Brucey, I'm curious why you have such a huge interest in this case. While the number of posts somebody has doesn't directly indicate anything about the value of their contribution, you have a big old 72. Given how many times I've seen you post about this lawsuit, I would guess that this subject has been the majority of your involvement with 2+2, if not the entirety of it. Are you simply a shill for the WPT? Probably not, but you sure seem like one.
Here are some of the stupid and intentionally (IMO) misleading comments you have made just recently.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here are some of Raymer's previous comments:
I do not see any legal basis by which the WPT can bring any online site into this lawsuit in any manner whatsoever. They will likely ask us during any depositions about the activity of our respective sites that we the Plaintiffs represent, and the answers will be that these sites have nothing to do with the lawsuit. With that being the case, I do not see any way that the judge would rule that the WPT could bring the online sites into the case as either parties or witnesses. You can't drag somebody into an existing lawsuit without some evidence that they are involved. You don't necessarily need a lot of evidence, but you must have something. In this case, there is nothing I know of that would give the WPT the standing to attack the online sites.
[/ QUOTE ]
It looks like Raymer was dead wrong about that as the WPT mentioned Full Tilt's illegal activities in their response to the 7's lawsuit.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry if this sounds nasty, but can you even read what you quoted and wrote? I never said that the WPT couldn't bring up the online sites in the lawsuit, I said that there was no legal basis for them to do so. What they have done is attempt to blackmail us by bringing up irrelevant issues that they hope will cause us concern and possibly scare us into giving up. This argument of theirs is on the same level as if I came up to you about money you owed me, and you said that if I made you pay it back, you'd tell everybody some shameful secret of mine. The secret has nothing to do with your debt, but you're hoping that I'll back off and forgive the debt so you keep your mouth shut. That is what the WPT is doing here.
Here is another bit of misleading facts you try to give.
[ QUOTE ]
You can read more about Full Tilt's televised poker events here:
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2006/6...er-tonight.htm
I don't know, I think it will be tough for the players to prove that WPT has a monopoly on big buy-in televised tournaments when Jesus and Howard are sponsoring their own big buy-in televised tourneys through Full Tilt.
[/ QUOTE ]
Given the amount of time you've put into these threads, I would have thought you would know that we are alleging that the WPT has monopoly power in big buy-in televised events that are open to the public. Your link talks about an invitational event that Full Tilt is putting on TV that is limited to 7 players. I don't think the presence of this televised event is going to be of any use to me or anybody else who isn't one of those 7 players.
And here's a final example of your propaganda:
[ QUOTE ]
This lawsuit isn't going to help you average guys any. You are not famous now and you are never going to be famous if the WPT isn't allowed to put your image on TV. Get a grip on reality and realize that you are being manipulated by Raymer so that he can make more money.
[/ QUOTE ]
You spout some half-truths, and try to make it look accurate. It is true that our lawsuit won't help the average guy much, if any. However, if that average guy goes out and does well on the tournament circuit, and becomes a well-known poker-player-celebrity, our lawsuit will help him a LOT. We will help insure that he can maximize his earning potential in endorsement and other after-the-fact deals that come his way from his success as a tournament pro.
And it is true that you can't become famous if the WPT (or the WSOP, the only significant alternative) isn't allowed to put your face on TV. Of course, this statement is meaningless. We're not trying to take away the ability of the WPT to put the players on TV. We're trying to take away their ability to force us to sign away the use of our name and image forever for no compensation, if we wish to play in these events. What good is it to become a "famous" poker player if you aren't able to fully capitalize on the money-making opportunities that come from fame? I promise you, being famous, if it doesn't help you make money, isn't worth it. While I am very happy with my new life and fame, I would much prefer to NOT be famous if it wasn't that very same fame that allows me to make money by endorsing PokerStars and other products and services, and to get paid to make appearances. Fame, in and of itself, is more of a curse than a blessing.
Finally, you state that I am manipulating the players so I can make more money. How am I manipulating anybody? I am providing them with information that I believe to be accurate. I am spending my own money, as are my co-plaintiffs, to help out my own situation, and contemporaneously helping out every other poker player who wants to play in big buy-in televised tournaments that are open to the public. Yes, this lawsuit will hopefully make me more money. But the primary way it will do so is to allow me to participate in the touranments that make up the present WPT schedule. It will not make me money any other way that I foresee, and most importantly, it will not take money out of the pockets of any other poker players (unless I win their entry fees in future tournaments that I otherwise would not have entered).
My agenda has been spelled out completely and often. What is your agenda?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)