Oh, pah-leeze! Dawkins has enjoyed the publicity, has enjoyed the luxury of a great number of "friendly" interviews, and by all appearences, appears to ENJOY being called "Darwin's Rottweiler"!!!
Sorry, but that dog [of yours], don't hunt...
Here on the pages of FreeRepublic, the term "Darwinist", for whatever reasons, has become to be seen as being an insult, by those who both hurl it as some type of invective, and by those to whom it is addressed.
I do find your emphatic denials, this attempt on your part to disassociate entirely from the term "Darwinist", as being flat-out silly.
How about the term "Darwinism", is that verboten, too?
Would one who ascribes to those constructs widely & commonly known as "Darwinism", be, by default, a "Darwinist"?
If not, why not? You really think I should accept that, for now,
It sort-of sounds like what we've all experienced in the U.S. with the word "nigger". All sorts of folks could get all sorts of offended, unless it was a rapper, who could fill his songs with "nigga", this, "nigga" that. It was ok for him, but for not for whitey, right? Oh, but they've gone and held a funeral for *that* word...now.
I would never suggest a word was forbidden.
I said that its use says something about the speaker.