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 -
With regard to this thread -
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
and overseas with the intention of drafting a paper. Australia
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 -
- Compile a reasonable comment on a subject posted on a popular, allegedly meritorious forum -
- assess any resultant comment and if possible reply in the same vein and on-thread -
- rely upon individual political/social standards/values within replies -
- attempt as best possible to match all replies to the resultant traffic - ie a staged response.
- If/when the communications traffic diverts significantly from the originally posted topic attempt to portray a character type expressing hurt and bewilderment and -
- 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.