PRO ONE DVD: Answering Questions

lfigueroa said:
It's still there -- from Dave's web site:

"from Stan Shuffett (Note: Pro One is Stan's version of CTE. Note also, per Stan's request: the info below presents only "Partial Aspects of Pro One"):"

He goes on from there.

The table I believe you're referring to "CTE Version 4 (as interpreted by dr_dave from the description and examples on Stan Shuffett's Pro One DVD) - 6 lines of aim:" is also still there, just further back up the page.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

OK - so that makes no sense. Why would he say "per Stan's request... this info is partial" ...

YET--- "AGAINST" Stan's request---- he posts the entire content of his DVD just above that?

That makes NO sense.

I'll apologize for calling Dr. Dave a liar. However, he should explain why he respects Stan in one area and then posts his content against his wishes in another area (both on the same page).

whatevern.jpg

What are there two sections for Pro1? Why so far apart?
 
Last edited:
Spidey:
...he posts the entire content of his DVD just above that?

That makes NO sense.
Click to expand...
That's the entire content of Stan's DVD? And he wants how much for it?

You're right - that makes NO sense.

pj
chgo
 
PocketPoint said:
I think I've been pretty nice about the whole thing. I have never met Stan, and I'm sure he is a nice guy. There is nothing wrong with making a living.

I don't think I've ever said a bad word about him.
Click to expand...

You're crazy. You've been implying he's been thieving in your threads and demanding the BCA review his DVD.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
It's a cliff's notes summary of the system. He should be asking $100 for that DVD. He's not asking enough.
Click to expand...
Summaries are common in reviews, and if this one blows the value of the DVD it wasn't worth much to begin with. Dave is obviously trying to discover (for the benefit of all readers who might be interested, not just the CTE Antidefamation Defense League) what kind of system this is.

You clearly can't see anything Dave writes objectively because he's on the "other side". Sound familiar?

pj
chgo
 
Time to face off.

CTE people, pick your top 5, and the non-CTE people pick theirs. Play it out Mosconi Cup-style. Winner is right :D

or maybe, just maybe, live and let live.

-s
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Summaries are common in reviews, and if this one blows the value of the DVD it wasn't worth much to begin with. Dave is obviously trying to discover (for the benefit of all readers who might be interested, not just the CTE Antidefamation Defense League) what kind of system this is.

You clearly can't see anything Dave writes objectively because he's on the "other side". Sound familiar?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

See - that's the issue the "other" side has. The questions he repeats are clearly covered on the DVD. This comes across as being "intentional" and wanting to create confusion on purpose.

For every question he poses, I can quote a time reference (or place) on the DVD that answers the question. How can that be objective? How much time did he invest in learning the DVD "in practice?" If he was "lost" -- why wouldn't he call the source and talk to Stan? At least then, his questions could get answered --- and then, he could compare/contrast that to what he believes in on the DVD (and provide references to such).

THAT'S what an objective reviewer would do. Not "spin".

Dave
 
Spidey:
that's the issue the "other" side has.
Click to expand...
The main issue for you seems to be this "other side" that you think CTE needs to be protected from. The "other side" is just people who see the system differently than you do - their opinions and questions are just as valid as yours, and they're far less defensive about it all. Trying to vilify them probably turns more people away from than toward CTE.

For every question he poses, I can quote a time reference (or place) on the DVD that answers the question.
Click to expand...
So why haven't you? Wouldn't this be helpful for everybody and help sell DVDs for Stan?

I'll be seeing the DVD soon and would appreciate that kind of guidance.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
SpiderWebComm said:
It's a cliff's notes summary of the system. He should be asking $100 for that DVD. He's not asking enough.
Click to expand...

Get real, Spider. If the DVD is unintelligible except to a few who already knew CTE/ProOne, it is worth $0. IMO the DVD was purposely crafted to omit critical information necessary for its reasonable comprehension. You're screaming STFU at Dr. Dave because his small table and brief notes supposedly exposes Stan's entire system. That's what the DVD was supposed to do - GET IT????????. Stans customers are not now supposed to be filling in the spaces purposely left blank, IMO.

What's wrong with you, are you implying it's OK for Stan to air barrel his customers? You really should be kissing Dr. Dave's ass for providing the only meaningful information to date on CTE/ProOne. Because of Dave's information, hopefully Stan will be spared the further embarrasment of hoards of his customers asking for a refund.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
So why haven't you? Wouldn't this be helpful for everybody and help sell DVDs for Stan?

I'll be seeing the DVD soon and would appreciate that kind of guidance.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Because I'm not the one writing an "objective review."

I'll tell ya what--- if Dr. Dave says, "That's not on the DVD" for his questions--- I'll quote the times/places. That way, we can get to the bottom of the objectivity. I know what's on the DVD because I helped make it.

Care to comment on my other thoughts above? Why wouldn't Dr. Dave talk to Stan if he legitimately felt he didn't understand? Why not get the answers - list the answers - and then compare/contrast that to the way the DVD covered the material?

Wouldn't that make sense as an "objective" reviewer?

Dr. Dave should take EXTRA steps in being objective, as others have said, because of his positioning in previous CTE threads (just as guys like you and I are labeled to be on one side or the other regardless).

Dr. Dave should do the EXTRA stuff to remain objective--- not skip all avenues and slant the direction people were expecting without reference.

Wouldn't you agree?
 
shankster8 said:
Get real, Spider. If the DVD is unintelligible except to a few who already knew CTE/ProOne, it is worth $0. IMO the DVD was purposely crafted to omit critical information necessary for its reasonable comprehension. You're screaming STFU at Dr. Dave because his small table and brief notes supposedly exposes Stan's entire system. That's what the DVD was supposed to do - GET IT????????. Stans customers are not now supposed to be filling in the spaces purposely left blank, IMO.

What's wrong with you, are you implying it's OK for Stan to air barrel his customers? You really should be kissing Dr. Dave's ass for providing the only meaningful information to date on CTE/ProOne. Because of Dave's information, hopefully Stan will be spared the further embarrasment of hoards of his customers asking for a refund.
Click to expand...

I stand behind everything I said. I left that little acronym in response to Dr. Dave saying he was "HELPING" Stan with his website. Stan doesn't want his stuff posted on Dr. Dave's website and Dr. Dave never gave Stan the professional courtesy to discuss the info with Stan. So, when Dr. Dave was talking crazy - I couldn't hack listening to it.

Stan air-barrel his clients? The last time I checked the CTE poll, an overwhelming % was positive. So why would he be air barreling or why would he be embarrassed? Care to explain?
 
Spidey:
For every question he poses, I can quote a time reference (or place) on the DVD that answers the question.
Click to expand...
Me:
So why haven't you? Wouldn't this be helpful for everybody and help sell DVDs for Stan?

I'll be seeing the DVD soon and would appreciate that kind of guidance.
Click to expand...
Because I'm not the one writing an "objective review."
Click to expand...
What sense does that make? It looks like you've chosen Dave as your prime example of the "other side" and you just can't bring yourself to be anything but pissy to him - even if being adult about it would be helpful to everybody else.
...if Dr. Dave says, "That's not on the DVD" for his questions--- I'll quote the times/places. That way, we can get to the bottom of the objectivity.
Click to expand...
See? You're all about one-upsmanship. People learning about CTE comes in a distant second for you. Dave's not a complete angel, but you could learn a lot from his example if you were able to see it.

Why wouldn't Dr. Dave talk to Stan if he legitimately felt he didn't understand?
Click to expand...
He's answered that question. I take him at his word, and his answer makes sense to me. But you're just using it as another excuse to refuse to engage with him - maybe because you're afraid if you really try to answer his questions you'll end up showing that you don't know all you think you do?

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
What sense does that make? It looks like you've chosen Dave as your prime example of the "other side" and you just can't bring yourself to be anything but pissy to him - even if being adult about it would be helpful to everybody else.

See? You're all about one-upsmanship. People learning about CTE comes in a distant second for you. Dave's not a complete angel, but you could learn a lot from his example if you were able to see it.

He's answered that question. I take him at his word, and his answer makes sense to me. But you're just using it as another excuse to refuse to engage with him - maybe because you're afraid if you really try to answer his questions you'll end up showing that you don't know all you think you do?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I think he won't call Stan because he's afraid of the call. Stan (like many instructors - he's not the only one) tries to avoid the forums due to fights/innuendos/misconceptions/etc---- he said he'd help people with a simple phone call. Therefore, Dr. Dave should take him up on the offer.

To throw your nose up and say--- "Nope, nope...only on az---- only wanna talk on azb" ---- that's ridiculous.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
I'll apologize for calling Dr. Dave a liar.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

What about your "shit pool of ignorance" comment? Does that one still apply to me?

SpiderWebComm said:
However, he should explain why he respects Stan in one area and then posts his content against his wishes in another area (both on the same page).

whatevern.jpg

What are there two sections for Pro1? Why so far apart?
Click to expand...
I don't mean any respect or disrespect to Stan on my website. My site is meant to be an information resource, not a platform for expressing my feelings about individuals.

Now I see why you might have been confused into thinking I removed something from my site (and later put it back). You were probably looking in the wrong place!!!

I give a very basic description of Pro One, as interpreted by me, here:

I present my summary of how I interpret the fundamental information on Stan's DVD here:

I also have some past quotes from Stan concerning CTE and Pro-One summarized here:

In the past, Stan asked me to add the following quote above the text I had quoted from him:
the info below presents only "Partial Aspects of Pro One"​
I did so.

Maybe you were looking at one of three areas, thinking it somehow replaced one or both of the other two. But these three sections have all remained on my site. In other words, I have never removed any of the information. Why do you keep falesly accusing me of this, and what difference would it make anyway? The information is there, always has been, and always will be, unless new insights and/or information emerge, in which case I might add and/or remove information as appropriate.

Your source of confusion might have been because I previously listed "Pro One" on my aiming FAQ page both as a main bullet under "aiming" and as a sub bullet under "CTE." Thank you for pointing this out. To avoid future confusion, I've removed the sub bullet and there are now links among the three areas. Now, there should be less chance for confusion in the future.

I hope you can now move on with your life and cease your insults and false accusations concerning something I never did!

Regards,
Dave
 
Last edited:
dr_dave said:
I hope you can now move on with your life and cease your insults and false accusations concerning something I never did!
Click to expand...
You guys are spending uncounted hours debating the black hole that CTE/Pro1 is when there are so much more productive things you could be doing.

I hope all of you will try to move on with your lives.
 
Last edited:
dr_dave said:
Thank you.

What about your "shit pool of ignorance" comment? Does that one still apply to me?

I don't mean any respect or disrespect to Stan on my website. My site is meant to be an information resource, not a platform for expressing my feelings about individuals.

Now I see why you might have been confused into thinking I removed something from my site (and later put it back). You were probably looking in the wrong place!!!

I give a very basic description of Pro One, as interpreted by me, here:

I present my summary of how I interpret the fundamental information on Stan's DVD here:

I also have some past quotes from Stan concerning CTE and Pro-One summarized here:

In the past, Stan asked me to add the following quote above the text I had quoted from him:
the info below presents only "Partial Aspects of Pro One"​
I did so.

Maybe you were looking at one of three areas, thinking it somehow replaced one or both of the other two. But these three sections have all remained on my site. In other words, I have never removed any of the information. Why do you keep falesly accusing me of this, and what difference would it make anyway? The information is there, always has been, and always will be, unless new insights and/or information emerge, in which case I might add and/or remove information as appropriate.

Your source of confusion might have been because I previously listed "Pro One" on my aiming FAQ page both as a main bullet under "aiming" and as a sub bullet under "CTE." Thank you for pointing this out. To avoid future confusion, I've removed the sub bullet and there are now links among the three areas. Now, there should be less chance for confusion in the future.

I hope you can now move on with your life and cease your insults and false accusations concerning something I never did!

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

I apologize (as I always will) when I'm wrong. I thought your PRO1 content was all in one section. Not one half being with CTE and the other at the bottom of the page near the bottom near shaft aiming. That makes no sense.

I probably could have worded that one comment differently; however, it's true. You love having people post contradicting information in these threads versus just calling Stan. Not calling Stan is inexcusable as an academic--- to not go to the source and rely on secondary opinion.

Call Stan and end this.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
What sense does that make? It looks like you've chosen Dave as your prime example of the "other side" and you just can't bring yourself to be anything but pissy to him - even if being adult about it would be helpful to everybody else.

See? You're all about one-upsmanship. People learning about CTE comes in a distant second for you. Dave's not a complete angel, but you could learn a lot from his example if you were able to see it.

He's answered that question. I take him at his word, and his answer makes sense to me. But you're just using it as another excuse to refuse to engage with him - maybe because you're afraid if you really try to answer his questions you'll end up showing that you don't know all you think you do?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

The Phoenix rises from the ashes. :D
Welcome back Patrick! :)
 
PocketPoint said:
Lou,

I'm considered a troll here if I just raise a question against CTE. What should I do?
Click to expand...

Wow your an idiot. Your not a troll for asking questions. Your a troll form asking them then belittling everyone who answers them. You also get on every cte thread and belittle everyone on it. I don't know what to tell you man... If I see threads that don't interest me i don't click them. So if I had no interest in cte. I didn't like it or thought it didn't work I wouldn't bother to read it. That's why your a troll and I'm not. Lol its not complicated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top