Already been put up, but as others who put it down you have never even tried it so who really needs to shut up.
Why CTE is silly
- Thread starter GetMeThere
- Start date
- Status
I've been so BAD! :smash:
But we can make it all go away. Just offer up an example of how CTE produces the aiming coordinates to make a shot, accurate within the ranges specified in my very first post of this thread.
Do that and we can go home, and you can yap yap yap to your wife. Sounds good to me.
Otherwise, you know, it's all just TALK, and POSTURING, and you-said, I-said, he-said. Yappy Yap Yap.
only for people that havn't tried it.
Oops, the anthem again. "The information is THERE, but I ain't gonna spoon feed it to ya!"
Everybody already knows that one, cookie man. It just doesn't work any more. It's just TALK. You know, BALONEY...
I think you mean- am I going to go on a yapping streak like you have been doing this whole thread. Again, your memory is failing you. I have said several times that I do not know the true CTE. However, from what has been posted, I have come up with a system of my own that works quite well. Even with that system working so well, I am eagerly waiting for Stan's DVD to come out, so that I can learn it correctly.
You know, that DVD that answers your questions, the same one that you have stated that you will not buy or view. The same one you have already said is rubbish.
But, I do agree that it would be a waste of money for you. You would have to spend time on here apologizing to a number of people because you will be proved wrong. And, most importantly, it would be a waste because you don't even play pool anymore. At least not enough to actually get any better.
Some on here may think you have a vast intellect. Many on here don't. As far as your education and so called accomplishments, they are nothing more than hearsay, and by yourself no less. By your own standards, they must be dismissed. There is nothing you have said on here that can not be easily refuted, just like you think you have done to others on here. The only difference is, you get some kind of joy out of it. We get joy out of helping others improve, not trying to be superior to anyone, so we don't bother wasting our time disputing everything you say.
While you make some good points, there are just as good counterpoints to everything. And, if I thought you really wanted to learn, I would point them out to you. But, it is obvious to all (or almost all), that you have an inferiority complex, and your main goal on here is to try an feel superior to us lowly poolplayers. Hope it's working for you, because then you will at least get something out of the forums.
Really cool, have you tried it?
Last edited:
Have you tried it?
Then, uh, maybe you shouldn't even be taking part in the discussion?
GREAT! It's your OWN stuff--so you can describe it without breaking any promises to anyone. And you say, Stan's is no doubt better--so very soon you'll be using Stan's, and yours will just go into the trash.
So....you're the PERFECT CANDIDATE to give us a shot example, where your version of CTE produces the aiming spot that will pocket the ball within the accuracy I have demonstrated is necessary.
Let's see it. Or....wait....I have a feeling you're just up to more yapping....
The DVD answers all my questions? You mean the DVD you haven't seen yet? And you're not keeping up with the thread. I've said that I WILL buy it, and review it, for the edification of others on the forum.
I look forward to apologizing for being wrong. Why not provide the opportunity for me RIGHT NOW, as I outlined above. Or is that just more yap?
Sorry, I don't know what the "it" is that you're referring to. Are you referring to lessons from a specific person? Talking with Hal? Reading Hal's or other's posts? Neil, for example, says he designed his own CTE based on things that Hal has said.
Usually, before I "try" something I have to know something about it. Regarding CTE, I haven't found any information to be available. That's why I keep asking for a shot example. People who say they know all about it seem UNWILLING to give an example--not just to me, but, apparently, to ANYONE, at ANY TIME, for the LAST TEN YEARS.
I will say that makes me a bit suspicious.
People could step up RIGHT NOW and make me look like a loud-mouthed fool, by giving a specific example. People seem to potentially LOVE the idea of making me look like a fool....yet....nobody steps up.
They just yap at me, as you're doing.
Well, I'm not very good at shutting up...
And as you like to point out when folks don't recall various points from previous posts, I clearly said that I don't "do" CTE. I haven't taken a side in these threads. I'm merely commentating on your poor attitude and communications skills.
Trust me, you don't wanna see me shoot any shot on a pool table. It ain't pretty. I merely read everything I can in an effort to try and get better at this wonderful game. But I can talk, talk ,talk, talk just like you can. Even without any detailed spreadsheets.
If you even tried to get along with folks here, you may have found a true dialog at some point, and a starting point for real understanding. Instead you have chosen to truly be the rotten bastard you referred to in this post (your words, not mine) and have spent the last several days reinforcing that image.
Bravo. Toot toot. Hope you are happy with all your accomplishments here. I'm betting you are. Pot-stirring is something I don't know as I will ever understand, but if it works for you and you get your jollies that way, more power to you.
Ummm....that sounds like double talk, Neil. Where is it posted; can you provide a link?
Also "will it pocket the ball within the accuracy you have demonstrated is necessary" is not the information I asked for. I asked for a demonstration of the PLACE it directs you, that is within the limit of the ranges I specified. If it doesn't do that, then your use of it wasn't what allowed you to pocket the ball--even if you think otherwise.
Surely you must be able to understand: if you claimed that wearing your favorite hat allowed you to pocket balls, and then you POCKETED a ball, no reasonable person would expect me to believe that your hat REALLY DID enable you to pocket the ball (unless you demonstrated there was something interesting and special going on with your hat!).
Don't act like you don't understand that, Neil. You're not that dumb.
AH! So you're REALLY here to waste people's time then. Thanks, I'll remember that there's no need to respond to your future posts. Thanks for visiting the thread.
If they aligned as directed, then you blocked the ob from view, then they got down and made the ball, I would give it credence. If they took the hat off, and then couldn't even hit the ob, then yes, I would be wanting a much closer look at that hat.
In the same way, I have posted on here how I had a student attempt a shot half a dozen times, and he couldn't make it. I then showed him how to do it my way, blocked the ob from his view, and he made it the first time. Now, to me, and surely to him, that was worth the price of admission.
You can call it a hat trick if you like. I know better, and he knows better.
Also, I must have missed the post where you said you WOULD buy the DVD when it comes out. I only remember the one stating that you would not buy it. So, I apologize for that.
And, no, I'm not going to search all my previous posts to find a link for you, when you can do the same thing.
See, I think now we're actually getting somewhere.
Here's what's going on:
You say:
1) if they aligned....I would give it credence
2) if they took the hat off....I'd want a closer look at the hat
3) Student misses.....student makes shot
Those are GOOD! Those are SCIENCE! They are TESTS that could lend support to a hypothesis!
But now let me tell you what's wrong with them: They are INDIRECT tests (or inferential tests), when it would be possible to make a DIRECT test.
So, for example, if you wanted to find out if penicillin was a good antibiotic, and results you offered were:
1) People identified as having walked nearby where penicillin mold was known to be growing got fewer illnesses than ones who didn't.
2) The professor's wife, who lives on the floor above the professor's lab where he works on penicillin, hasn't been sick in YEARS.
3) Bill heard that penicillin comes from a mold, and when his daughter got sick he fed her some mold (that he was pretty sure was penicillin), and she got better.
If you used those tests, and claimed them as evidence that penicillin was an antibiotic....well, the first thing I'd have to ask you is "Why didn't you just give penicillin to a lot of sick people who probably WOULDN'T get better without an antibiotic, and see if it helps?"
I would have to ask why the DIRECT test was AVOIDED, and very indirect evidence was used INSTEAD.
Well, it's just the same here, Neil. We KNOW, we absolutely positively KNOW--as per my first post--that in order to pocket certain shots, the CB must strike the OB at the correct place, and within certain tolerances. If CTE can NOT be shown to provide that information, then the "indirect" evidence for CTE (like people like it, they shoot better, etc.) becomes TOTALLY worthless for supporting CTE as an aiming system.
I'll bet you can understand that.
Last edited:
If you can't understand that the statement means that I dislike your level of negativity towards others in a community that you are very new to, then trying to teach you CTE is obviously a losing battle.
Your like someone who says that a car they have never test driven is a piece of junk, and even though they don't know the make up of the engine, it can't possible produce its claimed horse power. When I first began this thread I thought that you actually had some level of intelligence, and while being over zealous, you were actually trying to find out some valuable about CTE. However, after reading this thread, it is obvious that you have no regard for the realities of the system, and are simply trying to get a rise out of people. Your continual arguments have not made sense, especially for someone who claims a high level of intelligence. People have given you good answers to questions, and you have done nothing but worm your way around them, while discussing a system that you do not even know. A conversation with you appears worthless, but then again, I think that is what you are after. Hopefully your attitude will change at some point, and you can actually become a value to the community instead of a trouble maker. Everyone has their right to question systems and ways of doing things, but you usually do that if you are really looking for an answer.
Ah, I think I'M the early bird here, and you're the worm who has been worming.
Neither you nor anyone else has provided a shot example demonstrating that CTE comes up with the proper aim point within the tolerances I gave in my OP. Without that, all cheerleading talk about CTE is empty and meaningless.
Why not step up to the plate RIGHT NOW (as someone who surely knows CTE--your post is REALLY silly if you don't) and tell us about a shot, the CTE rules for aiming it, and how you know you have the correct place within the tolerances as spelled out in the OP. If you provide the exact, formulaic rules and processes of arriving at the shot solution, then there are people here (the smart ones, not me) who can determine whether what you described will point toward the correct OB hit zone, within the tolerances.
If you're unable to do that, then CTE is not worthy of being called an "aiming system," because, obviously, it doesn't provide or create the necessary information about where to aim.
Last edited:
Good Grief Everyone, get a grip on yourself !!!
Do you really care what some people think about a subject they don't understand,
havn't tried to learn, and have already made up thier mind that it won't work?
You're not going to change thier minds, so why waste your time?
Those people have thier own problems and hangups, and while you may feel sorry for them,
they seem satisfied with themselves, so let them be.
For those that think that this thread is a waste of time, look at what you can learn:
Who the Trolls are.
Who the narrow minded members are.
Who the open minded members are.
Who are the members that try to help, instead of hinder.
Who are members that actually know what they are talking about.
There is a wealth of good information on this forum. There is also quite a bit of crap.
Separating the good from the bad can sometimes be a challenge.
Anyone who posts on this forum leaves a record and impression of themselves,
and others are able to judge for themselves if they want to give them any credibility.
You can learn which ones to ignore and which are the ones whose thoughts and advice you value.
It might even be the reason you to learn how to use the
"Ignore List" feature of this forum.
Do you really care what some people think about a subject they don't understand,
havn't tried to learn, and have already made up thier mind that it won't work?
You're not going to change thier minds, so why waste your time?
Those people have thier own problems and hangups, and while you may feel sorry for them,
they seem satisfied with themselves, so let them be.
For those that think that this thread is a waste of time, look at what you can learn:
Who the Trolls are.
Who the narrow minded members are.
Who the open minded members are.
Who are the members that try to help, instead of hinder.
Who are members that actually know what they are talking about.
There is a wealth of good information on this forum. There is also quite a bit of crap.
Separating the good from the bad can sometimes be a challenge.
Anyone who posts on this forum leaves a record and impression of themselves,
and others are able to judge for themselves if they want to give them any credibility.
You can learn which ones to ignore and which are the ones whose thoughts and advice you value.
It might even be the reason you to learn how to use the
"Ignore List" feature of this forum.
Again with the condescending attitude. I've had no intent of wasting anyone's time. Last time I checked, an open forum was an invitation to participate. I merely qualified the fact that I have no dog in this fight, in an effort to show being objective about the whole debate. And to point out a direction the thread might have gone where something might actually get accomplished. But since I openly admit that I don't use the system, and that I don't agree with GMT, his Holy Highness won't allow me to play any longer. I'm not worthy of His time.
How very fortunate for me that you won't respond to my posts any longer. I can sit back and "enjoy the thread" with full knowledge that the threads OP is a self-important blowhard who doesn't intend on a dialog, rather a monologue. Hope the air is easier to breathe up there in your ivory tower.
- Status