Why CTE is silly

[AtLarge]

;... So my initial "silly" stance was based on the research I HAD done about "CTE."...

Yes, but as I have tried to tell you twice before, your research led you to a faulty conclusion -- that CTE is a three-angle, fractional-ball aiming system. It is not. Yet you condemned CTE thinking it is, and have refused to admit to that fundamental initial mistake.

I previously pointed you to a simple description of Houlian CTE. Dave Segal's blog contains another similar description. Those should be enough to get you off the three-angle business. But I will agree with you that neither of the sources I mention here defines a precise aiming system.

At long last, more is coming. Patience, patience. Then we can all really have some fun one way or another.

 

[ThePoliteSniper]

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.

I once had a nightmare that CTE started spreading over to Europe like a virus and I was surrounded by superstitous pivoting bangers who couldn't make a ball. I woke up sweaty and shaking and thought, if that ever happened in real life I would quit pool and play snooker only. :smile-us-down:

 

[AtLarge]

Sorry, I must have hit a button twice by mistake.

 

[AtLarge]

CTE works, been using it for a week now ... 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.

I want to scream. That is not CTE. CTE is not this fractional-ball aiming method!!! Hal did teach that method at one time about a decade or more ago, but it is not CTE.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

center pocket:
CTE works, been using it for a week now ... 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.

AtLarge:
I want to scream. That is not CTE. CTE is not this fractional-ball aiming method!!! Hal did teach that method at one time about a decade or more ago, but it is not CTE.

It's easy to confuse two sects of the same personality cult.

pj
chgo

 

[GetMeThere]

Yes, but as I have tried to tell you twice before, your research led you to a faulty conclusion -- that CTE is a three-angle, fractional-ball aiming system. It is not. Yet you condemned CTE thinking it is, and have refused to admit to that fundamental initial mistake.

I can only go by what people say. Some people, like one just before you, say it's EXACTLY a 3 shot system. Others say other things. NOBODY says EXACTLY what it is, everybody says IT'S OUT THERE TO BE FOUND, they all say THEY KNOW what it is, although some others don't.

Am I really the one who needs to be told he's confused?

I previously pointed you to a simple description of Houlian CTE. Dave Segal's blog contains another similar description. Those should be enough to get you off the three-angle business. But I will agree with you that neither of the sources I mention here defines a precise aiming system.

Okey-Dokey. That was my main point: it's not a "precise" aiming system--> it doesn't tell you exactly where to aim --> it's not an aiming system.

As I pointed out with my original data (the PURPOSE of this thread, remember?): Unless you know (or can be directed toward) where the OB must be hit to very close tolerances, you can't consistently make the shot. An aiming system that doesn't provide the information necessary to make the shot isn't an aiming system (no comments about GB and throw, K? That's JB's special domain of silliness).

 

[center pocket]

I want to scream. That is not CTE. CTE is not this fractional-ball aiming method!!! Hal did teach that method at one time about a decade or more ago, but it is not CTE.

Well whatever the F*ck its called, it works. You guys are more nit picky than a bunch of Grandma's with irritable bowel syndrome.

This is why I have never gotten involved in this. The system works, bottom line.

 

[GetMeThere]

Well whatever the F*ck its called, it works. You guys are more nit picky than a bunch of Grandma's with irritable bowel syndrome.

This is why I have never gotten involved in this. The system works, bottom line.

You tell'em center pocket: WHATEVER it is, IT WORKS!


I'm jealous of CTE followers because they have their own anthem (although I'd like to hear it sung: "I won't spoon-feed it to you.")

I propose an anthem for the CTE deniers. It's especially appropriate being that we don't even know WHAT CTE is. Here it is, sung by none other than the great Groucho Marx

 

[lfigueroa]

No explanation needed. Your posts do it quite well for you, thanks. Carry on.

justadub, with all due respect: as someone who has been involved with these internecine wars for almost 15 years, IMO, GMT has conducted himself admirably. He's made numerous cogent and insightful contributions to the CTE discussion and taken all the usual forum flak, in stride. If he's lit one or two guys up, it was more than deserved.

In particular, how he addresses many of the nonsensical arguments and carefully dismantles them in public has been a boon to the discussion. If that has rattled the CTEr's and Houligan population at large, so be it. They have gotten away with too much ca-ca for too long and I'm glad someone with the logic and patience to properly address them, like GMT, has come along.

I find GetMeThere's participation a breath of fresh, intelligent air to the usual CTE distractions.

But that's just me

Lou Figueroa

 

[JoeyA]

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.

You don't get it, do you?

1. Hal has given some pool players the ability to play better pool through the use of CTE and his other aiming systems. What have you done?

2. Some instructors actually use CTE in their training courses.

3. Players that play far better than you will ever dream of playing, use CTE.

4. Hal is a genuinely nice, elderly man whom a lot of people respect and like. Hal deserves far better from people like you but you just don't get it...........................

5. Apparently Hal has actually developed something that is considered valuable by some in the pool world. Even Dr. Dave confesses that from what little he knows about CTE, it helps some players play better pool and he lists the reasons why.

6. Hal's systems including CTE have brought joy to many players' lives.

7. I'm just wondering if you were so interested in learning something valuable about CTE, why after all these years haven't you gone to the source?

It appears to me that some of you simply crave attention and this is your way of making a contribution to the pool world?

Just what have you done for the pool world and please don't make a fool of yourself?

By the way, what is your name? I'd just like to know who I'm corresponding with.

 

[Neil]

justadub, with all due respect: as someone who has been involved with these internecine wars for almost 15 years, IMO, GMT has conducted himself admirably. He's made numerous cogent and insightful contributions to the CTE discussion and taken all the usual forum flak, in stride. If he's lit one or two guys up, it was more than deserved.

In particular, how he addresses many of the nonsensical arguments and carefully dismantles them in public has been a boon to the discussion. If that has rattled the CTEr's and Houligan population at large, so be it. They have gotten away with too much ca-ca for too long and I'm glad someone with the logic and patience to properly address them, like GMT, has come along.

I find GetMeThere's participation a breath of fresh, intelligent air to the usual CTE distractions.

But that's just me

Lou Figueroa

WOW! That's great! Sounds like gmt finally posted something worth reading! What forum was that on, and why didn't he post any of them on AZB???

 

[BRKNRUN]

You don't get it, do you?

1. Hal has given some pool players the ability to play better pool through the use of CTE and his other aiming systems. What have you done?

2. Some instructors actually use CTE in their training courses.

3. Players that play far better than you will ever dream of playing, use CTE.

4. Hal is a genuinely nice, elderly man whom a lot of people respect and like. Hal deserves far better from people like you but you just don't get it...........................

5. Apparently Hal has actually developed something that is considered valuable by some in the pool world. Even Dr. Dave confesses that from what little he knows about CTE, it helps some players play better pool and he lists the reasons why.

6. Hal's systems including CTE have brought joy to many players' lives.

7. I'm just wondering if you were so interested in learning something valuable about CTE, why after all these years haven't you gone to the source?

It appears to me that some of you simply crave attention and this is your way of making a contribution to the pool world?

Just what have you done for the pool world and please don't make a fool of yourself?

By the way, what is your name? I'd just like to know who I'm corresponding with.

Not that you take stock in what I say anyway....but Hal being elderly has nothing to do with weather he deserves respect or not....You should leave that part out of #4.:wink:

My guess is that Hal is still "young at heart"

 

[lfigueroa]

You don't get it, do you?

1. Hal has given some pool players the ability to play better pool through the use of CTE and his other aiming systems. What have you done?

2. Some instructors actually use CTE in their training courses.

3. Players that play far better than you will ever dream of playing, use CTE.

4. Hal is a genuinely nice, elderly man whom a lot of people respect and like. Hal deserves far better from people like you but you just don't get it...........................

5. Apparently Hal has actually developed something that is considered valuable by some in the pool world. Even Dr. Dave confesses that from what little he knows about CTE, it helps some players play better pool and he lists the reasons why.

6. Hal's systems including CTE have brought joy to many players' lives.

7. I'm just wondering if you were so interested in learning something valuable about CTE, why after all these years haven't you gone to the source?

It appears to me that some of you simply crave attention and this is your way of making a contribution to the pool world?

Just what have you done for the pool world and please don't make a fool of yourself?

By the way, what is your name? I'd just like to know who I'm corresponding with.

Joey. Come on, man.

Some players think they gotten better because of Hal -- Dr. Dave has shown what may really be going on. And sure, some instructors teach CTE. So what? Tune in at night and there are folks willing to teach you how to become instantly wealthy and/or thin (it's a two-for promotion And so what if a couple of PRO players endorse CTE -- the vast majority do not (maybe they haven't gotten their check And while I grant you that Hal is a really nice old guy, I understand so were a number of other old guys that came up with equally loony ideas. And hey, who hasn't gotten a little joy out of the latest Big Foot or Loch Ness Monster sighting?

IMO, it's the guys that keep pushing this snake oil that are the ones craving attention and in some cases... a little cash

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

WOW! That's great! Sounds like gmt finally posted something worth reading! What forum was that on...

That would be same forum where you've posted something insightful lately

Right here.

Lou Figueroa

 

[GetMeThere]

You don't get it, do you?

1. Hal has given some pool players the ability to play better pool through the use of CTE and his other aiming systems. What have you done?

2. Some instructors actually use CTE in their training courses.

3. Players that play far better than you will ever dream of playing, use CTE.

4. Hal is a genuinely nice, elderly man whom a lot of people respect and like. Hal deserves far better from people like you but you just don't get it...........................

5. Apparently Hal has actually developed something that is considered valuable by some in the pool world. Even Dr. Dave confesses that from what little he knows about CTE, it helps some players play better pool and he lists the reasons why.

6. Hal's systems including CTE have brought joy to many players' lives.

7. I'm just wondering if you were so interested in learning something valuable about CTE, why after all these years haven't you gone to the source?

It appears to me that some of you simply crave attention and this is your way of making a contribution to the pool world?

Just what have you done for the pool world and please don't make a fool of yourself?

By the way, what is your name? I'd just like to know who I'm corresponding with.

It just never stops, does it? Mountains of "IT WORKS!" and not even molehills of "This is what you do to get an aiming point." So Hal provided all this great information to the pool world, free of charge. Where is it? Why won't anyone describe even a TINY PART OF IT to the extent that it could be fairly inferred that it has an objective basis?

The problem with your "arguments," Joey, is that you choose to address ONLY issues you feel like. I've made a few pretty substantial points throughout the thread that "finding satisfied customers" is often poor proof that something works. If you went to a site to buy...oh, some device that would double your gas mileage, and they gave NO INFO about how or why it worked, etc., but they had page after page of statements from satisfied customers (which, btw, you DON'T EVEN HAVE--we only get to hear from you that MANY people have practically HAD THEIR LIVES CHANGED by CTE). So, they quote "Mary": "It's the best thing I ever bought, I get DOUBLE the mileage I used to get." and "Bill": "I'm an engineer. I wouldn't believe this would work, but I took a chance--and now I save HUNDREDS every month on gas!"

Would you buy? Well, hehe, maybe you WOULD. A more skeptical/critical person, I think, would probably let out a snort and see what else was for sale on the web...

I'll address each of your questions:

1) I've mentioned before, that even in science and medicine, determining cause and effect: he took pill A, and that caused him to feel better, is a TREACHEROUS MINEFIELD of difficulties. Wouldn't it be a lot easier to....believe....people have been helped by CTE if we were told what CTE is? If two tests were done, one that determined that soaking your feet in mud from Holcomb Kansas cured colds; and the second that a new, ultra-high-tech medicine developed at Harvard cured colds--would you say each was equally likely to cure colds? What's the difference? The difference is in knowing the basis of the hypothesis--is there a REASON to think something might work...

So EVEN IF WE COULD KNOW how many people say CTE helped them, and how many say it DIDN'T help them (and we don't know that information), that alone wouldn't allow us to determine if CTE really DID work. Interestingly, the geometry and physics of shot making are very well understood. An analysis of the actual METHOD of CTE ALONE would be sufficient to determine if it would work or not.

But so far, NOBODY has been willing to supply the CTE method for objective analysis.

What have I done? Well, in the short time I've been here I supplied some objective information that at least some people would find useful in their understanding of the game--and I supplied the formulas to get the data, so that people could work on it further if they would like. It's not much....but it's actually the most objectively substantial and useful thing I've seen on the forum since I came. Most of the rest of the forum is creaming over cues, backbiting, and gossiping.

It's not a cure for cancer. But it's more than I've seen YOU contribute since I've been here. Oh, btw, earlier on you were talking about people's contributions to HUMANITY...so I mentioned my work on embryos. Now I note that contributions to humanity is no longer something you're emphasizing....

2) And some don't. Are all instructors good? When someone decides to become an instructor do any and all human flaws they might have earlier possessed magically drop away? If I declared myself an instructor today, and instructed that CTE was a waste of time, would you then change your position? Afterall, I'd be an INSTRUCTOR!

In fact, any sensible person knows that the LAST person to ask for the true, objective value of something--is the person selling the thing.

3) Ahh! With all the talk about maturity, respect, etc., you can't resist a middle school type taunt?

So, what does it mean that many who play far better than YOU (and I know you're pretty good) DO NOT use CTE? Well, not a damn thing. Again, the VERY SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFOWARD solution to this entire mess is to discuss the actual SYSTEM for its value, and stop trying to arrive at its value OBLIQUELY: "Hank uses it, so it MUST be good--and we don't even have to try to FIND ANYTHING OUT ABOUT IT!"

4) If Hal were around you would find I was the NICEST to him of ANYONE HERE! But he's not. So we can discuss his IDEAS without worrying about how he feels.

5) Hmmm, Dr. Dave is one o' them "instructors." Does he teach CTE? Bob Jewett? Nopey Dopey.

6) Awwww. Joy! I didn't know about the joy part. That testimony changes everything....

7) Earlier I mention that I haven't played for 35 years. I missed the entire "Hal" circus. Reading his old statements, I have to say that I wouldn't have found any interest in trying to learn more about his aiming ideas. Others here, who WERE around for the circus, have said similar--or that they DID go to the source, but were unable to see the light.

8) What's my name? It's Mr. NoneOfYourBusiness. I've been nastily treated here--by you and by others. Earlier, Dave Segal said he wanted to "spoon feed me" arsenic. This place is full of BIG BABIES (and it seems you may be the leader) who can't discuss IDEAS without getting your itty-bitty feelings hurt. I haven't been made to feel that this is a place to share any personal identifying information about myself on the general forum. I have shared my name with some people who have PM'ed me, and try to have a personal interaction with me. But I don't see any interest from you in personal interaction. You're actually, when it comes down to it, a pretty hateful-sounding guy. I've said EVERYTHING about the IDEA of CTE, and pretty damn little about the people invovled; you have addressed NOTHING about my criticisms of CTE, and said MANY nasty things about me (and some others, lately).

 

[JoeyA]

It just never stops, does it? Mountains of "IT WORKS!" and not even molehills of "This is what you do to get an aiming point." So Hal provided all this great information to the pool world, free of charge. Where is it? Why won't anyone describe even a TINY PART OF IT to the extent that it could be fairly inferred that it has an objective basis?

The problem with your "arguments," Joey, is that you choose to address ONLY issues you feel like. I've made a few pretty substantial points throughout the thread that "finding satisfied customers" is often poor proof that something works. If you went to a site to buy...oh, some device that would double your gas mileage, and they gave NO INFO about how or why it worked, etc., but they had page after page of statements from satisfied customers (which, btw, you DON'T EVEN HAVE--we only get to hear from you that MANY people have practically HAD THEIR LIVES CHANGED by CTE). So, they quote "Mary": "It's the best thing I ever bought, I get DOUBLE the mileage I used to get." and "Bill": "I'm an engineer. I wouldn't believe this would work, but I took a chance--and now I save HUNDREDS every month on gas!"

Would you buy? Well, hehe, maybe you WOULD. A more skeptical/critical person, I think, would probably let out a snort and see what else was for sale on the web...

I'll address each of your questions:

1) I've mentioned before, that even in science and medicine, determining cause and effect: he took pill A, and that caused him to feel better, is a TREACHEROUS MINEFIELD of difficulties. Wouldn't it be a lot easier to....believe....people have been helped by CTE if we were told what CTE is? If two tests were done, one that determined that soaking your feet in mud from Holcomb Kansas cured colds; and the second that a new, ultra-high-tech medicine developed at Harvard cured colds--would you say each was equally likely to cure colds? What's the difference? The difference is in knowing the basis of the hypothesis--is there a REASON to think something might work...

So EVEN IF WE COULD KNOW how many people say CTE helped them, and how many say it DIDN'T help them (and we don't know that information), that alone wouldn't allow us to determine if CTE really DID work. Interestingly, the geometry and physics of shot making are very well understood. An analysis of the actual METHOD of CTE ALONE would be sufficient to determine if it would work or not.

But so far, NOBODY has been willing to supply the CTE method for objective analysis.

What have I done? Well, in the short time I've been here I supplied some objective information that at least some people would find useful in their understanding of the game--and I supplied the formulas to get the data, so that people could work on it further if they would like. It's not much....but it's actually the most objectively substantial and useful thing I've seen on the forum since I came. Most of the rest of the forum is creaming over cues, backbiting, and gossiping.

It's not a cure for cancer. But it's more than I've seen YOU contribute since I've been here. Oh, btw, earlier on you were talking about people's contributions to HUMANITY...so I mentioned my work on embryos. Now I note that contributions to humanity is no longer something you're emphasizing....

2) And some don't. Are all instructors good? When someone decides to become an instructor do any and all human flaws they might have earlier possessed magically drop away? If I declared myself an instructor today, and instructed that CTE was a waste of time, would you then change your position? Afterall, I'd be an INSTRUCTOR!

In fact, any sensible person knows that the LAST person to ask for the true, objective value of something--is the person selling the thing.

3) Ahh! With all the talk about maturity, respect, etc., you can't resist a middle school type taunt?

So, what does it mean that many who play far better than YOU (and I know you're pretty good) DO NOT use CTE? Well, not a damn thing. Again, the VERY SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFOWARD solution to this entire mess is to discuss the actual SYSTEM for its value, and stop trying to arrive at its value OBLIQUELY: "Hank uses it, so it MUST be good--and we don't even have to try to FIND ANYTHING OUT ABOUT IT!"

4) If Hal were around you would find I was the NICEST to him of ANYONE HERE! But he's not. So we can discuss his IDEAS without worrying about how he feels.

5) Hmmm, Dr. Dave is one o' them "instructors." Does he teach CTE? Bob Jewett? Nopey Dopey.

6) Awwww. Joy! I didn't know about the joy part. That testimony changes everything....

7) Earlier I mention that I haven't played for 35 years. I missed the entire "Hal" circus. Reading his old statements, I have to say that I wouldn't have found any interest in trying to learn more about his aiming ideas. Others here, who WERE around for the circus, have said similar--or that they DID go to the source, but were unable to see the light.

8) What's my name? It's Mr. NoneOfYourBusiness. I've been nastily treated here--by you and by others. Earlier, Dave Segal said he wanted to "spoon feed me" arsenic. This place is full of BIG BABIES (and it seems you may be the leader) who can't discuss IDEAS without getting your itty-bitty feelings hurt. I haven't been made to feel that this is a place to share any personal identifying information about myself on the general forum. I have shared my name with some people who have PM'ed me, and try to have a personal interaction with me. But I don't see any interest from you in personal interaction. You're actually, when it comes down to it, a pretty hateful-sounding guy. I've said EVERYTHING about the IDEA of CTE, and pretty damn little about the people invovled; you have addressed NOTHING about my criticisms of CTE, and said MANY nasty things about me (and some others, lately).

Sorry my perspective doesn't match yours.

You still don't get it. It's not about CTE, it's about treating people decently. It's about maintaining your dignity while discussing opposing ideas and perspectives.

You want to insert words like fool, and babies and other negative remarks to make your points and you have the nerve to accuse me of being a hateful-sounding guy.

You ridicule those of the forum who enjoy talking about cues and the latest goings on in the pool world.

You talk about Hal's earnest efforts to help people play better pool as a circus act. That's real nice.

You regularly mix your opposing opinions with mean-spirited words.

Your accusation is almost funny but I realize that everyone doesn't share my values, perspectives or respect for my fellow posters.

I am glad to hear that if Hal were there in front of you that you would be really nice to him.

I'll leave you with your thread and all of its "value".

 

[Neil]

Let's see here...... we have three camps here....

Camp A- Here we have a product that the inventor claims will really help your gas mileage. He is giving it away free, or rather, at the cost of showing up to get it. Many have claimed that it is a good thing and works. Others, in the interest of helping others, have posted parts of this claim, and some have delved into what was available, and made another product that also helped your gas mileage.

A number of people have claimed that it has really helped their gas mileage.

Camp B- Some have taken the free info, and expanded on it and now sell it for a profit. One of these, will soon have a DVD available to explain it in detail on what is in it, and why and how it gives you better mileage.

Camp C- Here we have those that want to warn everyone not to use this product. You will be wasting your time, as it has not been scientifically documented and tested thoroughly. Never use anything without the scientific label on it. Without that label, it has to be wrong, and can only make one foolish to try it. He has never used it, doesn't even know how it works, is not willing to even try it, all because of no scientifically approved label. But, admits it can not harm you, only make you look like a fool if you try it. After all, don't you know that there are scams out there??

Now, which camp should I choose??? hmmmmm............. free you say? Should I try it? I have nothing but a little time to lose. If it helps, then I can always go to the guys that sell more info on it, and learn more about it. Or... should I listen to that guy over there that knows nothing about the product and hasn't tried it???

I think it is clear here, who the really foolish person is.

 

[justadub]

justadub, with all due respect: as someone who has been involved with these internecine wars for almost 15 years, IMO, GMT has conducted himself admirably. He's made numerous cogent and insightful contributions to the CTE discussion and taken all the usual forum flak, in stride. If he's lit one or two guys up, it was more than deserved.

In particular, how he addresses many of the nonsensical arguments and carefully dismantles them in public has been a boon to the discussion. If that has rattled the CTEr's and Houligan population at large, so be it. They have gotten away with too much ca-ca for too long and I'm glad someone with the logic and patience to properly address them, like GMT, has come along.

I find GetMeThere's participation a breath of fresh, intelligent air to the usual CTE distractions.

But that's just me

Lou Figueroa

With all equal due respect, I call bullspit.

A breath of fresh air is someone who is arrogant, demeaning, and condescending? You breath some different air than I do.

I fully realize that you are poking fun in most of your posts, with some intent behind them. But you haven't been malicious, at least in the threads that I've read this past year that I've been involved.

Then we have GMT, who finds his vast superior intellect enough justification to look down his nose at almost everyone who doesn't agree with him. He has undoubtedly a much greater mind than mine, as evidenced in his education and past accomplishments. But that doesn't make him any less a nasty person, at least here on AZB. (In person he could be the nicest of people. The anonymous nature of internet message boards has to be taken into account in this instance.)

All of this back and forth could have been handled in a far more respectful manner. (Like Dr.Dave and many others do.) But our OP doesn't choose to do so. He chooses to demean people who have spent a lot of time learning an aiming system they believe works for them. Whether or not it can be quantified by his spreadsheets. Yes, there are other posters here who didn't handle themselves any better initially in this thread, but they have backed away from acting in that manner, while our OP remains in his ivory tower of supreme intelligence and lords it over the rest of we peasants.

So in short, I don't share your opinion of the "fresh air" that GMT provides.

Over and out.

 

[GetMeThere]

Let's see here...... we have three camps here....

Camp A- Here we have a product that the inventor claims will really help your gas mileage. He is giving it away free, or rather, at the cost of showing up to get it. Many have claimed that it is a good thing and works. Others, in the interest of helping others, have posted parts of this claim, and some have delved into what was available, and made another product that also helped your gas mileage.

Enough mumbo-jumbo Neil. If you can describe the CTE formulaic method for lining up a shot, from which it's possible to determine it would point to an area as small as those I've calculated in my tables, then we can be done, and YOU WILL WIN, and HAL WILL BE VINDICATED FOR ALL TO SEE. And I will use all my rhetorical skills to put CTE non-believers in their place!!

If you can't, then it's just endless mumbo-jumbo and yapping.

Are you going to go on a yapping streak like JoeyA now?

 

[GetMeThere]

Then we have GMT, who finds his vast superior intellect enough justification to look down his nose at almost everyone who doesn't agree with him. He has undoubtedly a much greater mind than mine, as evidenced in his education and past accomplishments. But that doesn't make him any less a nasty person, at least here on AZB. (In person he could be the nicest of people. The anonymous nature of internet message boards has to be taken into account in this instance.)

So....if I weren't such a ROTTEN BASTARD this entire CTE thing would have been settled LONG AGO, eh??

What was your excuse for not providing the simple facts of CTE for discussion before I was around? You know, the FREE stuff that Hal wanted to give the world?

Specify a shot and demonstrate how CTE gives you the aiming information that would put the shot within the range my table calculations specify. Do that and we can all go home and J*** O** and count our money.

Otherwise, it's just talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk.

Can you put up, justadub, or do you prefer to shutup?