Talk:We Surround Them

I know you are only working on this, but bravo to you, sir. ;-) I saw his speech and was too slack jaw to be able to communicate anything but my disgust that he used "cells" to come out and say "we are still lying, cheating stealing republicans but didn't want to be caught at it. Oh, and no health care for you, cause we *chose* who we are charitable for."--En attendant Godot_{"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.»} 11:53, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Thanks. I didn't hear about this until today, but using "cells" is silly theater. I think that watching what direction the GOP takes is going to be the most fascinating story of the next few years. I think right now it's largely a battle between having a religious party and having a fiscally conservative/government leave us alone party. Corry^{I've made a huge mistake.} 12:17, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

I've only had partial success table-fying this rebuttle. Can anyone add in edit sections for each portion, rather than one big edit? Thanks. Z3ro^talk 12:23, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

The headers would probably be better as H3 (using 3 x '=' instead of 2)? The original (Left Col) isn't really enuff to warrant a whole table cell for each though IMHO. Possibly better as 9 points = headers & rebuttal = para text i.e. not as a table.  .  ^{Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence} 12:43, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

On other side-by-sides, the table headers do not end up in the navigation box. That would work, if someone could set it up. Z3ro^talk 12:50, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Presume you mean the Table Of Contents? How's that?   .  ^{Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence} 12:55, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

I don't know, if I did I would do it myself. Look at some other side-by-sides, they don't have that table of contents. Z3ro^talk 12:58, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

How's that now?   .  ^{Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence} 13:00, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Much better now, all hail the buttery goodness. Z3ro^talk 13:16, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Sorry Z3ro - I might have come over rather dismissive - not intended.   .  ^{Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence} 13:19, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

No problem, text-based communication makes nuances difficult. Z3ro^talk 13:22, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

When I try to add a reflist it sticks it in the middle of the table. Toast, can you use your mad wiki skillz to unbork it? Corry^{I've made a huge mistake.} 13:10, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Was my fault :( Didn't close the table. Sorry   .  ^{Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence} 13:24, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Side-by-side?

I was wondering, since the principles don't really have any additional explanation to go with them, whether a side-by-side is the best way of doing this. Or at least a side-by-side where the columns are equal widths. Usually this format is for when there's many paragraphs of text that need covered and rebutted individually to make it read better. ArmondikoV^narchist 14:12, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

I said more or less that above: "The original (Left Col) isn't really enuff to warrant a whole table cell for each though IMHO. Possibly better as 9 points = headers & rebuttal = para text i.e. not as a table.", But I don't know anything about the subject so ...   .  ^{Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence} 14:20, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

(ec) I don't have much to say about the principles, except for reverence (the whole church and state thing, since this is political) and hope (jumping on the Obama train, Glenn?). I think we can just show them as a list with a short discussion following.

Thanks for all the help, everybody. Back to the books now. Corry^{I've made a huge mistake.} 14:24, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

I agree with toast re: headers/text. But the reason I came here is to ask if anyone minds if I move this to the mainspace as We Surround Them. Comments? ħuman 17:44, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

I think that was Corry's intent, somebody can go ahead and move to mainspace if and when the article is ready for prime time. Secret Squirrel 17:53, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

I think it's close enough, really. In the mainspace more people will see it as something to work on than here. ħuman 19:53, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

UI - So do you guys agree with un-tablifying it? If so I'll take a whack at it when my radio quiz show is over in about an hour. ħuman 19:56, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Make it so, Mr Powell.   .  ^{Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence} 20:03, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

I made it be done, Thy will is on teh wiki as it Is in Heaven. ħuman 21:46, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Version?

I just watched a clip of Beck on youtube. The principles presented on his show are different than those presented in the article we have linked (and thus different than those in the takedown). Is it worth making a note of this?-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 20:10, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

By all means, we should let the pillock say all he wants.   .  ^{Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence} 20:11, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

I haven't seen the clip myself. Made a point of not tuning in yesterday. The principals here are from his website where he first announced this. Suppose I should hold my nose and watch it. Secret Squirrel 20:14, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

It's only a couple of minutes. It's interesting in that he replaces the more idiotic statements (i.e. "America is good") with semi-reasonable ones. Is there a subliminal component to this?-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 20:17, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Same one I'm watching now. He replaced the first one with "America is a good place. Not perfect, but good." Secret Squirrel 20:19, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

And goes on to say that it is a "good place founded on good principles." Of course we would probably disagree on what those principles are, but that is a perfectly reasonable and defensible statement. "America is good" is an indefensible statement that foments tribalism and reeks of Stalinism. It's hard to figure out which one he really means, and if the TV version is supposed to trigger the print version in the Republican brain.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 20:24, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Killing Injuns and taking their land is a Good Principle? Slavery? --Gulik 13:41, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

PEOPLE! It's "principles". Principals are people, principles are ideas. </pedantic but get it right> ħuman 22:25, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Gah, you're right. Too much faith in the spellcheck... *hangs head in shame*-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 22:31, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Hmm. It says here, "Sincerity is more or less the same as honesty."

Not really. I've got a copy of Harry G. Frankfurt's seminal book On Bullshit open in front of me, and starting on page 66 he says:

"Facts about ourselves are not peculiarly solid and resistant to skeptical dissolution. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial-- notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit."

The gist of Professor Frankfurt's book may be succinctly stated as: while a liar knows the truth (or thinks so) and tries to conceal it or otherwise mislead the audience, bullshitters are not concerned with truth nor fiction, but rather some agenda of their own. Sincerity amounts to hewing to that personal line.

I believe the eagle eyes at RW are pretty much already aware of this, given the discussion of who really believes the deluded crap they spout, who is knowingly dishonest or manipulative, who is a parodist, and who is just plain thick. Sprocket J Cogswell 03:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

All your base is belong to us. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)