[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Translation: I disagree with you, but can't substantively refute what you're saying, so I really just wish you'd shut up.

If you disagree with my assessment, please explain exactly how and why you think I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Done. Still waiting for you to share with us how you'd go about fighting this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

TE,

So were not strong enough to have any animosity towards the entire House (-2) that voted for the must pass I fully agree with. However, how in the heck are we strong enough to pick a fight with some one who is a poker player and is passionate, though a little politically dense?

Political organizations’ perform a number of general functions agreed by all that the better they perform all of them, the more successful the "cause" will be. You cannot excel at some and hope to compensate for failing at others and expect success.

Organizational, providing an organization for a group to coalesce, Informational, educating and motivating similarly thinking people to help educate ever more, Ideological providing a “rallying point” of like thinking, and Oppositional (more in parliamentary systems) are the four legs of the stable political party or organization's table.

The higher and stronger each of the legs the better the political organization. But like sawing off parts of legs of a three legged stool, the table is only as stable is each leg is strong and somewhat level.

I in no way want to start another "your role as a Board member vs. your personal posting rights thread." My only point, other than the one on the top of my head, is IMO you could and HAVE to be a better Ambassador for Poker. So each of your approaches is politically soundly rooted from the political functions model, but insufficient for individual success.

Let us use myself as a case in point. Because of my communication problems, let us assume for now they are all self inflicted, what few ideas all or some may agree that were worthwhile considering more fully, do not seem to be have been fully considered in a timely manner. In the opinion of some that has hurt the overall cause.

Therefore, when I see potential "resources" for the PPA, in the way, all even non-F Congress people you see as having potential for legislative action, I see the same value of in individuals. Heck look at how valuable even Catherine Hanaway was in helping wite a few fun press releases.

Your manner has sometimes been called "my way or the highway." IMO it is a personal blind spot of the organization and of yours personally. You (seem) to feel the need to over defend your own actions and recently those of the PPA beyond what is necessary (IMO).

Usually, and I do not have any figures on this for this forum, but many more people read (lurke) than get involved in the posting. Some of this is even more evident here in 2+2 forums, as this is a tough place to post even to begin with. What your polls miss is the feelings of those others, in part, because they feel some of thier point of view express in the forum or the forum waters are too deep, never consider posting. I myself lurked for quite a bit before daring to jump into the 2+2 deep end!

Go ahead, get pissed off at me, and cry to John that I am tweaking you again, or blast me publicly or privately in this forum because you take offense with the way I have communicated this thought to you. After you get over it, you'll know exactly how the OP feels. Skall's recent post was much more likely to attract people than your approach.




D$D