[Borknagar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I expect this article to become an important source in the struggle for legitimacy for poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is highly unlikely. Just about anything said in that article about poker could be said about chess or other games not played for money. People opposed to poker will not be swayed by logic.

The people who oppose poker do so because they want to impose their morality on others or because they think that people who gamble are too stupid to make their own decisions. You cannot reason with such people. The moralists are on a mission from God. The nanny-staters are equally irrational in their beliefs that they know better than you how you should live your life.

It is a well-articulated statement, but it is preaching to the choir, and will have zero impact on those mindlessly opposed to gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the first part of your argument, not so much with the second part. Don't forget that poker can be addictive and is an addiction to many people. This is a big reason why 'they' want to ban poker and unfortunately Sklansky's doesn't say anything about this in his article.