"Rob Hill" wrote in message om...
We can be civil and agree to disagree. Why don't we interview the local
homeless guy? Would you be interested in his opinion?

Sure

or a teacher?

Yep

a
policeman?


Why not? None of the above are elites, and any of them could have a
perspective or insight that would be of value.


What makes Kasparov's opinion worth more than the average person's opinion?

Heck if I know! You'd do better to ask the editor of the Wall
Street Journal.

However, I only maintain that Kasparov's opinion is NOT necessarily
worth **less** than that of some Politician or Political Science
Professor.

He's just another dude. If he were in office or political science professor,
I'd think otherwise. If the topic were Russia, I'd like to hear his opinion.
But the truth be told he has nothing to do with Iraq and has no expertise at
all in this topic any more than the average person.

To give Kasparov his due, he seems to be better informed about the
topics of Iraq and of terrorism than "The Average Person". Indeed,
"The Average Person" is woefully ignorant about both topics. It is
quite possible that thousands of average people might be able to
compose a column that would be at least as good as Kasparov's, or that
of any Political Science Professor, for that matter.

"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
om...
I don't care about your "preferences", and I'm pretty sure that
Kasparov, Martin Sheen, Travolta, or Streisand don't care what you
think, either.

It is the elites with the "expertise" who are responsible for
allowing the rise of Pan-Islamic and Pan-Arab terrorism. As long as
the policy makers continue to make a muddle of things, there is a
need--indeed, a duty--for non-experts to voice their opinions.


"Rob Hill" wrote in message
om...
Just because you agree with someone politically does not mean that they
should be shooting off at the mouth. I'd prefer to let those who have a
field of expertise in those affairs influence us-not Kasparov, Martin
Sheen,
Travolta (who I agree with), Streisand, etc.

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

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
I completely disagree. The article by Garry Kasparov is very good and
I agree almost completely with it.

Sam Sloan

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 16:48:31 GMT, "Rob Hill"
wrote:

I am very interested in Kasparov's opinions on chess, not his
opinions on
the war.

Please go away.

"Gunny Bunny" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005100

Stop the Moral Equivalence
Suicide-bombing and hostage-taking vs. democracy

BY GARRY KASPAROV
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
It is said that to win a battle you must be the one to choose the
battleground. Since the Abu Ghraib abuses were revealed, the
battleground
has been chosen by those who would blur the lines between
terrorists
and
those fighting against them. The Bush administration has
contributed to
the
confusion with its ambiguous "war on terror." You cannot fight a
word.
You
need targets, you need to know what you are fighting for and
against.
Most
importantly you must have beliefs that enable you to distinguish
friend
from
foe.

While al Qaeda may not have a headquarters to bomb, there is no
shortage
of
visible adversaries. What is required is to name them and to take
action
against them. We must also drag into the light those leaders and
media
who
fail to condemn acts of terror. It is not only Al Jazeera talking
about
"insurgents" in Iraq, it is CNN. Many in Europe and even some in
the
U.S.
are trying to differentiate "legitimate" terrorism from "bad"
terrorism.
Those who intentionally kill innocent civilians are terrorists, as
are
their
sponsors. No political agenda should be allowed to advance through
terrorist
activity. We need to identify our enemy, not play with words.




The situation is worse in the Muslim world. Calling the terrorists
"militants" or "radical Islamists" presupposes the existence of
moderates
willing to confront the radicals. Outside of Turkey, it is very
hard to
find
moderate clerics who will stand up to Islamist terrorists, even
though
the
majority of their victims are Muslim. In Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr has
been
murdering his religious opposition and using armed gangs to
establish
political rule. He appears immune to anything resembling
condemnation.
We
know that his militia receives outside support--and where would it
come
from
other than Syria and Iran?
We have seen 25 years of anti-Western propaganda and hatred
emanating
from
Iran, not only against Israel and the U.S. but against the liberal
values
that make up the core of our civilization. The effect has been to
so
polarize the Muslim world that we are left with two unappealing
groups.
On
one side you have those who rally support by exhortation against a
common
foe: America and Israel. We may call this the Arafat model. By
appearing
to
be the only viable leader in Palestine he has received billions of
dollars
from the European Union to prop up his corrupt organization and to
fund
terrorism. Hijacking, suicide bombings, hostage-taking--this
"Palestinian
know-how" has been exported throughout the region.

Leaders of this type focus the energy of an impoverished people
into
fighting a sworn enemy. They realize that the free circulation of
liberal
ideas would threaten their hold on power. With modern methods of
communication it is impossible to build a new Iron Curtain, so they
convince
their people that they are engaged in a war against the very source
of
these
democratic ideals. Arafat has done this successfully for decades.

On the other side of this dual model we have dictators who present
themselves as the last bastion against religious extremists. Gen.
Musharraf
in Pakistan and the Saudi royal family are supported by the U.S.
and
given
free reign to limit human rights because they are considered the
lesser
evil. Yet the more favor they have with the U.S., the more they are
hated
at
home, empowering the extremist opposition. Everyone gets what they
want
in
the short run but it is a recipe for inevitable meltdown.

U.S. success in Iraq is essential in order to provide an
alternative
model.
Unlike Vietnam, there will be repercussions for global security if
America
does not finish the job. This is the big picture that must stay in
focus.
We
are dealing with an enemy who considers the concessions and
privileges
of
democracy to be weaknesses. To prove them wrong we must follow
through.

The Islamic public-relations offensive is focused on proving that
the
West
is corrupt and offers no improvement on the despots in charge
throughout
the
Islamic world. At the same time, Al Jazeera isn't examining
Vladimir
Putin's
war against Muslims in Chechnya. All of Chechnya is one big Abu
Ghraib,
but
the Islamic world pays scant attention to the horrible crimes there
because
Mr. Putin shares their distaste for liberal democracy. The war is
not
about
defending Muslims; it is about Western civilization and America as
its
representative.

Meanwhile, Iran continues to pursue a nuclear arsenal and the U.N.
Secretariat, France and Russia are busily covering up their
involvement
in
the Oil-for-Food scandal. If we are to impress the superiority of
the
democratic model upon the Muslim world we must thoroughly
investigate
any
and all allegations of abuse and clean up our act. This goes for
plush
U.N.
offices as well as Iraqi prison cells.




It is a mistake to see the debate on how to deal with terrorism
along
antiquated political lines. Partisan politics have played a role,
but
for
the most part the battle to do what is necessary to win this war
has
freely
crossed traditional party boundaries. One's beliefs about tax
policy
and
social benefits have little to do with how to deal with the
terrorist
threat
being generated in the Islamic world.
Every era dictates its own political divisions. In 19th century
Great
Britain, the political fight centered on the Corn Laws, reform
bills
and
home rule for Ireland. Many of the old splits have vanished in
Europe
but
this new divide is both wider and more vital. Jacques Chirac on the
right
is
against intervention while Labour's Tony Blair is for it. The
consequences
of José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero caving in after the Madrid attack
have
yet
to be felt, but I have no doubt that we will be facing more attacks
in
Europe based on the terrorists' reading of the weakness of European
leaders.

In this fight the enemy does not play by our rules, or by any rules
at
all.
WMD will be in terrorist hands eventually; conventional wisdom
recognizes
this reality. Concessions and negotiations at best only delay
catastrophe.
Europe and its people are in this war whether they acknowledge it
or
not.
Those who would appease terrorists must realize that by pretending
that
this
battle does not exist, they will soon have blood on their
hands--both
real
and metaphorical.

Mr. Kasparov, the world's leading chess player, is chairman of the
Free
Choice 2008 Committee in Russia.

Why would you say that Kasparov is more informed on politics surrounding
Iraq than the average person? In my previous post, I said I'd be interested
in his opinion if we were talking about Russia, since he is Russian. I have
to disagree with you here. I don't think he has access to more information
on this topic or more life experience that would make his opinion of greater
value (or insight) than some guy in a bar.

"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
om...
"Rob Hill" wrote in message
om...
We can be civil and agree to disagree. Why don't we interview the local
homeless guy? Would you be interested in his opinion?

Sure

or a teacher?

Yep

a
policeman?


Why not? None of the above are elites, and any of them could have a
perspective or insight that would be of value.


What makes Kasparov's opinion worth more than the average person's
opinion?

Heck if I know! You'd do better to ask the editor of the Wall
Street Journal.

However, I only maintain that Kasparov's opinion is NOT necessarily
worth **less** than that of some Politician or Political Science
Professor.

He's just another dude. If he were in office or political science
professor,
I'd think otherwise. If the topic were Russia, I'd like to hear his
opinion.
But the truth be told he has nothing to do with Iraq and has no
expertise at
all in this topic any more than the average person.

To give Kasparov his due, he seems to be better informed about the
topics of Iraq and of terrorism than "The Average Person". Indeed,
"The Average Person" is woefully ignorant about both topics. It is
quite possible that thousands of average people might be able to
compose a column that would be at least as good as Kasparov's, or that
of any Political Science Professor, for that matter.

"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
om...
I don't care about your "preferences", and I'm pretty sure that
Kasparov, Martin Sheen, Travolta, or Streisand don't care what you
think, either.

It is the elites with the "expertise" who are responsible for
allowing the rise of Pan-Islamic and Pan-Arab terrorism. As long as
the policy makers continue to make a muddle of things, there is a
need--indeed, a duty--for non-experts to voice their opinions.


"Rob Hill" wrote in message
om...
Just because you agree with someone politically does not mean that
they
should be shooting off at the mouth. I'd prefer to let those who
have a
field of expertise in those affairs influence us-not Kasparov,
Martin
Sheen,
Travolta (who I agree with), Streisand, etc.

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

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
I completely disagree. The article by Garry Kasparov is very good
and
I agree almost completely with it.

Sam Sloan

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 16:48:31 GMT, "Rob Hill"

wrote:

I am very interested in Kasparov's opinions on chess, not his
opinions on
the war.

Please go away.

"Gunny Bunny" wrote in message
. ..

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005100

Stop the Moral Equivalence
Suicide-bombing and hostage-taking vs. democracy

BY GARRY KASPAROV
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
It is said that to win a battle you must be the one to choose
the
battleground. Since the Abu Ghraib abuses were revealed, the
battleground
has been chosen by those who would blur the lines between
terrorists
and
those fighting against them. The Bush administration has
contributed to
the
confusion with its ambiguous "war on terror." You cannot fight
a
word.
You
need targets, you need to know what you are fighting for and
against.
Most
importantly you must have beliefs that enable you to
distinguish
friend
from
foe.

While al Qaeda may not have a headquarters to bomb, there is no
shortage
of
visible adversaries. What is required is to name them and to
take
action
against them. We must also drag into the light those leaders
and
media
who
fail to condemn acts of terror. It is not only Al Jazeera
talking
about
"insurgents" in Iraq, it is CNN. Many in Europe and even some
in
the
U.S.
are trying to differentiate "legitimate" terrorism from "bad"
terrorism.
Those who intentionally kill innocent civilians are terrorists,
as
are
their
sponsors. No political agenda should be allowed to advance
through
terrorist
activity. We need to identify our enemy, not play with words.




The situation is worse in the Muslim world. Calling the
terrorists
"militants" or "radical Islamists" presupposes the existence of
moderates
willing to confront the radicals. Outside of Turkey, it is very
hard to
find
moderate clerics who will stand up to Islamist terrorists, even
though
the
majority of their victims are Muslim. In Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr
has
been
murdering his religious opposition and using armed gangs to
establish
political rule. He appears immune to anything resembling
condemnation.
We
know that his militia receives outside support--and where would
it
come
from
other than Syria and Iran?
We have seen 25 years of anti-Western propaganda and hatred
emanating
from
Iran, not only against Israel and the U.S. but against the
liberal
values
that make up the core of our civilization. The effect has been
to
so
polarize the Muslim world that we are left with two unappealing
groups.
On
one side you have those who rally support by exhortation
against a
common
foe: America and Israel. We may call this the Arafat model. By
appearing
to
be the only viable leader in Palestine he has received billions
of
dollars
from the European Union to prop up his corrupt organization and
to
fund
terrorism. Hijacking, suicide bombings, hostage-taking--this
"Palestinian
know-how" has been exported throughout the region.

Leaders of this type focus the energy of an impoverished people
into
fighting a sworn enemy. They realize that the free circulation
of
liberal
ideas would threaten their hold on power. With modern methods
of
communication it is impossible to build a new Iron Curtain, so
they
convince
their people that they are engaged in a war against the very
source
of
these
democratic ideals. Arafat has done this successfully for
decades.

On the other side of this dual model we have dictators who
present
themselves as the last bastion against religious extremists.
Gen.
Musharraf
in Pakistan and the Saudi royal family are supported by the
U.S.
and
given
free reign to limit human rights because they are considered
the
lesser
evil. Yet the more favor they have with the U.S., the more they
are
hated
at
home, empowering the extremist opposition. Everyone gets what
they
want
in
the short run but it is a recipe for inevitable meltdown.

U.S. success in Iraq is essential in order to provide an
alternative
model.
Unlike Vietnam, there will be repercussions for global security
if
America
does not finish the job. This is the big picture that must stay
in
focus.
We
are dealing with an enemy who considers the concessions and
privileges
of
democracy to be weaknesses. To prove them wrong we must follow
through.

The Islamic public-relations offensive is focused on proving
that
the
West
is corrupt and offers no improvement on the despots in charge
throughout
the
Islamic world. At the same time, Al Jazeera isn't examining
Vladimir
Putin's
war against Muslims in Chechnya. All of Chechnya is one big Abu
Ghraib,
but
the Islamic world pays scant attention to the horrible crimes
there
because
Mr. Putin shares their distaste for liberal democracy. The war
is
not
about
defending Muslims; it is about Western civilization and America
as
its
representative.

Meanwhile, Iran continues to pursue a nuclear arsenal and the
U.N.
Secretariat, France and Russia are busily covering up their
involvement
in
the Oil-for-Food scandal. If we are to impress the superiority
of
the
democratic model upon the Muslim world we must thoroughly
investigate
any
and all allegations of abuse and clean up our act. This goes
for
plush
U.N.
offices as well as Iraqi prison cells.




It is a mistake to see the debate on how to deal with terrorism
along
antiquated political lines. Partisan politics have played a
role,
but
for
the most part the battle to do what is necessary to win this
war
has
freely
crossed traditional party boundaries. One's beliefs about tax
policy
and
social benefits have little to do with how to deal with the
terrorist
threat
being generated in the Islamic world.
Every era dictates its own political divisions. In 19th century
Great
Britain, the political fight centered on the Corn Laws, reform
bills
and
home rule for Ireland. Many of the old splits have vanished in
Europe
but
this new divide is both wider and more vital. Jacques Chirac on
the
right
is
against intervention while Labour's Tony Blair is for it. The
consequences
of José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero caving in after the Madrid
attack
have
yet
to be felt, but I have no doubt that we will be facing more
attacks
in
Europe based on the terrorists' reading of the weakness of
European
leaders.

In this fight the enemy does not play by our rules, or by any
rules
at
all.
WMD will be in terrorist hands eventually; conventional wisdom
recognizes
this reality. Concessions and negotiations at best only delay
catastrophe.
Europe and its people are in this war whether they acknowledge
it
or
not.
Those who would appease terrorists must realize that by
pretending
that
this
battle does not exist, they will soon have blood on their
hands--both
real
and metaphorical.

Mr. Kasparov, the world's leading chess player, is chairman of
the
Free
Choice 2008 Committee in Russia.

"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

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

"Rob Hill" wrote in message om...
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?

If my name were attached to the article, and no changes were made in
the article, then the article would, in fact, be published "just the
same." Only if there were changes to the article, would the article
not be the same.

As I already indicated, Kasparov, in his editorial, does not identify
his chess ability as one of the premisses for his argument: further
than that, he does not characterise his conclusions as "opinion".
Your characterization of his conlcusions as opinion, rather than
knowledge, can only be premissed on your own knowledge of the subject.
So, as you ask about Kasparov's external evidence of awareness of
political philosophy, I here ask for your academic credentials in that
field - degree received, year received, and the college or university
each was received from.

If your position is based on questioning his competence for reason of
internal evidence, then tell us what premisses in his editorial are
those which you dispute, and which you would like to hold up as
evidence of his ignorance of the facts which you proclaim to know -
and then tell us these facts, as they are key to your vituperation of
Kasparov.

Interestingly, you have provided no internal or external evidence of
the facts which you possess, facts which alledgedly a) dispute the
premisses of Kasparov's article, and b) vituperate Kasparov's
worthiness to publish his premisses and conclusions. Therefore, by
your own reasoning, you should not even pay attention to your own
writing with Kasparov's editorial as the subject, much less than to
Kasparov's article as a subject. Your own vituperations can be used
against you, and you have provided no evidence of knowledge: you,
therefore, must - for the sake of your argument's consistency -
immediately classify yourself within your classification for Kasparov,
and ignore yourself on this basis.

As I wrote earlier, 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.

I think you are motivated by envy, and by contempt for chess
players...."Kasparov is a MERE chess player....how can he have
important thoughts on any subject"...."yet I, who am not a chess
player, and who therefore has many important thoughts on many
subjects, have gone unpublished"....."someone must bring this
injustice to the world's attention"....so your thoughts must go.

Well, if you disagree with any of Kasparov's premisses, or else have
any important thoughts on the subject of his editorial (but not on the
subject of his editorial as a subject), here's your big chance to
right the injustice of the world against you - the profound injustice
of publishing the thoughts of MERE chess player Kasparov, while the
GREAT thoughts of non-chess player Rob Hill go unnoticed.

But, I rather suspect as you have so far, that you will only
vituperate against Kasparov and the grave injustice of his words being
published, whilst you will offer us no words of your own which have
any relevance or value.


Regards,
Michael Sayers

If you honestly believe that the article would have been published with your
name attached to it other than Garry Kasparov, you are the biggest idiot on
the planet.

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

If my name were attached to the article, and no changes were made in
the article, then the article would, in fact, be published "just the
same." Only if there were changes to the article, would the article
not be the same.

As I already indicated, Kasparov, in his editorial, does not identify
his chess ability as one of the premisses for his argument: further
than that, he does not characterise his conclusions as "opinion".
Your characterization of his conlcusions as opinion, rather than
knowledge, can only be premissed on your own knowledge of the subject.
So, as you ask about Kasparov's external evidence of awareness of
political philosophy, I here ask for your academic credentials in that
field - degree received, year received, and the college or university
each was received from.

If your position is based on questioning his competence for reason of
internal evidence, then tell us what premisses in his editorial are
those which you dispute, and which you would like to hold up as
evidence of his ignorance of the facts which you proclaim to know -
and then tell us these facts, as they are key to your vituperation of
Kasparov.

Interestingly, you have provided no internal or external evidence of
the facts which you possess, facts which alledgedly a) dispute the
premisses of Kasparov's article, and b) vituperate Kasparov's
worthiness to publish his premisses and conclusions. Therefore, by
your own reasoning, you should not even pay attention to your own
writing with Kasparov's editorial as the subject, much less than to
Kasparov's article as a subject. Your own vituperations can be used
against you, and you have provided no evidence of knowledge: you,
therefore, must - for the sake of your argument's consistency -
immediately classify yourself within your classification for Kasparov,
and ignore yourself on this basis.

As I wrote earlier, 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.

I think you are motivated by envy, and by contempt for chess
players...."Kasparov is a MERE chess player....how can he have
important thoughts on any subject"...."yet I, who am not a chess
player, and who therefore has many important thoughts on many
subjects, have gone unpublished"....."someone must bring this
injustice to the world's attention"....so your thoughts must go.

Well, if you disagree with any of Kasparov's premisses, or else have
any important thoughts on the subject of his editorial (but not on the
subject of his editorial as a subject), here's your big chance to
right the injustice of the world against you - the profound injustice
of publishing the thoughts of MERE chess player Kasparov, while the
GREAT thoughts of non-chess player Rob Hill go unnoticed.

But, I rather suspect as you have so far, that you will only
vituperate against Kasparov and the grave injustice of his words being
published, whilst you will offer us no words of your own which have
any relevance or value.


Regards,
Michael Sayers

All of your musings aside, if Kasparov's chess ability is not to be
considered, then why did I read this post on rec.games.chess.misc?

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

If my name were attached to the article, and no changes were made in
the article, then the article would, in fact, be published "just the
same." Only if there were changes to the article, would the article
not be the same.

As I already indicated, Kasparov, in his editorial, does not identify
his chess ability as one of the premisses for his argument: further
than that, he does not characterise his conclusions as "opinion".
Your characterization of his conlcusions as opinion, rather than
knowledge, can only be premissed on your own knowledge of the subject.
So, as you ask about Kasparov's external evidence of awareness of
political philosophy, I here ask for your academic credentials in that
field - degree received, year received, and the college or university
each was received from.

If your position is based on questioning his competence for reason of
internal evidence, then tell us what premisses in his editorial are
those which you dispute, and which you would like to hold up as
evidence of his ignorance of the facts which you proclaim to know -
and then tell us these facts, as they are key to your vituperation of
Kasparov.

Interestingly, you have provided no internal or external evidence of
the facts which you possess, facts which alledgedly a) dispute the
premisses of Kasparov's article, and b) vituperate Kasparov's
worthiness to publish his premisses and conclusions. Therefore, by
your own reasoning, you should not even pay attention to your own
writing with Kasparov's editorial as the subject, much less than to
Kasparov's article as a subject. Your own vituperations can be used
against you, and you have provided no evidence of knowledge: you,
therefore, must - for the sake of your argument's consistency -
immediately classify yourself within your classification for Kasparov,
and ignore yourself on this basis.

As I wrote earlier, 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.

I think you are motivated by envy, and by contempt for chess
players...."Kasparov is a MERE chess player....how can he have
important thoughts on any subject"...."yet I, who am not a chess
player, and who therefore has many important thoughts on many
subjects, have gone unpublished"....."someone must bring this
injustice to the world's attention"....so your thoughts must go.

Well, if you disagree with any of Kasparov's premisses, or else have
any important thoughts on the subject of his editorial (but not on the
subject of his editorial as a subject), here's your big chance to
right the injustice of the world against you - the profound injustice
of publishing the thoughts of MERE chess player Kasparov, while the
GREAT thoughts of non-chess player Rob Hill go unnoticed.

But, I rather suspect as you have so far, that you will only
vituperate against Kasparov and the grave injustice of his words being
published, whilst you will offer us no words of your own which have
any relevance or value.


Regards,
Michael Sayers

"Rob Hill" wrote in message om...
If you honestly believe that the article would have been published with your
name attached to it other than Garry Kasparov, you are the biggest idiot on
the planet.

The question of the identity of the author is irrelevant to the
question of the correctness of the premisses. Rob Hill, when you
figure out a) how you know for a fact that Kasparov is the author of
the editorial, and/or b) what premisses in the editorial you disagree
with, please let us know.


Regards,
Michael Sayers

"Rob Hill" wrote in message om...
All of your musings aside, if Kasparov's chess ability is not to be
considered, then why did I read this post on rec.games.chess.misc?

I think his chess ability IS to be considered. Being a world chess
champion, all other things being the same, can only help one's
intellectual reputation. But I am not sure the article was published
because its author is stated to have been Garry Kasparov. Having a
chess grandmaster posited as the author of an article published in the
States does not, to my knowledge, increase the total number of persons
who read the article, mass readerhip being the goal of the news
publication: that Kasparov is listed as the author may increase the
number of chess players who read the article, and decrease the number
of non-chess players who read the article. Kasparov may not even be
the author: how good is his King's English? was it translated from
Russian? did an assistant write the article based on an outline of his
"ideas"?

But the main point, as I have said, is that so far you have not
identified one sentence from the entire editorial with which you
disagree. This results in most persons' assuming that you do
apparently agree with the contents of the editorial. As you have been
made aware that this is the effect, and we can only assume that you
act with knowledge of the effect you intend to achieve, then one must
conclude you wish for others to believe that you are in full, 100%
agreement with the editorial.


Regards,
Michael Sayers

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:28:27 GMT, "Rob Hill"
wrote:

We can be civil and agree to disagree. Why don't we interview the local
homeless guy? Would you be interested in his opinion? or a teacher? a
policeman?

What makes Kasparov's opinion worth more than the average person's opinion?

He's just another dude. If he were in office or political science professor,
I'd think otherwise. If the topic were Russia, I'd like to hear his opinion.
But the truth be told he has nothing to do with Iraq and has no expertise at
all in this topic any more than the average person.

The Kasparov's political publications, Lasker's philosophical
theories, Fischer's rantings on a variety of topics, stories about
Smyslov's singing, Taimanov's piano playing, etc., all would seem to
be of at least marginal interest to chess players. Certainly seems
less off-topic than the works of the random homeless.