[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This "decision" in my opinion questions .....

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! It seems you find conspiracies everywhere. Don't like FT's response to bots...well, they must support bots. Affiliates make money on bots....well, they must support bots too, and they should be responsible for detecting them. Banks don't want credit card chargebacks for Internet gaming....well, they must be the secret force behind UIGEA. PPA doesn't jump at the chance to hire you, and PPA puts out UIGEA reg comment talking points that you dont agree with....well, they (and John Pappas, whom you've met) must be under control of PS and FT. Sorry, but your tendency to find conspiracies everywhere (and you tendency to state your theories as fact, despite any evidence) undermines your credibility.

Anyway, I communicate with John Pappas almost every day, and I've seen no evidence of bias towards any company or towards any specific sector of Internet poker.

Regarding your comments, offshore companies "own" the U.S. market only because there are no U.S. based companies offering services. I don't know how this proves anything about who'd have the upper hand in the future.

I don't understand what you want. Do you want PS and FT banned to help U.S-based companies? If so, you think PPA must be on the take if they don't agree with you? I think you'll find most of us want something like the Wexler bill. The PPA wholeheartedly supports that as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice attack spin.

I suggested FT's response to the bot issue was half hearted at best. IMPO they should do more in the best interests of the future of on-line poker as a whole not simply what action was the least they had to do in the name of maximum short term profits.

The affiliates I suggested should show some concern as they help pay the bot farmers. As I've posted I found out after a reasonable discussion with them that they are interested in the longer term "best interests of the future of on-line poker." In addition I found out from a reasonable exchange of differing views initially that FT provides them all of the information they get and FT can reverse a payment even retroactively id cheating is even suspected.

Currently about 1/2 of self identified US poker player will not play on-line. I've spoken to quite a few who have played on-line and for various "sci-fi" fears will not play on-line again. I think it is in the best interests of the future of on-line poker for both the current players and the site operators to do more to address these issues.

You talk to John almost daily ask him if I didn't offer to help in any way needed, including volunteering my time. Also ask him if I haven't told him more than once that if he found a better candidate for the grassroots organizer then I would be quite pleased. I can make money plenty of other ways, I thought I could help, I thought it would be fun, and I was willing to work at or near the offered salary range which is a significant discount to what I've made in the past. I never asked John to create a well paid job for me to help out, there was an open offer for a job about the time I spoke to John. All I did was suggest I might be qualified. Given a brief discussion with John he asked me how much to put on a full on KY effort, that wasn't my idea.

Don't act like my questions were or are motivated by some sort of disgruntled interviewee who didn't get a second call back. To suggest such a thing given our personal conversations is an insult and a cheap shot.

If you don't understand that any time a number of companies have a significant market share in a semi-mature market and that gives them an upper hand then I can't explain that to you with out you counting the exact number of words in my response.

I didn't make up the idea that the primary reason for the law and its main beneficiary was the banking system, I merely quoted the Agencies statement to that very fact. Directly from their document and footnoted it as well.

Since you asked I want the PPA to allow me to play on-line poker without having to worry about a lot of idiotic hurdles; be it paying 5% to deposit, worrying about Foreign account disclosures, worrying about if my bank will cash my withdraw check with out closing my account or fining me, I'd like to see in the future someone other than Kawanee Game Commission which is located in Canada, I would love it if the PPA at some point was strong enough to attempt changing the tax treatment of poker winning.

Most of all I'd like the PPA to act like that it was at least if only for appearance sake alone responsive to suggestions from the membership.

No I am not a conspiracy nut; but when I see a number of decisions that line up and point to a direction by an organization that I am a member of to not be publicly and personally attacked by a newly appointed board member. I spend a lot of time in the message and image business that is simply not how it is done.

It is this "my way or the highway" don't question a direction from the board that causes these growing concerns if nothing else the manner and appearance shows a complete lack of desire to have the PPA be a true grassroots advocacy group that is lead by the collective voice of its members..

Every action I've taken even my most extreme have been done with one over ridding principal; looking into the possible futures for poker in general but on-line specifically will this or that decision lead to a better "on-line poker world" or a worse one.

Your position is we should be willing to use our abilities to question the actions of the whole Federal Government, but we should shut up and be good little kids and let the grown-ups tell us exactly how we should do the PPA Boards bidding.

You may not see it that way but that is the way you and the PPA are coming off here and in the past.

I took a lot of grief right here by suggesting the composition of the board didn’t matter and it was the actions that were more important to me specifically and in the name of all poker players in general. Furthermore I made it clear that if I saw “our” organization taking a position that I felt was contrary to its own Mission Statement I would be a loud voice questioning why it was so. Back then you supported this type of member action, but now you do not?

What has changed?

That’s right your membership was upgraded to Board Member……….



D$D