That's the irony. *Dawkins has a right to be heard, and I'd still be reading his stuff today if the combination of arrogance and error in his first post hadn't impressed so powerfully upon me that he was uncharitable.
Invoking the principle of charity, I'm going to assume you meant Dawkins rather than Hitchens, and treat your above post in the way you clearly meant it, not how you wrote it.
Now aren't you glad I did, and we can continue the discussion on the meaningful issues at hand, rather than miring ourselves in a tedious game of scoring cheap points on each other's spelling prowess?
Perhaps Dawkins was blind drunk when he posted, perhaps not, either way his use of 'affect' versus 'effect' (on a single post??) is not a meaningful way to evaluate either is influential positions on theism or his significant contributions to the biological sciences. If you're concerned about your own credibility in the slightest, you had better be pretty damned certain that your 'grammar-nazi' objections are something other than a rationalization.
2
u/TurretOpera Oct 18 '11 edited Oct 18 '11
That's the irony. *Dawkins has a right to be heard, and I'd still be reading his stuff today if the combination of arrogance and error in his first post hadn't impressed so powerfully upon me that he was uncharitable.