"NoMoreChess" wrote in message
...
.
Phil (among others) has now resorted to using the fallacy of two wrongs
making a right. :-(

Just because the USCF purchased Informants during the embargo
(purportedly,
without actually paying for them until afterward), in no way excuses
Bobby's
"crime." Two wrongs do not add up to a right. (Do the math. Hint: use
the
plus key!)

If you have completely mastered your own keyboard, cite '2 wrongs make a
right' citizen. You do not seem to have noticed that I am not talking about
USCF's actions or Fischer's, but about ours in the chess community.

The rest of your opinions seem to be an ideational argument with yourself -
good luck!

You complete your message below with a point of interest which I paraphrase:
that no clinical opinion is worthwhile if the shrink cannot declare himself
disinterested from the result.

Cordially, Phil

PS: green tights?
You are confused! This must be how your own cultural heros like to dress up.
If you look closely at Braveheart I don't think Mel or anyone else wore
tights. No offence intended to any blokes here who like to wear 'em.

By the same token, the fact that Spassky has not been persecuted -- er,
I
meant prosecuted! -- in no way excuses Fischer for what he did.
Heck -- why not also drag the chess journalists into this fallacy?
Seirawan
and many others went to cover the match, and this makes them "accessories"
to
the "crime."
The worst "criminal" of all may be the organiser and financier of that
"illegal" event, for without both him and Fischer, it could never have
taken
place, where and when it did.

------------------------------------

Who's a nut? Many have branded Fischer as a mental fruitcake because of
his
behavior pattern, which seems to fit their idea of what a luny acts like.
Phil wants no part of this -- only a Ninja can kill a Ninja! Only a
trained
psychiatrist can pronounce judgement as to whether or not Fischer is
legally
insane. Fair enough. But being ruled legally insane is not the same as
being
called a nut by laymen who *think* you are nuts because of the way you
act.

BTW, certain comments by Dr. Fine could very well be interpretted as
indicating he thought Bobby had (at the time of his "examination") mental
problems and was in need of professional help.
OTOH, Fine's over-reaction to having his skittles game against Bobby
published could be interpretted as indicative of a superiority complex;
later
to be followed by an irrational desire to be recognised as a world chess
champion, despite having never won that particular title OTB.
If only a Ninja can kill a Ninja -- if only a trained psychiatrist can
pronounce someone luny, what happens when a "pixilated" shrink examines a
borderline nutcase and makes his pronouncement in somewhat vague terms?
And
what if another liscensed shrink would have come to a completely different
conclusion about the same case?


-- Dr. nomorechess