Gary Kaplan, not Jay Cohen...
I didn't say "purposely." I would assume they weren't on purpose. You weren't purposely inventing a subway poisoning that didn't exist. You mis-remembered and didn't double check. You didn't purposedly say that there was no evidence organized crime was involved in gambling. You weren't aware.
Your quote from the earlier post:
"I have yet to see the government give any proof that organized crime is involved in online gambling. They make comments like that and just expect people to believe it. So far they have arrested David Carruthers, Peter Dicks, Jay Cohen, John Lefevre and Stephen Lawrence. Which of those is in organized crime? "
A convicted mob bookmaker started BOS, and was 44% owner when it went public. Many of the readers here know that already. So, writing a sentence that says the government hasn't provided proof that organized crime is involved in internet gambling and just wants people to believe it kind of ignores the fact THAT WE ALREADY KNOW THAT IT'S HAPPENING.
Regarding Carruthers and your bakery example, if organized crime hires you to run a business, and the proceeds from that business are used for nefarious acts, I'm pretty sure you're involved in organized crime. You're not at the centerpiece. How can you not be involved?
BOS shared office space with known mafia companies in Costa Rica. Does this suggest a lack of involvement to you? Carruthers knew who was hiring him. As DG pointed out, investors should have known who was behind the company when it went public. How can we give Carruthers a pass?
You said:
"I never said that organized crime has never been involved in online gambling. Don't put words in my mouth."
After saying:
"I have yet to see the government give any proof that organized crime is involved in online gambling"
Then you said:
What I said is that the people the U.S. government has arrested were not involved in organized crime
That's not exactly what you said, but it may have been what you meant. Why is government proof an issue when the Kaplan/BOS story is so old? We already know that there was mob involvment.
Why is it this site's job to convince voters or decision-makers of anything? It's not the job. It would be something we could pursue. I may have misunderstood what the phrase "players advocate" meant here. I do think devising a possible solution and getting it into the mainstream mindset would help the situation. I don't think constantly whining about how horrible the goverment is helps at all. To me, that's what the series of articles has been. When my wife complains that there's a spider on the floor, and keeps complaining about it...I say "Jeez, kill it and throw it away, I'm trying to write here." Solve the problem, don't just keep complaining about the problem.
One possible route is to pursue regulation. Another is DG's rout to pursue repealing the UIGEA. We can work toward figuring out what makes the most sense, or has the best chance of working even if it doesn't make the most sense, lol.
Count Zero may have a route in mind as well. Hoping to hear his plan as well...
It's not this site's job...but the Major did state when he was hiring writers something along the lines of wanting to influence the debate on the issue, or at least providing coverage on the hypocrisy and rhetoric of the anti-gambling side. Mis-stating what they believe, name calling, ignoring any valid points they might be making, and leaving out obvious stuff about mob involvement in the industry doesn't serve the site in my opinion.
Debates in the spirit of the last few posts by DG does serve the site in my opnion...  |