[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you have clearly mis-represented what we did and our attitude towards the PPA. I believe, because of our initial work, the PPA did improve.

Also, Bolcerek was on here soliciting members/money and refused to tell us when asked how the money was being spent, who the lobbyist were, what their goals were, etc. You need to understand that we at Two Plus Two are a serious organization that is willing to spend our own money when necessary to do what's best for poker and to protect our members. We do this at no charge to you.

On a side note, even though our current position towards the PPA is neutral, I would like to see a representative of their organization come on here and answer questions in a serious and professional manner. This didn't happen before which is one of the reasons there was difficulty. But, as far as we are concerned, there is no reason it can't happen now.

Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't prove it, obviously, but if you had polled this legislation forum when the PPA was posting here, I believe the overwhelming opinion would have been that 2p2 held a negative view of the PPA, not neutral.

I think it's very safe to say that PPA has attempted to engage this forum in the past and were met with ridicule and mistrust. Not saying those aren't justified. End result was their going elsewhere though, to places that were more accepting.

I'd love to see them have a rep over here too, answering questions. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes though. Their resume would need to include "responds well to endless criticism in a positive manner."

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets see, the POKER PLAYER'S ALLIANCE refuses to talk with players. Refuses to reveal its funding, activities, officers, and methods. Oh yeah, and does nothing but hang out at SF bars on our dime. We don't want to criticize but when we see nothing but obfuscation and inaction, wtf do you expect? We want to not be negative, we want to be active and positive. But the PPA hitched its wagon to a non player base.