November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[oldbookguy]

The point is, there exists regulations and taxes already, any bill would just extend thos to poker, though the DoJ feels they already do apply. You were posting as if there are no taxes or regulations and they would be something new.

Even the current legal wagering has regulations, it will extend those to poker, that is all.

If it is detrimental, doubtful.

Again, based on what has been said before congress on the matter, (this year and prior to UIGEA) regulation and licensing are desired.

That, as I posted, is my point in my reply.

Sorry, I meant you no offense.

obg

[rakewell]

[ QUOTE ]

Rockwell posted five posts...FIVE POSTS...to tell us (not to ask us) to turn on Rep. Berkley, while speaking harshly to posters who responded to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

TE:

For the moment, let's forget about the actual subject of this thread and focus on the fairness of your assessment here. (I generally dislike posts that hijack a thread and turn it into a meta-discussion of the thread itself, so I won't belabor this into an extended argument. But I'm sufficiently stunned by the statement above to comment on it.)

I've read through everything I've written here, and here are the harshest things I can find that I've said to other posters:

“If you feel inclined to overlook that or forgive her for it or find some excuse for it, that's your business. But let's not ignore the plain facts of the historical record. She voted for it. You're not seriously denying that point, are you?”

“If saying the right thing while doing the wrong thing is what you deem to make somebody "rock," well, so be it. I simply disagree.”


Now, let's look at what has been said to me:

“You're either leveling us or amazingly naive.”

“Dude, you are one seriously disturbed tune.”

“You obviously have an eight-years-old mindset, able only to see the world in the simplest shades of black and white. Or maybe you are some kind of celebrity stalker type, obsessed with Shelley Berkely, with pictures of her hanging all over the walls of your studio and illuminated by never extinguished candle flame. Please get some help .”

“Thanks so much for sharing. Now GTFO.” (That one was from you, TE.)

“Aaaaah, stupid people. Can't enlighten them, don't wanna enlighten them.”

“Anyone who points to the Port Security vote as the record of note for "who is against us and who is for us" is a complete idiot....or is just very very naive.”

“I see your point Rakewell the one on top of your head but Shelly Barkley is one of our good allies. I hope you can come to realize that. And if you don't, you are either a troll or one of the biggest dufus' of all time.”

“Or possibly he really is politically as stupid as the proverbial stone..”


TE, try to be as objective as you can be when looking at those two sets of comments, and answer this question: Which set is harsher?

I have a hard time believing that anybody could conclude that I have responded to those disagreeing with me "harshly," as you asserted. At the very least, even if you have a low threshold for what you consider "harsh," a fair-minded observer would surely be compelled to apply the same label to the second set of comments.

But you didn't do that. You only said that *I* responded harshly, when, as shown above, I have really been pretty darn mild and restrained, without a single personal attack or insult. I didn't call anybody "stupid."

I certainly haven't told anybody to "get the f*** out," as you did to me. I seem to remember something in the Bible about seeing a mote in somebody else's eye when you have a beam in your own.

My conclusion from this is that you appear to be highly biased and selective in your reading. I'm guessing that you disregard harshness from others because they are people who agree with you, and you somehow perceive more harshness in what I have written than is actually, objectively there because you are irritated that I disagree with you. That doesn't speak well for your ability to be a rational, objective, detached, trustworthy observer and assessor of things, IMO.

This isn't intended to complain about the insults I've received, so let's please not get a series of replies that I can't take it, or that I should have known what I was getting myself into, etc. I'm a big boy, and don't really care much what strangers think of me personally. I'm also smart enough to realize that people who write stuff such as I've quoted above do so because (1) they think they're being clever and enjoy the attention, and/or (2) they're incapable of addressing points I made directly and substantively, so they resort to third-grade-level name-calling. The world is full of such clowns and dimwits, and I made my peace with that fact long ago. This post isn't intended to gripe about the nature of the forum. I was perfectly willing to ignore such nonsense, until you accused me of being guilty of it.

Of course, you are not obligated to make a thoughtful, meaningful reply to my observations here. If you prefer, and if it better reflects your intellect and personality, you can simply tell me to GTFO again, while continuing to believe that I, and not you, are speaking "harshly."

[Skallagrim]

Cut him some slack, rakewell, TE works VERY hard for no pay to help all of us.

Given that your initial and first few posts did continue to make a point all of us thought was silly (the point, not necessarily you), namely that Berkley was some how suspect as an ally because of her vote on the Port Security bill, was it truly unfair to suspect you of being a troll? 2+2 has plenty of trolls, and the first sign you may have a troll is someone with few posts who keeps repeating a silly point.

After all your other responses, its NOW reasonable to conclude you are not a troll (if you are then I am leveled and you are one of the best).

But I would like to think we are all adults here. Adults often swear at each other in arguments to emphasize their point.

So, quite frankly, I dont give a damn who was first "harsh" of if everyone was "harsh."

I have been called plenty of things on these forums; I've used some harsh language myself. It does come with the territory.

Skallagrim

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I should have known what I was getting myself into, etc. I'm a big boy, and don't really care much what strangers think of me personally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep the faith brother!


D$D


Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naive, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as "empty," "meaningless," or "dishonest," and scorn to use them. No matter how "pure" their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best. ---Lazarus Long (From "Time Enough For Love" by Robert A. Heinlein)

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Rockwell posted five posts...FIVE POSTS...to tell us (not to ask us) to turn on Rep. Berkley, while speaking harshly to posters who responded to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

TE:

For the moment, let's forget about the actual subject of this thread and focus on the fairness of your assessment here. .....

[/ QUOTE ]

In your initial posts, you came across to some as someone who could have been here only to stir stuff up. That's why people here were harsh in their responses. It wasn't necessarily what you were saying, but the perception of why you were posting it here in the first place. There are many forums that are now worthless because the "trolls" have taken them over. We try to be protective of this one for that reason.

I don't care if someone has a negative opinion about Rep. Berkley. I wouldn't concur, but everyone here is entitled to their own opinion. Five posts on Berkley in this thread is overkill, though. Perhaps start a new thread next time you want a side discussion. Anyway, after reading your blog and your subsequent posts, it's apparent that you're no troll. As such, I do apologize for telling you to GTFO. You're more than welcome here. I encourage you to try a more conversational tone, but that's up to you.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
I have the luxury to follow my passions and determination of my responsibilities to "service" and giving back to society as I feel fit to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me a break.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have the luxury to follow my passions and determination of my responsibilities to "service" and giving back to society as I feel fit to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me a break.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should you get one? If this thread has show anything no one gets a break!

So as others have said get over it or STFU!



D$D

[TheEngineer]

Everyone,

I appears the FoF Wikipedia entry has been updated to include their position on gaming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_o...and_activities

[ QUOTE ]
Focus on the Family also supports prohibition of all gambling in America. This position has created some controversy within the Christian community, as gambling is not prohibited in the Bible[5]. This schism is evidenced by the fact that many churches hold gambling contests, especially bingo, to raise funds. Focus’ insistence on this position, as a result, has been interpreted as “extra-Biblical doctrine” that was created by some within the Christian Right who are personally opposed to gambling. At the November 14, 2007 House Judiciary Committee hearing entitled “Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers”[6], Family Research Council Vice President Tom McClusky testified that his organization favored banning Internet poker in the United States. When questioned further by Rep. Steven Cohen [D-TN] on how much gambling FRC advocated banning, McClusky testified that FRC wished to ban all gambling in America, including even poker[7]. Upon hearing this, Rep. Cohen incredulously asked "is there any fun you are for?", leading many in the blogosphere to nickname FoF “Foes of Fun”[8].

[/ QUOTE ]

[Uglyowl]

LOL... I have watched sections of that video and haven't seen it.. at what time does the exchange take place? I love the foes of fun saying!

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL... I have watched sections of that video and haven't seen it.. at what time does the exchange take place? I love the foes of fun saying!

[/ QUOTE ]

3:33:45 [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[following McClusky's advocacy of a total gaming prohibition in the U.S.]
Rep. Steven Cohen: Is there any fun that you’re for? [laughter in background]
Tom McClusky: Any what?
Rep. Steven Cohen: Fun.
Tom McClusky: Umm...well, we’re for this, and this seems like a lot of fun.
Rep. Steven Cohen: Hearings?
Tom McClusky: [no response...laughter in background]
Rep. Steven Cohen: Good, good.