Does the PPA need 2+2?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The vast majority of the poker playing population--the 99 and 44/100%--do not know about either the PPA or 2+2. Do you understand that???

[/ QUOTE ]


And do YOU not understand that isn't what is important? The statistic that *is important*, is what percentage of active, letter writing and phone calling members of the PPA are also 2p2'ers. And where is the place most likely to induce more members to such active measures. This is the same as in politics where it's not just registered voters, but those most likely to in fact vote, who are the most sought after.

[Kraize]

[censored] 2+2.

I don't post here often but I do read the legislation board every day and do the things asked of us by TE in his weekly action threads.

This situation is complete BS and I won't be visiting this site or buying anymore 2+2 books.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] 2+2.

I don't post here often but I do read the legislation board every day and do the things asked of us by TE in his weekly action threads.

This situation is complete BS and I won't be visiting this site or buying anymore 2+2 books.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm curious whether you are also mad at the CP mag and affiliate farm board members of the PPA who could resign but won't because of either their vested interests tied to only certain forms of online poker, or their animus against 2p2? Will you also be boycotting CP magazine and urging your friends not to sign with affiliates advertised on their website?

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

.
.
I'm curious whether you are also mad at the CP mag and affiliate farm board members of the PPA who could resign but won't because of either their vested interests tied to only certain forms of online poker, or their animus against 2p2? Will you also be boycotting CP magazine and urging your friends not to sign with affiliates advertised on their website?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff This,

Please go back into hibernation where ever you were.

PPA has done more for MY poker interests in a week than you have EVER.

Nobody but nobody cares a fig what you think.

Tuff

[BluffTHIS!]

Tuff,

Quick question. When you were at the D.C. flyin, were board members Allyn Schulman, Linda Johnson, Jan Fisher and Mary Magazine also there? And did you have any discussions with them relevant to the issues of concern here regarding the board composition and transparency?

Also please keep one thing in mind. You are after all a fish, i.e. losing poker player, albeit one who can afford to do so. So your opinions on anything can't really be given a lot of credence. Unless of course you're playing at my table and donating. In that case I'm willing to cave into some of your demands including a percentage back of your losses. After all, it's the fish like you we want and not all these weak-tighties!

[primetime32]

[ QUOTE ]
Tuff,
Also please keep one thing in mind. You are after all a fish, i.e. losing poker player, albeit one who can afford to do so. So your opinions on anything can't really be given a lot of credence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are being serious, you are a bigger fool than i thought. Just because someone is bad at poker does not mean that they are not capable of making superior arguments to your own.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tuff,
Also please keep one thing in mind. You are after all a fish, i.e. losing poker player, albeit one who can afford to do so. So your opinions on anything can't really be given a lot of credence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are being serious, you are a bigger fool than i thought. Just because someone is bad at poker does not mean that they are not capable of making superior arguments to your own.

[/ QUOTE ]


No it doesn't mean that 100%. But it does mean that the probability is very high such is in fact the case. And if you don't see why you aren't really a 2p2'er. If you can't play +EV then you most likely don't think very well. Or maybe Sklansky and Mason are full of [censored] in all their math and poker writings.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
Tuff,

Quick question. When you were at the D.C. flyin, were board members Allyn Schulman, Linda Johnson, Jan Fisher and Mary Magazine also there?

.
.
There was a lady at my table who said she was a board member and a lawyer. I didn't catch her name.
.
.
And did you have any discussions with them relevant to the issues of concern here regarding the board composition and transparency?
.
.
I did not because I don't care one whit about the board conposition. The PPA is working for me. That works for me. You and Mason are the only ones who seem to have heart burn about the board makeup.
.
.


Also please keep one thing in mind. You are after all a fish, i.e. losing poker player, albeit one who can afford to do so. So your opinions on anything can't really be given a lot of credence. Unless of course you're playing at my table and donating. In that case I'm willing to cave into some of your demands including a percentage back of your losses. After all, it's the fish like you we want
.
.
Then you sir are a complete freaking idiot, because fish like me aren't going to be playing online poker AT ALL unless the PPA has success. You would be better served to work your complaining ass off helping the PPA rather that whining and obstructing them.
.
.

and not all these weak-tighties!

.
.

There may come a day, not too distant, when you and all your selfish ilk, will pine for the right to play the weak tight grinders the permeate the online scene nowadays. .



[/ QUOTE ]

Tuff

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
Also please keep one thing in mind. You are after all a fish, i.e. losing poker player, albeit one who can afford to do so. So your opinions on anything can't really be given a lot of credence.

[/ QUOTE ]

What planet are you on? The PPA should represent just winning players? Only winning players shold have the right to play or the right to campaign and be listened to as part of the campaign? Oh shoot 90% of players excluded from having any meningfull opinion - I am (just) a winning player so does that make my (negative) opinion of you valid?

[ComeOnNine]

probably not