On 10 Jun 2005 12:11:30 -0700, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
The reason for my 2037 is simple. In 1985 I gave up correspondence
chess due to the birth of my second daughter. Increased family
responsibilites made it impossible to devote hours each week to postal
chess, so I quit cold turkey, with quite a few unfinished games. Such
games are counted as rated losses, which knocked my final PC rating
down about 250 points. However, anyone who still has an April 1985
Chess Life will find me at #45 among USCF Postal Masters, i.e. in the
top 1%.

In reply, Sam Sloan wrote:
I am willing to bet a fairly large amount of money that if we had some
way to check out this story (which unfortunately we do not) we would
find that this is just another lie by Taylor Kingston.

So, Sam, a few questions for the sake of clarity:

1. What exactly is the issue you want to bet on? My peak postal
rating? My peak postal rank? Please be specific.
2. What will you accept as proof of the issue wagered on?
3. How much are you willing to bet?
4. Will you deposit the amount of your wager with an impartial third
party, agreed upon by us both, who will act as stakeholder?

On 10 Jun 2005 12:11:30 -0700, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
The reason for my 2037 is simple. In 1985 I gave up correspondence
chess due to the birth of my second daughter. Increased family
responsibilites made it impossible to devote hours each week to postal
chess, so I quit cold turkey, with quite a few unfinished games. Such
games are counted as rated losses, which knocked my final PC rating
down about 250 points. However, anyone who still has an April 1985
Chess Life will find me at #45 among USCF Postal Masters, i.e. in the
top 1%.

In reply, Sam Sloan wrote:
I am willing to bet a fairly large amount of money that if we had some
way to check out this story (which unfortunately we do not) we would
find that this is just another lie by Taylor Kingston.

So, Sam, a few questions for the sake of clarity:

1. What exactly is the issue you want to bet on? My peak postal
rating? My peak postal rank? Please be specific.
2. What will you accept as proof of the issue wagered on?
3. How much are you willing to bet?
4. Will you deposit the amount of your wager with an impartial third
party, agreed upon by us both, who will act as stakeholder?

On 15 Jun 2005 15:00:05 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:


On 10 Jun 2005 12:11:30 -0700, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
The reason for my 2037 is simple. In 1985 I gave up correspondence
chess due to the birth of my second daughter. Increased family
responsibilites made it impossible to devote hours each week to postal
chess, so I quit cold turkey, with quite a few unfinished games. Such
games are counted as rated losses, which knocked my final PC rating
down about 250 points. However, anyone who still has an April 1985
Chess Life will find me at #45 among USCF Postal Masters, i.e. in the
top 1%.

In reply, Sam Sloan wrote:
I am willing to bet a fairly large amount of money that if we had some
way to check out this story (which unfortunately we do not) we would
find that this is just another lie by Taylor Kingston.

So, Sam, a few questions for the sake of clarity:

1. What exactly is the issue you want to bet on? My peak postal
rating? My peak postal rank? Please be specific.
2. What will you accept as proof of the issue wagered on?
3. How much are you willing to bet?
4. Will you deposit the amount of your wager with an impartial third
party, agreed upon by us both, who will act as stakeholder?

What I was proposing to bet on against some third party was obviously
your claim that your rating got knocked down 250 points just because
you quit postal chess.

Although not impossible, in view of your history of lies on this
newsgroup, I am willing to bet that this is just another lie.

However, as far as my willingness to bet against you directly is
concerned, I am williong to bet one thousand dollars cash money on the
table that I can beat you in a chess match.

Please note that I am but a simple man. I am rated a lowly 1931.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?11115292

You, on the other hand are a self-proclaimed chess master, a 2300
player according to your own admission.

Therefore, with your chess strength being nearly 400 points higher
than mine, you should be quite happy to take the easy money you will
get by playing a much weaker player such as myself.

Unless, of course, you are lying about your chess strength.

So, now we will find out: Is Taylor Kingston a liar or is he not.
Choose your time and place. Where are you going to bring your one
thousand dollars cash money so that we can settle this over the chess
board.

By the way, be sure to bring photo ID to prove that your name really
is Taylor Kingston, you liar.

Sam Sloan

"StanB" At least she doesn't have lips like a baboon's anus.


You ****ed her too?!?!?! Wow, Taylor's wife gets around! Just like the story
in Chess Life.

THE REAL ISSUE

So, now we will find out: Is Taylor Kingston a liar or is he not.
Choose your time and place. Where are you going to bring your one
thousand dollars cash money so that we can settle this over the chess
board. By the way, be sure to bring photo ID to prove that your name
really is Taylor Kingston, you liar. Sam Sloan

I wish Sam had not challenged Taylor Kingston to a chess match.
True, I think he would win a 10-game battle fairly easily and will bet
$100 to said effect if anyone wants some action in the event the match
ever takes place.

The issue, however, is not whether Sam at 1931 could clobber
our Mr. Kingston. The issue is whether Mr. Kingston misled all of us
when he baldly stated he was 2300+ ELO knowing full well what
conclusion we would reach. about his playing strength. The issue is
what such a lie tells us about his character since he now has persisted
in his original "horsefeathers defense."

Over the years Sam has enough scalps of very strong players to
tell us what he is capable of when he applies himself to a task. He
plays above a rating based on blunders and a disorganized lifestyle.

Knowing Sam just a bit, I figure he would get the money
together, eat a decent diet, sleep at regular hours and generally apply
himself to a high-profile grudge battle. In that case, I suspect he
would raise his game up to or near the master level. Further, Sam
plays mixer, tactical chess, which can be deadly against a lesser
opponent when Sam gets his act together.

I figure a $100 wager on Sam would more likely than not pay off.

Will Sam stop wanking to pictures of 12-year-old female animé
characters as part of his training?

http://www.shamema.com/pokepol*l.htm

Note that this page appears on a site named after Sam's daughter...yuck.

Will Sam stop wanking to pictures of 12-year-old female animé
characters as part of his training?

http://www.shamema.com/pokepoll.htm

Note that this page appears on a site named after Sam's
daughter...yuck.

reposted on Google & original removed--darn broken links!

As part of his training, will Sam stop wanking to 12-year-old female
animé characters?

http://www.shamema.com/pokepoll.htm

Note that this page appears on a site named after Sam's
daughter--gross....

***************

Not sure whether all three versions of my post will show up, but all
who post on rgcp labor under the delusion that their words bear
world-historical significance....

politikalhack. Note that this page appears on a site named after Sam's
daughter...yuck.

Jesus, you are one dumb mother****er. I guess if Sam named a child Abraham
you would post a site about Abraham Lincoln and say that Lincoln was named
after Sam's son?

You need to get back to your crack pipe and finish smoking that last rock
before you post any more stupid remarks.

THE HORSEFEATHERS DEFENSE

It is understandable that Taylor Kingston, who
is so very dreadfully pressed for time in spite of his
continuing engagment with Sam Sloan, does not wish to
discuss the question of what chess players will reasonably
infer from his straighforward, unironic declaration that he is a
2300 Elo player.


I think a far more interesting bet than the
one Sam Sloan proposed would be whether Mr. Kingston
could pass a lie detector test when uttering his
"horsefeathers" defense for why he told this forum
he was a strong.

Readers will recollect that there are two
versions on the table:

1. Mr. Kingston says that he really was not
lying in a moment of weakness when he was being
pressed about his playing strength. Instead, he set a
snare to lure Sam Sloan and, in some fashion that he
never explains, to splatter egg on this writer's face.
(Frankly, I don't think I ever entered into such a
Byzantine, still unexplained, calculation and that his
declaration re this writer is also a lie.)

Our Mr. Kingston says that he knew full well
when posting that he was 2300 ELO+, his claim could
be checked. Hence he could not possibly ever have imagined
he would get way with a pro forma fib that had as its purpose NOT to
mislead readers here but to ensnare Mr. Sloan and,
in some still unexplained fashion, this writer.

There was a bit more to the defense, which
does not make Mr. Kingston look very good and
undermines, in fact, the above story. He also noted
that his claim about 2300 and No. 46, when shorn of
all context, was literally true. Literal truth, in
such an instance, may be misleading; but it is not
thereby untrue. Pretty cheesy stuff, which Mr.
Kingston would have done better to eschew.

2. The second explanation for Mr. Kingston's
straightforward claim to be a strong tournament master
is that he lied, rather incompetently, in a weak
moment. It is an explanation that fits the criterion
of Occam's Razor. It explains quite simply why an
admitted untruth by him is also a lie.

In his "horsefeathers" defense of his claim to
be a strong tournament master, Mr. Kingston also spoke of
the entire business being amusing and worthwhile.

Okay, then, even Mr. Kingston's allies don't
really believe his claim about having a blithe time
here with this writer and Mr. Sloan. They understand
that his attempt at jaunty spiritedness does not ring
true except as a bit of ego-priming.

Which brings us to Mr. Kingston's claim to be a
strong master. Since he was evidently NOT enjoying
himself, the obvious construction is that he told a lie without
having a decent fallback position. If he imagined that he
could parlay 2300+ Elo into a claim that he was talking
about being a postal player, he was wrong. He dropped
this dishonest defense of a couple of supporters like
a hot potato.

Mr. Kingston, in a moment of weakness, let
wish-fulfillment get in the way of self-respect. He
blurted out a claim that would lead to a line of
attack that he quite obviously did not foresee. He
could see that the otbcentric vs. postalcentric
defense of a couple of supporters was hopeless (though
he may initially have had it in mind at the time he
typed his lie) and he then tried to make light of the
matter. He was really attempting to trap Sam Sloan
and, in some still unexplained way, this writer.

As usual, one whopper follows another in a cover-up.