A challenge to English

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So you've been back about a week with a full out attack on CTE. Yep, your head is cocked sideways, your little chest is all pumped out, you are standing tall on a step stool. Hundred or so posts, most claiming that CTE does not stand the test of science. But what we are not seeing is any actual proof of your claim. No scientific evidence being presented. Just unsubstantiated claims. Claims that let's face it, you have no actual clue whether they are true or not. Or do you.
My challenge to you. Present the scientific evidence in all it's glory. You are sure it's there, present it to AZ for all to see. Don't present just a theory, that proves nothing. Prove your theory with scientific experiments. Show your work. Back up your claims.
I think you can't. I think you have no clue how to use CTE. But prove me wrong
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
So you've been back about a week with a full out attack on CTE. Yep, your head is cocked sideways, your little chest is all pumped out, you are standing tall on a step stool. Hundred or so posts, most claiming that CTE does not stand the test of science. But what we are not seeing is any actual proof of your claim. No scientific evidence being presented. Just unsubstantiated claims. Claims that let's face it, you have no actual clue whether they are true or not. Or do you.
My challenge to you. Present the scientific evidence in all it's glory. You are sure it's there, present it to AZ for all to see. Don't present just a theory, that proves nothing. Prove your theory with scientific experiments. Show your work. Back up your claims.
I think you can't. I think you have no clue how to use CTE. But prove me wrong
You've been asked many, many times to just describe (not even "prove") how CTE "takes you to" the exact shot line (with a slight overcut for throw - lol) - and all you've ever had to say is "you wouldn't understand". I think it's pretty clear that it's you who doesn't understand.

pj
chgo
 

duckie

GregH
Silver Member
Well, if you want claimed based on science..........CTE can’t work because in science..........you ready for this...........balls don’t have edges.
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
You've been asked many, many times to just describe (not even "prove") how CTE "takes you to" the exact shot line (with a slight overcut for throw - lol) - and all you've ever had to say is "you wouldn't understand". I think it's pretty clear that it's you who doesn't understand.

pj
chgo

Yaaawn...same copy and pasted response from 1998, 99, 2000, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05,

06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.

Soon to be followed up by more copy and pasted meaningless put down responses.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
My challenge to you. Present the scientific evidence in all it's glory. You are sure it's there, present it to AZ for all to see. Don't present just a theory, that proves nothing. Prove your theory with scientific experiments. Show your work. Back up your claims.
I think you can't. I think you have no clue how to use CTE. But prove me wrong

I'm not ENGLISH!, but I know an empty challenge when I see one. You don't recognize actual science when it is in front of you. Reread this thread and see if you can put your bias and defensiveness aside long enough to read and think about this thread. If you find fault with my analysis please let me know specifically what you think and we can discuss it. That's how science works. Shouting "you don't understand anything" is not science and since you seem to be looking for real science I don't expect to hear that back from you.

Looking forward to an actual discussion of the science.

https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=462546&highlight=throw
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I'm not ENGLISH!, but I know an empty challenge when I see one. You don't recognize actual science when it is in front of you. Reread this thread and see if you can put your bias and defensiveness aside long enough to read and think about this thread. If you find fault with my analysis please let me know specifically what you think and we can discuss it. That's how science works. Shouting "you don't understand anything" is not science and since you seem to be looking for real science I don't expect to hear that back from you.

Looking forward to an actual discussion of the science.

https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=462546&highlight=throw

I don't have time right now to read the thread. I'll go through it though.

My challenge is more specific to English. He keeps saying the science don't support CTE. He even says it in just about every post he makes in NPR. He's making false claims. He has absolutely no clue and ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENCE BACKED FACTS TO SUPPORT HIS EVERY POST. Time for your new leader to put up or shut up.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Well, if you want claimed based on science..........CTE can’t work because in science..........you ready for this...........balls don’t have edges.

Lol. Seriously, I literally laughed out loud! Wait for it....wait for it......"balls don't have edges."

I love your style, but I am going to prove to you, when it comes to aiming, that object balls do in fact have edges. I will do this in a new thread.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You've been asked many, many times to just describe (not even "prove") how CTE "takes you to" the exact shot line (with a slight overcut for throw - lol) - and all you've ever had to say is "you wouldn't understand". I think it's pretty clear that it's you who doesn't understand.

pj
chgo

It's only pretty clear that you wouldn't understand it if i did. You haven't understood basic CTE, you certainly aren't going to understand Stan's advanced version. But you are welcome to try to figure it out when the book comes out.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Lol. Seriously, I literally laughed out loud! Wait for it....wait for it......"balls don't have edges."

I love your style, but I am going to prove to you, when it comes to aiming, that object balls do in fact have edges. I will do this in a new thread.

Thank you, i only want to deal with one i........ at a time,lol.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I don't have time right now to read the thread. I'll go through it though.

My challenge is more specific to English. He keeps saying the science don't support CTE. He even says it in just about every post he makes in NPR. He's making false claims. He has absolutely no clue and ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENCE BACKED FACTS TO SUPPORT HIS EVERY POST. Time for your new leader to put up or shut up.

Well, to put it delicately, Stan is the one saying it is "a mystery that was never supposed to be." So the criticism you make of ENGLISH applies very clearly to Stan. Some people use CTE and seem to love it. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether it is 100% objective and overpowers CIT (contact induced throw) and dials you in and cures gout and grows back hair. The point I'm making is that overstating what the system can do is harmful to people trying to learn it, but that's a different discussion.
 

JC

Coos Cues
It's only pretty clear that you wouldn't understand it if i did. You haven't understood basic CTE, you certainly aren't going to understand Stan's advanced version. But you are welcome to try to figure it out when the book comes out.

It's increasingly clear this needs to be settled in a live streamed event once and for all.

PJ and Lou VS Cookie and Spidey.

It should of course be a race to the death.:thumbup:

JC
 

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
Well, to put it delicately, Stan is the one saying it is "a mystery that was never supposed to be." So the criticism you make of ENGLISH applies very clearly to Stan. Some people use CTE and seem to love it. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether it is 100% objective and overpowers CIT (contact induced throw) and dials you in and cures gout and grows back hair. The point I'm making is that overstating what the system can do is harmful to people trying to learn it, but that's a different discussion.

:thumbup2: :thumbup2: :thumbup2:
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
Well, to put it delicately, Stan is the one saying it is "a mystery that was never supposed to be." So the criticism you make of ENGLISH applies very clearly to Stan.

After a certain period of time when Stan started getting involved with CTE through Hal, Hal's health started going downhill rapidly due to the speed Alzheimer disease was taking over. Stan got certain keys and secrets but had to figure it out much on his own. It was the same negative crew on AZB carried over from RSB that said it was impossible which led Stan to say the mystery that was never supposed to be referring to YOU GUYS.


Some people use CTE and seem to love it.

More than some. Also more pro players who love and swear by it. What do you think they know that you don't?

That isn't the issue. The issue is whether it is 100% objective and overpowers CIT (contact induced throw) and dials you in and cures gout and grows back hair.

I've never heard that claim being made about gout or hair. I do know it causes constipation and hemorrhoids to those who knock it and don't use it.

The point I'm making is that overstating what the system can do is harmful to people trying to learn it, but that's a different discussion.

How in the world is it harmful to people trying to learn it? Man, you guys are pulling crap from the bottom of the barrel now just to make crap up.

Overstating and lying what the system CAN"T do by the Anti-CTE crowd, is HARMFUL to people who WANT to learn it and are TRYING to learn it.

 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
. Stan got certain keys and secrets but had to figure it out much on his own. It was the same negative crew on AZB carried over from RSB that said it was impossible which led Stan to say the mystery that was never supposed to be referring to YOU GUYS.

Run that by me one more time. What exactly are you saying here?
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
Well, if you want claimed based on science..........CTE can’t work because in science..........you ready for this...........balls don’t have edges.
What if CTE meant Center-to-ExtremeRightOrLeftMostVisiblePartOfObjectBall? Would it work then?

pj
chgo
 

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
So you've been back about a week with a full out attack on CTE. Yep, your head is cocked sideways, your little chest is all pumped out, you are standing tall on a step stool. Hundred or so posts, most claiming that CTE does not stand the test of science. But what we are not seeing is any actual proof of your claim. No scientific evidence being presented. Just unsubstantiated claims. Claims that let's face it, you have no actual clue whether they are true or not. Or do you.
My challenge to you. Present the scientific evidence in all it's glory. You are sure it's there, present it to AZ for all to see. Don't present just a theory, that proves nothing. Prove your theory with scientific experiments. Show your work. Back up your claims.
I think you can't. I think you have no clue how to use CTE. But prove me wrong

Ah, the old creationist trick, reversing the burden of evidence.

Listen, you lot proposed this Whole thing. You claim it works flawlessly, yet present no mechanism to prove why it would work. Then make extraordinary claims about "hitting center Pocket every time" etc..Sorry, no, it's YOU who have to do the proving. You could start With the old 5 different angle, same procedure shot setup. Prove how/why it Works. If you could do that, I'd be satisfied and many others as well, but you can't, because it's hogwash.

The distance between a humans eyes in combination with the optical phenomenon of paralax has been used forever in range estimation in military Applications as well as civilian ones. I often use it when I go Fishing With my boat and find a Fishing spot out on the lake. By using a simple Method, holding out a thumb and closing one eye, then the other a fairly precise location can be pinpointed and range can be estimated. https://blog.outdoorherbivore.com/wilderness/estimating-distance-with-your-thumb/

The 5 shot setup contradicts all that knowledge on a basic Level as well as basic common sense. No explanation has been provided for this. There was an attempt made, With some kind of Reference to "rotating edges" or whatever nonsense terminology was used. Feel free to repost it, we'll see. Then later it was claimed that the layout of the table, specifically the Object balls position on it (as opposed to just the distance to the shooter) somehow dictated how the Visual would be perceived.

1. How would that even work?
2. Why isn't this explained in detail, as this would be the single most important piece of information in the Whole system?
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
Ah, the old creationist trick, reversing the burden of evidence.

Listen, you lot proposed this Whole thing. You claim it works flawlessly, yet present no mechanism to prove why it would work. Then make extraordinary claims about "hitting center Pocket every time" etc..Sorry, no, it's YOU who have to do the proving. You could start With the old 5 different angle, same procedure shot setup. Prove how/why it Works. If you could do that, I'd be satisfied and many others as well, but you can't, because it's hogwash.

The distance between a humans eyes in combination with the optical phenomenon of paralax has been used forever in range estimation in military Applications as well as civilian ones. I often use it when I go Fishing With my boat and find a Fishing spot out on the lake. By using a simple Method, holding out a thumb and closing one eye, then the other a fairly precise location can be pinpointed and range can be estimated. https://blog.outdoorherbivore.com/wilderness/estimating-distance-with-your-thumb/

The 5 shot setup contradicts all that knowledge on a basic Level as well as basic common sense. No explanation has been provided for this. There was an attempt made, With some kind of Reference to "rotating edges" or whatever nonsense terminology was used. Feel free to repost it, we'll see. Then later it was claimed that the layout of the table, specifically the Object balls position on it (as opposed to just the distance to the shooter) somehow dictated how the Visual would be perceived.

1. How would that even work?
2. Why isn't this explained in detail, as this would be the single most important piece of information in the Whole system?

Why don't you stick to playing snooker and live in snooker forums? Or, do what you did a year or two ago which was write your swan song out in a post about quitting the game with tears streaming down your face and then disappear.
 

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
Why don't you stick to playing snooker and live in snooker forums? Or, do what you did a year or two ago which was write your swan song out in a post about quitting the game with tears streaming down your face and then disappear.

------------No--------------
 
Top