[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I too am disappointed by twoplustwo's, the Company, effort when it comes to fighting for online poker (maybe they are doing behind the scenes stuff, but I doubt it). My respect for the company has greatly diminished in the past year. Short of an incredible book going forward, I will look to other book publishers.

That being said I am surprised you tried to engage Mason again. Not what I would want to do. PPA and Mason don't mix, I would try going on without him.

FWIW, I agree with the opposition not caring about the make-up of the board (I view it as only a very small part of his argument), although he may have a point about it from our end (his main point)


D$D: Failure is inaccurate or way too harsh. They have done alot of good things, you sound like a scorned lover.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I'm bringing it up again because we asked Mason for a 2+2 LLC comment for the UIGEA regs and he replied by telling PPA to change its board (and it was, IMO, impolite). I think he has a right to his opinion, but withholding commenting on the UIGEA regs hurts us, the players. I really hope to see 2+2 LLC's UIGEA regulation comment here soon.

PPA has done a lot of good on behalf of poker players. I'm committed to continuing this improvement, but it's time for PPA to lose the apologetic tone around here, IMO. When challenged, I think PPA needs to stand up for what it's doing for the poker community. PPA should admit what needs improvement, but should also stand up for what they're succeeding at.

Rich Muny
PPA Board Member