I've thought about it. Decided I didn't want to give him my money, and afraid it could get confrontational when I didn't bow down like most of the sycophants there will. Fact is, I admired Roosh's work for a long time. While I don't agree with the religious views he's espoused lately, you can't really talk to people about religion because you'll never persuade them. Besides, like I said, I think there's a reasonable chance this is all a charade, a way to monetize a different audience. So I wouldn't have challenged that.
No, what I would tell Roosh that would get me in trouble is this (and if he does stalk this board, I hope he'll reflect upon this) is this:
For years I enjoyed your work - books, podcasts, audio books. I supported you as much as I could, even when I disagreed with you. The thing I admired most was how you brought together a group of men to share their collective wisdom, in a better way than almost anyone else. This was a true "men's space", the antithesis of feminism. WHY THEN DID YOU ADOPT THE MOST FEMINIST OF FORUM POLICIES - SPOT-BANNING ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU?? "Disagreeing with a mod" isn't a reason for a suspension or a ban, it's the mark of a free man. There were MANY, MANY instances where disagreements were civil, polite...but still "arguing with a mod" was a capital offense. I couldn't take it anymore and went out of my way to point this out, knowing what would happen. I no longer wanted to be part of a forum that reminded me of grade school, where disagreeing with a frumpy schoolmarm got you "detention". How could someone who was mentally strong enough to endure all the stress that accompanied the "legalize rape" fiasco also be so weak as to go power-tripping on an internet forum?? "I ban you, I ban you, oooooh, here's my BANHAMMER!". Grow up. How about you put on your big-boy pants and use your words? And that little faggot Tuthmosis was just as bad. In fact, the fact that the two of you reveled in this behavior from the earliest days of the forum ("we're the MODS, so we're cooler than the rest of you. So there!") tells me it was always a personality flaw. Stick that "banhammer" up your fuckin' ass. It ruined an otherwise good men's space.
"I ban you" is not an argument. It is not persuasive. It is not compelling. It is, in a word, faggotty. So why did someone who built such a wonderful forum succumb to this?
That's what I'd ask Roosh on his tour. But it isn't worth the hassle. This board and others have sprung up in RVF's place, and they are better: They are everything RVF was, minus the girly "I'll ban you!!" threats and the bible-banging nonsense. Spoiler alert: Jesus etc are not god, they are fictional characters. If there is a god (I see no evidence of it), he bears no resemblance to your Jee-zus, or to Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or all the other made-up nonsense designed to get you to obey, to preserve your mental health in an insane world, and also to separate you from your money. If a higher consciousness exists in the universe, it's likely to be a collective energy, as indicated in some forms of Buddhism. But, no one alive really knows.
"Banh mi" is a great sandwich. "Ban everyone who disagrees with me" is the mark of a power-hungry moderator.