> Are you saying that you think that Ho Chi Minh was better than Nguyen Van
> Thieu, that Mao Zedong was better than Chang Kaishek, and that Kim Il
> Sung was better than Syngman Rhee?
I don't mean to get pedantic here, but you may wish to phrase your question in another manner.
Are you asking this as a compound question, or as three distinct issues which have three different answers? For example, if you are asking if someone believes that Ho Chi Minh was better than Nguyen Van Thieu _and_ that Mao Zedong was better than Chang Kaishek _and_ that Kim Il Sung was better than Syngman Rhee, I don't think you're going to get much of an answer. That is because it's possible for someone to believe that Ho Chi Minh was better than Nguyen Van Thieu, but that Mao Zedong was worse than Chang Kaishek, or to believe that Ho Chi Minh was better than Nguyen Van Thieu, but Kim Il Sung was worse than Syngman Rhee. Or, that Ho Chi Minh was worse, but the others were better.
I can illustrate this with a simple chart:
Ho Chi Minh vs Mao Zedong vs Kim Il Sung vs Nguyen Van Thieu Chang Kaishek Syngman Rhee
(A) Better than (C) Better than (E) Better than (B) Worse than (D) Worse than (F) Worse than
As you see, one can very easily select either choice under all three comparisons, without the choice of one influencing another. There are, in fact, nine possible sets of opinions one can hold on these issues:
ACE (all better than) ACF (better, better, worse) ADE (better, worse, better ADF (better, worse, worse) BCE (worse, better, better) BCF (worse, better, worse) BDE (worse, worse, better) BDF (all worse than)
On the other hand, if you are asking about three distinct issues, then you would be asking three distinct question. if this was your intention, then I would suggest the following:
Are you saying that you think that Ho Chi Minh was better than Nguyen Van Thieu? Are you saying that you think that Mao Zedong was better than Chang Kaishek? Are you saying that you think that Kim Il Sung was better than Syngman Rhee?
This reduces much of the confusion that you inadvertently created by phrasing the question in the compound manner you used above.
I would also like to point out problems with your phrasing, "Are you saying that you think that...?" This introduces several layers of ambiguity. You are asking someone if he or she is _saying_ that they think something. You are not asking if they _think_ something.
So, if you were to ask me, "Are you saying that you think that the President is a kangaroo," I could very easily reply "Yes." But all this would mean is "Yes, I am saying that I think that the President is a kangaroo." It would _not_ mean that I actually _do_ think that the President is a kangaroo. After all, if I said that I said that I thought that the President is a kangaroo, I could have been lying about what I actually thought.
Assuming that you are asking about the person's actual _thoughts_, rather than their utterances, you may wish to use the following questions:
Do you think that Ho Chi Minh was better than Nguyen Van Thieu? Do you think that Mao Zedong was better than Chang Kaishek? Do you think that Kim Il Sung was better than Syngman Rhee?
I hope that this has impressed upon you the need for clear and proper grammar when engaging in discussions on the Internet. The subjects you raise are, of course, very politically charged, and are likely to cause anger and consternation even when phrased in a clear and unambiguous manner. Thankfully, with the application of these principles of clarity and simplicity, you will be able to engage in political discussions on the Internet without creating needless confusion and anger.
As I said, I don't want to get too pedantic here.