Re: Mason... Sir,
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that Mason and David were quite explicit in expressing their stance (to the consternation of many) that internet gambling was not necessarily an activity they felt compelled to endorse.
Those of you who expect, or feel that you are somehow “owed” more than a neutral PPA position from 2+2 because of your patronage have romanticized this forum and its function.
Mason stands to reap financial gain from the success of the PPA’s agenda, yet due to ethical principles does not aid their cause by actively lending his support or name cachet to enhance the organization’s legitimacy.
Agree with him or not, his actions have been consistent and are deserving of respect.
[/ QUOTE ]
My understanding is that Mason's position is based upon issues within the makeup of the board, not ethical issues, and this is why the stance is neutral. It is also my understanding that if the board issues were resolved, that the position of 2+2 COULD become positive towards the PPA.
Mason's personal views and ethics are totally outside of this discussion, but I do believe the position 2+2 to be based upon the issues I mentioned and not personal ethics.
|