Oh, lets see, in about 20 posts, 10 videos, ect. Like I said, you know nothing about it, yet feel qualified to talk about it. Now, for once, hold to your word and STOP!
Stan posted another youtube---Subjectivity, Objectivity, and a little CTE
- Thread starter JE54
- Start date
Oh, lets see, in about 20 posts, 10 videos, ect. Like I said, you know nothing about it, yet feel qualified to talk about it. Now, for once, hold to your word and STOP!
Here it is from a another source said differently.
ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral
"I was hoping to get an objective and pragmatic report"
And yet another source:
subjective - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/subjective
Subjective is the opposite of objective, which refers to things that are more clear-cut. That Earth has one moon is objective — it's a fact. Whether the moon is pretty or not is subjective — not everyone will agree. Facts are objective, but opinions are subjective.
And a comparison form another source:
Comparison chart
Objective: Based upon Observation of measurable facts
SUbjective: Personal opinions, assumptions, interpretations and beliefs
Last edited:
Take a specific shot that requires a CTEL/A alignment, either pivot.
Everyone has a visual center, whether that is on their nose or otherwise. That doesn't matter, what does matter is you use *your* visual center. Stand behind the cueball and align yourself to CTEL/A, just as the DVDs demonstrate. This only looks perfect from exactly one spot. If you move left or right a millimeter, you lose it. It may be a bit unnatural at first, but with some practice it become easy to see and align. This procedure is identical for everyone. The physical alignment is easily repeatable for each individual.
From this position move exactly straight in on CCB. Bring your cue in from the side and lay it 1/2 tip off CCB. Once there, turn the tip to center. A very slight movement.
The above procedure is identical and repeatable for anyone and everyone. This is what Stan means by "objective". Very clear visual alignments, systematic, repeatable process. No guesswork. No adjustments. Although the procedure is the same, our perception gives us a unique physical alignment for every shot. This is not something you need to concern yourself with at a conscious level, you just execute as prescribed, perception does the rest. I think people get way to hung up on all the logistics of what is happening perception-wise. You don't have to. Just execute as prescribed. It is concise and repeatable. If that is not "objective" to you, then take your arguments to wikipedia or something, they are not conducive to the matter regarding CTE and objectivity.
Everyone has a visual center, whether that is on their nose or otherwise. That doesn't matter, what does matter is you use *your* visual center. Stand behind the cueball and align yourself to CTEL/A, just as the DVDs demonstrate. This only looks perfect from exactly one spot. If you move left or right a millimeter, you lose it. It may be a bit unnatural at first, but with some practice it become easy to see and align. This procedure is identical for everyone. The physical alignment is easily repeatable for each individual.
From this position move exactly straight in on CCB. Bring your cue in from the side and lay it 1/2 tip off CCB. Once there, turn the tip to center. A very slight movement.
The above procedure is identical and repeatable for anyone and everyone. This is what Stan means by "objective". Very clear visual alignments, systematic, repeatable process. No guesswork. No adjustments. Although the procedure is the same, our perception gives us a unique physical alignment for every shot. This is not something you need to concern yourself with at a conscious level, you just execute as prescribed, perception does the rest. I think people get way to hung up on all the logistics of what is happening perception-wise. You don't have to. Just execute as prescribed. It is concise and repeatable. If that is not "objective" to you, then take your arguments to wikipedia or something, they are not conducive to the matter regarding CTE and objectivity.
That's been posted a number of times on here.
Yet that is the issue.
To say that it is objective when it technically is not gives the impression that it is not subjective.
I would not have wasted the time that I did with it for not the description of objective & others should not be drawn in by that description either.
If anyone wants to try it knowing that it involves subjectivity then that is certainly fine.
By subjectivity, I mean as a core component & not just the subjectivity of choosing what visual to use for a given shot that some seem to be using as a diversion from the main issue.
Your comparison is of a physical nature regarding 'feel'. I think in CTE it is more of a mental issue in choosing the line not in the 'feel' of guiding a scalpel or the cue stick.
So I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make with that analogy.
Best 2 You & All,
Rick
Then you should be able to post where Stan has said that the core nature of CTE is subjective & not objective so that this discussion can end.
If that is what you truly want then why have you not done so already?
If it exists, then I missed it.
It would seem to be a very easy solution. Why don't you simply do it?
Post where Stan has made a statement to that affect & bring this 'discussion' to a close.
If Stan has said such then much time & effort has been wasted by CTE proponents making arguments to defend what never existed.
Last edited:
So have the one's that you posted. It's okay for you to re-post something to make your point but others are not allowed to do so.
I have no idea whether Sbrogdon has seen what I posted or not.
I am rather sure that there are newcomers to this discussion as well. It seems that you often forget about the silent lurkers that only read.
Last edited:
I have in the past, as have others. I'm not doing your work for you. You don't even know what you are talking about, so why don't you just stop posting about it. It won't close, because you have a fixation to try and destroy those you feel have offended you in some way. You are a very vindictive person and you show it with every post you make about it.
Did you even read what you posted? It took your whole nonsense argument and blew it right out of the water! Yet, here you still are arguing against it. You have serious, serious, problems.
You are the one making the claim that he said it is totally objective. You prove it or stop saying it.
Post where Stan has said that his CTE is not an objective aiming system but instead is a subject method & this 'discussion' is ended.
Why have CTE proponents been arguing with those that have been saying that it is not if Stan has already said that it is not.
If such a statement exists by Stan, then I missed it.
Post it up.
Now you are twisting things again. I never said what you said above. YOU claimed it was totally objective. YOU are the only one making that claim. To be an objective system does not equate to every single part of it has to be objective.
All you do is twist things and make false claims, then make promises you have zero intention of keeping.
Now you are twisting things. You are accusing him of defining terms, yet he is going by the actual definitions given. YOU are the one trying to define terms by questioning what the actual definitions are.
Recently, you admitted that edges and quarters are objective aiming points. That should have ended it for you on the objective nonsense.
Huh???
120 posts in this thread and 30 are by you - all about that one adjective.
Is it time to give it a rest?