Cofty, so funny. You accuse me of a "cheap shot" when all I did was make an observation.
Then you start dishing on Anglican bishops, a subject I certainly never broached, let alone defended.
Then you go on the attack with your "Scientists like Dawkins state facts" diatribe as if I had anything against science or scientists. I like scientists. I am one.
Your conclusion that, because I personally don't like Dawkin's manners, I'm somehow anti-science does not follow. That kind of thinking is not very clear or logical.
Finally, I have to address your last statement: "Truth does not need your approval just deal with it."
I agree Truth doesn't need my approval. It doesn't need yours either, or anyone's for that matter.
It was my insistence on truth, a need for things to be consistent, coherent and logical that finally led me out of the cult known as Jehovah's Witnesses, but I digress ...
But it's typical of a certain obnoxious style of rhetoric to use such loaded language to imply I'm on the wrong side of "Truth" and you're on the right side of it, when in fact that was not ever the subject of any of my comments. I was merely sharing my opinion of Dawkins personality, my perception of his demeanor and my conclusion that many people do not like him because of it.
Feel free to not like it; feel free to disagree. But please try not to confuse the issue by introducing into the discussion topics which I never even touched on let alone discussed. That's not nice! Oh, never mind. You don't care about being nice. I forgot for a moment. Deal with it!
Cheers,
00DAD
