Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alan Mendelson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redietz
If anyone were doing a piece for any newspaper from my beloved Pottsville Republican (Pulitzer winner, by the way) to the New York Times, here are the classic questions:
1) In what casino was the jackpot won?
2) What day and time was it won?
3) Who verified the jackpot for the casino?
4) How was the payment made?
5) How does Rob intend to spend the money?
If someone skips any of these questions, and there is no valid reason to skip any of them, the interview is silly. I think you'll agree that any editor would assume you asked all of these.
If someone is posting publicly about having won a jackpot, then the reasons for an NDA go out the window. Wife or children finding out? Read VCT. Debtors? Read VCT. People hitting you up for cash from afar? They can read VCT. I don't know why someone would write that they signed an NDA with a casino while posting publicly about what they signed the NDA for. Don't want anyone to know because you may blow it all back to the casinos and that would be embarrassing? Why post about it on VCT?
The cherry on top, of course, is Alan's researching the use of NDAs between casinos and jackpot winners.
Redietz I think you've reported that you only play 25-cents video poker. W2Gs are rare for 25-cent players.
Let me assure you that items 1-3 of your list are on a W2G.
Item #4 might be noted. I've had notations about split payments.
Item #5 is interesting. Maybe he'll buy another Newell. Do you really care?
I don't know of any casino that will allow a member of the general public to inquire about another player. But there is info on a W2G that will show if it is true.
I am not bound by any NDA. And a casino doesnt need an NDA to say "we dont comment on our patrons."
Clear out your private messages. I wonder why you have made so many?
You're missing the point. These are questions any reporter would ask, and any editor would require that they ask. What's on a W2G is irrelevant from my perspective in terms of establishing who won a particular jackpot. All the W2G establishes is who is claiming the tax burden. You've ignored what I've had to say regarding W2Gs, but I'll repeat it.
All that a W2G demonstrates is who is paying taxes for a particular win. That is all that it establishes. Unless you look at a feed of the time of the win, a W2G has limited corroborative power.
So asking all of the questions I listed, which any editor would want, opens the person being interviewed up to independent investigation and corroboration. For example, I'm reasonably sure that a win of that magnitude would be kept on video for ages. If you ask the alleged winner where in the casino it was won or who was around when it was won, then you have details which can be corroborated.
You wonder why I have so many messages? LOL. I'm popular. Or I'm trying to recruit children for porn movies. One or the other.
I don't play with folders or know how to rearrange things, so every message stays put until I need to create space, in which case I delete ones I think have the least long term use. That creates some poignant historical moments, like I have messages when you gave me Frank Kneeland's email and I bought his book. I hate to just delete those. I keep some of the exchanges, like when you saw that I won the Race to the Super Bowl for 25K and you told me to post a link and I didn't because I wanted you to admit in print that you saw that I won it. And then Rob went off saying I didn't win it, and you wouldn't confirm that I did. Exchanges like that have historical value.
