What's there to clear up? It's all there for anyone that truly desires to know it. As has been proven over and over by all those that have learned it.
My Thread... just so I can make some comments on... whatever.
- Thread starter ENGLISH!
- Start date
- Status
What's there to clear up? It's all there for anyone that truly desires to know it. As has been proven over and over by all those that have learned it.
Do you want some Green Ink for that?
Some can function on blind faith & do NOT care whether or not proper reasons & credit are given.
They only care about themselves & their performance. If something works for them, then it does not matter whether or not the explanation is accurate or not.
They simply do not care that they might be functioning on a placebo that may not work for countless others.
They simply do not care. They believe, because the 'placebo' has helped them & they do not care that it may be like poison for others that may make them spend very much time in the hospital because they never got the medicine that they thought that they were getting.
Some simply do not care about accuracy of packaging. If others get the placebo marked nitroglycerin for their potential heart attack, that's fine by them.
Anyway...
Best Wishes to YOU & YOURS for this Merry Christmas Season,
Rick
Yeah, just think of those thousands whose pool game was destroyed and laid to waste just because of the word "objective". My, my, what a terrible shame.
Yet, you have no problem with the nonsense explanations of TOI given by CJ. In fact, you even praise his explanations. You know, the ones that he claimed were above the level of the science of spheres as it is now known. And, how known physics is all wrong, but he knows how physics really does work.
Yeah, just think of those thousands whose pool game was destroyed and laid to waste just because of the word "objective". My, my, what a terrible shame.
Yet, you have no problem with the nonsense explanations of TOI given by CJ. In fact, you even praise his explanations. You know, the ones that he claimed were above the level of the science of spheres as it is now known. And, how known physics is all wrong, but he knows how physics really does work.
Balderdash!
In triplicate.
You misstate now just as you twisted, distorted, & misstated matters back then.
You're like that line from an Elton John song...
So sad... so sad... so sad...
You're a sad sad situation, & you're getting more & more absurd.
Last edited:
Knowledge of & Experience with.
There seems to be a narrative being put out by almost all of the advocates of "IT" when it comes to any discussions of "IT" & legitimacy of input into the discussions.
That narrative is that anyone that has not 'mastered' "IT" or has not purchased the DVD or has not spent many many countless hours trying to get "IT" to work...
can not logically & legitimately discuss the WHY that "IT" is supposed to work so supposedly well, namely that "IT" is 'objective'.
That is simply Balderdash.
One can be extremely successful in the physical utilization of the process & not have one iota of a clue as to the WHAT & WHY regarding it's foundation.
How many Pros that play extremely well can NOT explain what it is that they actually do.
One of the reasons is that they do what they do on a subconscious level.
If something is on a subconscious level then they do NOT consciously know what they did or do on a conscious level & hence can not really explain what is done that they do at the subconscious level.
Hence, any discussion regarding matters in those realms as well as the realms of objectivity & subjectivity certainly do NOT require any physical proficiency with a physical process that is being employed as it relates to those non physical attributes & whether or not they are in play or a part of.
In fact, the claim that it can take so much time & effort to even get "IT" to work for many is indeed an indication that there is more needed to make "IT" work than just the physical 'objective' steps. Something is missing or a truly 'objective' process would work for everyone almost immediately.
It would certainly seem to be reasonable to deduce that that THAT which is needed is the building of a subconscious data base that is built on the successes & failures of the utilization of the process & that is subjectively learned & hence the method would not be an objective method.
In the manner that the term 'objective' has been used in the past, it infers that it is the 'system' that is 'objective' & that implies that it takes that subjective interpretation out of the picture.
Well, the seemingly excessive time, for some a year or more, to get "IT" to work, certainly seems to imply that "IT" is not objective in it's foundation but instead is very dependent on that subjective data base being built on the basis of trial & error & successes & failures.
That being the case, it would then be just like any other process & method in that regard.
Just Some Food for Thought.
There seems to be a narrative being put out by almost all of the advocates of "IT" when it comes to any discussions of "IT" & legitimacy of input into the discussions.
That narrative is that anyone that has not 'mastered' "IT" or has not purchased the DVD or has not spent many many countless hours trying to get "IT" to work...
can not logically & legitimately discuss the WHY that "IT" is supposed to work so supposedly well, namely that "IT" is 'objective'.
That is simply Balderdash.
One can be extremely successful in the physical utilization of the process & not have one iota of a clue as to the WHAT & WHY regarding it's foundation.
How many Pros that play extremely well can NOT explain what it is that they actually do.
One of the reasons is that they do what they do on a subconscious level.
If something is on a subconscious level then they do NOT consciously know what they did or do on a conscious level & hence can not really explain what is done that they do at the subconscious level.
Hence, any discussion regarding matters in those realms as well as the realms of objectivity & subjectivity certainly do NOT require any physical proficiency with a physical process that is being employed as it relates to those non physical attributes & whether or not they are in play or a part of.
In fact, the claim that it can take so much time & effort to even get "IT" to work for many is indeed an indication that there is more needed to make "IT" work than just the physical 'objective' steps. Something is missing or a truly 'objective' process would work for everyone almost immediately.
It would certainly seem to be reasonable to deduce that that THAT which is needed is the building of a subconscious data base that is built on the successes & failures of the utilization of the process & that is subjectively learned & hence the method would not be an objective method.
In the manner that the term 'objective' has been used in the past, it infers that it is the 'system' that is 'objective' & that implies that it takes that subjective interpretation out of the picture.
Well, the seemingly excessive time, for some a year or more, to get "IT" to work, certainly seems to imply that "IT" is not objective in it's foundation but instead is very dependent on that subjective data base being built on the basis of trial & error & successes & failures.
That being the case, it would then be just like any other process & method in that regard.
Just Some Food for Thought.
Last edited:
And you have proved over and over exactly why that is our objective reasoning.
Dear Unbiased & Neutral reader,
One does not gain in intellectual critical thinking ability nor gain in the the use of or implementation of logic by buying an 'aiming dvd' or by spending countless hours, days, months, or a year on a table trying to make the supposedly objective steps work as described...
especially when the objective steps given stop short of getting the shooter to the supposed conclusion & leave them to get to that conclusion on their own with the only 'instruction' being such as...
'move until you see it'
with no objective description of what 'it' is other than to call it...
'the proper perception for the shot'.
This is the point where one's subjectivity & what they have subjectively learned through the trial & error & success & failure process takes over as it must.
Hence "IT" is like all other methods in that regard.
There is nothing that can objectively tell one just what that 'proper perception for the shot' is other than one's subjectively learned interpretations & decisions regarding those interpretations.
To think that one must first be proficient with a 'supposed' process that does not exist in order to legitimately discuss the supposed process's existence is...
well there are no complementary words to describe such complete & total illogic.
Best Wishes to ALL.
Last edited:
But how would you know exactly how it's taught? What could you possibly know about it's steps and whether they are objectively defined? In fact you have absolutely no knowledge of the workings behind Pro-One.
YES, one MUST have proper knowledge of the "process" in order to legitimately discuss said process. Otherwise it's just speculation and keyboard guesswork, on your part. As we have seen.
You have proven over and over that you have no idea what you are talking about concerning CTE.
Absolutely hope you get a clue for Christmas.
Pro-One, an aiming system that is not like all the others. Truly the best I've ever used.
No one is saying that it is not the best one you've ever used.
But... it is not an objective method when it comes down to getting to the final correct shot line & in that regard it is like all other methods.
The reason that I & others can say that it is NOT such...
is because such a thing simply does not exist.
If you say that such a thing does exist & "IT" is it, then simply explain how so. That explanation has NEVER been & never is forthcoming & that is the proof in the pudding.
It appears that you & others have blindly followed & have been falsely convinced by one means or another of something that is nonexistent.
You & others have failed to apply the logic of simple common sense.
So, since you are playing better, you don't want to let go of your placebo. "IT" is 'working' for you but NOT for the reason that you think that it is.
That would be perfectly fine, but...
to put your placebo out in general as something that it is not is not fine at all. That is misleading & can cause some to waste much time & time is valuable & should not be wasted.
Now if one has the facts & then so chooses to move forward with it, knowing the facts, then that is their determination & decision, as it should be.
Perhaps you will wake up Christmas Morning & realize that Santa Clause is not exactly like the story that is told to Little Children that they believe because they do not know any better & can not yet employ a sufficient amount of common sense.
Yet, even Little Children garner enough common sense over a bit of time to stop believing in things that simply can not be.
Merry Christmas & May 'The Truth' of Simple Common Sense Fall Upon You.
Last edited:
AHH, the ultimate spinmiester and wordsmith at it again.
Still misdirecting the conversation so you don't have to answer direct questions.
The simple truth is you don't know enough about CTE to even form a credible opinion.
That's exactly why you answer no questions.
LONG LIVE PRO-ONE. THE BEST, MOST COMPLETE OBJECTIVE AIMING SYSTEM EVER. SIMPLY THE BEST.
Still misdirecting the conversation so you don't have to answer direct questions.
The simple truth is you don't know enough about CTE to even form a credible opinion.
That's exactly why you answer no questions.
LONG LIVE PRO-ONE. THE BEST, MOST COMPLETE OBJECTIVE AIMING SYSTEM EVER. SIMPLY THE BEST.
Pro-One has been explained and is taught in it's entirety. If you would have bothered to learn by at the very least buying the dvd you would know that.
The facts remain that you don't know enough about it to form a credible opinion.
The only argument you have is THAT IT IS WORKING FOR ME ( you dam straight it is) but not for the reasons i think it is. Please tell me what you base this opinion on and how you know what im thinking,lol. Patiently awaiting your explanation.
I know what "IT" was said to be AND that I was very intrigued by that claim even though my intrigue was somewhat tempered with some doubts as to that possibility.
I know what was said by Stan that convinced me that it was not as the description claim stated & that there would be nothing forthcoming to indicate otherwise & hence there was no need for me to buy the DVD as that inaccurate description & claim was the ONLY basis of my interest.
I know what you nonsensically try to defend & stated in your other post, so I would think that I correctly surmise what it is that you think along those lines.
BUT.... there is another that also nonsensically defends the same yet is NOT in complete agreement with Stan as to the description of the procedure.
So... perhaps you are another one like him & are disingenuous in defending certain aspects of "IT".
When questions pertinent to the subject matter have been asked I have answered them.
That is way more than I can say for most of the advocates of "IT".
Complete Truthfulness seems to be another issue for the advocate side as implications contrary to the truth are a never ending issue.
FYI, as far I am concerned you are in the same group as a few others in which 'discussion' of the actual matter is futile & pointless due to to circle jerks, the ski is not blue 'arguments', etc. & the personal 'attacks' just for the sake of distracting away from the main topic.
There is never anything of any substance in ANY of your posts, but instead only the same repetitive personal 'attacks' on the likes of ANYONE that is not in every regard pro "IT", which certainly includes the aspect of the nature of the foundation in getting to the intended shot line.
Here is your opportunity to change that. Please give an objective detailed account of exactly what it is that objectively indicates each & every DIFFERENT shot line.
You won't do that because you can't do that.... because it does NOT exist...
but... you will make some other excuse as to how you could do it... but you won't... just like every other advocate has done.
As I've said... the proof is in the pudding for any neutral rational individual to see & understand. If the method looks, walks, & talks like a 'Pinocchio', then it is a 'Pinocchio'.
Best Wishes to All during this Merry Christmas Season.
PS The term 'Pinocchio' is not meant to imply that anyone is telling out right lies but only meant to indicate 'not as stated' as in incorrect & an inaccurate description or an erroneous belief, etc.
Last edited:
You are fond of the word IT. You are an IT! Take the first and last letter
of the word incompetent and that's you.....IT, an incompetent evaluator.
Pool is not words and it's not math. Pool is a visual/physical game. Any effective evaluator would be killing the table with visual/physical work.......All you are managing to do is kill a keyboard.
I execute hundreds of shots daily on a pool table and you, Mr. IT, pecks out thousands of letters on your keyboard with your pecker. ( you know, your finger...your pecker)
Stan Shuffett
Any human being with a shred of common sense is capable of competently evaluating whether a process is objective...
or dependent on individually built subjective determinations...
& I have way more than just common sense, as do many many others.
Math represents the physics of the world in which we live & words are all that we have as the most common means of relaying information & ideas as has been done in the writing of BOOKS for thousands of years.
I just this past Friday spent about an hour doing an 'experiment' that an advocate of "IT" asked me to do.
It did nothing but confirm what I already knew & the experiment did nothing to support what he says he is 'actually' doing. That said, I am very glad for him that what he IS actually doing is working rather well for him.
Sometimes delusions can be beneficial, but one should never impose such upon others. If one wishes to be self deluded, that is certainly their choice.
The missing link, personal subjectivity, keeps getting left out of the descriptions of "IT" just as there is a 'missing link' in the supposed evolution of mankind.
The subconscious mind is an Amazing Entity. Some individuals are completely unaware when outside influences are trying to affect theirs while others can at times be consciously aware & can consciously inhibit such influences.
When it comes to playing this game I would rather trust my subconscious mind & the data base that it has built by hitting over a 'million' shots rather than my conscious mind in almost every regard, but... I don't like it when someone or something tries to covertly influence either one.
If others do not mind that, then that too is certainly up to them, but they should know the reality of every situation, so as to make an informed determination.
When one 'attacks' the messenger instead of addressing the 'message', that is an indication that one realizes that one has either lost or is losing the debate, even if they will not admit it outright or even to themselves. They are making a subconscious 'adjustment' to the changing situation.
Those on the outside looking in are quite capable of seeing that reality.
Best Wishes to ALL during this Merry Christmas Season.
or dependent on individually built subjective determinations...
& I have way more than just common sense, as do many many others.
Math represents the physics of the world in which we live & words are all that we have as the most common means of relaying information & ideas as has been done in the writing of BOOKS for thousands of years.
I just this past Friday spent about an hour doing an 'experiment' that an advocate of "IT" asked me to do.
It did nothing but confirm what I already knew & the experiment did nothing to support what he says he is 'actually' doing. That said, I am very glad for him that what he IS actually doing is working rather well for him.
Sometimes delusions can be beneficial, but one should never impose such upon others. If one wishes to be self deluded, that is certainly their choice.
The missing link, personal subjectivity, keeps getting left out of the descriptions of "IT" just as there is a 'missing link' in the supposed evolution of mankind.
The subconscious mind is an Amazing Entity. Some individuals are completely unaware when outside influences are trying to affect theirs while others can at times be consciously aware & can consciously inhibit such influences.
When it comes to playing this game I would rather trust my subconscious mind & the data base that it has built by hitting over a 'million' shots rather than my conscious mind in almost every regard, but... I don't like it when someone or something tries to covertly influence either one.
If others do not mind that, then that too is certainly up to them, but they should know the reality of every situation, so as to make an informed determination.
When one 'attacks' the messenger instead of addressing the 'message', that is an indication that one realizes that one has either lost or is losing the debate, even if they will not admit it outright or even to themselves. They are making a subconscious 'adjustment' to the changing situation.
Those on the outside looking in are quite capable of seeing that reality.
Best Wishes to ALL during this Merry Christmas Season.
Last edited:
Banks
Banned
What visual reference is used to site a shot? Rail, etc.
You have no CLUE as to what "it" is. You prove this over and over with each post you post.
You happen to be pretty good with the girly pictures in NPR and I suspect that is the only reason the mods allow you to stay on AZ. Your other pool related knowledge is totally useless.
The answer to your question is the objective CTEL and objective edge to line that creates the proper objective visual.
You basically look at the same thing on virtually every shot. Very easy unless you are a wooden little boy. Not saying you are a delusional wooden boy or even act like one but the lurkers can certainly make up there own mind by reading your posts. I am very sure that most think you are but that's only my opinion on what others might think.
PS exactly what did Stan say to convince you that it wasn't exactly as stated. After all you have falsely accused Stan in the past about marketing. When called out on it you suddenly became a cricket.
Your supposed explanation does NOT detail in ANY objectively descriptive manner what is objectively different that would indicate any difference from one shot to another.
I think everyone that might be reading these threads knows that "IT" involves the CTE line & then the edge of the cue ball to points referred to as A (or C) & B on the object ball.
I'm rather sorry to say that I doubt that you even understand what the issue is.
Yet you will say that you have provided an 'answer'....
BUT... your response is no answer to the specifics of the question. Hence you've really provided no answer.
It was the 5 shot perception you tube video & what was said there that convinced me that it is not as described & that there would be nothing forthcoming to indicate otherwise & hence there was no need for me to purchase the new DVD that came out later & no need for me to purchase the book when it comes out either... because... my ONLY intrigue & interest in it was the assertion of it being 'an objective aiming system'.
There are approximately 25* of separation between shot #1 & shot #5 in that 'perception' you tube video.
That means that there are at least 25 separate individual different center pocket shots. Where are the 25 different objective indicators for each of those shots?
As to the 'marketing' tactic employed by the proponents. I did not become a cricket. I merely responded by asking a question. Is Stan saying that "IT" is NOT an objective aiming system? Please note that the word 'marketing' is in singles quotes. That can be & is an indication that the word is not being used in the literal sense. Some tried to get technical with the meaning of that word as a 'way out'. Word of mouth can be & is a form of 'marketing'.
Someone else went through the trouble to go back & look at the very early posts but said that some have disappeared. Barton admitted that if Stan did not use the phrase 'totally objective', he did. The word totally was no big deal until the proponents tried to make it a big deal & another 'way out'.
So... if the basis & foundation of the method is NOT objective & it was never affirmed to be such, or claimed to be such, or described to be such, then what has ALL of the hub bub been all about for so long & so many years...
even before I relatively recently came onto the seen?
IF there is no contention that it is 'an objective aiming system' & that can be stated & be made clear...
then I would have no issue with "IT".
Merry Christmas.
Last edited:
So, you admit that Stan never said that it was 100% objective, yet you have thousands of posts decrying just that. Does that sound like something an intellectual with near genius IQ, using common sense would do? And, that is not even to mention the fact that a system does not have to be 100% objective to be correctly labeled as an objective system. Just as a leather shoe does not have to be entirely made of 100% leather to be labeled 100% leather. (the soles and stitching are not leather)
That's also not to mention the fact that while something may at first be subjective, once learned, it then becomes objective. A nice fact that you continually omit despite claiming to be using rational, logical judgement.
So, that leaves us wondering just why you spend countless hours and thousands of derogatory, attacking posts complaining about something that exists only in your mind? That being, Stan stating 100% objective, which he never did?
That's an odd way to define objective. Do you know any non-CTE examples to illustrate what that means?
pj
chgo
As usual you misstate so much that I can not hardly find ANY truth in your post here without going over it with a magnifying glass.
That is one of the issues why Dan, I, & others have relegated you to irrelevant & insignificant regarding the discussion of the subject.
I have NOT admitted that Stan never used the word totally. Barton said that IF Stan did not, he did. It is also Barton that has wanted to assign percentages of objective vs subjective.
That can not be done regarding the nature of something.
It is either one or the other. Your analogies, as usual, are inapplicable & can not be logically associated with the topic & subject matter of the topic.
One could use 99% of objective means & a process could still be subjective in it's nature.
Something that is subjective does not become objective. As usual you misinterpreted that article for your own purpose.
Something that is subjective can become more accurate as the process is learned over time by repetition... but it is still a subjective process. One is still using their subjectivity because the process was NOT... & is NOT an objective process.
The ONLY reason that I engage with you at all is because of the inaccurate & outlandish things that you almost always say that need to & should be corrected so as to not allow you to give the wrong & untrue impressions that you attempt to give.
Merry Christmas.
Last edited:
- Status