` ::::::::While ``anyone can post as anyone`` to Usenet, there is absolutely no reasonable doubt that the material quoted as Boyd was really written by Boyd.  Ten years later, Boyd has never denied it.  If he really didn't write that, why wouldn't he have said ``I didn't write this`` rather than delete the quotes?  There are literally thousands of poker players who can verify receiving numerous emails from Boyd saying ``Your check is in the mail,`` ``Don't worry, you WILL be paid`` and the like.  And if you personally really believed this material wasn't written by Boyd, you would have said something during the 2006 discussion when you actually approved of its inclusion at the time.  That ``another person editing disagrees`` isn't relevant, and it's clear there are lots of agendas involved, i.e. the user who initially removed this info is clearly Boyd because the username is the same as his livejournal, and the IP address that removed it later is probably him as well (since the edit also included ``Boyd is appealing the decision.``   has some rather unusual contributions to Wikipedia, aside from incorrectly classifying my restoration of info Boyd deleted as ``new information,`` he claimed it was ``verbose negativity`` and not a ``neutral point of view`` even though everything deleted are direct quotes from Boyd.  Looking at the previous edits of , I see he also called someone a ``vandal`` for criticizing BetUS, which is a known scam sportsbook with many, many complaints.  (They have stolen from me and numerous people I know.)  Boyd could easily round up 50 members of ``his Crew`` and his friends to all agree that the negative stuff about Pokerspot should be removed, but this is not a case of ``majority rule.``    `