I would like to understand your position. The way I understand it, your only stated beef so far is the existence of sports book chips, which you concede may not be the ones shown by David. In fact, you don't seem to find any flaws with his basis for saying the chips he shows were made after the casino closed. So, with a tiny modification, you really don't present any serious opposition to David's theories about those particular chips. Or am I wrong?

I really am just an interested reader who has no idea if either of you is right. And I don't own any of the suspect chips.

Michael Siskin