
- 12 12. Environmental Engineering
- 13 13. Industrial and Production Engineering
- 14 14. Marine Engineering
- 15 15. Materials Science Engineering
- 16 16. Mechanical Engineering
- 17 17. Mining and Geological Engineering
- 18 18. Nuclear Engineering
- 19 19. Petroleum Engineering
- 20 20. Textile Engineering
- The aiming system that WE use now in book form has 48 definitions unto itself and 56 abbreviations. SHOTLINE does not exist. SHOTLINE is in other aiming systems.
Last edited:
Oh, my bad. I meant to say the No Imagination Shot Line, or as Stan calls it, the NISL. Is that better?
And, you're wrong about engineers not being able to communicate as with a foreign language That's silly.