No we all asked for you to be banned.

TE simply said if we had a problem to hit the report button. Do you not notice there were what, 5-6 non-PPA and non-2p2 affiliated people here asking for you to be banned, not TE or Skall only(or at all?)

Schwallie:

Happy to oblige. Here's the 2007 article:

http://www.pokerhelper.com/news/2007...-does-his-job/

I also recall reading a posting about this on Pokerati (or possibly even here on 2+2) right around the same time, but I haven't found, thus far, the article from either one of those two sources - although I do recall reading about Chairman D'Amato and his (alleged) $5,000,000.00 bonus somewhere during that time frame. Mr. Somach's article alone refutes the charge that this allegation (about Chairman D'Amato) is "unsubstantiated".

Former DJ

Dear flight2q:

Please go back a few pages and read reply # 1227 itt for my response to TE's "yucking it up" at my expense. I doubt if he was laughing by the time he reached the final sentence of that post.

Former DJ

So 1 2007 article, and no one else picked it up or said anything about it? It is decent news, why did not one other say anything about it? That should tell you something.

Please address my other part of my post, as it involves your other grievance.

DJ does not address questions which are not convenient for him to spin, as he is still, yet, to explain why (an admitted non-poker player) is so interested in this legislation.

To be clear, I think there certainly can be legitimate reasons for a non poker player to be interested in this legislation. I just can't understand why the underlying reasoning is such a closely guarded secret.

Is he opposed on moral or religious grounds? Is he affiliated with an organization that stands to be harmed by the passing of this legislation?
Is he merely upset because, as a man who is clearly impressed by his own intellect, he can't win at poker?

All questions which this shady, bald-faced liar will not address.

If you read his posting history it will quickly become apparent they were engaging in his tactics to provide an example of his frequently nonsensical posts. He then validates what is alleged about him by posting the D'Amato nonsense, which has been refuted. I'll do it again, read on:

If you do some research, i.e.: google various sentences in the Somach article, google "D'Amato $5,000,000 bonus", etc., the ONLY "article" you come up with is Somach's. The posting you allegedly read on Pokerati, was likely a DISCUSSION OF THE SOMACH "ARTICLE". I say allegedly because a site search of Pokerati, and a google search using "site: pokerati.com" turns up NO ARTICLE WITH YOUR ALLEGATION.

I don't know why you don't seem to be able to understand this: Frequently, poker "news" sites regurgitate what they've heard from poker news sites. This happens all the time. Some nonsense is alleged, and when it's questioned, someone will pipe up with "But, I read it on 10 different news sites!", but when you go read all ten sites, IT'S THE SAME ARTICLE BY THE SAME PERSON, THE 10 SITES JUST COPIED IT.

I spent an hour trying to find someone else alleging this, or even a site that had copied the Somach article, and was unable to do so. Why don't you email Somach and ask him for his sources and also inquire as to whether or not he still stands by the story (here's his email: tomsomach@yahoo.com).

Here's a link to all pokerati stories tagged with D'Amato, go through and read them all, I did, and couldn't find any mention of D'Amato and a $5 million bonus.

Here's my final question on this issue, which you've refused to answer before, and I'm sure you'll just ignore again:

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? WHAT IS THE POINT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE?

Schwallie:

If you have an hour or two of time, query on my moniker and bring up the 80 or so postings I've put up on 2+2. (The bulk of them are in this and Skall's Individual State Opt-Out Prediction Thread.) I address the numerous problems with the opt-out provision in several of my postings. However, I suspect you may be looking for a "Cliff Notes" summary of my objections, so here it is. The opt-out provision is fine - just as long as you don't live in a state that actually opts-out! If you suffer the misfortune of just happening to live in an opt-out state, then you're basically screwed as your ability to play online poker (at all) has been greatly impaired. The PPA's position with respect to their members who just happen to live in opt-out states boils down to: Be a good sport and take one for the team! After all, getting this bill passed is for the greater good of the most poker players. You understand ...

Also, Skall started his thread off confidently predicting that "less than five states" would opt-out. When LG challendged him to put money on his "prediction" - at 3:1 up to $5,000.00 - Skall suddenly turned into a deaf mute. Nobody really knows how many states are going to opt-out, but the PPA is being disingenuous with their members when they try to downplay this concern insisting that it will be a small number. Different people have different "guesstimates" of the number. My (conservative) guess is somewhere in the 15-20 range, but several folks disagree insisting that "more than ten" is highly unlikely. The objective truth (if there is such a thing) is that nobody has a clue since a lot of uncertainty and ambiguity swirls around the actual language of the opt-out clause in the actual bills. In one of my posts I list the verbatim text from the state opt-out clause on page 44 of Senator Menendez's bill. I'm not going to reproduce that text here, but the literal reading of S.1597 is that the Governor or "Chief Executive Officer" of each state has the sole discretion and authority to decide whether or not his state will opt out. That's my reading of the actual language of Senator Menendez's bill, but even that is in dispute since JPFisher55, (who is a practicing attorney in St. Louis), has opined that he doesn't believe a Governor alone can decide to opt-out - irrespective of what language is in Senator Menendez's bill.

If you read some of the early posts in Skall's "prediction" thread, you'll see some interesting commentaries and points of view. (The posts from folks in California and Massachusetts are interesting. One poster noted that if California opts-out, that will be like losing ten states since California's population is greater than the entire nation of Canada!) There are other "problems" with the opt-out provision, (which you can read in my other posts), but this is the "Cliff Notes" summary.

Former DJ

Please change thread title to "HR 2267 Markup and People Feed the Troll"

(Hint: Try ignoring him!)

O RLY? Have I said anything about banning you? I just find you laughable and have some fun at your expense. BTW, I'm just a PPA volunteer and my posts are just my opinion, not official PPA position.

Thanks for this summation. It is one of your few coherent and meaningful posts on the subject of iPoker (not too surprising since you don't play).

I look at it like this:

To pass federal legislation, it has to have a state opt out provision - the Congresscritters won't pass it without such a provision. I want to see an opt-out provision which specifically requires new legislative action from a state to opt out. There is still plenty of time to achieve a better opt out provision. But worst case, we will simply have to fight the opt outs on the state level.

The alternative is to block or oppose federal legislation. In this case, states will seek their own solutions to iPoker - they aren't just going to let it go on. The intrastate solution will be one of two: outlawing play (as in Washington) or licensing intrastate iPoker (as is already being attempted in FL, CA, NJ). Anywhere a state licenses iPoker, the legislation is likely to be protectionist (i.e., only in-state b&m casinos or the state lottery can offer it; no combined play with anyone outside the state) and to outlaw play other than on the intrastate system.

If we pass federal legislation, there will be some number of state opt outs. The states that opt out will look like the paragraph above: most states that opt out will adopt their own intrastate system, and a few states will just ban iPoker.

So, in those states that opt out it will be no worse than without a federal bill. However, the majority of states will stay opted in, where there will be far better iPoker than we have now.

I also expect most, if not all, intrastate iPoker systems to fail miserably if the federal bill passes, because they won't achieve the critical mass of players needed to amount to anything. These states will eventually opt back in.

Cliffs:

Without federal legislation: Most or all states will either criminalize iPoker or create a protectionist intrastate system that is bad for players and criminalize play on any other site.

With federal legislation: Most states get licensed iPoker. States that opt out get the same thing as without federal legislation, but also the option to later change their mind and opt back in to the federal solution.

Pretty sure that Skall never said these things.

FWIW, I think discussions of the state-opt out issues are legitimate and I think we still arent where we need to be there.

Every time you mention the nonexistent D'Amato bonus and personally disparage TE, Skall, PX, etc, you do a disservice to your argument against the current bill. The bonus doesnt exist. Period.

This is complete and total BS. Anyone who wants to read that thread can and will become instantly aware that this is a lie. The fact that Former DJ continues to post such out and out lies (in quotations marks even) is why he deserves every last little bit of ridicule he gets (and more).

The fact that we are talking about the House bill not the Senate bill means nothing to someone who just wants to troll this forum. Nor does the fact that the interpretation of that portion of the Menendez bill was fully discussed, and that his interpretation is merely one of many and probably wrong, stop this troll from posting his opinion of something as fact.

I post in these forums primarily because I believe an educated poker community is a more effective community than an ignorant one. Former DJ's trolling is just the opposite. He posts here to increase ignorance and mistaken beliefs of fact among the poker community. The evidence for that conclusion is now overwhelming. Accordingly, there is nothing wrong with the many posters who have asked him to explain his agenda, especially after it was revealed that he doesn't even play online poker.

I have never called for banning anybody and I doubt that I ever will.

But Noah is right, this troll needs to stop being fed.

Skallagrim

If we see a headline with Flight2q, PokerXanadu, or TheEngineer in the headline, we'll definitely yuck it up here as well. That's part of being a community.

Former DJ has a history of recalling statements and omitting details or paraphrasing it to his liking. Here is Skalls post I believe he refers to :

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=386

Second edit: The LG bet wasn't even with Skall, it was with user LOLonghorn:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...l#post20439789

PX, I doubt that we can get an opt-out provision requiring a new law. However, we don't need it. All we need is an opt-out provision that clearly requires that state opt out by a method lawful under the laws and constitution of that state. The present provision is ambiguous because it implies that a governors letter would suffice for a state to opt out even though a governor does not have such power under a state law or constitution.

In fact, an opt out provision requiring that the state opt out by any lawful means might be better than one just requiring a new state statute because some states (probably MO for one) would require an amendment to the state constitution to lawfully opt out. An amendment usually requires a public vote.

No. Posters were complaining about your repeated trollish, argumentative posts. I was directing them to the appropriate post reporting system.

You seem confused. I'm not "the PPA." I'm an independent member of the PPA Board of Directors, not an employee. While I do often share what PPA is doing on this forums, I am not its spokesperson. I've been posting here since even before joining the PPA. I did not lose my voice by joining the PPA Board.

So, when I respond to your posts, that's me responding to you. If you want an official PPA response, you can get that by sending your concerns to email@theppa.org.

Your infraction was for complaining publicly about forum moderation rather than taking your concerns to the next-higher mod. I guess you didn't read it, as you repeated this violation. Perhaps a short vacation will help you to see the importance of following Two Plus Two forum terms and conditions.

That being said, I don't moderate this forum on behalf of the PPA. I moderate on behalf of Mason, Mat, and Two Plus Two ownership.

You seem to think you should be permitted to post erroneous statements and receive no rebuttal. Well, you won't get that here. This is a discussion forum.

If you do want that, I recommend you start your own website.

LOL at claiming you plastered anyone.

Pot, meet kettle.

We've had a lot of discussion on that topic and will continue to do so. No discussion on this -- or any other matter -- has ever been stifled or ignored.

When you asked, I replied with a denial of that rumor. I stated that the denial was on behalf of the PPA.

I don't know if Sen. D'Amato has dignified this garbage himself or not. Why should he? After all, the article making this accusation did not even cite any evidence.

You haven't asked questions or raised concerns. You've simply attacked everyone here. I encourage you to ask questions in the form of questions rather than in the form of argumentative accusations.

So, which is it? Is PPA fighting against the current sites (your primary accusations) or for them (the source of this mythical $5M)?

You should at least get your conspiracy theories straight.

Substantiation does not mean what you think it does. Substantiation does not mean that someone wrote something down. Rather, substantiation means someone reported some proof of the allegation.

We've tried to engage you on this. We've asked you what you'd prefer to opt-outs. We've asked if you wish to abandon the fight in Congress. We've asked if you think the status quo can continue forever. We've shared the full rationale for this to you.

You've refused to discuss this, preferring instead to use it as a wedge issue. That's one reason (of many) I don't believe you are here in good faith.

hasnt he passed the point of being libelous now?

For one, we don't write the bills. Another is that Congress isn't stupid. If the opt-out cannot be taken, our opponents will take note. We'd be branded as trying to force this on states like Utah and would lose support.

We saw this when our UIGEA regulation implementation delay bill went down in the 32-32 tie. The loss was largely caused by a provision (one not added by us, FWIW) in the bill that would have caused the delay to become permanent.

They had that go-ahead with passage of UIGEA. We rescinded it last month, but they'll get it back if we lose here.

Also, no one in embracing easy opt-outs. PPA is seeking to add rigor to the process.

+1. What do we do then? We can't get this passed without a state opt out. You should know this, we have pointed it out often. So I agree with TE here. What do you prefer that is better than what the PPA is doing now?

Options:

Opt-Out, possibly get bill passed, and have it be great for the high majority of players.

No Opt-Out clause, no chance of it passing, and being bad for 100% of players.

Hope for status quo? I'd say under 5% chance of it being around for more than 5 years

He is banned. Hooray

Quite right, JP. When I say "new legislative action" I don't just mean a legislative bill. It will take legislative action to either pass a bill where that is appropriate, or to put a state constitutional amendment on the public ballot where that is appropriate. So, what I mean really includes:

1. The state legislature has to decide to act in order to opt out. It can't just come from the Executive branch of government.

2. It has to be "new" action to opt out. The state or governor can't just say that what they already have on the books applies.

3. The action taken has to be lawful for the state.

I do think the current provision form in the Menendez bill would quite likely be applied this way in general, but stronger wording would make court action on the matter much less likely in all states.

It's only a short break, but judging from http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...51ca7be8?pli=1, I think he's seeking a longer term one.

+1. Now I think he should be banned - permanently. He turned this (my only and entire post on the subject):

into this (direct quote from his post on rec.gambling.poker linked by TE above):

This is an obvious and blatant lie. I never declared he was the fired employee, never used the word "proof" and never wrote "a liar and a fraud". He is a bad hat (put in mild terms). Get rid of him.