How the Hunt Brothers Cornered the Silver Market and Then Lost it All

TL:DR: yes its long. Grab a beer.

​
Until his dying day in 2014, Nelson Bunker Hunt, who had once been the world’s wealthiest man, denied that he and his brother plotted to corner the global silver market.
Sure, back in 1980, Bunker, his younger brother Herbert, and other members of the Hunt clan owned roughly two-thirds of all the privately held silver on earth. But the historic stockpiling of bullion hadn’t been a ploy to manipulate the market, they and their sizable legal team would insist in the following years. Instead, it was a strategy to hedge against the voracious inflation of the 1970s—a monumental bet against the U.S. dollar.
Whatever the motive, it was a bet that went historically sour. The debt-fueled boom and bust of the global silver market not only decimated the Hunt fortune, but threatened to take down the U.S. financial system.
The panic of “Silver Thursday” took place over 35 years ago, but it still raises questions about the nature of financial manipulation. While many view the Hunt brothers as members of a long succession of white collar crooks, from Charles Ponzi to Bernie Madoff, others see the endearingly eccentric Texans as the victims of overstepping regulators and vindictive insiders who couldn’t stand the thought of being played by a couple of southern yokels.
In either case, the story of the Hunt brothers just goes to show how difficult it can be to distinguish illegal market manipulation from the old fashioned wheeling and dealing that make our markets work.
The Real-Life Ewings
Whatever their foibles, the Hunts make for an interesting cast of characters. Evidently CBS thought so; the family is rumored to be the basis for the Ewings, the fictional Texas oil dynasty of Dallas fame.
Sitting at the top of the family tree was H.L. Hunt, a man who allegedly purchased his first oil field with poker winnings and made a fortune drilling in east Texas. H.L. was a well-known oddball to boot, and his sons inherited many of their father’s quirks.
For one, there was the stinginess. Despite being the richest man on earth in the 1960s, Bunker Hunt (who went by his middle name), along with his younger brothers Herbert (first name William) and Lamar, cultivated an image as unpretentious good old boys. They drove old Cadillacs, flew coach, and when they eventually went to trial in New York City in 1988, they took the subway. As one Texas editor was quoted in the New York Times, Bunker Hunt was “the kind of guy who orders chicken-fried steak and Jello-O, spills some on his tie, and then goes out and buys all the silver in the world.”
Cheap suits aside, the Hunts were not without their ostentation. At the end of the 1970s, Bunker boasted a stable of over 500 horses and his little brother Lamar owned the Kansas City Chiefs. All six children of H.L.’s first marriage (the patriarch of the Hunt family had fifteen children by three women before he died in 1974) lived on estates befitting the scions of a Texas billionaire. These lifestyles were financed by trusts, but also risky investments in oil, real estate, and a host of commodities including sugar beets, soybeans, and, before long, silver.
The Hunt brothers also inherited their father’s political inclinations. A zealous anti-Communist, Bunker Hunt bankrolled conservative causes and was a prominent member of the John Birch Society, a group whose founder once speculated that Dwight Eisenhower was a “dedicated, conscious agent” of Soviet conspiracy. In November of 1963, Hunt sponsored a particularly ill-timed political campaign, which distributed pamphlets around Dallas condemning President Kennedy for alleged slights against the Constitution on the day that he was assassinated. JFK conspiracy theorists have been obsessed with Hunt ever since.
In fact, it was the Hunt brand of politics that partially explains what led Bunker and Herbert to start buying silver in 1973.
Hard Money
The 1970s were not kind to the U.S. dollar.
Years of wartime spending and unresponsive monetary policy pushed inflation upward throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s. Then, in October of 1973, war broke out in the Middle East and an oil embargo was declared against the United States. Inflation jumped above 10%. It would stay high throughout the decade, peaking in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution at an annual average of 13.5% in 1980.
Over the same period of time, the global monetary system underwent a historic transformation. Since the first Roosevelt administration, the U.S. dollar had been pegged to the value of gold at a predictable rate of $35 per ounce. But in 1971, President Nixon, responding to inflationary pressures, suspended that relationship. For the first time in modern history, the paper dollar did not represent some fixed amount of tangible, precious metal sitting in a vault somewhere.
For conservative commodity traders like the Hunts, who blamed government spending for inflation and held grave reservations about the viability of fiat currency, the perceived stability of precious metal offered a financial safe harbor. It was illegal to trade gold in the early 1970s, so the Hunts turned to the next best thing.
📷

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics; chart by Priceonomics

As an investment, there was a lot to like about silver. The Hunts were not alone in fleeing to bullion amid all the inflation and geopolitical turbulence, so the price was ticking up. Plus, light-sensitive silver halide is a key component of photographic film. With the growth of the consumer photography market, new production from mines struggled to keep up with demand.
And so, in 1973, Bunker and Herbert bought over 35 million ounces of silver, most of which they flew to Switzerland in specifically designed airplanes guarded by armed Texas ranch hands. According to one source, the Hunt’s purchases were big enough to move the global market.
But silver was not the Hunts' only speculative venture in the 1970s. Nor was it the only one that got them into trouble with regulators.
Soy Before Silver
In 1977, the price of soybeans was rising fast. Trade restrictions on Brazil and growing demand from China made the legume a hot commodity, and both Bunker and Herbert decided to enter the futures market in April of that year.
A future is an agreement to buy or sell some quantity of a commodity at an agreed upon price at a later date. If someone contracts to buy soybeans in the future (they are said to take the “long” position), they will benefit if the price of soybeans rise, since they have locked in the lower price ahead of time. Likewise, if someone contracts to sell (that’s called the “short” position), they benefit if the price falls, since they have locked in the old, higher price.
While futures contracts can be used by soybean farmers and soy milk producers to guard against price swings, most futures are traded by people who wouldn’t necessarily know tofu from cream cheese. As a de facto insurance contract against market volatility, futures can be used to hedge other investments or simply to gamble on prices going up (by going long) or down (by going short).
When the Hunts decided to go long in the soybean futures market, they went very, very long. Between Bunker, Herbert, and the accounts of five of their children, the Hunts collectively purchased the right to buy one-third of the entire autumn soybean harvest of the United States.
To some, it appeared as if the Hunts were attempting to corner the soybean market.
In its simplest version, a corner occurs when someone buys up all (or at least, most) of the available quantity of a commodity. This creates an artificial shortage, which drives up the price, and allows the market manipulator to sell some of his stockpile at a higher profit.
Futures markets introduce some additional complexity to the cornerer’s scheme. Recall that when a trader takes a short position on a contract, he or she is pledging to sell a certain amount of product to the holder of the long position. But if the holder of the long position just so happens to be sitting on all the readily available supply of the commodity under contract, the short seller faces an unenviable choice: go scrounge up some of the very scarce product in order to “make delivery” or just pay the cornerer a hefty premium and nullify the deal entirely.
In this case, the cornerer is actually counting on the shorts to do the latter, says Craig Pirrong, professor of finance at the University of Houston. If too many short sellers find that it actually costs less to deliver the product, the market manipulator will be stuck with warehouses full of inventory. Finance experts refer to selling the all the excess supply after building a corner as “burying the corpse.”
“That is when the price collapses,” explains Pirrong. “But if the number of deliveries isn’t too high, the loss from selling at the low price after the corner is smaller than the profit from selling contracts at the high price.”
📷

The Chicago Board of Trade trading floor. Photo credit: Jeremy Kemp

Even so, when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission found that a single family from Texas had contracted to buy a sizable portion of the 1977 soybean crop, they did not accuse the Hunts of outright market manipulation. Instead, noting that the Hunts had exceeded the 3 million bushel aggregate limit on soybean holdings by about 20 million, the CFTC noted that the Hunt’s “excessive holdings threaten disruption of the market and could cause serious injury to the American public.” The CFTC ordered the Hunts to sell and to pay a penalty of $500,000.
Though the Hunts made tens of millions of dollars on paper while soybean prices skyrocketed, it’s unclear whether they were able to cash out before the regulatory intervention. In any case, the Hunts were none too pleased with the decision.
“Apparently the CFTC is trying to repeal the law of supply and demand,” Bunker complained to the press.
Silver Thursday
Despite the run in with regulators, the Hunts were not dissuaded. Bunker and Herbert had eased up on silver after their initial big buy in 1973, but in the fall of 1979, they were back with a vengeance. By the end of the year, Bunker and Herbert owned 21 million ounces of physical silver each. They had even larger positions in the silver futures market: Bunker was long on 45 million ounces, while Herbert held contracts for 20 million. Their little brother Lamar also had a more “modest” position.
By the new year, with every dollar increase in the price of silver, the Hunts were making $100 million on paper. But unlike most investors, when their profitable futures contracts expired, they took delivery. As in 1973, they arranged to have the metal flown to Switzerland. Intentional or not, this helped create a shortage of the metal for industrial supply.
Naturally, the industrialists were unhappy. From a spot price of around $6 per ounce in early 1979, the price of silver shot up to $50.42 in January of 1980. In the same week, silver futures contracts were trading at $46.80. Film companies like Kodak saw costs go through the roof, while the British film producer, Ilford, was forced to lay off workers. Traditional bullion dealers, caught in a squeeze, cried foul to the commodity exchanges, and the New York jewelry house Tiffany & Co. took out a full page ad in the New York Times slamming the “unconscionable” Hunt brothers. They were right to single out the Hunts; in mid-January, they controlled 69% of all the silver futures contracts on the Commodity Exchange (COMEX) in New York.
📷

Source: New York Times

But as the high prices persisted, new silver began to come out of the woodwork.
“In the U.S., people rifled their dresser drawers and sofa cushions to find dimes and quarters with silver content and had them melted down,” says Pirrong, from the University of Houston. “Silver is a classic part of a bride’s trousseau in India, and when prices got high, women sold silver out of their trousseaus.”
According to a Washington Post article published that March, the D.C. police warned residents of a rash of home burglaries targeting silver.
Unfortunately for the Hunts, all this new supply had a predictable effect. Rather than close out their contracts, short sellers suddenly found it was easier to get their hands on new supplies of silver and deliver.
“The main factor that has caused corners to fail [throughout history] is that the manipulator has underestimated how much will be delivered to him if he succeeds [at] raising the price to artificial levels,” says Pirrong. “Eventually, the Hunts ran out of money to pay for all the silver that was thrown at them.”
In financial terms, the brothers had a large corpse on their hands—and no way to bury it.
This proved to be an especially big problem, because it wasn’t just the Hunt fortune that was on the line. Of the $6.6 billion worth of silver the Hunts held at the top of the market, the brothers had “only” spent a little over $1 billion of their own money. The rest was borrowed from over 20 banks and brokerage houses.
At the same time, COMEX decided to crack down. On January 7, 1980, the exchange’s board of governors announced that it would cap the size of silver futures exposure to 3 million ounces. Those in excess of the cap (say, by the tens of millions) were given until the following month to bring themselves into compliance. But that was too long for the Chicago Board of Trade exchange, which suspended the issue of any new silver futures on January 21. Silver futures traders would only be allowed to square up old contracts.
Predictably, silver prices began to slide. As the various banks and other firms that had backed the Hunt bullion binge began to recognize the tenuousness of their financial position, they issued margin calls, asking the brothers to put up more money as collateral for their debts. The Hunts, unable to sell silver lest they trigger a panic, borrowed even more. By early March, futures contracts had fallen to the mid-$30 range.
Matters finally came to a head on March 25, when one of the Hunts’ largest backers, the Bache Group, asked for $100 million more in collateral. The brothers were out of cash, and Bache was unwilling to accept silver in its place, as it had been doing throughout the month. With the Hunts in default, Bache did the only thing it could to start recouping its losses: it start to unload silver.
On March 27, “Silver Thursday,” the silver futures market dropped by a third to $10.80. Just two months earlier, these contracts had been trading at four times that amount.
The Aftermath
After the oil bust of the early 1980s and a series of lawsuits polished off the remainder of the Hunt brothers’ once historic fortune, the two declared bankruptcy in 1988. Bunker, who had been worth an estimated $16 billion in the 1960s, emerged with under $10 million to his name. That’s not exactly chump change, but it wasn’t enough to maintain his 500-plus stable of horses,.
The Hunts almost dragged their lenders into bankruptcy too—and with them, a sizable chunk of the U.S. financial system. Over twenty financial institutions had extended over a billion dollars in credit to the Hunt brothers. The default and resulting collapse of silver prices blew holes in balance sheets across Wall Street. A privately orchestrated bailout loan from a number of banks allowed the brothers to start paying off their debts and keep their creditors afloat, but the markets and regulators were rattled.
Silver Spot Prices Per Ounce (January, 1979 - June, 1980)
📷

Source: Trading Economics

In the words of then CFTC chief James Stone, the Hunts’ antics had threatened to punch a hole in the “financial fabric of the United States” like nothing had in decades. Writing about the entire episode a year later, Harper’s Magazine described Silver Thursday as “the first great panic since October 1929.”
The trouble was not over for the Hunts. In the following years, the brothers were dragged before Congressional hearings, got into a legal spat with their lenders, and were sued by a Peruvian mineral marketing company, which had suffered big losses in the crash. In 1988, a New York City jury found for the South American firm, levying a penalty of over $130 million against the Hunts and finding that they had deliberately conspired to corner the silver market.
Surprisingly, there is still some disagreement on that point.
Bunker Hunt attributed the whole affair to the political motives of COMEX insiders and regulators. Referring to himself later as “a favorite whipping boy” of an eastern financial establishment riddled with liberals and socialists, Bunker and his brother, Herbert, are still perceived as martyrs by some on the far-right.
“Political and financial insiders repeatedly changed the rules of the game,” wrote the New American. “There is little evidence to support the ‘corner the market’ narrative.”
Though the Hunt brothers clearly amassed a staggering amount of silver and silver derivatives at the end of the 1970s, it is impossible to prove definitively that market manipulation was in their hearts. Maybe, as the Hunts always claimed, they just really believed in the enduring value of silver.
Or maybe, as others have noted, the Hunt brothers had no idea what they were doing. Call it the stupidity defense.
“They’re terribly unsophisticated,” an anonymous associated was quoted as saying of the Hunts in a Chicago Tribune article from 1989. “They make all the mistakes most other people make,” said another.
p.s. credit to Ben Christopher
​

Story Time: Silver short squeeze

How the Hunt Brothers Cornered the Silver Market and Then Lost it All

TL:DR: yes its long. Grab a beer.

​
Until his dying day in 2014, Nelson Bunker Hunt, who had once been the world’s wealthiest man, denied that he and his brother plotted to corner the global silver market.
Sure, back in 1980, Bunker, his younger brother Herbert, and other members of the Hunt clan owned roughly two-thirds of all the privately held silver on earth. But the historic stockpiling of bullion hadn’t been a ploy to manipulate the market, they and their sizable legal team would insist in the following years. Instead, it was a strategy to hedge against the voracious inflation of the 1970s—a monumental bet against the U.S. dollar.
Whatever the motive, it was a bet that went historically sour. The debt-fueled boom and bust of the global silver market not only decimated the Hunt fortune, but threatened to take down the U.S. financial system.
The panic of “Silver Thursday” took place over 35 years ago, but it still raises questions about the nature of financial manipulation. While many view the Hunt brothers as members of a long succession of white collar crooks, from Charles Ponzi to Bernie Madoff, others see the endearingly eccentric Texans as the victims of overstepping regulators and vindictive insiders who couldn’t stand the thought of being played by a couple of southern yokels.
In either case, the story of the Hunt brothers just goes to show how difficult it can be to distinguish illegal market manipulation from the old fashioned wheeling and dealing that make our markets work.
The Real-Life Ewings
Whatever their foibles, the Hunts make for an interesting cast of characters. Evidently CBS thought so; the family is rumored to be the basis for the Ewings, the fictional Texas oil dynasty of Dallas fame.
Sitting at the top of the family tree was H.L. Hunt, a man who allegedly purchased his first oil field with poker winnings and made a fortune drilling in east Texas. H.L. was a well-known oddball to boot, and his sons inherited many of their father’s quirks.
For one, there was the stinginess. Despite being the richest man on earth in the 1960s, Bunker Hunt (who went by his middle name), along with his younger brothers Herbert (first name William) and Lamar, cultivated an image as unpretentious good old boys. They drove old Cadillacs, flew coach, and when they eventually went to trial in New York City in 1988, they took the subway. As one Texas editor was quoted in the New York Times, Bunker Hunt was “the kind of guy who orders chicken-fried steak and Jello-O, spills some on his tie, and then goes out and buys all the silver in the world.”
Cheap suits aside, the Hunts were not without their ostentation. At the end of the 1970s, Bunker boasted a stable of over 500 horses and his little brother Lamar owned the Kansas City Chiefs. All six children of H.L.’s first marriage (the patriarch of the Hunt family had fifteen children by three women before he died in 1974) lived on estates befitting the scions of a Texas billionaire. These lifestyles were financed by trusts, but also risky investments in oil, real estate, and a host of commodities including sugar beets, soybeans, and, before long, silver.
The Hunt brothers also inherited their father’s political inclinations. A zealous anti-Communist, Bunker Hunt bankrolled conservative causes and was a prominent member of the John Birch Society, a group whose founder once speculated that Dwight Eisenhower was a “dedicated, conscious agent” of Soviet conspiracy. In November of 1963, Hunt sponsored a particularly ill-timed political campaign, which distributed pamphlets around Dallas condemning President Kennedy for alleged slights against the Constitution on the day that he was assassinated. JFK conspiracy theorists have been obsessed with Hunt ever since.
In fact, it was the Hunt brand of politics that partially explains what led Bunker and Herbert to start buying silver in 1973.
Hard Money
The 1970s were not kind to the U.S. dollar.
Years of wartime spending and unresponsive monetary policy pushed inflation upward throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s. Then, in October of 1973, war broke out in the Middle East and an oil embargo was declared against the United States. Inflation jumped above 10%. It would stay high throughout the decade, peaking in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution at an annual average of 13.5% in 1980.
Over the same period of time, the global monetary system underwent a historic transformation. Since the first Roosevelt administration, the U.S. dollar had been pegged to the value of gold at a predictable rate of $35 per ounce. But in 1971, President Nixon, responding to inflationary pressures, suspended that relationship. For the first time in modern history, the paper dollar did not represent some fixed amount of tangible, precious metal sitting in a vault somewhere.
For conservative commodity traders like the Hunts, who blamed government spending for inflation and held grave reservations about the viability of fiat currency, the perceived stability of precious metal offered a financial safe harbor. It was illegal to trade gold in the early 1970s, so the Hunts turned to the next best thing.
📷

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics; chart by Priceonomics

As an investment, there was a lot to like about silver. The Hunts were not alone in fleeing to bullion amid all the inflation and geopolitical turbulence, so the price was ticking up. Plus, light-sensitive silver halide is a key component of photographic film. With the growth of the consumer photography market, new production from mines struggled to keep up with demand.
And so, in 1973, Bunker and Herbert bought over 35 million ounces of silver, most of which they flew to Switzerland in specifically designed airplanes guarded by armed Texas ranch hands. According to one source, the Hunt’s purchases were big enough to move the global market.
But silver was not the Hunts' only speculative venture in the 1970s. Nor was it the only one that got them into trouble with regulators.
Soy Before Silver
In 1977, the price of soybeans was rising fast. Trade restrictions on Brazil and growing demand from China made the legume a hot commodity, and both Bunker and Herbert decided to enter the futures market in April of that year.
A future is an agreement to buy or sell some quantity of a commodity at an agreed upon price at a later date. If someone contracts to buy soybeans in the future (they are said to take the “long” position), they will benefit if the price of soybeans rise, since they have locked in the lower price ahead of time. Likewise, if someone contracts to sell (that’s called the “short” position), they benefit if the price falls, since they have locked in the old, higher price.
While futures contracts can be used by soybean farmers and soy milk producers to guard against price swings, most futures are traded by people who wouldn’t necessarily know tofu from cream cheese. As a de facto insurance contract against market volatility, futures can be used to hedge other investments or simply to gamble on prices going up (by going long) or down (by going short).
When the Hunts decided to go long in the soybean futures market, they went very, very long. Between Bunker, Herbert, and the accounts of five of their children, the Hunts collectively purchased the right to buy one-third of the entire autumn soybean harvest of the United States.
To some, it appeared as if the Hunts were attempting to corner the soybean market.
In its simplest version, a corner occurs when someone buys up all (or at least, most) of the available quantity of a commodity. This creates an artificial shortage, which drives up the price, and allows the market manipulator to sell some of his stockpile at a higher profit.
Futures markets introduce some additional complexity to the cornerer’s scheme. Recall that when a trader takes a short position on a contract, he or she is pledging to sell a certain amount of product to the holder of the long position. But if the holder of the long position just so happens to be sitting on all the readily available supply of the commodity under contract, the short seller faces an unenviable choice: go scrounge up some of the very scarce product in order to “make delivery” or just pay the cornerer a hefty premium and nullify the deal entirely.
In this case, the cornerer is actually counting on the shorts to do the latter, says Craig Pirrong, professor of finance at the University of Houston. If too many short sellers find that it actually costs less to deliver the product, the market manipulator will be stuck with warehouses full of inventory. Finance experts refer to selling the all the excess supply after building a corner as “burying the corpse.”
“That is when the price collapses,” explains Pirrong. “But if the number of deliveries isn’t too high, the loss from selling at the low price after the corner is smaller than the profit from selling contracts at the high price.”
📷

The Chicago Board of Trade trading floor. Photo credit: Jeremy Kemp

Even so, when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission found that a single family from Texas had contracted to buy a sizable portion of the 1977 soybean crop, they did not accuse the Hunts of outright market manipulation. Instead, noting that the Hunts had exceeded the 3 million bushel aggregate limit on soybean holdings by about 20 million, the CFTC noted that the Hunt’s “excessive holdings threaten disruption of the market and could cause serious injury to the American public.” The CFTC ordered the Hunts to sell and to pay a penalty of $500,000.
Though the Hunts made tens of millions of dollars on paper while soybean prices skyrocketed, it’s unclear whether they were able to cash out before the regulatory intervention. In any case, the Hunts were none too pleased with the decision.
“Apparently the CFTC is trying to repeal the law of supply and demand,” Bunker complained to the press.
Silver Thursday
Despite the run in with regulators, the Hunts were not dissuaded. Bunker and Herbert had eased up on silver after their initial big buy in 1973, but in the fall of 1979, they were back with a vengeance. By the end of the year, Bunker and Herbert owned 21 million ounces of physical silver each. They had even larger positions in the silver futures market: Bunker was long on 45 million ounces, while Herbert held contracts for 20 million. Their little brother Lamar also had a more “modest” position.
By the new year, with every dollar increase in the price of silver, the Hunts were making $100 million on paper. But unlike most investors, when their profitable futures contracts expired, they took delivery. As in 1973, they arranged to have the metal flown to Switzerland. Intentional or not, this helped create a shortage of the metal for industrial supply.
Naturally, the industrialists were unhappy. From a spot price of around $6 per ounce in early 1979, the price of silver shot up to $50.42 in January of 1980. In the same week, silver futures contracts were trading at $46.80. Film companies like Kodak saw costs go through the roof, while the British film producer, Ilford, was forced to lay off workers. Traditional bullion dealers, caught in a squeeze, cried foul to the commodity exchanges, and the New York jewelry house Tiffany & Co. took out a full page ad in the New York Times slamming the “unconscionable” Hunt brothers. They were right to single out the Hunts; in mid-January, they controlled 69% of all the silver futures contracts on the Commodity Exchange (COMEX) in New York.
📷

Source: New York Times

But as the high prices persisted, new silver began to come out of the woodwork.
“In the U.S., people rifled their dresser drawers and sofa cushions to find dimes and quarters with silver content and had them melted down,” says Pirrong, from the University of Houston. “Silver is a classic part of a bride’s trousseau in India, and when prices got high, women sold silver out of their trousseaus.”
According to a Washington Post article published that March, the D.C. police warned residents of a rash of home burglaries targeting silver.
Unfortunately for the Hunts, all this new supply had a predictable effect. Rather than close out their contracts, short sellers suddenly found it was easier to get their hands on new supplies of silver and deliver.
“The main factor that has caused corners to fail [throughout history] is that the manipulator has underestimated how much will be delivered to him if he succeeds [at] raising the price to artificial levels,” says Pirrong. “Eventually, the Hunts ran out of money to pay for all the silver that was thrown at them.”
In financial terms, the brothers had a large corpse on their hands—and no way to bury it.
This proved to be an especially big problem, because it wasn’t just the Hunt fortune that was on the line. Of the $6.6 billion worth of silver the Hunts held at the top of the market, the brothers had “only” spent a little over $1 billion of their own money. The rest was borrowed from over 20 banks and brokerage houses.
At the same time, COMEX decided to crack down. On January 7, 1980, the exchange’s board of governors announced that it would cap the size of silver futures exposure to 3 million ounces. Those in excess of the cap (say, by the tens of millions) were given until the following month to bring themselves into compliance. But that was too long for the Chicago Board of Trade exchange, which suspended the issue of any new silver futures on January 21. Silver futures traders would only be allowed to square up old contracts.
Predictably, silver prices began to slide. As the various banks and other firms that had backed the Hunt bullion binge began to recognize the tenuousness of their financial position, they issued margin calls, asking the brothers to put up more money as collateral for their debts. The Hunts, unable to sell silver lest they trigger a panic, borrowed even more. By early March, futures contracts had fallen to the mid-$30 range.
Matters finally came to a head on March 25, when one of the Hunts’ largest backers, the Bache Group, asked for $100 million more in collateral. The brothers were out of cash, and Bache was unwilling to accept silver in its place, as it had been doing throughout the month. With the Hunts in default, Bache did the only thing it could to start recouping its losses: it start to unload silver.
On March 27, “Silver Thursday,” the silver futures market dropped by a third to $10.80. Just two months earlier, these contracts had been trading at four times that amount.
The Aftermath
After the oil bust of the early 1980s and a series of lawsuits polished off the remainder of the Hunt brothers’ once historic fortune, the two declared bankruptcy in 1988. Bunker, who had been worth an estimated $16 billion in the 1960s, emerged with under $10 million to his name. That’s not exactly chump change, but it wasn’t enough to maintain his 500-plus stable of horses,.
The Hunts almost dragged their lenders into bankruptcy too—and with them, a sizable chunk of the U.S. financial system. Over twenty financial institutions had extended over a billion dollars in credit to the Hunt brothers. The default and resulting collapse of silver prices blew holes in balance sheets across Wall Street. A privately orchestrated bailout loan from a number of banks allowed the brothers to start paying off their debts and keep their creditors afloat, but the markets and regulators were rattled.
Silver Spot Prices Per Ounce (January, 1979 - June, 1980)
📷

Source: Trading Economics

In the words of then CFTC chief James Stone, the Hunts’ antics had threatened to punch a hole in the “financial fabric of the United States” like nothing had in decades. Writing about the entire episode a year later, Harper’s Magazine described Silver Thursday as “the first great panic since October 1929.”
The trouble was not over for the Hunts. In the following years, the brothers were dragged before Congressional hearings, got into a legal spat with their lenders, and were sued by a Peruvian mineral marketing company, which had suffered big losses in the crash. In 1988, a New York City jury found for the South American firm, levying a penalty of over $130 million against the Hunts and finding that they had deliberately conspired to corner the silver market.
Surprisingly, there is still some disagreement on that point.
Bunker Hunt attributed the whole affair to the political motives of COMEX insiders and regulators. Referring to himself later as “a favorite whipping boy” of an eastern financial establishment riddled with liberals and socialists, Bunker and his brother, Herbert, are still perceived as martyrs by some on the far-right.
“Political and financial insiders repeatedly changed the rules of the game,” wrote the New American. “There is little evidence to support the ‘corner the market’ narrative.”
Though the Hunt brothers clearly amassed a staggering amount of silver and silver derivatives at the end of the 1970s, it is impossible to prove definitively that market manipulation was in their hearts. Maybe, as the Hunts always claimed, they just really believed in the enduring value of silver.
Or maybe, as others have noted, the Hunt brothers had no idea what they were doing. Call it the stupidity defense.
“They’re terribly unsophisticated,” an anonymous associated was quoted as saying of the Hunts in a Chicago Tribune article from 1989. “They make all the mistakes most other people make,” said another.
p.s. credit to Ben Christopher

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 60%. (I'm a bot)

The Gambling Industry Committee issued a call for urgent action on the UK's problem gambling rates, after a report "Gambling Harm - Time for Action" from House of Lords set the number of problem gamblers at roughly 300,000 and 55,000 of these are minors.
Another alarming statistic is that problem gambling leads to one suicide a day.
In addition to the harms faced by the UK's roughly 300,000 problem gamblers, each problem gambler is estimated to directly impact the life of at least six others, by way of family fights, abusive situations, unemployment, inability to continue paying one's mortgage, and suicides.
The report mentioned that the combination of gambling liberalization laws and increased smartphone presence has made it nearly impossible for problem gamblers to avoid gambling.
According to Lord Grade, much of the blame lies in with the UK Gambling Commission, which he said regulated gambling firms with a loose hand.
The GIC has called for more stringent guidelines for the behavior of gambling firms, as well as a rewrite of the UK's gambling law to apply more specifically to today's digital gambling landscape.

Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: gamble^#1 problem^#2 GIC^#3 suicide^#4 Industry^#5
Post found in /worldnews.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.

British TV talents from Lucy Prebble to Paul Abbott are helping to diversify drama – by spotting and mentoring emerging writers. We talk to some of them
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/19/tv-screenwriters-mentoring-programme-lucy-prebble-screenskills-dancing-ledge
There has never been a better time to be a screenwriter. This is what playwright and screenwriter Lucy Prebble describes as “a golden age of television”. Alongside established channels, new streaming services such as Apple and Disney jostle competitively with Amazon and Netflix for viewers and hits. “They’re approaching everybody, going: work for us, work for us, work for us,” Prebble says (in her case, this is no surprise as, with HBO’s Succession, she is, as writer and co-executive producer, the hottest of properties).
And yet, a report from May 2018 on gender inequality, which gathered data for more than 10 years, revealed that only 28% of all UK TV episodes were written by women (a dire statistic that has begun to shift with more top female screenwriters – among them Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Michaela Coel and Sharon Horgan – making headlines). A 2018 open letter from female TV writers to drama commissioners noted, too, that “our BAME colleagues are consistently conspicuous by their absence.” Film director Steve McQueen’s recent outburst against the controversially non-diverse Bafta film awards could equally have been lobbed at television commissioners. The industry remains claustrophobically elitist. It is depressing to hear Paul Abbott and his mentor describing script editors at the BBC as predominantly Oxbridge, even if Abbott concedes that this is starting to change.
How do you identify screenwriters who will truthfully reflect contemporary UK society on TV? And once you’ve found the talent, how can new writers be helped? For let’s not be fooled: despite the demand for screenplays, it remains hard for newcomers to break in. This is where a new TV bursary scheme, funded by the industry body ScreenSkills with the UK-based production company Dancing Ledge, comes in. The proactive idea of the ScreenSkills New Writers Programme has been to invite a selection of Britain’s top screenwriters to mentor a writer of their choice.
The scheme was not set up just to help with developing scripts. It is about industry introductions and – “the biggest hurdle” – getting commissions. ScreenSkills’ Kaye Elliott explains that because of the huge sums of money involved in producing prime-time TV, producers are nervous about the gamble of investing in new talent. Jack Thorne who, like Prebble, is not about to be out of a job, urges the industry to commission more “entry-level dramas built around new voices”. And Paul Abbott makes the point that “‘commercially ready’ should not a be dirty phrase. You need to teach writers to be ready to sell.” Laurence Bowen CEO of Dancing Ledge emphasises that the “genius” of the scheme is the “nurturing, cherishing and support.”
I met a selection from the remarkable group of mentors and mentees at a London hotel: Paul Abbott mentoring Yero Timi-Biu; Jed Mercurio mentoring Daniel Brierley; Lucy Prebble mentoring Temi Wilkey; Jimmy McGovern mentoring Tony Schumacher; Jack Thorne mentoring Sharma Walfall, Levi David Addai mentoring Nicôle Lecky; Amanda Coe mentoring Rose Cartwright; Kay Mellor mentoring Grace Night, Sally Wainwright mentoring Scott Mather.
Advertisement
Brilliant young, female writers (some of them interviewed )below – hearteningly – abounded. There was also 52-year-old Liverpudlian original Tony Schumacher, new to scriptwriting, who made me laugh, telling me how Jimmy McGovern , first over a pint and then after several days in McGovern’s kitchen (“Jimmy’s a great listener which is what makes him a great writer”), encouraged him to write a screenplay about his life. Schumacher is an ex-copper who had a breakdown, became homeless, and went on to become a salesman all over the world –“underpants in the Caribbean, trucks in the UK, jewellery…” – before becoming a writer. I was also fascinated by the fearless articulacy and courage of Rose Cartwright, author of the C4 series Pure about a form of OCD that involves not being able to suppress inappropriate sexual thoughts and now exploring a new subject. I was impressed, too, by the poise of Daniel Brierley who has written a script about the Metropolitan police bomb squad and had to cordon off my questions because a broadcaster is already interested in his work.

Lucy Prebble & Temi Wilkey: ‘Temi has been brave enough to do a new thing in a new way’

Co-executive producer and writer on Succession**,** Lucy Prebble first met Temi Wilkey when Wilkey was performing on stage in west London
‘There are two things I look for in a young writer,” says Lucy Prebble as we wait for Temi Wilkey (she has been held up at the first day of rehearsals for her debut play, The High Table, opening at the Bush theatre, London, next month). “Do they write good line-by-line dialogue? And is what they choose to write about exciting? If you have both things, you’re a real writer. Temi can do both.” And that is not all she can do. When Prebble first met her, it was after watching her act in a Lars Norén double bill at west London’s Coronet theatre, directed by Anthony Nielson (Prebble’s partner). Prebble could see that, as an actor, she was “compelling yet vulnerable”.
Click here for more:
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/19/tv-screenwriters-mentoring-programme-lucy-prebble-screenskills-dancing-ledge

FunFair. An in-depth analysis.

FunFair is a decentralised gaming technology platform which uses the Ethereum blockchain, smart contracts, and proprietary state channels to deliver casino solutions with games that are fun, fast and fair.
FunFair is not a casino. Instead, FunFair will license its technology out to casino operators. This differentiates FunFair from the competition in the blockchain gambling sphere – being a casino carries with it risks and burdens stemming from statutory and regulatory hurdles. Being a licensing entity instead, provides legal safeguards and will enable a more widely used platform.
I’d like to touch on the many aspects of FunFair that makes it an extremely promising and undervalued project. However, I won’t be making any price projections. As always, do your own research. In this case, I’ve done a lot of it for you.
The market.
Online gambling is a large market: currently over 47.1 billion dollars, and projected to continue increasing. https://www.statista.com/statistics/270728/market-volume-of-online-gaming-worldwide/.
The problem and the solution.
Trust. Traditional online casinos rely on you trusting them to be fair. The chance of red coming up on roulette is 48.65%. How do you know your traditional online casino is giving you those odds? You don’t – you need to trust them. Most online casinos are incorporated in island microstates. Do those nations have online casino regulators? Do they possess the willingness, manpower, and expertise to audit online casinos?
FunFair puts the gambling on the blockchain so it’s trustless – you know you have a 48.65% chance of having red come up. It’s fair.
The team.
FunFair has their ground covered and bases loaded. With their team of 30+ professionals they are way ahead of the competition. You may know CEO Jez San, OBE, from his career track: Argonaut Games (founder), Star Fox (programmer), and PKR Poker (founder). He has been in the gaming industry for more than two decades, and has built valuable relationships along the way. Constantly engaging with the FunFair community through Telegram, Discord, and Reddit, it seems as though he leaves no engaging question unanswered. Alongside Jez as COO is David Greyling (https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidgreyling/), former International Director of William Hill, one of the world’s leading betting and gaming companies and one of the most trusted brands in the industry. (https://www.williamhillplc.com/about/).
Further, FunFair is looking to expand – and fast. They expect to have a team of 50+ people in the not-so-distant future, as they are currently hiring business and marketing professionals. So, if you’re looking for an opportunity to showcase your expertise in these fields, try your shot at securing a position within the company! (https://www.funfair.io/careers) The FunFair team’s base of operations is in London, UK.
The platform.
FunFair presents its casino operators and players with a gaming opportunity never seen before:

• Decentralized, serverless
• Provably fair, blockchain-based
• Trust-less outcomes that can be witnessed on verifiable smart contracts
• Instant cashouts – FunFair does not hold your funds
• Accessible through web browser on desktop or mobile
• Fun games with an exciting user interface
• Fast gameplay conducted through Fate Channels – the team’s custom version of State Channels. The Fate Channels developed by the FunFair team are superior technology. In very basic terms, Fate Channels are what supports the communication during a game session between the player and the casino. They provide a fast, low cost method for random number generation, starting gaming sessions, ending them and settling with smart contracts on the blockchain. This allows for secure, deterministic, fair gameplay. There is only one gas fee needed to start the game session. For an in-depth explanation that you won’t be disappointed in reading, please refer the the technical white paper here: https://funfair.io/wp-content/uploads/FunFair-Technical-White-Paper.pdf

FunFair is preparing for mass adoption and has a working solution for Ethereum network congestion. Fate Channels.
For more discussion both technical and company related, have a look at both whitepapers: https://funfair.io/explore/whitepapers/
The games.
FunFair is pursuing a full suite of traditional casino games:

• Blackjack
• Baccarat
• Craps
• Roulette
• Slot machines (various types)
• Let It Ride
• Caribbean Stud
• 5-card Poker
• 3-card Poker
• + more

You can test all of these games at https://showcase.funfair.io/. Some are currently testable on the Ethereum testnet.
FunFair is one of the only projects in the cryptocurrency space that has a working product. They are set to launch in the beginning of Q2 of 2018.
What have they been up to? Are they on track?
Consistently ahead of schedule and on top of their roadmap in many ways, FunFair was a sponsor of DevCon 3 and had one of the most engaged-with booth setups. They connected and networked positively with many developers at the event. https://twitter.com/FunFairTech/status/926113230677856256
They’ve recently received the Malta iGaming award for “Best ICO of 2017” which was determined by a nomination panel of 5 industry experts, and a panel of 32 judges with many years of combined experience in gaming. The awards were hosted during Malta Gaming Week; a very large event attended by many business executives, authorities, and even local government: http://maltagamingweek.com/
They’ve been constantly updating their product showcase, and adhere to all feedback received by community members. Their new showcase was designed to “be able to cope with adding more games easily by the team + third parties, and also to be configurable by casino operators.” Some of their product update can be found here: https://funfair.io/awards-latest-product-update/
How does the token (FUN) derive value?
The technology will be licensed to casino operators for free or at extremely low cost – itself a major draw.
FunFair does not issue dividends or offer profit sharing – FunFair has no profit to share. The technology will be licensed to casino operators for free – itself a major draw for existing casino operators to adopt the FunFair platform. FunFair does not take a cut of the profits from any of the casino operators – they’re free to keep all profits to themselves. With a fixed supply, the value in FUN is derived from scarcity of the token in the marketplace. Scarcity comes from four sources:

• Casinos holding FUN as part of their bankroll (described more below)
• Players holding FUN and not cashing it out immediately after they play
• Speculators (investors) holding FUN anticipating it will increase in value
• Token burn: a small amount of FUN will be slowly destroyed over time. The exact amount has not been announced, though it will likely be quite small.

That first scarcity factor will be key, as casinos will need large bankrolls of FUN to operate a large casino with multiple games and high max bets. Think about it this way: if a casino has a roulette table with 1 seat, and a 5000 FUN bet limit, it will need to be armed with at least 175,000 FUN to let a player come by and spin the wheel (5000 max bet * 35, the max payout on roulette of a single number hitting).
Plans for the future & the latest company update .

• New high-level employee added to the team: Stefan Kovach- was Brand/Marketing director for large gaming brands such as bwin and Poker Stars for many years. https://uk.linkedin.com/in/stefankovach
  
• Development will be finished for Q1 2018, allowing for advancement in operations and partnerships at the beginning of Q2 2018.
  
• FunFair is in the process of acquiring their Remote Gambling Software License, which will enable them to license their technology to existing and regulated casino operators.
  
• FunFair has steady operational costs covered for the entire year, as well as an 85,000 ETH reserve/storage for any and all upcoming costs.
  An Updated Roadmap (December 20th, 2017)
  

Q1:
In January we will be submitting to the UK Gambling Commission our application for a Remote Gambling Software License.
In February we will be attending ICE Gaming, an international B2B conferencing event, where we will be introducing the FunFair brand to the gaming industry.
By the end of March V1 of the FunFair blockchain casino nears completion. This release will allow for real FUN to be used on the Main Ethereum Network for the first time.
Q2:
Operator On-Boarding: Deploying the FunFair casino in partnership with a friendly operator; objective: learn, adapt & iterate the technology as part of a soft launch.
Further product enhancements and features will continue to be worked on and, as we scale, we expect to introduce more regular product releases.
Engaging with 3rd party game developers, publishing API documentation and sample games and contracts.
Q3-4:
Product feature enhancements and further operator on-boarding. Comprehensive operator reporting and administration tools.

Full update: https://funfair.io/company-update-december-2017/
So, if you’ve read this far, you can now see how professional and enlightening this team has been with their project. I believe that within the following months, FunFair will show us exactly why they are one of the best projects in the cryptocurrency space right now and beyond.
TL;DR - Licensor of provably fair blockchain casino technology. Professional team of 30+ employees, full transparency in company actions and initiatives, proprietary technology that is near-ready for mass adoption, consistently on-track with road map. They have tackled a problem head-on with the gambling industry, and are ready to provide their solution. Strong community of both members and developers.
Special thanks to u/Commissar_ for the assistance in writing this.

So the person who made that post in our sidebar about why Trump is a racist deleted his account meaning the post got removed and I decided to make a new, "Final Response to Why Trump is a racist."
And like all of the other final response posts I could just list all the horrible things Trump has done. But the thing is that I've seen these masterposts reposted on forums and blogs and even places like, /askatrumpsupporter and the justification for them is always the same:

One of Trump's personal friends and one of Americas largest Cocaine Kingpins is arrested in Ohio for drug trafficking, despite not having committed any crimes in New Jersey his case is inexplicably moved to New Jersey where the Judge for the case was Trump's sister. Trump sends his sister a letter pleading that she give the man leniency calling him an important member of the community. He is then sentenced to 18 months in prison while his underlings are sentenced to 20 years. After he is released from prison Trump lets the drug kingpin stay in one of his multi-million dollar properties and gives the man a job overseeing Trump's Helicopter fleet.

"Fake News"
"Breitbart has a liberal bias."

Trump was fined after it was proven he had committed a felony by lying to the Securities and Exchange Commission about company earnings.

"They are lying because they are jealous of Trump."
"Hillary paid them to write that story because she knew that in 20 years Trump would run for President and it would discredit him."
So instead of just briefly listing every single reason Trump is a racist, and have it all be brushed off as fake news. I'm going to go into specific detail about why Trump is a racist.
Now the clearest example of Trump's racism is a quote from the President of Trump's Casinos.
“I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day… . I think the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.“
And then when asked about it later by Playboy in 1997 Trump says, “The stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true,”
Now this is just one of many quotes attributed to Trump you can look at ones from other sources like when U.N Goodwill Ambassador Don Cheadle claims Trump once asked family friend: "Would you ever fuck a nigger?"
Or when a Sound Technician on The Apprentice says Trump repeatedly called him a "Fucking Monkey.
After six other former contestants of The Apprentice blasted Trump as a racist and sexist.
Only for two producers on the show to separately claim that there is an unaired video of Trump saying the N-Word.
And you could say they are just lying and risking their 20+ year reputation as veteran producers in the television industry in order to make up a claim that Trump is a racist except for the fact that the shows copyright holder and a close friend of Trump then goes on Twitter after they make that claim to threaten to “bankrupt” anyone through lawsuits who would leak unaired footage without President Trumps permission. Not to deny that the footage exists, but say if you leak it you will be sued.
This is a lot like how when Trump's wife accused him of rape and his lawyer didn’t say, “Trump didn’t rape her!” He said, “A husband cannot legally rape their spouse.”
But excluding less clear cut examples like when Trump fired a black contestant from the show for being over educated. Or when Trump literally wanted to make a season of the show where it was White People vs. Black People to prove once and for all which ones were better.
Ignoring all those, that’s still just 9 separate people from a single project Trump worked on saying he is racist.
The number gets a lot higher if you look at the whole picture. Like the former casino employees who claim all blacks were ordered to leave the casino floor in Atlantic City whenever Trump or wife arrived on the property.
Or the Beauty Pageant organizers who said Trump refuses to cast black models.
And these aren't even getting into his actions from the campaign trail where at one rally he had 30 black college students and supporters ejected for no apparent reason.
Or when he had the only black GOP official at an Atlanta event that he helped organize, kicked out of the event for no reason.
Or when he picked a literal white supremacist as a delegate in California.
And this was after he refused to disavow support for The Klu Klux Klan and David Duke on live television, by lying and claiming he had never heard of the The Klu Klux Klan or David Duke so he won't condemn groups he knows nothing about despite having previously mentioned David Duke by name over a decade earlier. And despite the fact his father was arrested for attacking police at a Klan rally. And we could go even further by looking at the time Trump's son gave an interview with Holocaust denying radio show host who wants to bring back slavery. Only for Trump to give the radio host press credentials.
Just like he gave White Supremacists credentials and VIP seating at the GOP Convention.
Or just like how he decided to hire a spokesperson who goes after Obama by saying, “We need a pure breed like Trump in the white house and not a Negro.”
But lets forget that all now because at this point the evidence is compounding to such a point that the idea that Trump isn't a racist is becoming absurd. Any Trump supporters reading this can only think of so many bizarre excuses and justifications for the things I just described before they become angry and just declare it all fake news.
Let's look at at a single set of examples. These ones being the ones that have legal precedent behind them.

• In 1999 Trump was sued after he built a casino in black majority city and promised the mayor he would hire locals, and then refused to hire any blacks and opting to staff the casino with almost exclusively all white employees.
  
• In 1997 Trump was sued for refusing to hire black models, among other charges.
  
• In 1992 Trump was fined $200,000 by the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement for not allowing blacks or women onto his casino floor while a personal friend of his who was a racist Mafia leader was gambling.
  

And we go could go into the specifics about each one of these cases and other cases like them that I didn't mention but all of this is overshadowed by the first major story about Trump ever written. So let's focus on that.
The first time Trump ever had his name in the newspaper was in 1973 and the newspaper headline was, “Landlord accused of anti-black bias”
In 1973 the Justice Department heard that Donald Trump was refusing to rent homes to black people. So they sent a black woman into one of the apartments and the woman offered the manager a 6 month down payment on rent. Only for him to tell her that there were no available apartments. Then 10 minutes later they sent a white woman in to ask to rent an apartment with no money and she was offered one on the spot.
They did the same thing in 39 different apartment buildings all owned by Trump and the same thing happen every time. When they asked the tenant managers why they wouldn’t rent homes to black people, every single one of them including two other employees working directly under Trump testified that when Donald took over the company from his father in 1970 he instructed them all to label every application into three categories,

• A would be white people with good credit
  
• B would be white people with bad credit
  
• C would be non-whites.
  

Donald Trump told them to only consider applications from people in the A category.
Now you could always argue that for some reason the employees at every single one of the 39 Trump owned apartment were just racist and didn't like black people on their own so they decided to break the law and potentially lose their jobs. And they just happen to come up with identical and oddly specific lies to implicate Trump as a racist and every single one of these employees were willing to commit perjury over these lies, and then for some reason two other Trump employees who didn't even work at the apartments also for some reason came forward to falsely confirm their accounts.
And this argument might work if it was only this one time Trump had been accused of doing something racist. But the fact of the matter is this is just one of dozens of examples.
Let's actually do the math on this:

• 41 employees who testified in 1973 that Trump refused to rent homes to black people,
  
• 36 employees who worked with the Urban League Investigators who testified in 1978 during another investigation and lawsuit about Trump refusing to hire black people.
  
• The black employees who said they were forced to leave the Casino floor when Trump and his wife arrived on the property
  
• One of Trumps assistants who warned Black Pageant Contestant Kamie Crawford in 2010 that, "Mr. Trump doesn't like black people."
  
• Trump's ex-wife who says he is a racist.
  
• The over 50 Beauty Pageant contestant and Trump Modeling service employees who claimed Trump refused to hire black models.
  
• Jill Harth who claimed the same thing in 1997.
  
• The 20 black people from Gary Indiana denied jobs Trump promised them in their 1996 Lawsuit including the cities mayor.
  
• The 9 Apprentice crew members, (Not including the 30 Apprentice crew members who openly say Trump is a sexist.)
  
• The President of his Casino.
  
• The friend of the U.N Goodwill Ambassador.
  

That adds up to 164 people who personally know Trump that claimed was he a racist specifically against black people. (There is a whole separate list for accusations of racism involving Asians or Latinos or Native Americans.)
Now does the number seem a little low here? Well it should because I'm only counting accusations of racism that occurred before Trump even ran for president.
But you could always say that all of these people for some reason conspired over the period of 40 years to systematically accuse Trump of being a racist for no reason.
So let's use Occam's Razor. Who do we trust here? The U.N Goodwill Ambassadors and the Mayors and the Trump Employees and the Trump associates and his executives his ex wife and the Justice Department Investigators and all the 164 people?
Or Donald Trump a man who lied 400 times in his first 80 days a president. A man who literally lies about things he has said, that there is video of him saying, a man who tells The New York Times he wants to impose a 45% tariff on Chinese goods. And then when he is confronted about this he claims he never said that and then 2 minutes later goes onto argue in favor of the 45% tariff. A man who statistically speaking has lied more times then any other person who has ever ran for president period.
What's more likely? That Trump is a racist or that hundreds of well respected people decided to come together and risk their careers for no determinable reason or gain to accuse a failed casino owner of disliking black people?

FunFair. An in-depth analysis.

FunFair is a decentralised gaming technology platform which uses the Ethereum blockchain, smart contracts, and proprietary state channels to deliver casino solutions with games that are fun, fast and fair.
FunFair is not a casino. Instead, FunFair will license its technology out to casino operators. This differentiates FunFair from the competition in the blockchain gambling sphere – being a casino carries with it risks and burdens stemming from statutory and regulatory hurdles. Being a licensing entity instead, provides legal safeguards and will enable a more widely used platform.
I’d like to touch on the many aspects of FunFair that makes it an extremely promising and undervalued project. However, I won’t be making any price projections. As always, do your own research. In this case, I’ve done a lot of it for you.
The market.
Online gambling is a large market: currently over 47.1 billion dollars, and projected to continue increasing. https://www.statista.com/statistics/270728/market-volume-of-online-gaming-worldwide/.
The problem and the solution.
Trust. Traditional online casinos rely on you trusting them to be fair. The chance of red coming up on roulette is 48.65%. How do you know your traditional online casino is giving you those odds? You don’t – you need to trust them. Most online casinos are incorporated in island microstates. Do those nations have online casino regulators? Do they possess the willingness, manpower, and expertise to audit online casinos?
FunFair puts the gambling on the blockchain so it’s trustless – you know you have a 48.65% chance of having red come up. It’s fair.
The team.
FunFair has their ground covered and bases loaded. With their team of 30+ professionals they are way ahead of the competition. You may know CEO Jez San, OBE, from his career track: Argonaut Games (founder), Star Fox (programmer), and PKR Poker (founder). He has been in the gaming industry for more than two decades, and has built valuable relationships along the way. Constantly engaging with the FunFair community through Telegram, Discord, and Reddit, it seems as though he leaves no engaging question unanswered. Alongside Jez as COO is David Greyling (https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidgreyling/), former International Director of William Hill, one of the world’s leading betting and gaming companies and one of the most trusted brands in the industry. (https://www.williamhillplc.com/about/).
Further, FunFair is looking to expand – and fast. They expect to have a team of 50+ people in the not-so-distant future, as they are currently hiring business and marketing professionals. So, if you’re looking for an opportunity to showcase your expertise in these fields, try your shot at securing a position within the company! (https://www.funfair.io/careers) The FunFair team’s base of operations is in London, UK.
The platform.
FunFair presents its casino operators and players with a gaming opportunity never seen before:

• Decentralized, serverless
• Provably fair, blockchain-based
• Trust-less outcomes that can be witnessed on verifiable smart contracts
• Instant cashouts – FunFair does not hold your funds
• Accessible through web browser on desktop or mobile
• Fun games with an exciting user interface
• Fast gameplay conducted through Fate Channels – the team’s custom version of State Channels. The Fate Channels developed by the FunFair team are superior technology. In very basic terms, Fate Channels are what supports the communication during a game session between the player and the casino. They provide a fast, low cost method for random number generation, starting gaming sessions, ending them and settling with smart contracts on the blockchain. This allows for secure, deterministic, fair gameplay. There is only one gas fee needed to start the game session. For an in-depth explanation that you won’t be disappointed in reading, please refer the the technical white paper here: https://funfair.io/wp-content/uploads/FunFair-Technical-White-Paper.pdf

FunFair is already prepared for mass adoption and has a working solution for Ethereum network congestion. Fate Channels.
For more discussion both technical and company related, have a look at both whitepapers: https://funfair.io/explore/whitepapers/
The games.
FunFair is pursuing a full suite of traditional casino games:

• Blackjack
• Baccarat
• Craps
• Roulette
• Slot machines (various types)
• Video Poker (5 card and 3 card)
• + more

You can test all of these games at https://showcase.funfair.io/. Some are currently testable on the Ethereum testnet.
FunFair is one of the only projects in the cryptocurrency space that has a working product. They are set to launch in the beginning of Q2 of 2018.
What have they been up to? Are they on track?
Consistently ahead of schedule and on top of their roadmap in many ways, FunFair was a sponsor of DevCon 3 and had one of the most engaged-with booth setups. They connected and networked positively with many developers at the event. https://twitter.com/FunFairTech/status/926113230677856256
They’ve recently received the Malta iGaming award for “Best ICO of 2017” which was determined by a nomination panel of 5 industry experts, and a panel of 32 judges with many years of combined experience in gaming. The awards were hosted during Malta Gaming Week; a very large event attended by many business executives, authorities, and even local government: http://maltagamingweek.com/
They’ve been constantly updating their product showcase, and adhere to all feedback received by community members. Their new showcase was designed to “be able to cope with adding more games easily by the team + third parties, and also to be configurable by casino operators.” Some of their product update can be found here: https://funfair.io/awards-latest-product-update/
How does the token (FUN) derive value?
FunFair does not issue dividends or offer profit sharing – FunFair has no profit to share. The technology will be licensed to casino operators for free – itself a major draw for existing casino operators to adopt the FunFair platform. FunFair does not take a cut of the profits from any of the casino operators – they’re free to keep all profits to themselves. With a fixed supply, the value in FUN is derived from scarcity of the token in the marketplace. Scarcity comes from four sources:

• Casinos holding FUN as part of their bankroll (described more below)
• Players holding FUN and not cashing it out immediately after they play
• Speculators (investors) holding FUN anticipating it will increase in value
• Token burn: a small amount of FUN will be slowly destroyed over time. The exact amount has not been announced, though it will likely be quite small.

That first scarcity factor will be key, as casinos will need large bankrolls of FUN to operate a large casino with multiple games and high max bets. Think about it this way: if a casino has a roulette table with 1 seat, and a 5000 FUN bet limit, it will need to be armed with at least 175,000 FUN to let a player come by and spin the wheel (5000 max bet * 35, the max payout on roulette of a single number hitting).
Plans for the future & the latest company update .

• New high-level employee added to the team: Stefan Kovach- was Brand/Marketing director for large gaming brands such as bwin and Poker Stars for many years. https://uk.linkedin.com/in/stefankovach
  
• Development will be finished for Q1 2018, allowing for advancement in operations and partnerships at the beginning of Q2 2018.
  
• FunFair is in the process of acquiring their Remote Gambling Software License, which will enable them to license their technology to existing and regulated casino operators.
  
• FunFair has steady operational costs covered for the entire year, as well as an 85,000 ETH reserve/storage for any and all upcoming costs.
  An Updated Roadmap (December 20th, 2017)
  

Q1:
In January we will be submitting to the UK Gambling Commission our application for a Remote Gambling Software License.
In February we will be attending ICE Gaming, an international B2B conferencing event, where we will be introducing the FunFair brand to the gaming industry.
By the end of March V1 of the FunFair blockchain casino nears completion. This release will allow for real FUN to be used on the Main Ethereum Network for the first time.
Q2:
Operator On-Boarding: Deploying the FunFair casino in partnership with a friendly operator; objective: learn, adapt & iterate the technology as part of a soft launch.
Further product enhancements and features will continue to be worked on and, as we scale, we expect to introduce more regular product releases.
Engaging with 3rd party game developers, publishing API documentation and sample games and contracts.
Q3-4:
Product feature enhancements and further operator on-boarding. Comprehensive operator reporting and administration tools.

Full update: https://funfair.io/company-update-december-2017/
So, if you’ve read this far, you can now see how professional and enlightening this team has been with their project. I believe that within the following months, FunFair will show us exactly why they are one of the best projects in the cryptocurrency space right now and beyond.
TL;DR - Licensor of provably fair blockchain casino technology. Professional team of 30+ employees, full transparency in company actions and initiatives, proprietary technology that is near-ready for mass adoption, consistently on-track with road map. They have tackled a problem head-on with the gambling industry, and are ready to provide their solution. Strong community of both members and developers.
Special thanks to u/Commissar_ for the assistance in writing this.

FunFair. An in-depth analysis.

FunFair is a decentralised gaming technology platform which uses the Ethereum blockchain, smart contracts, and proprietary state channels to deliver casino solutions with games that are fun, fast and fair.
FunFair is not a casino. Instead, FunFair will license its technology out to casino operators. This differentiates FunFair from the competition in the blockchain gambling sphere – being a casino carries with it risks and burdens stemming from statutory and regulatory hurdles. Being a licensing entity instead, provides legal safeguards and will enable a more widely used platform.
I’d like to touch on the many aspects of FunFair that makes it an extremely promising and undervalued project. However, I won’t be making any price projections. As always, do your own research. In this case, I’ve done a lot of it for you.
The market.
Online gambling is a large market: currently over 47.1 billion dollars, and projected to continue increasing. https://www.statista.com/statistics/270728/market-volume-of-online-gaming-worldwide/.
The problem and the solution.
Trust. Traditional online casinos rely on you trusting them to be fair. The chance of red coming up on roulette is 48.65%. How do you know your traditional online casino is giving you those odds? You don’t – you need to trust them. Most online casinos are incorporated in island microstates. Do those nations have online casino regulators? Do they possess the willingness, manpower, and expertise to audit online casinos?
FunFair puts the gambling on the blockchain so it’s trustless – you know you have a 48.65% chance of having red come up. It’s fair.
The team.
FunFair has their ground covered and bases loaded. With their team of 30+ professionals they are way ahead of the competition. You may know CEO Jez San, OBE, from his career track: Argonaut Games (founder), Star Fox (programmer), and PKR Poker (founder). He has been in the gaming industry for more than two decades, and has built valuable relationships along the way. Constantly engaging with the FunFair community through Telegram, Discord, and Reddit, it seems as though he leaves no engaging question unanswered. Alongside Jez as COO is David Greyling (https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidgreyling/), former International Director of William Hill, one of the world’s leading betting and gaming companies and one of the most trusted brands in the industry. (https://www.williamhillplc.com/about/).
Further, FunFair is looking to expand – and fast. They expect to have a team of 50+ people in the not-so-distant future, as they are currently hiring business and marketing professionals. So, if you’re looking for an opportunity to showcase your expertise in these fields, try your shot at securing a position within the company! (https://www.funfair.io/careers) The FunFair team’s base of operations is in London, UK.
The platform.
FunFair presents its casino operators and players with a gaming opportunity never seen before:

• Decentralized, serverless
• Provably fair, blockchain-based
• Trust-less outcomes that can be witnessed on verifiable smart contracts
• Instant cashouts – FunFair does not hold your funds
• Accessible through web browser on desktop or mobile
• Fun games with an exciting user interface
• Fast gameplay conducted through Fate Channels – the team’s custom version of State Channels. The Fate Channels developed by the FunFair team are superior technology. In very basic terms, Fate Channels are what supports the communication during a game session between the player and the casino. They provide a fast, low cost method for random number generation, starting gaming sessions, ending them and settling with smart contracts on the blockchain. This allows for secure, deterministic, fair gameplay. There is only one gas fee needed to start the game session. For an in-depth explanation that you won’t be disappointed in reading, please refer the the technical white paper here: https://funfair.io/wp-content/uploads/FunFair-Technical-White-Paper.pdf

FunFair is already prepared for mass adoption and has a working solution for Ethereum network congestion. Fate Channels.
For more discussion both technical and company related, have a look at both whitepapers: https://funfair.io/explore/whitepapers/
The games.
FunFair is pursuing a full suite of traditional casino games:

• Blackjack
• Baccarat
• Craps
• Roulette
• Slot machines (various types)
• Video Poker (5 card and 3 card)
• + more

You can test all of these games at https://showcase.funfair.io/. Some are currently testable on the Ethereum testnet.
FunFair is one of the only projects in the cryptocurrency space that has a working product. They are set to launch in the beginning of Q2 of 2018.
What have they been up to? Are they on track?
Consistently ahead of schedule and on top of their roadmap in many ways, FunFair was a sponsor of DevCon 3 and had one of the most engaged-with booth setups. They connected and networked positively with many developers at the event. https://twitter.com/FunFairTech/status/926113230677856256
They’ve recently received the Malta iGaming award for “Best ICO of 2017” which was determined by a nomination panel of 5 industry experts, and a panel of 32 judges with many years of combined experience in gaming. The awards were hosted during Malta Gaming Week; a very large event attended by many business executives, authorities, and even local government: http://maltagamingweek.com/
They’ve been constantly updating their product showcase, and adhere to all feedback received by community members. Their new showcase was designed to “be able to cope with adding more games easily by the team + third parties, and also to be configurable by casino operators.” Some of their product update can be found here: https://funfair.io/awards-latest-product-update/
How does the token (FUN) derive value?
FunFair does not issue dividends or offer profit sharing – FunFair has no profit to share. The technology will be licensed to casino operators for free – itself a major draw for existing casino operators to adopt the FunFair platform. FunFair does not take a cut of the profits from any of the casino operators – they’re free to keep all profits to themselves. With a fixed supply, the value in FUN is derived from scarcity of the token in the marketplace. Scarcity comes from four sources:

• Casinos holding FUN as part of their bankroll (described more below)
• Players holding FUN and not cashing it out immediately after they play
• Speculators (investors) holding FUN anticipating it will increase in value
• Token burn: a small amount of FUN will be slowly destroyed over time. The exact amount has not been announced, though it will likely be quite small.

That first scarcity factor will be key, as casinos will need large bankrolls of FUN to operate a large casino with multiple games and high max bets. Think about it this way: if a casino has a roulette table with 1 seat, and a 5000 FUN bet limit, it will need to be armed with at least 175,000 FUN to let a player come by and spin the wheel (5000 max bet * 35, the max payout on roulette of a single number hitting).
Plans for the future & the latest company update .

• New high-level employee added to the team: Stefan Kovach- was Brand/Marketing director for large gaming brands such as bwin and Poker Stars for many years. https://uk.linkedin.com/in/stefankovach
  
• Development will be finished for Q1 2018, allowing for advancement in operations and partnerships at the beginning of Q2 2018.
  
• FunFair is in the process of acquiring their Remote Gambling Software License, which will enable them to license their technology to existing and regulated casino operators.
  
• FunFair has steady operational costs covered for the entire year, as well as an 85,000 ETH reserve/storage for any and all upcoming costs.
  An Updated Roadmap (December 20th, 2017)
  

Q1:
In January we will be submitting to the UK Gambling Commission our application for a Remote Gambling Software License.
In February we will be attending ICE Gaming, an international B2B conferencing event, where we will be introducing the FunFair brand to the gaming industry.
By the end of March V1 of the FunFair blockchain casino nears completion. This release will allow for real FUN to be used on the Main Ethereum Network for the first time.
Q2:
Operator On-Boarding: Deploying the FunFair casino in partnership with a friendly operator; objective: learn, adapt & iterate the technology as part of a soft launch.
Further product enhancements and features will continue to be worked on and, as we scale, we expect to introduce more regular product releases.
Engaging with 3rd party game developers, publishing API documentation and sample games and contracts.
Q3-4:
Product feature enhancements and further operator on-boarding. Comprehensive operator reporting and administration tools.

Full update: https://funfair.io/company-update-december-2017/
So, if you’ve read this far, you can now see how professional and enlightening this team has been with their project. I believe that within the following months, FunFair will show us exactly why they are one of the best projects in the cryptocurrency space right now and beyond.
TL;DR - Licensor of provably fair blockchain casino technology. Professional team of 30+ employees, full transparency in company actions and initiatives, proprietary technology that is near-ready for mass adoption, consistently on-track with road map. They have tackled a problem head-on with the gambling industry, and are ready to provide their solution. Strong community of both members and developers.
Special thanks to u/Commissar_ for the assistance in writing this.
x-posted from /cryptocurrency

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 11%. (I'm a bot)

Global gambling regulators have teamed up to voice their concerns about skins gambling and loot boxes in video games.
Fifteen gambling regulators from across Europe, as well as Washington State Gambling Commission, have signed an agreement to work together to address the risks created by the blurring of lines between gaming and gambling.
Tackling unlicensed third-party websites offering illegal gambling linked to popular video games is a priority and the regulators are calling for the video games industry and technology platforms to play their part in helping crack down on these websites.
Games providers must also ensure that features within games, such as loot boxes, do not constitute gambling under national laws.
Neil McArthur, Chief Executive and signatory for the Gambling Commission on the declaration, said: "We have joined forces to call on video games companies to address the clear public concern around the risks gambling and some video games can pose to children. We encourage video games companies to work with their gambling regulators and take action now to address those concerns to make sure that consumers, and particularly children, are protected."
Neil adds: "We want parents to be aware of the risks and to talk to their children about how to stay safe online. For example, unlicensed websites offering skins betting can pop up at any time and children could be gambling with money intended for computer game products."

Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: gambling^#1 game^#2 video^#3 children^#4 regulators^#5
Post found in /worldnews, /gaming and /europe.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.

The following post by Commissar_ is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been openly removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ CryptoCurrency/comments/7o2gtl
The original post's content was as follows:

FunFair. An in-depth analysis.
Intro.
FunFair is a decentralised gaming technology platform which uses the Ethereum blockchain, smart contracts, and proprietary state channels to deliver casino solutions with games that are fun, fast and fair.
FunFair is not a casino. Instead, FunFair will license its technology out to casino operators. This differentiates FunFair from the competition in the blockchain gambling sphere – being a casino carries with it risks and burdens stemming from statutory and regulatory hurdles. Being a licensing entity instead, provides legal safeguards and will enable a more widely used platform.
I’d like to touch on the many aspects of FunFair that makes it an extremely promising and undervalued project. However, I won’t be making any price projections. As always, do your own research. In this case, I’ve done a lot of it for you.
The market.
Online gambling is a large market: currently over 47.1 billion dollars, and projected to continue increasing. https://www.statista.com/statistics/270728/market-volume-of-online-gaming-worldwide/. However, this is not to say that the price of the FUN token should be compared to the market cap of internet gambling. FUN is not a measure of casino capital/wealth, it's an entirely new animal.
The problem and the solution.
Trust. Traditional online casinos rely on you trusting them to be fair. The chance of red coming up on roulette is 48.65%. How do you know your traditional online casino is giving you those odds? You don’t – you need to trust them. Most online casinos are incorporated in island microstates. Do those nations have online casino regulators? Do they possess the willingness, manpower, and expertise to audit online casinos?
FunFair puts the gambling on the blockchain so it’s trustless – you know you have a 48.65% chance of having red come up. It’s fair.
The team.
FunFair has their ground covered and bases loaded. With their team of 30+ professionals they are way ahead of the competition. You may know CEO Jez San, OBE, from his career track: Argonaut Games (founder), Star Fox (programmer), and PKR Poker (founder). He has been in the gaming industry for more than two decades, and has built valuable relationships along the way. Constantly engaging with the FunFair community through Telegram, Discord, and Reddit, it seems as though he leaves no engaging question unanswered. Alongside Jez as COO is David Greyling (https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidgreyling/), former International Director of William Hill, one of the world’s leading betting and gaming companies and one of the most trusted brands in the industry. (https://www.williamhillplc.com/about/). Recently, Stefan Kovach joined the team - Stef is an industry executive with a wealth of experience, having headed up the marketing functions of both PokerStars and bwin.party – two of the biggest brands in online gambling.
Further, FunFair is looking to expand – and fast. They expect to have a team of 50+ people in the not-so-distant future, as they are currently hiring business and marketing professionals. So, if you’re looking for an opportunity to showcase your expertise in these fields, try your shot at securing a position within the company! (https://www.funfair.io/careers) The FunFair team’s base of operations is in London, UK.
The platform.
FunFair presents its casino operators and players with a gaming opportunity never seen before:

• Decentralized, serverless
  
• Provably fair, blockchain-based
  
• Trust-less outcomes that can be witnessed on verifiable smart contracts
  
• Instant cashouts – FunFair does not hold your funds
  
• Accessible through web browser on desktop or mobile
  
• Fun games with an exciting user interface
  
• Casinos feel safer, with no risk of fraudulent charge-backs from player credit cards.
  
• Fast gameplay conducted through Fate Channels – the team’s custom version of State Channels. The Fate Channels developed by the FunFair team are superior technology. In very basic terms, Fate Channels are what supports the communication during a game session between the player and the casino. They provide a fast, low cost method for random number generation, starting gaming sessions, ending them and settling with smart contracts on the blockchain. This allows for secure, deterministic, fair gameplay. There is only one gas fee needed to start the game session. For an in-depth explanation that you won’t be disappointed in reading, please refer the the technical white paper here: https://funfair.io/wp-content/uploads/FunFair-Technical-White-Paper.pdf FunFair is preparing for mass adoption and has a working solution for Ethereum network congestion. Fate Channels.
  

For more discussion both technical and company related, have a look at both whitepapers: https://funfair.io/explore/whitepapers/
The games.
FunFair is pursuing a full suite of traditional casino games:

• Blackjack
  
• Baccarat
  
• Craps
  
• Roulette
  
• Slot machines (various types)
  
• Let It Ride
  
• Caribbean Stud
  
• 5-card Poker
  
• 3-card Poker
  
• And more to come
  

You can test all of these games right now at https://showcase.funfair.io/. Some are currently testable on the Ethereum testnet.
FunFair is one of the only projects in the cryptocurrency space that has a working product. They are set to launch in the beginning of Q2 of 2018.
What have they been up to? Are they on track?
Consistently ahead of schedule and on top of their roadmap in many ways, FunFair was a sponsor of DevCon 3 and had one of the most engaged-with booth setups. They connected and networked positively with many developers at the event. https://twitter.com/FunFairTech/status/926113230677856256
They’ve recently received the Malta iGaming award for “Best ICO of 2017” which was determined by a nomination panel of 5 industry experts, and a panel of 32 judges with many years of combined experience in gaming. The awards were hosted during Malta Gaming Week; a very large event attended by many business executives, authorities, and even local government: http://maltagamingweek.com/
They’ve been constantly updating their product showcase, and adhere to all feedback received by community members. Their new showcase was designed to “be able to cope with adding more games easily by the team + third parties, and also to be configurable by casino operators.” Some of their product update can be found here: https://funfair.io/awards-latest-product-update/
How does the token (FUN) derive value?
FunFair does not issue dividends or offer profit sharing – FunFair doesn't have much to share. The technology will be licensed to casino operators for almost nothing – itself a major draw for existing casino operators to adopt the FunFair platform. With a fixed supply, the value in FUN is derived from scarcity of the token in the marketplace. Scarcity comes from four sources:

• Casinos holding FUN as part of their bankroll (described more below);
  
• Players holding FUN and not cashing it out immediately after they play;
  
• Speculators (investors) holding FUN anticipating it will increase in value;
  
• Token burn: a small amount of FUN will be slowly destroyed over time. The exact amount has not been announced, though it will likely be quite small.
  

That first scarcity factor will be key, as casinos will need extremely large bankrolls of FUN to operate a large casino with multiple games, high max bets, and a large number of seats (allowing numerous people to play concurrently).
Right now, price has been set purely by speculators. As casinos open down the road, scarcity will ramp up --- Casinos will need to buy FUN, which will lead to players buying FUN which will lead to greater popularity of the platform causing more speculators/investors to buy FUN. Scarcity and utility are what drives price.
Plans for the future & the latest company update.
FunFair will be attending the ICE Totally Gaming Conference on February 6-8 (https://www.icetotallygaming.com/exhibitors/funfair-casino). This is a major business-to-business conference for the online gambling industry. The team plans to have the developmental side of the FunFair project done in time for the conference.
Tech completion in February will allow for the advancement in operations and partnerships, which will lead to live FunFair-licensed casinos going live in Q2 2018.
FunFair is in the process of acquiring their Remote Gambling Software License from the UK, which will enable them to license their technology to existing and regulated casino operators.
FunFair has steady operational costs covered for the entire year, as well as an 85,000 ETH reserve/storage for any and all upcoming costs.
An Updated Roadmap (December 20th, 2017)
(available here: https://funfair.io/company-update-december-2017/)

Q1:
In January we will be submitting to the UK Gambling Commission our application for a Remote Gambling Software License.
In February we will be attending ICE Gaming, an international B2B conferencing event, where we will be introducing the FunFair brand to the gaming industry.
By the end of March V1 of the FunFair blockchain casino nears completion. This release will allow for real FUN to be used on the Main Ethereum Network for the first time.
Q2:
Operator On-Boarding: Deploying the FunFair casin...

Every social casino developer has been asked about fairness at one time or another. Are the games rigged? Is everything truly random? Does every player get a fair shot?
These are valid questions, and we take fairness seriously in KamaGames. To that end, KamaGames uses a Random Number Generator (RNG) proprietary solution, which is used by our games to deal cards and for scaling in roulette. Most importantly, it has also been formally certified as fair by UK Gambling Commission standards.
In a previous interview, Andrey Kuznetsov, CEO of KamaGames, said “We have always strived to give our players a fun and fair gaming experience and are proud of all of our titles. This formal certification really shows that all of the games our players are enjoying every day are setting the industry standards for fairness.”
The RNG certification, which can be seen here, has been awarded by leading test laboratory iTech Labs. iTech Labs has vast industry experience in auditing and testing card shuffling without joker (single deck, two decks, four decks, six decks and eight decks) and scaling for roulette games. RNG testing is done to a sample of number sequences, over three distinct stages, to determine that they are unpredictable, non-repeatable and uniformly distributed. According to iTech Labs certification process, KamaGames were found to have passed Marsaglia’s “diehard” tests for statistical randomness.
As the largest European social mobile poker operator, this certificate is further proof of KamaGames dedication to ensuring that our players enjoy our games and do so safe in the knowledge that fair play is at the heart of each hand that they play.

Verified? (This bot cannot verify AMAs just yet)
Date: 2013-04-27
Link to submission (Has self-text)
Link to my post

Questions	Answers
Did you feel the need for a real attachment figure (i.e. parent figure) in light of your biological parents' abuse, and if so, how and when did you find one?	As for being unisex: that's a very complicated problem, and I'm busy talking to people who are genuinely in a possible situation where they could open refuges. One of the problems is that in any Woman's Refuge, you will find violent women with their children. It's not that they have not been victims, in a sense they are beaten and they are bruised, but the relationship between themselves and their partner is consensual. In other words, both are violent. And you will find the same with men seeking refuge. So, I am comfortable with the idea that you have separate refuges.
One thing about your work with DV victims (and perps for that matter) stand out and that is that you seem genuinely inspired by compassion and love rather than ideology or careerism . On the other hand I get the impression that ideologues or careerists working in the field do more harm than good. What do you think we can do as a society to get more people motivated purely by humanism into the field?	Ban feminists from government perhaps! Personally, I think, I would describe feminism, and I have fought for 40 years to publicize the damage that they were doing to family life and men and boys. To me, to condemn men as sole perpetrators of all or almost all atrocities in this world, feminists are a hate movement. I say this because just recently Sweden, Norway, and I think Finland are trying to bring in a law in those countries that will make any criticism of feminism a punishable offense. That is not the action of a movement dedicated to equality and freedom of speech for all, it is totalitarianism.
	I know there are well meaning people who call themselves feminists. They've had the wool pulled over their eyes. And this also includes fem-men, who are probably the most brainwashed of all, and join in condemning their brothers.
	If we do not start seeing women as fully functioning adults every bit as capable of bad and good as men, we will not be helping anywhere near enough people. Not even the women. We need to educate more people about the real sources of domestic violence, which we've known about for decades but which this movement that claims to be about equality is worked so hard to hide these last few decades.
	It's a long row to hoe but we must encourage people to see themselves as human first, not men or women first.
Do you oppose all women's rights movenents, only those that call themselves "feminist", or only the more "extreme" sects of feminism? Surely it's possible to seek aid for women without being this sort of brainwashed totalitarian boogieman you seem to hate so much?	I tolerate equity feminism. I tolerate everyone who belives in equality before the law (and before God). When anyone claims, either men or women, that the other half of the population is guilty of oppression then I hold them to be extremists.
	There's nothing wrong with helping women. I was the first person to offer women Refuge in England, and through my experience of the first hundred women that came into my Refuge, recognized that 62 of the women were as violent as the men they left, which led me to attempt to open a men's Refuge. When that failed, I opened charity shops called Men's Aid, to raise money to get counseling for men.
Ms. Pizzey, I have spent the better part of this morning looking into yourself and this cause that I am forced to share given my current predicament, and I think it's incredibly serendipitous that you are doing an AMA right now. Firstly I want to thank you for all that you have done to bring attention to this in spite of the amazing hardships that I know have been imposed upon you. I am currently the victim of a false abuse allegation that warranted a protective order rendering me homeless and unable to see or speak to my two little girls in the midst of a Chicago winter. My soon-to-be-ex-wife had an affair that lasted three years culminating eventually in her abandoning myself and the girls to live 900 miles away with her boyfriend. After some time she claimed to feel guilty and wanted to reconcile. I knew it was a gamble, but I honestly had no idea just how vindictive she could be. I suppose nobody wants to think that this can happen by the person to whom you've promised the whole of your life. After a few months of living together she made her move. I am now fighting a divorce that I can't afford against somebody who is paying for absolutely nothing. She has taken my girls, to whom I was the sole custodian and provider. She has created problems with our landlord, and now I've been tendered a notice to leave my apartment. When the universe sets out to crush a person it doesn't seem to stop. So that's what I've been going through, and with all that time to write you would think I've had plenty of opportunity to think better on what I want to ask; Obviously, I need help. Desperately. My research into local men's rights groups all seem to funnel into a law office that is far beyond my means. Is there anything that you could recommend? I'm sorry to be so vague, but "at a loss" doesn't begin to describe me right now. I just got off of a 12 hour graveyard shift (the least of my worries, I still manage to have a fantastic and supportive job) and should have been in bed hours ago, so I hope you can forgive my lack of direction. Equally as important to me right now, what can I do to help others in my current situation? To add some credibility to what I'm saying I have purposefully NOT used a throwaway account (which I may sorely regret) such that the reddit detectives can see that I'm a web hosting Systems Administrator and I would absolutely love to provide whatever service I can offer. I also do some blog writing (technical mostly, but not by choice) and would gladly involve myself in any creative outlet available to myself that may possibly be of service to other fathers. Please let me know if it would be worth anybody's while for me to send a PM or an email. How the hell am I supposed to handle this? Since this has occurred I have seen and read nothing but bleak accounts often terminating in suicide, which I won't say hasn't been notable factor in considering my own outlook. I'm not trying to be morbid or plea for attention; Please don't get me wrong, I have no intention of ending my life as I still have two little girls to fight for and I do realize that I'm still fairly young. How does one deal with the fact that no matter what you do or how well you fight, there is really no such thing as winning? How does one deal with the emotional toll of being thrust into a mess where suddenly anybody who has any power is out to either hurt you or profit from your pain?	Here in the UK we have something called "McKenzie Lawyer" and if you represent yourself you are allowed to bring in to the court a friend who is knowledgeable enough to help you represent your case. I don't know what's allowed in other countries or jurisdictions. Sometimes it's not allowed. There are many false "father's rights" groups that are really just expensive law firms. Right now most of the decent resources seem to be online. The best thing you can do is record all your calls, keep logs of everything, and get involved in online forums like here on Reddit, A Voice for Men, some of the other men's or father's rights group but there is no question your situation is NOT unique, it's tragically common and too often men don't realize this is true until it happens to them, and it's often too late. You have to reach out to help others and in helping others you may somewhat help yourself. I wish I had a better answer but... get involved, find support on the internet where you can find it, document document document. And learn to put one step in front of the other while you're going through this, remembering always that your children need you to be there for them even if you can't be, document for them and the world to see that you never gave up. There is a web site called "Fathers for Life," it's run by a Walter Schneider I think, and they've been under vicious attacks from radical feminists, but, they do good work Link to fathersforlife.org - Walter's great, known him for years, I've met him there. The bottom line is more men need to get involved and not be afraid to speak out and do something not just to help themselves, but their fellow men. All our children's future depends on it. Even if we can't save you, we can prevent it from happening to others. Walter lost all his children but now he does this work.
Thank you for taking the time to do another AMA Ms Pizzey. My question is what can be done to dispel the myth that women are always victims and men are always abusers when even the President of the United States perpetuates and promotes it?	Speak up loudly yourself, loudly, and don't shut up!
	Our Prime Minister, David Cameron, has praised single mothers and called fathers feckless. Speak up, don't let them get away with it!
Erin, Thanks again for all your contributions. Do you think the feminists will ever give up its belief in the Deluth model? And what actions will help destroy the flawed ideology of the Deluth model?	For those who don't know, the Duluth Model is a false attempt to define a pseudoscientific model that firmly states that men, regardless of what they've done or experienced, must agree in feminist anger-management classes, that they are guilty of being male and oppressive. The Y chromosome automatically creates all men as murderers, rapists, batterers, and destructive to all women and children and must be trained out of these tendencies. (The radfems go so far as to suggest the eradication of men although I don't think THAT's in the Duluth model). The bottom line is that if you look at it The Duluth Model its underlying assumption is that men are violent and and oppressive and part of The Patriarchy and that fixing this will fix their violence, never mind that they may themselves be the abused parties.
	The feminists won't give up any of their beliefs, because it is those beliefs that they have brainwashed unsuspecting organizations and parliaments and your Congress and across the world, particularly the United Nations, that brings them in, millions, billions of dollars ringfenced for women only. Why would they give up a cash cow?
	Making them publicly responsible for accounting for taxpayers money, so that everyone can see, for instance, where the billions of dollars go that VAWA and programs like it around the world accrue every year. And make them show their results, for both men and women and especially children.
What's your go-to snack food? Edit: Can someone explain the downvotes? Do these have to be super serious questions?	Caviar! I love caviar. And dom perignon champagne. Sometimes nice men supply me with these! [chuckle]
I know you've advocated for male victims of DV. What kind of resources are available for men who are abused by women?	There are hardly any I'm afraid. This is what we need to work to change. I hope you and everyone will help.
What do you think will happen after the Death of Earl Silverman? Will there be any change?	I worry there will be no change in the stoney-hearted Canadian government. The Canadian feminists who are rampant in Canada (and yes that includes many in the conservative party there). Because I know Earl, in his time, received threats. We talked about it at the International Men's Conference in California. By the way, it was inclusive, and we as women were welcomed, unlike many of the feminist conferences where all men are barred.
Link to deanesmay.com.	However if more Canadians and others speak up about this outrage, someone will finally start to listen.
Hello,	First of all, I would suggest you read my book "Prone to Violence." Feminist activists pulled it out of circulation but you can find it on Amazon second hand books and we'll probably be putting up chapters of it on A Voice for Men.
I'm a future law enforcement officer here in Canada and dealing with abused women is one of the things I'm a bit anxious about. Because of my training, some people I know sometimes comes to me to ask for advice when one of their friend is a victim of abuse.	This book gives specific case histories, and you will see that there are two separate types of people--men and women, but I'm going to talk about women now. In the beginning days of the Refuge, I was made aware that some of the women coming in who had no history of domestic violence in childhood, had by accident got involved with a violence-prone man. She needed my Refuge for herself and her children, but with love, support, lawyers, and housing, she would do well on her one. Usually these are women (and of course men do this as well) who reach out to save the battered child in the man, only to find that whatever they do they cannot heal him, because the child in him is dead, and if they don't leave they will carry a corpse and damage their children. This is the woman who does very well in a Refuge, and will not continue to make violent relationships.
What advices would you give to people who are gonna have to deal with a women victim of abuse? What are the dos and don't when we try to help them realise how bad their situation is and how it CAN get better.	The majority of women coming into refuge, however, have had violent abusive relationships as children. They are the victim of their childhoods, and will make a violent relationship and often continue to make a series of violent relationships, dragging their children with them. This is where they need a therapeutic program and long-term support so they can resolve their own damage and learn to be nonviolent to the children. In time, you will find that your experiences will enable you to make the right decision.
Ps: Pardon my imperfect english (I'm french canadian) Thanks!	Have I made it clear that this applies to both men and women? The "two types" apply to both men and women.
Why do you feel there is so much push back for mens sheters and mens rights when it comes to abuse? Also, what do you feel about the statistics that many women that are abused are also agressors in the relationship and not sweet innocent bystanders that were ruthlessly beaten by their significant other? And finally, what do you feel should be the reprecussion for women filing false accusations against their significant others regarding abuse?	Well first of all, it's resistance to knowing at the bottom of this entire subject is the decision made many years ago by the feminist movement that they would never accept women's violence towards men as an issue because they would have to share their billion dollar industry.
	As long as they can convince the powers that be that men are abusers they can sit in their luxurious ivory towers and laugh at the suffering of men and boys.
	I think I've addressed the issue of violent women--they are about as common as violent men, and we need to recognize this.
	I think the repercussion for false allegations is prison. To take away anyone's good name and to accuse them of sexually violent or violence towards their family is such a serious accusation that a salutary prison sentence would be the only remedy, and the children returned to the innocent father (or mother).
	How many thousands of years old is the Bible? Even if you aren't religious, look at the 10 commandments. It says "Thou shalt not bear false witness." It doesn't say "thou shalt not lie," it says "false witness." It's a horrible thing to lie ABOUT someone.
How widespread do you think this problem is?	Yes, it is widespread, false abuse claims. Even to the extent that in... certainly I know in England, and certainly I know in Canada, and in California where I visit my family... many lawyers will advise women going into refuges to use domestic violence as a fast route to either getting the man out of his house or to rehouse herself. If --and in Canada, it's called Hoovering, when a man comes home and finds it empty - if that isn't fast enough, the same woman who has lied once will bring out what they call the "silver bullet," and that's when the woman accuses him of molesting the children. In that case, he is guilty until proven innocent and therefore loses everything.
Do you think there is any way that it could be prevented?	To make great sorrow, I must say that many of those fathers commit suicide.
Should the women who do this face any consequences and what should they be?	So yes, it's widespread, and yes, if they have been found to be lying, and their intent was to deprive the father from seeing his children, as far as I'm concerned she should be jailed. (Actually I want either jailed, if men do it they should be jailed too.)
Do you think the rise of "internet feminists" is causing harm to all the equal rights movements? How much and in what ways?	I think the most obvious one that I am immediately experiencing--and I can see, looking at other Reddit conversations--that I suspect there are radfems who are going out of their way to try to obfuscate our conversations here. If you're going to be about equality shouldn't we all have a voice, even if we don't always agree?
	They try also try to shame men into silence, and men need to stop letting them do that. We saw that in Toronto when my friend Warren Farrell was talking about men's issues, and we've seen it in subsequent protests there. Silence, shame, bully, misquote... they need to stop it, or they need to be stopped.
What do you expect to happen in the near future with the movements that you're a part of? How do you expect this "gender war" to play out?	I think it will play out. I have every hope now, because until I joined A Voice for Men and met some of the men's movement in England, including London MRA, I had always thought, and felt despondent, about men's response to the women's movement. So many men are lickspittles. Often in my travels when I'm speaking, I have asked men, informally, why they would never stand up to women who were devoted to the idea of a world without men. The honest answer was they were too dependent on having relationships with women to stand up for what they believed.
	Now, after 40 years, men have found a voice. And it's mostly online, where they can feel safe, and not subject to ridicule or threats. Or not as subject to it anyway.
	I think most men live lives of quiet desperation--that's a quote, I can't remember who said it but it's true. As an example, my father was always besotted by my violent mother. She kept him financially and sexually desperate. She refused, ever, to have sex with him once she'd had children. She bankrupted him with her demands for clothes, hats, shoes, all handmade, and her underclothes came from Paris. And she spent her life with us belittling him and humiliating him, and he never left her. He never stood up for his children, and yet all across the world he was a diplomat. The three children had no choice and no childhood.
	So anyway, I think now, as more men are willing to fight against injustice, for example America's VAWA, and men are beginning to make the feminist movement accountable financially, and MRI scans are now showing the damage done to young children largely in the hands of their mothers (women do commit most violent child abuse), the tide will begin to turn. And we can start talking like adults about these things, and we can start working together to make the necessary changes.
As someone involved in the safeguarding arena myself, what do you think are the key missing services/knowledge across the NHS / Local Authorities at the moment? Both pre and post DV.	They're completely missing the fact that men bruise, men bleed, men are victims, men do not routinely abuse women or children. In fact there needs to be active men's group representatives to speak on request right away across all the service agencies. So far, all training is done by the feminist movement, and it needs to be rebalanced by the truth.
As a young (17) male with no intention of ever getting married, I'd like to ask about your opinion on MGTOW. In Japan, MGTOW is huge, do you think at this rate it will rise in western cultures too? There already is common law marriage in some places, if MGTOW continues to expand, what do you think will happen as a response to it (More laws to steal money from men or evening up of anti-male laws and attitudes to marriage/child support etc?)	I'm not surprised that men are going their own way. Why would any sane man want to risk losing his property, his relationship with his wife, his financial stability, the children that he will be deprived of... at the moment, men don't have any rights in this area. In England, Harriet Harman and her very powerful harpies are trying to bring in a law that will mean a woman has only got to live with a man for a very short period of time before she's entitled to exactly the same amount of money and power that is given to married women. That's already happened in Australia and Canada too!
	I am constantly in the company of women in their late 30s and 40s who after choosing a career have decided they want children and marriage. I have to regretfully inform them that the present climate against men, they are very unlikely to have a relationship with a man and will probably never have children. It's true. Nowhere is the problem more noticeable than Los Angeles, by the way, where men give themselves the right to date (meaning, they can have sex with as many women as they want at the same time)... very sad situation, but, why would they do anything else? The legal system can destroy them if they commit to a relationship.
What do you think about when women abuse men? Would you consider founding a battered men's refuge?	I tried. I had a beautiful house at a tiny rent (we call it a peppercorn rent in England) and none of the millionaires who helped me open the women's Refuge would give me a penny for other men. Now we just saw Earl Silverman go through that. Men need to step up and start caring about other men, and women need to start caring about men as well, and boys!
Have you had much to do with BAWSO? They are an organisation that provide shelter and refuge to female Muslims who are victims of domestic abuse. They do a lot of great work. In your experience, how does someone's religion have an impact on whether or not they report the abuse or seek help?	No I haven't heard of them, but there have been many movements. One movement from India is called the Raj Yogas. This was a very wealthy Indian jeweler who realized that many Indian women were forced to throw themselves on their husband's pyre and die with them--he began this movement that took in women and saved them from dying. I know the Raj Yoga movement and it now has extended its work to take men in! I admire them enormously, and the movement is worldwide. As for religion: that's a wide question. I know in my personal experience, in the early days of the Refuge, I have forcibly ejected Roman Catholic priests for coming into the Refuge to tell Roman Catholic women that they must return to their husbands, and they made their bed and now they must return. There was a couple of times standing on the front steps of the Refuge where a whole Muslim family arrived to demand that their daughter return to the violent husband ---and often his equally-violent mother! It is hard for many people across the world particularly when the mores of their religion insist that their partners can do anything they like to them. It is strictly abused in places where there is no alternative, there is one Refuge I know of in Afghanistan, because no woman may live on her own. If the family won't take her back, and they often won't because of the shame, if she goes to the refuge it is the end of the road for her, because she can never leave, and many of them drink poison or use ground glass to end their lives.
What do you consider to be the biggest philosophical or social hurdle that men currently face in regards to domestic violence, sexual assault, and rape? Also why is it the biggest hurdle and what can be done to overcome it?	The biggest hurdle that men are rapists, batterers, oppressive... that whole image that is attached to men. And what can be done about it is that the evidence that it's not true is there. The research shows that most men aren't these things, and men must stand up and find a voice unitedly fight back... and share the information about women's violence and women's role in atrocities and make women responsible for their behavior. Then we can work together like equals.
Hi Erin! I recently wrote a paper that detailed the studies regarding who is the main perpetrator between men and women in domestic violence studies, and one thing I found interesting in David Hughes' "Domestic Violence Against Men" was how your work has been censored by backwards "feminists" in the past. Did you ever manage to get this fixed and were the people responsible for causing this issue ever punished?	Unfortunately, no. It's only now after 40 years--and I'm 74 years old--and have been made homeless and penniless that I really now feel men are willing to hold women (and some men) to account, and I feel, along with many men, that the wind of change is blowing through the feminist miasma of lies.
	I did manage to get exactly one paper published, decades after the fact, on the surveys I did of the first 100 women in my Refuge. Just one, in a tiny journal. "Practice report; A compative study of battered women and violence-prone women." That was in Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 2009, if you can find it. But the feminist hegemony has worked hard to keep work like this out of the public eye.
	They actually destroyed the hard disk of Professor Viano from Washington University when he tried to publish some of this work.
Hi Erin, in my experience I've not met anyone that experienced physical abuse by a partner; but I know personally some people that suffered psychological abuses by their partners, and most of them were men. How can we deal with such situations before they escalate in something worst? Before they develop in critical situations where at the end the man will become the physical abuser because he did not get any previous support to get out from the abusive relationship?	There is absolutely no excuse for anyone to abuse either physically or emotionally. As an example, I was at a conference and a man came up to me who had a black belt in martial arts. He met a woman who came to his dojo and he got into a relationship with her, and he explained that she used to abuse him verbally and then spit in his face and say "hit me! hit me!" and to his shame he finally lash out. Fortunately he walked away and left her.
	The sad fact is that for some people--women as well as men--physical violence is a sexual release for them. It's an unstated secret. If this is the case, if this is what you're talking about, then get out and don't look back.
If you could do take refuge in one place in the UK where would it be?	The Barnstable Refuge in Barnstable, which is in Devon I think. They have a very good refuge, they have young male volunteers coming in to work with the children. Some of them would call themselves "equity feminists," some of them are just happy to be at home and they are passionate about their mothers and children and they work with men.
As of late that's been a huge debate on the topic of men's rights and the abuse of men- especially after the news of Earl Silverman's suicide based somewhat on his center for battered men failing economically without government funding. As someone who has done so, SO much for battered women, what are your views on the men's rights movement and their position on battered men?	I'm in total support. I am absolutely delighted to be Editor at Large for A Voice for Men, I am in contact with and support MRA London, and I foresee a great future now that men are finally coming forward to stand up for themselves for their boys. The MRA movement and A Voice for Men are inclusive, and these are the first real honest organizations that I know, both men and women, can join to work for a new future.
	We do get kicked around sometimes for being mean, but I don't mind, I can be mean, if it's needed.
	I know there are some MRAs, or MHRAs, who are probably crazy. You're going to get that everywhere.
The gender ideologues seem to get away with the default claim (if not in every court case, yet get away with it in propagandized public perception) that every time a woman murders a make sexual partner the woman's violence is ALWAYS defensive.	Absolutely, because we do have cases of men who murder, but I have had cases of women who have murdered their partners, and it's very interesting because feminists insist that men are often treated lightly, but the truth is women a murder occurs it is the women, as you say, claim self-defense, and in my experience it is very rarely self defense. Especially these days when there's so many resources for a battered woman to leave.
QUESTION: Do you agree that educating the public on the subject of women who murder male sexual partners sequentially ("black widow serial killers") would help to break the spell of the gender ideology propaganda?	I quite understand the argument that men tend to explode with rage, and there was an attempt by Leonora Walker and her band of savage sisters to plead "mitigation" for women claiming that their violence was slow-burning and therefore, in two cases I know of... one where a woman claimed self-defense three days after she stabbed him to death in the carotid artery. She was acquitted, but the truth was that he had never been violent to her, but he was planning to leave her for another woman. In another case, a woman waited several days before her husband was sleeping in his bed, and she poured petrol over him and set him alight. These were cases I was personally involved in. In the second case she actually was sent to prison, but the radical feminists here claim that any woman who kills a man, that those women would be political prisoners, because all men are part of The Patriarchy, and all women are then therefore political prisoners of The Patriarchy they're supposedly fighting against. And in her case they did get her out, she was released!
Black Widow Serial Killers Link to unknownmisandry.blogspot.com.	Violence is not a gender issue, it's a learned pattern of behavior, it goes back to early childhood not "The Patriarchy." When I go back to my family, my one brother was violent, he knocked people out. And I was certainly a very, very violent and dangerous child myself. I was lucky to find a mentor. The most important thing in our Refuge were the wonderful men who worked alongside us and were fantastic models for both the mothers and the children.
Female Serial Killers of the 21st Century Link to unknownmisandry.blogspot.com.	To get back to your question, is it good to educate the public about violent women? The public know that women can be just as violent as men, unfortunately, the feminist ideology is used by governments to suppress men and elevate women. Publicizing cases of violent women along with violent men... it's equal, and should be seen that way.
If there was just one idea, one concept you could have everyone in the entire world learn right now, with a snap of your fingers, what would you choose?	Children are brain-damaged by domestic violence. Bring an end to it.
Did you know Earl Silverman well?	I met him first at the conference in California, there were two inclusive conferences, the first in the world, one was in Sacramento and the other was in Los Angeles. Earl was there, and he had photographs of all of us together. I remember him as being kind and gentle and a very huggable bear of a man. He's on my Facebook, and we communicated. We all feel his loss. He was a martyr to the indifference of the Canadian government, and we will never forget his name.
I know Earl Silverman brought a complaint to Alberta Canada's Human Rights Commission in 2006-- claiming that men were discriminated against in seeking services for victims of domestic violence. But I haven't found information about the Human Rights Commission's response. If you know how that resolved, can you please tell us?	I don't know how it was resolved, but obviously it wasn't resolved, otherwise he'd probably be with us today.
How many women come from religious backgrounds? Just curious! Thanks sir!	First off, I'm not a sir I'm a a ma'am. Or you can call me Erin.
	But actually I don't think it has to do with religion necessarily. Violent people use religion as an excuse in many cases. This is what my God says. My God is a loving God. It's humans that are cruel and violent. There is no excuses for harming any other human being, emotionally or physically... I can't think of anything else to say really, because it doesn't really have to do with religion as I see it.

Last updated: 2013-05-05 18:32 UTC
This post was generated by a robot! Send all complaints to epsy.