Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer
True. If any one here finds his posts to be noncompliant, please report those posts. That puts you on record, helping me take appropriate action.
TE:
So "Former DJ" should be banned? Is that what you mean when you ask others to help you take "appropriate action?"
That's one way to stifle and suppress dissent with the PPA line - send the dissenter a nice little PM informing him that he has an "infraction" and has been assessed 10 points. (I don't know what "infractions" mean here on 2+2 other than, "I'm the moderator and I am extremely PO'd with you.") While you're at it, accuse the dissenter of being a pathological liar, an FoF spy, guilty of failing to explain "inconsistencies" in his postings, and of having an agenda - implying that the PPA is pure as the driven snow and has no agenda of their own. And while we're at it, just for fun, let's post a link to a news report off the internet taking a cheap shot at Former DJ by linking him to some radio station employee allegedly involved in a criminal act. (Oh wait, I apologize TE - it wasn't you that took that cheap shot. It was one of your buddies - Skall or PX.) You all had a good laugh over that one - until I came back and plastered you. That's what is really driving you guys nuts - you can dish it out, but you sure can't take it.
The real problem is that this "pathological liar" keeps raising troubling issues that the PPA would prefer poker players just ignore - issues such as the PPA's position on the opt-out provision of Senator Menendez's bill and all the problems attendant with that, as well as financial conflicts of interest within the PPA itself. I'm speaking here specifically of the reported $5,000,000.00 "bonus" that Chairman D'Amato has pointedly failed to deny, while, according to TE, Mr. D'Amato will not dignify such an allegation with a comment despite the fact that this has been written about and posted on the internet by at least one journalist. (If you challenge me or accuse me of "lying" on this one or posting an "unsubstantiated" charge, I'll be happy to repost Tom Stomach's 2007 article - and any others that I can find on the topic. Wait, somebody has already knocked that one down insisting that Stomach is not "a real journalist" and I should "Google" him. I believe that kind of non-denial denial is called "Kill the messenger!" That technique was very popular with the Nixon crowd during Watergate.)
Yes, we don't want a "pathological liar" raising these kind of pesky questions, so the best way to deal with such a person is to encourage a chorus of bullfrogs to bay for the "problem" to be banned. It would be so much nicer if the PPA operated under a dictatorship like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Then Chairman D'Amato could just have "Former DJ" shot. That would be even better than having him banned from some internet message board.
It's very telling when the predominant response to challenge and dissent becomes "Who are you and what is your agenda?" and from there gradually devolves into "I'm getting calls from a lot of posters wanting you banned." That says a lot about the weakness of the PPA's position and the agenda the PPA is trying to promote when the primary response to questions and legitimate concerns becomes a cry that the questioner should be banned. When PPA hacks start suggesting that I should be "banned" rather than defending their positions with solid and convincing arguments, I would suggest that I'm not the problem.
Former DJ