The Gish gallop /ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/ is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. In essence, it is prioritizing quantity of one's arguments at the expense of quality of said arguments. The term was coined in 1994 by anthropologist Eugenie Scott, who named it after American creationist Duane Gish and argued that Gish used the technique frequently when challenging the scientific fact of evolution.[1][2] It is similar to another debating method called spreading, in which one person speaks extremely fast in an attempt to cause their opponent to fail to respond to all the arguments that have been raised.

Thursday, he announced that private-sector businesses with more than 100 employees must make sure their workers are fully vaccinated or be tested each week before coming to work.The

If historians want to be represented on the information superhighway, they and their organizations need to become active participants in the information process, ensuring that future programs for training in the humanities do not exclude history. Without such representation, histo rians will be on the equivalent of the interstate ramps that were built before the highway itself. They will be there, hanging in the air with others speeding past, but will lack the connectivity that will make the highway a meaningful part of their academic and

I have touched briefly on what I consider to be some important sources for the newly wired historian and suggested that the challenges that this part of the humanistic disciplines face will affect other humani ties disciplines as well. I have not touched on such important topics as WAIS, an acronym for Wide Area Information System, which pro vides access to diverse information resources, or the WORLD WIDE WEB, commonly abbreviated as WWW or simply W3, a wide-area hypermedia information retrieval initiative that intends to provide universal access to Internet documents, or any of the other new tech nical innovations in existence or being planned to ease Internet access and use.

tion. Since electronic publications and/or editorial work have not, at least not as far as discussions that have appeared on the HUMANIST and other listservers suggest, achieved the same level of recognition as works published in traditional sources, some changes are needed to provide the stability that electronic res

That is clearly no longer the case. I know personally of five closed lists and was accepted as a subscriber to two of them, but their owners have requested that I reveal neither their existence nor their addresses. It is hard to discover purposely hidden resources. These five may be just hints of a trend that will result in a relatively closed system in which elite scholars, wherever they are located in the world, will utilize private and specialized mailing lists—that, by the way, do not appear in any of the general directories—as their real forum for infor mation interchange

n active listserv will generate is growing exponentially and is derived from an increasingly diverse population. As a result, the "noise" to information ratio is rising and unwanted information crowds the listserver. Even after dropping off several lists, I receive more than 100 messages a day which consume at least an hour each morning despite expediency necessitated pr

from railroads to

There are five factors involved with listservers: quantity, quality, scholarly withdrawal from general lists, cost, and the structure of the professional reward system that might affect these potentially important tools in the future

Commentator Kat Nagel outlined a life cycle that every list seems to go through. First thereis initial enthusiasm and evangelism (where people complain about the infrequency ofpostings). This is followed by a period of growth and then community (with lots of threadsand information and willingness to help). When the number of messages increases both involume and in diversity, a certain discomfort arises (often marked by complaints that the listhas lost its central purpose). Finally, if a group of purists emerges and is allowed to ‘‘flame’’(attack ad hominem) and act self-righteously, while others leave to form groups of their own,then a complacency develops, or worse stagnation and death. If, however, the self-righteousare minimized and a balance develops between community and diversity, then a list will reachmaturity

Rennie’s and Flanagin’s (1994, p. 469) beguilingly simplequestion: “. . . how many people can wield one pen?” S