The lurkers are following along,lol.
My Thread... just so I can make some comments on... whatever.
- Thread starter ENGLISH!
- Start date
- Status
The lurkers are following along,lol.
Yes, & the intelligent ones can see right through your actions & childish posts.
I think most out there are certainly on the intelligent side at least of enough intelligence to see the truth of this situation.
Best Wishes to ALL & that Includes All of the Silent Majority as it ALWAYS does whenever I say it.
Two more useless posts.
You're testing my patience.
Why are you posting in this thread, if for no other reason than to agitate?
Would you like to be in English' shoes and be able to post only in your own threads?
Just nod if you wish so.
Yeah,
It's not easy.
I was just typing a post to Mikjary/Mike about a baseball story & realized that thread was in the aiming forum.
I hope I might get a Strrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.....Ball! call, if I start an inadvertent swing by mistake, so I can check the swing & delete it.
Best To ALL.
It's not easy.
I was just typing a post to Mikjary/Mike about a baseball story & realized that thread was in the aiming forum.
I hope I might get a Strrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.....Ball! call, if I start an inadvertent swing by mistake, so I can check the swing & delete it.
Best To ALL.
Rick,
I appreciated your baseball story. It was on point with mine and the results you get by just letting things happen and hoping you're doing everything right. For every million that take this route, only a small percentage find the correct path.
Best,
Mike
I appreciated your baseball story. It was on point with mine and the results you get by just letting things happen and hoping you're doing everything right. For every million that take this route, only a small percentage find the correct path.
Best,
Mike
Rick, video demonstration is used in all manner of ways as proof, evidence, education, and data recording among other uses. It's not that video is "god". It's that in many ways it is simply one of the mediums we have at our disposal to help us understand the world around us.
Take the slow motion videos of the tip striking the ball....I would have bet that there is no way that the tip deforms that much and then bounces back into shape. But slow motion video proves it pretty conclusively.
As for video proving how a person does something that happens in their head....no a video of a person completing an action cannot show what it happening in their brain unless coupled with eeg sensors and even then the actual thoughts cannot be read. Not yet at least.
But if we take people at their word, as in we establish a basic if then proposition that goes IF the subject actually does what they say they are doing THEN the resulting performance can be measured against it. This can be contrasted with other subjects who use different methods to achieve the same goal and the resulting performances compared. The video can be studied for all other clues and analyzed frame by frame to yield whatever information can be obtained.
This is where video is important to us for visual confirmation of process and results. It serves to offer up data in a fixed format that can be acted upon.
It is, in other words, often simply better than nothing at all and can be highly informative and helpful. It can be misleading as well when either deliberately produced to mislead OR when information is not properly presented. But much like a pool table is inert and presents the same conditions to both players so does video stand unchanged for each person to analyze for themselves and make whatever interpretations they come up with. And those conclusions are made in the context of a person's experience and expertise in the subject. I.e. a pro sees more than an amateur and a physicist sees it differently than a dentist even though all are presented with the same data.
I can only speak for myself but I take things to the table and try to work them out. I want to understand as much as I am capable of how things work on the pool table. If I see a video done by someone else I want to duplicate it and see what I can get out of it.
I think part of the problem is when people are dismissive of other people's work. Someone takes the time to make a video and it's trashed as not containing any "proof" of anything and this will put a person on the defensive. Instead a proper conversation imo would be a civil discussion on the data contained and an explanation of what the data does show and what it does not.
None of us operate on the premise of deliberately trying to make people play worse. So with that in mind civil discourse that acknowledges all efforts at clarity should be the defacto level of conversation. But unfortunately the opposite is too often the case. Thus "videos" are given perhaps too much credit for "proving" claims by some and not enough credit for TRYING to prove claims by others.
If we could all simply make an effort to just trust that each other is telling truth from their perspective, doesn't mean they are right, but it means they are not being deliberately deceptive, then I firmly believe that a consensus could be found that satisfies all sides of any topic.
It's already been proven that the "crowd" is very good at solving problems. When they are all working in the same direction. But when the "crowd" is divided and shouting at each other they are very far from figuring anything out.
That's the basic problem. Not whether video is sufficient proof or not.
As someone who has often been swept away by the emotions in this forum, i can wholeheartedly say that I am guilty of all the flaws above, though I strive to be consistent, logical and detached I fail miserably at all of those things at times. It is important to recognize one of the fundamental attribution flaws inherent in us: To explain our own position as determined by facts, and the opponents as determined by psychology. In the end this forum is not life-or-death important. It's pool. A hobby that, although highly addictive and interesting, is juste that: a hobby.
Just called him out on his post #13. There is no place for a post like that anywhere on Az IMO.
Posts like that are what starts everything. He should have kept the thread on track
John,
Again you do much of what you seem to almost always do. You make some generally true statements that do not specifically apply to the issue & then form what MIGHT appear to be a 'logical' conclusion & then make a statement that has no basis at all on any of your specific premises & inappropriate 'conclusions' or conjecture.
I, for one, have NOT ever said that a particular individual is not stating what they believe or is misleading anyone intentionally.
That seems to be at least one implication of your dissertation.
If a video can not prove an aspect of an operation then it should not be used for such & if it is used for such, then it should be pointed out that video is inappropriate & inapplicable for that purpose.
For others to continually call for video proof for something that can NOT be used to prove that parameter or lack of such a parameter is what?
Shall we say unintelligent? No, some don't like that word. So, how about uneducated? No, how about uninformed? No, we can't use that word either because they have been informed by multiple individuals of that fact numerous times. In fact, they have been informed of that fact, too many times to keep track of without the assistance of perhaps a calculator.
So what should be said about such individuals that continue to call for what they have been informed of numerous times by numerous individuals of something that is inappropriate, inapplicable, & would not result in that for which they are calling & seemingly demanding, which is any proof of anything regarding that topic?
IF the opposing side were to use an inappropriate & inapplicable means as an attempt to prove that for which it can not do, then they on that side would be making that same MISTAKE that those calling for such make when they call for it, if not a larger MISTAKE, as now they could be called on such MISTAKE & would hence lose credibility just as those that continually called for an inappropriate & inapplicable means of proof.
So... my conclusion of your dissertation is that you are simply lobbying for inappropriate & inapplicable 'evidence' to be allowed to be submitted.
Nothing you can say would make something capable of which it is NOT & hence it should NOT be considered for an inappropriate application.
You are in the process of basically putting together a video studio. So... I think most should be able to see exactly why you would be lobbying for it's acceptance as a means of 'proof' or at least for it to be admitted for consideration.
To me that is disingenuous unless a sufficient disclaimer is attached as anyone might incorrectly take video & any attached words of 'explanation' incorrectly. Video can be a fantastic medium for spreading false impressions, etc. because of the adage of 'seeing is believing'.
Please note that it says 'believing'. It does NOT say 'seeing is understanding the TRUTH'.
As to what seems to be another implication of your dissertation is in regards to what is most easily referred to, shall we say, accusations & name calling.
I think if you looked back at the history of the dispute, I think you will find that the numbers regarding accusations & name calling squarely lay in the camp that you support.
As to the crowd thing, 100 individuals can be studying a coin laying on a table & making all kinds of 'conclusions' based on their study & then another single individual that was not present for all of the other study & 'conclusions' formed could simply walk up & turn the coin over & then ALL of the study & conclusions by 'the crowd' is thrown out of the window by that one observation or open minded thought of that single individual.
So... what was your point?
Best Wishes to you & ALL.
PS I've said if the 'objective' description could be thrown out or away then perhaps some more joint efforts could be had in determining any real benefits & how & why they are.
But when one faction of 'the crowd' maintains a false description there can be no progress in that regard. You may not mind wasting much time proceeding with study based on a false premise but many simply 'hate' such... wasted time due to a false premise or description.
Thanks for your input, I do appreciate it.
You make some good points & articulate some of mine in a different & perhaps 'better' manner.
You also bring to mind some things that I am fully 'aware' but sometimes let slip to the back of my mind.
As for the hobby thing, while probably technically correct, there is much passion involved for some, if not very many.
As I have said before, my concern is for those that might waste much time pursuing something that is simply not there because of an inaccurate description.
That... & I am a bit of a stickler for truth in 'advertising'.
Best Wishes to You & ALL.
Apparently there is at least one, so I can imagine that their might be others, that do not seem to understand the statement from my post #13 of this thread.
What I am saying in that statement is that when an individual resorts to personally attacking & making insulting remarks about an individual at a point in a discussion regarding a disagreement that is an indication that the person doing such has run out of intellectual 'arguments' or reasoning with which to support their side of the 'discussion'.
It has nothing to do with an individuals over all intelligence or IQ.
I have referred to myself several times here on this forum as a 'Tech Idiot'. When it comes to those aspects I am rather uneducated & hence am not very 'intelligent' in that regard.
Text format is NOT the best means of overall communication at times. Some seem to almost always 'assume' matters & then comment or 'attack'. What should be done, IMO, is to request a clarification first & that would often times make it so much BS can be avoided.
Or... the clarification can be confirmation, but at least then any possible confusion or misunderstanding has been clarified.
Best Wishes to ALL.
Last edited:
Here's my crowd story......at a back to school night many years ago. We are changing classrooms and had to go down some stairs to a small vestibule and then out a set of double doors.
Going down the starts was slow cause every one was using only the right side of the double doors.
When I got to the bottom of the stairs , I got out of the line and went to the left door and out, right past all those waiting to use the right side...like everyone else before them
I looked back......both doors were now in use.
The crowd ain't always the smartest bunch.
This book is worth having.....
https://books.google.com/books/about/Logic_And_Contemporary_Rhetoric.html?id=gl_Ikt7J5IkC&hl=en
And this is good too....for those who believe they argue logically.....http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
Going down the starts was slow cause every one was using only the right side of the double doors.
When I got to the bottom of the stairs , I got out of the line and went to the left door and out, right past all those waiting to use the right side...like everyone else before them
I looked back......both doors were now in use.
The crowd ain't always the smartest bunch.
This book is worth having.....
https://books.google.com/books/about/Logic_And_Contemporary_Rhetoric.html?id=gl_Ikt7J5IkC&hl=en
And this is good too....for those who believe they argue logically.....http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
Last edited:
The written word is the worse form of communication there is. To be effective, it must be done properly and that takes skill, just like anything else.
On the other hand is the lack of reading comprehension. This is wide spread issue on this forum.
So when those two get combined on posts.....it ain't gonna go good.
Another is this idea of having to defend a post. That if someone doesn't agree with it or that someone replies in a not pleasant manner, one must post something about it and keep on doing so when there isn't gonna be a meeting of the minds.
Sometimes the best thing to do post something and move on.
On the other hand is the lack of reading comprehension. This is wide spread issue on this forum.
So when those two get combined on posts.....it ain't gonna go good.
Another is this idea of having to defend a post. That if someone doesn't agree with it or that someone replies in a not pleasant manner, one must post something about it and keep on doing so when there isn't gonna be a meeting of the minds.
Sometimes the best thing to do post something and move on.
You missed the point. Sometimes video is all we have and we should make the best of it without calling other people, shall we say, unintelligent.
Basic Logic 101
There are very many that one can not use logic in a blunt manner.
You would think that it would be more simple but for the 'conclusion' to be communicated sometimes requires going the long way around even through what is a fallacy or two so as to arrive at the appropriate conclusion.
You sort of have to navigate from where they are in an illogical stance based on illogic just to even get to a valid premise. It can be very frustrating & get rather confusing at times.
That does not happen if one stays rigid in their own premise, argument, & conclusion & never ventures out into those of others.
Best Wishes To You & ALL.
PS I very much like your double door story.
Please explain what this means to you?
"Take what is useful and develop from there" -Bruce Lee-Tao of Jeet Kune Do
The "crowd" doesn't refer to an actual crowd of people jammed into a space. It refers to the combined resources of many people to solve a problem rather than the reliance on one of a few individuals. Also called crowd-sourcing.
In other words if you put MANY people to the task of figuring out how something works then the answer will likely be found relatively quickly through the collaborative effort of MANY people with the mixture of various degrees of experience and abilities and creativity.
This is where civil discourse and shared discovery work so much better than strife and conflict. The former builds and the latter destroys.
So you don't feel that one should have to defend their assertions?
When you say something like 'xxx system has no value and does not work' then you don't think you should be confronted about that?
I think so too, but getting stuff into your subconscious may require conscious practice, conscious adjustments for a while, until you kinda see/feel it without consciously thinking about it.
So HAMB without too much conscious work may work, but doing so and consciously working different part of your game will simply go faster.
The risk of practicing cousciously is not being able to get the stuff into your subconscious stay for ever in the conscious mode, which is bad.
I'm kinda stock there from time to time.
My learning phases go like this:
- See/decide on something I want to improve
- Document (reading/videos/talking with better players) myself about it
- Consciously practice it for a while, in short 15-30 min period, couple times a day, for 2-3 weeks
- Then go back to work on my fundamentals (helps me turn off my consciousness of what I just tried to learn)
- See how I can perform using this new stuff without thinking about it too much (it gets easier to not think about it over time)
- Loop back on new stuff (or do it over again for this stuff if I'm not happy with the result)
I found out that doing this, I improve faster than just playing/hitting balls
No, John. Video is NEVER all that we have.
Also, we had rather significant means of communicating ideas for centuries upon centuries on subjects much more complex than any aiming of pool shots.
We, some of us, have enough intelligence to apply basic fundamental logic based on some very simple actual facts that are supported by science.
We can then form an appropriate & proper decision & then not try to twist or distort that proper conclusion into something that it is not.
Some may not understand that if one starts with a false premise & then applies logic to that false premise, one can come to a perfectly logical conclusion & even then state that that conclusion is logical, but that certainly does NOT mean that that logic conclusion is by any means a 'TRUE' conclusion or statement because the logic was applied to a false promise.
Perhaps, the new book will be more enlightening, IF it has some diagrams representing just what it is that one 'sees' or thinks that they 'see' for the FIVE(5) Parallel Shots that are supposedly pocketed from the exact same 'visual' & with the exact same pivot.
As, I've tried to make clear, my references to intelligence are not made regarding anyone's overall intelligence but merely as it might relate to a specific topic. I am a computer 'Tech Idiot'. Even though I know that MS Windows still utilizes the same old computer languages like from the early 70s or before, but it is just a user friendly means that does not require one, the user, to learn those old computer languages.
There is much dispute regarding the word objective. One side of that dispute has offered some rather factually correct statements & explanations as to why there really can NOT be anything properly described as 'an objective aiming system'. The other side as shown themselves incapable of understanding those rather simple statements based on those facts & truthful premises.
That would be, to me, a lack of intelligence regarding those matters.
That side has also made inappropriate & inapplicable arguments as to why those statements are invalid, such as one's playing ability, whether one purchased a DVD, whether one has received personal instruction, whether one has spent 'sufficient' time (more than a year for one) trying to learn, & on & on. All of those are invalid arguments regarding the subject matter, which is of an abstract nature along with the insurmountable requirements for a TRULY objective 'system'.
As I've said, IF that inaccurate description would be put aside or thrown away, then perhaps that 'crowd' joint effort to find benefit & the how & why that it is could perhaps be had.
But... if that description is thrown aside, then there is NO special nature nor any real special 'system' or method even if it might be a better or best of all of the aiming methods that are still dependent on subjective interpretation that are based on objective markers.
75 required angles means 75 specific individual objective markers would be needed for a system to be 'objective' & even then it would take one's subjectivity to make a selection of which to 'try'. So... even if a method had ONE(1) objective marker for each of the 75 angles, it STILL would NOT be 'an objective aiming system'.
How would you refer to one that can not see this rather simple reality?
Best Wishes to you & ALL.
Last edited:
- Status