If Poker were legal in the US...
Russell Patterson
site might be undergoing these security issues, could go to the
authorities with information on the offending player (if he happens to
be in the US) and get a court order to sieze his computer. This could
have been resolved a lot earlier, if it would have happened at all!
This is the information that should be used to counter any negative
publicity from this episode, as far as legalization is concerned.
Gary Carson
On Sep 19 2007 5:22 PM, Russell Patterson wrote:
> If Poker were legal in the US and thereby regulated,
Poker is legal in most of the united states. A lot of things are legal and
unregulated, in some states that includes poker (Texas, as an example).
Where are you from?
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
A Man Beaten by Jacks
The money involved might be significant enough that the high stakes
players swindled could justifiably file a lawsuit internationally against
AP and the Doe player(s). Fraud is illegal pretty much anywhere.
If this backdoor is due to AP's negligence, they might even be liable.
And that's assuming they weren't in on it to begin with, although it
seems very unlikely they'd essentially commit financial suicide on
purpose.
Many people lost tens of thousands to these cheaters.
Gary Carson
On Sep 19 2007 5:55 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
> On Sep 19, 3:28 pm, Gary Carson
> wrote:
> > On Sep 19 2007 5:22 PM, Russell Patterson wrote:
> >
> > > If Poker were legal in the US and thereby regulated,
> >
> > Poker is legal in most of the united states. A lot of things are legal and
> > unregulated, in some states that includes poker (Texas, as an example).
> >
> > Where are you from?
> >
> > Gary Carsonhttp://www.garycarson.com/
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________
> > Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites -/
>
> He obviously met online Poker, unless you are being extremely pedantic.
With the possible exception of the state of Washington, online poker is legal in
the united states.
The problem isn't whether or not it's legal, the problem is whether or not the
US government is actually restricted by laws.
Deadmoney Walking
wrote:
> On Sep 19 2007 5:55 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 19, 3:28 pm, Gary Carson
> > wrote:
> > > On Sep 19 2007 5:22 PM, Russell Patterson wrote:
>
> > > > If Poker were legal in the US and thereby regulated,
>
> > > Poker is legal in most of the united states. A lot of things are legal and
> > > unregulated, in some states that includes poker (Texas, as an example).
>
> > > Where are you from?
>
> > > Gary Carsonhttp://www.garycarson.com/
>
> > > _______________________________________________________________
> > > Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites -/
>
> > He obviously met online Poker, unless you are being extremely pedantic.
>
> With the possible exception of the state of Washington, online poker is legal in
> the united states.
>
> The problem isn't whether or not it's legal, the problem is whether or not the
> US government is actually restricted by laws.
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites -http://www.recpoker.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Have you read the UIGEA?
Lrgetrout
"Deadmoney Walking" <tbon...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1190250672.7...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Yes. Have you? Really?
NOLA Red
Lrgetrout
Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin are the 10 that I remember.
Point being, though, is that there is no _federal_ law outlawing playing poker for real money on the internet.
"NOLA Red" <re...@cox.net> wrote in message news:YZmIi.100919$GO6....@newsfe21.lga...
Russell Patterson
<garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>On Sep 19 2007 5:22 PM, Russell Patterson wrote:
>
>> If Poker were legal in the US and thereby regulated,
>
>Poker is legal in most of the united states. A lot of things are legal and
>unregulated, in some states that includes poker (Texas, as an example).
>
>Where are you from?
>
>
I have a feeling you understood the gist of what I was trying to say.
The fact that I didn't say it as well as you would have liked does not
give you license to continue to be the asshole you have been known to
be around here. Do you merely spend your time on rgp looking for
posts to respond to in an ignorant fashion?
Why anybody would buy your book is beyond me. Helmuth is an idiot but
at least he is a lovable idiot and fun to watch. I'd buy his book
before yours.
Omaha8_Beach
> On Wed, 19 Sep 07 22:28:25 GMT, Gary Carson
>
>
> >On Sep 19 2007 5:22 PM, Russell Patterson wrote:
>
> >> If Poker were legal in the US and thereby regulated,
>
> >Poker is legal in most of the united states. A lot of things are legal and
> >unregulated, in some states that includes poker (Texas, as an example).
>
> >Where are you from?
>
> I have a feeling you understood the gist of what I was trying to say.
> The fact that I didn't say it as well as you would have liked does not
> give you license to continue to be the asshole you have been known to
> be around here. Do you merely spend your time on rgp looking for
> posts to respond to in an ignorant fashion?
>
> Why anybody would buy your book is beyond me. Helmuth is an idiot but
> at least he is a lovable idiot and fun to watch. I'd buy his book
> before yours.
Maybe you're right about Gary, but your original post seemed to
indicate that you were unaware of US gambling laws. Poker in general
is legal in many parts of the U.S., and the reason online poker is not
regulated is not because it's illegal (which you implied) but because
the White House and many in Congress THINK that it is illegal based on
existing federal laws. But they write and enforce the laws, they
don't interpret them. There are no Federal laws that I know of that
have been interepreted to mean that online poker is illegal (I do
think there are some that can be interpreted to mean online sports
betting is illegal though). All the UIGEA did was inhibit banks from
funding illegal internet gambling, it didn't define or clarify what
would be considered illegal internet gambling.
Washington state did pass a law criminalizing online poker, and they
are the only state that has done so. Whether playing online poker can
be illegal by virtue of the fact that live poker is illegal in the
state you reside (and play), I don't know, but I don't think this has
been examined.
So basically, for Internet poker to be regulated in the U.S. may not
require any changes in laws other than the laws which define how it is
to be regulated (you can't decriminalize an act which isn't already a
crime). It would require a change in the attitudes towards internet
gambling that exist in D.C., and I don't see that happening any time
soon.
BTW, I don't think you should blacklist Gary's books just because he
rubbed you the wrong way. I've heard some on here say that they were
very good books and they probably have at least some if not much value
regardless of your opinion of the author.
Ken
Edward
wrote:
>
> With the possible exception of the state of Washington, online poker is legal in
> the united states.
No, it is not.
Where are you from?
RazzO
illegal.
On Sep 19 2007 11:39 PM, Edward wrote:
>
> No, it is not.
>
> Where are you from?
RazzO
http://www.razzo.com
tico...@yahoo.com
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
bo dark
if the united states adheres to some WTO ruling it doesn't mean it
will regulate poker online or cooperate with gaming sites in other
countries by giving information through american telecommunications
companies.
even if harrahs were to open up an online gaming site it doesn't mean
it would be regulated by the united states goverment,it might turn out
to be just like it was before the recent legislation.the goverment
could allow foreign sites to operate but prevent domestic companies
from doing so.
we import goods from china that are made in factories that don't meet
american enviromental regulations but american companies still have to
obey these laws.
Gary Carson
On Sep 20 2007 12:50 AM, Omaha8_Beach wrote:
> On Sep 20, 12:25 am, Russell Patterson wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Sep 07 22:28:25 GMT, Gary Carson
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Sep 19 2007 5:22 PM, Russell Patterson wrote:
> >
> > >> If Poker were legal in the US and thereby regulated,
> >
> > >Poker is legal in most of the united states. A lot of things are legal and
> > >unregulated, in some states that includes poker (Texas, as an example).
> >
> > >Where are you from?
> >
> > I have a feeling you understood the gist of what I was trying to say.
> > The fact that I didn't say it as well as you would have liked does not
> > give you license to continue to be the asshole you have been known to
> > be around here. Do you merely spend your time on rgp looking for
> > posts to respond to in an ignorant fashion?
> >
> > Why anybody would buy your book is beyond me. Helmuth is an idiot but
> > at least he is a lovable idiot and fun to watch. I'd buy his book
> > before yours.
>
>
> Maybe you're right about Gary, but your original post seemed to
> indicate that you were unaware of US gambling laws. Poker in general
> is legal in many parts of the U.S., and the reason online poker is not
> regulated is not because it's illegal (which you implied) but because
> the White House and many in Congress THINK that it is illegal based on
> existing federal laws. But they write and enforce the laws, they
> don't interpret them. There are no Federal laws that I know of that
> have been interepreted to mean that online poker is illegal (I do
> think there are some that can be interpreted to mean online sports
> betting is illegal though).
The only conviction that was upheld on appeal was upheld based on a bet made
over the telephone.
.
>
> So basically, for Internet poker to be regulated in the U.S. may not
> require any changes in laws other than the laws which define how it is
> to be regulated (you can't decriminalize an act which isn't already a
> crime). It would require a change in the attitudes towards internet
> gambling that exist in D.C., and I don't see that happening any time
> soon.
>
> BTW, I don't think you should blacklist Gary's books just because he
> rubbed you the wrong way.
I think he should. I think he's a brain dead idiot who would have trouble
understanding simple declarative sentences and reading any book would be a waste
of time for him.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
fffurken
> On Wed, 19 Sep 07 22:28:25 GMT, Gary Carson
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Before I even opened this thread I guessed much of it would be
consumed with the fact that online poker is *not* illegal in (much of)
the US.
You may think of that as "pedantic" but when you infer that poker is
illegal in the US then you really should expect the kind of responses
you've had on this thread.
Russell Patterson
wrote:
>On 20 Sep, 06:25, Russell Patterson <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Sep 07 22:28:25 GMT, Gary Carson
>>
>
>
>Before I even opened this thread I guessed much of it would be
>consumed with the fact that online poker is *not* illegal in (much of)
>the US.
>
>You may think of that as "pedantic" but when you infer that poker is
>illegal in the US then you really should expect the kind of responses
>you've had on this thread.
I have admitted my mistake in wording. Pedantic was not any part of
any of my posts. You can attribute that to someone else. Who wants to
take the job of newsgroup lawyer/moderator to filter all posts through
to make sure the wording is satisfactory to everyone?
Basically what I was trying to say was that if poker were "Fully
Accepted" in the US, even based in the US, then actions could be taken
as soon as innapropriate activities were noticed, including getting a
court order for a search and seizure of the identified perpetrator.
Of course, this assumes that the perp is in the US in the first place.
For all we know he/they may be in Nigeria with all the other lowlifes.
Now, does someone wish to respond to the basic premise of my original
post? If not, GFY.
Russell Patterson
>On Sep 19, 5:22 pm, Russell Patterson <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> If Poker were legal in the US and thereby regulated, AP or whatever
>> site might be undergoing these security issues, could go to the
>> authorities with information on the offending player (if he happens to
>> be in the US) and get a court order to sieze his computer. This could
>> have been resolved a lot earlier, if it would have happened at all!
>>
>> This is the information that should be used to counter any negative
>> publicity from this episode, as far as legalization is concerned.
>
>
>
>if the united states adheres to some WTO ruling it doesn't mean it
>will regulate poker online or cooperate with gaming sites in other
>countries by giving information through american telecommunications
>companies.
>
>even if harrahs were to open up an online gaming site it doesn't mean
>it would be regulated by the united states goverment,it might turn out
>to be just like it was before the recent legislation.the goverment
>could allow foreign sites to operate but prevent domestic companies
>from doing so.
But, if doemestic companies were to open shop and provide online
gambling, or more specifically poker, even without any new regulations
to monitor them, would you be more apt to play there, given that the
company can be brought into court for any serious actions that may
have resulted in a customer being cheated?
Harkness
> "Deadmoney Walking" <tbones...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1190250672.7...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 19, 7:48 pm, Gary Carson <garycar...@alumni.northwestern.edu>
> > wrote:
> >> On Sep 19 2007 5:55 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
>
> >> > On Sep 19, 3:28 pm, Gary Carson
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > On Sep 19 2007 5:22 PM, Russell Patterson wrote:
>
> >> > > > If Poker were legal in the US and thereby regulated,
>
> >> > > Poker is legal in most of the united states. A lot of things are legal and
> >> > > unregulated, in some states that includes poker (Texas, as an example).
>
> >> > > Where are you from?
>
> >> > > Gary Carsonhttp://www.garycarson.com/
>
> >> > > _______________________________________________________________
> >> > > Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites -/
>
> >> > He obviously met online Poker, unless you are being extremely pedantic.
>
> >> With the possible exception of the state of Washington, online poker is legal in
> >> the united states.
>
> >> The problem isn't whether or not it's legal, the problem is whether or not the
> >> US government is actually restricted by laws.
>
> >> Gary Carsonhttp://www.garycarson.com
>
> >> _______________________________________________________________
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Have you read the UIGEA?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes.
And what it says is that it's illegal to do EFT/bank transfers of
money into online gambling sites.
It doesn't say that poker is illegal.
John Harkness
Russell Patterson
Oh, and thank you for an appropriate, on topic, response to the
original post, which I worded poorly.
Russell Patterson
wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:20:32 -0700, bo dark <tx1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Before anybody corrects me on my spelling of 'domestic' let it be
known it was a typo. I managed to get through school, in the 50s-60s
without learning how to type. I use maybe four fingers.
Gary Carson
On Sep 20 2007 8:56 AM, Russell Patterson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 03:24:24 -0700, fffurken
> wrote:
>
> >On 20 Sep, 06:25, Russell Patterson wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Sep 07 22:28:25 GMT, Gary Carson
> >>
> >
> >
> >Before I even opened this thread I guessed much of it would be
> >consumed with the fact that online poker is *not* illegal in (much of)
> >the US.
> >
> >You may think of that as "pedantic" but when you infer that poker is
> >illegal in the US then you really should expect the kind of responses
> >you've had on this thread.
>
> I have admitted my mistake in wording. Pedantic was not any part of
> any of my posts. You can attribute that to someone else. Who wants to
> take the job of newsgroup lawyer/moderator to filter all posts through
> to make sure the wording is satisfactory to everyone?
Your wording was clear. Your made a mistake in understanding, you didn't
understand the legal status of poker. And also you made a mistake in thinking.
You seem to think that regulation doesn't work unless it's regulation by the US
government. All the benefits you ascribe to regulation accrue if the US simply
stops trying to control the internet and starts recognizing international law.
>
> Basically what I was trying to say was that if poker were "Fully
> Accepted" in the US, even based in the US, then actions could be taken
> as soon as innapropriate activities were noticed, including getting a
> court order for a search and seizure of the identified perpetrator.
> Of course, this assumes that the perp is in the US in the first place.
> For all we know he/they may be in Nigeria with all the other lowlifes.
Sigh.
>
> Now, does someone wish to respond to the basic premise of my original
> post? If not, GFY.
Your basic premise seems to be that the world needs to accept US laws but the US
doesn't need to accept international law, nor does the US need to follow US law.
Vote for Rudy.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
bo dark
Maybe,i might play at an austrailian or british site,i'd try to
investigate who the majority owners were and see what kind of
reputation they had.If the goverment of the united states did regulate
online poker i think antiqua would have shot themselves in the
foot,the minute that this would happen every site with american
interests would move.
Omaha8_Beach
> internet gambling is also illegal in Louisiana....oops
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. Here's the link in case anyone is
interested. Well, at least they made their state law clear. The
funny thing is, the way I read it, fantasy football for money would be
illegal in Louisiana (if done by computer). Unless I missed
something. I know the UIGEA excluded fantasy football, but I didn't
see it here.
I think it's hypocritical that the state "has a compelling interest in
protecting its citizens and children from certain activities and
influences which can result in irreparable harm" yet has no problem
with a state lottery.
Ken
Deadmoney Walking
It seems that lotteries, horseracing and fantasy football cannot hurt
people the way poker and sports-betting do.
Joe User
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:22:55 -0400, Russell Patterson <m...@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
>>If Poker were legal in the US and thereby regulated, AP or whatever site
>>might be undergoing these security issues, could go to the authorities
>>with information on the offending player (if he happens to be in the US)
>>and get a court order to sieze his computer. This could have been
>>resolved a lot earlier, if it would have happened at all!
>
>>This is the information that should be used to counter any negative
>>publicity from this episode, as far as legalization is concerned.
>
> The money involved might be significant enough that the high stakes
> players swindled could justifiably file a lawsuit internationally
> against AP and the Doe player(s). Fraud is illegal pretty much
> anywhere. If this backdoor is due to AP's negligence,
<snip>
You don't need to go any further than this. I can't understand why so
many people are jumping to the conclusion that AP is in any way
responsible for any of this (assuming it's true). Everybody who runs
Windows is wide open to this kind of cheating. Windows security is a
sieve, a joke. Hundreds of thousands, and most probably *millions*, of
Windows machines around the world are "pwned" by someone other than their
current users. They send out millions of spam emails and newsgroup
articles every night while their owners sleep. Their owners are
completely unaware of this.
The trojans on their computers allow the person who planted it to
secretly log in at any time and observe the user's actions. Some trojans
can send screen shots as often as desired. These hacker tools have been
around for many years. "Back Orifice" was a popular one for a long
time. There are many others, and they pretty much only work on Microsoft
Windows machines -- Mac and Linux boxes are immune.
In other words, if you use Windows to play poker for money on the
Internet, it really doesn't matter which poker room you choose, because
it isn't the poker software that's the problem. It's the operating
system.
I'm sure this has been happening for a long time in all Internet poker
rooms. It's just that the guys who are capable of gathering "zombie
armies" of Windows boxes are probably usually smart enough not to be too
blatant about cheating at poker when they're lucky enough to find an
Internet poker addict.
> they might even be
> liable. And that's assuming they weren't in on it to begin with,
> although it seems very unlikely they'd essentially commit financial
> suicide on purpose.
>
> Many people lost tens of thousands to these cheaters.
Again, my first inclination is to blame Windows. There are so many
Windows trojans out there that it's really not necessary to find an
exploit in poker server or poker client software. When the operating
system is compromised, everything on the computer is compromised.
This is why I play exclusively on PokerStars. It's the only one I've
found whose software works relatively smoothly on Linux. It's designed
for Windows, as they all are, but it's so well written that it works with
very few problems under Wine, the Windows emulator for Linux.
Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with PokerStars, and if anyone knows of
another room whose software works well under Wine, I'd love to find out
about it.
MrBookworm
it
> illegal.
That doesn't make it illegal.
Shit, saying "Cheney is a fucking Nazi that can lick the back-o-my sack"
is probably deemed illegal by them.
Dean
________________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
A Man Beaten by Jacks
><snip>
It's one thing to state this as a general principle, and another thing to assert
that there's some particular Trojan on a bunch of high stakes players' computers
and that not one of them has noticed it, and somehow, this Trojan only
works on Absolute Poker.
Does not compute.
Gary Carson
On Sep 20 2007 7:01 PM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:27:03 GMT, Joe User wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:05:31 -0400, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:22:55 -0400, Russell Patterson
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>If Poker were legal in the US and thereby regulated, AP or whatever site
> >>>might be undergoing these security issues, could go to the authorities
> >>>with information on the offending player (if he happens to be in the US)
> >>>and get a court order to sieze his computer. This could have been
> >>>resolved a lot earlier, if it would have happened at all!
>
> >>>This is the information that should be used to counter any negative
> >>>publicity from this episode, as far as legalization is concerned.
>
> >> The money involved might be significant enough that the high stakes
> >> players swindled could justifiably file a lawsuit internationally
> >> against AP and the Doe player(s). Fraud is illegal pretty much
> >> anywhere. If this backdoor is due to AP's negligence,
>
> >
>
It could be that the Absolute client is particularly easy to hack.
How many is "a bunch"?
It could be that many players have been infected and the infection removed by
periodic spyware sweeps. Do you check the details of every little thing that
SpyBot takes off your system? Most of us don't. You could have been infected
and removed the infection dozens of times and not know it.
>
> Does not compute.
You need to work on those computational skills.
Russell Patterson
>
>Again, my first inclination is to blame Windows. There are so many
>Windows trojans out there that it's really not necessary to find an
>exploit in poker server or poker client software. When the operating
>system is compromised, everything on the computer is compromised.
>
However at least one of the people that played against the guy doing
this was a regular in the AP forum who was using a Mac. That pretty
much shoots the Windows and Trojan theories down.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
wrote:
>> Does not compute.
>You need to work on those computational skills.
Given a choice between believing in a magical Trojan that somehow
disappears and is removed by antivirus software, somehow without triggering
any notification, and somehow, magically only works on Absolute Poker and
only when playing a few people, or the other likely possibility, that there is
merely one vulnerability, it is or was in Absolute's software, and that the
reason it happened on Absolute is that the problem is related to Absolute, I'll
choose the one that doesn't require a proliferation of entities.
Pretty simple really.
Gary Carson
On Sep 20 2007 10:00 PM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 07 1:10:00 GMT, Gary Carson
>
> wrote:
>
> >> Does not compute.
>
> >You need to work on those computational skills.
>
> Given a choice between believing in a magical Trojan that somehow
> disappears and is removed by antivirus software, somehow without triggering
> any notification, and somehow, magically only works on Absolute Poker and
> only when playing a few people, or the other likely possibility, that there is
> merely one vulnerability, it is or was in Absolute's software, and that the
> reason it happened on Absolute is that the problem is related to Absolute,
> I'll
> choose the one that doesn't require a proliferation of entities.
>
> Pretty simple really.
It's one thing to say A is more likely than B.
But, that's not where you started from. You started by saying you didn't
understand how B could happen.
You need some work on those logical skills in addition to the computational
skills.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
A Man Beaten by Jacks
wrote:
>It's one thing to say A is more likely than B.
>But, that's not where you started from. You started by saying you didn't
>understand how B could happen.
>You need some work on those logical skills in addition to the computational
>skills.
How much do you want to bet that this won't turn out to be a Trojan on
the machines of the people cheated? I'd go $100 even money.
Joe User
Who said it only works on AP? And it's not some particular Trojan geared
for online poker. It's *ANY* Trojan that gives control of your computer
to the bad guy. These aren't fictitious. I'm not speculating. This
isn't a guess. There are many Trojans out there capable of sending
screen shots from your monitor to whoever controls it. This isn't Urban
Legend. They're real, and they've been around for almost as long as
Windows has.
> Does not compute.
Unfortunately, it does.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
wrote:
>On Sep 20 2007 10:26 PM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 07 3:08:56 GMT, Gary Carson
>> wrote:
>> >It's one thing to say A is more likely than B.
>> >But, that's not where you started from. You started by saying you didn't
>> >understand how B could happen.
>> >You need some work on those logical skills in addition to the computational
>> >skills.
>> How much do you want to bet that this won't turn out to be a Trojan on
>> the machines of the people cheated? I'd go $100 even money.
>I never said I thought it was.
>I did say I thought the evidence of cheating was weak.
>I did point out to you a possible way it could happen as described by you.
You pointed out a convoluted, highly unlikely way that is much less likely
than the prevailing view.
>Did I say you're an idiot who can't read? I should have. My mistake if I
>didn't.
If you don't even know what you wrote, then you certainly shouldn't
expect me to, and I question your ability to judge who the idiot is,
for that matter.
Bill Clark
news:tkc6f3pets330t31t...@4ax.com:
> However at least one of the people that played against the guy doing
> this was a regular in the AP forum who was using a Mac. That pretty
> much shoots the Windows and Trojan theories down.
Not if he is running a dual boot Mac under windows...
--
-bc-