[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way in a proxy fight or a non-skewed push poll, you leave options for people to vote for at least the status quo. Your's should be taken down and modified or considered completely meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]




Even if someone is generally happy with the status quo, some poker industry interest has to be judged the least worthy among the interests represented. That is the point of the poll, which then can be compared to the vested interests of the current membership precisely as an aid to judging how conflicted it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the worth of having stepped up and built the value of the organization that currently exists? You keep insisting that because of the current affiliations of the board it can not move forward.

Of these prospective board members where were they when the PPA was formed? Did they volunteer their time, resources, and credibility? Has this vast resource been freely offered or tried to talk to the ED or board members when it was formed? How about recently? Or is the position been "we want x amount of seats just to talk"?

I can sort of understand both sides of this, it's that middle child crap again. 2+2 et.al. feel that the PPA while moderately sucessful, well sucessfull enough to want entry to the game, but so unsucessfull to demand control? That, and this all is only from what I've read, these new board members are so credible that they are not willing to risk association with the PPA without at least tacit veto power over future actions lest they diminish their credibility?

Come on now? Where's the middle ground? Your opening position is you suck, but unless I get a good deal of control I will not talk to you. I'll keep my offically "netrual stance" but watchout without out my help you are going to fail? wink wink "I'm going to make it clear that you suck no matter what you do unless you accept me on my terms."

We're a single issue group and you want to re-create all of the worst of our current 2 party system to play in that enviorment? With freeroll members, various levels of members, and some small number of big donnors who do you propose to vote this.

I've been in board rooms, good bad and in the middle of a fight for control. I was even in FlA for the re-count. How fancy are you going to try and make this?

While it might be true that for an individual "what doesn't destroy us makes us stronger". IMO that just isn't true in this case. IMO your cure is worse than the current effects of the desease you're trying to cure.

If cooler heads can't prevail and everyone pitch in to their own abilites and tastes with out this "I'm going to take my ball home" attitude I was right in my teaser post in FT's forum. Poker is doomed.

Seems simple to me. Donate you time and the resources you can. If you think you have something valuable enough to try and negociate something more go for it. But this king of the hill game you're playing is getting out of hand. I don't know for sure we as the PPA's members as a whole can walk and chew gum. Now on the eve of battle you want to add a whole nighmare of races amongst ourselves for State Rep unpaid jobs, so we can then vote on an advisory pannel? To tell the people who've done the work so far to do what is working and not do what isn't. OMG you sound like most of the thinking you get talking to people who've been in D.C. too long. Who's going to pay for all of this?

By the way where is this fancy gold plated boardroom any way? We're a infant non-profit, not a Fourtune 500 company. Besides you sound a lot like Gordon Gecko trying a leveraged buy out. But do you really think there is at this point that much to fight over and possibly destroy at this time? IMO you want to do this, I'm all for it come after the November elections in '08. Lets get some state reps in the field see who can carry the politicl water, see if we can operate as we should. Spending the time and effort to wrest the control now in the manner you're speaking of is IMPO insane. Heck you'd start with a problem I'm sure with already appointed state reps. Don't you have to toss them out as well as they were appointed not elected. Who you going to trust to count the ballots? Hire an outside accounting firm?

Lets get real. If one or all of your chosen few have the vast resources, go talk to John talk to the board members individually or in any number you can get them to listen. Work it out behind the scenes. But this my way or the highway crap is getting old and time is very short.


D$D

All opinions expressed in this and all my posts are soley my own. All spelling and gramatically errors are my own and due to sleep deprevation. I've spent the last 48 hours or so out pimping the PPA for free. I use my e-mail program as a spell checker and comcast's e-mail server is down and I'm tired of the password pop-up comming up every minute and me typing have my thought into the password field. I have no affiliation with 2+2 or the PPA other than the free services offered by each. Yes I met with John. I have had no with him conversations beyond how the PPA might avail it self of any talents I might have that he or it finds useful. If nominated to the board I will not accept any such offer should anyone be dumb enough to offer me such a nomination any time before 60 days after election day 2008. If you want to question my motives for my opinions feel free. I wear flame retardant underware. This is my fourth crack at this reply. Timed out twice and trashed the other two. I'll likely edit this after some sleep so enjoy it while you can. Go ahead quote it. Just for prosperity's sake!