[ShaneP]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with the ban. But I do understand Mason's position on this matter. I realize that TE's posts are not official statements, thoughts or ideas of the PPA. Frankly, it seems that TE and others are usually ahead of the PPA on ideas on most matters affecting online poker.
However, Mason wants to be certain that all readers and posters of this forum know TE's position, situation and potential point of view so that everyone can decide on such issues for themselves. I don't see the harm in TE complying with the request and IMO he should have been given more time, the rest of today, to comply.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand Mason's position on this. In the past, whenever someone has asked 2+2 for questions to give to person X (PPA, congresscritter, other random person), Mason would jump down their throat immediately to make sure that the person at least made it absolutely clear that they weren't representing 2+2 in any official capacity. That position I totally understand, even if I think he was a bit overzealous in a couple of cases. That is, I think he should have said what he did, just in a gentler manner. Being absolutely clear on who is representing what is an extremely good idea.

Now here, it seems like he's making anything TE says be defacto associated with the PPA. It just seems that instead of the idea of making it clearer for whom is being spoken (as Mason has been zealous in doing), he's making things more confused here. Obviously TE now needs to be careful in making sure that what he says is interpreted correctly--either it comes from him as a private person, or as a representative of the PPA. Given his past posting here, I'd say that an undertitle is appropriate, and if there's anything he says that's official PPA stuff, then he should identify it as such (which I'm sure is what he'd have done).

Shane