"She told Stuff the reason for not providing a community return wasYes that is correct and thank you for posting about this intelligent move..
that pokies were “land-based and attached to a local community but
when it is online-based, it is less clear where that local community
is”.
Asked how that differed from the national lottery grants board, which >distributes into smaller regional pools, Van Velden said to adopt that
model would be a “very significant shift for the regulations”."
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350454587/government-legalise-online-casinos-wont-make-them-give-community-funding
"She told Stuff the reason for not providing a community return was
that pokies were “land-based and attached to a local community but
when it is online-based, it is less clear where that local community
is”.
Asked how that differed from the national lottery grants board, which distributes into smaller regional pools, Van Velden said to adopt that
model would be a “very significant shift for the regulations”."
On 2024-10-18, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350454587/government-legalise-online-casinos-wont-make-them-give-community-funding
"She told Stuff the reason for not providing a community return was
that pokies were ?land-based and attached to a local community but
when it is online-based, it is less clear where that local community
is?.
Asked how that differed from the national lottery grants board, which
distributes into smaller regional pools, Van Velden said to adopt that
model would be a ?very significant shift for the regulations?."
Reading that article leaves me with the impression that the "gambling taxes" >need a good review so that there is consistenacy and logic. Seems to me that >it is not working as well as it could, hence the Governments proposals.
On 18 Oct 2024 22:40:38 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/
On 2024-10-18, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350454587/government-legalise-online-casinos-wont-make-them-give-community-funding
"She told Stuff the reason for not providing a community return was
that pokies were ?land-based and attached to a local community but
when it is online-based, it is less clear where that local community
is?.
Asked how that differed from the national lottery grants board, which
distributes into smaller regional pools, Van Velden said to adopt that
model would be a ?very significant shift for the regulations?."
Reading that article leaves me with the impression that the "gambling taxes" >>need a good review so that there is consistenacy and logic. Seems to me that >>it is not working as well as it could, hence the Governments proposals.
It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put some
money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand wide
then some money should go back to the community, but if you are from
overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take all
you can!
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Do you have any evidence of your assertion, Tony?
On 18 Oct 2024 22:40:38 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/
On 2024-10-18, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350454587/government-legalise-online-casinos-wont-make-them-give-community-funding
"She told Stuff the reason for not providing a community return was
that pokies were ?land-based and attached to a local community but
when it is online-based, it is less clear where that local community
is?.
Asked how that differed from the national lottery grants board, which
distributes into smaller regional pools, Van Velden said to adopt that >>>> model would be a ?very significant shift for the regulations?."
Reading that article leaves me with the impression that the "gambling taxes" >>>need a good review so that there is consistenacy and logic. Seems to me that >>>it is not working as well as it could, hence the Governments proposals.
It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put some >>money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand wide
then some money should go back to the community, but if you are from >>overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take all
you can!
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 06:35:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou made the assertion first. Prove it. You are desperate.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Do you have any evidence of your assertion, Tony?
On 18 Oct 2024 22:40:38 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/
On 2024-10-18, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350454587/government-legalise-online-casinos-wont-make-them-give-community-funding
"She told Stuff the reason for not providing a community return was
that pokies were ?land-based and attached to a local community but
when it is online-based, it is less clear where that local community >>>>> is?.
Asked how that differed from the national lottery grants board, which >>>>> distributes into smaller regional pools, Van Velden said to adopt that >>>>> model would be a ?very significant shift for the regulations?."
Reading that article leaves me with the impression that the "gambling taxes"
need a good review so that there is consistenacy and logic. Seems to me that
it is not working as well as it could, hence the Governments proposals.
It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put some >>>money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand wide
then some money should go back to the community, but if you are from >>>overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take all
you can!
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I put forward a possible interpretation - no evidence needed. You said
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 06:35:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou made the assertion first. Prove it. You are desperate.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Do you have any evidence of your assertion, Tony?
On 18 Oct 2024 22:40:38 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/
On 2024-10-18, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put some >>>>money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand wide >>>>then some money should go back to the community, but if you are from >>>>overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take all >>>>you can!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350454587/government-legalise-online-casinos-wont-make-them-give-community-funding
"She told Stuff the reason for not providing a community return was >>>>>> that pokies were ?land-based and attached to a local community but >>>>>> when it is online-based, it is less clear where that local community >>>>>> is?.
Asked how that differed from the national lottery grants board, which >>>>>> distributes into smaller regional pools, Van Velden said to adopt that >>>>>> model would be a ?very significant shift for the regulations?."
Reading that article leaves me with the impression that the "gambling taxes"
need a good review so that there is consistenacy and logic. Seems to me that
it is not working as well as it could, hence the Governments proposals. >>>>
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 12:26:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyExactly, none of us expect you to provide evidence, it would be out of character.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I put forward a possible interpretation - no evidence needed. You said
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 06:35:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou made the assertion first. Prove it. You are desperate.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Do you have any evidence of your assertion, Tony?
On 18 Oct 2024 22:40:38 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/
On 2024-10-18, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put some >>>>>money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand wide >>>>>then some money should go back to the community, but if you are from >>>>>overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take all >>>>>you can!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350454587/government-legalise-online-casinos-wont-make-them-give-community-funding
"She told Stuff the reason for not providing a community return was >>>>>>> that pokies were ?land-based and attached to a local community but >>>>>>> when it is online-based, it is less clear where that local community >>>>>>> is?.
Asked how that differed from the national lottery grants board, which >>>>>>> distributes into smaller regional pools, Van Velden said to adopt that >>>>>>> model would be a ?very significant shift for the regulations?."
Reading that article leaves me with the impression that the "gambling >>>>>>taxes"
need a good review so that there is consistenacy and logic. Seems to me >>>>>>that
it is not working as well as it could, hence the Governments proposals. >>>>>
it was not true - evidence desirable, but not expected from a troll .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 12:26:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyInteresting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of trolls) but >not anybody else.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I put forward a possible interpretation - no evidence needed. You said
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 06:35:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You made the assertion first. Prove it. You are desperate.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Do you have any evidence of your assertion, Tony?
On 18 Oct 2024 22:40:38 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/
On 2024-10-18, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put some >>>>>>money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand wide >>>>>>then some money should go back to the community, but if you are from >>>>>>overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take all >>>>>>you can!
Reading that article leaves me with the impression that the "gambling >>>>>>>taxes"https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350454587/government-legalise-online-casinos-wont-make-them-give-community-funding
"She told Stuff the reason for not providing a community return was >>>>>>>> that pokies were ?land-based and attached to a local community but >>>>>>>> when it is online-based, it is less clear where that local community >>>>>>>> is?.
Asked how that differed from the national lottery grants board, which >>>>>>>> distributes into smaller regional pools, Van Velden said to adopt that >>>>>>>> model would be a ?very significant shift for the regulations?." >>>>>>>
need a good review so that there is consistenacy and logic. Seems to me >>>>>>>that
it is not working as well as it could, hence the Governments proposals. >>>>>>
it was not true - evidence desirable, but not expected from a troll . >Exactly, none of us expect you to provide evidence, it would be out of >character.
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 23:18:06 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou justify what you said and then i will consider it. Meanwhile I repeat. Interesting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of trolls) but not anybody else.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 12:26:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyInteresting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of trolls) >>but
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I put forward a possible interpretation - no evidence needed. You said
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 06:35:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You made the assertion first. Prove it. You are desperate.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Do you have any evidence of your assertion, Tony?
On 18 Oct 2024 22:40:38 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/
On 2024-10-18, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put some >>>>>>>money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand wide >>>>>>>then some money should go back to the community, but if you are from >>>>>>>overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take all >>>>>>>you can!
Reading that article leaves me with the impression that the "gambling >>>>>>>>taxes"https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350454587/government-legalise-online-casinos-wont-make-them-give-community-funding
"She told Stuff the reason for not providing a community return was >>>>>>>>> that pokies were ?land-based and attached to a local community but >>>>>>>>> when it is online-based, it is less clear where that local community >>>>>>>>> is?.
Asked how that differed from the national lottery grants board, which >>>>>>>>> distributes into smaller regional pools, Van Velden said to adopt that
model would be a ?very significant shift for the regulations?." >>>>>>>>
need a good review so that there is consistenacy and logic. Seems to me >>>>>>>>that
it is not working as well as it could, hence the Governments proposals. >>>>>>>
it was not true - evidence desirable, but not expected from a troll . >>Exactly, none of us expect you to provide evidence, it would be out of >>character.
not anybody else.
You said "It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/"
If it "obviously isn't" then you must have some evidence or logic
based on official statements for that certainty. Mine was a possible >conjecture based on the statement, but I could not be sure since the >statement left a lot of facts out. You just leave facts out as well,
Tony. So can you justify your statement?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 23:18:06 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou justify what you said and then i will consider it. Meanwhile I repeat. >Interesting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of trolls) but >not anybody else.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 12:26:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Interesting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of trolls) >>>but
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I put forward a possible interpretation - no evidence needed. You said >>>>it was not true - evidence desirable, but not expected from a troll . >>>Exactly, none of us expect you to provide evidence, it would be out of >>>character.
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 06:35:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You made the assertion first. Prove it. You are desperate.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Do you have any evidence of your assertion, Tony?
On 18 Oct 2024 22:40:38 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/
On 2024-10-18, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Reading that article leaves me with the impression that the "gambling >>>>>>>>>taxes"https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350454587/government-legalise-online-casinos-wont-make-them-give-community-funding
"She told Stuff the reason for not providing a community return was >>>>>>>>>> that pokies were ?land-based and attached to a local community but >>>>>>>>>> when it is online-based, it is less clear where that local community >>>>>>>>>> is?.
Asked how that differed from the national lottery grants board, which
distributes into smaller regional pools, Van Velden said to adopt that
model would be a ?very significant shift for the regulations?." >>>>>>>>>
need a good review so that there is consistenacy and logic. Seems to me
that
it is not working as well as it could, hence the Governments proposals.
It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put some >>>>>>>>money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand wide >>>>>>>>then some money should go back to the community, but if you are from >>>>>>>>overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take all >>>>>>>>you can!
not anybody else.
You said "It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/"
If it "obviously isn't" then you must have some evidence or logic
based on official statements for that certainty. Mine was a possible >>conjecture based on the statement, but I could not be sure since the >>statement left a lot of facts out. You just leave facts out as well,
Tony. So can you justify your statement?
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 01:25:56 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou can spin it any way you like, and you always will.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 23:18:06 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou justify what you said and then i will consider it. Meanwhile I repeat. >>Interesting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of trolls) >>but
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 12:26:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Interesting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of trolls) >>>>but
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I put forward a possible interpretation - no evidence needed. You said >>>>>it was not true - evidence desirable, but not expected from a troll . >>>>Exactly, none of us expect you to provide evidence, it would be out of >>>>character.
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 06:35:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You made the assertion first. Prove it. You are desperate.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Do you have any evidence of your assertion, Tony?
On 18 Oct 2024 22:40:38 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/
On 2024-10-18, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Reading that article leaves me with the impression that the "gambling >>>>>>>>>>taxes"https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350454587/government-legalise-online-casinos-wont-make-them-give-community-funding
"She told Stuff the reason for not providing a community return was >>>>>>>>>>> that pokies were ?land-based and attached to a local community but >>>>>>>>>>> when it is online-based, it is less clear where that local community
is?.
Asked how that differed from the national lottery grants board, >>>>>>>>>>>which
distributes into smaller regional pools, Van Velden said to adopt >>>>>>>>>>>that
model would be a ?very significant shift for the regulations?." >>>>>>>>>>
need a good review so that there is consistenacy and logic. Seems to >>>>>>>>>>me
that
it is not working as well as it could, hence the Governments >>>>>>>>>>proposals.
It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put some >>>>>>>>>money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand wide >>>>>>>>>then some money should go back to the community, but if you are from >>>>>>>>>overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take all >>>>>>>>>you can!
not anybody else.
You said "It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/"
If it "obviously isn't" then you must have some evidence or logic
based on official statements for that certainty. Mine was a possible >>>conjecture based on the statement, but I could not be sure since the >>>statement left a lot of facts out. You just leave facts out as well, >>>Tony. So can you justify your statement?
not anybody else.
So just to remind you what I said:
"It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put
some money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand
wide then some money should go back to the community, but if you are
from overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take
all you can!"
So I said it may be saying something - and that implies it may not be
saying that either. Then you said "You said "It "may" but it obviously
isn't. You really are desperate/"" . . . which while a bit garbled,
implied that the possibility I put forward is "obviously" not true.
So I have put forward a reasonable possibility - after all most
on-line gambling is from overseas, but you apparently see that as
obviously untrue - all I am asking you is why you believe that it is >obviously untrue.
So far I have clearly put forward one possibility, and you are saying
it is not true - why are you not able to support your statement of
certainty, Tony?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 01:25:56 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou can spin it any way you like, and you always will.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 23:18:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You justify what you said and then i will consider it. Meanwhile I repeat. >>>Interesting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of trolls) >>>but
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 12:26:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Interesting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of trolls) >>>>>but
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I put forward a possible interpretation - no evidence needed. You said >>>>>>it was not true - evidence desirable, but not expected from a troll . >>>>>Exactly, none of us expect you to provide evidence, it would be out of >>>>>character.
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 06:35:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You made the assertion first. Prove it. You are desperate.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Do you have any evidence of your assertion, Tony?
On 18 Oct 2024 22:40:38 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/
On 2024-10-18, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Reading that article leaves me with the impression that the "gamblinghttps://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350454587/government-legalise-online-casinos-wont-make-them-give-community-funding
"She told Stuff the reason for not providing a community return was
that pokies were ?land-based and attached to a local community but >>>>>>>>>>>> when it is online-based, it is less clear where that local community
is?.
Asked how that differed from the national lottery grants board, >>>>>>>>>>>>which
distributes into smaller regional pools, Van Velden said to adopt >>>>>>>>>>>>that
model would be a ?very significant shift for the regulations?." >>>>>>>>>>>
taxes"
need a good review so that there is consistenacy and logic. Seems to >>>>>>>>>>>me
that
it is not working as well as it could, hence the Governments >>>>>>>>>>>proposals.
It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put some
money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand wide >>>>>>>>>>then some money should go back to the community, but if you are from >>>>>>>>>>overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take all >>>>>>>>>>you can!
not anybody else.
You said "It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/"
If it "obviously isn't" then you must have some evidence or logic
based on official statements for that certainty. Mine was a possible >>>>conjecture based on the statement, but I could not be sure since the >>>>statement left a lot of facts out. You just leave facts out as well, >>>>Tony. So can you justify your statement?
not anybody else.
So just to remind you what I said:
"It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put
some money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand
wide then some money should go back to the community, but if you are
from overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take
all you can!"
So I said it may be saying something - and that implies it may not be >>saying that either. Then you said "You said "It "may" but it obviously >>isn't. You really are desperate/"" . . . which while a bit garbled, >>implied that the possibility I put forward is "obviously" not true.
So I have put forward a reasonable possibility - after all most
on-line gambling is from overseas, but you apparently see that as
obviously untrue - all I am asking you is why you believe that it is >>obviously untrue.
So far I have clearly put forward one possibility, and you are saying
it is not true - why are you not able to support your statement of >>certainty, Tony?
You have posted an opinion, you cannot prove it, But you expect me to prove an >equally valid but differenet opinion.
You are pathetic. It must be awful being you.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 18:09:54 -0000 (UTC), TonyHow many times does it have to be beaten into your thick head?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 01:25:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You can spin it any way you like, and you always will.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 23:18:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You justify what you said and then i will consider it. Meanwhile I repeat. >>>>>Interesting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of trolls) >>>>>but
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 12:26:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Interesting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of >>>>>>>trolls)
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I put forward a possible interpretation - no evidence needed. You said >>>>>>>>it was not true - evidence desirable, but not expected from a troll . >>>>>>>Exactly, none of us expect you to provide evidence, it would be out of >>>>>>>character.
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 06:35:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You made the assertion first. Prove it. You are desperate.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 18 Oct 2024 22:40:38 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/ >>>>>>>>>>Do you have any evidence of your assertion, Tony?
On 2024-10-18, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350454587/government-legalise-online-casinos-wont-make-them-give-community-funding
Reading that article leaves me with the impression that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>"gambling
"She told Stuff the reason for not providing a community return >>>>>>>>>>>>>>was
that pokies were ?land-based and attached to a local community but
when it is online-based, it is less clear where that local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>community
is?.
Asked how that differed from the national lottery grants board, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>which
distributes into smaller regional pools, Van Velden said to adopt
that
model would be a ?very significant shift for the regulations?." >>>>>>>>>>>>>
taxes"
need a good review so that there is consistenacy and logic. Seems >>>>>>>>>>>>>to
me
that
it is not working as well as it could, hence the Governments >>>>>>>>>>>>>proposals.
It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put >>>>>>>>>>>>some
money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand wide >>>>>>>>>>>>then some money should go back to the community, but if you are from
overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take all
you can!
but
not anybody else.
You said "It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/" >>>>>>
If it "obviously isn't" then you must have some evidence or logic >>>>>>based on official statements for that certainty. Mine was a possible >>>>>>conjecture based on the statement, but I could not be sure since the >>>>>>statement left a lot of facts out. You just leave facts out as well, >>>>>>Tony. So can you justify your statement?
not anybody else.
So just to remind you what I said:
"It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put
some money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand >>>>wide then some money should go back to the community, but if you are >>>>from overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take >>>>all you can!"
So I said it may be saying something - and that implies it may not be >>>>saying that either. Then you said "You said "It "may" but it obviously >>>>isn't. You really are desperate/"" . . . which while a bit garbled, >>>>implied that the possibility I put forward is "obviously" not true.
So I have put forward a reasonable possibility - after all most
on-line gambling is from overseas, but you apparently see that as >>>>obviously untrue - all I am asking you is why you believe that it is >>>>obviously untrue.
So far I have clearly put forward one possibility, and you are saying >>>>it is not true - why are you not able to support your statement of >>>>certainty, Tony?
You have posted an opinion, you cannot prove it, But you expect me to prove >>>an
equally valid but differenet opinion.
You are pathetic. It must be awful being you.
I gave one plausible possibility for the meaning of the Minister's >>statement - to which you said "It "may" but it obviously isn't. You
really are desperate/"
Why was it obvious to you, Tony - and what if any alternative
explanation do you have? This is an important issue, as it may
represent local pokie providers incurring a requirement to support
their community that competitors are not required to meet - would you
think that fair?
You stated an opinion, you have not provided any evidence to support it.
I also made an opinion.
The difference is that you believe you do not need to provide suppport for your
opinions but I do need to for mine.
Provide some evidence or keep banging your head against whatever appears to you
to be a brick wall.
As I said - you really are desperate.
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 18:09:54 -0000 (UTC), TonyHow many times does it have to be beaten into your thick head?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 01:25:56 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou can spin it any way you like, and you always will.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 23:18:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You justify what you said and then i will consider it. Meanwhile I repeat. >>>>Interesting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of trolls) >>>>but
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 12:26:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Interesting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of >>>>>>trolls)
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I put forward a possible interpretation - no evidence needed. You said >>>>>>>it was not true - evidence desirable, but not expected from a troll . >>>>>>Exactly, none of us expect you to provide evidence, it would be out of >>>>>>character.
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 06:35:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You made the assertion first. Prove it. You are desperate.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 18 Oct 2024 22:40:38 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/ >>>>>>>>>Do you have any evidence of your assertion, Tony?
On 2024-10-18, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350454587/government-legalise-online-casinos-wont-make-them-give-community-funding
Reading that article leaves me with the impression that the >>>>>>>>>>>>"gambling
"She told Stuff the reason for not providing a community return >>>>>>>>>>>>>was
that pokies were ?land-based and attached to a local community but
when it is online-based, it is less clear where that local >>>>>>>>>>>>>community
is?.
Asked how that differed from the national lottery grants board, >>>>>>>>>>>>>which
distributes into smaller regional pools, Van Velden said to adopt >>>>>>>>>>>>>that
model would be a ?very significant shift for the regulations?." >>>>>>>>>>>>
taxes"
need a good review so that there is consistenacy and logic. Seems >>>>>>>>>>>>to
me
that
it is not working as well as it could, hence the Governments >>>>>>>>>>>>proposals.
It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put >>>>>>>>>>>some
money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand wide >>>>>>>>>>>then some money should go back to the community, but if you are from >>>>>>>>>>>overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take all
you can!
but
not anybody else.
You said "It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/" >>>>>
If it "obviously isn't" then you must have some evidence or logic >>>>>based on official statements for that certainty. Mine was a possible >>>>>conjecture based on the statement, but I could not be sure since the >>>>>statement left a lot of facts out. You just leave facts out as well, >>>>>Tony. So can you justify your statement?
not anybody else.
So just to remind you what I said:
"It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put
some money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand
wide then some money should go back to the community, but if you are
from overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take >>>all you can!"
So I said it may be saying something - and that implies it may not be >>>saying that either. Then you said "You said "It "may" but it obviously >>>isn't. You really are desperate/"" . . . which while a bit garbled, >>>implied that the possibility I put forward is "obviously" not true.
So I have put forward a reasonable possibility - after all most
on-line gambling is from overseas, but you apparently see that as >>>obviously untrue - all I am asking you is why you believe that it is >>>obviously untrue.
So far I have clearly put forward one possibility, and you are saying
it is not true - why are you not able to support your statement of >>>certainty, Tony?
You have posted an opinion, you cannot prove it, But you expect me to prove >>an
equally valid but differenet opinion.
You are pathetic. It must be awful being you.
I gave one plausible possibility for the meaning of the Minister's
statement - to which you said "It "may" but it obviously isn't. You
really are desperate/"
Why was it obvious to you, Tony - and what if any alternative
explanation do you have? This is an important issue, as it may
represent local pokie providers incurring a requirement to support
their community that competitors are not required to meet - would you
think that fair?
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:43:13 -0000 (UTC), TonyIrrelevant. My point is valid. Post your support for your opinion or agree that all posters have the same rights as you. Those are you only reasonable choices.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 18:09:54 -0000 (UTC), TonyHow many times does it have to be beaten into your thick head?
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 01:25:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You can spin it any way you like, and you always will.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 23:18:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You justify what you said and then i will consider it. Meanwhile I repeat.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 12:26:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Interesting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of >>>>>>>>trolls)
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I put forward a possible interpretation - no evidence needed. You said >>>>>>>>>it was not true - evidence desirable, but not expected from a troll . >>>>>>>>Exactly, none of us expect you to provide evidence, it would be out of >>>>>>>>character.
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 06:35:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You made the assertion first. Prove it. You are desperate.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 18 Oct 2024 22:40:38 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/ >>>>>>>>>>>Do you have any evidence of your assertion, Tony?
On 2024-10-18, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350454587/government-legalise-online-casinos-wont-make-them-give-community-funding
Reading that article leaves me with the impression that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>"gambling
"She told Stuff the reason for not providing a community return >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>was
that pokies were ?land-based and attached to a local community >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but
when it is online-based, it is less clear where that local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>community
is?.
Asked how that differed from the national lottery grants board, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>which
distributes into smaller regional pools, Van Velden said to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>adopt
that
model would be a ?very significant shift for the regulations?." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
taxes"
need a good review so that there is consistenacy and logic. Seems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>to
me
that
it is not working as well as it could, hence the Governments >>>>>>>>>>>>>>proposals.
It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put >>>>>>>>>>>>>some
money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand wide
then some money should go back to the community, but if you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>from
overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take >>>>>>>>>>>>>all
you can!
but
not anybody else.
You said "It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/" >>>>>>>
If it "obviously isn't" then you must have some evidence or logic >>>>>>>based on official statements for that certainty. Mine was a possible >>>>>>>conjecture based on the statement, but I could not be sure since the >>>>>>>statement left a lot of facts out. You just leave facts out as well, >>>>>>>Tony. So can you justify your statement?
Interesting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of >>>>>>trolls)
but
not anybody else.
So just to remind you what I said:
"It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put >>>>>some money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand >>>>>wide then some money should go back to the community, but if you are >>>>>from overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take >>>>>all you can!"
So I said it may be saying something - and that implies it may not be >>>>>saying that either. Then you said "You said "It "may" but it obviously >>>>>isn't. You really are desperate/"" . . . which while a bit garbled, >>>>>implied that the possibility I put forward is "obviously" not true.
So I have put forward a reasonable possibility - after all most >>>>>on-line gambling is from overseas, but you apparently see that as >>>>>obviously untrue - all I am asking you is why you believe that it is >>>>>obviously untrue.
So far I have clearly put forward one possibility, and you are saying >>>>>it is not true - why are you not able to support your statement of >>>>>certainty, Tony?
You have posted an opinion, you cannot prove it, But you expect me to prove >>>>an
equally valid but differenet opinion.
You are pathetic. It must be awful being you.
I gave one plausible possibility for the meaning of the Minister's >>>statement - to which you said "It "may" but it obviously isn't. You >>>really are desperate/"
Why was it obvious to you, Tony - and what if any alternative
explanation do you have? This is an important issue, as it may
represent local pokie providers incurring a requirement to support
their community that competitors are not required to meet - would you >>>think that fair?
You stated an opinion, you have not provided any evidence to support it.
I also made an opinion.
The difference is that you believe you do not need to provide suppport for >>your
opinions but I do need to for mine.
Provide some evidence or keep banging your head against whatever appears to >>you
Have you read the article, Tony? It supports the possibility that I
put forward, but I did not preclude another explanation.
to be a brick wall.
As I said - you really are desperate.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:All readers of and posters to nz.general have the same right to ignore
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:43:13 -0000 (UTC), TonyIrrelevant. My point is valid. Post your support for your opinion or agree that
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 18:09:54 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:How many times does it have to be beaten into your thick head?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 01:25:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You can spin it any way you like, and you always will.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 23:18:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You justify what you said and then i will consider it. Meanwhile I repeat.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 12:26:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Interesting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of >>>>>>>>>trolls)
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:it was not true - evidence desirable, but not expected from a troll . >>>>>>>>>Exactly, none of us expect you to provide evidence, it would be out of >>>>>>>>>character.
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 06:35:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You made the assertion first. Prove it. You are desperate. >>>>>>>>>>I put forward a possible interpretation - no evidence needed. You said
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 18 Oct 2024 22:40:38 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/ >>>>>>>>>>>>Do you have any evidence of your assertion, Tony?
On 2024-10-18, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350454587/government-legalise-online-casinos-wont-make-them-give-community-funding
"She told Stuff the reason for not providing a community return
was
that pokies were ?land-based and attached to a local community >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but
when it is online-based, it is less clear where that local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>community
is?.
Asked how that differed from the national lottery grants board,
which
distributes into smaller regional pools, Van Velden said to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>adopt
that
model would be a ?very significant shift for the regulations?."
Reading that article leaves me with the impression that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"gambling
taxes"
need a good review so that there is consistenacy and logic. Seems
to
me
that
it is not working as well as it could, hence the Governments >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>proposals.
It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put >>>>>>>>>>>>>>some
money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand wide
then some money should go back to the community, but if you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>from
overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take >>>>>>>>>>>>>>all
you can!
but
not anybody else.
You said "It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/" >>>>>>>>
If it "obviously isn't" then you must have some evidence or logic >>>>>>>>based on official statements for that certainty. Mine was a possible >>>>>>>>conjecture based on the statement, but I could not be sure since the >>>>>>>>statement left a lot of facts out. You just leave facts out as well, >>>>>>>>Tony. So can you justify your statement?
Interesting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of >>>>>>>trolls)
but
not anybody else.
So just to remind you what I said:
"It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put >>>>>>some money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand >>>>>>wide then some money should go back to the community, but if you are >>>>>>from overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take >>>>>>all you can!"
So I said it may be saying something - and that implies it may not be >>>>>>saying that either. Then you said "You said "It "may" but it obviously >>>>>>isn't. You really are desperate/"" . . . which while a bit garbled, >>>>>>implied that the possibility I put forward is "obviously" not true. >>>>>>
So I have put forward a reasonable possibility - after all most >>>>>>on-line gambling is from overseas, but you apparently see that as >>>>>>obviously untrue - all I am asking you is why you believe that it is >>>>>>obviously untrue.
So far I have clearly put forward one possibility, and you are saying >>>>>>it is not true - why are you not able to support your statement of >>>>>>certainty, Tony?
You have posted an opinion, you cannot prove it, But you expect me to prove
an
equally valid but differenet opinion.
You are pathetic. It must be awful being you.
I gave one plausible possibility for the meaning of the Minister's >>>>statement - to which you said "It "may" but it obviously isn't. You >>>>really are desperate/"
Why was it obvious to you, Tony - and what if any alternative >>>>explanation do you have? This is an important issue, as it may >>>>represent local pokie providers incurring a requirement to support >>>>their community that competitors are not required to meet - would you >>>>think that fair?
You stated an opinion, you have not provided any evidence to support it. >>>I also made an opinion.
The difference is that you believe you do not need to provide suppport for >>>your
opinions but I do need to for mine.
Provide some evidence or keep banging your head against whatever appears to >>>you
Have you read the article, Tony? It supports the possibility that I
put forward, but I did not preclude another explanation.
all posters have the same rights as you. Those are you only reasonable choices.
to be a brick wall.
As I said - you really are desperate.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:41:50 -0000 (UTC), TonySo you double down and re-iterate that you have more rights than the rest of us. You have said so in refusing to discuss or debate.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:All readers of and posters to nz.general have the same right to ignore
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:43:13 -0000 (UTC), TonyIrrelevant. My point is valid. Post your support for your opinion or agree >>that
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 18:09:54 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:How many times does it have to be beaten into your thick head?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 01:25:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You can spin it any way you like, and you always will.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 23:18:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You justify what you said and then i will consider it. Meanwhile I >>>>>>>>repeat.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 12:26:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Exactly, none of us expect you to provide evidence, it would be out >>>>>>>>>>of
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:it was not true - evidence desirable, but not expected from a troll .
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 06:35:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You made the assertion first. Prove it. You are desperate. >>>>>>>>>>>I put forward a possible interpretation - no evidence needed. You >>>>>>>>>>>said
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 18 Oct 2024 22:40:38 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>Do you have any evidence of your assertion, Tony?
On 2024-10-18, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350454587/government-legalise-online-casinos-wont-make-them-give-community-funding
"She told Stuff the reason for not providing a community >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>return
was
that pokies were ?land-based and attached to a local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>community
but
when it is online-based, it is less clear where that local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>community
is?.
Asked how that differed from the national lottery grants >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>board,
which
distributes into smaller regional pools, Van Velden said to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>adopt
that
model would be a ?very significant shift for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>regulations?."
Reading that article leaves me with the impression that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"gambling
taxes"
need a good review so that there is consistenacy and logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Seems
to
me
that
it is not working as well as it could, hence the Governments >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>proposals.
It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>put
some
money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wide
then some money should go back to the community, but if you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>from
overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>take
all
you can!
character.
Interesting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of >>>>>>>>>>trolls)
but
not anybody else.
You said "It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/" >>>>>>>>>
If it "obviously isn't" then you must have some evidence or logic >>>>>>>>>based on official statements for that certainty. Mine was a possible >>>>>>>>>conjecture based on the statement, but I could not be sure since the >>>>>>>>>statement left a lot of facts out. You just leave facts out as well, >>>>>>>>>Tony. So can you justify your statement?
Interesting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of >>>>>>>>trolls)
but
not anybody else.
So just to remind you what I said:
"It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put >>>>>>>some money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand >>>>>>>wide then some money should go back to the community, but if you are >>>>>>>from overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take >>>>>>>all you can!"
So I said it may be saying something - and that implies it may not be >>>>>>>saying that either. Then you said "You said "It "may" but it obviously >>>>>>>isn't. You really are desperate/"" . . . which while a bit garbled, >>>>>>>implied that the possibility I put forward is "obviously" not true. >>>>>>>
So I have put forward a reasonable possibility - after all most >>>>>>>on-line gambling is from overseas, but you apparently see that as >>>>>>>obviously untrue - all I am asking you is why you believe that it is >>>>>>>obviously untrue.
So far I have clearly put forward one possibility, and you are saying >>>>>>>it is not true - why are you not able to support your statement of >>>>>>>certainty, Tony?
You have posted an opinion, you cannot prove it, But you expect me to >>>>>>prove
an
equally valid but differenet opinion.
You are pathetic. It must be awful being you.
I gave one plausible possibility for the meaning of the Minister's >>>>>statement - to which you said "It "may" but it obviously isn't. You >>>>>really are desperate/"
Why was it obvious to you, Tony - and what if any alternative >>>>>explanation do you have? This is an important issue, as it may >>>>>represent local pokie providers incurring a requirement to support >>>>>their community that competitors are not required to meet - would you >>>>>think that fair?
You stated an opinion, you have not provided any evidence to support it. >>>>I also made an opinion.
The difference is that you believe you do not need to provide suppport for >>>>your
opinions but I do need to for mine.
Provide some evidence or keep banging your head against whatever appears to >>>>you
Have you read the article, Tony? It supports the possibility that I
put forward, but I did not preclude another explanation.
all posters have the same rights as you. Those are you only reasonable >>choices.
your ignorant bluster and your inability to understand a fairly
straight forward article, Tony.
to be a brick wall.
As I said - you really are desperate.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I have never said any such thing. You are a liar.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:41:50 -0000 (UTC), TonySo you double down and re-iterate that you have more rights than the rest of >us.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:All readers of and posters to nz.general have the same right to ignore
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:43:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Irrelevant. My point is valid. Post your support for your opinion or agree >>>that
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 18:09:54 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:How many times does it have to be beaten into your thick head?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 01:25:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You can spin it any way you like, and you always will.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 23:18:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You justify what you said and then i will consider it. Meanwhile I >>>>>>>>>repeat.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 12:26:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Exactly, none of us expect you to provide evidence, it would be out >>>>>>>>>>>of
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:it was not true - evidence desirable, but not expected from a troll .
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 06:35:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 18 Oct 2024 22:40:38 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Do you have any evidence of your assertion, Tony? >>>>>>>>>>>>>You made the assertion first. Prove it. You are desperate. >>>>>>>>>>>>I put forward a possible interpretation - no evidence needed. You >>>>>>>>>>>>said
On 2024-10-18, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350454587/government-legalise-online-casinos-wont-make-them-give-community-funding
"She told Stuff the reason for not providing a community >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>return
was
that pokies were ?land-based and attached to a local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>community
but
when it is online-based, it is less clear where that local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>community
is?.
Asked how that differed from the national lottery grants >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>board,
which
distributes into smaller regional pools, Van Velden said to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>adopt
that
model would be a ?very significant shift for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>regulations?."
Reading that article leaves me with the impression that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"gambling
taxes"
need a good review so that there is consistenacy and logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Seems
to
me
that
it is not working as well as it could, hence the Governments >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>proposals.
It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>put
some
money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wide
then some money should go back to the community, but if you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>from
overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>take
all
you can!
character.
Interesting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of >>>>>>>>>>>trolls)
but
not anybody else.
You said "It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/" >>>>>>>>>>
If it "obviously isn't" then you must have some evidence or logic >>>>>>>>>>based on official statements for that certainty. Mine was a possible >>>>>>>>>>conjecture based on the statement, but I could not be sure since the >>>>>>>>>>statement left a lot of facts out. You just leave facts out as well, >>>>>>>>>>Tony. So can you justify your statement?
Interesting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of >>>>>>>>>trolls)
but
not anybody else.
So just to remind you what I said:
"It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put >>>>>>>>some money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand >>>>>>>>wide then some money should go back to the community, but if you are >>>>>>>>from overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take >>>>>>>>all you can!"
So I said it may be saying something - and that implies it may not be >>>>>>>>saying that either. Then you said "You said "It "may" but it obviously >>>>>>>>isn't. You really are desperate/"" . . . which while a bit garbled, >>>>>>>>implied that the possibility I put forward is "obviously" not true. >>>>>>>>
So I have put forward a reasonable possibility - after all most >>>>>>>>on-line gambling is from overseas, but you apparently see that as >>>>>>>>obviously untrue - all I am asking you is why you believe that it is >>>>>>>>obviously untrue.
So far I have clearly put forward one possibility, and you are saying >>>>>>>>it is not true - why are you not able to support your statement of >>>>>>>>certainty, Tony?
You have posted an opinion, you cannot prove it, But you expect me to >>>>>>>prove
an
equally valid but differenet opinion.
You are pathetic. It must be awful being you.
I gave one plausible possibility for the meaning of the Minister's >>>>>>statement - to which you said "It "may" but it obviously isn't. You >>>>>>really are desperate/"
Why was it obvious to you, Tony - and what if any alternative >>>>>>explanation do you have? This is an important issue, as it may >>>>>>represent local pokie providers incurring a requirement to support >>>>>>their community that competitors are not required to meet - would you >>>>>>think that fair?
You stated an opinion, you have not provided any evidence to support it. >>>>>I also made an opinion.
The difference is that you believe you do not need to provide suppport for >>>>>your
opinions but I do need to for mine.
Provide some evidence or keep banging your head against whatever appears to
you
Have you read the article, Tony? It supports the possibility that I
put forward, but I did not preclude another explanation.
all posters have the same rights as you. Those are you only reasonable >>>choices.
your ignorant bluster and your inability to understand a fairly
straight forward article, Tony.
You have said so in refusing to discuss or debate.Which I have not done - you are the person that refuses to back up
We are all clear now.You are permanently cloudy - like latrine effluent. Yes I am being
to be a brick wall.
As I said - you really are desperate.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 02:13:34 -0000 (UTC), TonyNope, you have always nehaved that way - hence my correct conclusion.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I have never said any such thing. You are a liar.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:41:50 -0000 (UTC), TonySo you double down and re-iterate that you have more rights than the rest of >>us.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:All readers of and posters to nz.general have the same right to ignore >>>your ignorant bluster and your inability to understand a fairly
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:43:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Irrelevant. My point is valid. Post your support for your opinion or agree >>>>that
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 18:09:54 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:How many times does it have to be beaten into your thick head?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 01:25:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You can spin it any way you like, and you always will.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 23:18:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You justify what you said and then i will consider it. Meanwhile I >>>>>>>>>>repeat.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 12:26:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Exactly, none of us expect you to provide evidence, it would be out >>>>>>>>>>>>of
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:it was not true - evidence desirable, but not expected from a >>>>>>>>>>>>>troll .
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 06:35:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 18 Oct 2024 22:40:38 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Do you have any evidence of your assertion, Tony? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>You made the assertion first. Prove it. You are desperate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>I put forward a possible interpretation - no evidence needed. You >>>>>>>>>>>>>said
On 2024-10-18, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350454587/government-legalise-online-casinos-wont-make-them-give-community-funding
"She told Stuff the reason for not providing a community >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>return
was
that pokies were ?land-based and attached to a local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>community
but
when it is online-based, it is less clear where that local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>community
is?.
Asked how that differed from the national lottery grants >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>board,
which
distributes into smaller regional pools, Van Velden said to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>adopt
that
model would be a ?very significant shift for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>regulations?."
Reading that article leaves me with the impression that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"gambling
taxes"
need a good review so that there is consistenacy and logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Seems
to
me
that
it is not working as well as it could, hence the Governments >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>proposals.
It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>put
some
money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wide
then some money should go back to the community, but if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>are
from
overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>take
all
you can!
character.
Interesting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of >>>>>>>>>>>>trolls)
but
not anybody else.
You said "It "may" but it obviously isn't. You really are desperate/"
If it "obviously isn't" then you must have some evidence or logic >>>>>>>>>>>based on official statements for that certainty. Mine was a possible >>>>>>>>>>>conjecture based on the statement, but I could not be sure since the >>>>>>>>>>>statement left a lot of facts out. You just leave facts out as well, >>>>>>>>>>>Tony. So can you justify your statement?
Interesting that you are allowed unsupported opinions (speaking of >>>>>>>>>>trolls)
but
not anybody else.
So just to remind you what I said:
"It may be saying that if you are in New Zealand then you must put >>>>>>>>>some money back into the local community, or if you are New Zealand >>>>>>>>>wide then some money should go back to the community, but if you are >>>>>>>>>from overseas extracting money through phones and computers, then take >>>>>>>>>all you can!"
So I said it may be saying something - and that implies it may not be >>>>>>>>>saying that either. Then you said "You said "It "may" but it obviously >>>>>>>>>isn't. You really are desperate/"" . . . which while a bit garbled, >>>>>>>>>implied that the possibility I put forward is "obviously" not true. >>>>>>>>>
So I have put forward a reasonable possibility - after all most >>>>>>>>>on-line gambling is from overseas, but you apparently see that as >>>>>>>>>obviously untrue - all I am asking you is why you believe that it is >>>>>>>>>obviously untrue.
So far I have clearly put forward one possibility, and you are saying >>>>>>>>>it is not true - why are you not able to support your statement of >>>>>>>>>certainty, Tony?
You have posted an opinion, you cannot prove it, But you expect me to >>>>>>>>prove
an
equally valid but differenet opinion.
You are pathetic. It must be awful being you.
I gave one plausible possibility for the meaning of the Minister's >>>>>>>statement - to which you said "It "may" but it obviously isn't. You >>>>>>>really are desperate/"
Why was it obvious to you, Tony - and what if any alternative >>>>>>>explanation do you have? This is an important issue, as it may >>>>>>>represent local pokie providers incurring a requirement to support >>>>>>>their community that competitors are not required to meet - would you >>>>>>>think that fair?
You stated an opinion, you have not provided any evidence to support it. >>>>>>I also made an opinion.
The difference is that you believe you do not need to provide suppport >>>>>>for
your
opinions but I do need to for mine.
Provide some evidence or keep banging your head against whatever appears >>>>>>to
you
Have you read the article, Tony? It supports the possibility that I >>>>>put forward, but I did not preclude another explanation.
all posters have the same rights as you. Those are you only reasonable >>>>choices.
straight forward article, Tony.
Nope, you have doubled down. You refuse to support your opinion but expect everybody else to support theirs.You have said so in refusing to discuss or debate.Which I have not done - you are the person that refuses to back up
your lying assertions.
try reading the actual article: >https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350454587/government-legalise-online-casinos-wont-make-them-give-community-fundingNope, just exactly what I expect of you - abuse, sociopathic behavour and political crap. You show no respect to people here and you know no boundaries to your lies and abject nonsense.
We are all clear now.You are permanently cloudy - like latrine effluent. Yes I am being
rude - it seems to be all you understand Tony.
to be a brick wall.
As I said - you really are desperate.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 04:11:39 |
| Calls: | 9,775 |
| Calls today: | 16 |
| Files: | 13,748 |
| Messages: | 6,186,613 |