Anyone know who holds the record for saying "science" in a sentence the most in one day?
I think we have a contender on AZ.
I think we have a contender on AZ.
Question
- Thread starter cookie man
- Start date
Pj the sphereologest
You know, my friend, some of these people are so confounded DUMB!
Their egos, like those of most pool room bums, are something to behold.
The "Science Guy" proclaims …."science makes no mistakes" or words to that effect.
All any person has to do is go to a search engine and enter the words "mistakes made by great scientists" and there is all a person needs to know. Even Darwin and Einstein were wrong on certain things.
French Roots
Member
"Scientist" as human beings have & do make mistakes. Once the mistakes are rooted out & a theory has been "proven" then & only then does it become recognized & acknowledged as a Scientific FACT & such then becomes "Known Science".
It is much more likely that in the realm of the Sciences involved in the cue sports along with the Biological Anatomy of the Eyes & how they work that a Grammar or even H.S. Teacher would be much more likely to make a "mistake" than it would be that a Scientist would.
Darwin's "idea" regarding Human Beings was NOT based in ANY science. Hence, he was wrong & his "idea" regarding Human Beings has been completely debunked by many means including now what SCIENCE knows about DNA. Human Beings have NOT descended from Neanderthals...
and Stan Shuffett's CTE is NOT what it is said to be. That is not a bash on what it actually is... which is a method requiring subjective determinations, assessments, & input.
Why would one want to utilize a very complicated contrive method over a very simple method such as Poololgy is beyond me, but to each their own.
It is much more likely that in the realm of the Sciences involved in the cue sports along with the Biological Anatomy of the Eyes & how they work that a Grammar or even H.S. Teacher would be much more likely to make a "mistake" than it would be that a Scientist would.
Darwin's "idea" regarding Human Beings was NOT based in ANY science. Hence, he was wrong & his "idea" regarding Human Beings has been completely debunked by many means including now what SCIENCE knows about DNA. Human Beings have NOT descended from Neanderthals...
and Stan Shuffett's CTE is NOT what it is said to be. That is not a bash on what it actually is... which is a method requiring subjective determinations, assessments, & input.
Why would one want to utilize a very complicated contrive method over a very simple method such as Poololgy is beyond me, but to each their own.
You would have to first describe the complicated contrived method for one to make that determination. Then you would have to prove the science behind your opinion. I've heard nothing but good things about Poolology, have you bought Brian's book? I've seen poolology in action first hand. Personally i'll stick to looking at the same thing on every shot. Very very easy once learned.
French Roots
Member
Stan Shuffet's CTE was TWO DVD'S deep & still in need of a 400+ page full size book of instructions for supposedly The Truth to be told... & it has come out that one must now see 2 lines - 1 each with a separate eye & a turned head & also see 2 cue balls when looking at the object ball.
Poolology is note the position of the balls on the table, look through their center lines to the rail, do some simple math & then shoot along that fractional line.
I have purchased Poolology and I would recommend it to any newbie, novice, or even an experienced player just to have the knowledge as a tool i the box.
That said, In general it is not for me as I am in no need of it.
Poolology is note the position of the balls on the table, look through their center lines to the rail, do some simple math & then shoot along that fractional line.
I have purchased Poolology and I would recommend it to any newbie, novice, or even an experienced player just to have the knowledge as a tool i the box.
That said, In general it is not for me as I am in no need of it.
Last edited: