I think I said I would give you the end rail nooby, I know, I ain't gotta like it.
I'll take my chances.
You know , Stan don't have to win playing Lou one pocket.:wink:
Stan Shuffet Challenge
- Thread starter Outre Bron
- Start date
- Status
I think I said I would give you the end rail nooby, I know, I ain't gotta like it.
I'll take my chances.
You know , Stan don't have to win playing Lou one pocket.:wink:
Been done, didn't mean a thing to those that want to knock the system. That's where the "curtain" test came from. That was supposed to prove the system, until it was actually done. Then, all of a sudden, it proved nothing.Same with other shots set up. They were the proof, until it was shown they could be done as described. Then, again, all of a sudden it was no proof at all.
Funny how some of those on here have no problem calling Stan all kinds of names for something that works and has merit. But, when CJ makes some outlandish claims, they fall silent. In pm's they will speak their mind, but are afraid to post what they think in the forum. My question is, what makes Stan fair game in their eyes, and CJ off limits?
Hey Neil, thank you for the reply. I have respected your posts (and some other's posts) on here since I joined in 2008. It is sort of sickening to call Stan and even CJ names. You may disagree with what they teach and even post to argue against either person, but do it as an adult.
Was the curtain test agreed to by the opposite side of the argument as a good test or was that just a test side a for CTE came up with to prove it works? My idea was to come up with a test that the major advocates on each side could agree on...get it in writing if need be...when I posted that I figured it would not happen as both parties would never agree to all the variables....but just maybe for once they could put the emotions/viewpoints aside to work together toward an agreed test. Oh well, I thought I would try. To each their own on the systems. If it works for someone great, if not ok on to the next one. Some of us don't see the harm in the systems and while discussion about them can be good the discussions get ridiculous and just turn into a pissing match which at the end of the day is not good for the game of pool imo.
Gee, thanks. :slap:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LwYFMzOGOnM#t=13s
-Sean <-- "You like it? You eat it!"
There should be a woofin' section.
Ron Swanson
Banned
Been done, didn't mean a thing to those that want to knock the system. That's where the "curtain" test came from. That was supposed to prove the system, until it was actually done. Then, all of a sudden, it proved nothing.
Funny how some of those on here have no problem calling Stan all kinds of names for something that works and has merit. But, when CJ makes some outlandish claims, they fall silent. In pm's they will speak their mind, but are afraid to post what they think in the forum. My question is, what makes Stan fair game in their eyes, and CJ off limits?
Stan's complete lack of empathy and humour?
At some point Stan or someone else mentioned that you don't need to know exactly where the pocket is to use the system. It went from there, to eventually doing the curtain test. (those against it claimed B.S. and dared him to shoot to blind pockets as proof that it works.
Then I shot to blind pockets and posted the video, it did not prove a thing about the system.
Mark
On the contrary, just because your method also accomplished the task of pocketing the balls, does not equate to Stan's method being invalid. Quite the opposite. It showed both methods accomplished the task at hand. Unless, you are claiming that Stan lied and did not use CTE to pocket the balls, but some other method.??
Link please? Pretty please?:smile:
No, I did not mean it does not work. I was just showing that shooting blind does not prove anything other than we both know where the pocket is and do not need to see it to make a ball.
Ron Swanson
Banned
Still, everyone is back talking about cte, and that's the main thing.
OK, your method works. No problem. I say it does prove that CTE works. This is why- If CTE did not work as described, then the balls would have missed the pockets with Stan using the system. So, that only leaves two options. 1. It proves CTE works. or 2. Stan lied in how he said he was aiming to make the balls.
Who's going to still be alive to collect that for you ?
I do not think Stan lied and I never said that he did! I think he has a system that works for him and can be taught to some people, however not everyone will get it. The same can be said of any system.
Mark
I can easily take that bet and never lose ... and never win. Neither war mentioned will ever see both sides come to an agreement. The Middle East has been at war since the beginning of mankind. Pool wars have been going on since ... since ... since JB and Lou had their first date. Israel and Iran are more likely to become allies than those two ever becoming best friends and agreeing on aiming.
Last edited:
Thaiger, weren't you suspended? I had you on ignore as Thaiger and I can see your posting hasn't gotten any more valuable just because you have a different handle. I apologize for taking so long to recognize and ignore you. Problem fixed.
I am NOT saying you think he lied. What I am saying is that you also being able to do the test using another method does not invalidate the test. He either would make the balls using the system, or the system would not work and he would miss. The only other option is that Stan lied about actually using the system, and I don't think anyone thinks that.
So, yes, it did prove the system worked.
- Status