The 1/8 A & C for 12" as it might relate to Subjectivity vs Objectivity.

ENGLISH!

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
In tonythetigers thread nobcitypool made a statement reminding tony that the A & C lines become 1/8 instead of 1/4 lines when the CB & OB are 12" or less apart.

That made me think & post here for any CIVIL discussion should anyone wish to do so as to NOT derail tony's thread.


...regarding point A & C moving from the 1/4 lines to the 1/8 lines when the separation of the ball is 12" & under.

Since there is a change of an 1/8 at 12 inches, why would there not in reality be a gradual change for the different distances?

By that I mean the lines of A & C are not a point width but instead those lines are 1/8 width & if the other direction is added in they would be 1/4 wide. This would allow for more shots to be pocketed with the same visual using the A & C lines because they would not be points but instead an array of point lines covering the entire 1/8 (or 1/4) range.

Then I think I & others could agree regarding multiple angled shots being made using the same visual, but... then the system would not be totally objective because the shooter in one way or another would have to subjectively 'select' which of the lines within the 1/8 to 1/4 range is the proper line.

I know this will not satisfy nor sit well with some of the ardent CTE proponents. I'm just offering it up as food for thought so to speak as to how so many different angled shots are said to made with the SAME ETA & ETC 'visual' alignments, regarding objectivity vs subjectivity.

I would respectfully request that should anyone wish to posts that those posts remain on topic & be for discussion purposes & not be of ANY personal nature.
 
Last edited:
Have you ever considered just trying the system or is It more fun to try and point out why it shouldn't work?
 
Renegade_56 said:
Have you ever considered just trying the system or is It more fun to try and point out why it shouldn't work?
Click to expand...

Now if I was english or these others he keeps on talking about. I would 100% learn the system and then go to battle on here with a informed and experienced opinion.

You always hear from these guys that couldn't learn it on there own,etc babbling on.
 
Timothy Rose said:
Now if I was english or these others he keeps on talking about. I would 100% learn the system and then go to battle on here with a informed and experienced opinion.

You always hear from these guys that couldn't learn it on there own,etc babbling on.
Click to expand...

That would be a logical approach, especially with someone like English, who comes across clearly as a guy who wants to be right. I have no doubt there is merit to his argument, as I have tried several of these aiming systems and every time I reach a point with them where they start to break down and become off. It's nice for me to have checks along the way on certain shots where I know, for sure the shot goes, as I am one of those guys who has trouble accurately seeing contact points in the middle of object balls, especially from distance. I have a snooker table and practice on it daily with pool balls and so it's very easy to miss, yet with the system I use I am extremely accurate at certain angle ranges, and so I use those to help calibrate my eyes to help on the more extreme shots that I have come to realize are not on, but at least it's easier to see when they don't go and try other methods. This I believe is the value of having a system, for doublechecking. I do not believe there is a system that everything goes.
 
Not all shots are created equal system or not, some specific angled or longer shots can be more difficult ..... is how i see it.
 
Renegade_56 said:
That would be a logical approach, especially with someone like English, who comes across clearly as a guy who wants to be right. I have no doubt there is merit to his argument, as I have tried several of these aiming systems and every time I reach a point with them where they start to break down and become off. It's nice for me to have checks along the way on certain shots where I know, for sure the shot goes, as I am one of those guys who has trouble accurately seeing contact points in the middle of object balls, especially from distance. I have a snooker table and practice on it daily with pool balls and so it's very easy to miss, yet with the system I use I am extremely accurate at certain angle ranges, and so I use those to help calibrate my eyes to help on the more extreme shots that I have come to realize are not on, but at least it's easier to see when they don't go and try other methods. This I believe is the value of having a system, for doublechecking. I do not believe there is a system that everything goes.
Click to expand...

It is NOT that I want to be right.

I simply want to know the truth of matters just as I want that for everyone else too.

If shown the truth & it DID not match what I had thought...it would then do so as I would conform to the truth of the matter.

No human being, I repeat, no human being has ever been 100% 'right' every time in their lives. Well...at least no 100% human being given that this is Christmas Day.

For someone to not admit, at least to themselves, when they have been of the wrong opinion when shown otherwise borders on...well, you insert your own word.

Yesterday, Stan started calling me Word Man.

Unfortunately that thread has been removed just as Sean's thread regarding CTE. For what reasons they were both removed, I'm not sure, but I have an idea.

Words have meanings. The definitions of words are the only common ground that we have for the purpose of correct communication.

If one uses words or a word incorrectly then the communication is not as it should be. It's not 100% truthful, & by that I do not mean that the author of the words lied intentionally. I just mean that the words would not be conveying the authors true intentions of what he or she was trying to communicate or if so then that communication would not be factual.

Many on AZB don't read only the words but instead read what they think the other person wants or intends to say.

They think themselves to be mind readers, since the word omniscient does not sit well with some.

That is an issue that sends many a discussion down the Alice in Wonderland Rabbit Hole of Unrealty.

Stan has now had many opportunities to state if he had come to know that he had misused certain words & he has stood firm as to what he perceives CTE to be.

Yet, there is still no rational or logical explanation as to why & how one can mix the seeing of objective points or lines with perception & still come out with 100% objectivity.

Yet, I am supposed to be the Word Man that at one point is 'stuck' on words & at another point is twisting words.

If one takes objectivity & then throws one's perception onto that objectivity we then have subjectivity.

Words have the meanings as they are defined & using those is the only means by which we can at this time communicate.

If words are used properly as to their meaning & are understood correctly by ALL parties of the communication then the communication will be accurate & correct.

If words are used contrary to their defined meaning or even if they are used out of the context to which they can legitimately be applied & the receiving side does not understand the misused meaning or application then there is no real communication or it is miscommunication.

I would think that everyone would want to use words properly as they are defined to mean so as to be technically correct especially when talking about a subject that is or can be a bit technical.

However since Stan has had several opportunities to clarify his wording as it relates to CTE & has stood firm, one can only deduce that Stan truly believes that CTE is a totally objective system or method.

If you take 1...objectivity & you add 1....perception...I & some others do not see it as equalling 1...objectivity.

I & some others see objectivity plus perception resulting in subjectivity.

If CTE is 100% totally objective then it would be huge in the pool world. Hence my initial intrigue with CTE.

If CTE requires perception which is the opposite of objectivity then it is just another subjective aiming method. Although it could be one of the better ones if not the best one.

IMO the turmoil surrounding CTE stems from the affirmation initiated by Stan & picked up on by others that CTE is a 100% totally objective system.

There are very many that simply do not see it as such.

Does it matter one way or the other? That answer is twofold.

No...not to those that don't care.

Yes... to those that would rather a totally objective system or method oother than just another variation of a subjective method.

So...

For those that don't care one way or the other they can choose to go to CTE for a good try.

For those that don't see CTE as totally objective they can choose to go to CTE anyway for a good try...or not.

BUT...what about those that don't want another subjective method but would want a totally object system or method?

Well for them...which is CTE?

Is it a system or method that requires perception which would be subjective?

Or... is it a totally objective system as affirmed by Stan & others?

Each individual will have to make that determination for themselves & decide for themselves if they want to give CTE a good try.

And... that is how it should be.

Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays to Everyone,
Rick
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
It is NOT that I want to be right.

I simply want to know the truth of matters just as I want that for everyone else too.

If shown the truth & it DID not match what I had thought...it would then do so as I would conform to the truth of the matter.

No human being, I repeat, no human being has ever been 100% 'right' every time in their lives. Well...at least no 100% human being given that this is Christmas Day.

For someone to not admit, at least to themselves, when they have been of the wrong opinion when shown otherwise borders on...well, you insert your own word.

Yesterday, Stan started calling me Word Man.

Unfortunately that thread has been removed just as Sean's thread regarding CTE. For what reasons they were both removed, I'm not sure, but I have an idea.

Words have meanings. The definitions of words are the only common ground that we have for the purpose of correct communication.

If one uses words or a word incorrectly then the communication is not as it should be. It's not 100% truthful, & by that I do not mean that the author of the words lied intentionally. I just mean that the words would not be conveying the authors true intentions of what he or she was trying to communicate or if so then that communication would not be factual.

Many on AZB don't read only the words but instead read what they think the other person wants or intends to say.

They think themselves to be mind readers, since the word omniscient does not sit well with some.

That is an issue that sends many a discussion down the Alice in Wonderland Rabbit Hole of Unrealty.

Stan has now had many opportunities to state if he had come to know that he had misused certain words & he has stood firm as to what he perceives CTE to be.

Yet, there is still no rational or logical explanation as to why & how one can mix the seeing of objective points or lines with perception & still come out with 100% objectivity.

Yet, I am supposed to be the Word Man that at one point is 'stuck' on words & at another point is twisting words.

If one takes objectivity & then throws one's perception onto that objectivity we then have subjectivity.

Words have the meanings as they are defined & using those is the only means by which we can at this time communicate.

If words are used properly as to their meaning & are understood correctly by ALL parties of the communication then the communication will be accurate & correct.

If words are used contrary to their defined meaning or even if they are used out of the context to which they can legitimately be applied & the receiving side does not understand the misused meaning or application then there is no real communication or it is miscommunication.

I would think that everyone would want to use words properly as they are defined to mean so as to be technically correct especially when talking about a subject that is or can be a bit technical.

However since Stan has had several opportunities to clarify his wording as it relates to CTE & has stood firm, one can only deduce that Stan truly believes that CTE is a totally objective system or method.

If you take 1...objectivity & you add 1....perception...I & some others do not see it as equalling 1...objectivity.

I & some others see objectivity plus perception resulting in subjectivity.

If CTE is 100% totally objective then it would be huge in the pool world. Hence my initial intrigue with CTE.

If CTE requires perception which is the opposite of objectivity then it is just another subjective aiming method. Although it could be one of the better ones if not the best one.

IMO the turmoil surrounding CTE stems from the affirmation initiated by Stan & picked up on by others that CTE is a 100% totally objective system.

There are very many that simply do not see it as such.

Does it matter one way or the other? That answer is twofold.

No...not to those that don't care.

Yes... to those that would rather a totally objective system or method over just another variation of a subjective method.

So...

For those that don't care one way or the other they can choose to go to CTE for a good try.

For those that don't see CTE as totally objective they can choose to go to CTE anyway for a good try...or not.

BUT...what about those that don't want another subjective method but would want a totally object system or method?

Well for them...which is CTE?

Is it a system or method that requires perception which would be subjective?

Or... is it a totally objective system as affirmed by Stan & others?

Each individual will have to make that determination for themselves & decide for themselves if they want to give CTE a good try.

And... that is how it should be.

Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays to Everyone,
Rick
Click to expand...
English:

Would you mind posting a video of yourself playing some 14.1 or playing the 9ball ghost? After reading thread after thread of your rants against CTE, I'm just DYING to see how you play. If you post up some nice looking videos, I'll start taking your posts more seriously.

I just want to see if you're at a level where the truth would make any difference.

Merry Christmas
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
It is NOT that I want to be right.

I simply want to know the truth of matters just as I want that for everyone else too.

If shown the truth & it DID not match what I had thought...it would then do so as I would conform to the truth of the matter.

No human being, I repeat, no human being has ever been 100% 'right' every time in their lives. Well...at least no 100% human being given that this is Christmas Day.

For someone to not admit, at least to themselves, when they have been of the wrong opinion when shown otherwise borders on...well, you insert your own word.

Yesterday, Stan started calling me Word Man.

Unfortunately that thread has been removed just as Sean's thread regarding CTE. For what reasons they were both removed, I'm not sure, but I have an idea.

Words have meanings. The definitions of words are the only common ground that we have for the purpose of correct communication.

If one uses words or a word incorrectly then the communication is not as it should be. It's not 100% truthful, & by that I do not mean that the author of the words lied intentionally. I just mean that the words would not be conveying the authors true intentions of what he or she was trying to communicate or if so then that communication would not be factual.

Many on AZB don't read only the words but instead read what they think the other person wants or intends to say.

They think themselves to be mind readers, since the word omniscient does not sit well with some.

That is an issue that sends many a discussion down the Alice in Wonderland Rabbit Hole of Unrealty.

Stan has now had many opportunities to state if he had come to know that he had misused certain words & he has stood firm as to what he perceives CTE to be.

Yet, there is still no rational or logical explanation as to why & how one can mix the seeing of objective points or lines with perception & still come out with 100% objectivity.

Yet, I am supposed to be the Word Man that at one point is 'stuck' on words & at another point is twisting words.

If one takes objectivity & then throws one's perception onto that objectivity we then have subjectivity.

Words have the meanings as they are defined & using those is the only means by which we can at this time communicate.

If words are used properly as to their meaning & are understood correctly by ALL parties of the communication then the communication will be accurate & correct.

If words are used contrary to their defined meaning or even if they are used out of the context to which they can legitimately be applied & the receiving side does not understand the misused meaning or application then there is no real communication or it is miscommunication.

I would think that everyone would want to use words properly as they are defined to mean so as to be technically correct especially when talking about a subject that is or can be a bit technical.

However since Stan has had several opportunities to clarify his wording as it relates to CTE & has stood firm, one can only deduce that Stan truly believes that CTE is a totally objective system or method.

If you take 1...objectivity & you add 1....perception...I & some others do not see it as equalling 1...objectivity.

I & some others see objectivity plus perception resulting in subjectivity.

If CTE is 100% totally objective then it would be huge in the pool world. Hence my initial intrigue with CTE.

If CTE requires perception which is the opposite of objectivity then it is just another subjective aiming method. Although it could be one of the better ones if not the best one.

IMO the turmoil surrounding CTE stems from the affirmation initiated by Stan & picked up on by others that CTE is a 100% totally objective system.

There are very many that simply do not see it as such.

Does it matter one way or the other? That answer is twofold.

No...not to those that don't care.

Yes... to those that would rather a totally objective system or method over just another variation of a subjective method.

So...

For those that don't care one way or the other they can choose to go to CTE for a good try.

For those that don't see CTE as totally objective they can choose to go to CTE anyway for a good try...or not.

BUT...what about those that don't want another subjective method but would want a totally object system or method?

Well for them...which is CTE?

Is it a system or method that requires perception which would be subjective?

Or... is it a totally objective system as affirmed by Stan & others?

Each individual will have to make that determination for themselves & decide for themselves if they want to give CTE a good try.

And... that is how it should be.

Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays to Everyone,
Rick
Click to expand...


Somebody actually understands the difference between objective and subjective.

One you use the ruler too measure an exact distant of two inches the other you guess. How many people can guess an exact two inches?

As people perceive things different,y, due to many factors, perception isn't objective.

Thank you Mr. English

By the way, the idea of making balls or not has no bearing on understanding a method. The method isn't the only factor in pocketing a ball.
 
robsnotes4u said:
Somebody actually understands the difference between objective and subjective.

One you use the ruler too measure an exact distant of two inches the other you guess. How many people can guess an exact two inches?

As people perceive things different,y, due to many factors, perception isn't objective.

Thank you Mr. English

By the way, the idea of making balls or not has no bearing on understanding a method. The method isn't the only factor in pocketing a ball.
Click to expand...

Thank you Sir.

You also saved me from having to respond to Dave as you made the point in far less words than I would have used.

Thanks Again & Best Wishes,
Rick
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
It is NOT that I want to be right.

I simply want to know the truth of matters just as I want that for everyone else too.

If shown the truth & it DID not match what I had thought...it would then do so as I would conform to the truth of the matter.

No human being, I repeat, no human being has ever been 100% 'right' every time in their lives. Well...at least no 100% human being given that this is Christmas Day.

For someone to not admit, at least to themselves, when they have been of the wrong opinion when shown otherwise borders on...well, you insert your own word.

Yesterday, Stan started calling me Word Man.

Unfortunately that thread has been removed just as Sean's thread regarding CTE. For what reasons they were both removed, I'm not sure, but I have an idea.

Words have meanings. The definitions of words are the only common ground that we have for the purpose of correct communication.

If one uses words or a word incorrectly then the communication is not as it should be. It's not 100% truthful, & by that I do not mean that the author of the words lied intentionally. I just mean that the words would not be conveying the authors true intentions of what he or she was trying to communicate or if so then that communication would not be factual.

Many on AZB don't read only the words but instead read what they think the other person wants or intends to say.

They think themselves to be mind readers, since the word omniscient does not sit well with some.

That is an issue that sends many a discussion down the Alice in Wonderland Rabbit Hole of Unrealty.

Stan has now had many opportunities to state if he had come to know that he had misused certain words & he has stood firm as to what he perceives CTE to be.

Yet, there is still no rational or logical explanation as to why & how one can mix the seeing of objective points or lines with perception & still come out with 100% objectivity.

Just because you don't know the answer, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So, for you to make such a concrete statement in itself is wrong.

Yet, I am supposed to be the Word Man that at one point is 'stuck' on words & at another point is twisting words.

If one takes objectivity & then throws one's perception onto that objectivity we then have subjectivity.

Well, you just made it clear to everyone that you don't understand the meanings of those three words.

Words have the meanings as they are defined & using those is the only means by which we can at this time communicate.

So, wouldn't it behoove you to first find out the actual meanings of those words before going off on yet another rant??

If words are used properly as to their meaning & are understood correctly by ALL parties of the communication then the communication will be accurate & correct.

Agree. Time you learned the meanings of the words.

If words are used contrary to their defined meaning or even if they are used out of the context to which they can legitimately be applied & the receiving side does not understand the misused meaning or application then there is no real communication or it is miscommunication.

Agreed, and you have been doing just that for how long now??

I would think that everyone would want to use words properly as they are defined to mean so as to be technically correct especially when talking about a subject that is or can be a bit technical.

One would think so, yet, you haven't even bothered to google the words to find out their true meanings.

However since Stan has had several opportunities to clarify his wording as it relates to CTE & has stood firm, one can only deduce that Stan truly believes that CTE is a totally objective system or method.

If you take 1...objectivity & you add 1....perception...I & some others do not see it as equalling 1...objectivity.

Learn what the words mean, and you will.

I & some others see objectivity plus perception resulting in subjectivity.

If CTE is 100% totally objective then it would be huge in the pool world. Hence my initial intrigue with CTE.

Agreed, and yes, it is.

If CTE requires perception which is the opposite of objectivity then it is just another subjective aiming method. Although it could be one of the better ones if not the best one.

Again, learn the proper meanings of the words.

IMO the turmoil surrounding CTE stems from the affirmation initiated by Stan & picked up on by others that CTE is a 100% totally objective system.

No, the turmoil stems from some (read YOU) not understanding what the words even mean. Wanting to put their own definitions of the words in play, instead of the real definitions.

There are very many that simply do not see it as such.

Does it matter one way or the other? That answer is twofold.

No...not to those that don't care.

Yes... to those that would rather a totally objective system or method over just another variation of a subjective method.

So...

For those that don't care one way or the other they can choose to go to CTE for a good try.

For those that don't see CTE as totally objective they can choose to go to CTE anyway for a good try...or not.

BUT...what about those that don't want another subjective method but would want a totally object system or method?

Well for them...which is CTE?

Is it a system or method that requires perception which would be subjective?

Perception does not have to be subjective. Learn the definitons.

Or... is it a totally objective system as affirmed by Stan & others?

Each individual will have to make that determination for themselves & decide for themselves if they want to give CTE a good try.

And... that is how it should be.

Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays to Everyone,
Rick
Click to expand...

Funny how you constantly go off on rants over the use of words that you don't even understand correctly. Simple google searches would have given you the answers you claim to so desperately seek.

Here's just one example: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/vi...277.001.0001/acprof-9780199597277-chapter-005
Objective and Subjective Sides of Perception
Alan Gilchrist
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199597277.003.0006
Every perceptual experience has an objective and a subjective side. We see object size, independent of distance, but we also see that distant objects project smaller images. Early modern conceptions focused on local stimulation and thus on the subjective aspect. Helmholtz and Hering emphasized the objective aspect. Helmholtz split visual experience into two stages, with sensation representing the subjective side and perception, through cognitive processes, the objective side. Gestalt theory denied this dualism, rejecting both sensory and cognitive stages. Despite contrary evidence, the sensation/perception dualism persists, in brightness models and past experience theories. That we can detect visual angle and luminance does not mean that these are raw sensations out of which perception of size and lightness is built. Size and color constancy are truly visual, not cognitive. Instructions to subjects in vision experiments must avoid the proximal mode on the one hand and cognitive judgments on the other.

perception
[per-sep-shuh n] IPA Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
the act or faculty of perceiving, or apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.
2.
immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition; discernment:
an artist of rare perception.
3.
the result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act of perceiving; percept.
4.
Psychology. a single unified awareness derived from sensory processes while a stimulus is present.
5.
Law. the taking into possession of rents, crops, profits, etc.

subjective
[suh b-jek-tiv] IPA Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
adjective
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual:
a subjective evaluation.
3.
placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4.
Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5.
relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
6.
pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.
7.
Grammar.
pertaining to or constituting the subject of a sentence.
(in English and certain other languages) noting a case specialized for that use, as He in He hit the ball.
similar to such a case in meaning.
Compare nominative.
8.
Obsolete. characteristic of a political subject; submissive.

1ob·jec·tive adjective \əb-ˈjek-tiv, äb-\
: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings

philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world

grammar : relating to nouns, noun phrases, or pronouns that are the objects of verbs or prepositions


Full Definition of OBJECTIVE

1
a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy
b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff>

You see, subjective means having feelings about something. CTE uses no "feelings", only objective lines seen from ones perspective.

While perspective CAN be subjective, that does NOT mean that it is always subjective. Perspective is also often objective.

So, Stan is 100% correct in his statements. That settled, when is your apology to him and everyone else on here coming??
 
perception
[per-sep-shuh n] IPA Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
the act or faculty of perceiving, or apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.
2.
immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition; discernment:
an artist of rare perception.

objective - definitions and thesaurus

Hide thesaurus for objective
What are red words?
Using the thesaurus
ADJECTIVE objective pronunciation in American English /əbˈdʒektɪv/
Related meanings
objective NOUN

1based only on facts and not influenced by personal feelings or beliefs
An outsider can give a more objective assessment than a friend.
completely/purely objective: We tried to capture a purely objective record of what we saw.
Synonyms and related words for this sense of objective
True, definite and based on facts: true, certain, objective, realistic, firm, definitely, factual, authentic, definite, undeniable... more
Collocations: objective
Collocations
objective
▪ completely, entirely, purely, totally, truly, wholly
objective
▪ analysis, assessment, description, evaluation, measurement
2real and not existing only in someone's mind
objective reality
 
Last edited:
Congratulations, you did exactly what I knew you would do. When a word has two possible meanings, you choose the one that doesn't fit the situation. Rick, learn to use the logic that you claim you use. It is totally illogical to use the meaning everyone knows doesn't fit over the meaning that everyone knows does fit. It only shows your bias and lack of facts.

I'm now going to tell you something that I shouldn't tell you. You claim that CTE works, which it does. You claim that you only have a problem with the wording of it. That has now been proven to be false by your statement above. So, that only leaves one thing, you are out to save others by trying to hurt the sale of DVD's about the system. Guess what? Every time you start one of these ill-advised nonsense rants about the pitfalls of CTE, the sales go up, not down. You actually are the best "salesman" for CTE on here!

So, while you think you are "saving" others, you are increasing the sales to others. Deal with that. You have totally backfired on what you intended to do. You have more posts on CTE than anyone on here. And know the least amount about it. Congratulations!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top