A challenge to English

sixpack · Jun 13, 2019

ENGLISH! said:
… because they are scientically ignorant. Somehow they think they can get two slightly different perceptions from an identical set of visuals. For example, if the cb is 24" from the ob, the ETA and CTE visuals will give you a unique perspective of ccb, and from this perspective is where you do the offset pivot or sweep. No deying that.

However, ANYTIME the distance between the balls is 24", and you use the exact same visuals (ETA and CTE) you will get the exact same ccb perspective. They actually believe the placement of the balls on the table will allow for some variance in this perspective, but it's simply not possible. The only variables used in getting a particular ccb perception are as follows: Two visual lines between cb and ob. The only thing that can alter this perception (when using the same visuals each time) is the distance between the balls. When the distance changes, the resulting perception changes. When the distance remains the same, the resulting perception remains the same. It's impossible to prove anything to someone who does not understand this.

The above was sent to me in PM by another member. It is absolutely correct.

Wtf you think this is? Who wants to be a millionaire? You can’t phone a friend. Lol. Lame.

Whomever wrote that doesn’t understand perception.

Unfortunately I took you at your word about wanting an honest conversation. I won’t make that mistake again.

You’re a cartoon.

ENGLISH! · Jun 13, 2019

sixpack said:
Wtf you think this is? Who wants to be a millionaire? You can’t phone a friend. Lol. Lame.

Whomever wrote that doesn’t understand perception.

Unfortunately I took you at your word about wanting an honest conversation. I won’t make that mistake again.

You’re a cartoon.

Sounds like an excuse for not answering my questions that prove the impossibility of how it is supposed to work.

The person who sent that to me knows quite well what perception means as do I. We also know what objective means in the context that it was used in the assertions that started all of this crap.

Attacking the messenger & name calling is a TACTIC that many use when they lack something substantive to support their position. It is a sign that they know they have lost or are losing the 'debate'.

I had hoped that you would be different & would actually have a normal civil discussion.

I was given some advice by a member who is an Instructor. They said to remember the many, many, who read AZB & may rarely if ever post... I refer to them as the General Readership. I give them credit for more intelligence than some do.

sixpack · Jun 13, 2019

ENGLISH! said:
Sounds like an excuse for not answering my questions that prove the impossibility of how it supposed to work.

The person who sent that to me knows quite well what perception means as do I. We also know what objective means in the context that it was used in the assertions that started all if this crap.

Attacking the messenger & name calling is a TACTIC they many use when they lack something substantive to support their position. It is sign that they know they have lost or are losing the 'debate'.

lololo.

It is a tactic that I've seen you use time and again. I'm not losing nor have lost any debate. I'm not debating you.

I was trying to provide information that I thought you were asking for in good faith. You were not. You are not honest and yet you are the first to claim everyone else is not honest. You are the problem.

If you meet an asshole in the morning. You met an asshole. If you meet assholes all day, you're the asshole.

Might want to think about that.

ENGLISH! · Jun 13, 2019

The use of single quotation marks. Check out the possible reasons to use them.

I asked about a specific visual being placed in different locations & was answered talking about pivots.

Then I am accused of being the one sending the discussion down the drain.

It is rather amazing to me how alike all of the proponents are except Monty Ohrt.

It as also rather amazing to me how well I am liked except by a couple of "groups".

sixpack · Jun 13, 2019

ENGLISH! said:
The use of single quotation marks. Check out the possible reasons to use them.

I asked about a specific visual being placed in different locations & was answered talking about pivots.

Then I am accused of being the one sending the discussion down the drain.

It is rather amazing to me how alike all of the proponents are except Monty Ohrt.

Yep. You bring out the best in people. Like I said, look in the mirror.

sixpack · Jun 13, 2019

cookie man said:
SIXPACK, i think he really expects you to take the metal rods out on the putting green and give him an opinion on your observations. He won't except your opinions but still expects you to give them lol.

I don't know what he wanted to do with pool balls and rods on a golf green. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt and thought maybe it was an autocorrect error.

Nope.

ENGLISH! · Jun 13, 2019

To the General Readership,

Please make you own determinations as to what is scientifically possible & what is not. Use your common sense.

PJ has said it rather well. AZB should be a place where those who play the game can come to get truthful information or at least information that is not scientifically known to be false.

Best Wishes to ALL & Shoot Well.

BC21 · Jun 13, 2019

sixpack said:
I don't know what he wanted to do with pool balls and rods on a golf green. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt and thought maybe it was an autocorrect error.

Nope.

He was simply saying that the perception you get using the two visuals between the two balls should be the exact same regardless of where the balls are, whether they're on a pool table or on a putting green, as long as everything used to get the perception is exactly the same -- the same visual references, the same balls, the same distance between the balls, etc... In other words, lock the whole setup in place, everything used to get the perception, and move it to a different playing surface. There's no reason the perception could not be obtained anywhere. It's that whole bit, "the balls present themselves differently" on a pool table, or on a 2×1 playing surface, that he was trying to expose as making very little sense. He has a good point.

cookie man · Jun 13, 2019

BC21 said:
He was simply saying that the perception you get using the two visuals between the two balls should be the exact same regardless of where the balls are, whether they're on a pool table or on a putting green, as long as everything used to get the perception is exactly the same -- the same visual references, the same balls, the same distance between the balls, etc... In other words, lock the whole setup in place, everything used to get the perception, and move it to a different playing surface. There's no reason the perception could not be obtained anywhere. It's that whole bit, "the balls present themselves differently" on a pool table, or on a 2×1 playing surface, that he was trying to expose as making very little sense. He has a good point.

Does he really have a good point?
"Those points at the outer edges of the width/diameter are always there. If you move to the right, changing your perspective, it's just another simple circle, and the outer edges are redefined from that perspective."

ENGLISH! · Jun 13, 2019

BC21 said:
He was simply saying that the perception you get using the two visuals between the two balls should be the exact same regardless of where the balls are, whether they're on a pool table or on a putting green, as long as everything used to get the perception is exactly the same -- the same visual references, the same balls, the same distance between the balls, etc... In other words, lock the whole setup in place, everything used to get the perception, and move it to a different playing surface. There's no reason the perception could not be obtained anywhere. It's that whole bit, "the balls present themselves differently" on a pool table, or on a 2×1 playing surface, that he was trying to expose as making very little sense. He has a good point.

Thanks, Brain.

It has been said before so I tried to create a visual representation. You got it. They can't get it. I keep asking myself why can't they grasp the reality of the Truth & I come up with several answers, but I keep coming back to one & it is one that can not be said here.

ALL Best Wishes.

HawaiianEye · Jun 13, 2019

English 101

All you need to know about ENGLISH.

sixpack · Jun 13, 2019

BC21 said:
He was simply saying that the perception you get using the two visuals between the two balls should be the exact same regardless of where the balls are, whether they're on a pool table or on a putting green, as long as everything used to get the perception is exactly the same -- the same visual references, the same balls, the same distance between the balls, etc... In other words, lock the whole setup in place, everything used to get the perception, and move it to a different playing surface. There's no reason the perception could not be obtained anywhere. It's that whole bit, "the balls present themselves differently" on a pool table, or on a 2×1 playing surface, that he was trying to expose as making very little sense. He has a good point.

Ok. But I never said the balls present themselves differently. I don’t even know what that is referring to.

The perception though, will change depending on alignment. If you are directly behind the line looking at them then it doesn’t change. If you move your eyes then the lines will appear to converge in different places. If CTE does work, which I’m not sure because I have limited knowledge of it, then that is where the magic would happen.

It’s ridiculous for him to expect me to defend or argue a statement that I never made.

BC21 · Jun 13, 2019

sixpack said:
Ok. But I never said the balls present themselves differently. I don’t even know what that is referring to.

The perception though, will change depending on alignment. If you are directly behind the line looking at them then it doesn’t change. If you move your eyes then the lines will appear to converge in different places. If CTE does work, which I’m not sure because I have limited knowledge of it, then that is where the magic would happen.

It’s ridiculous for him to expect me to defend or argue a statement that I never made.

The "present themselves differently" is from Stan. But you are right....you don't look directly down either line, but you can find a position where both are visualized. I can pocket balls with it, mainly when they're within 3ft of a pocket and the perception and pivot just happen to work out right. Strait in shots go every time. But I'm just not willing to spend any time with it trying to make it work on almost straight in shots or other angles. The thing is, my 15 outside makes a straight on alignment (center cb to center ob) everytime, regardless of where the balls are on the table. I stopped messing with it right there. If others make it work then that's awesome. But if I stick to an exact 1/2 tip offset pivot, my 15 outside always leads to center center.

BC21 · Jun 13, 2019

cookie man said:
Does he really have a good point?
"Those points at the outer edges of the width/diameter are always there. If you move to the right, changing your perspective, it's just another simple circle, and the outer edges are redefined from that perspective."

Yes he does.

What's your point with repeating my post? All it means is that EVERY ball, when you stop and look straight through the vertical center of it, is "FIXED", as Stan says. From any angle/perspective the cb always has a "fixed" center and two fixed edges, and any other vertical slices or partitions you can visualize.

ENGLISH! · Jun 13, 2019

sixpack said:
Ok. But I never said the balls present themselves differently. I don’t even know what that is referring to.

The perception though, will change depending on alignment. If you are directly behind the line looking at them then it doesn’t change. If you move your eyes then the lines will appear to converge in different places. If CTE does work, which I’m not sure because I have limited knowledge of it, then that is where the magic would happen.

It’s ridiculous for him to expect me to defend or argue a statement that I never made.

I did not ask you to defend anything. I merely asked you a couple of questions because you appeared to be somewhat rational & reasonable & with a technical background.

Can we shake hands & start over as it seems that we have miscommunicated?

How is it that Brian with his math education, Dan White with his engineering background, Dr. Dave, PJ, & I with my Physics education along with others of similar backgrounds all see things a certain way & then there are a few vocal proponents who can't seem to understand the most basic common sense parameters? That is a rhetorical question intended more as food for thought.

I would appreciate it if you would reconsider my premise & consider a reply.

ENGLISH! · Jun 13, 2019

BC21 said:
The "present themselves differently" is from Stan. But you are right....you don't look directly down either line, but you can find a position where both are visualized. I can pocket balls with it, mainly when they're within 3ft of a pocket and the perception and pivot just happen to work out right. Strait in shots go every time. But I'm just not willing to spend any time with it trying to make it work on almost straight in shots or other angles. The thing is, my 15 outside makes a straight on alignment (center cb to center ob) everytime, regardless of where the balls are on the table. I stopped messing with it right there. If others make it work then that's awesome. But if I stick to an exact 1/2 tip offset pivot, my 15 outside always leads to center center.

Brian,

That's odd. When I tried the 15 outside per Monty Ohrt's request the visual offset & 1/2 tip pivot did not negate each other & get me C2C.

Not that it matters because if it does then how are any shots between 0 & 15 degrees going to be made by the same process?

What size tip do you use?

BC21 · Jun 13, 2019

ENGLISH! said:
Brian,

That's odd. When I tried the 15 outside per Monty Ohrt's request the visual offset & 1/2 tip pivot did not negate each other & get me C2C.

Not that it matters because if it does then how are any shots between 0 & 15 degrees going to be made by the same process?

What size tip do you use?

12.75mm

Let's say the balls are 2ft apart....When I get my 15 perception and Iook through the center of the "fixed" cb, as Stan calls it, my tip is pointed to about a 5/8 aim on the ob, just a little thinner than a 3/4 aim. Doing an outside 1/2 tip offset pivot puts me c2c. If the balls are farther apart my tip is pointed closer to the edge of the ob when I look through the fixed cb. And once again the outside pivot lines me up c2c.

ENGLISH! · Jun 13, 2019

BC21 said:
12.75mm

Let's say the balls are 2ft apart....When I get my 15 perception and Iook through the center of the "fixed" cb, as Stan calls it, my tip is pointed to about a 5/8 aim on the ob, just a little thinner than a 3/4 aim. Doing an outside 1/2 tip offset pivot puts me c2c. If the balls are farther apart my tip is pointed closer to the edge of the ob when I look through the fixed cb. And once again the outside pivot lines me up c2c.

When I did it per Monty's request I too had the balls about 2 ft. apart for a long diagonal straight in shot.

I don't think you did it per the "objective" instructions.

Once down one is not supposed to look at the OB. Pivot to center & stroke straight.

After several misses that were not even close. I did similar to you & gazed at the OB & could clearly see that the stick was no where near through C2C. Then I could make the adjustment & pocket the ball.

Your more into numbers for pool than I am, but the 15 visual with the CTE line yields about a 14* degree cut if there is no tip offset. Correct?

So... per your results then the 1/2 tip pivot would yield the same 14* change. Correct?

With balls the same 2 ft. apart, How can another angle shot be pocketed with the same visual & same pivot?

sixpack · Jun 13, 2019

ENGLISH! said:
I did not ask you to defend anything. I merely asked you a couple of questions because you appeared to be somewhat rational & reasonable & with a technical background.

Can we shake hands & start over as it seems that we have miscommunicated?

How is it that Brian with his math education, Dan White with his engineering background, Dr. Dave, PJ, & I with my Physics education along with others of similar backgrounds all see things a certain way & then there are a few vocal proponents who can't seem to understand the most basic common sense parameters? That is a rhetorical question intended more as food for thought.

I would appreciate it if you would reconsider my premise & consider a reply.

Fair enough.

But even that statement is designed (intentionally or not) to get under people's skin.

You say "a few vocal proponents who can't seem to understand the most basic common sense." I assume I'm included in that and when you said I was being dishonest I lost my cool. If you want to have civil conversations you can't throw those cutesy insults in there.

I was answering the question I thought you were going to next. I understood your point with the rods and assumed you knew I did so I went to the next step.

I have an undergraduate degree in Math/Computer science. First two years were physics before I switched. I have a graduate degree in a very mathematical discipline. Both from a top engineering school. I've done extensive 3d modeling and co-authored a CAD system when I was in college. Believe me I can understand any math/physics/science that you can throw at me. Or Dan or PJ. I've met and played with PJ and we get along just fine. Dr. Dave is another story. I like him and his posts but generally I don't want to work hard enough to understand the math that he throws around. But I could if I wasn't so dang lazy.

On paper, CTE does not work. We all agree on that. Not one person has been able to draw a diagram of CTE that works and is geometrically correct.

But that's not relevant because it isn't supposed to work on paper. It is supposed to work in real life. In three dimensions.

I don't know if it does. I gave up on it years (decades?) ago because I thought there was no way it works. Because I tried to draw it on paper. Because I'm an engineer/math guy.

Then at an AZB meetup I met an AZB member who used CTE and he showed me a little of it. Literally 3-4 minutes. One aim point and the pivot. Something clicked and I was fascinated because it *shouldn't* work but it did. I watched Stan's videos and I had some of the same problems you do with them.

I love Stan (even though I've never met him, I admire his dedication) and I couldn't figure out CTE from the videos.

So I started thinking about how it might work. I started looking at ways that it could work. And you know what happened? I started seeing it and making balls. I remember as clearly as if it were yesterday. I was trying it and a guy came up and asked me to play. I said sure and just decided to use what I was doing (CTE-ish?) on every shot. He racked 8-ball. I broke and ran out. He racked again and went to get a drink. I broke and ran ANOTHER rack. Not even looking at anything but the perceptions and pivoting to the spot. I was playing with a house cue.

The guy I was playing looked at me and turned and walked away without saying a word.

That night I was shooting balls in like a fiend. From everywhere. Straight in, slight angle, hard back cuts full table length. I wasn't even bothering to play position because I knew I could make ANY shot.

What I was doing was NOT CTE. Or at least a very limited version of CTE. I know that now. But it worked really, really well. And I think CTE probably works better. What I've learned since tells me that it does work very well.

This week, after three months of travel and hardly playing I went to practice with a buddy. I couldn't make a ball. Then I decided to use CTESP (CTE sixpack) and suddenly everything starts working and I ran a table of 8-ball.

I don't use CTESP all the time because I have been so busy with work and caring for a sick relative the last few years that I haven't had time to really get used to doing it. So I generally use my old aiming system and Poolology if I can't see something right.

I think the answer to your question is that I look for reasons it can work and you (all) look for reasons it won't work.

One of the best banking systems for me is one where you just visualize the path of the ball and it lights up for you.

Same for putting in golf. And I've had 9 holes of golf where I only putted 11 times...And shot 29 (par 36) in case you think I had a lot of chip shots.

Obviously there is something else going on there. Something in the brain. And yet, it works.

What I was trying to explain earlier is that I think the magic happens in the pivot and the perception.

The perception changes. Even in your question you asked me earlier. If you move your eyes right or left the convergence of the rods moves to different places.

So yeah. I believe that there is something there. And I can't wait to see what Stan has been working on because I'm curious about it. I want to explore this mystery. My mind is always looking for patterns and finding them where most don't even look.

That doesn't make me unable to understand common sense. It makes me willing to go beyond it.

ENGLISH! · Jun 13, 2019

sixpack said:
Fair enough.

But even that statement is designed (intentionally or not) to get under people's skin.

You say "a few vocal proponents who can't seem to understand the most basic common sense." I assume I'm included in that and when you said I was being dishonest I lost my cool. If you want to have civil conversations you can't throw those cutesy insults in there.

I was answering the question I thought you were going to next. I understood your point with the rods and assumed you knew I did so I went to the next step.

I have an undergraduate degree in Math/Computer science. First two years were physics before I switched. I have a graduate degree in a very mathematical discipline. Both from a top engineering school. I've done extensive 3d modeling and co-authored a CAD system when I was in college. Believe me I can understand any math/physics/science that you can throw at me. Or Dan or PJ. I've met and played with PJ and we get along just fine. Dr. Dave is another story. I like him and his posts but generally I don't want to work hard enough to understand the math that he throws around. But I could if I wasn't so dang lazy.

On paper, CTE does not work. We all agree on that. Not one person has been able to draw a diagram of CTE that works and is geometrically correct.

But that's not relevant because it isn't supposed to work on paper. It is supposed to work in real life. In three dimensions.

I don't know if it does. I gave up on it years (decades?) ago because I thought there was no way it works. Because I tried to draw it on paper. Because I'm an engineer/math guy.

Then at an AZB meetup I met an AZB member who used CTE and he showed me a little of it. Literally 3-4 minutes. One aim point and the pivot. Something clicked and I was fascinated because it *shouldn't* work but it did. I watched Stan's videos and I had some of the same problems you do with them.

I love Stan (even though I've never met him, I admire his dedication) and I couldn't figure out CTE from the videos.

So I started thinking about how it might work. I started looking at ways that it could work. And you know what happened? I started seeing it and making balls. I remember as clearly as if it were yesterday. I was trying it and a guy came up and asked me to play. I said sure and just decided to use what I was doing (CTE-ish?) on every shot. He racked 8-ball. I broke and ran out. He racked again and went to get a drink. I broke and ran ANOTHER rack. Not even looking at anything but the perceptions and pivoting to the spot. I was playing with a house cue.

The guy I was playing looked at me and turned and walked away without saying a word.

That night I was shooting balls in like a fiend. From everywhere. Straight in, slight angle, hard back cuts full table length. I wasn't even bothering to play position because I knew I could make ANY shot.

What I was doing was NOT CTE. Or at least a very limited version of CTE. I know that now. But it worked really, really well. And I think CTE probably works better. What I've learned since tells me that it does work very well.

This week, after three months of travel and hardly playing I went to practice with a buddy. I couldn't make a ball. Then I decided to use CTESP (CTE sixpack) and suddenly everything starts working and I ran a table of 8-ball.

I don't use CTESP all the time because I have been so busy with work and caring for a sick relative the last few years that I haven't had time to really get used to doing it. So I generally use my old aiming system and Poolology if I can't see something right.

I think the answer to your question is that I look for reasons it can work and you (all) look for reasons it won't work.

One of the best banking systems for me is one where you just visualize the path of the ball and it lights up for you.

Same for putting in golf. And I've had 9 holes of golf where I only putted 11 times...And shot 29 (par 36) in case you think I had a lot of chip shots.

Obviously there is something else going on there. Something in the brain. And yet, it works.

What I was trying to explain earlier is that I think the magic happens in the pivot and the perception.

The perception changes. Even in your question you asked me earlier. If you move your eyes right or left the convergence of the rods moves to different places.

So yeah. I believe that there is something there. And I can't wait to see what Stan has been working on because I'm curious about it. I want to explore this mystery. My mind is always looking for patterns and finding them where most don't even look.

That doesn't make me unable to understand common sense. It makes me willing to go beyond it.

Firstly, I did not have you in mind with that comment because you have not exhibited such as others have. You assumed incorrectly. We certainly did not communicate well & you jumping to where you "thought" I was going next was not a good thing without first answering my question regarding the model.

What you said about you playing well with a version is what I have found with several who say they are using Mr. Shuffett's CTE, but they are not.

Now... you say if you take my model & change the viewing point to either side then the rods converge to different places. They are fixed & attached to the defined points on the balls. They do not physically converge differently.

The whole idea of it is that the lines put you in the ONE position where both can be seen equally & simultaneously & doing so fixes the CB Center. If you move then you have lost that perspective & the fixed center CB that seeing the lines equally & simultaneously dictates.

You can NOT perform the SAME process with the same parameters & get a different result.

Do you disagree with any of that?

THAT visual with the SAME "defined" pivot can only yield one outcome given the same CIT.

Do you agree?

PS I & another rather good pool player each did not have dates one New Years Eve. So, we decided to play pool. I could not miss. It did not matter what a shot. I made everything. I still played position but as you said when it is that good you sort of stop caring where the cue ball goes as long as it does not scratch. I was not using any version of CTE nor employing any pivot. In every league that I played which at one time was five leagues a week I have always won the award for the most run outs even after my eye accident.

A challenge to English

AzB Silver Member

Banned

AzB Silver Member

Banned

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Banned

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

AzB Silver Member

Banned

AzB Silver Member

Attachments

AzB Silver Member

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

Banned

Banned

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

Banned

AzB Silver Member

Banned