[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One takeaway is that we need to make a lot of UIGEA comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has any consideration been given to breaking down the proposed regualtion to individual answers to each time the Agencies "specifically request comment on.."; so that each individual point is addressed?

I whole heartedly agree on the value of even the most overall comments, but it seems to me these regualtion battles and my sense of the Agencies strategy seems to be to blockade as many "choke points" as possible. As it is, most of the banking industry is already "fully" implementing as much of the spirit of the UIGEA as they could get away with even before passage.

I saw nothing today to give me even a gilimer of hope that the banks will object to almost any cover to enforce Catherine and the Fear of Fun's guy's wildest dreams; a total ban incuding furter prosecution of advertisers, going after poker websites, blocking affiliate payments, blocking rakeback payments, even banning or mass burning of any 2+2 publication that mentions how to play on-line. After all in their eyes it is all fruit of the same forbiden tree.

Forget the over the top crap lets talk strategy and have some fun teaching Tom McClusky the real fun of political fights.



D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA put out five talking points. So, we can each write five letters plus ones on our personal opinions. Or, we can write one letter with all five points. Or, we can take points from this forum. It seems there are plenty of sources for input for reg comments.

Beyond that, if someone were to break down the regs as you suggested, I imagine that would get traction here and elsewhere.