StrippersNBlow 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 yes putting money back into your own country is a much better idea than giving it to other countries.... especially when some of those countries are enemies of ours.....What did Antigua do to piss us off? Wait, no. It's those sons of biches on the Isle of Man. Put em on the list! Liberate em to death. That will teach em to provide a service and product Americans want. Just like those Colombians. They learned their lesson. They didn't find a way to keep getting the money and providing the goods. Declare war on personal international money transfers. That'll teach em. Just don't tell our buddies in corporate america about this keep it in the country thing. Actually I will. I'll have contact their call center in India and tell them to send the message. Link to post Share on other sites
navybuttons 15 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 please stop trying to be funny...It's not 'your thing'Just trust me on this one. I'm sure you're a nice person with friends and other skills. Just don't do funny.now i do care.i am a nice person, i don't have friends, and i don't have that many skills. i wasn't trying to 'do funny'. looking back, i don't realize how you could make that mistake. i suppose that sarcasm to a lot of people implies humor. i think in the case in question i used it to bright light to your gross underestimation of my understanding. it wasn't a dig at you so much as the idea that i would not understand that rake exists, as well as the belief that rake is apart of each poker hand, which it most certainly is not. to use terms like "zero sum game" is to imply at least a fundamental understanding of game theory, and from a strictly theorhetically standpoint poker is a zero sum game. Link to post Share on other sites
jeff_536 3 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 now i do care.i am a nice person, i don't have friends, and i don't have that many skills. i wasn't trying to 'do funny'. looking back, i don't realize how you could make that mistake. i suppose that sarcasm to a lot of people implies humor. i think in the case in question i used it to bright light to your gross underestimation of my understanding. it wasn't a dig at you so much as the idea that i would not understand that rake exists, as well as the believe that rake is apart of each poker hand, which it most certainly is not. to use terms like "zero sum game" is to imply at least a fundamental understanding of game theory, and from a strictly theorhetically standpoint poker is a zero sum game.see...you're trying to sound all wicked smart and stuff, but your final statement exposes you.Online poker is NOT a zero-sum game, theoretically or in practise...The existence of rake, money taken out of nearly every single hand, ensures that. How do you think poker sites make billions of dollars...Where do you think that money comes from?You should really stop talking now, you're only embarrasing yourself. Link to post Share on other sites
chgocubs99 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Winning players $$$ = Losing players $$$ + rake moneyZero sum. Same amount is won that is "lost"That's what he means. Link to post Share on other sites
navybuttons 15 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 You should really stop talking now, you're only embarrasing yourself.okayedit: sorry to hijack Link to post Share on other sites
jeff_536 3 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Winning players $$$ = Losing players $$$ + rake moneyZero sum. Same amount is won that is "lost"That's what he means.i think he's looking at it from a home game point of view...where it actually IS a zero-sum game...every cent put on the table comes off the table in someone's pocket... Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisRichey 1 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 yes putting money back into your own country is a much better idea than giving it to other countries.... especially when some of those countries are enemies of ours.....Give the money to our country so they can spend it on fighting those terrorists in Iraq? Sounds like a good idea to me. Link to post Share on other sites
omahahilo 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I went to chat with support at Neteller. This popped up. Please be aware that we are currently experiencing higher than normal volumes on our LiveChat system. If you are calling with regard to an inability to access the instaCASH deposit option please note that at the end of 2006, NETELLER began reviewing the instaCASH payment option, which resulted in the decision to retire this product from the US, effective January 16, 2007. As such, instaCASH is no longer available to US members. For more information please Click Here.This is the point here. It is not illegal in and of itself to deposit money into Neteller. And once the money is on Neteller, and cleared from your bank account, they are not bound in how that money is distribued, as it is not under the rule of our Dictator. This option looks to be viable. The only way to stop us from doing this is to block the funds from going to Neteller.If they think they want to start playing with world commerce, let them try. When they do that, billions of dollars will be a stake, and that doesn't just include the poker industry. Link to post Share on other sites
NicksDad1970 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Terrorists on a shoestring budget. There's actually people out there that think this. I'm shocked. I always though it was purely a scare tactic used to push forward other agendas. Shuffling around money like that wouldn't draw flags from a site? You think terrorists are taking time off in between plots to play online poker so their transfers look legit? Wow. Just wow.I'm saying it's easy as heck to transfer money back and forth. Nothing more ................ Can you think of a way to get large sums of cash around? I don't know that it happens a lot or if it happens at all. I'm just saying it would be pretty easy.As far as regulating it that sounds great to me. Link to post Share on other sites
StrippersNBlow 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I'm saying it's easy as heck to transfer money back and forth. Nothing more ................ Can you think of a way to get large sums of cash around? I don't know that it happens a lot or if it happens at all. I'm just saying it would be pretty easy.As far as regulating it that sounds great to me.I think your concept of large and the definition of large to a group funding international terrorism are not equal. Also look at the maximum deposit amounts on the sites. It's not in a poker rooms interest to accept large deposits unless that money is in play. I would love nothing more than to regulate along with you. Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisRichey 1 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I would love nothing more than to regulate along with you.Unfortunately, that's not how the U.S. government works. Well, maybe eventually. Link to post Share on other sites
Orcasgt22 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 In a democracy, governments should fear their people so why not fight the legislation through your local politicians and write letters, sign petitions, all that fun stuff? Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 yes putting money back into your own country is a much better idea than giving it to other countries.... especially when some of those countries are enemies of ours.....This is an interesting economic theory, but I don't believe it holds water in the real world. If another country has our money, it is because we spent it on something we found more valuable. That is good for our economy. Also, if they have US Dollars, in the end they are coming back one way or another, through trades or currency exchanges or whatever. Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisRichey 1 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 In a democracy, governments should fear their people so why not fight the legislation through your local politicians and write letters, sign petitions, all that fun stuff?Because, honestly, they don't give a **** about what the people they represent care about. In this country, it's all about those mother ****ing lobbyists. Link to post Share on other sites
Orcasgt22 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Because, honestly, they don't give a **** about what the people they represent care about. In this country, it's all about those mother ****ing lobbyists.Fair point.Lobbiest < MOB OF ANGRY GAMBLERS! Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I'm saying it's easy as heck to transfer money back and forth. Nothing more ................ Can you think of a way to get large sums of cash around? I don't know that it happens a lot or if it happens at all. I'm just saying it would be pretty easy.As far as regulating it that sounds great to me.There are a million ways to move money around. Making it a pain in the *** for suburbanites to play 0.10 poker online in their living room does nothing, absolutely nothing, to slow the ability of bad guys to hide money. This has nothing to do with terrorists or crime. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 In a democracy, governments should fear their people so why not fight the legislation through your local politicians and write letters, sign petitions, all that fun stuff?Because I don't have a couple briefcases full of hundreds lying around to make sure my voice is heard. The protected interests who are pushing this nonsense do. Link to post Share on other sites
Orcasgt22 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 People = votes. Money cannt buy those(except in Florida). Fight the power! Link to post Share on other sites
finztotheleft 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Neteller Lawrence Complaint: United States of America v. Stephen Eric Lawrence16 January 2007Approved: ______________________________CHRISTOPHER P. CONNIFFTIMOTHY J. TREANORAssistant United States AttorneysBefore: HONORABLE DEBRA C. FREEMANUnited States Magistrate JudgeSouthern District of New York- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -v- STEPHEN ERIC LAWRENCE, Defendant.Sealed ComplaintViolation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956COUNTY OF OFFENSE:NEW YORK/WESTCHESTER- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, ss.:Maryann Goldman, being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and charges as follows:COUNT ONE1. From in or about June 1999, up to and including in or about January 2007, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, STEPHEN ERIC LAWRENCE, the defendant, and others known and unknown, unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to violate Section 1956(a)(2)(A) of Title 18, United States Code. 2. It was a part and an object of the conspiracy that STEPHEN ERIC LAWRENCE, the defendant, and others known and unknown, would and did transport, transmit, and transfer monetary instruments and funds from a place in the United States to and through a place outside the United States and to a place in the United States from and through a place outside the United States with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity, to wit, the operation of illegal gambling businesses in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1955, the illegal transmission of wagers and gambling information, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1084, and the commission of gambling offenses in violation of both New York State Penal Law, Article 225, and anti-gambling statutes in other states.OVERT ACTS3. In furtherance of said conspiracy and to effect the illegal object thereof, STEPHEN ERIC LAWRENCE, the defendant, and others known and unknown, committed the following overt acts, among others, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere:a. In or about 1999, LAWRENCE and a co-conspirator ("CC#1") founded a group of businesses (the "Neteller Group") to provide online payment services to internet gambling businesses. b. Beginning in or about July 2000, and continuing up to in or about December 2003, LAWRENCE, CC#1, and others affiliated with the Neteller Group offered online payment services through Neteller Inc., a Canadian corporation, to various internet gambling businesses so that these businesses could illegally access customers in the United States, including customers in and around New York City.c. Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing up to in or about January 2007, LAWRENCE, CC#1, and others affiliated with the Neteller Group offered online payment services through Neteller PLC, a corporation based in the Isle of Man, to various internet gambling businesses so that these businesses could illegally access customers in the United States, including in and around New York City.d. On or about April 14, 2004, LAWRENCE, CC#1, and others affiliated with the Neteller Group raised approximately $70 million through an initial public offering of shares in Neteller PLC on the Alternative Investment Market ("AIM") of the London Stock Exchange ("LSE") in order to, among other things, expand their online payment business. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(h).) The bases for deponent's knowledge and for the foregoing charge are, in part, as follows:4. Since in or about June 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") has been conducting an investigation of Neteller PLC, a company that is based in Isle of Man and is publicly-traded in the United Kingdom. The investigation has revealed that Neteller PLC conducts and facilitates illegal financial transactions between gambling customers in the United States and numerous offshore online gambling businesses.5. I have been personally involved in the investigation of this matter. This complaint is based upon my involvement in the investigation, my conversations with other law enforcement officials and witnesses, and my examination of reports, records, and tapes. Because this complaint is being submitted for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause, it does not include all the facts that I have learned during the course of this investigation. Where the contents of documents and the actions, statements, and conversations of others are reported herein, they are reported in substance and in part, except where otherwise indicated.6. I have reviewed various business records of Neteller PLC. These records describe, among other things, the history and development of the Neteller Group and the services that it provides. For example, in the prospectus from Neteller PLC's initial public offering on the AIM (the "Neteller IPO Prospectus"), the Board of Directors of Neteller PLC, including STEPHEN ERIC LAWRENCE, the defendant, collectively states that Neteller Inc., a Canadian corporation, was founded in 1999 by LAWRENCE and CC#1; that on January 1, 2004, the Neteller Group began doing business as Neteller PLC, a corporation based in Isle of Man; that Neteller PLC specializes in providing online payment processing services to online merchants and customers; that Neteller PLC, and previously Neteller Inc., offers services through Neteller.com; that the primary service provided by Neteller PLC, and previously by Neteller Inc., is a "virtual wallet" account that enables customers to deposit, withdraw, or transfer funds with any merchant that supports the Neteller online payments system; that Neteller PLC generates its revenues on a fee-for-service basis for any transfer of money between any combination of members or merchants; and that Neteller Inc. began processing transactions in July 2000.7. I have reviewed various business records of Neteller PLC that provide information regarding the scope of the online payment services provided by Neteller PLC, including the following:a. In the Neteller IPO Prospectus, the Board of Directors of Neteller PLC, including STEPHEN ERIC LAWRENCE, the defendant, collectively states that more than 95 percent of the revenues generated by the Neteller Group, is derived from processing money transfers pertaining to the online gambling market; and that on or about March 1, 2004, Neteller PLC had 685,945 member accounts, of which approximately 88 percent belonged to North American residents.b. Neteller PLC's 2004 annual report states that, in 2004, Neteller PLC processed $3.4 billion in financial transactions; and Neteller PLC provides gambling customers with access to more than 80 percent of the online gaming merchants in the world.c. Neteller PLC's 2005 annual report states that, in 2005, Neteller PLC processed over $7.3 billion in financial transactions; Neteller PLC provides gambling customers with access to more than 80 percent of worldwide gaming merchants; and in 2005, Neteller PLC had $172.1 million in revenues and $91.5 million in net profit.d. In Neteller PLC's half yearly report for the six-month period ending June 30, 2006, dated September 11, 2006, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Neteller PLC described the "online gaming market" as Neteller PLC's "main market," and stated that, in the first half of 2006, Neteller PLC processed $5.1 billion in financial transactions, and that approximately 85 percent of Neteller PLC's revenue during that period derived from individuals in North America.e. The transcript of a public conference call that occurred on or about September 11, 2006, between officers of Neteller PLC and financial analysts, reflects that the Chief Financial Officer of Neteller PLC stated during the conference call that approximately 75 percent of the revenue of Neteller PLC originated from customers in the United States.8. As part of the investigation, law enforcement officers and a cooperating witness posed as gambling customers and conducted online monetary transactions with numerous online gambling businesses using online payment processing services provided by Neteller PLC. The following are examples of some of the transactions that I have either participated in or learned about:a. On or about August 12, 2006, a cooperating witness (the "CW"), who at the time was located in Miami, Florida, used a computer to open an account on Neteller.com (the "Neteller Account"), and the CW electronically transferred $400 from a bank account in Miami, Florida, into the Neteller Account. On or about August 22, 2006, the CW, who at the time was located in Miami, Florida, used a computer to open a wagering account with an online gambling business based in Antigua ("Online Gambling Business #1), by electronically transferring $400 from the Neteller Account to Online Gambling Business #1. On or about August 24, 2006, the CW, who at the time was located in Miami, Florida, used a computer to access Online Gambling Business #1's website, and the CW then wagered $250 on a National Football League ("NFL") football game and won approximately $200. On or about September 7, 2006, the CW, who at the time was located in Miami, Florida, used a computer to access Online Gambling Business #1's website, and the CW then wagered $250 on an NFL football game and lost $250.b. On or about September 26, 2006, I was present with the CW at a public library located in Westchester County, New York. At that time, I observed the CW access the internet using a public computer at the library. The CW then used the computer to access Online Gambling Business #1's website, and the CW then withdrew $200 from his wagering account with Online Gambling Business #1 and transferred it electronically to the Neteller Account. Thereafter, the CW then placed a $50 wager on an NFL football game on Online Gambling Business #1's website using money that had previously been deposited with Online Gambling Business #1 using the Neteller Account.c. On or about December 29, 2006, in Westchester County, New York, I used a computer to access the Neteller Account by logging on to Neteller.com. At that time, the balance in the account was $100. I then transferred $25 from the Neteller Account to a wagering account with an online gambling business based in Costa Rica ("Online Gambling Business #2"). I then transferred $25 from the Neteller account to a wagering account with another online gambling business based in Costa Rica ("Online Gambling Business #3"). Then, I logged on to Online Gambling Business #1's website and used a link to Neteller.com to transfer $25 from the Neteller Account to the wagering account with Online Gambling Business #1 that previously had been opened by the CW.9. I have reviewed various business records obtained from financial institutions that provide information regarding international monetary transactions conducted by, or on behalf of, Neteller PLC, including the following:a. Records of automated clearinghouse ("ACH") transactions obtained pursuant to subpoena from an automated clearinghouse located in the United States demonstrate that Neteller processes a significant amount of customer transactions through the automated clearinghouse system, including transactions from customers in Manhattan. The ACH system permits Neteller to handle internet-based customer transactions. These records further demonstrate that Neteller uses a payment service company (the "Payment Company") to conduct its customers' ACH transactions in the name of the Payment Company. By doing so, Neteller PLC conceals the nature of these financial transactions. The Payment Company receives funds in the United States on behalf of Neteller PLC, and then transfers the funds out of the United States to accounts controlled by Neteller PLC in Canada.b. Records of wire transfers obtained pursuant to subpoena from a bank in the United States (the "US Bank") demonstrate that, from in or about January 2006 up to and including in or about March 2006, a total of approximately $98 million was transferred by wire from an account in the name of the Payment Company at the US Bank in the United States to an account in the name of JSL Systems Inc. at National Bank of Canada in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Neteller PLC's 2004 annual report states that JSL Systems Inc. is a related company that is owned by a director of Neteller PLC that processes transactions for Neteller PLC and is paid a nominal fee for its services. In the Neteller IPO Prospectus, the Board of Directors of Neteller PLC, including STEPHEN ERIC LAWRENCE, the defendant, collectively states that LAWRENCE and CC#1 are partners in and/or directors of JSL Systems Inc.c. Records of wire transfers obtained pursuant to subpoena from the US Bank demonstrate that, from in or about March 2006 up to and including in or about April 2006, a total of approximately $50 million was transferred from an account in the name of the Payment Company at the US Bank in the United States to an account in the name of Cardload Inc. at National Bank of Canada in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Neteller PLC's 2004 annual report states that Cardload Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Neteller PLC.10. I have reviewed various business records of Neteller PLC that provide information regarding the involvement of STEPHEN ERIC LAWRENCE, the defendant, in the business affairs of Neteller Inc. and Neteller PLC, including the following:a. In the Neteller IPO Prospectus, the Board of Directors of Neteller PLC, including LAWRENCE, collectively states the following: LAWRENCE founded the Neteller Group in June 1999; LAWRENCE participated in developing the online payment services of the Neteller Group and participated in raising capital for the Neteller Group; LAWRENCE served as Chief Executive Officer of Neteller Inc. until December 2002 and drew a salary and other compensation from Neteller Inc.; LAWRENCE served as executive director of Neteller Inc. from 2001 to August 31, 2003; LAWRENCE was Chairman of the Board of Directors of Neteller PLC and would continue to serve as Chairman upon admission of Neteller PLC to AIM; LAWRENCE owned approximately 42 percent of Neteller PLC prior to the IPO, and LAWRENCE would own approximately 36 percent of Neteller PLC after the IPO; and LAWRENCE advanced to Neteller PLC approximately $3 million in an interest-free loan.b. Neteller PLC's 2004 annual report states that Neteller PLC is the creation of LAWRENCE who is a major shareholder of Neteller PLC; LAWRENCE served as Chief Executive Officer of Neteller Inc. until December 2002; throughout 2004, LAWRENCE was the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Neteller PLC; on or about December 31, 2004, LAWRENCE was the largest shareholder of Neteller PLC, owning 21.94% percent of the outstanding shares of Neteller PLC; and during 2004, the Board of Directors of Neteller PLC granted LAWRENCE options to purchase additional shares of Neteller PLC.c. Neteller PLC's 2005 annual report states that LAWRENCE served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of Neteller PLC during 2005, but that LAWRENCE would step down from his position as Chairman at Neteller PLC's annual general meeting in 2006; during 2005, the Board of Directors of Neteller PLC granted LAWRENCE options to purchase additional shares of Neteller PLC; and during 2005, Neteller PLC paid LAWRENCE compensation for serving as a director.11. I have reviewed various business records of Neteller PLC that demonstrate that STEPHEN ERIC LAWRENCE, the defendant, had knowledge that he was participating in criminal activity in the United States. For example, in the Neteller IPO Prospectus, the Board of Directors of Neteller PLC, including LAWRENCE, collectively states that criminal laws exist in the United States that prohibit persons from promoting certain forms of gambling; criminal laws exist in the United States that prohibit the transmission of funds that are known to have been derived from criminal activity or are intended to promote criminal activity; that to date most of the criminal prosecutions related to online gambling in the United States have been limited to cases where assets or relevant individuals are located in the United States; that the Neteller Group does not maintain offices or assets in the United States; and that there can be no assurance that the government of the United States will not try to prosecute the Neteller Group under existing or future federal laws. WHEREFORE, deponent prays that a warrant be issued for the arrest of the above-named individual and that he be arrested and imprisoned or bailed as the case may be.________________________________MARYANN GOLDMANSPECIAL AGENTFEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONSworn to before me this day of January 16, 2007What I get from all of this is:a. The FBI can't pick a football game to win a damn gameb. My government just paid a Floridian to fly to New York to make a bet.c. This does not reference the 10/13/06 legislation. In fact the betting done by informants and the FBI predates that legislation. I think (okay, hope) that it is good news that this is in relation to the Wire Act of 1962. I hope that gives the lawyers a lot of wiggle room in that that was about telephone use, not the internet.d. Is it signifigant that this involved sports betting ? Dare we hope that they will go easier on poker ? Link to post Share on other sites
delphi12 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 a. On or about August 12, 2006, a cooperating witness (the "CW"), who at the time was located in Miami, Florida, used a computer to open an account on Neteller.com (the "Neteller Account"), and the CW electronically transferred $400 from a bank account in Miami, Florida, into the Neteller Account. On or about August 22, 2006, the CW, who at the time was located in Miami, Florida, used a computer to open a wagering account with an online gambling business based in Antigua ("Online Gambling Business #1), by electronically transferring $400 from the Neteller Account to Online Gambling Business #1. On or about August 24, 2006, the CW, who at the time was located in Miami, Florida, used a computer to access Online Gambling Business #1's website, and the CW then wagered $250 on a National Football League ("NFL") football game and won approximately $200. On or about September 7, 2006, the CW, who at the time was located in Miami, Florida, used a computer to access Online Gambling Business #1's website, and the CW then wagered $250 on an NFL football game and lost $250. What I get from all of this is:a. The FBI can't pick a football game to win a damn gameb. My government just paid a Floridian to fly to New York to make a bet.c. This does not reference the 10/13/06 legislation. In fact the betting done by informants and the FBI predates that legislation. I think (okay, hope) that it is good news that this is in relation to the Wire Act of 1962. I hope that gives the lawyers a lot of wiggle room in that that was about telephone use, not the internet.d. Is it signifigant that this involved sports betting ? Dare we hope that they will go easier on poker ?you think you can do better than 50%? They picked one game, won it - then picked another game and lost it. This is exactly what should happen. If you can do better than 50% in sports (actually approx 57%) then you will win. Anything less and you will lose. Most people do even worse than 50%.I think everyone here is pretty funny in their belief because this involved sports that poker is not involved. You are right in a sense. Our govt never claimed to actually go after the poker sites. They are just going to make it impossible to fund them. If its VERY DIFFICULT to fund it, who are you going to play that you can actually beat? NO ONE. Thats the point. And, btw, if you are a professional poker player and make your money playing online, I do feel sorry for you. In fact, if you are a professional "gambler" in any way, I feel sorry for you. You do nothing for society. You create nothing and have no benefits to the rest of the world. All you do is make someone elses life tough by removing funds from them (I understand they did it voluntarily). Get a real job that produces something valuable for society and play poker recreationally - you will do the world better. Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Things that turn Johnny Carson on!There is an upside to rigor mortis. Also see Clerks for confirmation of this... Link to post Share on other sites
WowThats 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 An reasonable guess the next people arrested will be players to make a strong example. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 And, btw, if you are a professional poker player and make your money playing online, I do feel sorry for you. In fact, if you are a professional "gambler" in any way, I feel sorry for you. You do nothing for society. You create nothing and have no benefits to the rest of the world."Entertainment" is not a benefit? Should we eliminated movies, music, art, sports, etc, etc? They "create" nothing of use, it's just for entertainment.But perhaps you were just trolling? Probably. Link to post Share on other sites
delphi12 0 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 "Entertainment" is not a benefit? Should we eliminated movies, music, art, sports, etc, etc? They "create" nothing of use, it's just for entertainment.But perhaps you were just trolling? Probably.uhmm.. How are movies, music, art and sports not SOMETHING that we use? What do you as a poker player (TROLL) create that I can use? Nothing.. THats the point. Come up with a better example and we can discuss. Link to post Share on other sites
Yoda 1 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Instacash is stupid anyway. Anyone with half a brain disabled their instacash months ago. Maybe Neteller realized they were losing thousands of dollars a week having to reimburse people who got money stolen because of the Instacash feature. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now