My Thread… Regarding The Truth about so called ‘Objective Aiming Systems’ such as CTE

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patrick Johnson said:
I know they seem like that to you, but that doesn't stand up to logic and the meaning of "objectively". I agree the CTE line and reference line are defined objectively, but how to get to the aim line from them is never defined clearly, so there's no evidence that using them is done objectively.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

:thumbup2: I agree.
 
cookie man said:
Yet you offer no PROOF that its not objective.
You go so far as to say it has holes but never ever once described or diagrammed a hole.
Click to expand...

You say that it is objective yet offer no logical proof.

You say that it has no holes, yet never once describe or diagram how that is.

Can you really NOT see that when it comes to the subject of objectivity & subjectivity that the ONLY 'proof' is through logical, reasonable, rational, critically thought out, objective explanation?

Can you not see the constant hypocrisy in so so many many comments & posts that you make?

Apparently & exasperatingly so, it seems that you can not see either.

Hence, since reason seems to not be present with you, I sincerely hope that I will no longer attempt to 'prescribe medications'.

Perhaps you can be resurrected if reason ever returns to you.

Best Wishes.
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
You state nothing here but your opinion & you state it as fact as it applies to CTE.

I suggest that go back & read that article.

It is a psychological 'theory' from 1968 & NOT in the proven sense of the word. There were a lot of hallucinatory drugs being done during that time.

It is suggesting that one's innate intelligence, you know like IQ, is not singular but can be broken down into, for at the time of his 'theory', 8 individual types.

It has more to do with aptitude than with anything that you are saying here about one learning to have it or acquiring it. That would actually be subjective learning.

If anything, it has more to do with FEEL as it would apply to playing pool.

It rather amazes me the lengths of what some of you will put forth.

As I've suggested, I think Poolplaya9 hit the proverbial nail squarely & perfectly on the head with a crushing hammer.

Best Wishes.
Click to expand...

You are so very special.
Tell us again your training in cte and who and how you learned it from.
Did you take a lesson from Stan ? no you didn't
Buy the dvd? no you didn't.
It amazes me you demand answers but can't accept them and offer nothing that disputes the answers.
Poolplaya9 assessment has already been refuted and proven wrong, but you keep hanging onto it like someone hanging on to someone's .....
 
ENGLISH! said:
You say that it is objective yet offer no logical proof.

You say that it has no holes, yet never once describe or diagram how that is.

Can you really NOT see that when it comes to the subject of objectivity & subjectivity that the ONLY 'proof' is through logical, reasonable, rational, critically thought out, objective explanation?

Can you not see the constant hypocrisy in so so many many comments & posts that you make?

Apparently & exasperatingly so, it seems that you can not see either.

Hence, since reason seems to not be present with you, I sincerely hope that I will no longer attempt to 'prescribe medications'.

Perhaps you can be resurrected if reason ever returns to you.

Best Wishes.
Click to expand...

Can you not see the ASS in the mirror
 
ENGLISH! said:
You state nothing here but your opinion & you state it as fact as it applies to CTE.

I suggest that go back & read that article.

It is a psychological 'theory' from 1968 & NOT in the proven sense of the word. There were a lot of hallucinatory drugs being done during that time.

It is suggesting that one's innate intelligence, you know like IQ, is not singular but can be broken down into, for at the time of his 'theory', 8 individual types.

It has more to do with aptitude than with anything that you are saying here about one learning to have it or acquiring it. That would actually be subjective learning.

If anything, it has more to do with FEEL as it would apply to playing pool.

It rather amazes me the lengths of what some of you will put forth.

As I've suggested, I think Poolplaya9 hit the proverbial nail squarely & perfectly on the head with a crushing hammer.

Best Wishes.
Click to expand...
We look at the same thing everytime, so if one shot is defined then they all are.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
You mean those who "knock" others who want to explore the underlying logic of a system?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Well, maybe. But it's the way it's done Pat. Going all the way back to RSB you and several others really were very insulting and so there was no civility on either side.
 
JB Cases said:
Well, maybe. But it's the way it's done Pat. Going all the way back to RSB you and several others really were very insulting and so there was no civility on either side.
Click to expand...

Amen John. If they wanted a proper discussion they would work with us instead of constant harassing posts.
 
Some of us are newbies & don't go back more than a year or so, maybe a few.

I also don't see anyone arguing against methods other than an occasional
'one liner' from someone that pops in.

The discussion has been whittled down.

Yet... the foolishness continues.

Best Wishes to ALL.
 
ENGLISH! said:
You say that it is objective yet offer no logical proof.

You say that it has no holes, yet never once describe or diagram how that is.

Can you really NOT see that when it comes to the subject of objectivity & subjectivity that the ONLY 'proof' is through logical, reasonable, rational, critically thought out, objective explanation?

Can you not see the constant hypocrisy in so so many many comments & posts that you make?

Apparently & exasperatingly so, it seems that you can not see either.

Hence, since reason seems to not be present with you, I sincerely hope that I will no longer attempt to 'prescribe medications'.

Perhaps you can be resurrected if reason ever returns to you.

Best Wishes.
Click to expand...

Now you sound like Duckie saying there are no edges on a ball to see.

Strange that only Duckie and you now agree that there is no objectivity in CTE.
There are none so blind as those unwilling to see.
 
Neil said:
Now you sound like Duckie saying there are no edges on a ball to see.
Click to expand...

They see no edge because they are looking at a "ghost"...something that is INVISIBLE.

I see edges...I see the center...I see the WHOLE damn ball. The only problem I have is that I sometimes miss the edge, center, or whatever portion of the ball I'm trying to hit.

That could be due to multiple reasons (misalignment, stroke, etc.), but I ALWAYS know where I should hit the object ball.
 
Neil said:
Now you sound like Duckie saying there are no edges on a ball to see.

Strange that only Duckie and you now agree that there is no objectivity in CTE.
There are none so blind as those unwilling to see.
Click to expand...

Again...

...more inaccurate & false statements.

Have you ever heard of this...

"Thou shalt not bare false witness against thy neighbor" ?

I think it should be rather obvious what one of the tactics here are.

The old Sid Ceasar skit where he gets caught by his wife in bed with another women & as they get up & get dressed & make the bed, he keeps saying, what... where... what woman... who are you talking about...

the other woman has then left & Sid is dressed in his suit & the bed is made...

He then tells his wife...

'Look Dear, you must have had a terrible day at work...

you're hallucinating...

I got home right before you...

look... I'm in my suit...

the bed is all made...

& there's no other woman here...

it's just you & me.

Then his wife looks around for a bit... & then asks...

'what do you want for dinner?'.

Deny, deny, deny...

distract, distract, distract...

cause confusion...

& never acknowledge the truth of the accusation.

Oh yeah, then there is that other seemingly never ending tactic of 'attack' the messenger with a 'ton' of false accusations & statements & NEVER really address the subject matter.

Best Wishes to ALL.
 
HawaiianEye said:
They see no edge because they are looking at a "ghost"...something that is INVISIBLE.

I see edges...I see the center...I see the WHOLE damn ball. The only problem I have is that I sometimes miss the edge, center, or whatever portion of the ball I'm trying to hit.

That could be due to multiple reasons (misalignment, stroke, etc.), but I ALWAYS know where I should hit the object ball.
Click to expand...

And contact points are visible.....yeah right.

All you have to do is show me a edge on a ball.....edge being two planes that meet at a angle. No such thing exists on a ball.

I always know where to place the CB without seeing any form of a "ghost".
 
Can we just call this subforum "People that want to argue for the sake of arguing only"? There has been little to nothing of value in this forum since its creation. One of the stupidest ideas EVER.....
 
duckie said:
And contact points are visible.....yeah right.

All you have to do is show me a edge on a ball.....edge being two planes that meet at a angle. No such thing exists on a ball.

I always know where to place the CB without seeing any form of a "ghost".
Click to expand...

It's called a tangent plane, XXXX. And they can meet at infinitesimal angles.
 
Last edited:
Shawn Armstrong said:
It's called a tangent plane, jackass. And they can meet at infinitesimal angles.
Click to expand...

That's uncalled for.

He is technically correct.

The supposed edge point of a sphere on the equator would constantly change as one moves their view of vision laterally.

Hence it is ONLY 'defined' by one setting their vision perfectly still.

Therefore the edge that you might see is NOT necessarily the 'edge' that I might see. That is not the same for a TRUE edge.

Same for the contact point. Two individuals would be estimating the contact point, one does not actually physically see that & define that infinitely small point.

It is more a figure of speech regarding the edge & even the CP than it is a reality concerning a spherical ball.

BUT... for the purpose of discussion & being able to move more onto the meat of the issues, so to speak, I & others have conceded the 'edge'.

That said, I think it is important to keep in mind just HOW an edge of a spherical ball would be defined for these discussions.

If one relates 'the edge' of the ob with a line to say the center of the CB, then that OB edge is fixed.

I'll just stop there so as to not be more repetitive.

Best Wishes to ALL.
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
That's uncalled for.

He is technically correct.

The supposed edge point of a sphere on the equator would constantly change as one moves their view of vision laterally.

Hence it is ONLY 'defined' by one setting their vision perfectly still.

Therefore the edge that you might see is NOT necessarily the 'edge' that I might see. That is not the same for a TRUE edge.

Same for the contact point. Two individuals would be estimating the contact point, one does not actually physically see that & define that infinitely small point.

It is more a figure of speech regarding the edge & even the CP than it is a reality concerning a spherical ball.

BUT... for the purpose of discussion & being able to move more onto the meat of the issues, so to speak, I & others have conceded the 'edge'.

That said, I think it is important to keep in mind just HOW an edge of a spherical ball would be defined for these discussions.

If one relates 'the edge' of the ob with a line to say the center of the CB, then that OB edge is fixed.

I'll just stop there so as to not be more repetitive.

Best Wishes to ALL.
Click to expand...

The edge of a ball, or what us math people call a "sphere", is a point that is equidistant from the geometric centre of the sphere. That distance would be r, otherwise known as the radius. You can pick any point on the "ball", and guess what....it's the exact same distance from the centre as any other point. No matter what point you're looking at, on the ball, it is the same distance away from the centre as any other point you could possibly look at.

The "edge" you keep referring to would be the point that is visually furthest from the geometric centre of the ball. It can be seen, and can be established as clear as day by anyone with standard visual acuity. If you couldn't assess where the edge of a ball is, cueball or object ball, you couldn't use ghost ball, or any other method of aiming. If you care to take on this challenge, here's how you'd do it. Get two balls of radically different size. Use "ghost ball" to establish your aiming point. See if the ball goes in. Oh, wait...it won't. Because the equators of the balls won't touch, so you'll actually undercut (or overcut) every shot, except a straight in. But, seeing as you guys say edges don't exist, it would be absolutely impossible to make a straight in, because you need to aim centre to centre. Tell me...how do you approximate centre if you can't see a left or right edge?

Explain away.....I gotta hear this.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top