Latest AP press release - Page 9

mntbikr15 · #81 11-09-2007, 03:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Nat,

If their statement were to contain:

-Flat out lies
-Half truths

or neglect to include something very noteworthy...ie the rouge "employee" was scott tom

and you know these things to be false, but it falls under the NDA.

Will you still honor the NDA?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bump

Surely you must have seen this as you answered the post after it

kafkaFan1 · #82 11-09-2007, 03:24 PM

Hey are AP and UB the same company now? How does this affect Ultimate bet any thoughts?

highhustla · #83 11-09-2007, 03:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey Nat, what are your thoughts on whether Scott Tom is still associated with AP, considering that AP only mentioned that one "known perpetrator" was terminated in their latest release?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going to be talking about this as extensively as possible. But the general summary is that I think he retains his ownership interest and is probably at least more removed than before from operational control.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this not the most ridiculous thing ever? How can you support them on any level if this is the case? WTF?

mntbikr15 · #84 11-09-2007, 03:41 PM

Just playing devils advocate....but couldnt it be true that you cant simply "boot" an equity owner out?

*I know nothing about such things, just a thought

highhustla · #85 11-09-2007, 03:52 PM

I'm sure it is.

My point is, how can ANYONE support a company w/ this structure? Where one of the major stakeholders defrauded their customers? We can never, ever, ever support Absolute.

N 82 50 24 · #86 11-09-2007, 04:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying it's which of 'the other four (not POTRIPPER)' accounts was #363 that you cannot tell us?

I must be missing something. Apart from the link between #363 and Scott Tom himself, why does it matter what name #363 called itself?

If #363 is Graycat, Doubledrag or whatever, what difference does it make? It's who was using it to cheat that matters, surely?

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter. I already knew before I went into AP that #363 was one of the other four. When I was there I found out which account it was, but I can't say. The important thing is that POTRIPPER was logged on that day and #363 was logged on that day. In addition, since 363 did play, that basically says the 363 was not the mechanism for sharing hole cards (most likely).

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, AP said you would not be allowed to examine the cheating accounts, at the request (order?) of GA. Did the GA people explain why they did that? Wasn't as if you could tamper with the evidence or anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, that was not explained to me, but the basic theory is that auditors don't like other people auditing what they're auditing at the same time.

N 82 50 24 · #87 11-09-2007, 04:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nat,

If their statement were to contain:

-Flat out lies
-Half truths

or neglect to include something very noteworthy...ie the rouge "employee" was scott tom

and you know these things to be false, but it falls under the NDA.

Will you still honor the NDA?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bump

Surely you must have seen this as you answered the post after it

[/ QUOTE ]
I would probably ask my legal counsel about what I should do if it came to that. But I don't think what I saw that falls under the NDA will cause problems like that, so it isn't a concern of mine.

Sponger. · #88 11-09-2007, 04:12 PM

Why is hiding Scott Tom's name so important to them?

N 82 50 24 · #89 11-09-2007, 04:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hey are AP and UB the same company now? How does this affect Ultimate bet any thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]
They are the same. Not sure about #2.

N 82 50 24 · #90 11-09-2007, 04:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey Nat, what are your thoughts on whether Scott Tom is still associated with AP, considering that AP only mentioned that one "known perpetrator" was terminated in their latest release?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going to be talking about this as extensively as possible. But the general summary is that I think he retains his ownership interest and is probably at least more removed than before from operational control.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this not the most ridiculous thing ever? How can you support them on any level if this is the case? WTF?

[/ QUOTE ]
My main interest is seeing a fair game and open company going forward. I've basically realized that companies can't just boot owners, but hopefully he will not have any operational control at any point. I don't really have a problem with it if he sits in Panama and collects checks though, especially because there's nothing I can do about that.