Few seem to have noticed how the new law "fixes" the Wire Act

[Phil153]

Wow, thanks for quoting me honestly. Why did you deliberately chop off this bit?

[ QUOTE ]
The majority of states outlaw it either directly or by not expressly permitting it. Anyway the exact state laws vary so you'll have to do your own investigating as to whether it applies to poker in your state.

[/ QUOTE ]

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, thanks for quoting me honestly. Why did you deliberately chop off this bit?

[ QUOTE ]
The majority of states outlaw it either directly or by not expressly permitting it. Anyway the exact state laws vary so you'll have to do your own investigating as to whether it applies to poker in your state.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's ok to make categorical statements as long as you retract them later?

"If there is one, you're breaking the law, gambling is unlawful in your state, and this act applies."

Those are your words. If you want to retract them, that's fine.

eastbay

[Phil153]

Retract them later?? That was in the original post you (mis)quoted above.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Retract them later?? That was in the original post you (mis)quoted above.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't misquote anything. You made a false statement and then undermined it later on. Why make the false statement in the first place if it's not what you think? The only reason to do that is to create the impression that the original statement is true on a quick reading, in order to shore up the litany of false categorical statements you've made in this thread and used as the basis for calling people liars.

eastbay

[Phil153]

My basis for calling people liars is solely based on their own comments. I'll link some if you'd like to see them. Others have made far more sweeping (and dangerous, if followed) statements, which they have NOT labeled as opinions, and you haven't pulled them up.

My comments are my interpretation of the law. I have stated clearly that I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps I should preface everything with "I think", "I believe", but I consider that assumed. By the way, the "later on" you talk about is the next sentence. It's called qualifying a statement.

But you are correct. I change my statement to:

"If there is one, you're most likely breaking the law, gambling is unlawful in your state, and this act may apply." This has the same effect as the qualifying statements I made in the very next sentence in the original post.

I will be more careful of my language in future. I hope you will also single out TruePoker CEO, who has recklessly given opinion that people could rely on to their detriment, without marking it as opinion.

[TruePoker CEO]

.... do not say that, it is unfair to cooties.