I have not one time, on any of these threads, misrepresented what Dawkins said. I've sourced back to his own words.
I enjoy substantiating my opinions with accurate and clear sources. Thankfully, Dawkins is such a great communicator that his words are very easy to understand. No convoluted attempts at "translation" and no embellishments are necessary.
Now, isn't it interesting how you see something so clearly while others see it so clearly on the other side of the debate?
Does that reveal character, reading comprehension, intelligence, or bias? Or any combination of such?
Stepping back, I find it fascinating how some will interpret his body of work one way while others see it wildly different. You know, kind of like how John 3:16 is interpreted by it's readers.
Some see it as exclusionary and hateful. Some see it as liberating and noble. And to all who have studied it and read it in context, it's "obvious."