Millions of Views!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
English.....

So here we are.
I'm ofering just this very last opportunity for this to find a happy ending.

Here's the deal. You are not banned ( yet ) and may POST in threads that YOU create in regard to aiming discussions.

YOU may NOT post in anyone else's thread nor reply to anyone's posts in any aiming conversation thread that YOU did not create.

You may start threads and anone that wishes to participate in your conversation may do so.

Any variance from this will result in a permanent ban from AZB.
There won't be any more peace offers.

Dave




John,

Why would anyone not want to learn an objective aiming 'system' that unlocks the magic & mystery of how pool balls connect to a 2:1 ratio table & gives everyone the ability to pocket the ball regardless of how it is aligned with the cue ball on the table?

Unfortunately for those pursuing that, such a system simply does not factually exist.

So... it would certainly seem that they are really wasting their time, IF that is what they hope to find at the end of their pursuit.

Why not call it what it actually is?

I method that could enhance one's ability, IF the time is put in to learn the subjective perceptions for the shots based off of CTE's different 'objective' visual markers. Sort of a hybrid of the objective/subjective perceptions required by most aiming methods but more structured than most & hence perhaps a more overall better playing method than at least some other methods.

If we can get past this quagmire, then perhaps some cooperative efforts of discussion could be had to perhaps figure out what keeps it from working for those that have put in the time with it & have not gotten any significantly good results.

The thing is that some of us know that answer while others refuse to consider it.

Perhaps if some were not looking & hoping for a truely objective 'system', then perhaps they would have gone in with a better mind set & put in a different type of effort & perhaps would have gotten better results.

Best Wishes to You & All.

PS I might guess that in the hub bub you either overlooked of perhaps forgot about my earlier question in reference to a statement that you made. If Pros can make almost any shot 'at will' does it mean that they are using an objective aiming 'system'?
 
Nah, let it be .
Then you can have a good sample size after a year or two.
This is my opinion only, if you have problems pocketing balls on a bar box after playing for so many years, your stroke is crooked .
Maybe but learning to aim properly can't hurt.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
I hope that Rick understands that this is not license to pollute the board with dozens of "threads" he starts. I hope that this is not permission to do that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
Dan, you say none were returned. Yet, you fail to state what all was said before Spidey said anything. Here's just a sample:



-no common sense (any user of it)
-no natural aptitude (any user of any aiming system)
-not real players (any user of any aiming system)
-not as claimed
-illogical
-goes against science
-not rational (any statement by any user)
-not logical (any statement by any user)
-purely subjective (which means anyone claiming objective at all is a liar)
-misrepresenting the truth (any statement by any user)
-have reading comprehension issues (any user)
-fools (any user)
-bullies (anyone that responds to the nonsense in any way)
-not rooted in reality (anyone that believes CTE or any aiming system works)

Neil - there were 17 posts before Spider came in. 9 of those were from critics of CTE, and most of those were from Rick. Say what you want about him, but he does generally not throw out personal insults. If you put those comments above in their proper context, many of them refer to the method itself and are actually pretty civil and polite. If someone says CTE "goes against science" how is that a nasty barb (as I called Spider's comments)? I don't have to explain comments like liar and chickensh*t.

I mean, let's just be real, people. My opinion is that Spider is slinging some mud in one particular thread that was reasonably cordial. It just occurred to me as not someone immersed in these discussions every day that he might not see the irony in that. No big deal. Worse things have been said.
 
I mean, let's just be real, people. My opinion is that Spider is slinging some mud in one particular thread that was reasonably cordial. It just occurred to me as not someone immersed in these discussions every day that he might not see the irony in that. No big deal. Worse things have been said.

OK Dan, you want to get real, lets get real. The thread STARTER was JB - John Barton. It's not YOUR decision, it's not Neil's decision, it's not my decision. It should be JB'S DECISION.

Did HE feel I overstepped my boundaries and should be expelled or reprimanded from the thread for saying what I did? Once again...IT'S HIS THREAD.
Please speak up John.

And as far as you being the moderator of the forum, the REAL moderator saw something that has been an ongoing and recurring problem in ALL aiming threads on a regular basis so HE spoke out and posted.

I thank my prayer being answered and I VERY MUCH THANK MR. WILSON!!

HE SOLVED THE PROBLEM.

As far as you're concerned, I hope you continue making videos and posting but on an impartial knowledge seeking exploration as opposed to your OWN AGENDA.
(whatever it may be if negative and destructive lacking complete knowledge as some others)

If it's "no big deal", WHY are you trying to MAKE IT A BIG DEAL?
 
Last edited:
Neil was correct, they were PRECIPITATED before my responses which I guess you casually overlooked for whatever reason.

You and I have never had a post back and forth to each other until this one of yours.

Aren't you the guy who whined and cried about being called a "knocker" for posting things about CTE when nobody called you a "knocker" at all...ever?

Why are SO ANGRY DAN? Is it because you really are in the anti-CTE group and are trying everything possible to discredit it?

I think everyone has been very civil to you especially since you've given your real name as we all non-trolls have, and done videos of ourselves at the table. You're a pretty decent player and I respect that.

I have gone into the archives of RSB which was pretty much before my time but do know you were in the anti-CTE crowd back then and a staunch follower of your hero and God, Pat Johnson along with some others.

Does that still have something to do with your actions and motivations?

NEIL...GREAT POST!! I wouldn't have had the energy and focus to do it!! I LOVE IT!

Spider - see my comment to Neil above. It isn't that big a deal so let's move on. I didn't whine and cry about being called a knocker, except maybe when Stan told me he hopes I never get a copy of his DVD. Maybe that's worse than being called a knocker. Whatever.

You know more about my posts from 10 or 15 years ago than I do at this point. I looked into CTE for awhile and, yes, I spent the 2 hours on the phone with Hal. First off, I don't even know PJ after all these many years. I think he and I have had maybe 3 back and forths in any thread in all that time. PJ rubs people the wrong way because he doesn't suffer fools, if you are familiar with the expression. I'm not in any "camp." PJ is generally correct when it comes to technical matters, so yes I think he's a good contributor. If he says something that you disagree with then the solution is very simple: prove him wrong to shut him up.

How about this, instead of having a lot of back and forth and not producing anything of use, why not answer this question that Stan simply ignores:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5321812&postcount=1615

If your answer is that you have to be at the table and take your time with it, I've already done that, and such a response doesn't answer the question posed in the link above. I suspect that the real answer is that you don't know. Some of Stan's strong followers have told me by pm that they don't really understand it, but it just works. Fine, then if that's the answer then let's make it public instead of telling the naked emperor that his clothes are beautiful.

I have no agenda. Nobody here has an agenda. Well, truthfully, Stan has one because he stands to make a lot of money. I'm not against that, but let's face the fact that he's really the only one who stands to be affected positively or negatively if CTE is accepted or discredited.

You won't like this last comment, but I don't believe Stan is a particularly gifted instructor like you do. His demeanor and sincerity and general approach is terrific. The problem is that anyone can teach the student who understands everything right away. Only the good instructors can take someone who just doesn't get it (ie, me) and find a different way to explain/demonstrate things so that student can understand. Stan doesn't attempt to win over hearts and minds to his way of thinking by finding unique ways of teaching. He insults and demeans and ignores. I find that somewhat telling, don't you? If I knew 2+2=4 and I had the courage of my convictions about that, you'd better be sure I'd find a way to demonstrate to every last skeptic that 2+2 really did equal 4. Some people are skeptics for a reason, not because of some great unknown conspiracy.

CTE is like a lightening bolt and I don't want to write people off based on this one subject. I used to go to RSB and now AZ for sharing of information, not to chat with buddies or get into pissing matches. If you can search for my posts, you'll find that most all of them are about the game itself, either getting help with something or sharing something I've learned. So have your opinion and say what you want, but don't write off my comments on "normal" subjects and I'll give you the same courtesy.
 
I just saw this come in and I haven't read it...not going to read it...nor do I care. I guess you wrote this before reading my post and response.

LET JOHN BARTON RESPOND SINCE IT'S HIS THREAD.
 
OK Dan, you want to get real, lets get real. The thread STARTER was JB - John Barton. It's not YOUR decision, it's not Neil's decision, it's not my decision. It should be JB'S DECISION.

Did HE feel I overstepped my boundaries and should be expelled or reprimanded from the thread for saying what I did? Once again...IT'S HIS THREAD.
Please speak up John.

And as far as you being the moderator of the forum, the REAL moderator saw something that has been an ongoing and recurring problem in ALL aiming threads on a regular basis so HE spoke out and posted.

I thank my prayer being answered and I VERY MUCH THANK MR. WILSON!!

HE SOLVED THE PROBLEM.

As far as you're concerned, I hope you continue making videos and posting but on an impartial knowledge seeking exploration as opposed to your OWN AGENDA.
(whatever it may be if negative and destructive lacking complete knowledge as some others)

If it's "no big deal", WHY are you trying to MAKE IT A BIG DEAL?

I posted my other comment above before seeing this reply, FYI. I'm not making anything a big deal. I stumbled into this thread. I saw a guy kind of being rude to everybody else in the discussion and thought it was amusing that he didn't seem to realize that. Again, no big deal. Obviously there is a lot of history among the participants in this thread and I am more than happy to stay out of it! :eek:

Also, kind of odd that "solving the problem" equals removing debate, but there I go stepping into it again!
 
I just saw this come in and I haven't read it...not going to read it...nor do I care. I guess you wrote this before reading my post and response.

LET JOHN BARTON RESPOND SINCE IT'S HIS THREAD.

LOL. Yes, we are cross posting. John's a little odd and I disagree with him, but he seems to accept the videos and comments I have had as genuine, which they are. I try to be a realist and I know when I'm beat. See you in the "normal" forums! ( pssst.... we both know you already read my post :thumbup:) No hard feelings.
 
Spider - see my comment to Neil above. It isn't that big a deal so let's move on. I didn't whine and cry about being called a knocker, except maybe when Stan told me he hopes I never get a copy of his DVD. Maybe that's worse than being called a knocker. Whatever.

You know more about my posts from 10 or 15 years ago than I do at this point. I looked into CTE for awhile and, yes, I spent the 2 hours on the phone with Hal. First off, I don't even know PJ after all these many years. I think he and I have had maybe 3 back and forths in any thread in all that time. PJ rubs people the wrong way because he doesn't suffer fools, if you are familiar with the expression. I'm not in any "camp." PJ is generally correct when it comes to technical matters, so yes I think he's a good contributor. If he says something that you disagree with then the solution is very simple: prove him wrong to shut him up.

How about this, instead of having a lot of back and forth and not producing anything of use, why not answer this question that Stan simply ignores:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5321812&postcount=1615

If your answer is that you have to be at the table and take your time with it, I've already done that, and such a response doesn't answer the question posed in the link above. I suspect that the real answer is that you don't know. Some of Stan's strong followers have told me by pm that they don't really understand it, but it just works. Fine, then if that's the answer then let's make it public instead of telling the naked emperor that his clothes are beautiful.

I have no agenda. Nobody here has an agenda. Well, truthfully, Stan has one because he stands to make a lot of money. I'm not against that, but let's face the fact that he's really the only one who stands to be affected positively or negatively if CTE is accepted or discredited.

You won't like this last comment, but I don't believe Stan is a particularly gifted instructor like you do. His demeanor and sincerity and general approach is terrific. The problem is that anyone can teach the student who understands everything right away. Only the good instructors can take someone who just doesn't get it (ie, me) and find a different way to explain/demonstrate things so that student can understand. Stan doesn't attempt to win over hearts and minds to his way of thinking by finding unique ways of teaching. He insults and demeans and ignores. I find that somewhat telling, don't you? If I knew 2+2=4 and I had the courage of my convictions about that, you'd better be sure I'd find a way to demonstrate to every last skeptic that 2+2 really did equal 4. Some people are skeptics for a reason, not because of some great unknown conspiracy.

CTE is like a lightening bolt and I don't want to write people off based on this one subject. I used to go to RSB and now AZ for sharing of information, not to chat with buddies or get into pissing matches. If you can search for my posts, you'll find that most all of them are about the game itself, either getting help with something or sharing something I've learned. So have your opinion and say what you want, but don't write off my comments on "normal" subjects and I'll give you the same courtesy.

Dan, if you think Rick doesn't generally throw around insults, you have very, very, selective reading. Second, Stan is a very good instructor. But, any instructor is only as good as the student. That means, first and foremost, the student has to be actually willing to learn. Not just be willing to disprove something. Also, the student must have an open mind to learning. Sorry, but you have shown that you do not have either. You don't really want to learn as much as disprove, and you don't have an open mind about the subject. With out those two things, you have zero chance of learning CTE. So, why keep on about it since you have stated in the past that you really don't want to learn it anyways?
 
How about this, instead of having a lot of back and forth and not producing anything of use, why not answer this question that Stan simply ignores:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5321812&postcount=1615

Dan, I'll try to cover the questions as well as I can. This is the easily the most misunderstood part of the CTE system.

So regarding the 5 shots, all using the same perception (CTEL/A), and they all pocket the ball into the same hole. Obviously each shot has its own unique angle. How does that work?

The answer is to first understand that perceptions are not static alignments or angles. That is to say CTEL/A, although a single perception, is not a single physical alignment. As you stand behind each of these 5 shots and line up on the CTEL/A perception, the physical alignment becomes slightly thinner and thinner as you move from the nearest shot to the farthest (from the target pocket). This isn't something you have to force yourself to do, your perception does the work. If you go to the table and setup these 5 shots and line up each one with CTEL/A where it looks right (move eyes left or right at all and you lose one or both lines.) If you are honest with yourself and not trying to FORCE the physical alignment to be the same shot-to-shot, you should see the physical alignment slightly change shot to shot. How does that happen? Although we don't have all the answers to explain the WHY, the HOW is easy. Anyone can go to the table and discover this for themselves. We know that the position of the two balls (CB/OB) on the 1x2 surface of the table with pockets at 90d angles lend to unique physical eye positions for a given perception and CB/OB position.

Regarding the second shot in the video. For a straight-in shot, a left or right outside pivot works identically. However for any other angle, these two pivots end up as different shots. In the video a left pivot is a shot to the side pocket, and a right pivot is the bank. If the CB/OB were aligned directly into a pocket, either left or right outside pivot would work the same. Again, this all hinges on how our perception works.

I had the same questions when I first started. Instead of bothering myself with so much "WHY", I just setup shots and did my best to find the perceptions and shoot the shots. It didn't take long to figure it out. I think the subconscious mind needs a chance to identify out what it's looking for. It's not a matter of learning how to line up on a perception so it works, but rather learning to recognize the perception right in front of us and harnessing it.
 
I just saw this come in and I haven't read it...not going to read it...nor do I care. I guess you wrote this before reading my post and response.

LET JOHN BARTON RESPOND SINCE IT'S HIS THREAD.

Is that how it works? You start a thread and only you can respond to it? Coooooool.
 
OK Dan, you want to get real, lets get real. The thread STARTER was JB - John Barton. It's not YOUR decision, it's not Neil's decision, it's not my decision. It should be JB'S DECISION.

Did HE feel I overstepped my boundaries and should be expelled or reprimanded from the thread for saying what I did? Once again...IT'S HIS THREAD.
Please speak up John.

And as far as you being the moderator of the forum, the REAL moderator saw something that has been an ongoing and recurring problem in ALL aiming threads on a regular basis so HE spoke out and posted.

I thank my prayer being answered and I VERY MUCH THANK MR. WILSON!!

HE SOLVED THE PROBLEM.



https://youtu.be/NixKrFPB_6A
 
Last edited:
I'm interested in learning CTE just to see what all the arguing and cussing is about.

Is there a "CTE for Dummies" version or a Reader's Digest condensed version.

Actually, I'd like somebody who believes in it and uses it to show me how it works at the table, but I don't know anyone here in Hawaii who uses it.
 
English.....

So here we are.
I'm ofering just this very last opportunity for this to find a happy ending.

Here's the deal. You are not banned ( yet ) and may POST in threads that YOU create in regard to aiming discussions.

YOU may NOT post in anyone else's thread nor reply to anyone's posts in any aiming conversation thread that YOU did not create.

You may start threads and anone that wishes to participate in your conversation may do so.

Any variance from this will result in a permanent ban from AZB.
There won't be any more peace offers.

Dave

Where has rick broken the rules?

----▶expecting tedious veiled threat.
 
Dan, if you think Rick doesn't generally throw around insults, you have very, very, selective reading. Second, Stan is a very good instructor. But, any instructor is only as good as the student. That means, first and foremost, the student has to be actually willing to learn. Not just be willing to disprove something. Also, the student must have an open mind to learning. Sorry, but you have shown that you do not have either. You don't really want to learn as much as disprove, and you don't have an open mind about the subject. With out those two things, you have zero chance of learning CTE. So, why keep on about it since you have stated in the past that you really don't want to learn it anyways?

Well you've made an awful lot of incorrect assumptions there. So tell me what my agenda is, please. Why would I want to knock CTE instead of learn it?
 
Well you've made an awful lot of incorrect assumptions there. So tell me what my agenda is, please. Why would I want to knock CTE instead of learn it?

I don't know why. Why don't you tell us? You have admitted that you really have no desire to use it or even really learn it. Yet, you sure seem to go out of your way to find what you think are things wrong with it. A few posts up, Mohrt gave a description similar to the one I gave you in detail a while back. When I gave it, it was mocked. I have yet to see where you really are trying to actually learn it. I thought you were for a while, but YOU changed my mind on that by your posts.
 
I don't know why. Why don't you tell us? You have admitted that you really have no desire to use it or even really learn it. Yet, you sure seem to go out of your way to find what you think are things wrong with it. A few posts up, Mohrt gave a description similar to the one I gave you in detail a while back. When I gave it, it was mocked. I have yet to see where you really are trying to actually learn it. I thought you were for a while, but YOU changed my mind on that by your posts.

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around Mohrt's post before commenting on it. At least he is attempting to explain it. It sounds a little like cookie man's explanation that you have to get in the approximate correct position (depending on where the pocket is) first and then get the CTE/A line up. I tried that and couldn't even come close. By my eyes, each line up is what it is and pocket location doesn't change it. But like I said I'm still thinking about what he said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top