|
|
|
|
#1
11-26-2007, 12:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Mason... Sir,
Well, it would appear an alliance between 2+2 and the PPA is out of the question, lets hope at least that the "truce" continues.
I have only one additional comment, directed more at the readers than the owners of 2+2: that the PPA board is open to challenge for not being 100% representative is something I have agreed with in general, but I still say "so what." Does anyone think the NRA is compromised by the fact that owners of gun manufacturing companies sit on its board? Or is anyone bothered that publishers of porn give financial contributions to the ACLU? I see at this point no divergence between what the PPA board is fighting for and what I want: explicitly legal online poker. UNTIL I see such a divergence, I just cant help feeling Mason and Bluff are doing more harm than good, although I know this is not their intention. Skallagrim 
|
|
#2
11-26-2007, 01:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mason... Sir,
Im just greedy Skall. The entire UIGEA fiasco has given rise to something Ive seen a need for since my first trip to the casino. A player advocacy union/NGO. The PPA as is is not, and is miles away from being that. Its clear they have no intention now of ever being it. As for fighting the UIGEA they are there, ok, but iMega and Antigua have done more. Even the Russo guy in WA has. The PPA hasnt filed one lawsuit. Even a spurious one or 100. Florida is a big, glaring failure to convince me they were backing general poker. So Im sitting it out until they either co-opt Mason or go out on a limb ot convince me its going ot be a player's organization. Good work, I appreciate it, but I don't trust it.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
