It is when anyone promotes their opinions and when those opinions are based on contraventions of naive physics and promoted as scientific truth rather than theory and for which there is no/ or insufficient evidence (Dawkins on religion and memes for example) then i have a problem with it.
When you see someone besides yourself do that, let me know. I know I've never done that and I've never seen Cofty do it. You, however, do it rather often. As in the post complaining about you, you appear to have little understanding of the terms you use, a "naive" understanding, so to speak.
I'd agree more with Scott Atran and others that there is an analogous likeness between genes and memes but would not say that memes are like genes as literally as Dawkins and Blackmore do which is that memes are fixed on their own survival. I also maintain that it is this mistaken idea, propagated by Dawkins and Blackmore amongst others that fuels the frenetic militancy of militant atheists in that they (militant atheists) are gripped in the thrall of fighting unseen hordes that are bent on their own survival.Your very own "attack the idea not the person fits this description". If you did just that it would be fine - but you seldom separate the idea from the person (I don't think it is even possible to do so).
This is an excellent example of unconnected rambling.