Comment

Comment by Dr. Terence Meaden on September 28, 2011 at 8:12am

Do go ahead by posting the link you mention, denbutsu.

It is surely relevant. 

Comment by denbutsu on September 28, 2011 at 6:54am

Hey folks, I'm new here. Would it be considered inappropriate to post a link to a blog post of mine? Don't want to break any rules... The title of it, btw, is: "The laughable meme that Richard Dawkins is “afraid” to debate creationists".

 

Anyhow, glad to be here, nice to "meet" you all!

Comment by annet on September 27, 2011 at 9:37pm

Sorry I did not see the other thread(s). Definitely not trying to revive controversy but was curious on A/N opinions especially in this group. Thanks for the feedback. :)

Comment by Diana Bett on September 27, 2011 at 8:16pm

Mine too-- but Susan said there was a mess, and I'm not surprised. People got all kinds of irrational on both sides, myself included.

Comment by James M. Martin on September 27, 2011 at 8:03pm

That was before my time, so I will shut up now.

Comment by Diana Bett on September 27, 2011 at 7:52pm

I don't expect him to be flawless, but in that, I agreed with him. And I will say no more because I don't want to get into that mess all over again.

Comment by James M. Martin on September 27, 2011 at 7:41pm

People expect their guru to be flawless, but they're only human.

Comment by Diana Bett on September 27, 2011 at 7:27pm

I had hoped it had settled down, personally. I stopped hearing about it, but then, I was just as happy to have stopped hearing about it.

Comment by Susan Stanko on September 27, 2011 at 7:23pm

We has a mess of thread because of it.  Why are you trying to revive it?

Comment by annet on September 27, 2011 at 3:35pm

I did not realize it had settled down.  In case others managed to miss this (skip if you hate controversy): Our man is in the hot seat for giving response #75 at this link: 

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/always_name_names.php

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• …
• 40
• Next ›
• Page