Dark is the new light.

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.

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.

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

Will do. Thanks. 

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

Thanks, Ruth.  I'll check into it.

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?

Thank you for the suggestions and welcome!

Hi Ruth,

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

Hi Ruth, thanks for the welcome. Please check out my website which is dedicated to providing logical arguments against God/religion:

https://thoughtcontrol.wordpress.com/

Thanks,

Jason.

Thank you for the welcome!

Thanks, and thanks for the info!

Thank you :)

That is one grand greeting for a Newbie!

It is much appreciated and, thanks for the pointers and links; I shall investigate them all.

-J.

Thank you for the warm welcome and the warning. I thought that message was weird. I just ignored it. I intend on joining a few groups. I've already joined the Atheists who love science group. 

I am an Atheist.

I also do not believe in Global Warming as this has been one cool spring for SC. I dont believe man has anything to do with the climate.

The dinosaurs had nothing to do with it either and look what happened to them.

But thanks for the welcome anyway.