I used to be a burger flipper. But now I am a computer programmer. I guess
my competition could say that anyone that would listen to me would be taking
advice from a burger flipper.

Reagan became a politician, and rose to the presidency. In the end, Reagan
was a politician, not an actor. Kasparov is not a politician, he's a
chessplayer. If he wants to get some experience under his belt by running
for office, winning, and effecting good changes, then I would considering
listening to him.

"Curt Seefeldt" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Hmm....lessee....Regan was an actor...and look at the attention people
paid
to him. What it all comes down to, imho, is how well the individual
carries
over to the people what they have to say. I really see no reason why
anyone
can't expound their view on something, just because they may not be in the
political arena does not mean they do not know anything. As far as that
goes...look at any country's history. It's leaders at one time or another
committed colossal blunders. Bt the same token, I have had experience with
engineers that while they may have had a degree in thier field, they were
at
the same time about the dumbest thing on two feet. What I am getting
at..."expertise" in a certain area does not always mean they are a expert
in
everything. Hell, that kind of explains what any politician is..and so..I
would rather listen any time to someone who made sense to ME.
"Rob Hill" wrote in message
m...
Now I'm getting annoyed.

Do I really have to point out that the only reason anyone is supposed to
care about his opinion is because he is a well known chess player?

Are you so naive as to believe that if your name was attached to the
very
same article that it would have been published just the same?

Could someone point me to a smart liberal?

"Michael Sayers" wrote in message
om...
"Rob Hill" wrote in message
om...

Kasparov's chess ability does not qualify him to influence opinions
about
politics.

Kasparov, in his editorial, does not identify his chess ability as one
of the premisses for his argument.

If there is any premiss in his editorial which you dispute, please
explain. Otherwise, I will assume by default that you have no
disagreement to express with the editorial.


Regards,
Michael Sayers