Re: Is Art Kramer the worst military veteran in American history?

[Airdale @ nc.rr.com]

>On the contrary, it's nice to see adult behavior now and again.

You sound like a tight assed twit ..

[John Keeney]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> ignore him as if he were a troll or loon
> (he's neither),
?---------------?
> as he clearly craves attention.

Guy, the parenthetical aside is a tad counter intuitive
in combination with that final clause.

[Guy Alcala]

John Keeney wrote:

> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > ignore him as if he were a troll or loon
> > (he's neither),
> ?---------------?
> > as he clearly craves attention.
>
> Guy, the parenthetical aside is a tad counter intuitive
> in combination with that final clause.

And yet I believe it to be accurate; you don't have to consider someone
to fall in either of those categories to decide that similar treatment
is the most appropriate response. Art is often a PITA but he isn't
incoherent like say zzbunker, nor does he rave about black
helicopters. He's grounded in reality (a highly self-centered reality
to be sure, and one that I often find ludicrous), and IMO he isn't
posting just to stir things up. In short, he may be obnoxious and
crave attention (as we all do to one degree or another), but he's not
crazy or an agent provocateur. IMO the most appropriate response for
all three conditions is the same. Assuming that the intent of his many
opponents is to get him to change his behavior or beliefs, it's clear
and has been for years that their current approach is wholly
ineffective -- YVMD.

Of course, if all they wish to do is exchange childish insults with him
to see who'll give up first, it's a different matter, but most of them
strike me as being capable of more maturity than that. I just wish
that more of them would exercise that maturity, and a reminder of the
adage about mud wrestling with a pig will hopefully help them do so.
I'm tired of having to delete numerous off-topic threads that should be
taken to more appropriate forums or private email if they insist on
continuing them, but I realize that I have no more or less right than
anyone else to use usenet as I see fit. Since dictatorship isn't an
option I'm hoping a rational argument will work. As I know the
internet but can still hold out such hope, that may be all the evidence
anyone needs that I'm the biggest loon here.

Guy

[Kevin Brooks]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> John Keeney wrote:
>
> > "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > ignore him as if he were a troll or loon
> > > (he's neither),
> > ?---------------?
> > > as he clearly craves attention.
> >
> > Guy, the parenthetical aside is a tad counter intuitive
> > in combination with that final clause.
>
> And yet I believe it to be accurate; you don't have to consider someone
> to fall in either of those categories to decide that similar treatment
> is the most appropriate response. Art is often a PITA but he isn't
> incoherent like say zzbunker, nor does he rave about black
> helicopters. He's grounded in reality (a highly self-centered reality
> to be sure, and one that I often find ludicrous), and IMO he isn't
> posting just to stir things up. In short, he may be obnoxious and
> crave attention (as we all do to one degree or another), but he's not
> crazy or an agent provocateur.

Have you missed his posts on the political front??! And you can say with a
straight face he does not post "just to stir things up"?

IMO the most appropriate response for
> all three conditions is the same. Assuming that the intent of his many
> opponents is to get him to change his behavior or beliefs, it's clear
> and has been for years that their current approach is wholly
> ineffective -- YVMD.

No, the intent of some of us is to remind those that leap to kiss his butt,
and any newbies about, that Art (a) can't be trusted to supply accurate
information *even* about his own very specific area of familiarization, (b)
is wildly inaccurate when it comes to WWII in general, (c) is NO model for
"The Great Vet", given his propensity to denigrate the efforts and service
of others who served alongside him and those that followed, and (d) lacks
the integrity and courage to ever admit, "Oops, I was wrong about that" (see
his refusal to admit that the Guard had been mobilized in toto long before
he ever entered the service). It may keep some poor new soul from falling
into the trap of thinking Art can be trusted (like I did, loooong ago).

>
> Of course, if all they wish to do is exchange childish insults with him
> to see who'll give up first, it's a different matter, but most of them
> strike me as being capable of more maturity than that. I just wish
> that more of them would exercise that maturity, and a reminder of the
> adage about mud wrestling with a pig will hopefully help them do so.
> I'm tired of having to delete numerous off-topic threads that should be
> taken to more appropriate forums or private email if they insist on
> continuing them, but I realize that I have no more or less right than
> anyone else to use usenet as I see fit. Since dictatorship isn't an
> option I'm hoping a rational argument will work. As I know the
> internet but can still hold out such hope, that may be all the evidence
> anyone needs that I'm the biggest loon here.

There is where you differ from Art--he decries the OT posting in one breath,
then starts a new OT thread with his next post.

Brooks

>
> Guy
>
>

[Leslie Swartz]

Kevin:

And I was beginning to think I was the only one who saw Art's patterns of
"whatever" (deception, sabotage, etc).

Why does it require six to eight of us to "gang up on him" for two-three
days to put him back on a track that is at least "less offensive" than his
typical bilge?

Why does he quickly revert to re-posting old, inane drivel for a week,
then slowly begin to ratchet up his blather again?

Why does he not realize that he is so transparent?

And why- Lord Help Us Why- do people like Guy continue to respond to his
oh-so-inane "Strategy of Maximum Bloviation" by pretending that if we treat
Art like a rational human being, he will change his pattern?

Steve Swartz

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >
> > > "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
> > > > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Guy Alcala" > wrote in
message
> > > > > . ..
> > > > > > John Keeney wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Guy Alcala" > wrote in
> message
> > > > > > > . ..
> > > > > > > > ignore him as if he were a troll or loon
> > > > > > > > (he's neither),
> > > > > > > ?---------------?
> > > > > > > > as he clearly craves attention.

**** SNIPPAGE-OLA ****

> > believe the most effective action is for those who find his views beyond
> > pale, and who wish to change his behavior, or failing that, register
their
> > disapproval of it.

**** Back to K. Brooks ****

>
> You are missing the problem with your approach--Art considers any positive
> (or at least not-negative) comment, whether it be about his WWII
experience
> based posts or not, as a pat-on-the-back, they-still-love-me,
> so-I'll-continue-to-put-out-some-more-rot. It is only when he is
confronted
> by hordes of folks slamming his hate-filled posts that he falls back upon
> quickly posting (or as he has been recently doing, reposting) some quick
> on-topic stuff (frequently ridculously inane, such as that whole "flak
suits
> in fighters" bit) to try and reel in a few of you folks who are willing to
> massage his ego...then he is refreshed and ready to start his rotgut
posting
> again. To put it simply, you are an enabler, so to speak.
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > As to folks being willing to accept his "swill", if some people don't
find
> it so
> > that's their choice - his opinions on various subjects aren't in the
least
> > disguised, so there should be no difficulty for anyone in reaching their
> own
> > conclusions about whether he provides sufficient value to pay any
> attention to.
> > Again, it's that Darwinian test. And now, I really am done with this
> subject.
> >
> > Guy
> >
> >
>
>