No, not at all. Never said it was.
Again, you seem to miss the point. That's never been the argument, whether or not to use it, or whether it works for some people. It's the refusal to accept what the reductionists like Patrick Johnson (sorry, Pat, you're outed) have to say about the objectivity of the system that has been the source of 99% of the hostility here. But at least you don't fit into that way of thinking:
Does that sound familiar to you? It should. You wrote it back in 2010.
I can't see any possible way that someone can use a system that inherently leaves geometric gaps between it's alignment lines without using some sort of subconscious adjustment. Some call it "feel", (I didn't start that ball rolling), which is as good a form of shorthand as any AFAIC. Call it "visual intelligence". Cool. I'm fine with that. But I also use visual intelligence in my own aiming method - Real Ghostball. And not only does it align perfectly with the pockets of a table with a 2:1 ratio, it will align perfectly with any point on any table, and all the points inside the rails as well.
I can set up two balls on the rail just a smidgin more than a ball's width apart, and aim directly into the gap between them using Real Ghostball. And I do... often. Maybe you can do that with a pivot-based aiming system, but I never got that far with any of them because of all the derogatory remarks aimed at (using CTE perhaps?) folks using other aiming methods. It's just not worth wading through all the BS for me. Too bad, seems like a fine arrow to have in one's quiver.
Lol
