[Skallagrim]

BluffTHIS wrote: "Skall,

If you would actually read what I wrote earlier you could get enlightened. But here's the cliff notes:

1) Conflicted interests
2) Which lead to errors of ommission as to the broader range of goals most of us have
3) Lack of broad enough relevant expertise
4) Added to managerial incompetence of the past until Mr. Pappas' appointment (and which continues as to judicial issues)
4) Along with ongoing problems in transparency"

First, let me say that 3 and 4 are issues I agree with, and I also hope Pappas and the Engineer are well on their way to correcting those problems.

As to conflicted interests and errors of omission, I still dont get it (expect that their clearly have been errors along the way). I say that because, if I hear you correctly, you believe that the make up of the PPA board leads them to support some things that favor only one subset of the poker community. Yet there is clearly no point to a fight within the poker community at this time. UNTIL AND UNLESS THERE IS SOME MOVEMENT FORWARD TOWARDS ESTABLISHING POKER AS A LEGAL GAME, THERE IS NOTHING TO BICKER ABOUT!

Right now the PPA supports, as do I, the Wexler "skill games" bill. This bill helps us all and favors no one subset of the poker playing community or the businesses that provide the poker sites.

Even the more regulatory Frank Bill does not, as we speak, favor any one business concern (admittedly that could change if it ever has a real chance of passing).

So while it is possible to see that somewhere in the future the interests of partypoker etc.., pokerstars/FTP etc... and the big casinos, and maybe even us players could diverge, that is not where we are NOW. If the PPA were to support any one business interest over another or over the interests of us players, I will withdraw my support of them faster than you can blink.

But until then the goal for ALL OF US is the same: some recognized framework where playing poker online is clearly legal.

Until and unless we get to that point the interests of partypoker and me, as fnurt points out, are exactly the same.

And we are still so far from that point that I still dont see the relevance of starting an internal squabble over the membership of the PPA board, certainly not at this time (except of course, as it relates to competence in actually getting to that point).

So I still say lets not worry about the actual parameters of legal poker benefiting party more than stars, or cardplayer more than 2+2, UNTIL WE SEE THAT THERE IS A REAL CHANCE FOR LEGAL POKER. You and MM are not seeing the forest for the trees, IMHO, you are worrying so much about what they may do IF they achieve some initial success, that you seem to want to deny them that success. And denying them that success denies me the ability to play clearly legal poker. How does that serve MY interests?

Skallagrim

PS, I will also concede the points on transparency, but again dont see how that affects the average poker player's interests at this time except, again, as to competency.

PPS - TPCEO is right, although I dont see party actually working to get FTP prosecuted. Yet I am sure party would love to come back to the US with stars/FTP/and even true poker excluded. IF, IF, IF that were ever to be part of the PPA agenda, THEN I will, as I said, withdraw my support for the PPA. I suspect, however, that if forced to choose between no US market and a market that includes FTP etc... party would choose to have the market back.

PPPS: isnt Howard Lederer on the PPA board? Doesn't he have strong ties to FTP? How does this fit into the "PPA favors party" theory?