Is Art Kramer the worst military veteran in American history?

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

You sound like a tight assed twit ..

"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.

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

"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

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