November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Rakewell. please drop it - you have made your point, yes any pollitician who really thought saving online poker was more important than personal politicai survival and was willing to express this commitment despite knowledge of certain failure in ultimately changing things, would have voted against the port security bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

And also likey forever lost as a potential ally in the "cause" in the future.

[ QUOTE ]
SB was not one of those. However, everything TE has otherwise said about her is true. So you still have no answer to the statement that there is no pont in calling her on it, yes? Otherwise you would have posted one I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

SB has shown to be a very effective voice, and a firm suporter of our cause. I have been very impressed with her work on the issue. I can not even hold her party affiliation against her. Shelley Berkley is a smart politican and one with a good record of sticking to a position. There is no need for any rational person to attempt throw any "baby out with the bath water", let alone a very effective passionate suporter of our "cause".

[ QUOTE ]
And D$D, recently, in another thread (OBWan....) you pretty much accused me of the same thing. I see your point here, but I am not so sure you see the other side. Quite frankly, I have, and will probably continue to, make sarcastic responses to posters who come on here, have no more than a quick look around, and post their personal opinion on something like its the word from on high, obviously having ignored all of the discussion us regulars have previously devoted to the subject. Making fun of someone who does that is pretty much a 2+2 tradition, though at least I (we) try not to cross the line into useless name-calling. But sarcasm is a time honored debating technique and often appropriate. But you are also right it is not always appropriate, and once in awhile counter productive. Making the call when to use sarcasm and when not to is a judgement call. And while I appreciate that you can call that judgment into question and suggest it was the wrong decision - it is really INAPPROPRIATE to include in that suggestion personal issues and to imply improper personal motivations to them. This is the first time in your now lengthy back and forth with TE that I have had reason to call you on this, but I do now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.

In this forum the debate of ideas and the need to defend them in this imperfect 2 deminisional communications medium where much of communications "true" intent is often lost, is what it is.

2+2 is sucessful in part because of this rigiorus "testing". It is what makes the open exchange provided here very valuable. A suggestion, idea, premise, or theory deserves such examination and scrunity.

However, I feel in this single case we are discussing a very different matter.

I fully understand that the use of this forum, because of the above mentioned past give and take between TE and I, colors and even mutes my real intent in the preception of all of us to some degree. Again it is what it is. We can hope for the ideal, but must accept that it is an unachieveable goal.

TE isn't the issue, but a symptom IMO.

The PPA's goal, at this point, should be, as TE so visibily points out so clearly in the legislative arena, to garner as much suport and not burn any possible bridge in the process.

Why is it so hard to understand that at this point of the PPA's organizational efforts, when "we" are admittedly weaker than we would all like, should any organization, in such a position, not strive to do better?

This is not some personality clash issue for me. My personality and method of communications is indeed partly resonsibile for the "issue" with TE, and if had been a single instance, or only a matter of my own personal inability to effectively communicate with the PPA I would tend to think it was solely my issue.

From talking to a number of people both from this forum and in the broader both on-line and live poker community, I suggest I am not the sole cause. It is my firm opinion that the PPA as a whole suffers and is ultimately responsible.

I can speculate on the causes and reasons for this self-evident problem and in doing so perhaps better solve the matter but only in the long run and perhaps with more short term disruption that is ultimately valuable. So, I hesitate every time I feel another piece of "evidence" is presented to even point it out.

[ QUOTE ]
D$D maybe you are right to say TE could have had more patience with a poster who had a point but was obviously either unaware of so many counter points or purposely ignored them. I dont think so; I dont think its wrong to tell new posters that its important to either do your homework or not present yourself as an authority on a subject. When exactly one approach is better than the other is hard to define and good to debate But stop the armchair psychology, its a bad road to go down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again fair enough. My only and last point is both from a personal perspective and from "attracting" anyone with a similar perspective, I like the opinions I seem to have attracted, am about done with the current PPA. Why should I have to "beat my head on the keyboard until it is a bloody stump" in attempting to "help" "our" "cause"?

Sorry I do not depend on on-line poker for much more than an easy outlet for my growing passion for the game. If it wasn't totally evident from my tax questions in antoher thread, and meaningless overall, I don't have to do anything I don't care to do. I have the luxury to follow my passions and determination of my responsibilities to "service" and giving back to society as I feel fit to do. That, IMO, gives me a much different perspective than many. So in the vien of another thread, it is evident I don't need the PPA at all, and it is highly questionable how much the PPA needs even my volunteer efforts.

On-line as many have pointed out much wiser than me, provides a fantastic was to play a lot of hand in a short time to gain a ton of experience for little or no investment other than time.

For a number of factors the UIGEA included many people perhaps half of the poker community see little or no worth to on-line play. There are many trends that in my opinion if not addressed point to the impending doom of on-line poker as we know it. I had hoped to be a very small part of perhaps addressing some of those concerns and perhaps affecting a change in the current legislative tide.

As someone with a little knowledge of the process and sucess in working the system, I am just sick and tired of watching the PPA and some of its people breakdown walls when even the door was unlocked. I doubt I have all of the keys, but being told to shut up, or F off, when pointing out unlocked door let alone suggesting different paths is just too much.

To butcher Will Rodgers I think it was; perhaps I souldn't be part of any organization that would have me as a member.

[ QUOTE ]
How about we get back to talking about the best way to follow up on the obvious success that was this recent hearing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me think about that.


D$D