Moderation Questions

I think the WNBA might be screwed because of the salary limitations imposed on players. As it increases in popularity they're going to want a bigger cut but that money is already accounted for by investors. Eventually some rival league will come along. They are already trying.

I'd have a top 50 salary if I were in the WNBA

I never claimed I was asking a genuine question. (Although, in retrospect, it is an interesting question.)

Most questions in this Forum overall are leading questions and/or trolling of various sorts.

But I also wasn't complaining about it.

If you look at my plentitude of posts in the last week or so, almost all of them are good-natured barbs.

I finally realized that the probability of a good-faith discussion in this forum is roughly 0.

So now I've mostly adopted the role of providing comic relief.

Can the mods change my under title to "Top Moron?"

(Although my first choice is "Religious Bigot.")

Same thing.

I dare say I disagree with you.

Being religious in neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for being TopMoron.

Similarly, being religious is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for being a bigot.

On the contrary, either is sufficient.

So at least you and I can agree that I should be the Top Moron in this Forum?

I hope so, anyway. Your endorsement would mean a lot to me.

So, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a bigot? Fascinating!

and they say short people aren't good at basketball

for real though, nba covers all wnba losses to keep owners from dumping the money pit - despite record breaking attendance and ratings last year, they still lost 50 million

there's not going to be a rival league anytime soon

i think the pro move is to start a thread to gain the kind of notoriety needed for an undertitlte

i think starting one about how your deep religious beliefs cause your latent homosexual proclivities to manifest as being celibate for god and spending your days on online forums talking about how evil the gays are

I assume you're trying to be funny.

If not, I suppose I should repeat for the millionth time (give or take) that I've never, ever expressed hatred for gays on any internet forum.

Show us the receipts, or I'll sue your avatar for libel!!

Before now, I never thought that you even had enough of a sense of humor to say this sarcastically.

hatred is not the right word, you're right and i apologize for that

however, i stand by the assessment that you're a latent homosexual

it's the most logical explanation to your fascination with posting about gays negatively enough to get permabanned for it while maintaining celibacy for god despite that god never asked that of you

nobody claiming to be serious about biblical studies/interpretation as you claim to be can seriously put forward any credible argument that celibacy is an act of faith

in fact, the bible explicitly tells you on more than a dozen occasions to go out and bang and procreate - this is why sex is ok in catholicism but not prophylactics

nowhere does the bible command that you be celibate, the most notable celibate in paul himself says clearly that anyone advocating against marriage is wrong and while he thinks being celibate is good for him, it's only because he has zero sexual desire, thus he has no need for a wife because she'd be untouched anyway but anyone who would touch a wife, should definitely go out and get one unlike him

and notably, paul is the one that a lot of biblical scholars believe, like you, is homosexual

there's regular references to his "thorn in the flesh" some unspoken malady that he's regularly in conflict to overcome - being of the flesh it's deeply implied to be sexual of nature and yet at other times he says he has no desire to touch his wife

so like you, paul was gay, but didn't know how to deal with it, so it manifested in celibacy

and like you, paul was obsessed with the gays and is one of the more anti-gay figures in the bible

and don't worry you're not alone, it's extremely common for notable anti-gay figures to later be caught vacationing with a man they met on rentboy.com etc - tale as old as time

there's basically nothing you could possibly do to convince me otherwise

and again, this is not an insult, nor intended as one, because

The church at times was even close to allow marriage for priests. And in some real sense it was allowed for rural priests to have companionship, and for urban clerics to have mistresses.

Afaik they never explicitly allowed marriage not because they thought celibacy was relevant to be a good priest (or higher up in the hierarchy), but because they (probably correctly?) identified nepotism as the thing that broke down all other systems of power.

There was already a lot of nepotism in the church via relatives but if the pope and cardinals were allowed to have "official" sons that would have caused what happened regularly in all other kingdoms , namely that your entire system of power is at risk of a terrible king happening just because he was the son of a previous very strong one and it collapses.

We should also keep in mind that the way they elected the pope allowed for frequent changes in their king, which is another way to avoid a bad king having the time to destroy everything.

Apology accepted.

I've never been 'fascinated' with posting about gays. That topic has always been a tiny percentage of my posts in this or any forum. When I do street preaching I virtually never even mention that topic unless it is brought up by a listener.

I never said I was celibate as an 'act of faith'.

Why do you (and others) keep just making stuff up about me?

Of course, I've never claimed or believed that celibacy is commanded in the Bible.

I don't know what 'scholars' you are talking about who claim that Paul was a homosexual., but they are most certainly not Bible believers.

A 'thorn in the flesh' could be a lot of things. It is not 'deeply implied' to be sexual in nature.

Neither Paul nor I are 'obsessed with gays.'

The only person obsessed with this topic is you!!

Since your mind is made up on this --- without any good evidence whatsoever --- I suspect the bolded is true.

I'm not insulted at all.

To be fair, he does seem to like the pegging porn. Research purposes, of course.

Rickroll has some 'interesting' hot-takes:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...

one thing few people realize is that if there's a single asian women traveling alone, she's a sex tourist

she wants to cut loose and bang some strange but can't do it at home because they are traditionally conservative and she likely lives with her parents and/or terrified of being seen by an uncle, neighbor, friend of family etc while out on the town

it's absolutely amazing how when you meet a girl who is native to the city you are in how utterly conservative and cautious they are vs meeting a girl who moved to the city for work and has no family in town and is happy to give you a hj on a somewhat quiet sidestreet at 9 pm at night

Are we doing the woman/women thing again?

I'll let him off if he tells us more about Asian Boebert.

The fewer details I know about Rick's sex tourism escapades, the better.

lol, how much time did you spend skimming my post history to find a year old post in the bodybuilding forum of all places that's only remotely controversial to an utter closet case prude as yourself

and you try to play it off as if my analysis is not spot on 😀

I looked into this and the WNBA's finances are pretty opaque, but Adam Silver said a few years ago that they were losing $10 million per year and they signed a new media deal and now they're up to losing 50? Probably they just don't want to cut the players in on revenue sharing.