PPA Update. - Page 8

MiltonFriedman · #71 08-23-2007, 04:48 PM

No problem ....but Americans will always line up to kiss the pig, and feel good about themselves for doing so, because they are not really asked to do anything.

(I thought the original post was truly NROGish, totally devoid of substance, the press release was not any better, really.)

MiltonFriedman · #72 08-23-2007, 04:57 PM

CP was among the earliest PPA backers.

What you joined was THEIR organization, you GAVE them your money ...... but real political action would involve something more than jumping at an "easy out"; 'click & pay" politics is ineffective. Learn at least that from this experience.

You want to do something effective ???? Read Engineer's Action plans and act on it, you, yourself.

Skallagrim · #73 08-23-2007, 04:58 PM

Bluff, a liar is someone who purposely hides the truth. Noting that the PPA has made some changes and hoping those changes are a sign of a new direction for the PPA hardly qualifies as a lie.

And your pointing out that the PPA has a biased board and has been far less effective than we would like is very appropriate.

Your apparent belief that because of the membership of the board they are scheming to be ineffective in a manner that would only benefit certain online sites and US gambling interests sounds a lot like a conspiracy story. Like all conspiracy stories you may be right. Then again you may be wrong. They may well be people who (like me) want online poker to be clearly legal and are just not very good at getting it done. In my life experience ineptitude has explained far more things than conspiracies.

Only time can tell whether it is the optimist or the pessimist who truly is a fool.

But I too must add that the anger in your anti-D$D posts seems way out of line. Even if he is (which I doubt) a shill for the PPA, there is no harm whatsoever in hearing what he has to say through a post in this forum.

Skallagrim

XChamp · #74 08-23-2007, 05:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]

But I too must add that the anger in your anti-D$D posts seems way out of line. Even if he is (which I doubt) a shill for the PPA, there is no harm whatsoever in hearing what he has to say through a post in this forum.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The anger seems pretty warrantless at this point.

MiltonFriedman · #75 08-23-2007, 05:32 PM

I think the anger comes from being asked once again to kiss a pig. This has been going on for well over a year and is just plain tiresome. True, the PPA is a better looking pig than NROG was, but it still can't swing from a web yet.

TheRedRocket · #76 08-23-2007, 05:35 PM

Have you guys ever kissed a pig? It's not that bad.

MiltonFriedman · #77 08-23-2007, 05:50 PM

I'll defer to your expertise on that one.

Uglyowl · #78 08-23-2007, 06:10 PM

D$D as far as we know is not an employee of PPA, so he shouldn't get bashed for their shortcomings. I give D$D credit since he knew of the PPA leadership change before any of us. Regardless of what you think of the PPA, having someone who knows what is going is a good thing.

BluffTHIS! · #79 08-23-2007, 06:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your apparent belief that because of the membership of the board they are scheming to be ineffective in a manner that would only benefit certain online sites and US gambling interests sounds a lot like a conspiracy story. Like all conspiracy stories you may be right. Then again you may be wrong. They may well be people who (like me) want online poker to be clearly legal and are just not very good at getting it done. In my life experience ineptitude has explained far more things than conspiracies.

Only time can tell whether it is the optimist or the pessimist who truly is a fool.

But I too must add that the anger in your anti-D$D posts seems way out of line. Even if he is (which I doubt) a shill for the PPA, there is no harm whatsoever in hearing what he has to say through a post in this forum.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Skall,

First let me note as I have in the past, that I do not believe the PPA is a scam to make money. They clearly are not. Nor do I believe the board is "scheming to be ineffective". Rather that board generally lacks the competence such a board should have in order to be effective.

But when talking about effectiveness, the question is, regarding what goals. Here I do believe that they are scheming, namely to further the goals of certain poker sites and the media dependant on their advertising. That this is so is very plain and seen by the fact that they do not endorse a broader range of goals not only with respect to online poker, but in regards to B&M poker as well. And they clearly in the past have adpoted the Party Poker spin line of the UIGEA outlawing sites offering poker now, contrary to the interests of the privately held concerns. The TruePoker CEO has articulated the legal reasoning of those private sites very well here.

And why wouldn't anyone see a conspiracy of some sorts with a board dominated by CP and filled out by online sites, and with no members of the wider membership like state coordinators, not to mention outsiders with relevant experience in other areas?

As far as my angry tone, Milton has explained that well. Part of PR spin of any nature, whether personal, corporate or political, is asserting either an untruth or halftruth, and then just keep repeating same instead of answering substative criticisms. That repetitive spin, whether by the same poster, or an endless progression of n00b accounts is just the same old BS. Also note that I don't make an endless series of threads to bash the PPA although I have made a few in the past. But I won't sit by while their spinners do engage in a regular plan of making non-substantive spin posts. If they stop the "happy spin" then I'll stop as well.

BluffTHIS! · #80 08-23-2007, 06:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
D$D as far as we know is not an employee of PPA, so he shouldn't get bashed for their shortcomings. I give D$D credit since he knew of the PPA leadership change before any of us. Regardless of what you think of the PPA, having someone who knows what is going is a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

"as far as we know"

And as far as we know he is. At the best he is just someone without enough knowledge of the issues and who is very gullible in passing on "insider info". And just how damn good is it when all we get "advance" knowledge of is some PR spin? This was clearly all just calculated to give some buzz to relatively less important issues, while ignoring those that are most important.