So PPA is now conservative evangelical? Didn't know I signed up for that. What happened to keeping non-poker issues out of it?

BTW, there's absolutely nothing anti-Christian about slamming nut jobs for not believing in science. But it is a smear to say Rose is anti-Christian.

Is PPA generally a Christian, libertarian extremist organization?

I have no desire to limit Rose's ability to speak his mind. We do call on him not to do it under the guise of speaking as a leader. As he did, we were put in a position either to address it or to have it seen as something we endorsed.

We simply needed to disassociate ourselves from the statements, which we have. PPA is not anti-Christian or anti-conservative. If we are seen as either, we'll struggle on Capitol Hill.

If Rose suggested that a Catholic could not sponsor a bill for us because he'd take his marching orders from the Pope, he'd be slammed (and rightly so). I imagine many Christians feel exactly the same about Rose's attacks on Barton's religious beliefs.

I absolutely want to stand up to Hills. I am...every day.

There was no discussion on standing up to him in that other thread. Rather, it was all about giving him a platform and taking steps that would do nothing more than energize him (not by design, of course, but it would have been the consequence).

We cannot oppose anti-Christian or anti-conservative statements without being pro-Christian or pro-conservative? I don't follow that. We'd respond similarly if someone said a liberal, Jewish, left-handed, gay man (as Barney Frank describes himself) was not fit to support us. Again, we're poker-only.

Anyway, I don't believe Rose is anti-Christian, but I do believe his statements were troubling. He's entitled to his opinions, but there came a point where we had to respond.

Engineer, your binary choice of do nothing or do exactly what you did otherwise be seen as endorsing him is silly. You didn't merely "do something" as opposed to nothing. You went full-throttle "let's publicly call this guy out, throw all caution to the wind, take this thing on super harshly, plus give a column we wanted to not exist at all a ton of attention."

small disclaimer wherever that you don't endorse his views = fine. Giving greater publicity to the article and publicly calling his article shameful (among other things) = unnecessary public war with somebody who is on your side.

This a ridiuclous analogy. What you seem to ignore is that many Christians would also view him as a whack Job.

I'm a one issue voter and the issue is not from what account someone's paycheck was drawn or how well they can analyze climatological data.

I've heard more than one irritated groan at the mention of me voting Republican if Ron Paul is that party's candidate. I don't care about racist newsletters or the vagaries of fiat money, I care about poker.

That stream may be intellectually and morally shallow but its where I catch my fish.

Leave Mr. Barton alone.

BS, you don't even want us responding to Hills on CL's website.

I reached out to him offline, as you can see above.

Also, it wasn't just one article. He's been hitting poker conferences and poker media with this line over and over again and appears poised to continue. He's entitled to his opinion, but it was up to us to clarify that the poker community does not oppose conservative support (or apply any kind of political litmus test).

I don't care if you do or not. It's none of my business.

I've responded there several times and will continue to do so. I simply suggested that anyone responding ought to tailor the message in such a way that it furthers our goals.

Rich, where does Rose insinuate or explicitly state that he represents or speaks as a leader of the poker community. This seems to be a critical component to PPA's argument, and I haven't seen where he does that yet.

Rose is often identified as an expert in gambling law, and I don't think anyone here questions that distinction. He speaks as a university professor who is an expert in gambling law, as far as everything I have ever read or heard from him. With his expertise, he is certainly entitled to speak at conferences and various presentations. I haven't listened to all of his recent critiques of Barton, so he very well may speak as if he represents people he doesn't, but I just haven't seen it and I would like you to show it if possible since you've now stated it multiple times.

And +1 to pretty much everything MicroBob has been saying.

It was also up to you to make that point professionally and tactfully. While also making sure to not appear as though you are trying to voice your disapproval as loudly as possible.

I still am having a difficult time of getting past the hypocrisy of the PPA getting into a nonpoker battle with somebody because he is in a nonpoker battle.

I think you should admit that you are somewhat wrong on this and that you were ovwrzealous in your drive to distance the PPA from this guy. There is no reason why you couldn't just say that it wasn't representative of the organization's views and leave it at that while also trying to keep the whole thing as QUIET as possible.

Calling out a huge supporter of online poker from the very beginning is more shameful than the actions of the person Mason called shameful (at the beginning of his first contact with him no less) and this whole episode leaves a bad taste in my mouth due to the unprofessional manner in which it has been handled.

We all know the PPA is a joke. It is purely self interest, or the interest of whoever is footing the bill. My question is is their any such thing as a 'poker community'? Really? I think not. Poker is a game of individuals. 2+2 will sell books (maybe) if poker somehow grows. No idea what the PPA will get out of it - depends on who they are working fork, or who they have already been paid by.

The PPA and the cause of ipoker is adrift and bankrupt, and the most energy we have is to highlight a back and forth between a West Coast liberal lawyer and a Deep South bigoted politician? Where is any semblance of pragmatism and professional PR? If Barton has a problem with Rose, or vice versa, it is their business. If someone at the PPA wants to try to mend fences, do it off the books on your own time. This is making tragedy into farce. Just drop it, and if Rose wants to continue to attack him, just don't put him on your shows, you can't shut him up.........please do not keep giving him a megaphone.

My QuadJacks interview is up: http://www.quadjacks.com/2011/12/22/...ember-22-2011/

No, but we all know you are a joke. Actually, we don't even know who you are, but can only go upon your posting. You chose to be insignificant in the community so it's not really surprising you are unaware one exists.

BTW, I think what Mason has done here can not be over looked and should be commended. He got a lot of flack for not supporting poker publicly. People called him out and asked him (and when I say him, I am not only talking about him but also this website) to start showing he cared and to lend to its advocacy.

I'm giving him credit here because this particular spot can't be easy, but it's commendable because the old Mason would have had nothing to do with this, stood back and been critical from the sidelines (kind of like what Rose is doing right now!) and right or wrong it shows his resolve and efforts now to be an advocate. Let's not forget Mason was not very supportive of the PPA and made that well known so I doubt he likes to be seen as seemingly supporting them here on a controversial issue. This is not some random ass kissing from my gimmik account, but rather recognition and "thanks" for sticking with this, Mason, even when it's not always so pleasant. Obviously Rich has proven to be the ultimate in resolve and deserves a ton of credit as well, but he's a machine :P

I think what is important to remember is everyone on poker's side wants what is best for it, regardless if people disagree on how exactly to get there. Even if the PPA has made a mistake here, I just want to point out that they do far more good than bad and that I appreciate this forum being open to them as I think ultimately MUCH has changed and we are in magnitudes better position now then we were in 2006. I truly believe a good amount of that has to do with their great campaign of getting people involved in contacting their representatives and showing people how to have a voice.

I personally wish we would have challenged the laws supposedly against poker or tackled whatever difference is keeping it from being exempt as a skill game and enjoying the status Fantasy sports does, but I grudgingly accept that there are people who are smarter than me and know better and for whatever reasons, it's been decided that pushing for new legislation is the way to go, so, I go where the push of greatest energy and masses are as no matter what is right, big and great things can only be done with a unified effort.

+1, very well said.

So much win in each tiny paragraph, that may be the best post I've ever read.

Your original statements sounded absolutely nothing like this. You attempted to scare people into thinking that Rose was out to ruin everyone who has ever voted anti-poker in the past. You have now shifted to an argument based on Rose hating Barton's Christianity and conservatism. I realize in your head you may have intended this to be the point all along but my guess is you just aren't able to separate what was actually posted in this thread from the background knowledge you have about the situation. Your last paragraph here should have been part of the original release or posted very early on in the process to avoid a lot of pointless arguing.

I have similar issues when people use the Christianity/Conservatism as the only basis for deriding someone else's stance. On the other hand just because you feel that Rose is a bigot doesn't necessarily make his observations incorrect. When someone does something extremely out of character it's not a bad idea to question why they would do such a thing. Rose is obviously not a stupid person and I hope the PPA has at least considered that he might be correct about Barton's potential for screwing everyone over here. I'm sure the online poker sites like Full Tilt and Pokerstars looked like good allies at some point as well.

A huge +1 to this. Nice post, Noise.

I really didn't shift anything. I don't think Rose would be critical of a liberal opponent who chose to support us. In fact, I suspect Rose would heap praise on that lawmaker and recommend that everyone donate to that person.

I simply said that Barton's logic would hold for any former opponent. Check the original PPA statement.

The problem we have is that Rose didn't merely suggest it as a possibility. He lobbed an accusation.

Rose basically said that, as Rose is a conservative and as he voted for bills banning unlicensed poker in the past, he is in this solely for the campaign donations. Had he said, "he could be....," "watch out for," etc., we'd not be having this discussion.

My conclusion after reading this is that you did not even read the PPA statement.

The PPA statement called Rose's personal attacks on Barton, in the context of poker advocacy, "misguided." I do not take the word "misguided" - especially in reference to a particular column - to be anything near an "overzealous" attempt to "distance the PPA from this guy." The PPA statement contains no personal attacks on Rose at all. It merely, and correctly IMHO, asks that poker supporters like Rose, in the context of writing about poker, not attack other poker supporters like Barton for things unrelated to poker.

The fundamental point is an important one and one that deserved the comment from the PPA: changing poker law is not a Democratic issue despite Barney Frank's support; changing poker law is not a Republican issue despite Joe Barton's support; changing poker law is only going to happen if poker supporters of all political persuasions can work together to support changing poker law.

Prof. Rose's column hurts the effort to keep poker a bi-partisan issue and it was appropriate to let Prof. Rose know that the PPA does not appreciate poker supporters attacking other poker supporters in columns written for the poker media over things that have little to do with poker.

And if you listen to Prof. Rose's interview on QJ it would appear that he has taken that criticism as having some validity.

Skallagrim

PS - it was Mason who called Prof. Rose's column "shameful", and it was Mason who started this thread, but I don't see you calling Mason "unprofessional" or someone who leaves a "bad taste" in your mouth for his efforts to counter the negative effects of Rose's column.

You shouldn't. Anyone of intelligence who believes in Creationism is either mentally unbalanced or pretending that they believe for social or political reasons. Deriding someone who is mentally unbalanced obviously isn't right, but in most cases the belief is actually a pretence.

Skall, I don't see you or the PPA calling out Mason's approach either. Why aren't you making sure to clarify that what Mason did is harmful? Regardless, it was the initial action in calling him out that seemed unnecessary, and some of the arguments stated in here and continuation of seemingly hypocritical logic (to me) that I found unprofessional.

You are correct that I was mixing up some of Mason's ideas with engineer's with the PPA. Is that a problem? Based on this thread it seems the PPA is going to be sure to call out those who aren't speaking for them anyway. That hasn't really been done at all to the same degree with mason's email...except for your last post.

It seems as though engineer supports and agrees with that message....since there was no notification from the PPA that he/they do not.


overall, The PPA can very easily and professionally state the idea over and over that bipartisan support is needed...without pointing fingers at one of the advocates who is pretty much on their side.

Less finger pointing. More, "we all have to stand together." Just get the message out that way without saying Rose or referencing his column at all. Way more professional.

The PPA also called Prof. Rose "shameful" (on Poker Player Newspaper's facebook page, Muny made that comment) and as one of its action items called on other people to post on the facebook attacking Rose and his article (some of these posts intially referred to Rose as a "bigot" but it appears they have been deleted) and post a pre-scripted tweet calling the article "shameful." I don't see how this was in any way constructive.

I don't think anyone is saying that Prof. Rose's article was good, but the PPA's response should have been handled much better and shows a poor grasp of basic PR.