CTE automatically corrects stroke issues

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
And I outlined many times how I proposed that this can be tested. I didn't say that any particular cte user is better than any particular gb user.
Easy John. You insinuated that I misrepresented what you said. I clearly did not. The quotes speak for themselves. The rest I really don't care about.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Easy John. You insinuated that I misrepresented what you said. I clearly did not. The quotes speak for themselves. The rest I really don't care about.
I didn't misrepresent. This is a conversation with many participants and you responded to one statement without referencing the context. You also interpreted what I said outside of that context.

I do understand your point. I hope you understand mine because mine is the much more important one regarding this topic.

The fact that you challenged me personally is indicative of what's wrong with this. And I am guilty of that as well going back 20 years. I failed to understand that it's not about individual challenges but instead about the betterment of the sport.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
I didn't misrepresent. This is a conversation with many participants and you responded to one statement without referencing the context. You also interpreted what I said outside of that context.
Try to follow along here...:
You made a blanket statement that CTE is better than GB at aiming and that no one on the other side of the argument will bet you otherwise. I couldn't care less what other statements/claims/context you posted in some other posts/threads. I quoted your post and responded to what that post contained. If you feel that all posts you make on the forum should be measured against some other comments/claims/context made somewhere else. I suggest you either use citations to these other references, or add a disclaimer to your signature line stating that the comments you make cannot be measured on their singular merit.

I do understand your point. I hope you understand mine because mine is the much more important one regarding this topic.
Ah, you're actually drumming on about the same old same old, and using the tired "I'll bet high" tactic to disclaim other people's opinions. ...I'm defending myself from your accusation that I'm somehow misrepresenting your quoted comments. Your passive attack on my integrity is far more improtant then the boring battle of the CTE aiming system. Hopefully you can see my point.
The fact that you challenged me personally is indicative of what's wrong with this. And I am guilty of that as well going back 20 years. I failed to understand that it's not about individual challenges but instead about the betterment of the sport.
..again, you made a blanket statement. I responded to it. If you had claimed that no one on the other side argument will bet high against you when competing against someone else in an attempt to disprove your opinion. You might have a bit a foot hold in your stance.

What you need to take away from this is, "perception is reality". If you mean one thing but post something else, you can't expect all the forum lurkers to either read your mind to follow along to your satisfaction, or dig through years of other posts in the off chance you may actually mean something else.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Try to follow along here...:
You made a blanket statement that CTE is better than GB at aiming and that no one on the other side of the argument will bet you otherwise. I couldn't care less what other statements/claims/context you posted in some other posts/threads. I quoted your post and responded to what that post contained. If you feel that all posts you make on the forum should be measured against some other comments/claims/context made somewhere else. I suggest you either use citations to these other references, or add a disclaimer to your signature line stating that the comments you make cannot be measured on their singular merit.

Thank you for the suggestions. I feel that the posts I make in a detailed conversation should indeed be read in context with the rest of the content for those who have been a substantial part of the conversation. My post to Patrick was an addition to remarks made throughout the thread and not a singular proposition.

Ah, you're actually drumming on about the same old same old, and using the tired "I'll bet high" tactic to disclaim other people's opinions. ...I'm defending myself from your accusation that I'm somehow misrepresenting your quoted comments. Your passive attack on my integrity is far more improtant then the boring battle of the CTE aiming system. Hopefully you can see my point.

I see it as you not staying in context. Being willing to BET HIGH doesn't disclaim anyone's comments it is merely a signal of confidence in one's position. It's just a stronger way of saying I would bet on that. I am in no way attacking your integrity. I clearly made the mistake of assuming you have been an active participant in this conversation for the past several months and were up to speed on the various proposals that I have made to test the propositions.

Screen Shot 2021-11-04 at 10.53.11 AM.png


This is what I said. You challenging me to a shot making contest individually does not test this claim sufficiently as you would know if you considered in context. You are not betting on the claim but instead your own relative ability with no adequate way to prove that you are not using CTE. So, while understand that your response being characterized as simply responding to a "blanket singular claim" I think that you are not understanding that I wasn't impugning your integrity at all by stating that you ignored the context. Your mistake in not following the conversation is not a failure on my part load my posts with references and links to earlier statements.

..again, you made a blanket statement. I responded to it. If you had claimed that no one on the other side argument will bet high against you when competing against someone else in an attempt to disprove your opinion. You might have a bit a foot hold in your stance.

And you made a specific answer that ignored the body of my content on this. You can tell how I should have written it for YOU to have more clarity but it is not an unrealistic assumption to credit a frequent participant in the conversation with knowledge of the context in which such a statement was made.

What you need to take away from this is, "perception is reality". If you mean one thing but post something else, you can't expect all the forum lurkers to either read your mind to follow along to your satisfaction, or dig through years of other posts in the off chance you may actually mean something else.

I understand that and don't consider you to be a lurker on this topic at this point. Perhaps I did give you credit for being up to speed in these threads but even at that your challenge didn't really address what was claimed and could not prove or disprove it. As such it wasn't the right thing to say in response.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
Thank you for the suggestions. I feel that the posts I make in a detailed conversation should indeed be read in context with the rest of the content for those who have been a substantial part of the conversation. My post to Patrick was an addition to remarks made throughout the thread and not a singular proposition.

I see it as you not staying in context. Being willing to BET HIGH doesn't disclaim anyone's comments it is merely a signal of confidence in one's position. It's just a stronger way of saying I would bet on that. I am in no way attacking your integrity. I clearly made the mistake of assuming you have been an active participant in this conversation for the past several months and were up to speed on the various proposals that I have made to test the propositions.

View attachment 615173

This is what I said. You challenging me to a shot making contest individually does not test this claim sufficiently as you would know if you considered in context. You are not betting on the claim but instead your own relative ability with no adequate way to prove that you are not using CTE. So, while understand that your response being characterized as simply responding to a "blanket singular claim" I think that you are not understanding that I wasn't impugning your integrity at all by stating that you ignored the context. Your mistake in not following the conversation is not a failure on my part load my posts with references and links to earlier statements.

And you made a specific answer that ignored the body of my content on this. You can tell how I should have written it for YOU to have more clarity but it is not an unrealistic assumption to credit a frequent participant in the conversation with knowledge of the context in which such a statement was made.

I understand that and don't consider you to be a lurker on this topic at this point. Perhaps I did give you credit for being up to speed in these threads but even at that your challenge didn't really address what was claimed and could not prove or disprove it. As such it wasn't the right thing to say in response.
ya but I'll bet high that my dad can beat you dad

For you to fully understand the above ^^^ please compile the rest of posts on the forum into a single body of text and cross your eyes until you see the hidden meaning.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
ya but I'll bet high that my dad can beat you dad

For you to fully understand the above ^^^ please compile the rest of posts on the forum into a single body of text and cross your eyes until you see the hidden meaning.

Lol, ok. Perception is reality as you said.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Human error is a good scapegoat. Title is wrong. We finally agree. :)
The title wasn't created by anyone who uses or understands Center to Edge aiming and is not what Stan said. Stan's explanation of what he meant was posted in the thread.
 

paultex

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The title wasn't created by anyone who uses or understands Center to Edge aiming and is not what Stan said. Stan's explanation of what he meant was posted in the thread.
Wow, you got lucky sir, I typed out a bunch of facts to shoot you down, shoot you down to the ground.

Machine guuuunnnn.

...but unfortunately I pressed send and I got a message saying I can only express "pool" infinity in a mere ten thousand words or something.

Could have ended the 20 years of arguing and start a new dawn in which some sincere kid who has aspirations of becoming a pro, could actually have a chance when considering the vast endless landmine field known as the "YouTube 45th parallel" where said kid is guaranteed to fail, but have the latest and greatest carbon fiber popsicle stick.

Oh well....🤷

Yep, it's just that simple. No problem, mein app for notes swallowed up me facts and archived it for future generations if the world doesn't blow up by 2024.

I'm not holding my breath, so my contingency plan is to convince Elon musk to take mein digital information along with him and the other billionaire know it all's into space with his spaceX rocket when the SHTF.

A modern day Noah he shall be.

Psst, when the tv and interwebs go BLACK, they ain't no coming back mang'.

Helter skelter2 electric boogaloo where the lone standing equation will be he or 👁️.

....all because I was limited to 10k words.

Can you believe it? In today's day and age. I mean we are talking limitation of bytes mang'.

It's the end of the world for sure and not even CTE can stop it.....I don't think.

Maybe I'm wrong. I hope.
 

straightline

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Wow, you got lucky sir, I typed out a bunch of facts to shoot you down, shoot you down to the ground.

Machine guuuunnnn.

...but unfortunately I pressed send and I got a message saying I can only express "pool" infinity in a mere ten thousand words or something.

Could have ended the 20 years of arguing and start a new dawn in which some sincere kid who has aspirations of becoming a pro, could actually have a chance when considering the vast endless landmine field known as the "YouTube 45th parallel" where said kid is guaranteed to fail, but have the latest and greatest carbon fiber popsicle stick.

Oh well....🤷

Yep, it's just that simple. No problem, mein app for notes swallowed up me facts and archived it for future generations if the world doesn't blow up by 2024.

I'm not holding my breath, so my contingency plan is to convince Elon musk to take mein digital information along with him and the other billionaire know it all's into space with his spaceX rocket when the SHTF.

A modern day Noah he shall be.

Psst, when the tv and interwebs go BLACK, they ain't no coming back mang'.

Helter skelter2 electric boogaloo where the lone standing equation will be he or 👁️.

....all because I was limited to 10k words.

Can you believe it? In today's day and age. I mean we are talking limitation of bytes mang'.

It's the end of the world for sure and not even CTE can stop it.....I don't think.

Maybe I'm wrong. I hope.
You go girl...

:)
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Wow, you got lucky sir, I typed out a bunch of facts to shoot you down, shoot you down to the ground.

Machine guuuunnnn.

...but unfortunately I pressed send and I got a message saying I can only express "pool" infinity in a mere ten thousand words or something.

Could have ended the 20 years of arguing and start a new dawn in which some sincere kid who has aspirations of becoming a pro, could actually have a chance when considering the vast endless landmine field known as the "YouTube 45th parallel" where said kid is guaranteed to fail, but have the latest and greatest carbon fiber popsicle stick.

Oh well....🤷

Yep, it's just that simple. No problem, mein app for notes swallowed up me facts and archived it for future generations if the world doesn't blow up by 2024.

I'm not holding my breath, so my contingency plan is to convince Elon musk to take mein digital information along with him and the other billionaire know it all's into space with his spaceX rocket when the SHTF.

A modern day Noah he shall be.

Psst, when the tv and interwebs go BLACK, they ain't no coming back mang'.

Helter skelter2 electric boogaloo where the lone standing equation will be he or 👁️.

....all because I was limited to 10k words.

Can you believe it? In today's day and age. I mean we are talking limitation of bytes mang'.

It's the end of the world for sure and not even CTE can stop it.....I don't think.

Maybe I'm wrong. I hope.
Um, normally when you get that message your post is not lost. Not only that, the draft post is preserved across devices which is cool. The forum software keeps a record of it and you can edit it accordingly. I am telling you this as a qualified veteran of 10,000+ word responses. :)

However, it is conceivable that the post was lost because of a glitch in the system. If so I do feel your pain because that has happened to me at various times on various forums including this one, especially before they moved to this forum app.

When the apocalypse comes it is highly unlikely that anyone left will care about anything to do with how to play good pool.
 

paultex

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Um, normally when you get that message your post is not lost. Not only that, the draft post is preserved across devices which is cool. The forum software keeps a record of it and you can edit it accordingly. I am telling you this as a qualified veteran of 10,000+ word responses. :)

However, it is conceivable that the post was lost because of a glitch in the system. If so I do feel your pain because that has happened to me at various times on various forums including this one, especially before they moved to this forum app.

When the apocalypse comes it is highly unlikely that anyone left will care about anything to do with how to play good pool.
Oh no sir, I guarantee in writing in the here and now forever past tense, that 1 legal fiction = person, pre-ignition and or post-ignite of event Helter skelter2,

1) shall in fact, to wit:

1)A: exceptions; without clause or acceptions, acceptance or prejudice

1)B: finality; null and void of it's discontents

The post single entity, shall CARE, if no other person or entity; does and or did of said "care" post or past event "Helter skelter2" ©® 1975 #21673

You have been notified and served by the court of universal understand + ing² of cosmic jurisdiction, 3rd satellite from the star spiral Galaxy milky way © #*

*refer to galactic almanac

Are we clear now or shall you protest in perpetuity?.....I bid you good day SIR🧐🤨😐
 

paultex

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You go girl...

:)
Is my gender in question?

May I remind you that your screen name is arguably ambiguous and technically NON SEQUITUR.

I warn you\is\it\be or who\whom\what ever is transmitting communique from said title origin of ownership.

How dare you 😡.....how dare you.

Canoes do NOT travel up river without unatural impetus.

Straight + line! Weeeee! I'm think + make - who ÷ whom x ?

Argument now squared - ²

A square is in fact square, but no, there just has to be someone ......

Flat earth can only = whom²

Ok? - ?² = oh - ?

Pure chaos vs pure argument, the ultimate run jump loop.

Eventually that impetus fails.

I mean, why can't you be happy or content with straight and or line?

No need for the ebonics sir.

There is no word "yo"....there is no word yo.

This ain't no "ling'wo"....this ain't no ling'wo.

You use CTE don't you?

Yes or no doesn't matter, no matter what, the fact is, even the creator has to play by the rules, it isn't a riddle......not even the creator uses or has tried CTE.

It's "thinks" they do all the way to absolute zero or speed of light, where reality says the closer you get, the more you won't arrive.

Event horizon. It's there but it's ? - when.

Go ahead, argue....argue heh heh, here, you can even use my phone......i'm listening...on my phone that you are using.

It worked...ad infinitum.

Perhaps that is in fact, "pool". It is certainly appearing that way to me. But I'm working on at least a way to prove it.


What is make or miss? This has never been officially discussed, despite math and perception.

I really don't know if there is a realistic answer and right there is straightline but possibly worse and I don't know if that is or should be considered a opinion.

We or I am touching on God questions and I know for a fact at least, this does not have to be a philosophical endeavor.

It just has to be established and agreed, what EXACTLY is a "shot" and the line itself is a human.

Accepted limitation vs mathematical truth.

1 in a billion can't happen, won't happen is ....?

irresponsible vs responsible ÷ productive = nobody lives forever ÷ who\whom made up that "rule" and therefore a line doesn't have to be straight because I am God but I don't have to be.

quite the plausible conundrum but ....

Maybe "pool" is pool....perfect zero.
 

straightline

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Is my gender in question?

May I remind you that your screen name is arguably ambiguous and technically NON SEQUITUR.

I warn you\is\it\be or who\whom\what ever is transmitting communique from said title origin of ownership.

How dare you 😡.....how dare you.

Canoes do NOT travel up river without unatural impetus.

Straight + line! Weeeee! I'm think + make - who ÷ whom x ?

Argument now squared - ²

A square is in fact square, but no, there just has to be someone ......

Flat earth can only = whom²

Ok? - ?² = oh - ?

Pure chaos vs pure argument, the ultimate run jump loop.

Eventually that impetus fails.

I mean, why can't you be happy or content with straight and or line?

No need for the ebonics sir.

There is no word "yo"....there is no word yo.

This ain't no "ling'wo"....this ain't no ling'wo.

You use CTE don't you?

Yes or no doesn't matter, no matter what, the fact is, even the creator has to play by the rules, it isn't a riddle......not even the creator uses or has tried CTE.

It's "thinks" they do all the way to absolute zero or speed of light, where reality says the closer you get, the more you won't arrive.

Event horizon. It's there but it's ? - when.

Go ahead, argue....argue heh heh, here, you can even use my phone......i'm listening...on my phone that you are using.

It worked...ad infinitum.

Perhaps that is in fact, "pool". It is certainly appearing that way to me. But I'm working on at least a way to prove it.


What is make or miss? This has never been officially discussed, despite math and perception.

I really don't know if there is a realistic answer and right there is straightline but possibly worse and I don't know if that is or should be considered a opinion.

We or I am touching on God questions and I know for a fact at least, this does not have to be a philosophical endeavor.

It just has to be established and agreed, what EXACTLY is a "shot" and the line itself is a human.

Accepted limitation vs mathematical truth.

1 in a billion can't happen, won't happen is ....?

irresponsible vs responsible ÷ productive = nobody lives forever ÷ who\whom made up that "rule" and therefore a line doesn't have to be straight because I am God but I don't have to be.

quite the plausible conundrum but ....

Maybe "pool" is pool....perfect zero.
Just an expression. I in fact agree with most CTE critics.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Oh no sir, I guarantee in writing in the here and now forever past tense, that 1 legal fiction = person, pre-ignition and or post-ignite of event Helter skelter2,

1) shall in fact, to wit:

1)A: exceptions; without clause or acceptions, acceptance or prejudice

1)B: finality; null and void of it's discontents

The post single entity, shall CARE, if no other person or entity; does and or did of said "care" post or past event "Helter skelter2" ©® 1975 #21673

You have been notified and served by the court of universal understand + ing² of cosmic jurisdiction, 3rd satellite from the star spiral Galaxy milky way © #*

*refer to galactic almanac

Are we clear now or shall you protest in perpetuity?.....I bid you good day SIR🧐🤨😐
We are clear as mud. I fully understand where you are coming from even if I have no idea where that is
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb

paultex

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Just an expression. I in fact agree with most CTE critics.
....as you should, but just like flat 'earf, I myself am forced to keep a open mind. There is however, a big difference between CTE and flat earth, does CTE make a shot any less likely a successful outcome and does the flat earther make the world any more flat?

I think it would be a insult to ask or think most CTE users are predisposed to flat earth, but I don't think it's a far stretch to think CTE users are "believers" the same that most flat earthers are progressive democrats.

So, that's where the rub is, so if anything, I myself am a critic of flat earth, not CTE, I can't find any reason why one can't get it done with CTE, I think at the end of day for now, even Ronnie O'Sullivan or Joshua filler or whoever at the top, has to "believe" first before anything, despite the fact it is DELIVERY that makes it happen.

I added another "shot" in hopes of pointing out what can be considered a "shot" vs what is not and what accounts for it, that a system or method or belief maybe cannot.

I further add that math can figure out how to knock a missile out of the sky with another missile, but as soon as we introduce motion to a shot, especially like the two shown, we are in effect, asking for a missile to meet the other missile and then send them both in 2 desired directions and at the extreme sometimes, where both come to rest, like the second video shown.

At some point, we have to ask what is in fact a "shot", and I think maybe once that is settled, then we can start deciding the best method, whatever that entails, in order to draw a line somewhere instead of arguing on either side of the line.

Yes, more argument I'm afraid I guess, pool is subjective, but definitive at the same time, maybe pool is straight up "intent" and we throw out math, and since perception and delivery are two inescapable realities, both have to be settled no matter what method used, but certainly we can't get it done eyes closed with one hand, despite it could be done that way.....but let's be efficient and throw out realistic.

We know or should know, there is a window of acceptable limits, I'm sure both sides can agree on that.
 
Top