« Even Laster Chance to See | How to Write a Fugue »

Shrill?

A note to anyone writing about Richard Dawkins: the moment you choose to use the word shrill, I am no longer reading, because it's clear that you haven't done your reading. Please try not to base your reviews on a second hand filtering of his work through the prejudiced brain of a fellow credulista or on what you expect him to have written.

Thanks.

Comments:
Mon, 24th Sep 2007 (13:32)

To shrill I add "pretentious" "hateful" and "condescending" …

… probably the three things you read most from the pens of the IR-rationalists.

by Ronan Lowe
Mon, 24th Sep 2007 (13:47)

Add "arrogant" and "militant" to that list. It makes me wonder what they're actually reading, because it sure isn't Dawkins.

by Rory
Tue, 25th Sep 2007 (08:37)

Probably fear of "aggressive secularists" making them read things that arent there.

by Ronan Lowe
Mon, 08th Oct 2007 (09:11)

I think thrill is a much better word to use when writing about Dawkins. btw are we sharing a room in Italy?

by Hercules S. Rockafeller

About this post

This piece was posted on Sun, 23rd Sep 2007 at 22:21. It is tagged with and .

You can find other posts at the front page or, if you're feeling lucky, check out a random post.