Talk:Ham Hightail

Shouldn't this be Ham Hightail as the article name then? - π 00:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

PJR

I have always thought of Philip as a Gish Galloper more than a Ham Hightailer, which are almost opposing styles. - π 03:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never known him to Gish-gallop, though he makes massive non sequiturs. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-sequitur's is more Ham Hightail, but he does bury the conversation in thousands of side directions with too many points to cover, which is more Gish Gallop. Maybe comments on his debating style should be removed from the two articles and placed in his. - π 04:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

His fisking is not really a Gish gallop, which requires that the conversation be taken off on tangents. PJR just responds altogether too thoroughly to points raised. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that is not a Ham Hightail then as you have to skip over the points and just say "the bible says" when pressed for an answer. Although he does enjoy Ham's "world-view" argument. 04:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would support removing Philip from articles like this the same way that I'd support removing Andy or other Conservapedians from the various articles around the place that aren't directly about them. Philip is sort of an in-joke here, so new readers probably would have no idea what he's doing there without a bunch more research. --Kels (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That I can agree with. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

@Kels agree. - π 04:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Me four. ħuman 04:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I partly agree but perhaps not in an instance like this where it tells you who he is and provides his website as seperate from RW/CP. Merely as a creationist. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

But he's not even, in his own words, a "prominent creationist". In fact, he's a pretty damn obscure one. Surely there are better examples? --Kels (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless it is a good example and the links and wikilinks are there for further info. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but he is so obscure that only the five of us even know or care who he is. ħuman 04:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we add the Ham Hoedown as an alternate name proposed by Chuck Morrison of Irreligiosophy in this episode: http://www.irreligiosophy.com/podcasts/2/023_nyeham.mp3 ^{— Unsigned, by: 64.39.80.86 / talk / contribs (signed by bot)} 20:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright question

Would I be able to use this picture in the article to demonstrate the basic argument? - π 14:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Lenses metaphor

Not sure if this is the place to get into it but for the lenses metaphor it would probably be more accurate to say that science take the possibility of different lenses into account and tries to account for how that might change what's seen while the creationists assume their lenses are clear. To me the current phrasing just sounds like a "no you" retort.Bobismeisbob (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)