Jeez,
If we're going to convince voters, or decision-makers that online gaming should be regulated, we have to properly state what the anti-gambling position is so we can refute it. To show that it's "rhetoric" that shouldn't be shoved down our throats, we have to acknowledge what's correct in what they're saying, and expose what isn't. Name calling doesn't do that. Pointing this out doesn't mean I believe the full scope of the rhetoric, or that I'm supporting that side of the argument.
You said, "It is impossible to argue with your conclusions because in fact, yes, there have been cases or organized crime in gaming." I appreciate the change in tone from calling me a koolaid drinker who's spreading myths, lol. If we're going to refute the other side, and make the case for legal, regulated online gambling, we have to deal with things in that manner.
Hartley said in a post:
"So far they have arrested David Carruthers, Peter Dicks, Jay Cohen, John Lefevre and Stephen Lawrence. Which of those is in organized crime? "
David Carruthers was running a company that was created by a mob bookmaker, and was 44% owned by a mob bookmaker when it went public in the UK. I read some financial articles talking about how mad some investors were that this wasn't common knowledge at the time over there. They wouldn't have invested in the company if they had known that. The BOS offices in Costa Rica shared space with mafia companies. Carruthers threw parties for the BOS whales where they brought in local prostitutes and flew in prostitutes from the US. We all know this to be fact even if the newspaper's weren't reporting it (and we ran an account of this on the site right after the arrest).
AND OUR FRONT PAGE ARTICLE WRITER IS SAYING IN TWO DIFFERENT POSTS IN THIS THREAD THAT THERE'S NO PROOF THAT ONLINE GAMBLING HAD CONNECTIONS TO ORGANIZED CRIME, AND THERE'S NOT A CONNECTION BETWEEN CARRUTHERS AND ORGANIZED CRIME.
How much research could have gone into those statements? How stupid does that make us look when we had posted earlier articles detailing the connections? Now you're stating that "of course" organized crime had been involved in gaming. Why didn't Hartley know that?
Regarding my posting of those articles...as I stated at the time, I was doing it so there would be a frame of reference for Hartley's future series. I wasn't running them as "proof of anything". And, there's no connection between those articles and the quote you highlighted about being in favor of online regulation anyway. I don't get that hunk of material at all...
I didn't suggest that the site is doing "nothing right." I was pointing out blatant errors in our presentation that would kill our credibility in any debate. From saying that the separation of church and state means religious elements can't influence the government to creating a subway poisoning that never occurred. If we're going to influence the debate we can't do stuff like that.
How is there any connection between anything I've said and a "when did you stop beating your wife" analogy? Hartley's articles featured misstatements of fact and a tendency to use derogatory labels. If we want to influence the debate in a way that leads to results we all want, how does that move us forward? What does coming up with a coherent vision that focuses on the facts have to do with a beating your wife analogy?
I'll be happy to interview JC. What should the interview be about? If the goal is to find a coherent vision for influencing the debate on regulating online gambling, and he can help shed light on that...great. If it's just to say that money laundering is easier in Vegas than offshore, and it would be easy in regulated online gaming too...I don't see how that's going to help get things legalized. It would just make people leary of the whole thing.
I'd love to help come up with a coherent vision. But, if method of stating the vision involves misrepresentations of fact, outright falsehoods, and a bunch of name-calling...that's not going to get us anywhere. First, we have to know what it is we want. Saying we want a government that doesn't shove rhetoric down our throats is true, but it's not something you can change without pointing out the errors and hot air in their rhetoric. Constantly repeating that people in power are doing this won't convince anybody that regulated online gaming can be a good thing for the country. If we can convince people of that, then the other side's rhetoric and hot air will be exposed.
We have to show how regulation could lessen the influence of organized crime. We have to show how it could take away the potential of terrorists using offshore places to do evil (regulated onshore places would have so many customers that unregulated offshore places couldn't profitably exist). We have to show that elements will be in place to counteract the problems of addiction and underage players.
If we can agree on trying to do that, then I'm game.  |