A challenge to English

[SpiderWebComm]

------------No--------------

Yeah well, I guess being an irritating troll regarding something you know nothing about, CTE, is a lot more fun for you. Helps bolster your inadequacies to make you feel whole and worthy again.

Every once in a while you do make a post that I like. Especially this one where you were having a major pity party for yourself along with a mental breakdown. You probably should have tried CTE or played against Tyler Styer to see up close and personal how it works after he busted you.

This brings a tear to my eye: sniff, sniff...sob, sob

10-16-2018, 04:58 AM

I've had a dismal pool season so far. I've been training for a big event, and the pressure has been hanging over me in a way I haven't experienced before. I've realized that my biggest problem is mental mistakes (wrong shot choices etc) during the game, but trying to make sure you don't make mistakes has a tendency to make them happen. Ok, so you try thinking positively, not thinking about possible mistakes, but rather thinking about positions that are sure not to go wrong. Then that backfires because it's plays you don't usually use, so you get unknown shots. I've lost to people that realistically should have no chance what so ever against me, and it's driving me nuts.

So my for about a couple of months now, I've started focusing on my psr (consciously) and try to let my game run on autopilot as much as possible. It does seem to be working. Overall though, I think my biggest mistake has been trying to change my game. I usually play very aggressively (in a controlled way), and it has always worked quite well. Now that I'm trying to be more careful, I'm messing up all my strong suits. I think whenever you try to change something about your game, in any way, you risk running into to difficulties such as these.

Trying to safeguard against mistakes, has for me been quite futile, and I think it's a tactical dead-end. Don't you Americans have some sort of saying about dancing with the girl you brought with you? I think that's going to be my new approach, not trying to safeguard and improve, but rather play with the skill I have.

 

[Straightpool_99]

Yeah well, I guess being an irritating troll regarding something you know nothing about, CTE, is a lot more fun for you. Helps bolster your inadequacies to make you feel whole and worthy again.

Every once in a while you do make a post that I like. Especially this one where you were having a major pity party for yourself along with a mental breakdown. You probably should have tried CTE or played against Tyler Styer to see up close and personal how it works after he busted you.

This brings a tear to my eye: sniff, sniff...sob, sob

10-16-2018, 04:58 AM

I've had a dismal pool season so far. I've been training for a big event, and the pressure has been hanging over me in a way I haven't experienced before. I've realized that my biggest problem is mental mistakes (wrong shot choices etc) during the game, but trying to make sure you don't make mistakes has a tendency to make them happen. Ok, so you try thinking positively, not thinking about possible mistakes, but rather thinking about positions that are sure not to go wrong. Then that backfires because it's plays you don't usually use, so you get unknown shots. I've lost to people that realistically should have no chance what so ever against me, and it's driving me nuts.

So my for about a couple of months now, I've started focusing on my psr (consciously) and try to let my game run on autopilot as much as possible. It does seem to be working. Overall though, I think my biggest mistake has been trying to change my game. I usually play very aggressively (in a controlled way), and it has always worked quite well. Now that I'm trying to be more careful, I'm messing up all my strong suits. I think whenever you try to change something about your game, in any way, you risk running into to difficulties such as these.

Trying to safeguard against mistakes, has for me been quite futile, and I think it's a tactical dead-end. Don't you Americans have some sort of saying about dancing with the girl you brought with you? I think that's going to be my new approach, not trying to safeguard and improve, but rather play with the skill I have.

Whatever, man. Have a Nice day.

 

[Low500]

Yeah well, I guess being an irritating troll regarding something you know nothing about, CTE, is a lot more fun for you. Helps bolster your inadequacies to make you feel whole and worthy again.
Every once in a while you do make a post that I like. Especially this one where you were having a major pity party for yourself along with a mental breakdown. You probably should have tried CTE or played against Tyler Styer to see up close and personal how it works after he busted you.
This brings a tear to my eye: sniff, sniff...sob, sob
10-16-2018, 04:58 AM
I've had a dismal pool season so far. I've been training for a big event, and the pressure has been hanging over me in a way I haven't experienced before. I've realized that my biggest problem is mental mistakes (wrong shot choices etc) during the game, but trying to make sure you don't make mistakes has a tendency to make them happen. Ok, so you try thinking positively, not thinking about possible mistakes, but rather thinking about positions that are sure not to go wrong. Then that backfires because it's plays you don't usually use, so you get unknown shots. I've lost to people that realistically should have no chance what so ever against me, and it's driving me nuts.
So my for about a couple of months now, I've started focusing on my psr (consciously) and try to let my game run on autopilot as much as possible. It does seem to be working. Overall though, I think my biggest mistake has been trying to change my game. I usually play very aggressively (in a controlled way), and it has always worked quite well. Now that I'm trying to be more careful, I'm messing up all my strong suits. I think whenever you try to change something about your game, in any way, you risk running into to difficulties such as these.
Trying to safeguard against mistakes, has for me been quite futile, and I think it's a tactical dead-end. Don't you Americans have some sort of saying about dancing with the girl you brought with you? I think that's going to be my new approach, not trying to safeguard and improve, but rather play with the skill I have.

You nailed it Spider.:thumbup2:
All that whining in public from straightpooler, someone who's supposed to be a member of the "all knowing about pool" clique, sounds like the expose of a born loser to me. Take that stuff to a minister or the mental health clinic.
He should've had to stand up there in a batters box with people yelling at him, calling him dirty names,insulting his mother, and have some big monster out there on that mound "throwing asprins" at his head.
THEN...he'd know what pressure is all about.
I cannot believe grown men will sit around and cry about "all this turmoil I've been experiencing before a match". Pack of sissy britches.
Don Watson used to say..."Just get up there, do the best you can, use whatever way you like to make the balls, and hope for a good outcome. If you wind up over a full year with an 85% win record, then you're doing better than most". I agree with that.

 

[duckie]

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.

The question was to use science to disprove the CTE can work as described. Geometry is a part of science. In geometry, balls don’t have edges, therefore you cannot use something that does not exist.

Oh yeah, you really proved that in real life balls have edges.

Balls having edges is all in your mind, good grief, how hard is it to accept this?

 

[ENGLISH!]

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?

:thumbup2: :thumbup2: :thumbup2:

 

[ENGLISH!]

------------No--------------

:thumbup2: :thumbup2: :thumbup2:

 

[ENGLISH!]

Your silence on the challenge is speaking volumes not only to posters on here but also the many onlookers that you so cherish.

I had you on ignore as every member should.

Others have made appropriate replies to you.

Mr. Shuffet himself proved why it is impossible in his vidoes on perception that he has relatively recently removed from his YouTube Channel. Why?

Here is an excerpt from a PM that was sent to me...

… 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.

 

[JC]

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.

Translation^^^^^^

I cannot answer the questions you present. No one can.

JC

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Translation^^^^^^

I cannot answer the questions you present. No one can.

JC

Translation...It wasn't addressed to you. But the person who it was addressed to knew the answers.

 

[cookie man]

:thumbup2: :thumbup2: :thumbup2:

:thumbup2: :thumbup2: :thumbup2:

:thumbup2: :thumbup2: :thumbup2:

I had you on ignore as every member should.

Others have made appropriate replies to you.

Mr. Shuffet himself proved why it is impossible in his vidoes on perception that he has relatively recently removed from his YouTube Channel. Why?

Here is an excerpt from that PM that was sent to me...

… 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.

So in answer to my challenge you give 3 thumbs up to different comments and then a copy and paste of another members PM. NO ORIGINAL THOUGHTS. Came up with nothing on your own. Your onloooking fan club will surely be disappointed.
By the way, the pm you copied and think is golden is wrong and flawed and i will prove it with your own words. In the next post.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Translation^^^^^^

I cannot answer the questions you present. No one can.

JC

:thumbup2:

 

[cookie man]

Here is an excerpt from that PM that was sent to me...

… 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.

See according to this if we use the exact same visuals for different ball positions we will get the same outcome. But that's just not true. Each different ball placements(shot) create a new unique visual perspective in which the CTEL hits a different part of the object ball.
English these are your words from another thread,
"& since the ball is a sphere that point is extremely perspective sensitive. If it was indeed a circle we would view that same point no matter from where we view it. That is not the case with the sphere. As we move while looking at the sphere that "edge" point is changing."

So as you can see each change in ball placement creates a new edge to use with our CTEL which in turn creates a new angle and allows us to make balls from all over using the same visuals.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

See according to this if we use the exact same visuals for different ball positions we will get the same outcome. But that's just not true. Each different ball placements(shot) create a new unique visual perspective in which the CTEL hits a different part of the object ball.
English these are your words from another thread,
"& since the ball is a sphere that point is extremely perspective sensitive. If it was indeed a circle we would view that same point no matter from where we view it. That is not the case with the sphere. As we move while looking at the sphere that "edge" point is changing."

So as you can see each change in ball placement creates a new edge to use with our CTEL which in turn creates a new angle and allows us to make balls from all over using the same visuals.

Yep! I tried getting the same point across in a post made earlier when I said this:

"The other would be someone saying we don't see edges when we in fact do. Take 1/2 step to the right or left and go around the OB 360 degrees and you see a NEW edge every time, but it's still an edge."

But guaranteed both of our posts just went roaring over their heads like an F-18 Super Hornet and they'll be back later, tomorrow, or another 20 years from now claiming the same thing they've been whining about for the last 20 years. It doesn't sink into their skulls.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Each different ball placements(shot) create a new unique visual perspective in which the CTEL hits a different part of the object ball.

lol

Incredible.

For those with normal spatial visualization (and reasoning) ability: no the laws of geometry/physics haven't changed - what he said is still physically impossible, just like it's always been.

pj <- for the umpteenth time
chgo

 

[sfleinen]

Yep! I tried getting the same point across in a post made earlier when I said this:

"The other would be someone saying we don't see edges when we in fact do. Take 1/2 step to the right or left and go around the OB 360 degrees and you see a NEW edge every time, but it's still an edge."

But guaranteed both of our posts just went roaring over their heads like an F-18 Super Hornet and they'll be back later, tomorrow, or another 20 years from now claiming the same thing they've been whining about for the last 20 years. It doesn't sink into their skulls.

Dave and Dave:

Why do you two go on and on with this guy? You see how the *day of* getting released from his ban, he started in with his same obsessive-compulsive disorder, like an alligator with lockjaw, chomped down hard on this thing he can't let go of? He calls himself a "truther" but he is no better than the typical flat-earther, anti-vaxxer, or 5G-wireless fear monger. He sits comfortably in his armchair espousing "truther" arguments when in reality, it's just a call to help feed and alleviate his insecurities. As you can see from the sheer volume of his posts, he spends his day monitoring and engaging in AzB. An armchair expert, and not a player.

If I saw you two at SBE, I'd be flicking *both of you* on the forehead -- in a half-serious / half-joking manner -- for wasting your time. <ping-ping-ping!>

Come on, guys.
-Sean

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Dave and Dave:

Why do you two go on and on with this guy? You see how the *day of* getting released from his ban, he started in with his same obsessive-compulsive disorder, like an alligator with lockjaw, chomped down hard on this thing he can't let go of? He calls himself a "truther" but he is no better than the typical flat-earther, anti-vaxxer, or 5G-wireless fear monger. He sits comfortably in his armchair espousing "truther" arguments when in reality, it's just a call to help feed and alleviate his insecurities. As you can see from the sheer volume of his posts, he spends his day monitoring and engaging in AzB. An armchair expert, and not a player.

If I saw you two at SBE, I'd be flicking *both of you* on the forehead -- in a half-serious / half-joking manner -- for wasting your time. <ping-ping-ping!>

Come on, guys.
-Sean

Flicking both of us on the forehead? How dare you dish out such a wimpy wake up call!

We both need kicked in the nuts with the form and style of a NFL punter!

You are correct about all of it.

 

[ENGLISH!]

lol

Incredible.

For those with normal spatial visualization (and reasoning) ability: no the laws of geometry/physics haven't changed - what he said is still physically impossible, just like it's always been.

pj <- for the umpteenth time
chgo

PJ,

Simple common sense. How did they lose it?

How does that John Payne quote go regarding one who has relinquished Reason?

What that other member PMd me is absolutely correct.

They want to abandon the TWO LINES thing when it suits them but cling to it as what makes Shuffett's CTE different than Fractional. Which is it?

Does the "simultaneous" viewing of the Two Lines lock in the CB Center or are they
free to wonder all over the place to get a different OB 'edge' while LOSING the Edge to ABC line?

Do they think that the General Readership is ignorant?

All Rhetorical Questions unless you want to elaborate on something.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Duplicate post.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

lol

Incredible.

For those with normal spatial visualization (and reasoning) ability: no the laws of geometry/physics haven't changed - what he said is still physically impossible, just like it's always been.

pj <- for the umpteenth time
chgo

LMAO at you Mr. spatial intelligence. 21 years now and still clueless. You use your lizard head back and forth to get the different views on each shot like that's normal and not idiotic to do and watch. What the hell is that called and look like?

We do it with by way of a parallax view with the changing positions of the balls, our body and eyes. It's still an edge and center, but different.

ALL of us have made videos demonstrating things on the table or taking skill challenges for making different cut angles with accuracy. I have NEVER seen a video of you. You're only good for pounding keys on the computer and 2D drawings. Time for you to step up to the plate and demonstrate what you think is right or wrong with full explanations. The biggest know it all mouth on any internet forum with no balls to back it up in action.

Your time has come. (can't wait for the double talk, snarky put down response that you're good for) The BALLESS WONDER.

 

[Dan White]

Dave and Dave:

Why do you two go on and on with this guy? You see how the *day of* getting released from his ban, he started in with his same obsessive-compulsive disorder, like an alligator with lockjaw, chomped down hard on this thing he can't let go of? He calls himself a "truther" but he is no better than the typical flat-earther, anti-vaxxer, or 5G-wireless fear monger. He sits comfortably in his armchair espousing "truther" arguments when in reality, it's just a call to help feed and alleviate his insecurities. As you can see from the sheer volume of his posts, he spends his day monitoring and engaging in AzB. An armchair expert, and not a player.

If I saw you two at SBE, I'd be flicking *both of you* on the forehead -- in a half-serious / half-joking manner -- for wasting your time. <ping-ping-ping!>

Come on, guys.
-Sean

Sean - I don't know you and have never really interacted with you but I often like what you write. Hopefully this comment won't make me an enemy. Anyway, I came across a discussion you were having with Stan a long time ago. I searched because I was curious what your position on CTE was. You seemed to be slapping your own head instead of Dave's :wink: and were going through the same frustrating discussions that happen every day here.

What I see from you in this thread is the frustration at dealing with non-answers and "because I said so" mentality. Your discussion starts on page 5 into page 6 starting with post 63 on the following page.

I'm interested 5 years down the road (and no further enlightenment from Stan on the issue AFAIK) what your position on this discussion is today, if you don't mind me asking.

https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=359091&highlight=stan&page=5