[BluffTHIS!]

As many of you know, some posters don't appreciate my efforts to keep the focus on the shortcomings of the PPA until they, *as promised*, come back here to discuss same with us. I do this not try to drag them down, because I support legalizing online poker. But I think it very important that the PPA represent all its members interests, and not just those of the major online sites and advertising media dependant on them. This has been discussed at length before so I won't repeat it here. I also do this because of the flurry of postings, which are nothing other than spin, which try to take the focus off such criticism, and argue, wrongly I believe, that we simply must accept the PPA as is.

Now I will grant that this criticism on the internet, which can be freely read by anyone, could harm the PPA and provide fuel to our mutual enemies to some degree. But it is clear to many of us, that a PPA that addresses the legitimate concerns that have been raised in this forum, if a far better organization and one with a much greater chance of success. Thus we hope the criticism to be constructive and have a positive effect.

There is a case when that isn't so and criticism can only be harmful. And that is the case where the PPA will not change its structure, level of transparency, or presumed hidden goals not in accord with ours (no B&M state level focus and online only and tying casino/sports gambling to efforts to legalize poker). In that case, in which they won't change, then criticism can only be harmful.

Should the above be the case, then the PPA just needs to come here and state that forthrightly. In which case of course many of us will support the formation of a different organization that better represents all our interests, and isn't just a stooge for party poker and CP magazine. But if that isn't the case, and they are sincere as they have said in previous statements that they will come back here and discuss things with us when certain discussions between their attorneys and those of 2+2 are finished, then they need to state that as early as possible here. In fact even if those other discussions, focusing primarily on issues of transparency aren't totally finished, they can still at the same time engage us in a discussion of their goals and tactics and the makeup of their board. I fervently wish they would do so.



Now I will share the impetus for writing this post, which was another unwanted PM from jeter323 who has already been told that further PMs would be posted. Here is the PM he sent me:

[ QUOTE ]
get off your high horse...maybe the PPA doesn't help your specific concerns that much..BUT HOW THE HELL DOES IT HURT YOU? IT DOESNT AND ALL YOU DO, YOU SELFISH FOOL, IS CRY THAT THEY DON'T JUST KISS YOUR BUY, GET A LIFE..EXPLAIN HOW THE PPA ACTUALLY HARMS YOU?

[/ QUOTE ]


I will answer the question at the end of it. If the PPA doesn't represent all my goals, and only some, then it does harm my interests to some degree, even if it also advances others. And that is *especially* the case in which they tie legalization of poker to legalization of sportsbetting, which will flat out guarantee failure on all items on the agenda.

My eyes are open and I see clearly, and I simply won't pretend the emperor has clothes on when he is standing their stark naked. It only does more harm in the long run than good.