LnL,
I spent years working in Research and Development. What I learned there was that all of the theory, all of the things they could or couldn't prove on a piece of paper or computer didn't amount to a hill of beans when the rubber met the road. Ultimately what happened out in the real world was what mattered. After reading page after page of high blown thoughts pro and con about CTE I know little more about it than when I started. I think I learned one thing from one of Stan's posts.
On the other hand I see a very solid player that I have watched for years kick his game up a notch using CTE. When someone has been playing for a lifetime and suddenly his game takes a jump, that is huge. Fifty pages of testimonials about how wonderful CTE or Pro1 is wouldn't impress me as much as that one real world "proof" that it works.
Exact or inexact amounts to arguing over how many angels fit on the head of a pin. We can argue with equal validity that anything that is done by a human is exact or inexact, depends on how we define exact. How exact is a baseball players swing? Not very, it isn't exactly the same twice. Yet it often results in two objects traveling at a very high speed meeting at the one intersection that will get the desired result.
A small percentage of people will learn to use CTE/Pro1 effectively for themselves regardless of how or why and think it is wonderful. Most people won't find it effective in their testing for whatever reason and will decide it is snake oil. That is the way things always work out.
Years ago I discovered that I could work to tolerances using hand tools that it would be almost impossible to duplicate in the finest tool room relying on machines. The same technique is credited with putting several people in a Hall of Fame, bettering a world record, and making a man bald!
The lesson is that we don't all get the same results from the same thing. (Last I knew the bald headed man is still working on getting in the Hall of Fame though.)
Hu
