Debates in the spirit of the last few posts by DG does serve the site in my opnion...
Why don't you just buy the damn site blogguy and then you can check every single word of every single post by everyone and critique and correct it. I assume you were the captain of your debating team or something. Better yet why not post similar articles and let us critique your work.
All my stories are well researched - in fact I received commendations from some people in the industry on a few of my stories - particularly the last one on neteller and the one on why is the u.s.a. politics based on religion - I'd be more than happy to share all the emails with you.
I really resent your implications. I don't attack you in your articles. Fwiw, this started out as a good debate but you have turned it personal suggesting I don't research my material, that I make stuff up, that I resort to name calling etc. I know for a fact that isn't true.
For some reason the part about organized crime has really got your goat and I'm not sure why. I reread my articles to see if I posted something factually incorrect about organized crime and I can't find one instance where I even mentioned it. In your last article you stated that you received a PM about something so you chose to make it an article since the explanation was lengthy.
Minnow made a post asking why all of a sudden terrorism is being talked about with relation to online gambling when all the old arguments were "click the mouse and lose the house" etc. I tried to address her question (which I received from others) and stated MY OPINION that terrorism has conveniently become a buzz phrase only after 9-11 because prior to that the government couldn't sell their agenda. In better words few Americans and more importantly people in Congress were buying the argument that gambling had to be banned because of underage betting, addiction etc. so the current government realized "hey if we can scare the shit out of Americans by convincing them that there lives are at risk unless they agree to the ban on online gambling then we can get our way." It worked with the constant raising and lowering of terrorism threats - who will ever forget it going to code orange every time the government was coming under attack for the war in Iraq?
That's an opinion. As for organized crime it is MY OPINION that the government hasn't given enough proof that organized crime is a concern with online wagering to justify banning it on that basis. Had they arrested people connected to online wagering rather than Jay Cohen, David Carruthers, Peter Dicks, their concern would hold more water. Whether organized crime is involved in online wagering is irrelevant because they have shown by actions that this isn't the reason they want it banned, it's just an excuse. Is it a legitimate excuse? Maybe, but prove it. And more importantly prove that terrorism is a real concern with online wagering. Don't say there is a possibility, but rather demonstrate methods by which terrorists have or can use online gambling to wage more attacks against the United States.  |