Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (125332)	3/1/2004 8:56:13 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

That is not an opinion on modern art, per se, it is an opinion on public finances. It requires no expertise on art. As I said, few things oblige you to take an interest, and it is reasonable to expect to be shown why you should invest the time. But it is not just a question of whether or not the thing is true. Only an expert on Islam, not necessarily a believer, can usefully opine on whether Isalm can modernize without trauma, or whether the concept of jihad is being abused by the Ultras, or whether the lot of women is readily improveable. Those of us further down the food chain, reading around in what the experts have published, including controverted points, can form opinions that are not worthless, but are still weaker in foundation. Again, taxpayer funding is not a general aspect of chess, it a matter of public finance. I have no idea why you keep coming back to public funds, which is not relevant to my point at all. Even if every museum in the land were funded from private sources, and every university course on the subject were paid for out of pocket, it would still be the case that some people would be more qualified than others to make useful comments about modern art, or any period of art, on the basis that they had taken the trouble to inform themselves and to spend time looking it over in order to "get" it.