[Skallagrim]

Thanks for the specifics Bluff, I will address each in turn.

1) If what you say is true, why was this add campaign short lived? Most folks and journalists to this day repeat the mantra, "UIGEA made online poker illegal." And there is an interpretation of law where that would be true: the DOJ gets the SCOTUS to say the Wire Act covers ALL betting and wagering (very unlikely, but as the SCOTUS has yet to speak, still possible). And to top it off, I recall the very same Ms. Shulman posting at CP saying the UIGEA had changed nothing and criticizing Party and the others for leaving. I see little more here than some early too simple legal analysis (primarily, IIRC, from D'Amato), not a plan to benefit one group.

2) I dont know how much work behind the scenes was done on the regs, I bet there was plenty. There certainly has been significant work since Pappas took over. "Sins of ommission" maybe, but far more likely the result of the previous scattered management than, again, a plan to benefit one group.

3) The PPA has done only a little so far with B&M poker, true (they did go testify at th TX hearing on allowing it though). But I think all here agree that the focus of the PPA SHOULD be online poker at this point. Where B&M issues arise, the PPA should be there, but there are not really a lot of B&M issues out there (other than getting poker ruled a skill game in the courts which benefits both B&M and online poker - and I am hopeful the PPA will soon put together a team for doing exactly that). Going out and creating a popular movement for poker rooms in states that dont have them is, I think, a bit much to ask of this still young organization.

4) Intra-state online poker is a dead issue at the moment. Nevada already has a law allowing it. No one has applied for the license because as long as there are interstate sites competing, in-state online is a loser economically.

And we all know that FT and PS have close ties to PPA board members; if these folks are willing to continue working with the Shulmans and the Party "affiliate farms" why cant 2+2?

Again, I see potential for a conflict, but no actual conflict yet, at least as it relates to online. The only real area you can put your finger on is online v. B&M, but I think most of us agree online is the place for the fight right now and thats where limited resources should go first.

I appreciate you being here to keep us on guard, but I still think you go to far when you refuse to help the PPA because of the POTENTIAL of one group influencing the agenda to its advantage.

As a final point, I also believe you could do far more to insure that that one group does not dominate by joining and working from within the PPA to see that your concerns are addressed. TE was the perfect vehicle for that kind of effort, but I suspect that bridge is burnt now, to one degree or another.

Skallagrim