TruePoker will continue to welcome U.S players

[TruePoker CEO]

"Including flat out lying about the nature of this law. If he hadn't been dishonest about it in here and other threads, I'd have no problem with the guy. I just don't think he's someone you can trust."

Phil, I'm going to have to call you out on that one. We have never met, to my knowledge.

Our business company has been operating in online poker for 5+ years. We neither make bets nor wagers and have no stake in the outcome of games or tournaments. (Why you cannot understand the business model is beyond me.)

We always have been independently owned and operated, and are licensed in Antigua and then Kahnawake.

My professional credentials for legal analysis may be better than yours, but who knows ? The point is the validity of the analysis, not who makes it. Professor Rose seems to feel that there is real validity to my argument that poker sites are not covered by the recent Act, AND noted the argument in an LA Times article on the 3d. (I'm sorry, he must be "flat out lying" too.)

In contrast, you hide behind some anonymous post. At the same time you are ranting about legal "nonsense", you are trying to steer people to another site you prefer. (I have no beef with SportingBet, it has been active in the UK trying to get that government to act in the WTO matter.)

Okay, you've got a bug up somewhere about our site and about my posting here. I get that, but where do you get off attacking my integrity ? Grow up. You want to disagree with me or say my argument is "nonsense", fine.

Like everyone else, except the publicly-held sites that jumped to pull the plug on US players, we are interested in seeing what the financial services do about the deposits issues raised by the Act's spectre.

For our part, the Act clearly did nothing to criminalize operating a poker site. What support do you have for thinking "poker" is "illegal under this Act ?" Nevermind, the question was rhetorical.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
In contrast, you hide behind some anonymous post. At the same time you are ranting about legal "nonsense", you are trying to steer people to another site you prefer. (I have no beef with SportingBet, it has been active in the UK trying to get that government to act in the WTO matter.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I have to respond to call you out on this. I have NEVER pushed another site, nor am I an affiliate. Your reference to Sportingbet is pure nonsense, I have NEVER mentioned them!! I dare anyone to look through my post history to check if I shill for another site. Mods can check my IP against other posters, this is the ONLY account I post under. More evidence that you'll say any lie you think you can get away with to make yourself look better.

As for the rest, there are many legal opinions written about this issue. People can make up their own minds who's being honest and who's not.

[TruePoker CEO]

You write vehemently that "I have to respond to call you out on this. I have NEVER pushed another site, nor am I an affiliate. Your reference to Sportingbet is pure nonsense, I have NEVER mentioned them!!".

Read your post in this thread on October 2, 11:43 am where you said, in full:

"I think you can add Paradise Poker to that list. They're offering the same level of assurance as TruePoker (i.e. conditional on the banks). "

A poster in this thread had given a list of sites which deserved props for declaring business as usual, including ours. You answered quickly, adding Paradise Poker, then compared Paradise Poker directly to TruePoker.

Even if you did not know Sportingbet owned the Paradise Poker operation, you were clearly making a direct comparison between a site you seem to prefer and ours, for which you have developed a clear dislike.

I don't think that mentioning that site was in any way spamming or shilling by you, but your offering props to Paradise/Sportingbet was entirely inconsistent with your concurrent rant about how it was nonsense for Truepoker to say poker was not criminalized by this Act. The subsequent direct comparison can be fairly called "trying to steer players to another site you prefer" over ours.

I'll stand by the statement that you went on tilt over above. Imagine if someone had called you a bad name or had made some truly derogatory remark about your integrity.

[akishore]

[ QUOTE ]

You write vehemently that "I have to respond to call you out on this. I have NEVER pushed another site, nor am I an affiliate. Your reference to Sportingbet is pure nonsense, I have NEVER mentioned them!!".

Read your post in this thread on October 2, 11:43 am where you said, in full:

"I think you can add Paradise Poker to that list. They're offering the same level of assurance as TruePoker (i.e. conditional on the banks). "

A poster in this thread had given a list of sites which deserved props for declaring business as usual, including ours. You answered quickly, adding Paradise Poker, then compared Paradise Poker directly to TruePoker.

Even if you did not know Sportingbet owned the Paradise Poker operation, you were clearly making a direct comparison between a site you seem to prefer and ours, for which you have developed a clear dislike.

I don't think that mentioning that site was in any way spamming or shilling by you, but your offering props to Paradise/Sportingbet was entirely inconsistent with your concurrent rant about how it was nonsense for Truepoker to say poker was not criminalized by this Act. The subsequent direct comparison can be fairly called "trying to steer players to another site you prefer" over ours.

I'll stand by the statement that you went on tilt over above. Imagine if someone had called you a bad name or had made some truly derogatory remark about your integrity.

[/ QUOTE ]

TruePokerCEO,

You are an awesome person and I really respect your stance and courage. Please ignore this idiot attacking you like a fourth grader, and please do not let him deter you from continuing to post. I will also look into your site and may take my business there.

Thank you,
Aseem

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you did not know Sportingbet owned the Paradise Poker operation, you were clearly making a direct comparison between a site you seem to prefer and ours, for which you have developed a clear dislike.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I did not know that, and I apologise for calling you a liar unfairly (although you did make strong insuations about my motivations, which you probably knew to be untrue).

In that post I was simply offering offering an addition to the list of available sites, using available information at the time (i.e. trying to be helpful). I did not compare your site to Paradise, nor do I prefer playing there (I think they're a crap site).

[ QUOTE ]
The subsequent direct comparison can be fairly called "trying to steer players to another site you prefer" over ours.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it can't. Again you insuate things that simply aren't true.

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine if someone had called you a bad name or had made some truly derogatory remark about your integrity.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to spam my poker site, as you have a history of doing. My integrity or motivations are not of importance, unlike yours. I maintain that you are deliberately fluffling up the legal status of this bill. Whether you actually don't understand it, or are lying, I don't know. For another example of you claiming far too much in order to get business, check out this thread where you are called out by another poster for offering sketchy legal advice that fits your own interest:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1

Anyway, I'm done with this. I've spent enough time on this crap. My only interest in this whole thing was pointing out your obvious dishonesty, and seeing that you didn't gain from it. People are so grateful to have anyone give them certainty (no matter how real it is) that they don't care. So be it.

Good luck with your business.

[BluffTHIS!]

Phil,

You have a history of trolling and he doesn't. He has been a positive contributor to this forum long before the passage of this legislation, and you haven't. And since you aren't even american, you don't have a stake in the the new law as we do.

And as far as his promoting his site, yes he has done that, although often in response to requests for information from other players. What do you think Lee Jones is doing here when he responds in his official capacity as a spokesman for stars?