Talk:Constitution of the New America

Should I move this to essay? Researcher 08:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)
 * Or just delete it? It's crap! 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)
 * not to Essay anyhow - see the kerfuffle over Essay:Women for a reason. 09:02, 12 November 2008 (EST)
 * Ouch. I worked hard on making this point by point comparison last year. Researcher 09:10, 12 November 2008 (EST)
 * I know, but point by point against crap (which I think we all agree on) is rather time wasted - it'd have been better to scrap it instead of trying to refute it. Sorry - just one person's opinion. ;) 09:13, 12 November 2008 (EST)
 * At the time I made it, it was being posted around on quite a few bits of the internet, including here. (In fact, the link should still work to the user who posted the original version.)  And it was a piece of crap that was so egregious, and so full of (often repeated) social science mistakes that I felt the need to document them. Researcher 09:20, 12 November 2008 (EST)
 * This article is amazing.

Response spacing
using those br's is not very effective, since different monitor/window widths affect how many lines the thing on the left takes. Table rows & cells would be better. 00:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That explains why I thought I'd had it in the past...unfortunately, my knowledge of HTML is just not that advanced. (If I put it into a WYSIWYG editor, and then put that html in, would htat work?  And would it be even remotely worth it?) Researcher 05:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no way to get it right with BRs. As I said, the number of lines used by the left side depends on window/screen width, which is not predictable.  Experiment with adding tr td /td td /td /tr for each "subsection" (table formatting).  Or parse the "side by side" template more finely?  05:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant...making tables and such in a WYSIWYG (because experimenting with it in here would be a real pain) and then coping it over. The last idea you had could work, though, if I ever decided to take the time.  (Not happening soon, though.) Researcher 18:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you meant now. Yes, there's a good chance that would work.  You can always test in "preview" here anyway, and even if you "save" and it borks, "undo" is easy, or getting help if you think it's close but just needs some tags tweaked.  20:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, one problem is this doesn't really use our side-by-side template formatting. In the latest "version", each section is a table, with both left and right being available to read while editing.  I may have a crack at cleaning this up later, but it's a big task to get it all nicely formatted.  20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I used an old side-by-side template, or else just utterly botched its use. I don't remember now (it was awhile back).  If you fix it up, I'll buy you a drink, somehow.  Researcher 20:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's one of the earlier ones. I'm going to patch it up now, but while I'm working, the "mixed templates" are gonna break it a bit until I'm done.  21:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Phase one complete. All sections now use the "sbs" template, headers are "outside" the template so editing a section pulls up both sides.

Phase two is to edit the longer sections that have "spaced" replies so there's a chunk of the left thing and then our reply in a new "sbs" template, without a header. That will force the vertical alignment we want.

Phase three, can we remove all the first person writing on the RW side?

Researcher, if you want a detailed "tutorial" on how to edit within the new formatting let me know. 21:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm "finished" up to section 7 in the New Bill of Rights. I'll get back on this in a bit, it's making my head hurt ;)  22:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done BoR #7 too. The last "wall of text" sections are daunting, since it will require inserting the paragraph structure apparent in the original first, then figuring out where the comments line up - meaning I'll to read the steaming turds twice through...  Maybe later tonight or tomorrow.  I'm going to remove my warning against editing banner now.  Also, I think this benefits from a visible TOC, but the "sbs title" template makes those two phrases part of the TOC, which is wrong.  Working on finding solution.  00:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Holy cow. Human, you rock.  Definitely buying you a drink, somehow.Researcher 13:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, glad you like it. Can we work on removing the first person language a bit?  I changed a few I's to we's along the way, but only a few.  I'll tackle breaking up the allcaps word salad sections soon.  If you encounter any confusion trying to edit let me know and I'll clarify how it's laid out for you.  Hint: our stuff is the sane part ;)  02:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll go in and begin fixing some of the first-person stuff. Researcher 02:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this real?
I thought maybe it was, but it just seemed to get more and more bizarre the further I got. Any clue who originally wrote this POS? And why should the "New America" be "Iran, but with Christ"? Just really out there. Quaru (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Formatting
I don't know if it's just IE but the Contents box overflows the right-hand colummn text. 12:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Chrome on Mac is good. Safari is good.  Firefox looks nice.   What version of IE do you have?  Quaru (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I use Maxthon which uses the IE rendering engine. However I notice that it looks OK in regular IE8, so probably not worth bothering about. 14:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The website and other stuff
Is it just me or has it been abandoned. Also, nominate for best of amusement. Тиранес, ? 18:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

wow, just wow!
I randomly clicked on this article just now, I think I woke my room mate up because I was laughing so hard. This captures, on so many levels, the hypocrisy and double-speak of the lunatic fringe. Pure art! --Umichcynic (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)