danYou are wrong in that you have me pegged as trying to start an online riot or something. You are taking some of my comments out of context.
Here's what happened. I had some free time on a Friday afternoon and looked through the aiming forum to see if there were any new discussions, which there were not. I thought, "Sad to see no discussion in a discussion forum." It occurred to me that some of the CTE people said they were going to go to Stan's forum and stop posting here. Out of curiosity I looked up that page's statistics on facebook and found they had grown to 2600 members but with only 3 posts per day average. I decided to post about that and I did so with a little snark, as in you guys keep insulting everyone and saying that CTE is taking over the known universe yet there are only 3 posts per day (and no testimonials in what, months)? I did not throw that in anybody's face because, frankly, maybe that's not such a bad number for only 2600 members. I go to a lawnmower forum that has 115,000 members. That's it, end of story.
Then the very first post is from you, accusing me of stirring up shit. You'll notice that I never replied to your post because I didn't want to immediately get into defending myself about baiting. You deleted that post (Why?) and I never even brought it up. It was cookie who brought it up because he was then turning the thread into a baiting discussion instead of a Stan's group discussion. You'll also note that I did not respond to spider's first post or two because that never ends well and wastes so much time.
So, yes, I do take some offense at your incessant prodding about what a horrendous thing I must have done by baiting someone in a forum that hasn't had a single post for a month. Even if that was my intention, which it wasn't, is it possible to bait someone who doesn't really want to join in? To me, baiting is where you say something so egregious that they have to respond. Throwing out a comment about the popularity of Stan's group is hardly bait material. There was no personal insult, comment about someone's mom, none of that.
Having said all that, I'm choosing to take your comments about baiting as a compliment. Everybody knows that certain people here are off the rails and don't know any better. Your holding me to a higher standard is something of a compliment... you're still wrong, though.
lets start with number 1 and 1AYou are wrong in that you have me pegged as trying to start an online riot or something. You are taking some of my comments out of context.
1)Here's what happened. I had some free time on a Friday afternoon and looked through the aiming forum to see if there were any new discussions, which there were not. I thought, "Sad to see no discussion in a discussion forum." (1A) It occurred to me that some of the CTE people said they were going to go to Stan's forum and stop posting here. Out of curiosity I looked up that page's statistics on facebook and found they had grown to 2600 members but with only 3 posts per day average. I decided to post about that and I did so with a little snark, as in you guys keep insulting everyone and saying that CTE is taking over the known universe yet there are only 3 posts per day (and no testimonials in what, months)? I did not throw that in anybody's face because, frankly, maybe that's not such a bad number for only 2600 members. I go to a lawnmower forum that has 115,000 members. That's it, end of story.
Then the very first post is from you, accusing me of stirring up shit. You'll notice that I never replied to your post because I didn't want to immediately get into defending myself about baiting. You deleted that post (Why?) and I never even brought it up. It was cookie who brought it up because he was then turning the thread into a baiting discussion instead of a Stan's group discussion. You'll also note that I did not respond to spider's first post or two because that never ends well and wastes so much time. (2)
So, yes, I do take some offense at your incessant prodding about what a horrendous thing I must have done by baiting someone in a forum that hasn't had a single post for a month. Even if that was my intention, which it wasn't, is it possible to bait someone who doesn't really want to join in? To me, baiting is where you say something so egregious that they have to respond. Throwing out a comment about the popularity of Stan's group is hardly bait material. There was no personal insult, comment about someone's mom, none of that.(3)
Having said all that, I'm choosing to take your comments about baiting as a compliment. Everybody knows that certain people here are off the rails and don't know any better. Your holding me to a higher standard is something of a compliment... you're still wrong, though. .....(4)
It’s funny you accuse me of baiting but post number 20, by you, you clearly state this whole thread was started with the intention of being a baiting thread. Need some ice for that black eye?You are wrong in that you have me pegged as trying to start an online riot or something. You are taking some of my comments out of context.
Here's what happened. I had some free time on a Friday afternoon and looked through the aiming forum to see if there were any new discussions, which there were not. I thought, "Sad to see no discussion in a discussion forum." It occurred to me that some of the CTE people said they were going to go to Stan's forum and stop posting here. Out of curiosity I looked up that page's statistics on facebook and found they had grown to 2600 members but with only 3 posts per day average. I decided to post about that and I did so with a little snark, as in you guys keep insulting everyone and saying that CTE is taking over the known universe yet there are only 3 posts per day (and no testimonials in what, months)? I did not throw that in anybody's face because, frankly, maybe that's not such a bad number for only 2600 members. I go to a lawnmower forum that has 115,000 members. That's it, end of story.
Then the very first post is from you, accusing me of stirring up shit. You'll notice that I never replied to your post because I didn't want to immediately get into defending myself about baiting. You deleted that post (Why?) and I never even brought it up. It was cookie who brought it up because he was then turning the thread into a baiting discussion instead of a Stan's group discussion. You'll also note that I did not respond to spider's first post or two because that never ends well and wastes so much time.
So, yes, I do take some offense at your incessant prodding about what a horrendous thing I must have done by baiting someone in a forum that hasn't had a single post for a month. Even if that was my intention, which it wasn't, is it possible to bait someone who doesn't really want to join in? To me, baiting is where you say something so egregious that they have to respond. Throwing out a comment about the popularity of Stan's group is hardly bait material. There was no personal insult, comment about someone's mom, none of that.
Having said all that, I'm choosing to take your comments about baiting as a compliment. Everybody knows that certain people here are off the rails and don't know any better. Your holding me to a higher standard is something of a compliment... you're still wrong, though.
I gave him a name a long time ago after regularly observing how he comes into a thread with something in his baiting techniques that he knows will get under the skin...gets the initial "bite" response that he was looking for...amps it up with each successive post when multiple parties start coming back at him...naturally Pat Johnson isn't going to sit on his hands because this is what he's lived for the last 25 years and they took a blood brother oath...and in no time flat there's a full blown flame war that's basically a summer rerun of every other flame war since 2004 or 3 when this forum was started.It’s funny you accuse me of baiting but post number 20, by you, you clearly state this whole thread was started with the intention of being a baiting thread. Need some ice for that black eye?
I’m just surprised he didn’t have some posts deleted last night by someone he’s close toI gave him a name a long time ago after regularly observing how he comes into a thread with something in his baiting techniques that he knows will get under the skin...gets the initial "bite" response that he was looking for...amps it up with each successive post when multiple parties start coming back at him...naturally Pat Johnson isn't going to sit on his hands because this is what he's lived for the last 25 years and they took a blood brother oath...and in no time flat there's a full blown flame war that's basically a summer rerun of every other flame war since 2004 or 3 when this forum was started.
At the end he comes up with every lame, distorted excuse as far as his intentions being so sincere and harmless BUT we ogres
and sub-human CTE users were the ones who took it to new levels when all he was doing was trying to clear some things up and get answers which we all know is 100% TOTAL BULLSHIT!
HIS NAME THAT I GAVE HIM... INNOCENT DAN!
(Which is really complimentary and understated based on what it COULD or SHOULD be)
Exactly right! I'm sure there was some reporting for bans also. Especially something HE categorized or insinuated was a "THREAT".I’m just surprised he didn’t have some posts deleted last night by someone he’s close to
Shouldn't heads down on the cue be on the shot line?tilted heads down on the cue is different than tilted heads on the shotline
????Shouldn't heads down on the be on the shot line?
pj
chgo
Oops... my error.????
Well the logical thing for you to do would be to just show us some examples of shots that cannot be made with CTE.The misunderstanding is CTE's main claim to fame: the implausible claim that an aiming system, any aiming system, can be complex enough to fully and physically define every cut angle needed in pool (i.e., without "feel") yet simple enough to be used by a player at the table.
I'm pretty sure neither you nor Spidey actually get this, so, as usual, I'm repeating it for others, trusting there are readers here who might understand it and appreciate knowing it.
pj
chgo
Oops... my error.
Shouldn't heads down on the cue be on the shot line?
You seemed to say the head should be on the shot line or down on the cue...
pj
chgo
Obviously CTE users make shots “with it” - I said “with it” must include feel.Well the logical thing for you to do would be to just show us some examples of shots that cannot be made with CTE.
OK, we agree.i believe your vision center should ideally be on the shot line at all times
But we don’t agree about this - this thread was never about the CTE webpage.if thats wrong PM me
since its not relevant to how stans facebook page is doing.
actually we do agree on both .......OK, we agree.
But we don’t agree about this - this thread was never about the CTE webpage.
pj
chgo
We’ve done that over and over. There is a whole YouTube series describing it in complete detail. Also a nice book with pictures for you to follow along to.Obviously CTE users make shots “with it” - I said “with it” must include feel.
The “logical” thing (since it’s CTE’s illogical claim) would be for you to describe aiming a shot with precise CTE steps that anybody can follow and make the shot without feel.
pj
chgo
So you agree that this was just a baiting thread from Dan. Interesting. He won’t be happy with you.OK, we agree.
But we don’t agree about this - this thread was never about the CTE webpage.
pj
chgo
Please describe feel and how it works for one person to another. Can feel be taught? If a person has or claims to have incredible feel, such as yourself, does it mean once it's called upon and activated that you NEVER miss the shot you're trying to make?Obviously CTE users make shots “with it” - I said “with it” must include feel.
The “logical” thing (since it’s CTE’s illogical claim) would be for you to describe aiming a shot with precise CTE steps that anybody can follow and make the shot without feel.
pj
chgo
Let's assume you have a dead straight in shot from CB to OB to pocket. I mean you can see it like a laser beam was coming out of your eyes from both balls to the pocket. What part of it is FEEL? Do you need FEEL since it's all right there perfectly laid out?Obviously CTE users make shots “with it” - I said “with it” must include feel.
The “logical” thing (since it’s CTE’s illogical claim) would be for you to describe aiming a shot with precise CTE steps that anybody can follow and make the shot without feel.
pj
chgo