Please vote me on or off the island! No mercy!

Dan White said:
OK, let's see all the names I've called Stan prior to my long overdue reply.

Go ahead, see if you can find one name I've called Stan since say January. If I did, it would have been a direct reply to something negative he said to me, but I don't believe I even returned fire then.

If you like I could start quite a long list of schoolyard names and GFY's that Stan has directed at me, and that I ignored to be civil.
Click to expand...

Look at me, I never do anything wrong.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
I'll look tomorrow. But you're constantly harassing, baiting, fighting, instigating and in your own back handed way calling him a LIAR in each and every post you make about CTE and what he states about how to perform it.
Click to expand...

Don't forget, he gets his late night drunk posts removed somehow.
 
BC21 said:
Yes I see myself in it. I wrote it. I even mentioned "me" as one who questions/challenges certain aspects of CTE. That's not being negative. And I've never called anyone here any childish names or belittled them in any manner. Since February, I also never read a word from Dan White where he resorted to name calling, though I have seen too many times where he was called stupid little childish names, and some not so childish. But I didn't go there in my post. Im not making any of this up... it's here in numerous posts for anyone to read the proof of what I'm saying.

The fact is there have been questions I've asked that do not get answered, not necessarily with how CTE works, but with some of the words used to describe it.
Click to expand...

Haven't been answered or you don't want to accept the answers.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfigueroa

Bet.

Lou Figueroa


Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm

I'll take it. How much?


cookie man said:
You know Lou will only go for 20 dollars on a lock. Probably pennies on this bet from Lou
Click to expand...

True. But I'm looking to go up to $2 Grand. That's the amount of money he got out of the JB bet and his partner got the rest.

Since he has that floating around, I'd like to have it. Although it wasn't HIS money put up for the bet. His WIFE was his sponsor and backed him. He had ZIP into it.
 
BC21 said:
I really don't think there are CTE "haters". That's a label assigned to people that ask challenging questions or point out obvious stumbling blocks. I have people email me on occasion that don't understand something in my book, or they challenge certain aspects of the system regarding the numbers. I don't believe they are out to ruin me or my work. Dr Dave politely let me know that he felt Poolology was a little too difficult for a beginner to start out on. AtLarge did a brief review and we exchanged a few civil posts. I didn't call these guys "haters", and I didn't attack them for their comments or questions, regardless of whether I agreed or didn't agree with them.
Click to expand...

Yea you get emails with questions from people that have actually bought your book and want to learn. Stan does also from people that have bought dvd's.
What you don't get is blatant harassment from people who haven't spent a dime and have admittedly said they don't want to learn CTE. They are just here to harass. It's a shame the mods don't address that issue.
Long live the internet bad guys i guess
 
BC21 said:
That's not an answer to my question. There is a known aim line from CCB to the 3/4 aim point on the OB. There is a known CTE line from the Edge of CB to A on OB (ETA). Each of these lines is a known repeatable visual. The only difference is that one is the exact aim solution as seen directly from behind the CB, and the other is an offset line (not directly viewed from CCB) that, when combined with another offset visual line, then a pivot or sweep, will yield an aim solution. My question is: If the ETA line is objective then why isn't the simple CCB to 3/4 aim point line considered objective?

And for the record, Poolology gives you a known fractional aim point. It's not like the traditional quarters system where players need experience or have to resort to guessing.
Click to expand...

You are only using one line from your system. Do you consider Poolology to objective in it's entirety?
 
Stan,
My vote is for you to stay. You may never know how much improvement you have made in my game. From the lessons I took from you, the forums and the You Tube videos your work is excellent. I can't wait until your book comes out so I can continue to learn from your knowledge of CTE. Thank you for your time and effort explaining all the details. I am a better player because of you.
 
cookie man said:
Haven't been answered or you don't want to accept the answers.
Click to expand...

Could be a little of both I guess. I mean, if we're each wearing blue shirts, same shade, and I ask if our shirts are the same color, and you say no. I guess that's an answer, but it's hard to accept.
 
cookie man said:
You are only using one line from your system. Do you consider Poolology to objective in it's entirety?
Click to expand...

No. I believe it's objective as far as determining an aim point. Beyond that a player must develop the skills and experience needed to hit that aim point with repeated consistency. Since varying skill levels will produce varying accuracy, I'd have to say it is subjective, as I would say about any learned or developed skill, especially pool when it comes to applying spin, speed, and accounting for table conditions, etc... It's all subjective.
 
Well, there goes any reason for me to even look at this section.
Oh well, Stan, you're probably better off without it.
 
cookie man said:
Don't forget, he gets his late night drunk posts removed somehow.
Click to expand...

Now I have to respond to that. That is an outright lie and I consider it intentional character assassination. I drink maybe 1 beer a month and I've NEVER removed any of my posts in 15+ years. I almost never even edit them because I proofread before posting. Look at all my posts and you won't see a single edit except for the occasional typo.

Nice baiting tactic, though.
 
Dan White said:
Now I have to respond to that. That is an outright lie and I consider it intentional character assassination. I drink maybe 1 beer a month and I've NEVER removed any of my posts in 15+ years. I almost never even edit them because I proofread before posting. Look at all my posts and you won't see a single edit except for the occasional typo.

Nice baiting tactic, though.
Click to expand...

Respond all you want. Your late night posts certainly have all the characteristics of a drunk posting. Most we can't check on as you have a way to make them magically disappear.
 
BC21 said:
Could be a little of both I guess. I mean, if we're each wearing blue shirts, same shade, and I ask if our shirts are the same color, and you say no. I guess that's an answer, but it's hard to accept.
Click to expand...

Sorry i can't accept that answer. Why won't you give a definitive answer. It's the same question others have asked yet you refuse to give a straight answer
 
BC21 said:
No. I believe it's objective as far as determining an aim point. Beyond that a player must develop the skills and experience needed to hit that aim point with repeated consistency. Since varying skill levels will produce varying accuracy, I'd have to say it is subjective, as I would say about any learned or developed skill, especially pool when it comes to applying spin, speed, and accounting for table conditions, etc... It's all subjective.
Click to expand...

Applying spin, speed, and accounting for table conditions, makes any system subjective. But we were talking about your one line and how you describe it in your book. Do you consider Poolology to be objective by description
 
cookie man said:
Sorry i can't accept that answer. Why won't you give a definitive answer. It's the same question others have asked yet you refuse to give a straight answer
Click to expand...

??? Here's what you asked me:

Originally Posted by cookie man:

"Haven't been answered or you don't want to accept the answers."
Click to expand...

I asked Stan why he thinks there's a difference in objectivity between a known fractional aim line and a known CTE line, like ETA or ETB, ect.... His answer was "apples and oranges". Then I asked him the same question I asked you, about wearing the same color shirts.....his reply was "believe what you want."

Would you accept those answers as definitive professional wisdom? I don't think so. Simply put, the man may be a very good instructor and a great guy, but it seems that he is so obsessed with CTE that he refused to address any other logic or obvious facts that contradict his obsession.
 
cookie man said:
Applying spin, speed, and accounting for table conditions, makes any system subjective. But we were talking about your one line and how you describe it in your book. Do you consider Poolology to be objective by description
Click to expand...

I ready said yes, the process of determining a fractional aim point using Poolology is objective. The skill that a player needs to accurately hit the aim point is subjective because not just any player can step up and do it, not without having basic stroke fundamentals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top