Hal Houle CTE Explanation from 1997

[sfleinen]

John:

I was busy replying point-by-point to this, your latest "contribution" to our dialogue, when I caught myself, and screamed at myself, "WHAT THE F*CK ARE YOU DOING?!?!?"

I then stopped cold, and discarded everything. And I was probably 75% of the way through, with a full head of steam to go on all the way through. I trashed it.

Because the following became obvious to me:

1. *Nowhere* in any of my replies did I call you names, or belittle you. There were no veiled insults. If I said your fundamentals were questionable, it was because I had video proof to fall back on, as well as quotes from others (in other threads / forums) who said the same. But yet, you started calling me names, like:

* Comparing me to a puppy that won't go swimming in the ocean with you, "but yet your daughter will." (As if to imply that because I choose to debate why I see significant "cons" with your stance/argument, that I'm some sort of f*cking baby canine with less brain capacity than "your daughter". But let me guess -- I'm reading into that too, aren't I?)

* When I describe my reason for why I see what you say is a flaw, you say I'm "projecting." Boy, that's world-class back-pedaled avoidance if I ever saw it.

* When I have issues with throwing out the baby with the bath water with regards to aiming a straight-in shot and how it fits in with core fundamentals, you say "...Which is why I gave you Steve Davis to help you get out of that space." As if you're some sort of messiah, to "lead" me out of my oh-so-closed-minded thinking?

* When I attempt to logically propose that one can't possibly have "perfect" fundamentals when they can't pocket straight-in shots the lion's share of the time, you lump me in with middles ages "flat earth" theory. Oh, let me guess -- you're going to correct me and say that you didn't accuse me of this, that I must be projecting, or reading into something that's not there, right?

* "That my mind can't accept the problem posed, so we're at am impasse." (Words to that effect.) Excuse me? Now *this* is a veiled insult. I'm engaging logical debate with you, without having called you names anywhere, but you now insult me? Who the f*ck are you to judge what my mind is able to accept or not? You barely know me. But you feel free to insult me when I'm participating, logically, without calling you names, in your debate?

2. You know, John, as much as I try to ignore all the firestorms you start here on AZB, and give you the benefit of the doubt, and support you with testimonials of your products, I'm now starting to see what you're about. (Or maybe you don't start the fires, but you certainly pour gasoline on any spark that *might* be there, and a conflagration certainly ensues.) I often wondered why on earth would you waste your time spiraling down these rabbit holes, when the hole itself is on fire. I often wondered why your threads -- and yours specifically -- erupt into such wild firestorms that ultimately have to be deleted because they went so far south. I often wondered how in the hell you manage to piss off very thick-skinned intelligent people on here. People with PhDs. People with *much* knowledge of this sport we love (perhaps, <gasp!>, even more than you). People that are actually caring, friendly, easy-going, fun people to be with and talk to. And you manage to so piss these people off, to the point of extremes. You won't debate in private (e.g. emails I sent you -- which went mysteriously into the ethers without a reply), but god forbid I post something in public that, with logic, debates something you wrote. And you *know* that I don't have even remotely close to as much time as you do here on AZB, to respond to dozens, even scores, of posts here, picking them apart, because you know noone else has the time you do to do so, so you exploit every minute of it.

Now I get it. You wanna call names? I'll call you one, and this is the first time for me on these boards. You are like a pit bull with lockjaw (tetanus), clamped hard onto something and can't let go, even if you're falling over a cliff. You also have a messianic complex -- picking apart every single post you have an adverse opinion to, and multiple times in the same thread, as if you think you're going to "convert" those folks, or "force them back into their hole." But let me guess -- I'm "projecting," or "reading into something that's simply not there," right?

-Sean

 

[JB Cases]

John:

I was busy replying point-by-point to this, your latest "contribution" to our dialogue, when I caught myself, and screamed at myself, "WHAT THE F*CK ARE YOU DOING?!?!?"

I then stopped cold, and discarded everything. And I was probably 75% of the way through, with a full head of steam to go on all the way through. I trashed it.

Because the following became obvious to me:

1. *Nowhere* in any of my replies did I call you names, or belittle you. There were no veiled insults. If I said your fundamentals were questionable, it was because I had video proof to fall back on, as well as quotes from others (in other threads / forums) who said the same. But yet, you started calling me names, like:

I suppose it's a matter of perception. I take offense to you asking the question of whether I am the sort of person who says one thing and does another. I take offense that you don't give me the credit for being able to understand what is and isn't working for me. And finally I take offense that you make statements about my form that seem to be meant to disqualify me from discussing pool theory/fundamentals with you.

* Comparing me to a puppy that won't go swimming in the ocean with you, "but yet your daughter will." (As if to imply that because I choose to debate why I see significant "cons" with your stance/argument, that I'm some sort of f*cking baby canine with less brain capacity than "your daughter". But let me guess -- I'm reading into that too, aren't I?)

The point was and is that like my puppy you won't venture into the unknown. You seem to not be able to disregard whatever you have decided is fact and venture into the world of possibilities for the purpose of the debate. My puppy knows that the ground under her feet is solid and so she won't venture anywhere else. My daughter on the other hand shows no fear to go places she hasn't been. I just used two examples from my life to illustrate the point I am making. I didn't say anything about your brain capacity. Lots of smart people cling to whatever they are comfortable with.

* When I describe my reason for why I see what you say is a flaw, you say I'm "projecting." Boy, that's world-class back-pedaled avoidance if I ever saw it.

The point was and is that you are mixing things. I gave you a hypothetical situation that eliminated the variables concerned with form and delivery. You chose to A. dispute the possibility of such a situation existing and B. to question my qualification to even pose such a question. No backpedaling here. The discussion is not about MY ability in so far as my hypothetical is concerned.

* When I have issues with throwing out the baby with the bath water with regards to aiming a straight-in shot and how it fits in with core fundamentals, you say "...Which is why I gave you Steve Davis to help you get out of that space." As if you're some sort of messiah, to "lead" me out of my oh-so-closed-minded thinking?

That is exactly right. Because the essence of a hypothetical is to pose a WHAT IF which eliminates as many variables as the framer wants to and then explores the answers from that point. Going in and tweaking the variables changes the question. I wouldn't need to lead you anywhere if you would make an attempt to not debate the HYPOTHETICAL example.

* When I attempt to logically propose that one can't possibly have "perfect" fundamentals when they can't pocket straight-in shots the lion's share of the time, you lump me in with middles ages "flat earth" theory. Oh, let me guess -- you're going to correct me and say that you didn't accuse me of this, that I must be projecting, or reading into something that's not there, right?

That is correct. Because the words "can't possibly" can't possibly apply to this situation. Why not? Well for one thing it's certainly possible that a person who developed perfect fundamentals could suffer from declining vision and or depth perception which means that their ability to line up perfectly is diminishing despite their otherwise perfect form at the table. However if your premise is that being able to aim perfectly IS part of having perfect fundamentals then from YOUR point of view the words "can't possibly" would be the natural reaction. However this is your personal opinion and not fact and certainly still changes the basic situation I was using as my hypothetical.

* "That my mind can't accept the problem posed, so we're at am impasse." (Words to that effect.) Excuse me? Now *this* is a veiled insult. I'm engaging logical debate with you, without having called you names anywhere, but you now insult me? Who the f*ck are you to judge what my mind is able to accept or not? You barely know me. But you feel free to insult me when I'm participating, logically, without calling you names, in your debate?

When you use words like "can't possibly" then it indicates a hard and inflexible point of view. I don't have the link but look up the "impossible crate" to understand where I am coming from. How should I react to a person who starts out by telling me that my hypothetical can't exist? If I say what do you think the world would look like if the sky were blue and the clouds were pink and you go off on me telling me that pink clouds are impossible then it's obvious to me that you can't IMAGINE (or wrap your mind around) a world with pink clouds.

2. You know, John, as much as I try to ignore all the firestorms you start here on AZB, and give you the benefit of the doubt, and support you with testimonials of your products, I'm now starting to see what you're about.

You don't see it all. You don't have to support me with testimonials. I earned those by providing you with a product that met and exceeded your expectations. I don't expect any special treatment from you because you have a case from me. I feel that we should be able to debate topics without personal issues. You say things that I take personally and I do the same. I am reactionary like that. My posting history will show that I almost always get personal AFTER someone else does. What I am about on this forum is SHARING my point of view.

If it happens to disagree with someone else's then we either have a debate or we don't. More often than not when the other side gets cornered they start in with the personal attacks against me, my company, my name, my life choices etc....

(Or maybe you don't start the fires, but you certainly pour gasoline on any spark that *might* be there, and a conflagration certainly ensues.)

This is a mischaracterization. First of all this little thing we have here shouldn't exist. The conversation was between Mike and I and Cuetechasaurus. You decided to jump in and write a long treatise on why I was not qualified to pose the question and why the question is flawed in your opinon, which was stated as fact, i.e. "can't possibly".

I often wondered why on earth would you waste your time spiraling down these rabbit holes, when the hole itself is on fire. I often wondered why your threads -- and yours specifically -- erupt into such wild firestorms that ultimately have to be deleted because they went so far south.

Please Sean. In the history of my time on AZ you can count on one hand the threads which have been locked because of me. And two of them were in the past two weeks where I deliberately wanted them locked because other people RUINED them.

I often wondered how in the hell you manage to piss off very thick-skinned intelligent people on here. People with PhDs. People with *much* knowledge of this sport we love (perhaps, <gasp!>, even more than you). People that are actually caring, friendly, easy-going, fun people to be with and talk to. And you manage to so piss these people off, to the point of extremes.

Often? You seem to be spending a lot of time thinking about me. I guess the answer is that those people don't expect to be disagreed with by a lowly high shool graduate and college dropout. I guess a PHD confers the right to be unchallenged no matter what? What people are you talking about? What extremes?

Examples? You want to make these broad statements how about some examples.

You won't debate in private (e.g. emails I sent you -- which went mysteriously into the ethers without a reply),

This is not true. I sent you detailed replies to your emails. I will forward all them again this instant. (EDIT: I didn't see that you replied to my emails on June 1st - your replies didn't show up in my unread emails - I use Gmail and this is a recent issue with this service - I only just now saw your June 1st replies when I went to resend my original replies).

but god forbid I post something in public that, with logic, debates something you wrote.

Again not true. However your version of logic come from your inflexible viewpoint. You refuse to consider my point of view and thus when you do that we have nothing more to debate. In fact you force me to waste a lot of time trying in vain to get you to use my hypothetical and discuss it from that point. You are certainly not forbidden by me in any sense to disagree with any thing I write. Apparently it seems as if I am the one who is not allowed to refute your points because only your "logic" is unassailable.

And you *know* that I don't have even remotely close to as much time as you do here on AZB, to respond to dozens, even scores, of posts here, picking them apart, because you know noone else has the time you do to do so, so you exploit every minute of it.

I have no idea how much time you have. I do know that I have stolen way too much time on these subjects from people who have paid for my time.

Now I get it. You wanna call names? I'll call you one, and this is the first time for me on these boards. You are like a pit bull with lockjaw (tetanus), clamped hard onto something and can't let go, even if you're falling over a cliff.

Maybe so. Live by the sword and die by the sword as the saying goes. personally I like my tenacity as it's served me well in my life. If you really had studied me then you would find plenty of times where I change my mind in the face of superior logic or proper evidence. But no one ever mentions those times they only focus on the times when they try to argue points that they can't win on logic or evidence and resort to personal attack. And when it comes to personal attack you are 100% right that I can play that game at a very high level.

You also have a messianic complex -- picking apart every single post you have an adverse opinion to, and multiple times in the same thread, as if you think you're going to "convert" those folks, or "force them back into their hole." But let me guess -- I'm "projecting," or "reading into something that's simply not there," right?

Yes again you are projecting. I think regarding the "picking apart" you should examine your own posting behavior. Are you not trying to convert me to your point of view when you disagree with me? What is your goal then? I don't want to force anyone into any holes.

It's really simple Sean, civility begets civility. Want to make a bet that you can't find 2 "discussions/arguments" in the past month where I was uncivil first? Go ahead. Find two and I will donate a free case to be raffled off for the pool charity of your choice. You have to find any argument where I started it and wasn't reacting to someone else's put down. Ought to be easy for you. I only ask you to do this because of the comments you make about me which aren't true.

 

[ThePoliteSniper]

I thought we had cleared that up in another thread. A player with perfect fundamentals who doesn't line up a straight in shot correctly is just lazy. He will correct it by himself. Because "perfect fundamentals" doesn't just mean that the player has a straight stroke, it also means that his stance is solid and his head is in the right position over the cue, and also a bunch of other things. If he had just your definition of "perfect fundamentals", yes it would be possible that he can deliver the cue on a straight line and still miss the shot, because his head alignment is just wrong, or in other words: He doesn't really aim.

 

[sfleinen]

John:

No, I'm not going to do this. I'm done with this debate. To close and correct any mischaracterizations, my points were the following:

1. That I never called you names or maliciously insulted you anywhere. *You* started the name calling.

2. That I never accused you of being the sort of person who says one thing and does another. In fact, you GROSSLY misread that comment -- I outright said that I didn't think you were this type of person, and I asked "are you?" to put the punctuation on it, the capper so-to-speak.

3. That I never discredited you for being able to understand what is and isn't working for you. I *did* ask if it perhaps could be a placebo for something underlying in, oh, say, your fundamentals? And this is a valid question, but you took it personally.

4. That yes, I did pose questions about your form, not to be malicious, but to offer alternatives as to why something is working for you. *You* took this personally.

5. Yes, this thing was originally between you and Mike. It was not "originally between Mike, yourself and Cuetechasaurus." Cuetechasaurus interjected later, to offer the "straight-in shot" perspective in something that I was already involved in with you and Mike. He outright said that, too -- "let me interject here" type of response. And last I checked, isn't this a PUBLIC forum as you seem so fond of bringing up time and time again?

6. You should be DEAD LAST to offer the "civility begets civility" moral. In fact, you have some gall offering it to me. Yes, John, let's compare past posting histories. You are the only one where I'd had to reply point-by-point-by-point, because things were either taken too sensitively, out of context, or I'm backed into the pedantics corner because you started picking nits in every little word, phrase, sentence. Let's close number 6 by saying this -- you *say* you're based in civil banter, but ultimately what happens to a thread you become deeply involved in? It goes to hell in a handbasket, and in a hurry. Who cares who "started it" as you like to point out? (Related to loss of civility, that is.) The point is your involvement seems to accelerate the nose dive. Why can't you be aloof at times, and let things slide? Or, why can't you take the high road? Is it that difficult?

7. You are way, w-a-y, WAY too sensitive. You take the gloves off way too soon. There were no fighting words mentioned here between you and I. We were going good, spirited debate, and then all of a sudden, this, because you decided to engage in name-calling.

8. I am one of the most civil people you'll ever meet. Usually, when someone tries to drag me "down there" (into a name-calling contest or just incivility in general), I find a way to turn the situation around into a humorous one to vaporize it. In fact, I'm disappointed at myself for letting you get under my skin and drag me down. I'm angry with you for grabbing my necktie and pulling me down to that level. Damn you!

That's it in a nutshell. As I said, I'm done with this. Feel free to nit-pick through every single phrase or sentence, because it's obvious you have to get the last word in.

Onwards and upwards out of this hole, to better things worth my time,
-Sean

I suppose it's a matter of perception. I take offense to you asking the question of whether I am the sort of person who says one thing and does another. I take offense that you don't give me the credit for being able to understand what is and isn't working for me. And finally I take offense that you make statements about my form that seem to be meant to disqualify me from discussing pool theory/fundamentals with you.



The point was and is that like my puppy you won't venture into the unknown. You seem to not be able to disregard whatever you have decided is fact and venture into the world of possibilities for the purpose of the debate. My puppy knows that the ground under her feet is solid and so she won't venture anywhere else. My daughter on the other hand shows no fear to go places she hasn't been. I just used two examples from my life to illustrate the point I am making. I didn't say anything about your brain capacity. Lots of smart people cling to whatever they are comfortable with.



The point was and is that you are mixing things. I gave you a hypothetical situation that eliminated the variables concerned with form and delivery. You chose to A. dispute the possibility of such a situation existing and B. to question my qualification to even pose such a question. No backpedaling here. The discussion is not about MY ability in so far as my hypothetical is concerned.



That is exactly right. Because the essence of a hypothetical is to pose a WHAT IF which eliminates as many variables as the framer wants to and then explores the answers from that point. Going in and tweaking the variables changes the question. I wouldn't need to lead you anywhere if you would make an attempt to not debate the HYPOTHETICAL example.



That is correct. Because the words "can't possibly" can't possibly apply to this situation. Why not? Well for one thing it's certainly possible that a person who developed perfect fundamentals could suffer from declining vision and or depth perception which means that their ability to line up perfectly is diminishing despite their otherwise perfect form at the table. However if your premise is that being able to aim perfectly IS part of having perfect fundamentals then from YOUR point of view the words "can't possibly" would be the natural reaction. However this is your personal opinion and not fact and certainly still changes the basic situation I was using as my hypothetical.



When you use words like "can't possibly" then it indicates a hard and inflexible point of view. I don't have the link but look up the "impossible crate" to understand where I am coming from. How should I react to a person who starts out by telling me that my hypothetical can't exist? If I say what do you think the world would look like if the sky were blue and the clouds were pink and you go off on me telling me that pink clouds are impossible then it's obvious to me that you can't IMAGINE (or wrap your mind around) a world with pink clouds.



You don't see it all. You don't have to support me with testimonials. I earned those by providing you with a product that met and exceeded your expectations. I don't expect any special treatment from you because you have a case from me. I feel that we should be able to debate topics without personal issues. You say things that I take personally and I do the same. I am reactionary like that. My posting history will show that I almost always get personal AFTER someone else does. What I am about on this forum is SHARING my point of view.

If it happens to disagree with someone else's then we either have a debate or we don't. More often than not when the other side gets cornered they start in with the personal attacks against me, my company, my name, my life choices etc....


This is a mischaracterization. First of all this little thing we have here shouldn't exist. The conversation was between Mike and I and Cuetechasaurus. You decided to jump in and write a long treatise on why I was not qualified to pose the question and why the question is flawed in your opinon, which was stated as fact, i.e. "can't possibly".


Please Sean. In the history of my time on AZ you can count on one hand the threads which have been locked because of me. And two of them were in the past two weeks where I deliberately wanted them locked because other people RUINED them.


Often? You seem to be spending a lot of time thinking about me. I guess the answer is that those people don't expect to be disagreed with by a lowly high shool graduate and college dropout. I guess a PHD confers the right to be unchallenged no matter what? What people are you talking about? What extremes?

Examples? You want to make these broad statements how about some examples.



This is not true. I sent you detailed replies to your emails. I will forward all them again this instant. (EDIT: I didn't see that you replied to my emails on June 1st - your replies didn't show up in my unread emails - I use Gmail and this is a recent issue with this service - I only just now saw your June 1st replies when I went to resend my original replies).



Again not true. However your version of logic come from your inflexible viewpoint. You refuse to consider my point of view and thus when you do that we have nothing more to debate. In fact you force me to waste a lot of time trying in vain to get you to use my hypothetical and discuss it from that point. You are certainly not forbidden by me in any sense to disagree with any thing I write. Apparently it seems as if I am the one who is not allowed to refute your points because only your "logic" is unassailable.



I have no idea how much time you have. I do know that I have stolen way too much time on these subjects from people who have paid for my time.



Maybe so. Live by the sword and die by the sword as the saying goes. personally I like my tenacity as it's served me well in my life. If you really had studied me then you would find plenty of times where I change my mind in the face of superior logic or proper evidence. But no one ever mentions those times they only focus on the times when they try to argue points that they can't win on logic or evidence and resort to personal attack. And when it comes to personal attack you are 100% right that I can play that game at a very high level.



Yes again you are projecting. I think regarding the "picking apart" you should examine your own posting behavior. Are you not trying to convert me to your point of view when you disagree with me? What is your goal then? I don't want to force anyone into any holes.

It's really simple Sean, civility begets civility. Want to make a bet that you can't find 2 "discussions/arguments" in the past month where I was uncivil first? Go ahead. Find two and I will donate a free case to be raffled off for the pool charity of your choice. You have to find any argument where I started it and wasn't reacting to someone else's put down. Ought to be easy for you. I only ask you to do this because of the comments you make about me which aren't true.

 

[cookie man]

when i first saw a cte thread a couple of months ago, my head hurt trying to process the geometry.

Now i find that trying to follow this thread is making my head hurt.

Usually my head stops hurting when i stop banging it against the wall. Do you suppose that might work right now?

I jest.

i think. :shrug:

wait for the video!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[cookie man]

i don't think anyone can explain cte in bullet point format so that an interested layperson can grasp the concept if they so choose

the video will do that and more!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[justadub]

wait for the video!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That post was more of a poke at the debate, not the subject.

The funny thing about that is that I've only been reading these threads for fun, seeing what was going on. I haven't been that interested in trying out the system personally, mostly since I don't have a table of my own, or enough time at the hall to truly practice any sort of system. I try to pick up little things here that I might be able to use, but to be able to set aside multiple hours daily away from home to really try any sort of system and give it a fair chance, nah...

But now that I've invested so much of my life following the daily soap opera of "As the CTE Debate Turns" I might just buy the video when it becomes available. If it becomes available.

Hopefully if/when such a video exists, a few people here can relax and live life without the stress of defending something that isn't easily explained on the internet.

 

[JB Cases]

John:

No, I'm not going to do this. I'm done with this debate. To close and correct any mischaracterizations, my points were the following:

1. That I never called you names or maliciously insulted you anywhere. *You* started the name calling

What "name" did I call you? Did I say you did anything maliciously?

2. That I never accused you of being the sort of person who says one thing and does another. In fact, you GROSSLY misread that comment -- I outright said that I didn't think you were this type of person, and I asked "are you?" to put the punctuation on it, the capper so-to-speak.

And this sort of statement made exactly as you said is NEVER meant the other way is it? You are an author, I married one, I think you know better than that. Even if you didn't mean it that way then surely you must know that such a statement can easily be taken that way.

3. That I never discredited you for being able to understand what is and isn't working for you. I *did* ask if it perhaps could be a placebo for something underlying in, oh, say, your fundamentals? And this is a valid question, but you took it personally.

If you say so. Perception is the key here and yes, you did in fact question my "credentials" using your opinion of my fundamentals as the cornerstone. My take was that you were saying that I can't discuss proper fundamentals if I don't possess them.

4. That yes, I did pose questions about your form, not to be malicious, but to offer alternatives as to why something is working for you. *You* took this personally.

No, I only took personally that it seems as if you discount my ability to understand myself as well to understand what perfect form is.

5. Yes, this thing was originally between you and Mike. It was not "originally between Mike, yourself and Cuetechasaurus." Cuetechasaurus interjected later, to offer the "straight-in shot" perspective in something that I was already involved in with you and Mike. He outright said that, too -- "let me interject here" type of response. And last I checked, isn't this a PUBLIC forum as you seem so fond of bringing up time and time again?

Of course but the point is that Cuetechasaurus gave the same answer you did in a much much shorter version BEFORE you did and I answered him which should have been enough for you to understand the premise of my hypothetical. So, ignoring that answer you launched into a long treatise on why my premise is false according to you.

6. You should be DEAD LAST to offer the "civility begets civility" moral. In fact, you have some gall offering it to me.

Right. Well like I said, feel free to find two posts where I attack first. Tell you what I will give you one, although it's really a continuation of something from other threads where Roger started it. - but I will let this one count for you - in this thread I CHOSE to comment negatively on Roger's statement that he "really wants to learn CTE". I don't believe him and so I stated that. So now all you need is ONE post to earn a free case for the pool charity of your choice.

Yes, John, let's compare past posting histories. You are the only one where I'd had to reply point-by-point-by-point, because things were either taken too sensitively, out of context, or I'm backed into the pedantics corner because you started picking nits in every little word, phrase, sentence.

Hohoho, that's rich. Really rich. When possibly I reply to EVERYONE's posts point for point if warranted. You write tomes - it's nearly impossible to discuss with you without breaking up the various points.

Let's close number 6 by saying this -- you *say* you're based in civil banter, but ultimately what happens to a thread you become deeply involved in? It goes to hell in a handbasket, and in a hurry. Who cares who "started it" as you like to point out? (Related to loss of civility, that is.) The point is your involvement seems to accelerate the nose dive. Why can't you be aloof at times, and let things slide? Or, why can't you take the high road? Is it that difficult?

Because I simply am not you, or Bob Jewett or any other person. I am me and I care who started it. Sorry I won't be bullied and spat on and turn the other cheek.

7. You are way, w-a-y, WAY too sensitive. You take the gloves off way too soon. There were no fighting words mentioned here between you and I. We were going good, spirited debate, and then all of a sudden, this, because you decided to engage in name-calling.

What name calling? Please list the name or names you say I called you?

Seems like we are both quite sensitive.

8. I am one of the most civil people you'll ever meet. Usually, when someone tries to drag me "down there" (into a name-calling contest or just incivility in general), I find a way to turn the situation around into a humorous one to vaporize it. In fact, I'm disappointed at myself for letting you get under my skin and drag me down. I'm angry with you for grabbing my necktie and pulling me down to that level. Damn you!

"Between stimulus and response lies choice" - Viktor Frankl. No one can drag you down anywhere in an intellectual debate, you choose to go where you will. But again, what name calling?

That's it in a nutshell. As I said, I'm done with this. Feel free to nit-pick through every single phrase or sentence, because it's obvious you have to get the last word in.

Oh yes, the infamous "last word" move. This move is so 1997 in internet debates. One side really wants the "last word" so they try to shame the opponent into not responding by laying down the guilt trip. Come one Sean, you know better than this. If you wan to stop then stop.

The nutshell is that I asked a SIMPLE QUESTION using a hypothetical player and you wouldn't even allow for some brainstorming using my hypothetical model or answer the simple question. You made your position clear and I understand it. However the way you went about it didn't feel very friendly at all and so I responded to those personal points with my opinions.

So to reiterate, on a personal level I get better results on the break using CTE.

Mike Page did not describe the way I aim so his question has no relevance.

I asked him to tell us how he aims a full ball hit and he has not answered. I told him that if he tells me how he aims then I would tell how I aim a full ball hit that is not CTE - in other words no pivot.

Then the discussion went to my hypothetical situation. Which you have never answered and probably will not. You have discussed it in terms of your point of view, not mine. Try mine for a moment and see what your answer might be.



Onwards and upwards out of this hole, to better things worth my time,
-Sean[/QUOTE]

 

[ribdoner]

the video will do that and more!!!!!!!!!!!

Whose putting it out, Kev Trudough?

 

[stan shuffett]

Ribdoner,

You're partially right!....the truth in the video WILL set you free.

It's a little disconcerting to me to be referred to as KT, but no hard feelings.


Stan

 

[peteypooldude]

Ribdoner,

You're partially right!....the truth in the video WILL set you free.

It's a little disconcerting to me to be referred to as KT, but no hard feelings.


Stan

Any way I could talk you out of releasing the video LOL I didn't think so
Peteypooldude PS Happy Fathers Day

 

[sfleinen]

Because I simply am not you, or Bob Jewett or any other person. I am me and I care who started it. Sorry I won't be bullied and spat on and turn the other cheek.

John:

The above bolded explains a lot. In my book, name calling and insults are one and the same. You started with the personal insults and innuendos. Let's stop being pedantic about what to call it, and let's stop with the faux innocence "what name calling?" for the purposes of keeping the banter/exchange going. You know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I'm not interested in a part in this play anymore. And, I already entertained and replied to your hypothetical with the "Ok, I'll bite" part in a previous post -- which you replied to. It's convenient that you "forgot" about it in the closing moments of your latest reply.

I'd said that my previous post was my last, and I apologize for breaking my word on that one with this post, my reply to correct you on a couple of things, or to call you out on what I see to be a faux innocence facade. But I really do not care about, and will not reply to this thread any more.

I want to continue having a nice Father's Day with my Dad. You're not going to ruin it for me.

I do wish you a Happy Father's day, both as a father yourself and for you to enjoy with your father. Honest.

With regards, over and out,
-Sean

 

[ribdoner]

Ribdoner,

You're partially right!....the truth in the video WILL set you free.

It's a little disconcerting to me to be referred to as KT, but no hard feelings.


Stan

Stan, TKS for the heads up. I'll check it out because i've heard nothing but positive things about you and the results of your instructions.

Sincerley, Adam

 

[mullyman]

I was going to ignore it but a few of you guys are spelling chocolate wrong.
MULLY

 

[Bob Jewett]

John: ...

I don't think you're going to get a response any time soon. John, as they say, has left the building.

 

[ribdoner]

I don't think you're going to get a response any time soon. John, as they say, has left the building.

If you look at his last handfull of posts he wasn't the least bit out of line. He didn't call anyone an AH or JO, etc. me thinks the "BANNED" (in caps no less) is just something he typed under his avatar.

me thinks he's licking his wounds after getting out-keyboarded by "SFLEINEN"

goodnight JOHN-BOY:smile:

 

[APA7]

John:

No, I'm not going to do this. I'm done with this debate. To close and correct any mischaracterizations, my points were the following:

1. That I never called you names or maliciously insulted you anywhere. *You* started the name calling.

2. That I never accused you of being the sort of person who says one thing and does another. In fact, you GROSSLY misread that comment -- I outright said that I didn't think you were this type of person, and I asked "are you?" to put the punctuation on it, the capper so-to-speak.

3. That I never discredited you for being able to understand what is and isn't working for you. I *did* ask if it perhaps could be a placebo for something underlying in, oh, say, your fundamentals? And this is a valid question, but you took it personally.

4. That yes, I did pose questions about your form, not to be malicious, but to offer alternatives as to why something is working for you. *You* took this personally.

5. Yes, this thing was originally between you and Mike. It was not "originally between Mike, yourself and Cuetechasaurus." Cuetechasaurus interjected later, to offer the "straight-in shot" perspective in something that I was already involved in with you and Mike. He outright said that, too -- "let me interject here" type of response. And last I checked, isn't this a PUBLIC forum as you seem so fond of bringing up time and time again?

6. You should be DEAD LAST to offer the "civility begets civility" moral. In fact, you have some gall offering it to me. Yes, John, let's compare past posting histories. You are the only one where I'd had to reply point-by-point-by-point, because things were either taken too sensitively, out of context, or I'm backed into the pedantics corner because you started picking nits in every little word, phrase, sentence. Let's close number 6 by saying this -- you *say* you're based in civil banter, but ultimately what happens to a thread you become deeply involved in? It goes to hell in a handbasket, and in a hurry. Who cares who "started it" as you like to point out? (Related to loss of civility, that is.) The point is your involvement seems to accelerate the nose dive. Why can't you be aloof at times, and let things slide? Or, why can't you take the high road? Is it that difficult?

7. You are way, w-a-y, WAY too sensitive. You take the gloves off way too soon. There were no fighting words mentioned here between you and I. We were going good, spirited debate, and then all of a sudden, this, because you decided to engage in name-calling.

8. I am one of the most civil people you'll ever meet. Usually, when someone tries to drag me "down there" (into a name-calling contest or just incivility in general), I find a way to turn the situation around into a humorous one to vaporize it. In fact, I'm disappointed at myself for letting you get under my skin and drag me down. I'm angry with you for grabbing my necktie and pulling me down to that level. Damn you!

That's it in a nutshell. As I said, I'm done with this. Feel free to nit-pick through every single phrase or sentence, because it's obvious you have to get the last word in.

Onwards and upwards out of this hole, to better things worth my time,
-Sean

You R the better man, one only has to read J bartons post history to see that he argues like that with a lotttt of peeps :sorry:

 

[JoeyA]

I don't think you're going to get a response any time soon. John, as they say, has left the building.

I think John is just catching some rays.