[chronic_loser]

I have had a break for several months from the crevo threads. Took Dawkins to pull me back in, at least for this one. I think Richard Dawkins is:

1) an unbearable pompous ass
2) not nearly as bright as he thinks he is
3) president of a worldwide Richard Dawkins fan club (one member)
4) victim of the idea that scientific debate consists of sitting in the corner shrieking "all of the smart people are over here with us, and you are an idiot if you aren't with the smart people over here with us...., and oh yeah, what you say is wrong, and I don't have to prove it because all the smart people already believe it (you blithering idiot)!

I did research for a while with a Brit, and they can have an icy wit sometimes, but Dawkins is just an asswipe.

I think he is Carl Sagan's separated at birth twin.

[snarks_when_bored]

I've enjoyed Dawkins's writing for quite a while, but I'd probably get exasperated with the guy myself were I around him for very long. But he's not a candidate for prom king or sainthood, so I try to judge whether what he says makes sense or not. More of it does than doesn't, in my estimation.

[b_sharp]

Sorry to butt in snarks_when_bored.

Various snipped ad homs.

So you have no rational (or otherwise) rebuttal to his article other than a questionable breakdown of his personality?

This is a rather poor method of critical analysis.

[185JHP]

BTTT

[ChessExpert]

Your Dawkins summation seems about right to me.

The posted article has a lot of "attitude." I don't think it's intent was to encourage reasoned discussion.