Re: Mason... Sir,
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand either. Mason claims to be concerned about how the composition of the board will be perceived by the opponents of gaming, but I've seen no evidence anywhere that our opponents care, and I read everything on this that I could find. They care who funds the pro-Internet poker lobbies and they've speculated on that, but there's no evidence anywhere that they care at all about affiliates being on the board.
I personally think our opponents feel we're all degenerates. In their minds, there are degenerate gamblers, degenerate authors, and degenerate site owners, all motivated by greed. What they pay attention to is infighting. Read the criticism section of the PPA Wikipedia article. There's nothing about the board. Rather, it's about Mason.
I invite Mason to make his case that the PPA board composition empowers our opponents in any way, because he hasn't yet. He's entitled to his opinion, of course. However, he states this as incontrovertible fact; he's very emphatic about it, but he has yet to prove it.
There is another issue concerning the board composition. Specifically, are we players adequately represented? There are many opinions on this, but Mason hasn't made a case that either the Pappas-era PPA (i.e., the time I've been on the board) isn't acting 100% in our interests or that's it's ineffective. He's not asked me to push for policy or direction changes within PPA. He's not asked me for anything (besides telling me how to sign my name and to complain about the board makeup). My only other PM from him was one to let me know my request for moderator privileges on this forum was denied because of my PPA work.
So, I'm at a loss. Pappas is working hard for your right to play. I'm working hard for your right to play. You all are working hard for your right to play. Mason, OTOH, hasn't even submitted the 2+2 LLC comments on the UIGEA regs yet. If 2+2 LLC had submitted their comments by now, perhaps it would have worked to encourage other businesses to submit theirs. Even the Chamber of Commerce has submitted comments that help us. I do know that if 2+2 LLC and its authors don't submit comments by Dec. 12th, it will be difficult for them to claim a right to an opinion on what the rest of us are doing.
I wonder what Mason does think we should all do about the current situation regarding online poker. He's not articulated an alternate vision by which we work without ulitizing PPA. I hope it at least involves commenting on the UIGEA regs before Dec. 12th.
Cheers,
Rich Muny
PPA Board Member
[/ QUOTE ]
Mason,
Do you have a response to any of these concerns? Have I missed your response in another post on this board? Would you please enlighten us plebs?
I was thinking of purchasing some new books in the next few months/year(2008). The expanded edition of Tournament for Adv. Players; Harrington Cash I and II. I am seriously going to reconsider because of your perceived behaviour/attitude.
If you do have a reason and do not feel like sharing it, why don't you feel compelled to respond publicly? You are very adamant about thwarting any effort the PPA seems to have in your "virtual" world. May I ask what you or 2+2 are doing to actually fight for our rights to play? Finally, why play this game that it appears you are playing? Do you want the PPA on this board or not? It seems like you dont, so why give yourself this administrative nightmare? Why dont you ban any and all talk from the PPA organization until you approve of them? If I owned a store and I said "no shoes, no service" I would NOT let in patron with only ONE SHOE ON. Stop playing games.
ryAn
|