OK Robin, first up, you are right and Dawkins is wrong, but about one thing and one thing only: your 'Major General' song is not plagiarism, at least under US copyright law, going by the percentage of changes you have made. It is regarded as 'fair use for satirical purposes'. This does not apply in the UK, where parodists cannot disseminate works like this without permission from the copyright holders. It is still deemed plagiarism over there, but that would apply to probably every single parody on this site. Dawkins is not a parody writer and obviously unaware of this (but your pacing still sucks).

And if you want to play 'gotcha good this time', as far as I'm concerned he's still leading the game about 10,000 to 1, but that's just a personal opinion. Your pacing here is sound, so I'm scoring it 5-1-1. Not simply because I'm a committed atheist, but because I sense a lot of thinly disguised hate in this work, and we both know where it's coming from. 'Foolish rants, kick in the pants', 'island of limeys' (some of our best contributors are British nationals and so am I); 'his grey cells disfigure, sucker, mouth his footstool': just who is doing the ranting here? Pompous? Whatever else he might be, and that depends on your religious persuasion, I've seen few people less pompous than Richard Dawkins. Speaking of pompous, to me you are looking very much like the pigeon I mentioned on your major-general page.

I'll refrain from getting into the 'Our God' aspect. How dare you speak for me? Show a little more respect for other people's beliefs. After all, isn't that what you want? All the same. I'm sure you'll get a lot of support here, but not from me.

Finally, take a good look around the board at some of my comments, which are frequent and often generous, and you'll find I'm a fair-minded and even-handed commenter who likes to spread encouragement around. Not only that, I prefer to eschew sensitive and controversial issues, even though I may disagree strongly with some contributors, in favor of playfulness and creativity, which I think is what this site is about. In fact, I hold back on blasphemous and anti-religious themes because I find people don't like it, though I've done one or two.

Sorry mate, you've struck a nerve with this one. If you continue in the same vein, I'll be taking it right up to you, so be prepared for that. Cheers.

Lifeliver - just realized how accurate your pigeon analogy was over on Mr Edgar's other parody. :-)

Thanks Phil - much appreciated.

Woo Hoo! I've struck a nerve with this one. What more could I possible ask for. :-) I won't say "get a life" Lifeliver but I *will* say develop a sense of humour. Please note that I spelled the word "humour" in the manner of The King's English. . . Thanks for acknowledging that, at least in so far as my alleged theft of William Gilbert's lyrics to 'The Major General's Song' goes, I am indeed right and that pompous ASS RichardDawkins is more than a little bit foolishly WRONG. Bang a gong. . . "It is regarded as 'fair use for satirical purposes'." No kidding. Why do you suppose my first response to Richard Dawkins' Tweet saying - "Even your rhymes were stolen directly from Gilbert." Was - "ROTFLMU*UO! Richard old boy, DO learn to recognize #parody and #satire. If you even know the meaning of those two words." which "tit for tat" played back these condescending words that I very happily "stole" from Dick. . . "Learn to scan. If you even know the meaning of the word." "Dawkins is not a parody writer and obviously unaware of this (but your pacing still sucks)." I am not a poet or lyricist by trade, or even as an amateur, so it is ludicrous for Richard Dawkins to expect me, or indeed most people, to know the meaning of the word "scan" as it applies to poetry and song lyrics. "And if you want to play 'gotcha good this time', as far as I'm concerned he's still leading the game about 10,000 to 1, but that's just a personal opinion." Show me where Richard Dawkins "got" me and I will show you where I "got" him several times over. . . "Your pacing here is sound, so I'm scoring it 5-1-1." Thanks for so kindly acknowledging that I learned to "scan" rather quickly and quite adequately. . . Now I must learn to scan like a David Cronenberg style "Scanner" so that I can make Richard Dawkins' head explode, not that I haven't already made his head explode in the figurative sense. . . :-) There is no hate in this song, or in 'The Atheist Supremacist's Song', there is mockery and ridicule aplenty, but not any hate. I have little use for that undesirable and harmful emotion. 'Foolish rants, kick in the pants' Mockery and ridicule. 'Island of Limeys' Richard *did* say, "Learn to scan." and this scans very well if not perfectly. I have lots of friends and relatives "On the Island of the Limeys" and am something of an Anglophile. As I said. . . Develop a sense of good old British humour. You didn't notice how "sucker" scanned so nicely with "succour" in the original song? And Dick *is* a "sucker", at least insofar as being lured into making a fool of himself on Twitter. Not that I was trying that hard or expecting him to reply to my Tweet bringing 'The Atheist Supremacist's Song' to his attention. "So his mouth shall be his footstool" *scans* perfectly with "So the world shall be His footstool" Not to mention the fact that Richard Dawkins did a truly blunderful job of inserting his foot into his mouth with his two dumbASS Tweets to me. Right? :just who is doing the ranting here? You say "ranting", I say "mocking". . . Richard Dawkins most certainly is a pompous ASS in his own particular way. Most people reading his Tweets to me will readily agree that they express arrogance and condescension which are characteristic of pomposity. I am confident that the Court Of Public Opinion will agree that Richard Dawkins' Tweets saying - "Learn to scan. If you even know the meaning of the word." and "Your replies showed that, amazingly, you DIDN'T know what scan means. Even your rhymes were stolen directly from Gilbert." ARE bombastic high-sounding phrases. No? "I'll refrain from getting into the 'Our God' aspect. How dare you speak for me?" ROTFLU*UO! Where did you get the ludicrous idea that the parody lyrics of 'A Battle Hymn To Impugn Dick' to say nothing of 'The Battle Hymn Of The Republic' speak for ANY "committed atheist" Lifeliver? "Show a little more respect for other people's beliefs." Pass that good advice along to Richard Dawkins and I won't feel the need to write any more parody songs about him and other "less than respectful" Atheist Supremacists. . . "After all, isn't that what you want?" See above. I suggest that you try a little bit harder to perceive the *playfulness* and creativity expressed in my two parody songs about Richard Dawkins. "I hold back on blasphemous and anti-religious themes because I find people don't like it, though I've done one or two." No kidding "people don't like it" when their religious beliefs are not only mocked and ridiculed but deeply insulted and even slandered and libeled. Why do you suppose I have taken the time and creative energy to return the favor to Richard Dawkins and other intolerant, disrespectful, and even outright abusive fundamentalist Atheists aka Atheist Supremacists? Thanks for the sour grapes. They were scrumptious! :-)

Typo & grammar correction - What more could I possibly ask for? :-)

Robin - thank you for the comprehensive response and I will get back to you. In the meantime, I'd like to look at a few other parodies, not to mention submit one of my own. Btw, have you ever heard of para breaks? They might make your words more digestible. (angular bracket BR angular bracket) for line break, do it twice for para break.

LL, many of us don't know how to do a paragraph break on thios website. I know I don't. Look, I just depressed the ENTER key to try to make a new paragraph for this sentence and .... How DO you do it

@ Lennie (and Robin): perhaps I didn't make it clear above. Find the angular bracket keys on your keyboard - this one: < and key in. Then key BR in caps and close bracket: >Nothing will happen on your WP, but when you transfer it to the site, it will read as an instruction for a line break. For a para break, do it twice. You can try it out on the submit parody page to check if it works, then just quit the page when you've got it. There are other ways, I believe, but this one works for me. Obviously I can't demonstrate it here because the site will just read it as an instruction. Hope that's helpful. Good luck.

If at first you don't succeed. Try. Try. Again. . . oo Hoo! I've struck a nerve with this one. What more could I possibly ask for? :-) I won't say "get a life" Lifeliver but I *will* say develop a sense of humour. Please note that I spelled the word "humour" in the manner of The King's English. . . Thanks for acknowledging that, at least in so far as my alleged theft of William Gilbert's lyrics to 'The Major General's Song' goes, I am indeed right and that pompous ASS RichardDawkins is more than a little bit foolishly WRONG. Bang a gong. . . "It is regarded as 'fair use for satirical purposes'." No kidding. Why do you suppose my first response to Richard Dawkins' Tweet saying - "Even your rhymes were stolen directly from Gilbert." Was - "ROTFLMU*UO! Richard old boy, DO learn to recognize #parody and #satire. If you even know the meaning of those two words." which "tit for tat" played back these condescending words that I very happily "stole" from Dick. . . "Learn to scan. If you even know the meaning of the word." "Dawkins is not a parody writer and obviously unaware of this (but your pacing still sucks)." I am not a poet or lyricist by trade, or even as an amateur, so it is ludicrous for Richard Dawkins to expect me, or indeed most people, to know the meaning of the word "scan" as it applies to poetry and song lyrics."And if you want to play 'gotcha good this time', as far as I'm concerned he's still leading the game about 10,000 to 1, but that's just a personal opinion." Show me where Richard Dawkins "got" me and I will show you where I "got" him several times over. . ."Your pacing here is sound, so I'm scoring it 5-1-1." Thanks for so kindly acknowledging that I learned to "scan" rather quickly and quite adequately. . . Now I must learn to scan like a David Cronenberg style "Scanner" so that I can make Richard Dawkins' head explode, not that I haven't already made his head explode in the figurative sense. . . :-) There is no hate in this song, or in 'The Atheist Supremacist's Song', there is mockery and ridicule aplenty, but not any hate. I have little use for that undesirable and harmful emotion. 'Foolish rants, kick in the pants' = Mockery and ridicule. Richard Dawkins *did* demand that I, "Learn to scan." and "On the Island of the Limeys" scans very well with the original lyrics of Julia Ward Howe's song, if not perfectly. I have lots of friends and relatives "On the Island of the Limeys" and I am something of an Anglophile myself. As I said. . . Develop a sense of good old British humour. You didn't notice how "sucker" scanned so nicely with "succour" in the original song? And Dick *is* a "sucker", at least insofar as being lured into making a fool of himself on Twitter. Not that I was trying that hard, or expecting him to reply to my Tweet bringing 'The Atheist Supremacist's Song' to his attention. "So his mouth shall be his footstool" *scans* perfectly with "So the world shall be His footstool". . . Not to mention the fact that Richard Dawkins did a truly blunderful job of inserting his foot into his mouth with his two dumbASS Tweets to me. Right? :just who is doing the ranting here? You say "ranting", I say "mocking". . . Richard Dawkins most certainly is a pompous ASS in his own particular way. Most people reading his Tweets to me will readily agree that they express arrogance and condescension which are characteristic of pomposity. I am confident that the Court Of Public Opinion will agree that Richard Dawkins' Tweets saying - "Learn to scan. If you even know the meaning of the word." and "Your replies showed that, amazingly, you DIDN'T know what scan means. Even your rhymes were stolen directly from Gilbert." ARE bombastic high-sounding phrases. No? "I'll refrain from getting into the 'Our God' aspect. How dare you speak for me?" ROTFLU*UO! Where did you get the ludicrous idea that the parody lyrics of 'A Battle Hymn To Impugn Dick' to say nothing of 'The Battle Hymn Of The Republic' speak for ANY "committed atheist" Lifeliver? "Show a little more respect for other people's beliefs." Pass that good advice along to Richard Dawkins and I won't feel the need to write any more parody songs about him and other "less than respectful" Atheist Supremacists. . . "After all, isn't that what you want?" See above. I suggest that you try a little bit harder to perceive the *playfulness* and creativity expressed in my two parody songs about Richard Dawkins. "I hold back on blasphemous and anti-religious themes because I find people don't like it, though I've done one or two." No kidding "people don't like it" when their religious beliefs are not only mocked and ridiculed but deeply insulted and even slandered and libeled. Why do you suppose I have taken the time and creative energy to return the favor to Richard Dawkins and other intolerant, disrespectful, and even outright abusive fundamentalist Atheists aka Atheist Supremacists? Thanks for the sour grapes. They were scrumptious! :-)

Woo Hoo! I've struck a nerve with this one.

What more could I possibly ask for? :-)

I won't say "get a life" Lifeliver but I *will* say develop a sense of humour. Please note that I spelled the word "humour" in the manner of The King's English. . .

Thanks for acknowledging that, at least in so far as my alleged theft of William Gilbert's lyrics to 'The Major General's Song' goes, I am indeed right and that pompous ASS Richard Dawkins is more than a little bit foolishly WRONG. Bang a gong. . .

"It is regarded as 'fair use for satirical purposes'."

No kidding. Why do you suppose my first response to Richard Dawkins' Tweet saying -

"Even your rhymes were stolen directly from Gilbert."

Was - "ROTFLMU*UO! Richard old boy, DO learn to recognize #parody and #satire. If you even know the meaning of those two words." which "tit for tat" played back these condescending words that I very happily "stole" from Dick. . .

"Learn to scan. If you even know the meaning of the word."

"Dawkins is not a parody writer and obviously unaware of this (but your pacing still sucks)."

I am not a poet or lyricist by trade, or even as an amateur, so it is ludicrous for Richard Dawkins to expect me, or indeed most people, to know the meaning of the word "scan" as it applies to poetry and song lyrics."And if you want to play 'gotcha good this time', as far as I'm concerned he's still leading the game about 10,000 to 1, but that's just a personal opinion."

Show me where Richard Dawkins "got" me and I will show you where I "got" him several times over. . .

"Your pacing here is sound, so I'm scoring it 5-1-1."

Thanks for so kindly acknowledging that I learned to "scan" rather quickly and quite adequately. . . Now I must learn to scan like a David Cronenberg style "Scanner" so that I can make Richard Dawkins' head explode, not that I haven't already made his head explode in the figurative sense. . . :-)

There is no hate in this song, or in 'The Atheist Supremacist's Song', there is mockery and ridicule aplenty, but not any hate. I have little use for that undesirable and harmful emotion.

'Foolish rants, kick in the pants' = Mockery and ridicule.

Richard Dawkins *did* demand that I, "Learn to scan." "On the Island of the Limeys" scans very well with the original lyrics of Julia Ward Howe's song, if not perfectly. I have lots of friends and relatives "On the Island of the Limeys" and I am something of an Anglophile myself. As I said. . . Develop a sense of good old British humour.

You didn't notice how "sucker" scanned so nicely with "succour" in the original song? And Dick *is* a "sucker", at least insofar as being lured into making a fool of himself on Twitter. Not that I was trying that hard, or expecting him to reply to my Tweet bringing 'The Atheist Supremacist's Song' to his attention.

"So his mouth shall be his footstool" *scans* perfectly with "So the world shall be His footstool". . . Not to mention the fact that Richard Dawkins did a truly blunderful job of inserting his foot into his mouth with his two dumbASS Tweets to me. Right?

Above comment continued and concluded -

:just who is doing the ranting here?

You say "ranting", I say "mocking". . .

Richard Dawkins most certainly is a pompous ASS in his own particular way. Most people reading his Tweets to me will readily agree that they express arrogance and condescension which are characteristic of pomposity. I am confident that the Court Of Public Opinion will agree that Richard Dawkins' Tweets saying - "Learn to scan. If you even know the meaning of the word." and "Your replies showed that, amazingly, you DIDN'T know what scan means. Even your rhymes were stolen directly from Gilbert." ARE bombastic high-sounding phrases. No?

"I'll refrain from getting into the 'Our God' aspect. How dare you speak for me?"

ROTFLU*UO! Where did you get the ludicrous idea that the parody lyrics of 'A Battle Hymn To Impugn Dick' to say nothing of 'The Battle Hymn Of The Republic' speak for ANY "committed atheist" Lifeliver?

"Show a little more respect for other people's beliefs."

Pass that good advice along to Richard Dawkins and I won't feel the need to write any more parody songs about him and other "less than respectful" Atheist Supremacists. . .

"After all, isn't that what you want?"

See above.

I suggest that you try a little bit harder to perceive the *playfulness* and creativity expressed in my two parody songs about Richard Dawkins.

"I hold back on blasphemous and anti-religious themes because I find people don't like it, though I've done one or two."

No kidding "people don't like it" when their religious beliefs are not only mocked and ridiculed but deeply insulted and even slandered and libeled. Why do you suppose I have taken the time and creative energy to return the favor to Richard Dawkins and other intolerant, disrespectful, and even outright abusive fundamentalist Atheists aka Atheist Supremacists?

Thanks for the sour grapes. They were scrumptious! :-)

Part 1 (comment was too long)

I'm keeping the lines open, but somehow I don't think they'll stay open very long. They tend not to with narrow minds. Your mind or mine is not for me to say. Normally I would continue such an involved discussion by e-mail in order not to bother others, but in this case it cannot be. Uninterested commenters will just have to skip this. Sorry folks.

I see you got the para-break thing going - good for you, but it hardly justifies cluttering the site with two (three?) more versions of what you said before, as if that wasn't turgid and long-winded and repetitive enough. If you're going to revise your work at least do it off-site or make good use of the 'Preview' button. That's what it's there for. You added very little new material anyway.

First up, some of your responses are valid, and I'm happy to acknowledge them (I'll come to those in Part 2). Some not, with a capital N. To me the issue is not really Richard Dawkins, or atheism or religious belief. It's really about you: specifically, your single-minded hidden agenda and your notion of arrogance/pomposity. I think the best and clearest approach is to respond to your comments in the order they appear in your original. For easy navigation, I've used subheadings, something I wouldn't normally do.

Pacing/Plagiarism
You're pleased to have 'struck a nerve'. Congrats, we all know that 'too-shay' feeling, but I don't think you understand which nerve you've struck. Not my anti-religious nerve, which is extremely robust, but my complacency/self-delusion nerve.

Do you seriously think you got Dawkins's goat with your (self-described) amateurish parody? He pointed out you obviously didn't know much about scansion (a technical word, we just refer to it as pacing here, and it incorporates a number of literary devices), and on the matter of plagiarism, under British law he is quite right, though it's obvious contributors here don't agree. He ignored your insults and simply told you he didn't think it was very good. So where's your victory there?

'I learned to scan rather quickly'. No. 'Battle Hymn' is just a much easier song to pace (not so easy to sub though, or find an effective theme). You need to look at what our crack parodists do with epic songs like 'American Pie', 'Supercalifrag', 'Bohemian Rhapsody' and others to learn what expert pacing is about. Speaking of others' parodies, to date you haven't shown the slightest interest in them. But then, the art of parody and the creative efforts of other people who provide you with an audience is not what you're here for. You just want to play 'Little Jack Horner'.

Humor
No sense of humor? Simple answer - take a look at some of my parodies, and my comments elsewhere. They're not all funny, and some of them just fail to be funny. But some things aren't funny, and teaching children to ignore what generations of scientists have learned and rely on the creation myths of primitive bronze-age goatherds happens to one of them. I don't think Galileo found the Church's response to his hard-won truths funny either. Nor is calling an eminent biologist a supremacist for upholding people's right to access the knowable, proveable truth and fearlessly combatting blind dogma and superstition wherever he may find it - with a sense of humor, especially the humor of the absurd, as viewing any of his speeches will bear out.

I don't know why you spelt 'humour' British style. This is an American site and even the Brits generally follow those spelling standards. And what on earth is the 'King's English'? Last I looked, England had a queen, has for more than sixty years. And even the 'Queen's English' is just a paradigm. Nobody actually speaks or even writes it. It's relative to region, class, generation, style, subculture and other factors. I can only assume these references indicate some sort of intellectual cringe.

The 'Gotcha Good Game'
Score: Dawkins 10,000, Edgar 1 What do I mean? 10,000 is a random figure, a rhetorical device, and it doesn't refer to points scored specifically against you, but those he has scored for reason and understanding in what you call the 'Court of Public Opinion'. You can interpret it any way you like: the 10,000 inconsistencies in the Bible; the 10,000 valid points of evidence in support of evolution in 'The Greatest Show on Earth'; the 10,000 hominid fossils, any one of which could fill the place of the so-called 'elusive' missing link that Creationists claim we don't have; the 10,000 times you still say 'Show us the proof' for phenomena that have been proven many times over; the 10,000 miracles in the bible for which you don't even need any proof; the 10,000 souls who were victims of the Lord's wrath in any one of his frequent acts of genocide, or incitements to genocide to his 'chosen people'. I'm sure you catch my drift …

Part 2
Points in your favor
It's about time I got to these, eh? What I call 'ridicule' and 'rant' , 'abuse' and 'hate', you call 'mocking' and 'satire' and 'humor'. Under the rules we play by here, I have to concede that's fair enough, though it was you who used the first two of the former terms first. Into this category comes 'The land of the Limeys'. It was clearly not meant to be anglophobic and I officially withdraw that comment. I also withdraw the comment 'How dare you speak for me?' 'Our God' is not meant to be interpreted that way and I use the collective 'we' sometimes to support my own side.

Pomposity/Arrogance
Again it's a matter of subjective point of view who is behaving this way, you or him. In you, I still see the pigeon in my chess analogy. In Dawkins, I see one of the world's foremost scientists and non-theist debaters who is greatly respected by many of his adversaries for his patience, empathy, polite demeanor and intellectual breadth. But he does not tolerate bunk and snake oil, unsupported claims to a privileged view of the universe and ostrich heads in the sand. And his deepest concern is the manipulation of science curriculum to include religious dogma on the pretext of creation science or its fraudulent alias 'intelligent design'.

As Dawkins himself has it, to paraphrase, in the hundreds of years that the church's unassailable authority has come under siege by new discoveries about the cosmos and life on earth, not one single shred of hard evidence has been produced to support any religious view, yet dedicated people like yourself tenaciously dream up ways to insinuate religion (back) into schools and enslave the minds of trusting children. THAT's arrogance.

Tolerance
There are many believers on the site, not surprisingly, who come from all walks of life and are a reflection of mostly American society. Some of them make a point of saying so, including some of my personal favorite parodists. I leave it alone, and for the most part they leave me alone on such matters. Some ignore me; some look for common ground, because it's not what we're here for. But you're here with a religious agenda, a single hate figure and a narrow focus. Is that not what you're here for? Prove me wrong.

Well put... just one "but" - the Brits here most definitely do not follow US spelling norms (I'm not aware of any who do.. but then, if I saw "humor", "sulfur" or "hemoglobin", I'd probably assume it was written my an American).

Re Dawkins - I think he has shown quite staggering patience and restraint when you look at some of the seriously deranged idiocy he has had thrown at him (I'm fairly sure that were I in his position, I'd have been much ruder and far more dismissive). But I also think that criticizing the style is a fallback when you can no longer criticize the argument: it's an implicit recognition that he has won the debate.

@ Phil A: Thanks for your support and taking the trouble to read. I stand corrected on the British spelling point. Perhaps it's just me who follows American style on the site ('or' and 'ize', for example). I really don't like sounding off this way at such length or making personal attacks, but I'd kinda thrown down the gauntlet so had to follow through. Enough.

Phil said: Re Dawkins - "But I also think that criticizing the style is a fallback when you can no longer criticize the argument: it's an implicit recognition that he has won the debate."

I couldn't have said it better myself Phil, and that is my own personal take on Richard Dawkins' condescendly dismissive response to 'The Atheist Supremacist's Song'. Dawkins has repeatedly stated, implied, or insinuated that Atheists are intellectually superior to Theists, if not superior to Theists in other ways. *That* is why I waggishly refer to him as an Atheist Supremacist Spokesperson. It's an added bonus that the acronym ASS goes so nicely with the word pompous. . .

Dawkins' arrogance and ever so "superior" pomposity comes through in both Tweets he sent to me before he (hopefully) realized what a Dick he looked like and disengaged aka ran away with his tail between his legs. . .

I do not "hate" Dawkins, or anyone else for that matter, but the not so good professor has earned my disrespect with his obvious anti-religious "bad attitude".

Dawkins actually looks like a bit of a doddering old fool aka dolt in that he obviously failed to "get" why I left a couple of William Schwenck Gilbert lyrics completely intact in my parody version of 'The Major General's Song'. As I pointed out to Dick in one of my follow-up Tweets to him, as an evolutionary biologist I can reasonably expect him to "know the scientific names of beings animalculous." Right?

I will have to get back to you later Lifeliver but, before doing so, I just want to thank you for having the personal integrity to publicly acknowledge that my 'The Land of the Limeys' lyric "was clearly not meant to be anglophobic", indeed it was just part of my learning to scan, as Richard Dawkins demanded of me. :-) BTW Dick was actually born in Nairobi, Kenya, which is still "across the sea" from Canada and America. Thanks for officially withdrawing that comment, and your 'How dare you speak for me?' comment. Would that more people had the integrity to officially withdraw erroneous or unnecessarily insulting and defamatory comments. If Richard Dawkins officially withdrew aka formally retracted some of his questionable statements, and even apologized for some of his worst verbal attacks on people of good faith, I would have more respect for him. . .

Hold on a sec.. you go after Dawkins for his style, not his argument then claim that when he comments on the style of your attack parody you think that means you've won the argument? Don't you think that there may be just a tiny bit of double standards there?

Why do you think that he needs to be held to a higher standard than you?

"..looks like a big of a doddering old fool aka dolt.."???
..mr Edgar, I dub thee "pigeon"

I go after Dawkins for his "style" AND his "argument" (when I have reasonable grounds to believe that he is wrong about something). I have yet to see RichardDawkins critique the substance of my parody song. He has not shown me to be wrong on one single point but I have pointed out how his own "reasoning" is erroneous.

What are you on? Which of Dawkins' arguments have you gone after? If you mean his parody critique, then that obviously didn't happen until after you went after him for his style. Why on earth would he want to critique your parody? What kind of a waste of time would that be?

Behaving ever more columbiform, ISTM.