my very first post in this thread.

Please do not use my second post as thought it was the start of my commentary. My intentions are allowed to change between posts based upon the response(s) made.

Norm somewhat told me to buzz off, which is his perogative. However, at that time I came to realize that he was not a Club member (ALTHOUGH THAT MAY BE DEBATABLE AT THE PRESENT TIME) and I know that advising non-members of the Club's Code of Ethics means nothing. Therefore, Norm's standing with the Club (from my vantage point AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME) had no relationship whatsoever to our Code of Ethics, but there is a relationship to many in Norm's target audience.

That then was the emphasis of my concern. However, I still communicated with Norm (via email) advising him what course of action to take to resolve the contradictions of his membership status.

It seems to me that my actions have belied your detailed analysis of my posts.

I also believe that you are arguing just for the sake of arguement.

I also find it interesting that you (as an attorney) struggle with the duality of the situation regarding Gamings regulation that chips and tokens are the property of the casion(s) and that those same casino(s) need Gaming approval of chip designs and chip design suggests the removal of the chip from the casino.

Sure looks to me like Nevada Gaming and Nevada casino operators are all lawyers!

Jim