My Thread... just so I can make some comments on... whatever.

[Mr. Wilson]

The intention is not to silence you.

You're an intelligent man who has some valid points.
I'm trying to allow the exchange of ideas with you and allow certain portions of the community to carry on without being beat up by your style.

I have yet to find a balance there that I'm comfortable with.

If you have ideas on how to improve this situation, I'll entertain the discussion.

 

[cookie man]

No. You make a misstatement of truth, again.

Telling, I think, especially as the numbers add up.

Best Wishes to ALL.

It's incorrect information and you posted it.
Funny your thread was going in a good direction again, then you decide to derail it with a rant about CTE.
Are you an attention seeker?

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Knock it off.

 

[ENGLISH!]

The intention is not to silence you.

You're an intelligent man who has some valid points.
I'm trying to allow the exchange of ideas with you and allow certain portions of the community to carry on without being beat up by your style.

I have yet to find a balance there that I'm comfortable with.

If you have ideas on how to improve this situation, I'll entertain the discussion.

Thanks. I'll give it some thought.

Best Wishes.

 

[Neil]

The intention is not to silence you.

You're an intelligent man who has some valid points.
I'm trying to allow the exchange of ideas with you and allow certain portions of the community to carry on without being beat up by your style.

I have yet to find a balance there that I'm comfortable with.

If you have ideas on how to improve this situation, I'll entertain the discussion.

Dave, in all seriousness here. Would you please point out some of his valid points? As, I, and many others, just do not see them.

This is why I state that- He claims words such as logical, critical thinking, rational, reasonable, ect. Yet, his posts actually contain none of the above. It is not rational, nor logical or reasonable to go on for years to make the claims he has. His claims are not based on fact, but on only opinion.

He refuses to accept the proper definition of the word objective, because it does not suit his agenda. He has even stated that. The word has several meanings, and he will only accept any definition that suits him.

He claims as fact that the system is not objective, yet he can not even describe properly the steps to use the system. He has not taken the system to the table to study it intensely so as to rationally be able to dissect it with critical thinking. So, again, all he has in his opinion based on very little actual fact.

He claims that we use subjective subconscious adjustments to make the system work. Yet, not once has he been able to offer any proof of us doing so. Which critical thinking and logic and reasonableness would demand of him to do. He claims we don't have the proper intelligence to even know what we are doing, but he does have that intelligence without even knowing how to properly utilize the system as stated on the DVD that he claims he refused to watch all of.

So, again, what are the valid points you are saying that he is making? Many of us would really like to know.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Dave, in all seriousness here. Would you please point out some of his valid points? As, I, and many others, just do not see them.

This is why I state that- He claims words such as logical, critical thinking, rational, reasonable, ect. Yet, his posts actually contain none of the above. It is not rational, nor logical or reasonable to go on for years to make the claims he has. His claims are not based on fact, but on only opinion.

He refuses to accept the proper definition of the word objective, because it does not suit his agenda. He has even stated that. The word has several meanings, and he will only accept any definition that suits him.

He claims as fact that the system is not objective, yet he can not even describe properly the steps to use the system. He has not taken the system to the table to study it intensely so as to rationally be able to dissect it with critical thinking. So, again, all he has in his opinion based on very little actual fact.

He claims that we use subjective subconscious adjustments to make the system work. Yet, not once has he been able to offer any proof of us doing so. Which critical thinking and logic and reasonableness would demand of him to do. He claims we don't have the proper intelligence to even know what we are doing, but he does have that intelligence without even knowing how to properly utilize the system as stated on the DVD that he claims he refused to watch all of.

So, again, what are the valid points you are saying that he is making? Many of us would really like to know.

For the record:

I'm not going to entertain this. You do not get to determine what points are valid and I will not take efforts to explain to you what I feel his validity is.

Ultimately, the civility I have always demanded is the rule of this house.
Either people can find a way to play well with one another or they won't be here.

I don't care what you guys agree with each other on any single topic aside from getting along.

What I will not allow is for antagonists to come here and poke him like a caged animal through the bars. I will hold people immediately accountable and it will result in bans.

 

[JoeyInCali]

That video was made in response to an assertion that the same shot, according to person presenting this layout, could not possibly be made using the same exact motions.

I set up his example and shot it on the table to show that I was not doing anything different for all variations of those shots.

Nothing defies science. You simply don't understand the science involved.

But for this video I was not using CTE as prescribed by Stan. I didn't know it at the time. But I did use the same exact steps for each shot.

This is what I wrote when I put the video up.

"This is a video I did to show that the motions using CTE are nearly identical shot for shot. Many of the opponents of CTE have put up diagrams of these shots and claimed that it's impossible to do the SAME motions on different shots and make the balls. The reality is that from the shooter's perspective every shot done here looks exactly the same. I use the CTE line as the starting point, put my bridge hand down with the tip pointing to the left side of the cue ball and pivot to center cue ball and shoot. Every shot done the same way.

This is one of the strongest advantages to using the CTE method of aiming. Even if there are some "adjustments" from shot to shot they are so small as to not be noticeable by the shooter. This gives the shooter a tremendous sense of confidence on each shot with the feeling that he is lined up perfectly and then can focus on the stroke. For a CTE user none of these shots is any tougher than any of the others.

If you are not a CTE user try these shots and see how you do."

I'm glad that is not how CTE is done.
You can see your tip is not going through your natural stroking line after you moved your elbow. So often, your tip swayed away.
From 3:00 and up, that elbow movement is not that slight. It changes the stroking line by a lot .
And since this was not the way CTE is really supposed to be done, then you made those balls using your system. And I think, the bottom line is still, you had a visual on those two balls colliding .

 

[Neil]

For the record:

I'm not going to entertain this. You do not get to determine what points are valid and I will not take efforts to explain to you what I feel his validity is.

Ultimately, the civility I have always demanded is the rule of this house.
Either people can find a way to play well with one another or they won't be here.

I don't care what you guys agree with each other on any single topic aside from getting along.

What I will not allow is for antagonists to come here and poke him like a caged animal through the bars. I will hold people immediately accountable and it will result in bans.

If I, a proficient user of CTE, an instructor, and a person that Stan has personally thanked numerous times for my help with CTE, don't get to determine what is a valid point regarding CTE, then who does? Rick? An admitted non-user, very uninformed person about CTE? Somehow his points are to be determined valid, and actual users are not?

If you want antagonizing, look no further than the opening post of this thread, and all of his subsequent posts. You want us to all get along and just discuss, while insulting me by telling my I am incapable of making a valid point and then telling me you aren't about to discuss anything with me.

 

[ivicafranic]

A few of you have jumped the gun

 

[Mr. Wilson]

If I, a proficient user of CTE, an instructor, and a person that Stan has personally thanked numerous times for my help with CTE, don't get to determine what is a valid point regarding CTE, then who does? Rick? An admitted non-user, very uninformed person about CTE? Somehow his points are to be determined valid, and actual users are not?

If you want antagonizing, look no further than the opening post of this thread, and all of his subsequent posts. You want us to all get along and just discuss, while insulting me by telling my I am incapable of making a valid point and then telling me you aren't about to discuss anything with me.

Prefer the ban over the easy to follow instructions above?
Not mincing words with you.

 

[JB Cases]

I'm glad that is not how CTE is done.
You can see your tip is not going through your natural stroking line after you moved your elbow. So often, your tip swayed away.
From 3:00 and up, that elbow movement is not that slight. It changes the stroking line by a lot .
And since this was not the way CTE is really supposed to be done, then you made those balls using your system. And I think, the bottom line is still, you had a visual on those two balls colliding .

No Joey, there was no visual of balls colliding. I just watched the video in slow motion and I don't see what you think you see. I stroke straight for every shot and the cue go off line long after the cue ball is gone. Please post the video time for any shot you think i steered it.

The whole point was that from the shooter's perspective the visual perception from standing up to the getting down and pivoting was all the exact same motion from shot to shot.

As I said the feeling was not of using feel or guessing but instead just a connect-the-dots type of process that was the same for every shot.

And that actually remains to this day. It's a process that stays the same for every shot.

 

[JB Cases]

Guys, be civil above all else in your responses. Rick is in sort of a "house arrest" state so converse with him in the thread he started if you wish to. You can rebut his points but be polite about it. He is simply not allowed to go in an ruin other threads with incessant repetition of his issues with language or descriptions used.

We already have established the premise that he is not a CTE user and doesn't have the foundation to discuss it in the same context that we can. He objects to how we use the word objectivity. Fine, that's been covered. No need to continue on about it.

Best is to let it go and don't sweat it too much more. If a rebuttal is needed then say it succinctly and politely.

 

[pwrman]

I play on 9' Diamonds with 4" pockets & what is less then 4" pockets.

.

never heard of diamonds with 4" pockets
smallest i thought was action report table diamond made for justin with 41/8
who did work on these tables, kingcobra? or local machanic

 

[JoeyInCali]

No Joey, there was no visual of balls colliding. I just watched the video in slow motion and I don't see what you think you see. I stroke straight for every shot and the cue go off line long after the cue ball is gone. Please post the video time for any shot you think i steered it.

The whole point was that from the shooter's perspective the visual perception from standing up to the getting down and pivoting was all the exact same motion from shot to shot.

As I said the feeling was not of using feel or guessing but instead just a connect-the-dots type of process that was the same for every shot.

And that actually remains to this day. It's a process that stays the same for every shot.

How can that be ???
At 1:31, the cut is much more severe.
When you went down, you were already aiming at a thinner cut.
You even backed away before going down.
At 2:20, you backed away again and looked at the shot.
There was perception of the hit to me.

 

[JB Cases]

How can that be ???
At 1:31, the cut is much more severe.
When you went down, you were already aiming at a thinner cut.
You even backed away before going down.
At 2:20, you backed away again and looked at the shot.
There was perception of the hit to me.

The steps were.

Acquire the CTE line.

Go down to shooting position with the bridge hand landing so that the cue tip is pointed to the edge, for these shots the left edge.

Pivot to center and shoot.

That's what I did on all the shots.

Here is the shot at 1:31 - same steps.

https://youtu.be/Eb9e6NuNteE?list=PLSKV5CK_fziXC5F0oQJJ-yV7pAtT334y9&t=87

And here is the shot at 2:20

https://youtu.be/Eb9e6NuNteE?list=PLSKV5CK_fziXC5F0oQJJ-yV7pAtT334y9&t=135

I place the ball and stand up to acquire the CTE line and then go down into the shot. There is no backing off.

For each of these shots I did the exact same thing. The only thing that changed was my body position around the table. For each shot it changed because each shot was in fact a different shot. But the visual perception and alignment to the cue ball was exactly the same, each shot done at center cue ball.

 

[ENGLISH!]

never heard of diamonds with 4" pockets
smallest i thought was action report table diamond made for justin with 41/8
who did work on these tables, kingcobra? or local machanic

The two newer tables are like 3 7/8 or 3 15/16. the old one was redone to 4" pockets.

The two newer ones were specially ordered from Diamond & I don't know who redid the older one.

Best Wishes to ALL.

 

[Straightpool_99]

The two newer tables are like 3 7/8 or 3 15/16. the old one was redone to 4" pockets.

They two new ones were special order from Diamond & I don't know who redid the older one.

Best Wishes to ALL.

That's just silly to me. Who wants to play on sub 4 inch pockets?! Can anyone run more than one rack on this, who isn't a pro? And I do mean more than once a year!

 

[ENGLISH!]

That's just silly to me. Who wants to play on sub 4 inch pockets?! Can anyone run more than one rack on this, who isn't a pro? And I do mean more than once a year!

I call the 2 newer ones Devils in Blue Dresses.

The special order ones also have a different cut to the pockets. If a ball's edge is 1/4" off the long rail & maintains that all the way to the pocket the ball will rattle & not go. If it angles toward the rail & does not hit the point it will go.

They were ordered basically as gambling tables. We have some very good players in the New Orleans area.

Best 2 You & ALL.

PS There is another Diamond table that has even smaller pockets almost like a snooker table but the pockets are cut more normal & a ball will go 1/4 off the long rail but it's still ridiculous.

Best to You & ALL.

 

[JB Cases]

That's just silly to me. Who wants to play on sub 4 inch pockets?! Can anyone run more than one rack on this, who isn't a pro? And I do mean more than once a year!

I fully agree. My pockets are 4.25 and they play pretty tight. I have played on 4 1/8th down to 3 7/8th and it's not any fun. There needs to be a balance that keeps a person motivated.

 

[Mikjary]

My pockets are 4 inch and I really like this size. I'm used to it after playing on it for years. Though it limits my packages or straight pool runs, it keeps me coming back.

Geno played on it and said it was, "a brutal table to practice on." :grin: I don't even think about it anymore.

Best,
Mike