Re: Sam Sloan Master Title in Chinese Chess

samsloan wrote:
> Taylor Kingston is trying to detract attention away from his false
> claim to have once been a chess master by attacking my title of master
> of Chinese Chess.
> 
> However, there is a distance. Taylor Kingston's claim to have been a
> chess master is based on a "conversion formula" that nobody but he
> recognizes. His actual publish chess rating has never been higher than
> 1853. He has for more than 25 years consistently been rated in the low
> 1800s or in the high 1700s. He has never even broken 1900.
> 

This is incorrect if Taylor's claim to have been awarded a certificate 
as a USCF postal master is true.  He says that he cannot scan the 
do***ent to demonstrate the truth of this.  Surely, somewhere there is a 
relevant list of postal masters that could be referenced to ascertain 
the truth of this claim.  If he indeed did receive recognition as a USCF 
postal master, regardless of the rating system used, that convinces me 
that he reached a significant level of skill at postal play.

This argument, like many others in this newsgroup sounds like a 
scratched broken record -- playing the same annoying noise over and 
over, again and again.  Please bring it to a conclusion.
-- 

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.