Firstly, I'd like to thank you for trying to explain this.
Correct me if I am wrong & I am sure that you will.
But...did you not just indicate that you would then see an edge to let's A line that is different than the other.
Last edited:
Could Stan clarify this statement in his video
- Thread starter Colin Colenso
- Start date
- Status
Firstly, I'd like to thank you for trying to explain this.
Correct me if I am wrong & I am sure that you will.
But...did you not just indicate that you would then see an edge to let's A line that is different than the other.
I was mistaken. The previous post was not the last one before the ignore list.
Regarding your statements above...
1. You have not engaged in any discussion of CTE for quite a long time now, your focus has been to 'attack' & ridicule me. In other threads, you have on a couple or several occasions verbally announced your refusal to participate in the discussion, even though you purported to know the answers to the questions asked regarding CTE.
2. You agree with no one as you have no idea what the actual suggestion of another was to me in a PM. You only assume that you know.
3. My desire to learn CTE with the intent of possibly using it pretty much 'died' when I saw the 5 shots YouTube video that Stan put up.
4. Since then... I have expressed my opinion that CTE is NOT a 100% totally objective system or method so that others know that the description is contested by me & others OR...to be convinced otherwise. I thought everyone had a 'right' to their opinion.
No one has shown anything to indicate to me nor others that CTE is a 100% totally objective system or method. Just saying it is does not make it so. That does not mean that Stan & others do not truly believe that it is. I & others just think they are mistaken.
In fact, much of what has been suggested to support the description of CTE being totally objective has done just the opposite to me & others.
But...everyone that was or is interested in CTE should make their own determination.
I think many can see that some of the proponents of CTE really don't want a discussion regarding it, they only want to silence any disagreement with 'attacks' & ridicule of anyone that is not in agreement with them.
Can CTE work? Yes. However... there is disagreement as to why it may be working.
Some say what difference does it make why it works?
Well the answer is that some, like me, would ONLY be interested in CTE, IF it were a 100% totally OBJECTIVE system or method.
I don't need or want another subjective method. I already have enough.
I know you will come back with something because you can't help yourself.
May God Bless You, Neil.
I wonder how many non member readers there are that can see the difference in attitude in our behavior during our exchanges.
Last edited:
Rick, you know very well that's not the polite way to ask a question. When you pose a question "did you not .....", the phrasing indicates questioning the original person's integrity. Or, it sounds like a scumbag Attorney trying to lead a witness. Either way, you're not fooling anyone with your intentions (well, perhaps you seem to be fooling the mods).
Where did I indicate that at all? Please point out specifically, by quoting my words, where I said that.
I'll try to make this simple. Take the five shots you always question. Let's say they are all being potted with a left cut, CTE, ETA. The edge never changes, A never changes, they are the same for all five. What you obviously fail to comprehend is that, while all five shots use the same two points (Edge and A), the perception line your vision sees at each of those different shots is different. If you'd actually try what I suggested instead of purposefully being obstinate and trying to troll, bait and pick a fight, you'd possibly see a clear difference. I know it is blatantly clear to me. Funny how me, being just a beginning banger, that I can grasp this rather readily and you, with your 47 years of experience, have no clue.
Of course, if your primary goal is to troll, bait and pick a fight, instead of actually going to the table and trying it, you won't see anything.
Of course I will defend myself against your nonsense. You are full of hypocrisy as usual. In this very thread, I explained why it is objective. In a previous thread, I explained why you were wrong with the "inside edge" statement. Yet, you never address them, never discuss them, just go on saying the same old nonsense statements over and over. The only disagreement is because some, like you especially, refuse to learn anything about it. You say no one teaches it, quite cont-rare, you refuse to learn it.
Why do you keep on with your flat out lies, Rick? Do you really think others are that stupid that they can't see them also? Again, in this very thread I explained things. Yet, you say I haven't for a long time. To your #2, I have no clue what in the world you are even talking about there. Not sure you do either.
Since you have no desire to learn it, why keep asking the same old questions over and over after you have been repeatedly given the answers? How can you claim being scientific and logical when you state that you have concluded that it is not objective without even knowing how the system works?? That is as unscientific and illogical as one can get. Not to mention flat out dishonest.
Yes, I have said I wouldn't participate. I said that because I knew exactly what you would do, and you didn't disappoint me or anyone else in that regard. You yet again attack with no basis of reality or knowledge whatsoever. Same as always.
But, thanks for finally admitting that your only goal is to knock the system you know nothing about and try and prevent others from using it.
You keep saying it's not objective, yet you can't give one solid instance where it is not. Good job on the "discussion". Thanks for all the chuckles though.
Okay, if you say that is not what you said or intended to say I will believe you.
I have tried the 5 shots.
The 1st. one rattled as I was on a 9' Diamond with 4' pockets.
The 2nd. hit the foot rail about 3/4 of a diamond from the pocket if I remember correctly.
The 3rd. hit twice as far away, etc.
When I shot #5 with CTE & ETB with a thickening pivot it did overcut as Stan said that it would, BUT it was much closer to the pocket than Shot #2 AND it was a full 3 diamonds or more closer than with ETA thinning pivot.
I believe that 8 Pack/ Anthony did the same thing but may not have shot #5 with the ETB & thickening pivot.
How can one stand & objectively see a different ETA line & still see the CTE line at the same time. Did Stan not say in an earlier youtube video that there is only one (1) spot that will allow you to see both lines correctly at the same time?
PS Edit: After the cte experiment. I set up # 5 & pocketed it with a shadow method & TOI on the first tries. I did not miss by approximately 3 diamonds.
Last edited:
Nice...especially after post #53 where I explained to where anyone can understand. Here you are with the same old questions. Just out trying to nitpick again, aren't you? Do you have any idea how this makes you look? It's not very flattering at all. By the way, Stan said a whole lot more that you want to totally dismiss. :wink:
I don't need to say what I meant to say, what I said is clearly stated in my previous post. As I expected, you were unable to quote my words, verbatim, where I was anything but clear. I resent the fact you are once again implying my character is anything less than exemplary by questioning my wording when it obviously is ONLY an attempt on your part to troll, bait and pick a fight.
I can't help what you or the other guy did with the shots. Given his comments regarding his superiority to me when it comes to pool, you would think he could grasp these simple system concepts when I can. Strange, very, very strange. Just a wild guess on my part but I highly suspect you couldn't pot those 5 shots in a row anyway. So why would it come as a surprise that you can't do any better using "your version" of CTE. By the way, I routinely pot these five shots using CTE.
Please show where Stan said shooting any of those shots with ETB, CTE with a "thickening" pivot will still overcut those shots? That simply isn't true, all 5 of those shots can also be potted with CTE, ETB using the opposite pivot/sweep that you use with CTE, ETA. That's really sad that you can't see the CTE, ETB perception. Wow. Why don't you quit with the lies and falsely quoting what people say? That is very insulting and demeaning and says a lot about your character and the way you disrespect people. What you're doing is blatantly lying by doing this which is further proof that your only objective by posting in the aiming forum is to troll, bait and pick a fight.
Several posts ago, I described how to see the perception line. Simply reverse engineer the CTE process as I described doing. Again, this would take some actual effort and somewhere around an average IQ to work through. There is only one spot where the shooter can see the perception correctly for each shot. Since you obviously don't understand it in the least, you cannot comprehend that each shot is unique and each perception line is unique. That's been explained over and over and over to you. But again, when your only objective posting here in the aiming forum is to troll, bait and pick a fight with CTE advocates, it is no surprise that you keep coming back with the same ole, same ole.
Last edited:
I did not even finish reading the above past the first few sentences.
Have you ever heard of a possible miscommunication?
My original question was an attempt to clarify your meaning before I responded to it.
I thought you were sincerely trying to present a helpful explanation & that is why I initially thanked you.
I'm done. You & Neil are certainly two of a kind & I know that both of you will take that as a compliment.
I have faith in the non member readers of AZB to differentiate the differences that are rather apparent to most except those that are blinded by their own 'dark light'.
I actually did not see that post with the jumping around that I was doing.
Do you actually think that perception is objective?
I, nor anyone else that uses the system, has said that it is. However, since you asked, why would you think that it is not? Do you understand what is meant by objective here? (and don't go putting up another dictionary definition, that means nothing)
Sorry.
I am not answering your question before you answer mine that was posed first.
That is a tactic of diversion. Disingenuous people sometimes do that.
Words have meanings. They are called definitions.
It is not like an infamous president once said, 'Well...that depends on what the definition of 'is' IS.
And don't tell me what to not do or do. That's not how honest discussions work.
You appear to be like another that likes to dictate.
Last edited:
.....................
Bull, you say you want to be logical and scientific, yet you won't even declare what you mean by "objective" so there is a common base to discuss from. Instead, since you can't answer it, you call me names.
edit: You also fail to understand that I did answer your question at least partially. So, another fail on your part of twisting things and then calling others names.
Last edited:
I called you no name. It seems you're reading comprehension may be a bit lacking but it is getting late & sometimes people simply make mistakes. Making assumptions as been known to be a mistake.
I asked you first do you consider perception to be objective.
You used perception in your earlier post.
It is you that will not declare what you consider perception to be.
I'm not wasting any more time with you.
May God Bless You, Neil.
May God BLess You Too. Is it Mark?
You said in your previous post you were done with Neil and I, yet you responded to Neil again. You also said you're done again. Lol
This was the original topic.
Hey, If you do not want my wish for God to Bless You then just tell Him to ignore it.
Get it? IGNORE IT.
You have said many many many times that you had me on ignore & would continue to do so.
Were you not telling the truth or did you just change your mind?
Did I say immediately? Or could I have meant after tonight or could I have meant on that subject?
How about this...
Let's agree that we're not worth each others time & both ignore each other & never say another word about one another?
That's a request. Would you care to accept it & honor it?
What do you call this quote from you? As you said, words have meanings.
" Disingenuous people sometimes do that.
Words have meanings. They are called definitions. "
- Status