I'll say that if I were able to understand wtf that phrase meant I might leave this forum feeling I had learned something new...
He does deserve praise for offering it at what it's worth.
Why CTE is silly
- Thread starter GetMeThere
- Start date
- Status
He does deserve praise for offering it at what it's worth.
Dave,
You challenging my ideas and opinions would never be a problem. I like to get it right and if I get a little help from my friends, well, that's a good thing.
Making disparaging remarks about my character or vilifying me for my ideas or opinions is classless.
If you are jealous about the attention and appreciation I receive from my ideas and opinions and you constantly attempt to paint me in a poor light, well then, that's not a good thing.
I have no dog in this fight. Don't really care who's "right" in all these CTE discussions.
But why do you, GetMeThere, have such an intense aggravation with this issue? Why do you have to continually denigrate these people? With such venom and ferocity?
Usually these CTE threads die down some, but you sir, continually blast the intenisty. And for the life of me I can't understand why. I realize you started this most recent train-wreck from a mathematical standpoint, trying to prove it out one way or the other. But lately you've merely taken to insulting those who are interested in the system, and feel it works, enough for them.
Doesn't sound like someone who is such a contribution to society that he develops instruments to save unborn infants.... so keep your "contributions" to yourself if you're gonna be so mean-spirited. Pick one side of the road to ride on. You wanna be a forum bad-guy, cool enough. You've established that quite nicely. Don't expect us to view you as some wonderful philanthropic "contributor" to society as well....
If you're only approaching 60, Hal is defintely old enough to be your father.
You've got me pegged all wrong. I don't go to church.
I agree, Joey, but the deifying of Hal by a few others hasn't helped anything, either.
Roger
Ditto.
If I have done this in the past, I am sincerely sorry. I don't think I have. Also, if I do it in the future, please let me know. I'm sure you will. I will do the same.
Ditto. Again, if you think I have done this in the past, I am sorry. And if I ever do it in the future, please let me know. I will do the same.
Joey, it seems to me that your message is implying that I have done some of these things to you personally. I am not aware of this. If you feel this way, please let me know via PM, e-mail, or phone. I think you are a great guy. I like joking around with you at times, but I never want you to feel disrespected by me. Am I missing something, or are you getting me confused with "GetMeThere?"
:grin-square:GetMeThere, I hope you don't mind my reference above too much, but you do deserve a little abuse based on how much you've dished out lately.
Regards,
Dave
So what?
Is anyone old enough to be my father automatically smarter and more thoughtful than I am? That's such a ridiculous notion that it doesn't even bear discussion. Just FYI I WORSHIP old-timers, and always have. I LOVE to hear about what has come before, what the world was like before I was around, etc. All old-timers MUST know things that younger people don't--it can't be any other way.
But NOBODY stands above the truth that "facts are facts," and "truth isn't owned by authority."
You've made your response, but you left out my first request: a source of some information about Hal's "contributions to pool." So far, the only writings of Hal's that I've been able to find are like the ravings of a voodoo priest who has begun to lose his mind (after receiving an LSD enema). It has nothing to do with his age. If somebody who is a HUNDRED AND TWENTY seeks to tell me that 2+2 = 5 am I supposed to agree? Respect his idea?
Show me ANYTHING that Hal has said/offered that doesn't make you look like a FOOL for thinking it's a great contribution...and I'll step up and shout to the forum rafters the wonderful stuff that Hal has handed down to us.
I've answered this one before in this thread. I'll give a brief response again.
I began by challenging an IDEA, not a person. Within the first few pages I was attacked, called names, and generally characterized disparagingly.
If someone presents good, useful information, and gets attacked and disparaged because of it, then, IMO, certain people need to be informed that they're idiots, who wish to destroy/attack true things.
To any rational and objective person, a few things can easily be determined (please link me to CLEAR and OBJECTIVE information or analysis that is contrary):
1) The information available out there from Hal is nonsense mumbo-jumbo. (Or, at best, true but insubstantial--like the approximate angles of OB movement based on 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 hits).
2) The promoters of (what is now called) CTE claim it is at least BASED upon Hal's mumbo-jumbo. They insist that what Hal had to say was TRUE and USEFUL--and that their work (which remains secret) has Hal's work as its fundamental basis. That means the work of THOSE people is mumbo-jumbo also. You can't build a true edifice from bricks made of falsehood (well, not if the bricks are used in a POSITIVE way, as they are here).
3) NO cheerleaders of Hal or Hal's intellectual descendants have supplied any objective information (other than "IT WORKS!" of course) that clarifies the issue.
So...to give you a direct answer to your question: Some of us just can't stand to see BS promoted and held up as "the answer."
I happen to love the game of pool. I LOVE to watch people who are really extraordinarily good play. I like (the idea, at least) of improving my own game.
Given all the above, it's my opinion that putting things like CTE into people's heads is actually WORSE for the game of pool than doing nothing. This is especially true when, just to give one example, really USEFUL and COMPREHENSIVE work, like Dr. Dave's website, is available (and free as well!) for anyone who would like to learn practically ALL THERE IS TO KNOW objectively about the game of pool.
And that justifies your coming on here and denigrating people?
Just checking. You are obviously of a MUCH higher station than I, so I feel I must ask before I too get "mis-informed" and led astray.
Well...I have to ask what your motives are. If you take the time to go through the thread, you will see FAR more denigration pointed in my direction than from me. You'll also see it BEGUN to be focused on me long before I focused it on anyone else.
So I have to ask: Why do you single me out for your lecture?
Hal Houle is a very senior member of our community, at least for the moment. He has made valuable contributions to the pool world as evidenced by the people who utilize CTE and Hal's other aiming systems.
The bottom line is that Hal deserves our respect not only for his pool contributions but especially because of his elder statesmanship.
Some people apparently were never taught to respect their elders.
The vilification of Hal by a few in this forum is discraceful, imo.
I look at people and wonder what kind of contributions they have made to their fellow man and their peers. I think Hal has made GREAT CONTRIBUTIONS to the pool world and it is genuinely shameful the way some AZBers talk about him.
Actually, I think the thing that really bothers me is the fact that Hal is old enough to be most of your grandfathers, if not great-grandfather and some of you don't even have the decency to respect a man of his years.
Yeah, I guess I do defend Hal Houle........................... and I'm proud of that fact.
Those who attempt to vilify Hal Houle should hang their head in shame. imo.
Great Post Joey. Thank you.
If these statements are true than you should keep doing what you do best, cause you don't know JACK-SHIT about CTE.
That explains sooooo much
Lou Figueroa
went to high school
five blocks from the corner of
Haight & Ashbury
in the late 60's
I couldn't agree with you more: I'm beginning to feel my time isn't being used as wisely as it could be. And I know NOTHING about CTE...
...and neither does anyone else. CTE doesn't really exist. It's the unicorn of pool.
Glad you asked.
Yes, I have read the whole thread through, from the day you started it. And many of the previous several dozen CTE threads over the past year. And yes, I recognize that there was some vitriol spread in your direction, perhaps even "first".
Perhaps you don't realize this discussion has been going on here for a very long time, long before you decided to publish your findings. I think you do realize this, though. So why are you surprised that some folks, many who have had to defend this theory for a long time, would be less than thrilled with the attitude in your posts? Perhaps you don't recognize it, but you do come off in quite a condenscending manner in your posts, and you have since the beginning of this whole mess. I suspect that is the academic in you. (Though I realize academics hold no monopoly on such an attitude.)
You must certainly have known what you were suggesting would cause a reaction. I believe you were looking for said reaction, to start a "debate" on the subject, no knowing what a sh!t-storm would ensue. While I don't wish to return to the religious analogies, the feeling can be somewhat similar, along with views on politics, or any other hotly contesed theoretical argument.
I suppose my rather long-winded point is this: when you come onto these forums and drop yourself into the middle of the biggest hot-button subject on these boards, ya gotta expect a little push-back. And as we've seen today, not everyone who posts on an anonymous internet board can play nice with one another. I would expect more from a high-standing academic, one who we've recently discovered is no kid, and should "know better."
No one says you have to ignore people who are firing at you. But I think if you go back over the width and breadth of this long thread, most of those folks stopped calling you names a long time ago. And there are ways to dispute those attacks that are far more reasonable. Dr.Dave very rarely has ever come off in a less-than-respectful manner. (Though I do remember even he getting into something heated with folks a while back, odd for him. Never to your level, though. And people fire away at Dr.Dave all the time.) Yet you continue to denigrate Mr. Houle specifically, and the whole group of people who do claim a measure of success using his systems.
I guess the bottom line is your demeaning and condescending attitude makes you seem small and petty. And vindictive. Not someone who probably is none of those things in real life. Maybe you are, I don't know. All I know is that you aren't much fun to read here, and your attitude makes me not want to listen to what you have to say.
I would think that if you wanted to share information with people, you would want them to listen to you. You can't get that by coming on here and blasting whole groups of people in virtually every post that you make. You probably have a lot of information to share with folks, and to discuss with folks. But a discussion requires that people be able to communicate, and that requires a lot more decency than you've shown throughout this thread.
But that's just me, a nobody from nowhere. I barely know which end of the cue to hold. You asked why I singled you out, there's my response. I didn't invent anything that saves lives, nor could I even read your spreadsheets, much less write them. So take that for what's worth, too. Now you can denigrate me, too.
OK time for all of us to lighten up a bit. Here's a post of mine from June 1, 1999 --a few months after I first spent a couple hours with Hal. Hal and his followers were claiming a remarkable number of shots were half-ball hits and that the 30 degree angle had some special significance. This was in the three-angles for all shots days...
****************************
On the significance of the 30 degree Houle angle
IMPORTANT: Follow these instructions one by one and carefully. Don't look
ahead.
1) pick a number from 1-9
2) subtract 5
3) multiply by the mystical Houle angle divided by 10
4) square the number (multiply by the same number -- not square root)
5) add the digits until you get only one digit (i.e. 64=6+4=10=1+0=1)
6) if the number is less than 5, add five. Otherwise subtract 4.
7) multiply by 2
8) subtract The mystical Houle angle divided by 5
9) map the digit to a letter in the alphabet 1=A, 2=B, 3=C, etc...
10) pick a name of a country that begins with that letter
11) take the second letter in the country name and think of a
mammal that begins with that letter
12) think of the color of that mammal
**
**
*********
Now, IMO the likelyhood of the mystical Houle angle having special
significance in pool is lower than the likelyhood of you having a gray
elephant from Denmark.
^^ (to justadub) That's fine.
Feel any way you wish--just PLEASE don't think you have any business asking me to explain my behavior to you.
I researched somewhat regarding CTE before making the initial post. MOSTLY, the ENTIRE THING started as having found a REASON to make the calculations I made (had always intended to, but never had an immediate REASON). After making them, I wanted to SHARE them--there are probably a lot of people who would like the info, but were unable to calculate it themselves (one person has in fact PM'ed me about that).
So my initial "silly" stance was based on the research I HAD done about "CTE."
All subsequent problems could have been avoided if only ONE SINGLE PERSON could step forward and say "This is how CTE shows you how to aim with the accuracy necessary."
NONE HAS DONE SO. NOR HAS ANYONE LINKED TO A SOURCE OF THAT INFORMATION.
And this has gone on without limit.
At a point, it becomes time to inform people that they are FULL OF CRAP when they continue to insist something is true, but that it must be accepted as true WITHOUT EXPLANATION OR EVIDENCE.
Any and all people who would like to assert that something is true, but who are unwilling or unable to explain, define, support, or demonstrate it is true need to understand that they contribute NOTHING, and that they're wasting other's time.
Feel any way you wish--just PLEASE don't think you have any business asking me to explain my behavior to you.
I researched somewhat regarding CTE before making the initial post. MOSTLY, the ENTIRE THING started as having found a REASON to make the calculations I made (had always intended to, but never had an immediate REASON). After making them, I wanted to SHARE them--there are probably a lot of people who would like the info, but were unable to calculate it themselves (one person has in fact PM'ed me about that).
So my initial "silly" stance was based on the research I HAD done about "CTE."
All subsequent problems could have been avoided if only ONE SINGLE PERSON could step forward and say "This is how CTE shows you how to aim with the accuracy necessary."
NONE HAS DONE SO. NOR HAS ANYONE LINKED TO A SOURCE OF THAT INFORMATION.
And this has gone on without limit.
At a point, it becomes time to inform people that they are FULL OF CRAP when they continue to insist something is true, but that it must be accepted as true WITHOUT EXPLANATION OR EVIDENCE.
Any and all people who would like to assert that something is true, but who are unwilling or unable to explain, define, support, or demonstrate it is true need to understand that they contribute NOTHING, and that they're wasting other's time.
Last edited:
No explanation needed. Your posts do it quite well for you, thanks. Carry on.
CTE works, been using it for a week now and i feel like I have just learned how to properly aim shots. The system is so easy that a 5 year old could use it and beat 70% of posters on AZB. CTE gives you an aiming reference for very high percentage of shots, at least 90% or more. Yes, on some you have to make SLIGHT adjustments for throw or speed but if you have been playing for at least 5 years you should know how to do that with your old aiming system already. I am playing probably a ball better from this system alone!
All skeptics need to look at every shot they shoot and ask themselves this:
Does the shot look like it can be made with a 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 ball hit?
Pick one and forget about the pocket and just aim at one of these 3 hits, you will be amazed at the percentage of shots you begin to pocket.
Now I dont aim the edge of the cue ball at anything I just aim at 1/4,1/2, or 3/4 ball hit. Thats it, super easy and a 5 year old could be taught this in 30 minutes.
All skeptics need to look at every shot they shoot and ask themselves this:
Does the shot look like it can be made with a 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 ball hit?
Pick one and forget about the pocket and just aim at one of these 3 hits, you will be amazed at the percentage of shots you begin to pocket.
Now I dont aim the edge of the cue ball at anything I just aim at 1/4,1/2, or 3/4 ball hit. Thats it, super easy and a 5 year old could be taught this in 30 minutes.
- Status