Fun talk:Libertarianism/The Sixty Page Tirade of John Galt
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Delete[edit]
Instead of deleting, why don't we make this into a side-by-side? I'd enjoy critiquing this piece of nonsense. Plus, that would be fair use (I think). Tetronian you're clueless 18:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, if it's significantly abridged. --
Ask me about your mother 19:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- 60 pages is a bit too much to be considered fair use, IMO. It would be best to use short quotes and summarize the content. -- Nx / talk 19:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is, abridging it would require an intense effort since it would involve sectioning & editing. That's a lot of work for one person. Having read this already, I can attest that it is a rambling load of tripe that is annoyingly difficult to follow. Therefore, can we just put it in a side-by-side box and have everyone start hacking away at it? Tetronian you're clueless 19:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- If editing it is too much hassle, then so is side-by-siding it. We only have this because somebody pasted it here, & we don't need to side-by-side every piece of trash that lands on our doorstep. If somebody cares enough to write a critique of it, so be it. Otherwise, I suggest deleting it. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- TLDR
19:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- I started trying to isolate the important parts and then gave up. TL;DR indeed. I change my vote: take this poor, deprived rant out behind the barn. Tetronian you're clueless 19:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- The deed is done. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 20:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oh bloody hell tl;dr was the entire goddamned point! (It was also the main point in taking it out of the original point, but as the guy who painted his lawn always said, "I dye grass." The only downside of fisking Rand is that if Rand could sum up her philosophy in four lines, so can we, and the Galt tirade is, frankly, one of the most pretentious pieces of literature in the English canon, topped only by Atlas as a whole. EVDebs (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but we killed it because it is a blatant copyright violation, not because it was too long. Tetronian you're clueless 03:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oh bloody hell tl;dr was the entire goddamned point! (It was also the main point in taking it out of the original point, but as the guy who painted his lawn always said, "I dye grass." The only downside of fisking Rand is that if Rand could sum up her philosophy in four lines, so can we, and the Galt tirade is, frankly, one of the most pretentious pieces of literature in the English canon, topped only by Atlas as a whole. EVDebs (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- The deed is done. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
- I started trying to isolate the important parts and then gave up. TL;DR indeed. I change my vote: take this poor, deprived rant out behind the barn. Tetronian you're clueless 19:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- TLDR
- If editing it is too much hassle, then so is side-by-siding it. We only have this because somebody pasted it here, & we don't need to side-by-side every piece of trash that lands on our doorstep. If somebody cares enough to write a critique of it, so be it. Otherwise, I suggest deleting it. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
- The problem is, abridging it would require an intense effort since it would involve sectioning & editing. That's a lot of work for one person. Having read this already, I can attest that it is a rambling load of tripe that is annoyingly difficult to follow. Therefore, can we just put it in a side-by-side box and have everyone start hacking away at it? Tetronian you're clueless 19:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- 60 pages is a bit too much to be considered fair use, IMO. It would be best to use short quotes and summarize the content. -- Nx / talk 19:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
