Talk:Gish Gallop
Does JAQing off deserve its own article seeing how much some guy with a hard on for secular humanism is running around the site doing it? - π 02:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- By the way most people seem to spell it with two capital Gs. - π 03:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Links? Or at least a hint of what you're talking about? ħuman
06:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- My guess is that Pi is talking about what Pi does whenever he see's a picture of Duane Gish. Ace McWickedModel 500 07:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Down below in the link to this page PZ Myers users capital two capital Gs for Gish Gallop, so does wikipedia for their lame little thing on this. - π 00:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- We haz redirect. ħuman
02:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- I know we haz redirect, I was wondering if we haz correct name. - π 02:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good question, been pondering since posting. Does the ever-delightful Gish deserve their gallop to be Galloped? I run about 60-40 against, meaning I am quite willing to be persuaded by examples. Do our "internet laws" all have "Law" capitalized? If so, I'd be pretty much convinced, I guess. ħuman
02:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- All the internet law's are Laws. I am unsure of whether that is due to name being capitalised or whether we had a mixed policy about the capitalisation of proper nouns at first. They all should be marked entry point by the way, they were part of a viral email at one stage. - π 02:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Then this should probably be moved to "Gish Gallop". In a sense, they are proper nouns, not simple phrases. As far as entry points, Trent defines them by looking at the logs - seeing what people actually come to, not just, say, what Googles high or has lots of in-links. But do as you see fit. ħuman
02:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'll move gish and the hamfist ones. They excitement died down a while ago about our internet laws, but it is the reason DeMyer's Law shows up so high when poor kenny is vanity searching. - π 02:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Then this should probably be moved to "Gish Gallop". In a sense, they are proper nouns, not simple phrases. As far as entry points, Trent defines them by looking at the logs - seeing what people actually come to, not just, say, what Googles high or has lots of in-links. But do as you see fit. ħuman
- All the internet law's are Laws. I am unsure of whether that is due to name being capitalised or whether we had a mixed policy about the capitalisation of proper nouns at first. They all should be marked entry point by the way, they were part of a viral email at one stage. - π 02:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good question, been pondering since posting. Does the ever-delightful Gish deserve their gallop to be Galloped? I run about 60-40 against, meaning I am quite willing to be persuaded by examples. Do our "internet laws" all have "Law" capitalized? If so, I'd be pretty much convinced, I guess. ħuman
- I know we haz redirect, I was wondering if we haz correct name. - π 02:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- We haz redirect. ħuman
- Down below in the link to this page PZ Myers users capital two capital Gs for Gish Gallop, so does wikipedia for their lame little thing on this. - π 00:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- My guess is that Pi is talking about what Pi does whenever he see's a picture of Duane Gish. Ace McWickedModel 500 07:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Links? Or at least a hint of what you're talking about? ħuman
Contents |
[edit] PZ
Congrats, whoever put this together - PZM links to it in his Creation "Museum" article. --Psy - C20H25N3OYou know you want to 15:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed! There's also something reminiscent of PJR : "Instead, we get a Ham Hightail, in which he hurtles along heedlessly pretending that the evidence simply doesn't exist, so he doesn't need to argue against it, and it's enough to back up his claims by quoting Bible verses." I am eating
& honeychat 16:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] We're number one!
This article came up #1 when I googled "Gish gallop." Never thought I'd see that for a RW article. Doctor Dark (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nice! ħuman
05:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Cited in Skeptical Science!
Now you can go on infinite loop between SkS and RW. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Cut
- - 423 examples. The 423rd being "if you write this website a letter which includes a rebuttal to the above" - and at 423 points, they probably have a point.
As the above article is now gone, it's been removed. I've added it here for archive purposes. ADK...I'll execrate your snorkel! 02:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Irwin Corey, vaudevillian
For comic relief, the parodyist (born 1914), self-described "Professor", and "world's foremost authority" (full stop) maintains a web site here
[edit] Gish is Dead
Duane Gish just died today. 204.92.65.10 (talk)
[edit] Counter techniques
It could be useful for experienced debaters to describe common counters to this technique. Any takers?— Unsigned, by: 202.180.113.210 / talk / contribs
- There aren't any. The trick is to stop it happening by forcing people do discuss one point and one point only. Hence who formal debates can put a rule in place to stop it. The alternative is to do it all in written form on the internet where you have time to debunk it. You can't reply to all points in real time, because the entire point of "zinger" arguments is not that they're convincing, but that they take too long to pick apart.
moral 09:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- The most effective strategy is employed by most scientists I reckon: don't debate creationists just like don't debate flat earthers.

12:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Debating creationists, especially the "semi-professional" rather than the merely ignorant, only gives them unwarranted public legitimacy. Good science is not about winning emotional points in an X-Factor style vote-off.
ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
13:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Debating creationists, especially the "semi-professional" rather than the merely ignorant, only gives them unwarranted public legitimacy. Good science is not about winning emotional points in an X-Factor style vote-off.
- The most effective strategy is employed by most scientists I reckon: don't debate creationists just like don't debate flat earthers.