Mr. PPA, some substantive questions, which you may have overlooked ?

[Mr Sarcastic]

Okay, I had missed where you put it into the response to TE. My mistake, thanks:

"As to Barry's statement on 6 months, we [the PPA] are working hard here to realize this goal, and Mr Greenstein is most certainly an important part of that goal, and we will continue to fight until this situation is resolved in our favor, and the sooner it happens the better for us all.

Continuing questions, it has been taken up in the House Judiciary Committee, and there will be a hearing there next Tuesday, Nov 6th.[now the 14th]

As to differentiating the bills that are up in the house, I think the more promising aspect is the fact that general awareness of this industry, and the size and amount of growth it has in it, has come to the forefront. The Fly-In really showed that we are organized, we are intelligent, we are motivated and we will not be going away any time soon."

Thanks for the answers. It appears that while Barry G is talking about "6 months", your third paragraph leans toward a more realistic long-haul view, i.e. the particular bills this session are not really important, it is the establishment of a "poker" political presence that matters.

Although declaring victory in the "recognition" area seems a bit premature, you have made one start.

A lot of the posters may not appreciate the validity of the "transparency" and Board make-up issues which trouble Mason and others here. It would be a really good idea however to see significant movement on that front, if the PPA wants to mature as a political organization on behalf of players, not exist as just a front for interests temporarily in alignment with "players".

(The potential is there for an NRA-type dues paying active constituency, rather than an "Airline Passengers" type front organization.)