iGaming News Story On NROG. Info Maybe You Didn't Know About Us.

[cowboy.up]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just quit trolling nrog, those that want to read their posts and help out their (our) campaign will do so - but all this flaming is seriously hurting any progress we might make.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you think anything I'm doing constitutes flaming or trolling, then you are in serious need of an internet dictionary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't singling anyone out - there's been quite a few people all over them. It's a free organization to join, you're not forced to help out in anyway. I'm just saying don't hinder the cause - help it. If the most you can do to help is just keep your mouth/fingers from continually trying to discredit them, well then that's plenty of help.

We all love poker - and the game we love is threatened. Any comments in a time like this should be 'constructive criticism' (to be politically corrent) to help progress the cause.

Just my $.02

[raisins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you were able to, you would have noticed that this guy has just been hyping himself, making unsubstantiated claims, and acting as if news he has given is insider info, when in reality it is virtually certain to have been just an edited version of late-breaking news from respectable news sources that cover congress.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you are just trolling this forum hyping yourself as the ultimate authority on legitamacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Bluffthis = troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

BluffTHIS! isn't close to a troll. There are many posts in the strategy forums that attest to this. He is also active in trying to change the forums in ways he feels would improve the website. He might be overly antagonistic and his tone a bit too caustic but he doesn't just stir up trouble for the hell of it.

If I remember right, when PPA said that they couldn't reveal all that they were working on at Capitol Hill he accepted it. Asking the name of NROG's lobbyists is not the same thing. In one case revealing the information harms the work, in the other it gives the organization legitimacy. What harm could come from giving the name of the lobbyists? Answer that and we will understand NROG's silence on the issue.

[nrog]

I wrote a response earlier but must have forgot to post rather than just preview. At any rate...here it is:

There are certain elements of our campaign and certain players helping us in DC that we simply cannot share with you for reasons I hope you understand. I'm at a loss...I don't know how giving you the name of a law firm is going to help those who don't trust us all of a sudden start to. Its realy quite silly. Maybe you're not aware of the layers that go on in lobbying efforts. One lobbying firm is not what makes our efforts on the Hill successful and while it is a HUGE part of what we are doing right now it is not the way we feel we will win this fight long-term. We are the most public (vocal) organization and that's what we intend to be. Revealing the key players while being this open and vocal can hurt their reputations and chances at success.
I can tell you this...there are many on here who impress the hell out of me with their knowledge...there are others who just don't understand what is really going on here. I agree it would be nice to know everything...especially in the internet age where everyone is a reporter. Unfortunately we simply can't jeopardize what may be working right now in DC. I know thats not the answer you want and I'm sorry for that. What we do in the media (no we dont own a radio show by the way)...will be your business. Where we spend our money outside of sensitive areas...will be your business. Our polling and messaging....will be your business. The people putting their names on the line everyday for us...have to remain our business for now. When the time is right I assure you we will let you know so that you can thank them personally.

As many have posted already. NROG is not demanding you join our group. We offer free memberships for those who don't want to donate. If you don't trust us, dont believe us or simply don't care about us...don't join. All we ask is that you stay vocal and stay committed to this fight. Join the PPA if you haven't already. Join other sites and groups who may be working on this issue. Any support for the cause is good support.

Have a good day guys.

JayB

[va1halla]

The nrog site is alot more up to date compared to the ppa website, but i'm sure the ppa is putting its efforts into other areas (lobbying etc.... Anyway thanks for the help, we need all we can get.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
There are certain elements of our campaign and certain players helping us in DC that we simply cannot share with you for reasons I hope you understand. I'm at a loss...I don't know how giving you the name of a law firm is going to help those who don't trust us all of a sudden start to. Its realy quite silly. Maybe you're not aware of the layers that go on in lobbying efforts. One lobbying firm is not what makes our efforts on the Hill successful and while it is a HUGE part of what we are doing right now it is not the way we feel we will win this fight long-term. We are the most public (vocal) organization and that's what we intend to be. Revealing the key players while being this open and vocal can hurt their reputations and chances at success.

[/ QUOTE ]


nrog,

I am going to repeat myself on some matters.

1) I understand perfectly well, as do we all, that you can't give specific information about lobbying contacts, i.e. what politicians/staff a lobbyist or yourself met with.

2) BUT, there is absolutley NO REASON WHATSOEVER, that you can't name a lobbying firm that you assert to be using, when you yourself have acknowledged that such information will be filed in that lobbying firm's disclosure statements at the end of the year.


And again, if you are legit then I commend your efforts, even if as TruePoker CEO noted you have some affiliate thing going and aren't overly competent as a lobbyist (unless you are using us to bootstrap a foray into a career in lobbying), but nonetheless are positively promoting our cause. Although as Mason said such an interest may be your primary one and we are only your tools to that end, I don't care if you are legit and have a positive effect on this issue.

BUT, you are a n00b here, have rushed to be seen giving seemingly insider info that on occasion has proved in error, and which you refuse to acknowledge, and without verification of your bona fides as to engaging a lobbying firm as you have asserted, then it can fairly be inferred you have only cribbed that info off other web sites or news sources without attribution.


So here we go again:

NAME THE LOBBYING FIRM YOU ARE USING, EVEN IF YOU DON'T THINK IT NECESSARY, BECAUSE THAT INFORMATION IF TRUE WILL BE REVEALED IN LEGALLY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE FORMS BY THAT FIRM AT A LATER DATE.

Answer that question, and upon verification by our forum's insiders with a check on that firm and that you are a client, then I will welcome you to the overall effort, even if you have something to gain otherwise.

But if either you continue to refuse to answer about the lobbying firm, or an answer from you doesn't check out, then you will not be entitled to any credibility or support here because it will be evident you have lied repeatedly.

My mind is open and my current skeptical views on you are subject to change, even if so many others here in their fear of this legislative threat are totally willing to suspend their critical judgement. The plain fact is that very good conmen sound and act and look legit until their bona fides are checked. So the ball is in your court to remove the doubt by answering the legitimate question I posed and which answer cannot harm your efforts if they are legitimate since by law that information must be revealed at a later date anyway.

[Lawman007]

Wow, Mason. If you exerted a fraction of the energy on opposing the anti-online poker bill that you do on calling out the PPA and NROG, you might actually be able to make a difference.

Talk about misplaced priorities...........LOL

[kleath]

Why does nrog need to be accepted by a random person on an internet forum? It's pretty laughable that you post in the form of a threat and expect he should tell you anything in addition about his orginization, and yes posting TELL US YOUR LOBBYING FIRM, then after a background we'll believe you, IS in the form of a threat. That whole post was laughable at best, independent of NROGs transparency and/or legitimacy.

[Miamipuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, Mason. If you exerted a fraction of the energy on opposing the anti-online poker bill that you do on calling out the PPA and NROG, you might actually be able to make a difference.

Talk about misplaced priorities...........LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree with you Lawman.

Then again his lawyer came back from Europe. So we can soon expect a high powered statement telling us how they do not support the PPA in any way, shape or form. They may even mention the legislation might be bad for online poker.......... dare to dream.

[TruePoker CEO]

Mason,

We spoke briefly about this ban issue during the WSOP. I understand your reluctance to act in politics. I disagree with your opinion however of those whose do so. (Not Nrog, but Congress ... you ascribe principles to them in too great numbers.)

The only thing that would bother most members of Congress would be losing their next election. In DC, the only thing that matters are the money or votes a lobbyist might deliver or withhold or give to your opponent. Online gaming is simply not a real election issue for ANYONE.

Yes, some Senators, like Arlen Spector or John Warner have a sense of the agreed rules, and reported stepped up in a manner that coincidently helped online gaming, but that is a matter of operating efficiency for them, not a substantive stand on the issue of online gaming.

The similar coincidental opening of an opportunity for Representative Leach to leverage his Iowa caucus muscle to lure Frist to the fight might have carried the day and still might. (The counter-balance should be, on the Dems side, the leapfrog of the Nevada primary to the front of the 2007 pack..... provided some Senator is considering a 2007 run ......... Hillary or anyone ?)

However, there is little real substantive principle at stake for Hill denizens on this issue. Some members on both sides of the issue DO consider this a principled fight .... from Goodlatte to Barney Frank, but they are not very numerous.

Your concern is misplaced, you've misjudged the coin of the Hill realm to be transparency.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does nrog need to be accepted by a random person on an internet forum? It's pretty laughable that you post in the form of a threat and expect he should tell you anything in addition about his orginization, and yes posting TELL US YOUR LOBBYING FIRM, then after a background we'll believe you, IS in the form of a threat. That whole post was laughable at best, independent of NROGs transparency and/or legitimacy.

[/ QUOTE ]


nrog has:

1) asked for our support

2) asked for our money (sure he said we don't have to donate to his site which apparently doesn't even ask for contact info, but that's still a slick way of asking for dough).


And yet you and others are willing to give both of the above based on what? If your broker calls you up and says he has a great stock you should invest in that his firm just happens to be the one putting it out through an IPO, and that he claims will make you a bundle, are you just going to say, "Sure! Buy me 1000 shares!", without asking for any information on them?

Never mind. I know how you would answer.