”Combined with the word militant you create the impression of someone who is both obnoxious and deeply intimidating.

It’s the people who use words like ‘strident’ and other abusive words who should be regarded as “obnoxious”; whether or not they are intimidating is up to the targets of their abuse. I was called a “bigoted prat” today by one of OLO’s resident would-be bullies. I gave him up as a moron long ago, so his bullying tactics have not been successful.

But, many people are intimidated by name-calling thugs, and as the author says, ‘strident’ is mostly aimed at women by men.

I think that the author is right when she suggests that ‘strident’ (and any other terms of abuse) be worn as a ‘badge of honour’. When they start calling you names, as many posters on OLO do, you’ve got them. They don’t have any arguments, so they slip into their bully mode and try to silence you in the only way they know how.

I don't think Dawkins much cares what people call him. Why should the rest of us?

From memory, Richard Dawkins did not comment on Stephen Fielding in his speech at the Conference.

It was Robin Williams who made the earthworm remark (although he claimed to be quoting Dawkins, though in private conversation) and also Robin Williams who (very funnily) began his speech by saying he could prove there was no god in two word - PAUSE - Senator Fielding.

It is quite interesting to watch Dawkins being blamed for someone else's speech, by people who were not present.

What self-indulgence, to write an article ostensibly about the atheists’ convention which is mostly about Jane Caro.

And what flawed logic - because Dawkins is called strident, the word can be taken as a compliment.

It recalls the argument: “people said that Einstein was mad, and he was really a genius. People say that I’m mad, I must be a genius too."

I've also had the term strident thrown at me.
As well as socialist, leftist, and many other
terms not as polite. It usually happens when my
views tend to question what is the acceptable
"norm," be it same-sex marriage, or acceptable
posting behaviour on the web. By the way, I am
not an atheist, however, I saw the "Q and A,"
program on which Mr Dawkins was a guest. I found
it somewhat disappointing - not because of anything
Mr Dawkins said, but I blame the weak calibre of
panelists that were on the program with him.

Strident was defintely not a word that I would use
to describe Mr Dawkins. Polite, intelligence, yes.
Strident? - definitely not

Steve Fielding only had himself to blame for his pathetic attempt to defend his faith on Q & A. By allowing himself to be bullied by such a puny fist waving human being hiding behind pseudo science was an embarasment to Christians who believe the Scriptures and scientist who are not prepared to twist what they observe to fit the evolution fantasy. Dawkins in all his slime understands that his total faith system relies on the myth of evolution. Everyone who thinks, understands this and that is why they have to so arrogantly dismisses creation (even though it is obvious). His disciples show the same arrogance and self righteousness. God deniers are champions at making heroes out of men with slimy tongues and little substance. They are not afraid to applaud those who make themselves feel comfortable in their own immorality as seen by the way they cheer the likes of the foul mouth Deveny. Strident and smooth talking yes but slimy and deceitful doubly yes.

I have to agree Jane's article would have been more at home in some
commercialized 'woman's' magazine the type at check out counters.
it was weak and light on substance. Hardly appropriate for OLO.
More than a little like what I did on my holiday with a sexed up title.