Yep. Everyone in the world has time. Not everyone in the world has money. Time is the great equaliser!
It depends how certain of those effect the playing field of a game. In a FPS for example, better hardware and faster internet connection is the thing that gives people an advantage, which is one reason if I'm going to play a FPS online I prefer it to be one of the older ones that most people are likely to have the machines/connections to run. As for third-party gold/item sales, I don't support it and I'll continue not to support it. The reasons for and against this sort of thing have been thrashed out many times however, so I won't go into detail.
Now is my view of it because I'm wrong, or is it because over the years the media and commercial enterprises have gradually changed what people view as "free"? Another point that can be argued both ways. Oh, and I'm not out for any marketing advantage.
As for the examples:
ESPN - Not a competitive game.
Smithsonian - Not a competitive game.
KoL - If it proves an advantage over other players, then I'm against it.
PC Gamer - That's down to their perceptions, and whilst I'm sure it's an advantage for those games that make their money by allowing pay-for-perks it still, in my mind, doesn't necessarily make it right. You've probably noticed by now that I'm very wary about the media in general.
As for the last bit, I'm not bitter about paying money for a game. If a game charges a monthly fee and I like it, I'll pay. What I want and expect from a multi-player game is a level playing field for all involved, not one that's distorted depending on how much money you have because games/companies are often only interested in how much cash they can get from players.
Not my intention, or my goal. I think perhaps you are assigning motives to me based on why other people might have argued the point in the past. The one thing I will say is that good marketing is as you describe, but is often done by companies (and I'm not accusing you or any commercial MUD owner on here of this) by exploiting weaknesses and loopholes in rules. The people who try to close these loopholes are immediately labelled as reactionary and misguided by said companies, whose interest lies solely in keeping their advantage. Hence lobbyist groups etc.
Your definition of professional appears to be based solely on whether the staff are paid to run the game or not. Just because someone is paid for running a game doesn't necessarily mean that game is any better than one where the staff aren't paid. I'll agree there's a better chance, but it's by no means a foregone conclusion. However, when people at large see the terms "hobbyist" and "professional" this is exactly the impression they get when they're unfamiliar with the MUD world. It's misleading and unnecessary. I would, however, go along with "Paid staff" and "unpaid staff" or somesuch.
Well said, as long as the MUD isn't defining itself in a misleading way which I'm sure you agree with. Our disagreement just comes in definition of terms.