The poor man is only after a religion. Give him and his crowd a go.

After all, there are no burnings at the stakes any longer.

David
The Australian, A PLus, Monday March 15th gave as good a summary of the conference proceedings as one could find anywhere. Jane's article addressed 'strident'.
General
There is no doubt that Dawkins, as wise as he appears to be and obviously recognised as the mouthpiece of Atheism, is sometimes hard on some people in his responses to questions. That could be called strident. It is a pity that he reacts as he does as it really was the only criticism that you really find about the conference other than on the subject of atheism itself from those who do not seem to really understand the subject, as clearly exampled by writings in previous Online Opinion articles.
It is as though he is now tired of answering all those repeated questions from people who genuinely want to hear his response. The fact that quite often, probably more often than not, he has answered the same question a dozen times before, is hardly the fault of a questioner in another country. I think he seems to forget that. For them it is a genuine interest in the answer which they may never have asked or heard before. Perhaps he needs to hone his tolerance level just a little.
So I would say his 'stridency' (not literally correct)is based on an element of boredom on the subject and perhaps a low level of arrogance, thus his replies are born of these two factors.

Now if you want to read strident in its glory, The Australian on Tuesday 16th, 'Commentary" had an article by a UK writer, Melanie Phillips on Dawkins.
Now she is what I would call strident in every way possible, her articles always reflecting the arrogance that comes from an irrational Jewish writer, blinkered from reality and thumping a drum from atop a self-made pedestal while calling Dawkins "the Savonarola of scientism and the intolerant closer of minds".
Her ability to really understand anything other then her own imprinted Judaism is patently obvious by her jaundiced writings. She could be called the Savonarola of extreme and irrational thinking.

Thanks Jane, it is good that people like Dawkins and yourself are breaking the silence that has slowly descended since the days of "Damn Whores and God's Police". There's another noun that is usually used in conjunction with "strident" and that is "socialist", and I became one some time after I was a "strident feminist and athiest"!

Yes REXV the rant by Phillips was strident, and awful, and ignorant too. This was published in a rag that pretends to "inform" the nation, and to be the "heart" of the nation too.

And yet this rant quite typical of those on the right side of the culture wars when they write in the defense and advocacy of what they call "religion".

I think that's a pretty fair assessment, rexw. Dawkins will always explain the science carefully when questioned, but he doesn't always hide his lack of respect for his interlocutors. Sometimes that's because he is exchanging with young earth creationists who hold objectively laughable beliefs, ala Fielding, and other times its because of the inherent repetition or basic misunderstanding of science inherit to the question. After all, it must be difficult to keep showing forbearance when someone asks a basic science question for the millionth time with a tone of gotchya triumphalism.

To his credit, in the case of the DNA lady at the Convention, he did actually intervene against the crowd who thought she was lacking good faith. His calling the Fielding's IQ lower than an earthworm was less generous, however.

REXV Thanks for that. I will see what I can find about it in the internet. I would also have to agree with your comments about Philips. Her breed is the cause of most of the angst in Palestine.

David