This is an interesting subject actually (well it is for a dullard like me).

Professional sport as we know it today is pure entertainment. Yes they're athletes in their chosen fields BUT due to the nature of the business they are ultimately sports entertainers. Their wages are paid by the fans who go see them as a form of entertainment. Much like actors who are ultimately paid for by the fans and other movie goers who watch them for entertainment.

All in my opinion of course

You're also forgetting people who are genuinely saddened when their sports team loses a game.

I occasionally enjoy winding up followers of North American "sports" teams with a similar argument. Take the Leafs, for example (please, somebody, take the Leafs). Here's a team that hasn't won anything for 42 years, regularly finishes at or near the bottom of the table, yet there's no sanction of relegation to a junior league hanging over them, so there's no incentive to play well beyond about half-way through the season - when the last hope of making the playoffs becomes the inevitable impossibility.

This, imo, makes all of the NHL an entertainment franchise operation first and a sports league a distant second. They still sell out every game, mind you, so the fans don't seem to care (or, to inject some head-arse interface into the argument, there's some sort of sub-Cartesian reduction going on, the Leafs fans think they're going to win, yet somehow they don't. Doubt as the basis for proof of existence, and all that...)

In similar vein, but IMO in a bizarrely positive way, there's been a lot of commentary in the last week or so about the historically low gate at Jays games (they had barely 11,000 for a midweek evening game against the Twins last week). Rogers, in their infinite wisdom, have traded a bunch of players who made the Jays interesting to watch and actually reasonably successful - at least in the early part of this season while they were at or near the top of the standings. Jays fans seem to be a little more fickle than their Leafs brethren - pundits are pointing out to ownership that if they want ticket revenues to hold up, they have to put out a team that people want to watch.

They(the jays) do have one of the best bowlers in the league though.From my limited understanding of the game.

If sport wasn't entertainment what would be the point of it? This isn't a criticism - nothing wrong with being entertained by watching or playing sport.

A small point but he, Roy Hollliday a.k.a. The Doc, is the pitcher, not the bowler. The problem has been a lack of good starting pitchers because of injuries. They started well but then had to call up second string help from the farm team.

It's a good game to watch once you get to know the rules and understand the strategy. When I lived in Ontario I had a share in a season ticket and watched many, many games, even those played at "The Mistake by the Lake " as the old stadium was known. That was before The Dome was built. I was at a game against New York a few days ago. As well the outrageous ticket prices two beers and a rinkydink bag of peanuts in the shell set me back $27 !! They didn't call him Ted Robbers for nothing.

Much to the surprise of the folks back home,I have taken to baseball a little,and do enjoy watching it on the telebox.

Differing levels of entertainment for sure.

Professional sport is based around the entertainment of an audience

Amateur sport (social badminton at the local leisure centre for example) is for the entertainment of the participant

So really, pro sports people are no different from "celebs", in my opinion, and to worship a pro sports person or to be saddened when a pro sports team loses is no different to worshipping or being saddened when a "celeb" pops their clogs.

Sorry Steve, but thats total BS.

We have opinions like anyone else here and we sometimes express them. My ONLY condition on becoming a moderator was that there were no expectations to have to curb that, and that was confirmed by the powers that be.

My least favourite phrase on BE is "As a moderator you should...." CO doesnt do anything I dont do, and I get a fraction of the grief she does for some reason.

No Iain it's not BS.

The rules for "this site" may allow for you opinion but it doesn't necessarily make it right.

You are entitled to you opinion I'm entitled to mine.

In my opinion accepting the roll of moderator on any forum is akin to accepting the role of speaker in the house of commons.

My opinion is always right...just ask me

LOL, I think you might be placing rather more importance on the role of the moderator and the forum in general than it warrants. I think of it more as being a prefect at school. The headmistress wields the real power, we are just her spies, we happen to be here to see some of the naughty stuff that goes on, or for people to grass offender and bullies up to...

As is mine you can ask me any time.

But even the hall monitor is not expected to act in a similar manner as those who he/she is monitoring.

Steve is right though the position does come with 'power and responsibilty', so perhaps some tongue biting MAY be in order.

Regardles I was only thinking this AM that your own style of posting has changed since I joined the Forum, wether this is down to your position as a Mod OR the evolution of the forum (which actually disproves the whole survival of the fittest theory) I'm not sure

In your opinion that's what it should be. But on BE the role isn't that, and that isn't opinion, it is fact. Having said this, I agree with you in that it would be good if there was some way the mods could highlight "moderation" posts. This way it would be very clear when they are wearing their mod hats and when they are as just full of the same shit as the rest of us.