I find that people on our site - and by that, I mean me - get ourselves so immersed in the online gambling experience that in a very short time we become completely intolerant of people who just aren't getting it yet.

That's why every now and then I have to take a step back and just laugh when I read a story penned by somebody who obviously doesn't understand the situation, or chooses to ignore the facts. It's a matter of personal sanity. I know there are some people who will refuse to be reasonable in the face of facts and reason, so I have to just laugh and pretend they are joking.

Case in point... take a look at this op-ed piece that just appeared in the Nevada Appeal.

This is one of the most backwards, protectionist, ill-researched articles to appear in a supposedly fact-checked news source in a long time... but I'm not going to get mad.

It is written by somebody named Guy Farmer who, as the article's footer explains, was once the public information officer for Nevada's gaming control agencies during the period 1963-66. That's right. He was a spokesman for the Nevada Gaming Control board 45 years ago, so that obviously means he is completely qualified to analyze and consult upon the current state of the industry.

Anyway, Guy's beef starts with the Thunder Valley tribal casino near Auburn, California, which concerns Guy apparently because the place is so damn convenient that many people have stopped traveling all the way to Reno from San Francisco and Sacramento. Guy is especially afraid that the new $400M casino expansion will stop even more people from making the trip.

I'm trying not to get mad, but guess what, Guy. That train left the station a long time ago. Have you ever actually made that trip? That extra two-hour drive might be beautiful, but it is extremely inconvenient and during the winter can get downright dangerous. You can't force people to make a trip they don't want, and there are many people who are very thankful the Thunder Valley casino is exactly where it is.

But Guy is just getting warmed up. His solution? Since Stations has the management contract for the casino, Guy believes the sensible response would be to force Stations to either give up the management contract, or give up its interests in Nevada. I'm not joking. He actually thinks Nevada should penalize Stations for managing (they don't even own it!) a casino - in another state! In his words, "So I'd give Station Casinos a choice: give up your lucrative management contract with Thunder Valley or relinquish your gaming license allowing you to operate a dozen or more highly profitable casinos in Southern Nevada."

OK, Guy. And how exactly would you handle the situation if Thunder Valley hired a management company that had no assets in Nevada? By asking California to force the company to buy a Nevada casino?

I don't even know why I'm continuing here, but there's more.

Guy then casts his grizzled eyes towards the Internet and the spectre of online gambling. Suffice to say, he then proceeds to embarrass himself with a series of blanket comments that are not even worth mentioning, but I will. The highlight is when he uses one paragraph to take a shot at as many groups as possible:

According to the RGJ, "It's possible to help Internet gamblers help themselves by allowing legitimate, experienced, well-vetted gaming companies to participate (in online gambling)." And just who would determine whether a given offshore gambling Web site is "legitimate?" The United Nations? Give me a break! Another "brilliant" suggestion is to permit Nevada gaming licensees to operate such Web sites. No way! That's worse than allowing them to operate virtually unregulated Indian casinos.

Holy crap! Let's count. In 72 words, he manages to alienate the RGJ (Reno Gazette-Journal), Internet gamblers, the entire Native American casino industry, and - oh yeah - the United Nations! I think that must be some kind of record. Either way, that is the kind of efficient wordsmithing that you would expect from an experienced public information officer. I can only hope that someday I can offend half as many groups in less than 100 words.

I will say that it means something when he talks about the lack of regulation on the Internet. I agree that he should know. After all, the 1960's marked the peak of effective Nevada casino regulation, did it not?

Anyway, I'm not going to waste a lot of time taking this article seriously, because nobody will, but it is a good reminder of the minds and attitudes we are up against when we taking about legalizing and regulating online gambling. In short, there are a lot of loons out there, but some people still take them seriously enough to give them a forum and the associated credibility that goes with it.