[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Any communication with the PPA is most likely better then none.

[/ QUOTE ]


That's not necessarily true. A convo done through middlemen that mostly avoids substantive issues while focusing only on PR benefits none of us here. Especially when it allows the PPA to very easily avoid tough questions and be able to backtrack on commitments by saying the middleman screwed up their message. The internet basically allows people to be in the same room, and using a middleman is like asking someone to talk to someone else for you, when that someone else is standing right there and could speak for himself.

This doesn't mean it isn't productive to have someone like the Engineer work with the PPA on grassroots efforts though. In fact what is very needed is for Engineer's efforts to be communicated to the broader membership of the PPA who are mostly average joe & jane poker players and who don't frequent the 2p2 forums *or the PPA website*. Thus the PPA should be using the Engineer to draft action plans to contact legislators and businesses (in re to WTO stuff) and get the total membership involved in same via weekly email campaigns.

And if Mr. Pappas does decide to come here and talk to us, he is only going to talk about such political tactics and won't be able, as an employee of the board, to discuss issues like the makeup of that board or why it refuses to subscribe to the broader agenda for poker that most of us have (i.e. not tied only to certain business models).

If PPA really gives a rat's ass about engaging the largest poker community in the world here, they will not only send Mr. Pappas to discuss grassroots political tactics, but also a board member to discuss the other issues. As I mentioned earlier, Greg (Fossilman) Raymer, a long time 2p2'er sits on the PPA board. Why can't he come here and talk to us as well?