Does the PPA need 2+2?

[BluffTHIS!]

Tuff,

Quick question. When you were at the D.C. flyin, were board members Allyn Schulman, Linda Johnson, Jan Fisher and Mary Magazine also there? And did you have any discussions with them relevant to the issues of concern here regarding the board composition and transparency?

Also please keep one thing in mind. You are after all a fish, i.e. losing poker player, albeit one who can afford to do so. So your opinions on anything can't really be given a lot of credence. Unless of course you're playing at my table and donating. In that case I'm willing to cave into some of your demands including a percentage back of your losses. After all, it's the fish like you we want and not all these weak-tighties!

[Kraize]

"I'm curious whether you are also mad at the CP mag and affiliate farm board members of the PPA who could resign but won't because of either their vested interests tied to only certain forms of online poker, or their animus against 2p2? Will you also be boycotting CP magazine and urging your friends not to sign with affiliates advertised on their website?"


I don't read CP but that has nothing to do with this issue.

I'm not backing up the PPA. I am however backing up TE. He has done nothing but help our cause and Mason is being ridiculous in his demands.

Anyone that reads here knows TE is on the PPA board. He shouldn't have to sign every post like he is representing the PPA.

Anyway this issue has been discussed in enough threads. Most people are on TE's side and hopefully they will follow him off 2+2.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway this issue has been discussed in enough threads. Most people are on TE's side and hopefully they will follow him off 2+2.

[/ QUOTE ]


The question at issue is not whether 2p2 needs some of you, but whether the PPA needs 2p2. I presume you are saying the PPA does not in fact need 2p2 or you would stay and put up with things you disagree with for the overall good of the cause wouldn't you?

[primetime32]

[ QUOTE ]
Tuff,
Also please keep one thing in mind. You are after all a fish, i.e. losing poker player, albeit one who can afford to do so. So your opinions on anything can't really be given a lot of credence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are being serious, you are a bigger fool than i thought. Just because someone is bad at poker does not mean that they are not capable of making superior arguments to your own.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tuff,
Also please keep one thing in mind. You are after all a fish, i.e. losing poker player, albeit one who can afford to do so. So your opinions on anything can't really be given a lot of credence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are being serious, you are a bigger fool than i thought. Just because someone is bad at poker does not mean that they are not capable of making superior arguments to your own.

[/ QUOTE ]


No it doesn't mean that 100%. But it does mean that the probability is very high such is in fact the case. And if you don't see why you aren't really a 2p2'er. If you can't play +EV then you most likely don't think very well. Or maybe Sklansky and Mason are full of [censored] in all their math and poker writings.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
Tuff,

Quick question. When you were at the D.C. flyin, were board members Allyn Schulman, Linda Johnson, Jan Fisher and Mary Magazine also there?

.
.
There was a lady at my table who said she was a board member and a lawyer. I didn't catch her name.
.
.
And did you have any discussions with them relevant to the issues of concern here regarding the board composition and transparency?
.
.
I did not because I don't care one whit about the board conposition. The PPA is working for me. That works for me. You and Mason are the only ones who seem to have heart burn about the board makeup.
.
.


Also please keep one thing in mind. You are after all a fish, i.e. losing poker player, albeit one who can afford to do so. So your opinions on anything can't really be given a lot of credence. Unless of course you're playing at my table and donating. In that case I'm willing to cave into some of your demands including a percentage back of your losses. After all, it's the fish like you we want
.
.
Then you sir are a complete freaking idiot, because fish like me aren't going to be playing online poker AT ALL unless the PPA has success. You would be better served to work your complaining ass off helping the PPA rather that whining and obstructing them.
.
.

and not all these weak-tighties!

.
.

There may come a day, not too distant, when you and all your selfish ilk, will pine for the right to play the weak tight grinders the permeate the online scene nowadays. .



[/ QUOTE ]

Tuff

[Skallagrim]

I posted my thoughts on TE specifically in the "TE is Yellow" thread so I wont repeat them here.

On the specific question, does the PPA NEED 2+2, the answer is no. But can the PPA use 2+2 and can that be a very effective use? The answer to that is clearly yes. Yes, simply because 2+2 to its credit, but maybe more so to the credit of its posters (like TE and even you Bluff) is THE place to read and talk about poker.

Do political candidates need CBS or NBC? Well, there are other methods of getting the message out, they just are not as quick and easy. But if political candidates could not advertise on those stations, dont you think they, and the viewers who would be interested in what they have to say (OK, here the analogy does break down a bit [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ) would find something else that works? Of course they would.

In that sense 2+2 does have a little bit to lose too; its not likely to continue to be the place for cutting edge poker-related political and legal discussion/information that it is now - and that has certainly enhanced (to some degree) 2+2's reputation in the poker community.

Skallagrim

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
does the PPA need 2+2 to succeed?


[/ QUOTE ]




Today's PPA definition of success, may not be the same as most player's or 2+2's. But yes, PPA needs the fine help of 2+2 PLUS several minor miracles in a row "to succeed" as I think of success. Without 2+2, it would be ugly.

[joeker]

[ QUOTE ]
This is absurd.

This is like what's left over from Ivory's 99 44/100% pure fighting about who's more important. The truth is neither are more important in the grand scheme of things.

The vast majority of the poker playing population--the 99 and 44/100%--do not know about either the PPA or 2+2. Do you understand that??? 2+2 is important to SOME online poker players--among the ones still playing--but totally unimportant to the ones who WOULD BE PLAYING if the PPA is successful. 2+2 is important to us, but the rest of the world could give a fat rat's derierre.

I'm a supporter of 2+2, but I'm in the same position here as I was before the invasion of Iraq. I can't criticise without being considered a Communist. Well, at the risk of offending some people I'd rather not, I'm going to anyway...

This is totally and utterly ridiculous and I'm appalled!

C'mon, Mason, gimme a break. While you may have good reasons in your own mind, in the minds of your customers you're out of your mind. Frankly, 2+2 did nothing before the passage of the UIGEA to prevent it, to educate poker players, and has since done nothing to repeal it. You've sold a bunch of books. You haven't done what the PPA is at least trying to do.

In my eyes, the PPA is the one who's gaining respect, while 2+2 is losing it. You are, simply, wrong. (and sadly unlikely to change your mind.)

So, in conclusion, I believe in this case, 2+2 needs the PPA much more than the PPA needs 2+2. If the PPA fails, there's nothing to take it's place, the market shrinks further, and you sell fewer books over time. Duh. The PPA has made it this far without 2+2 at all. The only thing to come out of 2+2 which has been of great help to the PPA is The Engineer, if that's a true statement at all.

Stop this nonsense before it hurts us further. And stop acting like Democrats. Sheesh.

CJ--a member of the Democratic Party and as such, his views should be taken as the policy of the Democratic Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

HERE HERE

[joeker]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's see. We have crummy laws that make it difficult for many people to fund their poker accounts, and there is a major online cheating scandal. Meanwhile, many of the people here are on Tilt, playing Russian Roulette, and we are eating our young.

[/ QUOTE ]

HERE HERE