Re: Does the PPA need 2+2?
TE:
Your posts are very informative and are the way I keep up with the legislative issues. However, I work a full time career and am a semi-pro poker player. I don't have time to follow you to another site. This site is where I improve my game. Its why I'm here. I'd much prefer that you stay, and I think that the PPA title or moniker is a reasonable mechanism for you to provide your message to 2+2ers.
Additionally, I think MM's underlying concerns should be taken seriously, and addressed now. I have no great concerns of my own, but I strongly suspect that issues like the issues 2+2 has pointed out will be used as talking points by opponents in attempts to diminish the PPA. I would suggest that complete financial and operational transarency (as big of a pain as that is) is extremely important as is the make up of the board. The title of the organization should give an indication of where ultimate operational control needs to reside. Anything less creates an opportunity for "spin" by your opponents. And that would be unfortunate.
In any event, I hope you choose to continue to keep us informed on this board. If not, good luck in your efforts and thanks for the work you have already done.
|