Stevie's CTE video

[nobcitypool]

,

I would assume your talking to me?? If so, news flash...I've said in the past I know the pivot system better than most of you and from the looks of things ...all of you...

What I posted had nothing to do with what you call "the pivot system". It is CTE. It is obvious you know almost nothing about it, I was simply trying to help. As clearly is the case with English, you obviously aren't seeking help, you're simply attempting to disrupt and troll.

 

[8pack]

What I posted had nothing to do with what you call "the pivot system". It is CTE. It is obvious you know almost nothing about it, I was simply trying to help. As clearly is the case with English, you obviously aren't seeking help, you're simply attempting to disrupt and troll.

The truth.. you lack the real knowledge of pivoting.
Therefore you cannot see the real truth of cte.
And your right, I'm not seeking any of yours help.
Hal explained a manual pivot system to me as did Ron.
I took that and went forth and got the exact understanding on what was happing.
You should maybe step back from what you think you know as to what you don't .
You guys at one time had something but turned it close to a bad joke .
Shame on you guys.

 

[nobcitypool]

Yeah, I can see how brilliant you are by how much you contribute. Instead of tearing down Stan's system constantly, why don't you start your own thread in this forum and share some of your great wealth of knowledge? I've yet to see you offer one single thing except disruption and negativity. It must be tough being such a miserable human being, that is all you have to offer. I hope the new year is better for you.

 

[Timothy Rose]

,

I would assume your talking to me?? If so, news flash...I've said in the past I know the pivot system better than most of you and from the looks of things ...all of you...

psssst .... By following your posts, the only thing you know about the system is the approach angle into multiple shots with the same alignment and pivot will be different, this is meaningless and should be figured out in the 15 minutes of learning the system if you have any common sense.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

Rick don't be bothered by their words, you have just as much right to discuss things here as the next guy. Sooner or later someone will come with a better explanation of whats happening and the truth of the matter will surface.

BTW if some of you are by bothered by Ricks posting, just don't read it.

Yes, he has every right to discuss things here. The site owner, however, seems to feel that he is being, maybe... uh, a bit disingenuous with his line of questioning. This is not a democracy, and free speech has nothing to do with what can or can't be said on a discussion forum. You can't say whatever you want if they ban you from posting your thoughts.

Try getting on the Apple website and see how long that kind of BS would last. Apple aggressively monitors its user forum to gather feedback about its products, and they tolerate a lot of criticism, but a troll is a troll, and they can spot them in a minute and shut down the thread in a heartbeat. That is their right, and if anyone feels that their First Amendment rights have been breached, they are free to take it up with the Supreme Court. Do expect to get laughed at, though.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Yes, he has every right to discuss things here. The site owner, however, seems to feel that he is being, maybe... uh, a bit disingenuous with his line of questioning. This is not a democracy, and free speech has nothing to do with what can or can't be said on a discussion forum. You can't say whatever you want if they ban you from posting your thoughts.

Try getting on the Apple website and see how long that kind of BS would last. Apple aggressively monitors its user forum to gather feedback about its products, and they tolerate a lot of criticism, but a troll is a troll, and they can spot them in a minute and shut down the thread in a heartbeat. That is their right, and if anyone feels that their First Amendment rights have been breached, they are free to take it up with the Supreme Court. Do expect to get laughed at, though.

He doesn't want to discuss in order to learn, he only wants to debate in order to debate.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Yes, he has every right to discuss things here. The site owner, however, seems to feel that he is being, maybe... uh, a bit disingenuous with his line of questioning. This is not a democracy, and free speech has nothing to do with what can or can't be said on a discussion forum. You can't say whatever you want if they ban you from posting your thoughts.

Try getting on the Apple website and see how long that kind of BS would last. Apple aggressively monitors its user forum to gather feedback about its products, and they tolerate a lot of criticism, but a troll is a troll, and they can spot them in a minute and shut down the thread in a heartbeat. That is their right, and if anyone feels that their First Amendment rights have been breached, they are free to take it up with the Supreme Court. Do expect to get laughed at, though.

I was NOT & am NOT being disingenuous. My disagreement is genuine.

Some of my 'questionable' questions may have been due to the answers to other questions given by some.

IMO, Mike & Jerry simply want 'harmony'.

Incivility will not garner harmony. John Barton has rather often tried to make that point.

Also, there rarely is harmony when there is a genuine disagreement.

Also, the 'harmony' of the mob rule of democracy never lasts long.

Thank God & the Founding Fathers that The U.S. of America is still a Republic & NOT a democracy...at least for the time being.

May Everyone Have a Great New Year.

 

[ENGLISH!]

He doesn't want to discuss in order to learn, he only wants to debate in order to debate.

Dave,

I have stated many times now, my intrigue with & to learn CTE waned right after seeing Stan's two YouTube Videos regarding 'perception'. So in that regard you are correct as I have now often stated. The reason is because after seeing those two(2) Videos I concluded then that it is not a 100% totally objective aiming system.

As to the 'debate' part, any individual can read them even dating back years before I came along & make their own determinations as to any appropriate conclusion.

May You & Yours Have a Great New Year.

 

[8pack]

Yes, he has every right to discuss things here. The site owner, however, seems to feel that he is being, maybe... uh, a bit disingenuous with his line of questioning. This is not a democracy, and free speech has nothing to do with what can or can't be said on a discussion forum. You can't say whatever you want if they ban you from posting your thoughts.

Try getting on the Apple website and see how long that kind of BS would last. Apple aggressively monitors its user forum to gather feedback about its products, and they tolerate a lot of criticism, but a troll is a troll, and they can spot them in a minute and shut down the thread in a heartbeat. That is their right, and if anyone feels that their First Amendment rights have been breached, they are free to take it up with the Supreme Court. Do expect to get laughed at, though.

Maybe the site owner or whomever should change.. Argue to your heart's content and replace it with please be nice, we wouldn't want anyone's feelings hurt.

Like I said any many others have posted on other post before..just don't read it or reply to it.
Its that simple.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Dave,

I have stated many times now, my intrigue with & to learn CTE waned right after seeing Stan's two YouTube Videos regarding 'perception'. So in that regard you are correct as I have now often stated. The reason is because after seeing those two(2) Videos I concluded then that it is not a 100% totally objective aiming system.

As to the 'debate' part, any individual can read them even dating back years before I came along & make their own determinations as to any appropriate conclusion.

May You & Yours Have a Great New Year.

Ok, so you came to your own conclusion. Why debate your conviction over and over just to argue. No one cares.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Ok, so you came to your own conclusion. Why debate your conviction over and over just to argue. No one cares.

Dave,

You say no one cares.

I'd dare to say that no CTE advocate cares.

But what about a neutral individual?

They may very well care to hear both sides of what is in dispute so as to perhaps help them make up their own minds as to what direction they may wish to go.

They may not want to invest the time pursuing a system that is perceived by some rather experienced individuals to not be 100% totally objective or one that is in dispute. Or... it may not matter to them at all.

Or... they may wish to pursue a more simple partially objective system or method like Jimmy Reid's equal fractional overlap method, or Ekkes's SEE system or Shane's method, or whatever.

Almost every time I click on the Aiming Forum there are usually about 3 times as many guests reading in it than there are members.

I think they might care.

I'll just stop there so as to not start another debate of the same subject.

Best Wishes,
Rick

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Dave,

You say no one cares.

I'd dare to say that no CTE advocate cares.

But what about a neutral individual?

They may very well care to hear both sides of what is in dispute so as to perhaps help them make up their own minds as to what direction they may wish to go.

They may not want to invest the time pursuing a system that is perceived by some rather experienced individuals to not be 100% totally objective or one that is in dispute. Or... it may not matter to them at all.

Or... they may wish to pursue a more simple partially objective system or method like Jimmy Reid's equal fractional overlap method, or Ekkes's SEE system or Shane's method, or whatever.

Almost every time I click on the Aiming Forum there are usually about 3 times as many guests reading in it than there are members.

I think they might care.

I'll just stop there so as not start another debate of the same subject.

Best Wishes,
Rick

NO ONE cares about your non-stop ranting. Post some videos of you trying some shots..maybe we can see what you're doing wrong.

 

[Neil]

Dave,

You say no one cares.

I'd dare to say that no CTE advocate cares.

But what about a neutral individual?

They may very well care to hear both sides of what is in dispute so as to perhaps help them make up their own minds as to what direction they may wish to go.

They may not want to invest the time pursuing a system that is perceived by some rather experienced individuals to not be 100% totally objective or one that is in dispute. Or... it may not matter to them at all.

Or... they may wish to pursue a more simple partially objective system or method like Jimmy Reid's equal fractional overlap method, or Ekkes's SEE system or Shane's method, or whatever.

Almost every time I click on the Aiming Forum there are usually about 3 times as many guests reading in it than there are members.

I think they might care.

I'll just stop there so as not start another debate of the same subject.

Best Wishes,
Rick

What about a neutral individual? They only care if the system works or not. Only you have an unhealthy obsession with the word "objective". Despite being shown numerous times how and why it is objective. Every time someone gives you answers, you put them on ignore. You don't help your case at all.

No one is preventing anyone from looking at any other systems. Other systems have been advocated on here numerous times. So why the red herring trying to make it look like CTE advocates are preventing others from looking at other systems?

So, there are more guests than members. Do you even realize that if you aren't signed in, you are a guest? Are those numbers supposed to mean something, or is that just another red herring??

You should have stopped before you began, like Mike told you to do. You aren't fooling anyone that reads on here. You aren't presenting some other side, or showing where CTE doesn't work. All you are doing is obsessing over one word. But, you go right ahead and keep obsessing, and keep on posting. Mike obviously has more patience than Wilson does, but even Mike will reach his end of patience. And then no one else will have to deal with your obsession. It will be all your own to deal with.

Also, you talk of experience. Like you have some or something. You have no experience outside of a couple of shots with CTE. So, you aren't even qualified to be in that experienced category you speak of. I have yet to find a single person that is actually experienced in CTE to say that it is not objective. Only those with no experience, or so little experience that it can't even be considered at all.

 

[mista335]

Dave,

You say no one cares.

I'd dare to say that no CTE advocate cares.

Rick

Yeah I don't care either.

You've given your opinion over and over and over again.

Repeating it incessantly just doesn't make you right.

Quite frankly, I just don't care if the answers you get don't satisfy you.

CTE goes on with or without you and your theories.

 

[azhousepro]

I'm going to say this ONE LAST TIME.

There are many different aiming systems. Different systems work for different people.

Constantly rehashing your opinion that a system doesn't work is getting very old.

I doubt that anyone on the site still wonders what your opinion is on the matter.

Either bring something new to the conversation, or drop it.

Dave,

You say no one cares.

I'd dare to say that no CTE advocate cares.

But what about a neutral individual?

They may very well care to hear both sides of what is in dispute so as to perhaps help them make up their own minds as to what direction they may wish to go.

They may not want to invest the time pursuing a system that is perceived by some rather experienced individuals to not be 100% totally objective or one that is in dispute. Or... it may not matter to them at all.

Or... they may wish to pursue a more simple partially objective system or method like Jimmy Reid's equal fractional overlap method, or Ekkes's SEE system or Shane's method, or whatever.

Almost every time I click on the Aiming Forum there are usually about 3 times as many guests reading in it than there are members.

I think they might care.

I'll just stop there so as to not start another debate of the same subject.

Best Wishes,
Rick

 

[duckie]

Why not just lock it or delete it since that seems to happen to threads that poke holes into statement of facts made about CTE.

 

[Neil]

Why not just lock it or delete it since that seems to happen to threads that poke holes into statement of facts made about CTE.

Maybe just because they aren't actually poking any holes, just making misinformed or false claims about the actual facts.

 

[tonythetiger583]

Maybe just because they aren't actually poking any holes, just making misinformed or false claims about the actual facts.

To be fair, as someone who has been working on CTE since the spring, has watched all the videos, and DVD 2, I still don`t understand why it `connects with ``the geometry of the table``. I mean I love that I can choose a perception to pocket a ball, and I think CTE for banking alone is an amazing deal. I get that it works, but I have yet to find a satisfactory reason for why it works. The closest thing I could find to an explanation is that it's the nature of a 2:1 table, but no one has really answered why, and I can't figure it out. You could say that it's that I just don't understand the system, or that I don't know anything, I've yet to hit the year marker, that it takes to fully learn CTE, but I've definitely put in the hours.

So, for me personally, there are gaps of information that I do not have, and if anyone could clarify, mostly I'd just like to know why CTE works.

 

[nobcitypool]

To be fair, as someone who has been working on CTE since the spring, has watched all the videos, and DVD 2, I still don`t understand why it `connects with ``the geometry of the table``. I mean I love that I can choose a perception to pocket a ball, and I think CTE for banking alone is an amazing deal. I get that it works, but I have yet to find a satisfactory reason for why it works. The closest thing I could find to an explanation is that it's the nature of a 2:1 table, but no one has really answered why, and I can't figure it out. You could say that it's that I just don't understand the system, or that I don't know anything, I've yet to hit the year marker, that it takes to fully learn CTE, but I've definitely put in the hours.

So, for me personally, there are gaps of information that I do not have, and if anyone could clarify, mostly I'd just like to know why CTE works.

Tony, I think you hit on it, that is, the fact the system works the same on all tables with a 2:1 ratio. There's numerous things about CTE I don't understand and likely never will. I do understand the system works perfectly pocketing balls when executed properly. But then, I don't demand to stick my hand up a cow's butt before I eat a steak either.

 

[stan shuffett]

Tony, I think you hit on it, that is, the fact the system works the same on all tables with a 2:1 ratio. There's numerous things about CTE I don't understand and likely never will. I do understand the system works perfectly pocketing balls when executed properly. But then, I don't demand to stick my hand up a cow's butt before I eat a steak either.

Plus
8 ninety degree angles on a 2x1 table.
CTE PRO ONE takes the player to shot lines.
This is what the system does. The player does not feel for his shot lines. Real CTE takes one's aim to right angles.

Change the table and CTE PRO ONE does not work.
Change the CTE PERCEPTIONS and the connection to the right angles of a 2x1 table is not going to happen.

Stan Shuffett