Please analyze my response to a supporter of the bill.

[bloke3000]

you left a 'd' off ronald

[Karak567]

Thanks for the analysis.

As for the grammar and spelling errors, I can catch them on my own, but I do appreciate you pointing them out. Like I said I typed this up in an e-mail in a very short period of time last night.

Tone - I think the tone is good. He has been highly critical of my views lately, yet I consider him a friend, so I feel comfortable coming at him with all I've got. The club is not very big, so he will take some time to talk to me. He's trying to actively recruit me for a conservative publication on campus and last year he recruited me to be on their debate team. I assume he will want me to do the same this year.

The WTO argument - I don't put much faith in international courts and organizations (ie the UN). I personally think they spew out a bunch of crap, so I feel kind of dirty using one of them for my own means, when I slam them every other time I speak of them.

I'll respond to the rest of the stuff later today, I have to run though. Thanks for your help!

[satya]

I'm sorry it's kinda long, I didn't read the whole thing. Don't expect someone who doesn't and will never agree with you to read it either. Even if they did they'd be arguing the entire time. There's no communicating with someone like this. He is clearly been brainwashed by the far right propaganda spewing machine.

[ QUOTE ]
This follows a trend of widespread calls from legislators and private citizens for either tighter regulation of the industry or the outright banning of online gaming.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is plain wrong. Public opinion favors regulation. A significant majority have said they do not think i-gaming should be banned. And, only 3 members of Congress (that I'm aware of there could be more) have "called" for such legislation.

That there should be enough to get him to stfu. But he won't.

I gave up trying to argue with people who don't want to listen. Imagine yourself talking to him and him sitting there with his hands over his ears yelling so that he can't hear you - because that's what he's doing.

Despite public opinion to the contrary these days, the majority of people were pro-Iraq war at the get-go. It was impossible to get the even the average American to keep an open mind when listening to the anti-war argument, much less the partisans.

I'd suggest focusing your efforts on the uninformed and the fence sitters. Keep it non-confrontational when speaking to them. Be careful not to inadvertently suggest/insinuate something negative about your audience in your argument.

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
This follows a trend of widespread calls from legislators and private citizens for either tighter regulation of the industry or the outright banning of online gaming.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is plain wrong. Public opinion favors regulation. A significant majority have said they do not think i-gaming should be banned. And, only 3 members of Congress (that I'm aware of there could be more) have "called" for such legislation.



[/ QUOTE ]

These two things are not mutually exclusive, "widespread" is a word, like "many" that is, ambiguous in this context as to the proportion of private citizens and legislators. If 2 christian fundamentalists in every third town in the country "call for either tighter regulation or outright banning of online gambling" then there are "many" people and their calls are "widespread." But they would be a miniscule proportion of the electorate (if they even vote).

But language is like that when dealing with proportions and magnitutes, I mean, a great deal of people see unidentified flying objects every year, and even more people believe them, there is widespread panic on this issue from northern New Hampshire to Colorado and California. This threat has been around too long to go unnoticed. Further, crop circles give more evidence to the great many witnesses. Inexplicable paterns left by intelligent life have made a great many fearful and even more hopeful of a contact with beings from beyond (the town border). You get my drift... I mean, it not would be inaccurate (just misleading) to say nearly half of this country supports the preseident or almost all Americans disapprove of him. You just have to stretch "nearly" and "almost" a bit.

Plus, you gotta realize that in this country fully half of the population is of below average intelligence.

[Wada]

This is well done. Over the past week I have been reading the majority of posts, news links, websites, etc... to get an overall grasp of the online gambling ban. Your post has been the most significant post I have read. You back up your arguments very well and have solid proof for it. I like it, a lot.

Now, I will get to my point so just bare with me.

I have been trying to take a clear analysis of this whole thing. There have been a lot of dumb posts that sound to me like the comments fish or level 1 thinking players make at the tables. For instance, "Frist is so dumb, I cant believe the Republican party. I hate them." Then you have the fish who reads poker books but does not truly understand the concepts and says, "I have AA and you cold called my raise with 45s??? You should not have called with that! You're out of position, that was stupid. Your such an idiot, you donk!"

Some of these poker players forget to realize to that we should be asking ourselves, why did this idiot call or raise. These poor poker players are better off getting into the minds of our opponents. We should not be guilty of "egoistic fallacy." (Psychology of Poker, pg. 49) Many of the posters here are with the recent events.

Your link to New anti-gambling law won't stop online bettors has definitely given me more insight to Frist intentions. People are so quick to judge people's actions rather than their intentions. Lets look at Frist's intentions.

From reading it and Nelson Rose's review of the Online Gambling law, it sure tells me that Frist is truly a politician. His intentions are conniving.

Over the last week, I have kept asking my self - why did Frist do this, what are his intentions? (get in the mind of your opponents) It sure seems that Frist is possibly pleasing the social conservatives and those that are against online gambling. Nelson Rose's view of the language in the bill being very vague might be a true intention to not really care about enforcing online poker. Thus, pleasing both opposing sides, while one side is clear, and the other side is not so clear.

I think with your article, just like Leader said, you sound very confrontational. I know you are passionate about it, but I do not think it will be so influential to your opponent, your friend. Remember, as poker players we want to encourage the fish to make poor plays. Therefore get them to do what we want, manipulate them. You might want to rethink you strategy here.


[ QUOTE ]
Tone - I think the tone is good. He has been highly critical of my views lately, yet I consider him a friend, so I feel comfortable coming at him with all I've got.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might think your tone is good, but you also could be arguing with someone that did a review of how you played a hand. Try to keep an open mind about this. And if your going to go at him with all you've got, you might also be dropping to his level. Your not manipulating him as you would a fish at the tables.

I hope you understand might point. Like I said, your post has been the most significant to me out of all of them which is why I decided to respond with my opinion.

Good luck,
Wada

PS - I feel a lot better about the future of online poker, thanks!

[AJackson]

Well done. Although you should take another look at your belief that Dems are for even bigger government. I think it's pretty much an arms race where each party is spending like a drunken sailor. The only difference is where they like waste taxpayer dollars.