A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is Art Kramer the worst military veteran in American history?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 5th 04, 09:27 AM
Airdale @ nc.rr.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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 ..

  #2  
Old August 8th 04, 08:38 AM
John Keeney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #3  
Old August 8th 04, 12:53 PM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #4  
Old August 8th 04, 04:21 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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




  #5  
Old August 9th 04, 07:26 PM
Leslie Swartz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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






 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
bush rules! Be Kind Military Aviation 53 February 14th 04 05:26 PM
18 Jan 2004 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 January 19th 04 03:08 AM
09 Jan 2004 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 January 9th 04 11:05 PM
Updated List of Military Information-Exchange Forums Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 December 29th 03 03:20 AM
08 Nov 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 November 9th 03 02:51 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.