THE RECKONING - Reinhardt, knoppke, et al want a fair explanation.

IMAGE – Reinhardt and Knoppke putting this article ‘to bed’.

Interesting to see how certain types are a bit one-eyed.

Some can’t handle coarse language (I couldn’t until about six months into a traineeship in a Qld sugar mill.) some can’t handle irony or black humour – and a fair old deal just hate the rest of the human race.

In Calligula’s experience just printing his name on any document makes all too many suspect of his intent.

Yet he’s noticed that benign, considered and profoundly careful drafting of just about anything gets filed vertically by some of those with which he’d liked to have shared views.

He’s determined that at the end of the day it doesn’t matter too much how the thing is delivered. It’s about what is said and if those out there, of whatever political colour, refuse to publish it – then it may be published elsewhere.

Oh yes. Without a doubt there may be some who cannot understand what is being said.

There may be some who are flat-out too busy to make interpretations.

There may be some who are simply the victims of the modern education system.

And there may be those who have had such a bad day that the words just blur before their tired eyes.

But some pretend to be one thing then act another way.

I believe this one is about that.

The following has been sent off to the source, larvatusprodeo, but no reply has yet been forthcoming.

Of course CALLIGULA has been told often enough that he’s a vexatious bastard as has everyone else from Hammurabi to Tiny Tim.

All this centres around two of the staff at ‘Calligula’s Horse’. It goes back to when they were newbies – relatively fresh to the internet and wanting to enjoy what they innocently believed would be a universe of weighty discourse and a whole paddockful of new friends.

It may have been a bit of an adverse learning curve for them at starters but they are now here with us.

It is amazing to discover how their concerns align with a previous paper - “An Exercise in Serious Futility” – featured on this blog.

Meanwhile, in the absence of any reply from head office, let their matter be heard -

Hello all,

With regard to this thread -

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/06/nats-wiped-out-in-lyne-big-swing-against-libs-in-mayo/

Forgive this intrusion.

I'd appreciate gaining an understanding of how you would interpret what Messrs Reinhardt and Knoppke were encountering here.

Let me explain why.

I have recently been reviewing a fund of comments and contributions to certain fora and weblogs here in Australia and overseas with the intention of drafting a paper.

Extract from preamble -

"Blogs and Free Speech - The Intercausal Relationship Between the Dunning/Kruger Effect and Murphy's Law."

"The inspiration for this research followed a line of thought surrounding the material that has been accepted, published and maintained by 'moderators' of numerous 'blogs' and fora on the internet.

Masses of articles exist on the internet decrying the fact that arbitrary censorship and suppression of fair comment have become a feature of the medium - acts perpetrated not by agencies of nation states but by private individuals apparently cleaving to narrow, specious, interpretation of their own 'rules of engagement'.

I am confident without prejudice it may be demonstrated that individuals acting in the guise of 'moderators' so waywardly exercise control of these websites that, were they to publicly display similar manners, they might soon find themselves brought to task by their peers."  - was a view I had at the commencement of my deliberations."

While it is true that most fora have 'rules of engagement' or publishing policies of some form or another it has to be conceded that the national makeup tends to preclude most Australians from resorting to any sort of 'manual' as a matter of pride.

That reluctance combined with some other attributes, I contend, lends toward both the "Dunning Kruger Effect" and manifestations of " Murphy's law'.

While it could be considered that Messrs. Reinhardt and Knoppke, as new contributors to Larvatus Prodeo, may themselves have eschewed the reading of your publication policy it may be hinted now that this was part of their task.

Their task -

1. Compile a reasonable comment on a subject posted on a popular, allegedly meritorious forum -
2. assess any resultant comment and if possible reply in the same vein and on-thread -
3. rely upon individual political/social standards/values within replies -
4. attempt as best possible to match all replies to the resultant traffic - ie a staged response.
5. If/when the communications traffic diverts significantly from the originally posted topic attempt to portray a character type expressing hurt and bewilderment and -
6. when all else fails - bluff it through without resorting to 'conduct unbecoming' (maintain, say, the sort of language expected within a peer group in a public place).

The result, though by no means atypical is remarkable inasmuch as almost every 'cue' put out by Reinhardt and Knoppke was perceived by them as being picked up and attempted to be used against them.

And since they were tasked with undertaking the activity detailed above they responded in ways they believed to be personally satisfying and appropriate to the occasion.

While it cannot be argued that R&K were not eventually 'pushing the envelope' in inviting replies and comment I would submit the record makes clear the relative barrenness of the response.

I believe it would be fair at this time to mention the comment of one who 'blind reviewed' a text only version - who muttered "My God, which school do these little b -s attend?"

While researching this series I have encountered what I personally consider to be the 'gold standard' of blog commentary.

Permit me to share it with you - http://faultline.org/index.php/site/item/incendiary/P0/

In closing I shall mention again that I'm seeking considered opinion about this topic or for that matter anything you find personally significant.

While I realise that the opinion and conduct of contributors is not that of management there is an implied duty of care concomitant with the operation of weblogs.

It may be that your suggestions might become pivotal towards improving the breed.

- GROUND ZERO -

Some years ago the owner of an Australian defence research and development business sent what is called a ‘ministerial’ along to the, then, Australian defence minister, Peter Reith - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Reith

.

The paper was specifically compiled to refute statements (excuses) emanating from the Defence Materiel Organisation to the effect that in their opinion there was no capacity, capability or skills base able to meet certain defence procurement projects then on the books.

At the time this document was created the business had made enough headway to develop a product line of 100% Australian design and content that was fully compliant with defence specification and remarkably superior in accuracy and performance over published defence requirement.

Their services had also been solicited by a certain state police force to invent a product that would serve to eliminate the possibility of officers accidentally shooting themselves and their colleagues with their new Glock pistols.

(Most readers, who need cheering up, might not be aware that the Glock lacks a dedicated safety catch, They are an offensive, not defensive, weapon.)

Since this force had already purchased and placed into service a couple of hundred of these devices (weapons clearing stations as the cops called them) our proprietor decided to include their information in the ‘ministerial’.

The content of the document?

Oh, nothing that Mr. Reith as a profoundly knowledgeable and dedicated defence minister wouldn’t already know.

Stuff like – We are firm A, situated here; you can contact us by – and see our web page here.

It went on to advise – these are our projects a,b,c,d,e, etc – and our sales to the Commonwealth, to this state government, to these defence approved export costomers 1,2,3,4, etc. (all quite an interesting and information rich document)

Then relying upon and quoting from a document called the “Defence Procurement policy Manual” it indicated the ways and means by which the firm was required to ‘engage’ with defence as a ‘valued and respected defence asset’.

All that was illustrated with pikkies of the equipment including the item shown above.

If Reith actually ever did read the document there was one part that might have burred him up.

That was where it was politely put to the minister that certain initiatives contained in the procurement manual, underpinned by legislation, in support of indigenous Australian industry were being denied; that therefore his office was, in the strongest sense, evidently breaking law.

At this remove I can’t remember if words like Tenix and conflict of interest were used then.

I suppose if you’ve read this far you’d like to know if our boss had any feedback from the minister?

Some might say –“ What: from Reith?”

And they’d be right. The usual process would be that a response addressing each and every matter put to the minister would be sent to the deponent.

But not Reith.

Indeed there was a letter from Reith’s office to the local member of which a copy was finally wrested from his grip.

It regretted to inform his pal in politics that despite looking everywhere (probably under his desk) the minister couldn’t find anyone other than Tenix, ADI, Boeing, GDLS, BAE doing defence stuff in Oz.

Oh, by the way, it went on to add, we don’t want any of those weapons cleaning stations thingumys built either.

Which is strange because I’ve seen the e-mails from HMS Cairns to the boss inquiring about the possibility of their installation in the new patrol vessels.

But, true to his promise Mr. Reith took care of that.

How do I know this?

I wrote some of the manuals and took some of the pikkies of some of this gear both for publicity and for demonstration purposes.

I have been allowed access to some of this material for historical purposes; if it can be put that way.

So, in the historical sense what did Reith’s actions achieve?

For himself, a job for a while with Tenix -

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/26/1030053035440.html

And I suppose he set the tone for those who followed him in the ministry.

As for our small regional defence firm who developed equipment of a sort that can only be acquired by government; who developed their product to a stage that exceeded every element of the defence compiled specification?

Oh, they are all right. They’re broke. The same police whose lives they protected thanked them by staging a home invasion and stealing their project inventory.

That’s their reward for supporting the defence of Australia.

Meanwhile Australian soldiers are bypassing the chain of command and being admonished for stating the obvious and to the best of our knowledge our Naval boarding partys still lack a safe means of check loading and unloading their weapons.

But that’s only one tiny little corner of the Reith defence legacy.

I’m sure there are many other similar stories out there.

Almost forgot. Why is that pikkie a funny colour?

Oh. It did mention on that page in the ministerial that the rifle had mission/ environment adaptive camouflage; a non specular surface finish that was nonetheless readily decontaminated of NBC agents.

It also hinted that this feature alone would be worth millions in, say, the US.

The best way to illustrate that to a politician was to move the lighting along the UV end of the spectrum in that photo.

But we can’t have Aussies playing with stuff like that, can we.

Nope. Do that and we might have some new industry.

The end justifies the means

It might be sheer coincidence since I started blogging as ‘Calligula’ -  but some reference to Emperor Caligula’s horse, Incitatus has been made more than once in connection with the Australian parliament.

Just goes to prove, I guess, that great minds do sometimes think alike.

For those not in the know it has always been suggested that the Roman Emperor Caligula was a bit of a party boy and somewhat a loose cannon (not bad going getting a reputation like that before cannon were even invented).

According to a bloke called Suetonius (Ancient Rome’s Hedda Hopper) Caligula got himself on a bit of a bender one week – naturally the same week the senate decided to cause him some grief.

All this was a bit of a double whammy headache for a lad comparatively new at the job of Imperial despot.

As so often happened with our Emperor, inspiration came in a blinding flash.

Perhaps it made more sense thinking it through a hangover and in Latin but apparently those of the Equestrian Order were automatically eligible for the Roman Senate.

I suppose in Caligula’s addled brain it made sense to save expenses, cut out the middleman, and elevate his horse to senator.

All of which makes me wonder why it hasn’t happened more often since.

Leading forward the best part of two millennia to the Australian situation it might well be worthwhile considering installing a senator who could at least tap-count to ten.

That might spin out the estimates meetings a bit longer but at least the figures’d be reconciled correctly at the end of each day.

In conclusion I’m suggesting that much can be said for ‘looking back at’ two thousand years of history. (Don’t believe ‘em for a second when they come out with that move forward, don’t look back stuff and nonsense.)

Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (31 August AD 12 – 24 January AD 41) most probably copped too much adverse publicity as he was set up for a fall by his overwhelming opponents in Rome.

He had to be seen as a bit of a bastard or at least written up as one by the same tontine that bumped him off.

Too much perceived emphasis on his part looking after the interests of certain lower castes in Roman society.

Some analysts these days suggest he was topped because, by his own lights and within the standards and more’s of the era he defended elements of social justice, the rights of the poor and disenfranchised in Roman society.

I’m dropping the hint that absolutely nothing whatsoever appears to have changed in the mindset of the ‘select elect’.

So was Gough Whitlam a latter day Caligula or Caligula an Iron Age Kevin Rudd?



CALLIGULA'S MAIDEN SPEECH

The maiden speech –

All you out there who expected to meet some crazy Roman and his slightly inebriated horse on the senate steps – well, you were wrong.

This is a MODERN story about the strong and the brave seeking insight and fair comment from others so inclined.

But as it unfolds out of the mists of cyberspace the actual identity of  ‘Calligula’s Horse’ shall remain a mystery until we are ‘outed’ in similar despicable fashion as recently happened to Greg from Grog’s Gamut - http://grogsgamut.blogspot.com/ .

For those of you who might have an interest in aviation, the title ‘Calligula’s Horse’ combined with our logo, might suggest the nickname of a famous fighter squadron but since the appellation ‘squadron’ was pinched from the cavalry in the first place these pages could touch on topics about horse cavalry or even modern armour.

Then I’m sure that I’ve heard the term – ‘Battle Squadron’ with reference to Navy.

Despite the fact that we Aussies can’t pipe up much more than a ‘flotilla’ these days – please believe me when I say that Naval Types are welcomed here too.

Then like me, there are those of us who wanted to contribute by being in industry.

Bugger submarines – those in Australian small and medium defence industry are truly the ‘silent service’.

Yep, Mon Braves – on this site you shall be permitted to speak about all those subjects that genteel society ignores.

You may even use Caps, mid sentence and even CAPS lock if you really want to illustrate a point.

I have encountered what I personally consider to be the 'gold standard' of blog commentary.

Permit me to share it with you - http://faultline.org/index.php/site/item/incendiary/P0/

The document is about incendiary comments and includes about a dozen pages of carpet chewing brilliance. If your ears don’t start burning half-way through page 1 – then you’ve never commented on a blog.

I’m assured that anyone who writes in with anything completely silly or absolutely gross will be automatically attended to by someone even nastier than Arthur, out tea lad.

Arthur himself will deal with all the glib one-liners.

He’s done his TAFE course and his personal workstation is equipped with a guaranteed shockproof (that’s impact proof) big red button.

Having said that I’m sure that we can all behave better than they do at ‘Question Time, Reps’.

Get the drift?

Back to the point though, in recent months this ratbag calling himself Calligula, his pals in Calligula’s Horse, (A Non Farmer, Django R., Klaus K., and Arthur) have been making some strange but disturbingly truthful statements on various weblogs about the comparative standards of ethics and accountability in our parliaments.

They are also slowly compiling a paper touching upon the “Dunning Kruger Effect”, its intercausal relationship with Murphy’s Law.

There’s a whole bunch of issues evolving like why our soldiers deployed overseas continue to be picked off while supporting the failed monetary interest of a failing empire.

There’s the recent failure and solidifying refusal to look at the reforms demanded by the electorate since the last federal election.

There’s the ongoing refusal by the ‘winners of raffles’ to recognize that Australia, by its treatment by governance of everyone, is no longer a penal colony (winners of raffles – see - elected representatives).

There’s the refusal by those same raffle winners to recognize we need a Statute of Rights.

There’s them refusing to act despite the recent resounding advice from the electorate – because of the escape clause - we still do not have any rights legislation worth a damn in Australia.

That’s enough for a start.