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