Ruth Anthony-Gardner's Comments

Comment Wall (1,217 comments)

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

At 7:39pm on September 10, 2017, John Dumaker said…

Ill remove it

At 5:43pm on September 9, 2017, Bruce Carroll said…

Thanks for your warm welcome,Ruth, as well as for your tips.

At 9:12am on August 23, 2017, Gabriel McCubbing said…

Thanks Ruth for the welcome!

At 7:41am on August 23, 2017, Teresa Roberts said…

Thank you for the warm welcome and good information. :-)

At 9:05am on August 10, 2017, Roland Francis said…
Thank you Randall and Ruth. Happy to be here. Missed my first meeting last Sunday evening but hope to make it next. Are you'll coming in September?
How do I look for famous visiting guest speakers when they come to Toronto.
Regards to you both.
At 9:08pm on August 9, 2017, Cristy McGowan said…
Thank you for the worm welcome I'm excited to be a member
At 9:59pm on July 24, 2017, John Dumaker said…

It's part of Jeff Session's renewal of the failed War on Drugs and DARE program. Anybody that is accused or arrested of a drug related violation can have their assets confiscated. It is a huge civil rights violation since it doesn't require a conviction. Some police departments have been accused of using it for profit and Trump is a big fan of it. It's all over the news today. Some states have banned it without a conviction. A persons car or house can be taken all without a conviction.

  https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/25342-trump-supports-civil-asset-forfeiture-even-without-conviction

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use-department-wish-list-when-deciding-which-assets-to-seize.html

http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/no-conviction-no-problem-critics-concerned-by-sessions-civil-forfeiture-directive

At 4:19pm on June 27, 2017, Dr. Ernest Williamson III said…

At 7:58pm on June 20, 2017, Bertold Brautigan said…

Dark is the new light.

At 8:01pm on April 9, 2017, Joseph P said…

I dunno, calling the standard model pseudoscience, saying that the LHC fails every time, and accusing everyone who supports the Big Bang theory of selling propaganda to the media and ignoring the published literature ... seems pretty ballistic to me.

He's attacking the ideas at the beginning there, not me ... thus the part where I stated "ballistic attack of subject."  The insult at the end is the part that is a form of ad hominem.  "You just want to believe, so I'm not going to waste my time giving you any evidence for my claims," is essentially an attack on my intellectual rigor, and he explicitly refused to address the actual subject.  What would you call that, other than an ad hominem attack?

I called him out on storming off in a huff and refusing to address what I said, after he stormed off, in this most recent exchange about him not understanding what words mean.  That's not an ad hominem against him, since he refused to provide me with an argument to address ... which was my point, after all.

And sure, Tom is argumentative.  No problem there.  The problem is that he regularly displays some of the worst intellectual cowardice that I've encountered on here.  I've talked to several other people on here who have had the same sorts of problems with him, in regards to both his anti-Banger crusade and other subjects.

Tom is/was (he's retired) a freaking engineer, which he seems to think makes him an authority on theoretical physics, such that he doesn't have to back up his hyperbolic statements with material from people who actually know what they're talking about.

At 2:01pm on April 8, 2017, Joseph P said…

Here's the previous encounter that I was referring to, about Tom's attack on the Big Bang model of cosmology, by the way.  You can see the pattern that I was referring to.

http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/hi-people-1?commentId=2182797%3AComment%3A2732892

http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/hi-people-1?commentId=2182797%3AComment%3A2733449

Tom: *ballistic attack of subject*

Me: *incomprehension*

Tom: *ballistic attack of subject*

Me: Huh?  Could you give me a link so I can see what you're talking about and have a reason to take you seriously?

Tom: *storms off after insulting me*

Humorously, what Tom did could be considered a bit of an ad hominem, if you stretch the meaning a little.  It isn't the classic form of the fallacy, but there are elements of it.

At 2:23pm on April 5, 2017, Bead Bum said…

Thank you Ruth! Hope you're having a great week. ;-)

At 7:06pm on March 31, 2017, Brian S. Sheldon said…

Will do. Thanks. 

At 12:48pm on March 4, 2017, Thomas Bear said…

Thanks for the welcome, I'm most def interested in the Eco-Logical & Climate Concerns groups you mentioned.

At 9:54pm on February 14, 2017, Donald L. Engel said…

Thanks, Ruth.  I'll check into it.

At 10:10am on February 10, 2017, Alex SansDieu said…
Thank you so much for the welcome! Can't wait to be more active in the atheist community!
At 9:33pm on February 7, 2017, Bertold Brautigan said…

Ruth--Somehow, my mind  not being the steel-trap sieve it used to be, I only just now noticed you'd left the comment.You add a depth and breadth of understanding we'd be much the poorer without. And better yet, you have a great sense of humor. By the way, have I mentioned lately how fucked we are?

At 11:33am on September 16, 2016, Tonya R. Wheeler said…

Thank you for the suggestions and welcome!

At 2:50pm on September 6, 2016, Elisabeth Christina Mathes said…

Hi Ruth,

thanks for the welcome & I´m looking forward to ckeck out your links recommended!
Nice greetings from woo-woo village :-D 

At 5:22pm on August 12, 2016, Muoma Ekene said…
Yeah, thanks for the comment... Well I've found a new home and a new family here.

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service