David, it was my intent to NOT respond to your last post because sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. However, in direct response to the lead-in statement of your second post “As you didnt respond to my reply the other night… ” allow me to make that correction first, and then I will follow it up with a response to other elements of your second post.

Eveything in bold is a quote from you:

You have sent me to chiptalk on several occasions to 'pass comment' which I duly did.
Almost everytime it gets deleted.
One time I bothered to email Greg (Ten) and complain it was reinstated, but I cant be bothered any more.
Please explain (to the readers here) in what context that have I sent you to ChipTalk to pass comment. I ask this because your IMPLICATION is that I have sent you there to bad mouth the design and manufacture of what I call chips that are a “Blight Upon our Hobby”, and in doing so your posts have been deleted. I think this is an inaccurate impression that you are leaving us because the only “deletions” on ChipTalk, that I am aware of, were for violation of the ChipTalk anti-advertising/self-promoting policy.

ChipTalk attempts to place controls on advertising/self-promoting (i.e., placing a hot-link to one’s commercial website in a given post, regardless of the content (value) of the post. ChipTalk does this because they have a section that they make available, for a rental fee, to businesses and it is only fair to those businesses to prohibit advertising by outsiders, i.e., those who don’t pay for the privilege.

If I’m not mistaken, it was I that went to bat for you in your appeal to Greg Cagel (ChipTalk’s owner), but if it was not you, I know that I have interceded on-behalf of at least one, if not more, of our well known chip dealers who only mistakenly didn’t understand the difference there.
I guess its because most of the mods are chip sellers, in competition with me, and they dont like 'marlowcasinochips' appearing anywhere.
This is a very inaccurate statement and I have no idea on what basis you make this claim, i.e., that most of the mods are chip sellers. To my knowledge, NONE of the Moderators are chip sellers; however, the owners of the rented forums have “within their forum only” moderator capabilities.

Now this is a statement I made in my post to you and in your reply post you are still refusing to understand the distinction. I know you to be a rather intelligent individual and why you wish to project the action of a shop keeper (a rented forum owner) kicking the competition out of his shop as a broad-brush policy of ChipTalk, borders on contrived ignorance!
Ever wonder why other chip dealers who are not mods or sponsors dont post there? They gave up long ago as they got the same treatment.
If you are talking about visiting Target and handing out flyers for Penny’s, then I agree with the simplistic statement articulated by a well known collector… DUH!
The reason I mentioned you was that I thought maybe if someone who was a moderator made the comments I was trying to make, it might have more weight and not get deleted.
I understand in this instance its a rented forum and how it operates. Ive had enough abusive email from him.
David, my weight there is equal to my weight here. Some agree with what I say and some do not. I curry no special favors there, just as I do not here. I do however, in my opinion, work very hard to be fair, honest, even tempered, open minded and an otherwise nice guy in this hobby.
Per the 'private messages' I get sent when posts are deleted, some were removed by 'JM'.
I know JM (on-line only) and have seen his way of conducting ChipTalk Moderator responsibilities and if JM deleted/edited your post(s) I suspect it was for good cause within the rules of ChipTalk conduct. Just in case you were unaware, JM is also a member. For the other readers here, I’d also like to add that Greg Cagel and several other ChipTalk Moderators are also members. In fact, Greg Cagel is a very big proponent of the and has been responsible for the recruitment of about 10 new members in the past 6 - 9 months.
If you can help to develop any active mechanism whereby we can have sensible conversation with the chiptalk people then I am interested, otherwise I wont bother.
I take exception to this comment because it is so very polarizing and in fact I hear the same thing commentary from a few people on ChipTalk. But I have taken to time to get involved with the people on ChipTalk and talk with them, and not at them. This is pretty much the way I am here.
This was nothing personal directed towards you whatsoever, just getting your attention as it looks like you are more in favor over there than others
I think all of this has pretty much had my attention and I can’t fight all the battles at all the fronts, and I certainly don’t want to fight with you because in the end, we both agree on many things at many levels.

And now, in full response to your follow-up post…
As you didnt respond to my reply the other night I thought I would clarify a few things.
My comment on you being a moderator on chiptalk was intended to bring you back into this discussion on 'reproduction' type chips as it seems you are now a more accepted/adopted member of the chiptalk community than when we first raised this issue at length some 15 months or so ago.
You poked at me to get my support? This like using vinegar to attract flies!
I could have discussed this through email but I thought there was more benefit in making this public, for both comment from readers of both boards, and the likelihood/hope that someone will make the powers that be on chiptalk aware of this discussion.
David, “the powers that be” at ChipTalk came over here and asked for our involvement there. Who among us went? Just to be clear about this, and for those who don’t know, Greg Cagel (again, the owner/developer) of ChipTalk.net, had concerns about the lack of creativity by some in the creation and manufacture of home game poker chips, where it appeared top be an expedient to simply copy a chip design (calling it a tribute, or homage, or salute or some other sort of excuse) to turn a profit. (For the non-TheChipBoard.com readers reading this, let me state, if there was no profit in the knock-off/bogus chips, then I can guarantee that they would not be made!) Greg Cagel, ON HIS OWN VOLITION (because he didn’t consult with me) decided to open up a discussion on the topic, on his site, in the face of those who both pay him rent and offer this type of service. And not only that, Greg Cagel isn’t even a chip collector!

Certainly a BOLD MOVE in my book!

However, just because you don’t see the activity, I can assure you that very much of what happens on TheChipBoard.com is reported to and read by ChipTalk.net members, AND vice versa. Unfortunately, there is only very little interaction and a portion of that is sometimes aggressive.
The recent thread here was in fact the most recent of several which skirted around the same topic, and Im not certain how much of it you followed.
For multiple reasons I follow all this stuff. Aside from a deep, personal interest, I also see it as a function of the ’s On-Line Communication Director duties.
As I did state to you and others before, in my opinion the best we can do at this time is to continue to 'educate' people by making available scans of any such 'rogue' chips. I appreciate your reply at that time that you did not feel you could 'take' copies of many of the pics posted on chiptalk as they were not yours to take.
I don’t recall the specifics on this, but it does sound like my “in-general” opinion about scans. And I think we can do more!
Now I do believe that although we dont necessarily agree on whether anything could ever be done to stop production of any such chips (and that is not the issue I am talking about anyway), we do agree on the potential detrimental affect to our hobby, and you made it quite clear in your 'manifesto' that you wanted to do what you could to help regardless of being elected or not
David, I’ll have to take exception to having my Campaign Message being called a “manifesto”, especially since you set it aside in quotations (which I have not used), but also because it gives the reader a Ted Kazinski (The Unabomber) skew. And again, you can’t catch flies with vinegar.
This is what I am asking for, whether its effected with help from you, or any other member of either forum:
Permission to download and use any graphics/scans/pics of chips worthy of addition to the clubs fakes page, from any of the forums on chiptalk.
I will do what I can, but rest assured, I will NOT be asking that question, as written, because I know, even here, if YOU were to pose the very same question to Greg Susong, do you think you would get a unilateral approval? Ask me to do something possible, as I’m already working the impossible.

However, I will work to obtain scans of chips that should be posted to the Fakes, Fantasy and Counterfeits webpage, and pass them to you…

JUST I HAVE ALREADY BEEN DOING! Right?
My recently deleted posts there really didnt say any more than that anyway. I did not mention copyrights, my opinions on the people making these chips etc. at all. Id already seen other peoples posts deleted for doing that so there was no point.
Easily said, got any citable examples? I’ll be happy to try and run them down for us to see if something dastardly was going on.
So, what can you do to help????
As you know, I am running for the office of the Secretary and I think I can do a lot, WITH the support of the and it’s Officers! But just as you have noted, and as I have stated previously, I am committed to doing what I can to have an impact of this “Blight Upon our Hobby” whether I am an Officer or not, and I’ll ask you:

Are you with me?

Jim Follis
Candidate for Secretary