Same Old Same Old

Patrick Johnson said:
I sincerely hope Stan isn't listening to your expert advice about this - for his sake and his pocket book's. Will you reimburse him after encouraging him to do something so foolish?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Surely, you do not think that you have a free ticket to label my business as irrational from now on and I am just going to take it. I do have a lot of dollars invested and many more to come. This is a business matter.
I am tired of it......I am like most people in that I can only be pushed so far.
I do not expect you to stop.......so I will do what I have to do. My word and my reputation is very valuable to me.

Stan Shuffett
 
stan shuffett said:
Surely, you do not think that you have a free ticket to label my business as irrational from now on and I am just going to take it. I do have a lot of dollars invested and many more to come. This is a business matter.
I am tired of it......I am like most people in that I can only be pushed so far.
I do not expect you to stop.......so I will do what I have to do. My word and my reputation is very valuable to me.

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...

I think the easiest charge to get against him would be a HARASSMENT charge.
18 years of non-stop harassment and thousands of posts all down in writing as evidence at RSB and AZ. A no brainer of a charge and it grows faster than poison ivy on a daily basis.

I would only hope AZB wasn't implicated in any way for allowing Pat Johnson's harassment via their website when it would be just as easy to stop it with a lifetime ban.
Hard to say how a legal case could flow.
 
Last edited:
SpiderWebComm said:
I think a pool table in the court room would settle the case in a flash with Stan demonstrating and explaining it and Patrick attempting to do likewise in the debunking part.
Click to expand...
I doubt that I'd have to say a word.

Will you take responsibility for egging Stan on?

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I doubt that I'd have to say a word.

Will you take responsibility for egging Stan on?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

When you're so full of words here (and something else) why be quiet at any time?

Again, Stan is his own man.

YOU'RE the one egging him on with your constant harassment.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I think the case would be thrown out before I could say anything - and then you'd have a chance to take responsibility for the embarrassment and expenses you're encouraging Stan to incur.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I would hope the court of judges right here on AZ who run and own the place will stop your harassment and libelous actions before it ever hits a courtroom.

If need be, I'll pay money into it myself to relieve the financial burden.

If the matter ever is pressed with an attorney, that means YOU'LL be forced to hire and pay for one yourself. That is unless you think you can handle it which you probably do since you view yourself as the smartest man in the world regarding pool, law, politics, philosophy, religion, actually everything.

We'll drag it out and bust you financially. You won't have a pot to pee in for the rest of your aging miserable life.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
I would hope the court of judges right here on AZ who run and own the place will stop your harassment and libelous actions before it ever hits a courtroom.

If need be, I'll pay money into it myself to relieve the financial burden.

If the matter ever is pressed with an attorney, that means YOU'LL be forced to hire and pay for one yourself. That is unless you think you can handle it which you probably do since you view yourself as the smartest man in the world regarding pool, law, politics, philosophy, religion, actually everything.

We'll drag it out and bust you financially. You won't have a pot to pee in for the rest of your aging miserable life.
Click to expand...
Quoting for future reference.

pj
chgo
 
Jal said:
I don't think you got the gist of my meaning.

I think a judge would have a big problem with anything that claimed to be objective, as in doesn't involve subjective interpretation/memorization, yet is beyond mathematics or logic. I remember your early attempts at presenting some of the geometry (e.g. shot arcs) and I don't think he or she would be too happy with that, either.

Jim
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't thought this through very much. No judge would have any problem with Stan's statements about it being an objective system. First off, to be an objective system does not equate to every last part has to be objective. Look no further than Rick's statement about leather goods when he got totally blown out of the water on leather shoes.

Second, you might want to do a little research on objectivity. Objectivity can be learned. Where something may initially be subjective, after training it will be very objective.

Not to mention the history of this forum and those against CTE. They single out CTE, and have no problems with any other aiming system ever presented on here as far as terminology goes. (TOI is supposedly not an aiming system, and while the premise of it is true, the way it was described is not) So, any argument about false claims throws your (person taking it to a judge) logic and credibility right out the window. Rather, it shows intent to liable, not intent to state only truth in advertising.

Third, as far as the math goes, all that has been claimed is that the system connects to a 2x1 table. That can be shown and verified. You can not show the statement false.
 
Neil said:
You obviously haven't thought this through very much. No judge would have any problem with Stan's statements about it being an objective system. First off, to be an objective system does not equate to every last part has to be objective. Look no further than Rick's statement about leather goods when he got totally blown out of the water on leather shoes.

Second, you might want to do a little research on objectivity. Objectivity can be learned. Where something may initially be subjective, after training it will be very objective.

Not to mention the history of this forum and those against CTE. They single out CTE, and have no problems with any other aiming system ever presented on here as far as terminology goes. (TOI is supposedly not an aiming system, and while the premise of it is true, the way it was described is not) So, any argument about false claims throws your (person taking it to a judge) logic and credibility right out the window. Rather, it shows intent to liable, not intent to state only truth in advertising.

Third, as far as the math goes, all that has been claimed is that the system connects to a 2x1 table. That can be shown and verified. You can not show the statement false.
Click to expand...
I hope for his own sake Stan gets real legal counsel from attorneys who actually care for his well being and aren't just looking to book some hours on his dime.

You guys with no skin in this should be more careful with your legal advice - if you encourage him to do something silly it won't cost you anything.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I hope for his own sake Stan gets real legal counsel from attorneys who actually care for his well being and aren't just looking to book some hours on his dime.

You guys with no skin in this should be more careful with your legal advice - if you encourage him to do something silly it won't cost you anything.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...


You better take your own advice big mouth by shutting it once and for all. He already stated he has attorneys and this is a business matter as well as saying his last word about it here on the forum. You've been told.

Keep up the harassment and you'll find out soon enough. It would be ill advised to test it and continue what you've always done and gotten away with. You'll soon be having an attorney booking a bunch of hours on your dime.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that lawsuit is going to play out well. How the hell are you going to establish wether an aiming system is objective or not? That will be a tall order, even for a physicist ,a philosopher or an etymologist.

Someone saying your product is no good, is not ground for a lawsuit, is it?

I'm not expert on the US legal system, but most places you can say that a person is dumb (for instance) without having to face any legal consquence of that, since it is merely an opinion. If you lie about a person doing something, like defrauding you, that is a different matter. If you can prove it is true, then you are in the clear. Lets say you think a self help book makes fraudulent claims and get sued over it. Then the guy who wrote it hires an expert and you do likewise, they contradict eachother. Then I'm not sure how it will play out? I guess the plaintif will probably lose, as long as none of them can produce hard evidence? Testimonials probably won't count as that.
 
Neil said:
You obviously haven't thought this through very much. No judge would have any problem with Stan's statements about it being an objective system. First off, to be an objective system does not equate to every last part has to be objective.
Click to expand...
Neil, you're not serious, are you? Think about what you're saying in the context of Stan's statements (e.g., center pocket system, no estimation/guessing/judgement involved as with ghostball, fractional, etc.). If it's not a 100% connect-the-dots sort of system, then how do you get around the memorization/adjustment/feel aspect we've been insisting must be involved?

Neil said:
Not to mention the history of this forum and those against CTE. They single out CTE, and have no problems with any other aiming system ever presented on here as far as terminology goes.
Click to expand...
But we have had problems with other aiming systems. Terminolgy-wise, CTE certainly stands out, though, with its liberal use of fuzzy-wuzzies such as "acquiring a perception," "visual intelligence," and, well, see below.

Neil said:
Third, as far as the math goes, all that has been claimed is that the system connects to a 2x1 table. That can be shown and verified. You can not show the statement false.
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, it's a meaningless slogan. But here's a chance to demonstrate how wrong I am. Care to show, first, what it means, and second, that it's true? I promise that if it makes at least some sense to me, I'll acknowledge it.

Jim
 
Jal said:
Neil, you're not serious, are you? Think about what you're saying in the context of Stan's statements (e.g., center pocket system, no estimation/guessing/judgement involved as with ghostball, fractional, etc.). If it's not a 100% connect-the-dots sort of system, then how do you get around the memorization/adjustment/feel aspect we've been insisting must be involved?

But we have had problems with other aiming systems. Terminolgy-wise, CTE certainly stands out, though, with its liberal use of fuzzy-wuzzies such as "acquiring a perception," "visual intelligence," and, well, see below.

As far as I can tell, it's a meaningless slogan. But here's a chance to demonstrate how wrong I am. Care to show, first, what it means, and second, that it's true? I promise that if it makes at least some sense to me, I'll acknowledge it.

Jim
Click to expand...

It's been covered many times before. You didn't acknowledge it then, why should I go to the trouble of typing it out again now? The terms you call fuzzy-wuzzy are only that way to those that make no or very little effort to even learn the system.

Honestly, you guys sound like a bunch of guys in algebra class complaining how it makes no sense when you haven't even learned basic math yet. But, you still want to come across as experts on algebra.
 
Neil said:
It's been covered many times before. You didn't acknowledge it then, why should I go to the trouble of typing it out again now? The terms you call fuzzy-wuzzy are only that way to those that make no or very little effort to even learn the system.

Honestly, you guys sound like a bunch of guys in algebra class complaining how it makes no sense when you haven't even learned basic math yet. But, you still want to come across as experts on algebra.
Click to expand...

Well, here it is from the horses mouth. Nothing about why the 2x1 ratio makes CTE works. Just statements with no proof.

It is quite apparent that CTE users do not understand the concept of burden of proof. If someone states that CTE works because of the 2x1 ratio, the burden of proof is on them.

My name is Hal Houle. Started playing in 1934. Began instructing pool in
1945. Still doing it. Teach professionals, very advanced players, and
road money players.

3 angles for all shots, on any size pool table, including snooker & bar
tables. Includes; pocketing, caroms, single rail banks, double rail
banks, 2, 3, and 4 rail banks, and double kiss banks.

All tables have a 2 to 1 ratio; 3 1/2 x 7, 4 x 8, 4 ½ x 9, 5 x 10, 6 x
12. Always twice as long as it is wide. Table corners are 90 degree
angles. Laying a cue from side pocket to corner pocket forms a 45
degree angle. Laying a cue from side pocket to middle diamond on same
end rail, forms a 30 degree angle. Laying a cue from side pocket to
first diamond on the same end rail forms a 45 degree angle. 3 angles
total 90 degrees, the same angles formed by table corners.

CB relation, to OB relation, to POCKET relation is always 15, 30, or 45
degrees. Simple solution. 2 places on CB to aim with; always in same
places. 3 places on OB to aim at, always in same places. 2 places on
CB, 3 places on OB; 2 x 3 = 6 pockets. Depending upon how CB and OB and
pocket lie in relation to one another, can pocket OB directly into
pocket or bank into any one of remaining 5 pockets. Reverse is true. If
relationship of CB to OB to POCKET can only be a bank, so be it.

No need to look at pocket or cushion while lining up place on CB at
place on OB. 3 angles. Only requirement is to recognize shot is 15, 30,
or 45 degree angle. Recognizing 3 angles can be done instantly by
aiming one of 2 CB places at one of 3 OB places. Will be obvious which
OB place is correct. Any time one of 2 places on CB is aimed at one of
3 places on OB, OB must go to pocket. Choose correctly and OB will go
to chosen pocket. Professionals know this aiming system, but are a
closed fraternity; you are the enemy. Interested in where those places
are?

CB 2 places ; left edge, right edge.

OB 3 places ; center of left half, center of 0B, center of right half.
Halves and center face straight at edges of CB, not facing toward
pocket. If working on a work bench at home, there wouldn't be a pocket.
You'd line up edge of CB at target on OB without pocket influence.

Cutting left 15 degrees, aim CB left edge at center of OB left half.
Cutting left 30 degrees, aim CB left edge at OB center. Cutting left 45
degrees, aim CB left edge at center of OB right half.

Cutting right 15 degrees, aim CB right edge at center of OB right half.
Cutting right 30 degrees, aim CB right edge at OB center. Cutting right
45 degrees, aim CB right edge at center of OB left half.

Get down and aim your old way, you will be close to where you should be
aiming. Look to see (without changing your head or eye position) where
CB edge is aiming at OB. On every shot, the CB edge is always aiming at
those OB places.

System is for any shot; pocketing, single banks, double banks, double
kiss banks, multiple banks, caroms, combinations. The shot remaining is
extreme cut for any shots over 45 degrees. Aim CB edge at center of
half of the half of 0B (¼). Don't let pocket influence you. Have a
friend hold ball tray between OB and pocket, so you can't see pocket.
You would've chosen 15, 30, or 45 degree angle before friend put ball
tray in place. Have fun, don't tell friend how you pocket OB without
seeing pocket.


BTW PJ has not libeled Stan at all. Yall best look closer if you think he has.
 
The reason that there are no issues with the descriptions of other systems used is because they can be explained in clear terms with diagrams.

All CTE users can do is make statements without proof.

Well in a court of law, that ain't gonna work. Proof will be needed. Real documented proof and not just statements without facts and thats all Stan has. There is a difference in poking holes in CTE and bad mouthing Stan which PJ has not done.

If the system has merit, than nothing anyone can say about it that will do harm. I mean the statement has been made that CTE growing world wide which kinda goes against the harming Stans sells of it.

Threatening lawsuits, especially frivolous one like this, (if it ever happens) is just showing how weak a person is themselves.

Shows a lack of belief in CTE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top