baxus

As I said, I'd take 40M from my current position and be over the Moon about it, but if I was already making 40M and could increase that to 50M, I'd probably do it. And I think it's the same with most of the people in the world. The beauty of it is that you wouldn't have to engage with any cunts. You pay someone a fraction of those 10M to handle your accounts and let them engage with cunts. I'm with you. This board is the closest I'm getting to social media. Used Twitter and Instagram back in the day, but quit. It was surprisingly easy.

That's fair, but when did I say those fans you speak of have the right to feel and behave that way? And no, players are not paid only to play football. No matter what you or I would prefer, those days are long gone.

To you and me those amounts seem like infinity, but I'm quite confident that we would both go for 50M$ per year instead of 40M$ if given a chance. Also, Tim Duncan retired in 2016 which is almost a decade ago. Things have changed since then.

Millions of followers on social media are a pretty good indicator of player's popularity, and since we live in a world where players' ability is not the only factor clubs consider signing them, it's perfectly reasonable that players would have social media. They should probably avoid running their official accounts themselves, though.

Obviously, not trying to defend anyone abusing anyone online, but this is still a childish move. It's not as if majority of Liverpool supporters were abusing him and making his life difficult. Deleting Liverpool related content from his Instagram because of reaction of few (and compared to the worldwide Liverpool fanbase, it is few) is an overreaction. And let's not forget that deleting those posts would not stop the abuse the way, for example, stepping away from social media for a while would. I could be overreacting, but I find it disrespectful to majority of the fanbase and to the club, and I'd like to see him leave this summer despite the fact I think he has the potential to be a world-class player.

Are we arguing the point or the people who are making the point (or trying to)? Calling someone "woke" may be in poor taste, but does not mean that the point the person is trying to make is invalid. How many "left wing talk shows, news outlets or propaganda shams" were willing to have them on board to discuss the issue? If none, then the right is the only alternative. I'm not familiar with Helen Joyce and what she stands for, but in general "anti-trans" label is being thrown around quite easily. We, as a society, are (or at least should be) trying to figure out how to get majority to truly accept trans people. It's a work in progress, and it takes some debating to first define the issue and then figure out how to fix it. You can not have a debate if any conflicting point of view is attacked and "the other side" is labeled woke or anti-trans or whatever. We need to talk, listen and learn. Not every point of view is valid, but we need to hear it in order to see if it is or not. And even when it's not valid, we need to debate it and disprove it, not just throw a tantrum and leave. Resenting someone being given a platform is against the core principles of democracy. For example, I don't resent Joe Rogan for giving a platform to some people to present their rather dubious theories. I resent that he's doing a poor job of it and is not asking them the tough questions, as well as that he's very rarely giving a platform to "the other side". But he's a stand-up comic who thinks he knows much more than he actually does so maybe we are expecting too much of him if we want him to act as a serious journalist. What would be your alternative? Should they change their views on the subject, which are based on data they have available (which may or may not be correct) just because some idiot can abuse those views?

It's a childish move, at best.

Excuse me, but what difference does it make if something can be removed? Removing "gamete production system" doesn't change person's sex any more than losing one's legs in a car accident would change their species on the grounds of humans being bipedal. And no, you can not just "change every other sex-related characteristic". It would take rather heavy medication and surgery. At the very least, it's definitely not a process I'd like to see a child go through before puberty. Would you please elaborate how "remnants of original biological sex" are utterly irrelevant?

Finally, after 4 months off due to some minor injuries, vacation, changing my job and trying to get back into the routine of training before work on a regular basis I got back to crossfit today. We're having some public holidays (Labour Day and Easter got perfectly aligned this year) so I still didn't get up at 6:15AM, but I really needed to start, and will ease myself into getting up that early when I get back to work.

Well, considering that Nuggets won the series 4-1, I'd say you would need to check your sources. They might, or they might not. If we knew who'd win ahead of time, sports would be a lot less interesting.

You must be trolling. I'm pretty sure he'll still get millions.

Ok, but the point should be exactly about the merits of her argument, not TrackerNeil's humility (or lack of it). Hopefully, we can all agree on that at least.

Yesterday I've found a tick on my dog for the first time in a bit over two and a half years he's been with us. Took him to the vet who said that the pill we're giving our dog worked fine since tick was dead. He also said that we should keep an eye out for some possible symptoms of a disease (fatigue, loss of appetite, murky urine etc.) and so far Loki has shown none of them.

But it's not as if Ninefingers went around the board, found something you said in another thread, took your post from there and quoted you in this thread to move the discussion to a more appropriate spot. He quoted your umpteenth message in Sanderson thread in which you were saying "there's better authors than Sanderson". I mean, there's quite a few threads on this board related to topics I'm not interested in. I don't feel the need to post "but there's a better topic <here>" in those threads, so I was wondering what is it that makes you feel that your input is required in this thread. As I said, we get that you don't rate Sanderson, that is your right, no one resents you for it or holds it against you. Just move the fuck along and stop raining on people's parades. Or don't. As I already said:

You sure spend too much time and energy trying to prove that point. We get it, consider your job done, and feel free to ride that high horse of yours to some other thread. Or don't, I'm not board police to tell people what they can and can't do. You may also feel free to remain here and act like a wanker. The choice is yours. EDIT: And yes, Ninefingers did quote you, but he quoted your post in which you are once again talking about how you think there are better authors than Sanderson. And guess what? No one holds that against you, no one even said that Sanderson WAS the best author in the world. You are entitled to your opinion, you may be right or you may be wrong, but if there's a reason to come here and reiterate your point again and again I'd be very curious to hear it.