Welcome to the 2+2 worlds of DQ and LG.

Lol at thinking Im upset about it.

Pretty sure the point I was making went over the head of pretty much everyone besides DQ and TE. Such is life.

Maybe because those are the only two here still reading your posts?

+∞

I don't think "upset" is the correct word (imo). Some posters have an emotional reaction whenever there's a sweat, elections, or anything else that comes up regarding a poker bill, and they react by taking shots at the PPA (imo). Other posters have to prove their superiority by taking shots (cheap and otherwise) at the PPA whenever they get a chance (imo). In some cases that's every waking hour (imo).

I don't mind posters disagreeing with the PPA whatsoever, as long as it's civil, productive debate. What I don't like are the cheap shots, verbal abuse, vitriol, stating opinions as undeniable facts (and stating anyone who disagrees has an agenda, is an idiot, or both), and claims that the PPA is engaging in the aforementioned tactics whenever they simply disagree with someone.

Otherwise, again, to your post: +∞

Chances of a federal bill passing this lame duck have dropped significantly over the past month. The lawmakers who want this better get to work if they wish to pass it.

Convenience stores, lotteries face off over Reid’s online poker bill

I guess that article indicates the bill is still alive at least. Now it will come down to which groups (for and against) has the most money, power, and influence on the Hill to push their side through.

http://www.americangaming.org/newsro...l-online-poker

Looks like the American Gaming Association is making a final push.

-WOL

Not sure if I'm for or against this bill but the whole drama is interesting.

So the states don't want it because it limits their options.

AMA wants it because it limits state options.

Wonder who's going to win?

I don't think ANYONE has ever claimed that the PPA engages in the sort of personal rants/smears you decry. Rather the concern is that one Board member's proclivity for such smear tactics and smoke screens discredits the organization and creates some misperceptions about the PPA.

Maybe it would help your blood pressure if you understood the difference between

(a) the PPA posting something subtantive, versus

(b) someone, who also sits on the Board, personally posting, even if those personal posts are "passing thoughts, or remarks", which are often "cheap shots, verbal abuse, vitriol, stating opinions as undeniable facts (and stating anyone who disagrees has an agenda, is an idiot, or both)".

You seem confused whether there is a difference between (a) "PPA posts", like those from John P and generally TE, and (b) personal posts by someone who sits on the Board.

THAT sort of confusion is what should concern folks who want an effective, frank communication, instead of random claims posted in "passing thoughts or remarks", followed by defensive, reactive paranoia when such unfounded claims are subject to scrutiny.

(It isn't "PPA posts" that concern me; rather it is a loose cannon rolling down Capitol Hill while vehemently denying the dangers of accepting a clearly legislated federal Ban for fragile dependence upon a likely unConstitutionally flawed "opt-in" mechanism. That was a political Fool's bargain and defended by such, by resort to personal rants.)

FWIW, Thanks for illustrating clearly the perception problem, by sharing your misperceptions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVS_CqC7H2Q

Skallagrim

smart money is on the States...

- WOL