And the reason I've done it this way, with the little postscripts after nearly every sentence in their paper, is because nearly every sentence in their paper is erroneous, misleading, or just plain wrong. So we begin with claim #5
- Then why not actually tell us instead of offering innuendo...or a very old FBI letter? (see next)
- Once again, CSIG resorts to the five-year old FBI letter we discussed in the last post. Please note that it makes no distinction between regulated and unregulated sites, sites in Europe or sites elsewhere...and, it's FIVE FRICKIN' YEARS OLD.
- This might be the stupidest thing the CSIG has ever said, and here are 486 reasons why it's so stupid: http://www.casinoseurope.com/casino-directory/
- Cute. Asshats.
- Y'know, there's a very good document written by the folks at McAfee about Internet Gambling and cybercrime. Specifically, they say (in their "Addressing the Issue" section): "The work undertaken at Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre is a good example of how strong global collaboration efforts with other agencies and the private sector can help address this growing threat" Y'know where you can find this document? ON THE CSIG WEBSITE (second policy paper). Obviously, they don't read their own papers...or at least, they skip over the good parts.
- So now we're reduced to highlighting rounding errors? And, to what purpose? What difference does it make to your argument if it's $2.6 billion or 2.8 or 3.0?
- I just can't imagine why. Did anything happen in 2006 to online poker? Around, say, December or so? Clowns.
- If you can't rebut 'em, repeat 'em. This is a favorite strategy at CSIG. See discussion on European online gaming above. Oh, and speaking of repeating, look - it's the THIRD appearance of the FBI letter (one more to go).
- Yes - many consider the controls for online gaming to be MORE effective. And nothing ever goes wrong in a land-based casino, right?
- Because...FIVE YEAR OLD FBI LETTER!
- Easier, maybe, but that hardly protects consumers - they just go on to other sites. And how does one "regulate" an "illegal" site, anyway?
- Again, not disputed, just...bitch, bitch, bitch, And, if we're to "consider the issue," why not actually look at what's happening rather than making your own "sweeping conclusions" (using 5-year-old info, no less). It's been almost a year now, and all the CSIG can do is highlight how NJ's revenues haven't met "expectations." Of course, the estimates were highly inflated by policymakers, but no mention of THAT. And no mention of ineffective regulation, either.
- Yeah, they were TOO effective, keeping legitimate NJ residents OUT. No reports on letting outsiders IN. Dumbasses.
And so this concludes my
rant review of this particular paper from Adelson and the CSIG, But the truth be told, the "policymakers" that his coalition seeks to address aren't interested in this type of paper. They prefer the greener kind. This is why we must be diligent and press, press, press our representatives and Senators to NOT ALLOW big money to kill online poker. Join PPA, contact your CongressPeople, and support poker!