I really don't understand this crusade you are on regarding objectivity? Truthfulness in advertising is a noble idea in theory, but will not ever be achieved, otherwise there would be no point in advertising at all. Because of rules and regulations you can no longer say that a car is the "best" at anything without a qualifier (some sort of review agency/test result). Of course almost no one ever bother to look into those agencies, or their methods so very little has been achieved by this kind of rule.
On one hand, I understand the need for clarity and exactness in instructions, on the other hand I don't really see the value of an aiming system that nobody could possibly utilize. It is my belief that human beings like, and have an easier time handling simplified and few categories, over very complex systems with possibly near 3 digit numbers of categories. As far as I know, research also shows this to be true. The structure of armies are more or less constructed around our limitations. For instance we have difficulty remembering and socializing with more than 100-150 people, which is the size of a company, etc etc. And our short term memory is limited to 4-7 categories, which means that there is great value in grouping our perceptions of any kind into those numbers of categories, for the sake of remembering them.
An aiming system with 89 categories or defined angles, even one with 75, would be completely useless in any practical application. Even if you could remember all the different aimpoints (and speed/spin compensations) needed, there is still the problem of identifying the angles exactly and then applying the aim/spin, which is why I tried to develop a system of precise angle measurement, that was supposed to be quick and easy (I failed). There are also equipment differences to consider...
The best any aiming system can do, is to give you reliable "markers" to aim for, and then allow your subconscious to make adjustments. As such CTE is no worse than the three angle cut system (quarters) or any other system that immidiately comes to mind. Joe Tuckers method may have an edge over it in that department, but I can see that going either way.
You can criticize the various doubtful claims made, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty, the system itself is not so different from the various others. You need time to understand and apply it etc. When they are so stubborn about not making any adjustments, that is probably because they honestly believe that to be true. When you have a thin CTE/ETA the visual will have to be different than another shot of a different angle. It's just a matter of wording wether that is called "adjusting" or "learning". I don't know why they would be so allergic to the word? When people go bananas and threaten/abuse people on the forum, it's easy to get pissed off and then go after every statement they make with a microscope. It is not a very productive way to go about it, IMO. And not every insult will have to be answered at lenght. You only give legitimacy to that kind of behavior by doing that. When someone calls you a child molester for disagreeing with them about aiming, they have showed themselves as someone unable to discuss a matter factually and as such as a cretin whose opinions should be given no weight at all. I may be naive, but I believe most of the forum is in agreement on that.
