I wonder why they even comment on such stuff?

They emit a massive quantity of morons.

I think because unlike FTP, they care a lot about their reputation in the poker world. They don't want to be seen as bad guys that bluffed all the players just to eliminate a strong competitor.

Nothing personal, but this makes me want to stop posting! For every one that thinks my mood in type sounds upbeat, there is at least the same amount that say I sounded down. I have the hundreds of emails to prove it!

My words are what they are, and many times, I just can't elaborate more. Hopefully there will be something more concrete to report soon.

(Still waiting for a list of those IoM B&M casinos. Beginning to get the feeling you are making chit up as you go along 8^)

So if country X permits child pornography to be freely sold, they can go ahead to offer it to residents of the US over the internet since those same people could travel to country X and watch it?

Is this what you are saying?

Get your popcorn ready

Yes, I saw this on the docket too, but keep in mind these extension, iirc, apply only to FTP, which if they are forfeiting would be wasting the courts time with a MTD, to Bitar, who is in custody now and iirc he actually filed his answers back in September and would be moving on to the next steps now, and Commonwealth of Kentucky, who filed a verified timely claim for the domain name, which is a whole different fiasco. One might presume that there are talks ongoing for this.

If the head of comms has to come straight out and say these statements were false in such a short space of time we can safely assume they are working their ass off to get a deal done and dont want any loose rumours affecting the process - if the deal is done and NewFTP becomes part of pokerstars with all claims dropped against NewFTP dropped and stars motion gets those 38 states dropped from the litigation they scoop the pot...

What is significant is that the time to file replies to motions to strike claims is now extended to August 13. It pushes the judicial resolution of that issue, if necessary, to a later date.

I don't see any tweet by him about this only the tweet by Andrew Feldman ‏that say he said that.

Right. He re-tweeted 3 different people saying it.

Brilliant: lol no. I don't think she was hinting at anything. She was literally just saying she hopes, like we all do, that there is something concrete to report.

Don't give me a heart attack! Don't even think that! Oh the horrors if you didn't post in here...

Srsly though, keep posting.

Andrew Feldman ‏@AFeldmanESPN
The Head of Corp Communications for @PokerStars @erichollreiser says the Twitter rumors of PS folding on the FTP deal is "false"
Retweeted by Eric Hollreiser

What IoM casino? I said they treat their licensed internet casinos the same way a regulator would treat a B&M casino.

I haven't kept up with the internet child pornography fight, I know at one point State bans were being thrown out for commerce clause concerns, then there were 1st and 10th amendment attacks on federal prohibitions, hopefully they got it sorted - all incoming porn is blocked at the ISP level here in the Philippines (which is odd because outgoing cam-sex is a cottage industry).

If States want to protect their citizens from offshore gambling, the obvious solution to get federal protection is passing an internet gambling prohibition law like Washington did, not rely on 40 year old B&M statutes, or pass legislation to regulate it themselves as the President suggested.

Yes, but this blog doesn't mention FTP or anything about a purchase - just settlement talks with the DOJ (settlement talks could only refer to the DOJ civil charges).

Feldman's tweet is responding directly to the FTP rumors.

I'm related news, if deal fails, add 6 mill. to the forfeitures.(maybe, I don't really know that would happen)

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/m...x6xJ1Uj68NzrnO

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

Are you sure about that?

Nothing protects the citizenry from the evils of alcohol like prohibiting alcohol at the federal, State, and county levels...

...Oh wait, that ended with mafia taking over the prohibited alcohol trade, the black market becoming so lucrative the cops and politicians were on the payrolls of the gangsters, and a sky high murder and child alcoholism rate (speakeasies don't card kids).

When it ended, murder and childhood alcoholism rates plummeted (corner stores card children), police and politicians became less corrupt (well maybe not less corrupt, but certainly working for less violent masters), and we learned a big old lesson about prohibiting nonviolent things adults do for fun that may or may not hurt them in excess.

Except, apparently, internet poker and drugs...which we've banned AFTER our fun time with alcohol. Oopsy!

If they want to ptotect their citizens from the evils of gambling, the best way is to legalize it, and enforce harm and fraud laws SEVERELY (to discourage children from playing, to not scam people out of their money, and to not otherwise harm anyone against their will or mislead them knowingly in any way).

PS. I didn't mention "regulation" in a pre-emptive sense, or tax, for a reason. I think the above doesn't require either. I also forgot prostitution on my list of prohibited things adults do.

I must suck at both writing and reading, because when I wrote that I never intended to imply that IoM regulates B&M casinos, and when I read it back to myself I don't see how you formed the inference.

Regardless, how or why would it matter if they did? Are you suggesting that no government without experience in B&M regulation should be allowed to regulate internet card rooms?

I have no problem with such governments regulating internet card rooms - for their own citizens.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but DE is concerned that States who choose to exercise their 10th amendment right to legally block access to offshore poker rooms would be denied that right under the construction of the law PokerStars' attorneys outlined.

But the issue isn't that States don't have the right under PokerStars' argument, the issue is that only 12 States have chosen to exercise that right.

I swear to God this is like watching a ****ing soap opera with a bad case of the ****s like Goober had after his Hot chocolate in Dumb and Dumber.

Maybe a bad case of Brain Clusters. At least they could come out and say Yes we are close or a few weeks away from a deal getting done instead of playing this stupid game of fudge packer roulette.

AT LEAST THROW US A ****ING BONE HERE!

All they need to do then is pass a law similar to the one California is attempting to pass, which regulates it's own licensees while banning unlicensed sites and extending that ban to the player to avoid any extraterritorial arguments.

The idea that a State government like Kentucky could try to label the domain name of a billion dollar corporation, licensed by the strictest regulator in the industry, operating completely above the law all around the world, to be an illegal gambling device, like it's a video poker machine in the backroom of an unlicensed tavern, is completely absurd.

You don't want your citizens playing online poker? Have the political will to face your electorate and pass an online poker ban.

What a friggin' ride, more than one year long and no way to get off...