"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 21:39:30 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


But, there's no rule that says that he, or anyone else, can't be both
intelligent and nuts. While I suspect that Gunner is a bit
intelligent, he has demonstrated over and over again that he has the
capability to act pretty nutty.

"Nuts" is far from objective, ye savant of laws, definitions, rules,
cites, statistics and rigor forged by relentless undergraduate
professors at MSU. g

That wasn't me you're quoting. Watch the attributions, please.


Possession of intelligence does not guarantee unfailing exercise of it
any more than physical strength precludes sloth. You yourself have
occasionally indulged in bickerbanter far beneath your intellectual
capacity for reasoned debate.

Again, please note who you're quoting.


There may be some difference between intelligent gent and crafty
******* but I think the difference is more intent than capacity.

If we believe Gunner's legend, he is or was a warrior. Some believe
it, some don't, pick yer pony. In any case, Gunner isn't the only
show in town though he has high visibility on USENET.

We celebrate and value our defender warriors when we need them,
disdain them for who and how they are when we think we don't need or
want warriors at the moment. The treatment of the populace for
returning grunts from 'Nam was absolutely disgraceful, as is the way
our VA disdains vets by ignoring promises made years ago.

Some warriors our government trains and then sends into combat have
difficulty changing attitude after action. Go figure! Some are
unable to adjust without help that is nominally available but isn't
really, while our attitude toward them is as evanescent and fickle as
the political tides. If they manage to avoid getting wasted in
combat, we waste them afterwards if they fail to meet our country club
expectations of attitude and behavior.

None of my annoyance with Gunner has anything to do with his service in
Vietnam. Years ago, when I first came here, I wouldn't have dreamed of
getting into these mudfights with him or anyone else. It just isn't my
style.

But some months of taking abuse for my political views and attitudes, and
facing his smug dismissiveness, I eventually decided he was going to get
some of that back. I'm not a doormat.

To me, Gunner is a cautionary tale. He essentially threw away the gifts he
was given. Normally I'm sympathetic to hard-working people who just screwed
up, but not when they blame others, and turn on them, to salve their own
frustration. And not when they screw up over, and over, and over again.
Repetitive screw-ups occur when someone has no discipline, and a deep-seated
thread of irresponsibility. Now, the only thing he has left to pump up his
self-image is endless put-downs of other people.

The way I was brought up, I was taught that smug put-downs of others, as
compensation for one's own failings, is a characteristic of white trash. He
works hard, but it's a series of wind-sprints; when the time comes to make
disciplined decisions, he reverts to type. That's how people wind up
cornered in life. I find it appropriate that he lives in a trailer. I
wouldn't have wished it on him, but he has none of my sympathy, either. Only
a liberal could have sympathy for Gunner in his plight. d8-)

Again, please note the attributions. Those weren't my words you quoted.

--
Ed Huntress