Stan Shuffett's nonsensical "opinion" about his own nonsensical "system" - which you, of course, defend as gospel.
lol
pj
chgo
Well it's not like you are likely to do or create anything worth discussing or learning.
Nah, not gospel, I have a pool table and I apply the objective aiming method and make more shots with more consistency. I defend that.
To be clear I don't care if any other super nobody says that cte works. I started learning it because I know that what Hal taught me works and thus i had confidence that cte was likely to work as well or better than what I learned from Hal.
But now, ten years later, I can do a video chat with a super nobody who knows cte and that person can tell me to set up a shot and tell me the perception and sweep and I will be dead nuts perfect on the shot line. No fidgeting, no guessing, just two people using the same framework to approach a task.
No hitting a million balls or endless repetition. Just ball coordinates and the aiming key. And it is bi-directional as I can do the same for them.
In other words, the collective experience with the system allows for players to use that framework to grow beyond what they can accomplish individually. You can never ever tell a person how to aim any given shot consistently via remote control unless that shot already has an objective aiming reference such as a coordinate pair that is a half ball or full ball hit.
So it's not any wonder that you don't understand and seemingly can't learn CTE. When you think it's no different or better than ghost ball or your fidget till you (maybe) get it way then it's clear that you aren't going to be able to converse about cte intelligently or honestly.
But, as I told Lou, thank you for doing your part to keep the conversation going. Even bad critics operating from bad premises serve a purpose and yours is to keep providing a reason to talk about the awesome power of objective aiming and the Center to Edge objective aiming system.