|
|
#41
11-07-2007, 03:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Absolute Does Not Respond to Two Plus Two’s Fraud Investigation O
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 2. A positive outcome for Absolute could not be guaranteed, [/ QUOTE ] Fail. [/ QUOTE ] What are you talking about? Your statement makes no sense. In threads like these we need to find a detterent for idiots, it just makes 2p2 look bad. [/ QUOTE ] AP's POV, LDO. 
|
|
#42
11-07-2007, 03:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolute Does Not Respond to Two Plus Two’s Fraud Investigation O
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Second, Absolute has apparently agreed to allow Bluff Magazine and Pocket Fives to review the findings of the investigation without a similar arrangement for Two Plus Two. This seems strange considering Two Plus Two’s role in uncovering and discussing this situation. [/ QUOTE ] It's kind of funny how when Nat was considering whether to go down to Costa Rica "as a representative for twoplustwo", Mason was very quick to point out that "I'm sorry but you do not represent Two Plus Two. That authorization can only from me." However, when it comes to taking credit for uncovering the scandal, he's happy to have all the credit associated with the "Two Plus Two" name. [/ QUOTE ] don't post anymore. [/ QUOTE ] I think it's a valid point. [/ QUOTE ] Agree, what's with the "don't post anymore" plus qft's? Kill anyone not down with the "rah rah rah go 2+2 down with absolute" chant?
|
|
#43
11-07-2007, 03:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolute Does Not Respond to Two Plus Two’s Fraud Investigation O
I'd like to hear what an independent investigation turned up by 2+2. I'd trust that more than the one by the firm that is connected to KGC.
|
|
#44
11-07-2007, 04:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolute Does Not Respond to Two Plus Two’s Fraud Investigation O
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Second, Absolute has apparently agreed to allow Bluff Magazine and Pocket Fives to review the findings of the investigation without a similar arrangement for Two Plus Two. This seems strange considering Two Plus Two’s role in uncovering and discussing this situation. [/ QUOTE ] It's kind of funny how when Nat was considering whether to go down to Costa Rica "as a representative for twoplustwo", Mason was very quick to point out that "I'm sorry but you do not represent Two Plus Two. That authorization can only from me." However, when it comes to taking credit for uncovering the scandal, he's happy to have all the credit associated with the "Two Plus Two" name. [/ QUOTE ] don't post anymore. [/ QUOTE ] his post>>>> any of yours so far...
|
|
#45
11-07-2007, 04:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolute Does Not Respond to Two Plus Two’s Fraud Investigation O
I think the people questioning Mason's intentions should keep in mind that he is under absolutely no obligation to do anything to try to resolve the AP situation. He's putting himself and his company out there to try to dig up the truth, so I think we should lay off accusing him of trying to take the credit. If and when the truth comes out, I'm sure he will acknowledge the efforts of the individuals who uncovered this scandal, but for now I think it is better to have the weight of the 2+2 company name out there rather than the names of specific people.
|
|
#46
11-07-2007, 04:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolute Does Not Respond to Two Plus Two’s Fraud Investigation O
Nat doesn't officially represent 2+2...Nat is the man, but why would Mason let him say he's going to represent 2+2?
I'm assuming this is the part you disagree with: [ QUOTE ] Second, Absolute has apparently agreed to allow Bluff Magazine and Pocket Fives to review the findings of the investigation without a similar arrangement for Two Plus Two. This seems strange considering Two Plus Two’s role in uncovering and discussing this situation. [/ QUOTE ] How is he not 100% right? Nat et al obviously deserve all of the credit, but they were posting on the 2+2 forum. Couldn't he be using the word "2+2" instead of "the two plus two posters?" 2+2 should be first in line, not Bluff or P5s. Maybe I shouldn't have said "don't post anymore" but seriously, it's not like Mason is trying to take the credit for this.
|
|
#48
11-07-2007, 04:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolute Does Not Respond to Two Plus Two’s Fraud Investigation O
[ QUOTE ]
but for now I think it is better to have the weight of the 2+2 company name out there rather than the names of specific people. [/ QUOTE ] He made it perfectly clear though that these individuals were not, in any way, representing 2+2. And now all of a sudden 2+2 and these individuals are as one.
|
|
#49
11-07-2007, 04:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolute Does Not Respond to Two Plus Two’s Fraud Investigation O
[ QUOTE ]
This seems strange considering Two Plus Two’s role in uncovering and discussing this situation. [/ QUOTE ] If "Two Plus Two's role in uncovering the situation" consists of providing some online forums where a lot of intelligent poker players (who Mason carefully noted do NOT represent 2+2) that did a lot of hard work to uncover this thing happen to post, then I guess that's a fairly accurate statement, yes.
|
|
#50
11-07-2007, 04:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolute Does Not Respond to Two Plus Two’s Fraud Investigation O
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] but for now I think it is better to have the weight of the 2+2 company name out there rather than the names of specific people. [/ QUOTE ] He made it perfectly clear though that these individuals were not, in any way, representing 2+2. And now all of a sudden 2+2 and these individuals are as one. [/ QUOTE ] from a legal perspective, surely you can see why Mason can say whatever he wants using the 2+2 name and Nat can't?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
