"Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...

Phil,
WHat you say below is most true!

Rob, it is usenet protocol to say 'almost-true'.

Fischer's crime, as the government see it, is a complex of non-tax
payments
for income it claims he owes it following the 'war-zone' playing of the
second Spassky match, combined with, as I understand it, risibly and
contentious comments on terroritst actions. The last of these are less
explicit, but post 9/11 it is not exactly a 'nothing' consideration
today.

Fischer has expressed no desire to be affiliated with USCF as el Sloan
proposes, nor to return to the US. What el Sloan thinks he is up to is
thereby naught to do with Fischer, but a last-grandstand by el Sloan
while
he still has the public eye.

The "public eye" he thinks he has is probably the equilivant to 1
tenth of one percent of the USCF membership. I dare say he gets a
larger audience while urinating at the restroom of Union Station.

Recently, on the speculation of a mush-money match, [more thanb any amount
ever before] he wanted to know the ethnicity of everyone, including the film
crew and the post-production folks.

His chess is unquestionable the most fascinating of the whole C20th.

---

I hope he gets out of chess now. I hope he stops sacrificing himself to a
public image of himself, and the complexity of what that entails - much as
any public figure experiences. What better place to do so than in
egalitarian Iceland?


I doubt few could have gone through that cold-war encounter without injury
to self, and this boy had no father: No man to buoy him up, and be candid,
frank and straight with him, without aggression. That is an entirely other
battle, which arguably is as great as defeating the Russian's at chess.


Fischer served as an icon for US interests while it served them to represent
him as such - the man personally is as distorted by this as others have
been, no more no less, in my opinion.

In himself I think he is brave in emotional and intellectual pursuit of what
he admits true, and now requires the space to assess his life and times, and
then we will, at length, see the man himself, if he should chose to make
that public. It is a quintessentially American thing to either do so, or
not, without compulsion.


But nothing is owed to other people on that basis, though I think much could
be understood thereby!


You too are a Celt, and we do not treat 'Greats' with especial respect. It
is as if someone had endured a trial to achieve a difficult goal, and we
never suspect them to have done so without personal damage, no?


This, in my philosophy, allows the trial, and also its reception by a
public, since lest we too are tested to the same degree, and to cite an
admonition in the Bible, do we judge?


Cordially, Phil Innes






Rob( WHich-Mitch) Earl of Mustard