|
|
|
|
#1
11-25-2007, 11:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Mason... Sir,
[ QUOTE ]
I'm bringing it up again because we asked Mason for a 2+2 LLC comment for the UIGEA regs and he replied by telling PPA to change its board (and it was, IMO, impolite). I think he has a right to his opinion, but withholding commenting on the UIGEA regs hurts us, the players. I really hope to see 2+2 LLC's UIGEA regulation comment here soon. [/ QUOTE ] If this went down the way you say it went down here, I agree with this 100%. Whatever issues 2+2 has with the PPA have absolutely nothing to do with potential comments on the regs. It's just bad business not to comment, and I hope Mason et al don't let this ideological feud blind them to doing what is best for poker. 
|
|
#2
11-26-2007, 12:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mason... Sir,
[ QUOTE ]
It's just bad business not to comment, and I hope Mason et al don't let this ideological feud blind them to doing what is best for poker. [/ QUOTE ] Is there a thread or link about official PPA comments submitted to the regulators? I hope I missed it or the reason for not commenting.
|
|
#3
11-26-2007, 12:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mason... Sir,
Bluffthis, I would like to point out that the DOJ has previously threatened CP with prosecution for accepting .com poker site ads. In fact, CP has in essence answered prosecute when ready. The DOJ has declined to prosecute. What would Mason do if the DOJ threatened to prosecute 2+2 and him for the affiliate ads that he has on this site? If litigation is needed to protect the interests of online poker players, then Ms. Shulman is the best director that we can get for the PPA. She is already assisting Mr. Lee Rousso with his litigation against the State of Washington concerning its law prohibiting individuals from making any bets on online gambling sites.
I'm sorry but I fail to see what interests the board of directors of the PPA has that 2+2 or us online poker players do not share.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
