An argument I think you should avoid in your correspondence
 

I have seen a few arguments in the letters to your senators (which have been great to read, keep posting them all), that basically states "opponents of online gambling say it facilitates the habits of problem gamblers. However, many people have been able to put themselves through school, buy houses, etc. with the money they make from poker".

I think this argument is just too easy to attack and really doesn't further the cause. If you make reference to anyone being able to enrich themselves positively financially through poker, then obviously that was at someone else's expense. Politicians may not understand the internet, but they do understand the nature of gambling and realize that there is a winner and a loser. Someone could easily say, "great, you bought a house with your poker money while someone else lost theirs".

I would try to present your interest in preserving online poker as more of a pastime/hobby/game of skill than a way to make a living/make money. I think your views will be better received that way.

My two cents.

DDY

Re: An argument I think you should avoid in your correspondence
 

You're probably right - they could argue that drug dealers make a pretty good living too.

Re: An argument I think you should avoid in your correspondence
 

Nice post. Saying that for every bank robber there's thousands making a living really means, for every bank robber there's thousandss making a living off of tens of thousands of suckers. (I really liked his letter other than the poker pro paragraph)


OT- just noticed your avatar, Is that UGA bitting a dude in his johnson? sweet

Re: An argument I think you should avoid in your correspondence
 

[ QUOTE ]
OT- just noticed your avatar, Is that UGA bitting a dude in his johnson? sweet

[/ QUOTE ]

Only thing is, it's not just any dude, but a Tiger. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]