[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
This is where I make my distinction. As a "leader" John is committed, focused and I dare say, effective. You don't neccessasrily HAVE to agree with me. We can agree to disagree, but to say that my statement "weakens my credibility" is, IMO, baseless.

[/ QUOTE ]

We may have to agree to disagree, but not on this point. I have no quarrel with John at all. I really respect all he had done in a very difficult position. I respect him as a man.

But the "problems" at the PPA to a large degree are structal in nature. One man, no matter how hard he works, can over come them. In fact the overall effeciveness of the organization is actually hampered because the dedicated efforts of the extra special person are to some degree lost in over coming the problems not of their making. His extra hard work, dedication, and sucess ultimately mask the true nature of the underlying problems.

This has nothing to do with any "board" issues advanced by Mason or anyone else. Except in how that board has directed the efforts of the organization.

Your opinion of the recent sucess of the PPA is a reflection of John's skills. PR and communications is his speciality. If the PPA wasn't currenty exceeding in those areas then his "term" would be an abject failure. No fair person can claim that the recent history of the PPA is an abject failure.

But what is at issue is does the PPA currently posses, and no this is not a reflection of any dsire to gain employment but simply a reflection of my area of expertise, the nessecary talent and true belief from the board down in the value and ultimate sucess of becoming a true effective grassroots advoacy group.

I, like you, do not care who gets credit for any sucess. Realistically fully legal on-line poker will not change my life one bit. I love the game and strongly feel the passion to do all I can to protect "poker rights" even to advancing the "cause" beyond the current plans. But if an effective Federal on-line poker ban was implemented tomorrow it would not change my life much if at all.

I do not derive a significant income from poker. I have won enough to cause me to have to file as the amount is no longer insifnificant. But I have never had a dime at risk. I built my bankroll from scratch through freerolls. I play because I can as I have the time and enjoy the game imensley. This give me a much different perspective than anyone with any profits to protect or projected income stream from the various potential outcomes of legislation to advance or protect.

I can find all the legal home games, play in pub leagues, play in charity events, and travel to B&M's to satisfy my all my desires to "enjoy" the game. Of the population of the poker community I am not an on-line poker is worthless group, which is about 1/2 of the total population. But neither am I part of the "the world would end" without on-line poker group.

This too is one of the structrual issues NOT addressed by the current PPA philsophy and strategy. Given the numbers not addressing this "blind spot" can and will lead to either a much harder job for the PPA or lead to it's failure.

There are a number of serious "structrual" issues concerning the "vision" of the PPA, even under "new" leadership. Some are being discussed but none IMO are currently being given the thought and attention they deserve.

Constant truning them into pissing matches like the one with TE and Mason, popularity matches like TE's meaningless polls, or simply disregarding them in the hopes that they go away as has happened too often in the past, is not a model for sucess.

Over taxing John has really lead to helping better identify many of these problems, because it is clear even from recent history that because he is spred so thin many "awsome opportunities" continue to be missed or given short shrift, and only in hindshight does the true value come to light.


D$D