In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan:

On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Sam,
Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research.

I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but
regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to
Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod.
Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using
fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially
ludicrous example involving myself:

"My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same
person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005

He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter
and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, see http://tinyurl.com/382e2z)

Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter
Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest
instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo
ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many
others.

One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's
examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends:

http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h

Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that
Rev. Walker is fully informed.

On Apr 4, 8:12*am, wrote:
* In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan:

On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Sam,
Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research.




* I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but
regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to
Sam's research is an oxymoron.

Lets break down this word....Oxy is the Greek name for acid. Moron
(psychology), a person with a mental age between 8 and 12

That does fit Sloan , dosen't it? LOL

He is generally quite slipshod.
* Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using
fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially
ludicrous example involving myself:

"My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same
person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005

* He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter
and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, seehttp://tinyurl.com/382e2z)

* Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter
Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest
instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo
ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many
others.

* One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's
examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends:

* * *http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h

* *Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that
Rev. Walker is fully informed.

wrote:
In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan:

On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Sam,
Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research.

I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but
regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to
Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod.
Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using
fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially
ludicrous example involving myself:

"My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same
person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005

He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter
and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, see http://tinyurl.com/382e2z)

Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter
Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest
instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo
ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many
others.

One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's
examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends:

http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h

Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that
Rev. Walker is fully informed.


From what I have seen, not as a professional investigator, and not as a
enemy with an axe to grin, Sam Sloan is involved in a tremendous amount
of research. He does this for books he is going to publish, and he does
it for articles he has submitted to Wikipedia. As I stated before I may
not agree with some of his conclusions, just as I do not agree with
Taylor Kingston's on the matter of him informally backdating a rating
conversion to impress folks with a high Elo rating.

Stand warned, as a casual everyday person I might well do something that
some of you might react for very poorly to, like admitting that at times
Greg Kennedy is quite humorous and makes burst into laughter. Just
because I can appreciate that part of his writings here does not mean
that I endorse all of his views or actions in life.

Some of you folks have gotten so polarized and enamored of hyperbolic
put-downs that it is really amazing, in a sad way.
--

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

"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
...
wrote:
In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan:

On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Sam,
Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research.

I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but
regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to
Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod.
Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using
fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially
ludicrous example involving myself:

"My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same
person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005

He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter
and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, see http://tinyurl.com/382e2z)

Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter
Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest
instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo
ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many
others.

One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's
examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends:

http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h

Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that
Rev. Walker is fully informed.


From what I have seen, not as a professional investigator, and not as a enemy
with an axe to grin, Sam Sloan is involved in a tremendous amount of research.
He does this for books he is going to publish, and he does it for articles he
has submitted to Wikipedia.

Out of curiosity, what is an example of Sloan's good research, in your
opinion? If there is ever an example of someone making a mockery
of investigation it would be Sloan. He starts with a conclusion, and
then invents supporting facts out of absolutely nothing. If he
occasionally gets a fact or two correct, it is by accident.

As I stated before I may
not agree with some of his conclusions, just as I do not agree with Taylor
Kingston's on the matter of him informally backdating a rating conversion to
impress folks with a high Elo rating.


It's up to you show what was wrong with the USCF's updating methodology.
Put up, or shut up. Or do the extraordinary and make an even better
impression by apologizing.




Stand warned, as a casual everyday person I might well do something that some
of you might react for very poorly to, like admitting that at times Greg
Kennedy is quite humorous and makes burst into laughter. Just because I can
appreciate that part of his writings here does not mean that I endorse all of
his views or actions in life.

help bot's satire *is* good. If only he could be ridded of his delusion
that he is capable of making intelligent commentary.



Some of you folks have gotten so polarized and enamored of hyperbolic
put-downs that it is really amazing, in a sad way.
--

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

On Apr 4, 11:39*am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Sam Sloan is involved in a tremendous amount
of research. *He does this for books he is going to publish, and he does
it for articles he has submitted to Wikipedia. *As I stated before I may
not agree with some of his conclusions,

Please tell us, Reverend, whether you agree with his research and
conclusions he

http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h

In fact, I'd be quite interested in your opinion of his post as a
whole -- its language, its social attitudes, its moral stance, the
insight it provides to Sam's character, etc. It seems to me the kind
of thing one should not be indifferent to, especially in a man who
runs for USCF office and Governor of New York.

I would especially like to know if you can read all of Sam's posts
in that thread without vomiting.

wrote:
On Apr 4, 11:39 am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
Sam Sloan is involved in a tremendous amount
of research. He does this for books he is going to publish, and he does
it for articles he has submitted to Wikipedia. As I stated before I may
not agree with some of his conclusions,

Please tell us, Reverend, whether you agree with his research and
conclusions he

http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h

In fact, I'd be quite interested in your opinion of his post as a
whole -- its language, its social attitudes, its moral stance, the
insight it provides to Sam's character, etc. It seems to me the kind
of thing one should not be indifferent to, especially in a man who
runs for USCF office and Governor of New York.

I would especially like to know if you can read all of Sam's posts
in that thread without vomiting.


No, do your own work. If you want to criticize Mr. Sloan's work go
ahead. You supposedly have the skills to do it.
--

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

David Kane wrote:

"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
...
wrote:
In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan:

On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Sam,
Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research.

I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but
regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to
Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod.
Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using
fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially
ludicrous example involving myself:

"My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same
person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005

He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter
and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, see http://tinyurl.com/382e2z)

Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter
Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest
instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo
ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many
others.

One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's
examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends:

http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h

Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that
Rev. Walker is fully informed.


From what I have seen, not as a professional investigator, and not as
a enemy with an axe to grin, Sam Sloan is involved in a tremendous
amount of research. He does this for books he is going to publish, and
he does it for articles he has submitted to Wikipedia.

Out of curiosity, what is an example of Sloan's good research, in your
opinion? If there is ever an example of someone making a mockery
of investigation it would be Sloan. He starts with a conclusion, and
then invents supporting facts out of absolutely nothing. If he
occasionally gets a fact or two correct, it is by accident.

I am not reviewing and criticizing Sam Sloan's work. Sorry not interested.

As I stated before I may
not agree with some of his conclusions, just as I do not agree with
Taylor Kingston's on the matter of him informally backdating a rating
conversion to impress folks with a high Elo rating.


It's up to you show what was wrong with the USCF's updating methodology.
Put up, or shut up. Or do the extraordinary and make an even better
impression by apologizing.

Show me what published rating by the USCF you are talking about. I have
no fear of apologizing when I believe I am wrong. I do not see it that
way here.


Stand warned, as a casual everyday person I might well do something
that some of you might react for very poorly to, like admitting that
at times Greg Kennedy is quite humorous and makes burst into
laughter. Just because I can appreciate that part of his writings
here does not mean that I endorse all of his views or actions in life.

help bot's satire *is* good. If only he could be ridded of his delusion
that he is capable of making intelligent commentary.



Some of you folks have gotten so polarized and enamored of hyperbolic
put-downs that it is really amazing, in a sad way.
--

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

"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
. ..
David Kane wrote:

"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
...
wrote:
In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan:

On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Sam,
Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research.

I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but
regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to
Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod.
Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using
fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially
ludicrous example involving myself:

"My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same
person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005

He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter
and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, see http://tinyurl.com/382e2z)

Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter
Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest
instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo
ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many
others.

One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's
examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends:

http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h

Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that
Rev. Walker is fully informed.


From what I have seen, not as a professional investigator, and not as a
enemy with an axe to grin, Sam Sloan is involved in a tremendous amount of
research. He does this for books he is going to publish, and he does it for
articles he has submitted to Wikipedia.

Out of curiosity, what is an example of Sloan's good research, in your
opinion? If there is ever an example of someone making a mockery
of investigation it would be Sloan. He starts with a conclusion, and
then invents supporting facts out of absolutely nothing. If he
occasionally gets a fact or two correct, it is by accident.

I am not reviewing and criticizing Sam Sloan's work. Sorry not interested.

You can't provide a single example of his good research? Maybe that
should be telling you something.



As I stated before I may
not agree with some of his conclusions, just as I do not agree with Taylor
Kingston's on the matter of him informally backdating a rating conversion to
impress folks with a high Elo rating.


It's up to you show what was wrong with the USCF's updating methodology.
Put up, or shut up. Or do the extraordinary and make an even better
impression by apologizing.

Show me what published rating by the USCF you are talking about. I have
no fear of apologizing when I believe I am wrong. I do not see it that
way here.

Either the USCF's conversion method was reasonable or it wasn't. If
it was, then you are wrong and owe TK an apology.

I hope you will note the difference in TK's approach and yours. When
Kingston's recollection of the conversion was shown to be off by 40
points, he immediately corrected himself, to be consistent with the
facts of the matter. In contrast, you come across as wanting
nothing to do with facts (and becoming a fan of Sloan's "research")

It's an unfortunate and surprising development, based on your
past posts.





Stand warned, as a casual everyday person I might well do something that
some of you might react for very poorly to, like admitting that at times
Greg Kennedy is quite humorous and makes burst into laughter. Just because
I can appreciate that part of his writings here does not mean that I endorse
all of his views or actions in life.

help bot's satire *is* good. If only he could be ridded of his delusion
that he is capable of making intelligent commentary.



Some of you folks have gotten so polarized and enamored of hyperbolic
put-downs that it is really amazing, in a sad way.
--

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

On Apr 4, 12:50*pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
David Kane wrote:

"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
...
wrote:
* In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan:

On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Sam,
Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research.

* I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but
regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to
Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod.
* Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using
fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially
ludicrous example involving myself:

"My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same
person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005

* He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter
and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, seehttp://tinyurl.com/382e2z)

* Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter
Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest
instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo
ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many
others.

* One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's
examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends:

* * *http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h

* *Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that
Rev. Walker is fully informed.

From what I have seen, not as a professional investigator, and not as
a enemy with an axe to grin, Sam Sloan is involved in a tremendous
amount of research. He does this for books he is going to publish, and
he does it for articles he has submitted to Wikipedia.

Out of curiosity, what is an example of Sloan's good research, in your
opinion? If there is ever an example of someone making a mockery
of investigation it would be Sloan. He starts with a conclusion, and
then invents supporting facts out of absolutely nothing. If he
occasionally gets a fact or two correct, it is by accident.

I am not reviewing and criticizing Sam Sloan's work.*

Really? So when you praised his research skills, that did not
constitute "reviewing"?

Sorry not interested.

Your refusal seems to imply that you endorse his views on Japanese-
American relations. In my experience, most people with the title
"Reverend" strongly disapprove of the sort of things he describes,
expresses and espouses in that thread (http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h).
Your attitude, whether approval or mere indifference, seems to run
contrary to Christian ethics as generally understood.
Would you please explain how your theological views differ, taking
into account, of course, doctrinal fluctuations backdated to the Ten
Commandments, so as to arrive at the correct conversion algorithm when
switching between Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox and/or Protestant rating
systems.

David Kane wrote:

"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
. ..
David Kane wrote:

"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
...
wrote:
In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan:

On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Sam,
Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research.

I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but
regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to
Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod.
Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using
fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially
ludicrous example involving myself:

"My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same
person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005

He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter
and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, see
http://tinyurl.com/382e2z)

Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter
Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest
instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo
ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many
others.

One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's
examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends:

http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h

Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that
Rev. Walker is fully informed.


From what I have seen, not as a professional investigator, and not
as a enemy with an axe to grin, Sam Sloan is involved in a
tremendous amount of research. He does this for books he is going to
publish, and he does it for articles he has submitted to Wikipedia.

Out of curiosity, what is an example of Sloan's good research, in your
opinion? If there is ever an example of someone making a mockery
of investigation it would be Sloan. He starts with a conclusion, and
then invents supporting facts out of absolutely nothing. If he
occasionally gets a fact or two correct, it is by accident.

I am not reviewing and criticizing Sam Sloan's work. Sorry not
interested.

You can't provide a single example of his good research? Maybe that
should be telling you something.

I have not tried to review and criticize Sam's work. I made a comment
about the fact that he does a lot of it. That should be telling you
something. People that want to criticize Sam's work should be honest
enough to do their own work.

As I stated before I may
not agree with some of his conclusions, just as I do not agree with
Taylor Kingston's on the matter of him informally backdating a
rating conversion to impress folks with a high Elo rating.


It's up to you show what was wrong with the USCF's updating methodology.
Put up, or shut up. Or do the extraordinary and make an even better
impression by apologizing.

Show me what published rating by the USCF you are talking about. I have
no fear of apologizing when I believe I am wrong. I do not see it that
way here.

Either the USCF's conversion method was reasonable or it wasn't. If
it was, then you are wrong and owe TK an apology.

I asked you to show me what official published USCF rating you were
referring to and you declined to do it. As for the USCF's conversion,
the last concrete fact I heard about that was that Taylor Kingston's
official USCF published rating that came of it was 2037. Are you saying
that their is an official USCF rating list out there that contradicts
that? If so, please let us show us.

Or, are you arguing that the USCF is not authorized to regulate ratings?

I hope you will note the difference in TK's approach and yours. When
Kingston's recollection of the conversion was shown to be off by 40
points, he immediately corrected himself, to be consistent with the
facts of the matter. In contrast, you come across as wanting
nothing to do with facts (and becoming a fan of Sloan's "research")

It's an unfortunate and surprising development, based on your
past posts.

shrugs





--

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