Fear of Feel

...he started at the base of the CB and moved his cue tip up. or to the side - he had to to get the english he needed to get the great shape that he gets.
I don't believe he "had to" do that to get the spin he wanted - any kind of spin can be produced with a straight stroke.

I and other sweaters called it swiping at the rock.
Are you sure he "swiped" (moved the tip up, down or sideways during the final stroke), or did he move the tip before the final forward stroke and stroke straight through at the new tip target? He might use a swipe stroke very well, but it's not the most accurate way for mere mortals - and it isn't needed.

pj
chgo
 
Its the natural game

Interesting that you should bring this up.

Begin watching at 26min 55sec.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kL9ena6j6M

What I have noticed with some pro players is they will cue the QB at center and then on the shot stroke hit the QB in an entirely different place.

Same thing when cuing the QB low, their cue is pointed between the table cloth and the bottom edge of the QB. But on the shot stroke they hit the QB at a different, below center QB, location.

This technique has to be taught because there are so many pro's using it.

I ask only because it has always puzzled me why this is.

Do you know why Robin.

Thanks :)

John

John,
Recently Ive been working on material that includes this and I was actually left alone one evening at the Pool Room and it gave me a chance to work on it this way.

My first year going as a spectator to the US Open was 2006 and I saw it a lot there. Many of the players would put the tip of the cue on the cloth before finishing the stroke somewhere else on the ball.

In my opinion and findings is that this is the natural game of people that have done it since childhood. Its the easiest method to grasp on ones own.

Since working with this I do understand how it works and yes it can be taught.
 
John,
Recently Ive been working on material that includes this and I was actually left alone one evening at the Pool Room and it gave me a chance to work on it this way.

My first year going as a spectator to the US Open was 2006 and I saw it a lot there. Many of the players would put the tip of the cue on the cloth before finishing the stroke somewhere else on the ball.

In my opinion and findings is that this is the natural game of people that have done it since childhood. Its the easiest method to grasp on ones own.

Since working with this I do understand how it works and yes it can be taught.

Thanks Robin.

Being taught this since childhood would make sense. At least they were hitting the vertical center of the QB.
This may account for Pinos and some Americans playing the tangent line to control the QB's position for the next shot rather than spinning the QB all the time.

Have a good day.

John
 
I don't believe he "had to" do that to get the spin he wanted - any kind of spin can be produced with a straight stroke.


Are you sure he "swiped" (moved the tip up, down or sideways during the final stroke), or did he move the tip before the final forward stroke and stroke straight through at the new tip target? He might use a swipe stroke very well, but it's not the most accurate way for mere mortals - and it isn't needed.

pj
chgo

You tell 'em Patrick! What would those guys stuck out on some little island in the Pacific have been able to do if they had the internet and YOU to tell them how they should or shouldn't be playing? They might have been monsters in the pool world...real winners! Too bad the internet wasn't there at the time nor were you.

With you they would have been LEGENDS. Look where their legacy and records are now without you. What a shame.

HAIL PATRICK! HAIL PATRICK! GOD OF POOL FORUMS!
 
You tell 'em Patrick! What would those guys stuck out on some little island in the Pacific have been able to do if they had the internet and YOU to tell them how they should or shouldn't be playing? They might have been monsters in the pool world...real winners! Too bad the internet wasn't there at the time nor were you.

With you they would have been LEGENDS. Look where their legacy and records are now without you. What a shame.

HAIL PATRICK! HAIL PATRICK! GOD OF POOL FORUMS!

Glad to see you're coming around and joining our little group of admirers. We can send out your Member's patch immediately, just pay the $100 membership fee (which you can send directly to me...)

However, in the off-chance that your post was actually sarcasm, then I guess I have to ask if you disagree with the statement:

I don't believe he "had to" do that to get the spin he wanted - any kind of spin can be produced with a straight stroke.

?
 
I don't believe he "had to" do that to get the spin he wanted - any kind of spin can be produced with a straight stroke.

I don't doubt that for a minute. But that doesn't mean that said person will actually be able to do it best that way.

I can draw the ball a lot better with a loose wrist than I can with a firm one, even though I am fully aware of the fact that I am doing so only because I'm hitting it low enough. Just so happens that, for me, the easiest way to hit the ball for good, easy draw in with a loose wrist and a mental image of the cue tip following through the bottom of the ball and down to the cloth. Why would I try to do it with a firm wrist, like CJ Wiley for example, just because that works best for him?

I think the same is true for any stroke. You use what you believe in, and you believe in it because your experience shows that it works. Confidence based upon actual performance is 99.9% of this game. Why are you always on a mission to undermine that confidence is so many others who believe in things that you feel are untrue?
 
Interesting that you should bring this up.

Begin watching at 26min 55sec.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kL9ena6j6M

What I have noticed with some pro players is they will cue the QB at center and then on the shot stroke hit the QB in an entirely different place.

Same thing when cuing the QB low, their cue is pointed between the table cloth and the bottom edge of the QB. But on the shot stroke they hit the QB at a different, below center QB, location.

This technique has to be taught because there are so many pro's using it.

I ask only because it has always puzzled me why this is.

Do you know why Robin.

Thanks :)

John

John I can help you if you need just send a message.

I rarely play much above center, maybe an eyelash if needed.
I am inconsistent in my delivery by design, yet consistent. Once I have analyzed I drop my cue on the cloth, pause and hold to reassure my sight. I know my cue is pretty much in line, at this point I am looking through the balls, I don't really see my cue at all, the shot is a given.

I like to stay inside the cue ball. Depending on the shot and how I want to hit it determines on where I drop the cue. I may drop it dead center on the crease, pause, a few pre-lim strokes, raise it up deliver at 3 click with BHE at 8 O'clock inside the cue ball.

I may drop my cue on the cloth on the outer right crease, pause, a few pre-lim strokes, raise it up, feather a few strokes and deliver parallel with extreme right soft spin at 4:30 outer edge.

If I am playing with follow I drop on the cloth or just above the cloth either to dead center or another crease and deliver with somewhat of an upstroke clearing the cue, it depends on how much follow. I don't really think about it much I just do it, I should say I don't over think it.

I never raise my bridge or aim high on the cue ball when I drop in unless I am over a ball or on the rail, always on the cloth or just above.
My bridge distance varies from shot to shot, open or closed, it's a feel.

The most important thing for me is my footwork for each shot. There is a little more to it but I don't want to bore you with my OCD details.

Everyone has their own style and techniques that work for them; pool is an amazingly unique game. I rather play 3-C it's more fun.

Sincerely: SS

P.S. It sounds like a lot but if you were standing behind me on some adjustments most would never notice it, leveling the cue on stroke may be the biggest overlook.
 
Last edited:
Me:
I don't believe he "had to" do that to get the spin he wanted - any kind of spin can be produced with a straight stroke.
SloppyPockets:
I don't doubt that for a minute. But that doesn't mean that said person will actually be able to do it best that way.
The statement I responded to was that it "had to" be done that way.

Why are you always on a mission to undermine that confidence is so many others who believe in things that you feel are untrue?
If (for argument's sake) a few players need to believe false info in order to have confidence, there are many more who don't and whose development can be slowed or limited by it. What's our "mission" regarding them?

AzB can be a powerful source of good pool info, but only if the info is good.

pj
chgo
 
The statement I responded to was that it "had to" be done that way.


If (for argument's sake) a few players need to believe false info in order to have confidence, there are many more who don't and whose development can be slowed or limited by it. What's our "mission" regarding them?

AzB can be a powerful source of good pool info, but only if the info is good.

pj
chgo

I don't think it's just a few players, and I don't think most of them "believe" in things that adversely affect their game. What I do believe is that you are a very smart man who understands what is really happening on a deep level, but your presentation probably turns off more players than it attracts. How will your mission proceed as planned if you alienate a large number of prospective converts?

Personally, I don't give a crap. I'm a big boy and can take a beating here, so I can remain free to pick and choose which little nuggets of wisdom you, Neil, Dr. Dave, CJ, etc. have to offer, and which to ignore. These things surely interest me on an academic level, but I can't see how someone proving to me beyond a shadow of doubt that there is no such thing as, let's say, a "pure" hit will improve my game in the slightest... which is why most players come to this board. If anything, such knowledge is likely to interfere with my "feel" for the game. And I am really big on feel.

OTOH if you show me that only about 2% of CB spin can be transferred to the OB, and explain under what circumstances this will occur, well, that's a little tidbit I can pick up and run with. Therefore, IMO some knowledge might be considered to be essential to play the game well, but some, like a terrible thing seen that cannot be unseen, may be best to never know.
 
In my post, I was confirming to One Pocket John that I saw the same thing adding that Efren often started at the base of the CB - as well.


Interesting that you should bring this up.

Begin watching at 26min 55sec.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kL9ena6j6M

What I have noticed with some pro players is they will cue the QB at center and then on the shot stroke hit the QB in an entirely different place.

Same thing when cuing the QB low, their cue is pointed between the table cloth and the bottom edge of the QB. But on the shot stroke they hit the QB at a different, below center QB, location.

This technique has to be taught because there are so many pro's using it.

I ask only because it has always puzzled me why this is.

Do you know why Robin.

Thanks :)

John

For me, I watched Efren and Busta when they first came to the Hard TImes in LA and noticed that he started at the base of the CB and moved his cue tip up. or to the side - he had to to get the english he needed to get the great shape that he gets.

I and other sweaters called it swiping at the rock. It is a great way to start at the center of the CB to aim at the OB.

Just me,
Be well.

If Efren started at the base of the CB, and then to apply English he must have (had to) moved the tip up or to the side. But then he is the "Magician."

I never meant anything else in the words that I wrote.

It was rhetorical to most.

Be well.
 
Maybe we should examine WHY they do it and not" if they have to " or "is it the best way". If you go to pro tournaments a lot of them do it or something similar. How many players do u see lining up with left or right english but apply the opposite english.
 
Glad to see you're coming around and joining our little group of admirers. We can send out your Member's patch immediately, just pay the $100 membership fee (which you can send directly to me...)

However, in the off-chance that your post was actually sarcasm, then I guess I have to ask if you disagree with the statement:

?

How did you get to be Pat Johnson's Press Secretary? You have more loyalty to PJ than Jay Carney did to Obama. He left his boss but I don't ever see it happening with you.
 
My belief (in case you hadn't noticed) is that all aiming necessarily involves learning to recognize the correct "shot picture" or "visual" based on repetitive trial and error - otherwise known as learning to do it "by feel". Obviously learning this way can be aided by a system or method, but I believe it can't be eliminated or replaced as the central aiming requirement.

Some players seem to want (need?) to believe otherwise, unwilling to consider evidence to the contrary. Maybe they lack confidence in their ability to do it - and that's understandable; it amazes me we can do it. And maybe, since confidence is such a big part of successful play, they start with a strong desire to believe "feel" can be avoided.

Do you agree "fear of feel" exists? If so, why do you think it does? And should we try to educate players about the unavoidability of learning by feel, or simply leave them to form their own beliefs? Can it be bad for some players' development to recognize this (assumed) fact?

Thanks,

pj
chgo

P.S. I hope this doesn't become focused on any particular aiming method. Please let's keep it generic if we can.

And if it's just too "volatile" a subject, feel free to ignore it (like you need my permission for that :)).


I believe the "fear" thing has two facets: the first being that some folks just want a very regimented approach to the aiming aspect of the game. The second is just the eternal search for a short cut -- a system that will garner quicker improvement, not unlike all the falderal about tips, LD shafts, and whatnot.

A feel based approach to aiming certainly exists and my guess would be that it is the most common approach among better players. There are just too many variables when it comes to shooting a pool shot for it to be reduced to a readily deployable system: squirt, swerve, speed, throw, all the cut angles, contact points on the CB, and cue elevation to name some.

And while all that is science based, at one point or another you need to let all that go and become an artiste and just feel it.

Lou Figueroa
 
Side Swiping English

This put me on a path of Parallel English and I had been using a form of FHE or BHE all of my life when I did play. I didnt know what FHE or BHE was but that is what I was using to move the ball and mostly I was side swiping the English on in the last stroke as most of the time I potted the balls from a Center Ball English pot line.


This is a part of my post I want to clarify.

I did used to play this way because its the way I learned totally on my own.

I could move the ball, usually played the english within a nickel on the ball but I had an idea where I was hitting the cue ball but in this case its something you feel and sometimes you never really know because you are looking at the object ball.

I don't think this is the best way to play.

I am in favor of knowing exactly how I do things and that makes the area of feel smaller and more controllable.

Everything in pool is so subjective in that what works for one or finds favor with one, its necessarily the best option from a fundamentals standpoint. Just because someone puts something "non fundamentally sound in their game" and learns to play great around it does not make it wrong for them even though its viewed as incorrect fundamentally to teach a new player.

Pool has some interesting disconnects in it.

There is a huge disconnect between Amateurs and Professionals, between Amateurs and the access to affordable Instructional Material and quality Instruction availability in the rooms at the ones I go into. There is a disconnect between the Amateurs and the organization that is supposed to be over us all, between the wholesalers and retail outlets, there are disconnects in all areas of pool. Not to mention the disconnects between what we think ourselves and what may or may not be fundamentally sound.

There is one disconnect we don't have to worry about.

If it doesn't make money it wont survive, we have that pretty well installed. That's about all we have right.
 
Maybe not

I believe the "fear" thing has two facets: the first being that some folks just want a very regimented approach to the aiming aspect of the game. The second is just the eternal search for a short cut -- a system that will garner quicker improvement, not unlike all the falderal about tips, LD shafts, and whatnot.

A feel based approach to aiming certainly exists and my guess would be that it is the most common approach among better players. There are just too many variables when it comes to shooting a pool shot for it to be reduced to a readily deployable system: squirt, swerve, speed, throw, all the cut angles, contact points on the CB, and cue elevation to name some.

And while all that is science based, at one point or another you need to let all that go and become an artiste and just feel it.

Lou Figueroa

Thats a great post Lou,
I think it echoes thoughts that I have had since I came back to pool in 2005. I was much older than when I was young and I felt I had lost a lot of what comes naturally to a person when they have young eyes, perfect depth perception, better instincts and coordination.

In 2005 at least there weren't a lot of people that could say with accuracy and tell people clearly how they did what they did when it comes to shot making.

So I made this a curiosity of mine to find a easy a way to tell them as a personal journey sort of thing. I saw what was being talked about and flamed about on the forums and I thought it was time someone described in detail what great players can learn how to do. From an Natural approach to things.

Since then I have found a lot of things that have explanations that are simple including aiming.

I think there are short cuts that do not involve complication that can benefit, "The Feel" so you can connect to it, learn to involve your whole self with it,understand it and use it to the betterment of your understanding of what to do in a natural sense and play the game better all of the time.

There are all of these things out there in the game that still have eluded explanation even today, but many times "testosterone poisoning" makes us blind to them.
 
I believe the "fear" thing has two facets: the first being that some folks just want a very regimented approach to the aiming aspect of the game. The second is just the eternal search for a short cut -- a system that will garner quicker improvement, not unlike all the falderal about tips, LD shafts, and whatnot.

A feel based approach to aiming certainly exists and my guess would be that it is the most common approach among better players. There are just too many variables when it comes to shooting a pool shot for it to be reduced to a readily deployable system: squirt, swerve, speed, throw, all the cut angles, contact points on the CB, and cue elevation to name some.

And while all that is science based, at one point or another you need to let all that go and become an artiste and just feel it.

Lou Figueroa

I think it all come down to the dichotomy between reductionism and holism. The reductionists are convinced that true understanding can best (only?) be reached by dissecting and analyzing smaller and smaller parts of a problem. The holists realize that the sum of all these parts is sometimes (often?) a very different entity.

Reductionists are a smug lot by nature, because they can provide proof of each and every component they have broken the problem into. Holists OTOH have no possible way to demonstrate that the aggregate of these components often leads to a different thing than what was originally being analyzed.

Modern medicine suffers greatly from this phenomenon. The internists will look at all your "numbers", and both diagnose and treat you based entirely on those findings. A holistic physician will be more concerned about your stress levels, weight, diet, exercise habits, family history, overall physical condition, remaining life expectancy, etc. He will also listen to you, touch you, notice your posture and facial expressions, and numerous other things, recognizing that you are a unique organism who responds to his environmental input in a unique way.

I just turned 63, and as a birthday present on my special day, my doctor called me and told me that my recent blood work confirmed his suspicions (based upon recent complaints) that I am now Type-2 diabetic. Through all those years of looking at my blood glucose levels and seeing that they were just shy of the diabetic range, I was never once advised to cut back on carbs because I was slowly becoming insulin-resistant. In fact, I was always advised to increase the carbs and cut back on fats in order to lose weight.

When I asked my doc why I had always gotten this advise, he simply said, "We were wrong. That's why we are seeing an epidemic of obesity and diabetes today."

:angry:

So, what does all this have to do with how we play pool?

The reductionists, who favor a mechanistic approach to the game, will always be prying it apart into as many parts as they can think of, and trying to improve each part with the idea that their (anyones?) game will improve as a result.

The holists, who favor the "big picture", will have a more organic approach, favoring experience, mindfulness of their movements, focus, recall, and that illusive thing called "feel". They will use the knowledge where it is appropriate, but they will try to practice and play by instinct. They will recognize that each player's game is as individual as a fingerprint. Unlike a fingerprint, however, it may take decades to become established.

Which type of players are better? I couldn't tell you. This much I know, however. If I had to play the game "by the numbers" instead of experiencing and reveling in the feel and "table sense" that comes with time, I'd never pick up a stick again... no matter how many world beaters I could crush.
 
You Totally Get It!

I think it all come down to the dichotomy between reductionism and holism. The reductionists are convinced that true understanding can best (only?) be reached by dissecting and analyzing smaller and smaller parts of a problem. The holists realize that the sum of all these parts is sometimes (often?) a very different entity.

Reductionists are a smug lot by nature, because they can provide proof of each and every component they have broken the problem into. Holists OTOH have no possible way to demonstrate that the aggregate of these components often leads to a different thing than what was originally being analyzed.

Modern medicine suffers greatly from this phenomenon. The internists will look at all your "numbers", and both diagnose and treat you based entirely on those findings. A holistic physician will be more concerned about your stress levels, weight, diet, exercise habits, family history, overall physical condition, remaining life expectancy, etc. He will also listen to you, touch you, notice your posture and facial expressions, and numerous other things, recognizing that you are a unique organism who responds to his environmental input in a unique way.

I just turned 63, and as a birthday present on my special day, my doctor called me and told me that my recent blood work confirmed his suspicions (based upon recent complaints) that I am now Type-2 diabetic. Through all those years of looking at my blood glucose levels and seeing that they were just shy of the diabetic range, I was never once advised to cut back on carbs because I was slowly becoming insulin-resistant. In fact, I was always advised to increase the carbs and cut back on fats in order to lose weight.

When I asked my doc why I had always gotten this advise, he simply said, "We were wrong. That's why we are seeing an epidemic of obesity and diabetes today."

:angry:

So, what does all this have to do with how we play pool?

The reductionists, who favor a mechanistic approach to the game, will always be prying it apart into as many parts as they can think of, and trying to improve each part with the idea that their (anyones?) game will improve as a result.

The holists, who favor the "big picture", will have a more organic approach, favoring experience, mindfulness of their movements, focus, recall, and that illusive thing called "feel". They will use the knowledge where it is appropriate, but they will try to practice and play by instinct. They will recognize that each player's game is as individual as a fingerprint. Unlike a fingerprint, however, it may take decades to become established.[/COLOR]

Which type of players are better? I couldn't tell you. This much I know, however. If I had to play the game "by the numbers" instead of experiencing and reveling in the feel and "table sense" that comes with time, I'd never pick up a stick again... no matter how many world beaters I could crush.



SloppyPockets,
You totally get it. I couldnt agree with you more about having to go by the numbers which is why I created what I did.

I called it a System......It is more a System of Understanding and not playing by the numbers at all.

I went into really UnSystemizing.....Systemization....and providing a way for real understanding but yet giving some direction on how to find a direction that is more finite than sending shots into the universe until you just know how to do what you do based on the place you are standing under the stars.

I am a self directed feel player and I can tell you how I do what I do within parameters that are understandable for anyone.

Some of the things that I illustrate and expose are things that were right in front of our noses the whole time and it baffles me that no one could see them. Its not that they weren't there. Its just no one knew how to tell people what they knew how to see. That is what I am doing.

I am sending you a pm about the diabetes and some things I have read that changed my life.

Thank you for your learned comments.
 
Last edited:
I think it all come down to the dichotomy between reductionism and holism. The reductionists are convinced that true understanding can best (only?) be reached by dissecting and analyzing smaller and smaller parts of a problem. The holists realize that the sum of all these parts is sometimes (often?) a very different entity.

Reductionists are a smug lot by nature, because they can provide proof of each and every component they have broken the problem into. Holists OTOH have no possible way to demonstrate that the aggregate of these components often leads to a different thing than what was originally being analyzed.

Modern medicine suffers greatly from this phenomenon. The internists will look at all your "numbers", and both diagnose and treat you based entirely on those findings. A holistic physician will be more concerned about your stress levels, weight, diet, exercise habits, family history, overall physical condition, remaining life expectancy, etc. He will also listen to you, touch you, notice your posture and facial expressions, and numerous other things, recognizing that you are a unique organism who responds to his environmental input in a unique way.

I just turned 63, and as a birthday present on my special day, my doctor called me and told me that my recent blood work confirmed his suspicions (based upon recent complaints) that I am now Type-2 diabetic. Through all those years of looking at my blood glucose levels and seeing that they were just shy of the diabetic range, I was never once advised to cut back on carbs because I was slowly becoming insulin-resistant. In fact, I was always advised to increase the carbs and cut back on fats in order to lose weight.

When I asked my doc why I had always gotten this advise, he simply said, "We were wrong. That's why we are seeing an epidemic of obesity and diabetes today."

:angry:

So, what does all this have to do with how we play pool?

The reductionists, who favor a mechanistic approach to the game, will always be prying it apart into as many parts as they can think of, and trying to improve each part with the idea that their (anyones?) game will improve as a result.

The holists, who favor the "big picture", will have a more organic approach, favoring experience, mindfulness of their movements, focus, recall, and that illusive thing called "feel". They will use the knowledge where it is appropriate, but they will try to practice and play by instinct. They will recognize that each player's game is as individual as a fingerprint. Unlike a fingerprint, however, it may take decades to become established.

Which type of players are better? I couldn't tell you. This much I know, however. If I had to play the game "by the numbers" instead of experiencing and reveling in the feel and "table sense" that comes with time, I'd never pick up a stick again... no matter how many world beaters I could crush.

You made some good points. But, I feel you also fell into the trap of putting people into certain "camps". And, by doing that, you miss out on the greatest benefits.

You obviously feel that certain ones on here, myself included, tend to "nitpick" certain statements. I think you fail to realize that doing something, and telling someone else how to do what you do, are two distinct, separate things. While the person that can do something very well may very well not be able to describe what he does, that does not give one license to state any old crap that he thinks he is doing.

That is because now the person trying to learn what the better one does will be fed inaccurate information, and their game will then suffer because of it. Instead of helping others, then end up hurting others. No matter what their intention was. If one can't accurately tell someone how they do something, they shouldn't be telling them how to do it.

Second, you put people in just one of the two camps, not realizing that those in the first camp are often also in the second camp. Yes, sometimes, I for one, break things down to the details. That does not equate to playing only by the details, but using the details to enhance the "feel" of playing. The more you know how to do, the more you can incorporate that knowledge into the feel of playing and have that knowledge become automatic.
 
An Awesome Post

You made some good points. But, I feel you also fell into the trap of putting people into certain "camps". And, by doing that, you miss out on the greatest benefits.

You obviously feel that certain ones on here, myself included, tend to "nitpick" certain statements. I think you fail to realize that doing something, and telling someone else how to do what you do, are two distinct, separate things. While the person that can do something very well may very well not be able to describe what he does, that does not give one license to state any old crap that he thinks he is doing.

That is because now the person trying to learn what the better one does will be fed inaccurate information, and their game will then suffer because of it. Instead of helping others, then end up hurting others. No matter what their intention was. If one can't accurately tell someone how they do something, they shouldn't be telling them how to do it.

Second, you put people in just one of the two camps, not realizing that those in the first camp are often also in the second camp. Yes, sometimes, I for one, break things down to the details. That does not equate to playing only by the details, but using the details to enhance the "feel" of playing. The more you know how to do, the more you can incorporate that knowledge into the feel of playing and have that knowledge become automatic.

Neil,
That was a great post and echoes a lot of truth. I think from the Feel side of the Perspective people have struggled to have something to say that is indicative of how they know what to do...for years.

Where as other systems and methods can tell you and that leaves a big void in the conversation as it pertains to stability of feel.

It has taken a lot of soul searching on my part to point myself in the direction that I would or could describe it. I didn't possess the skill sets to do it but I knew that I could once I did.

Just to make this perfectly clear, I don't discount the validity of anyone else's work in this area but I do know what works for me for the type of solution that I was searching for. What I found was an answer that solves what I believe one camp was struggling for as far as a direction to, "The Feeling" and something the other camp can also use as a visual to lock in on.

I can dream, but it would be nice if we agreed on a few areas. I am trying intently to promote some understanding and nix some of the division.
 
Back
Top