I'm responding again: Short summary is, my apologies. I took out my irritation about the way the responses focused laser-like on something I didn't intend to talk about (note to self: people talk about what they want to talk about, not what I want to talk about) on you; you actually provided evidence, and put the argument to rest relatively quickly, and I should have tapped out explicitly then, instead of getting sarcastic and rude and hoping that would be the end of it.

Only provided Dawkins was not in strong support here. There's an asymmetry, because two things have to be true for people to ignore the substance of the argument in favor of the example - they have to care about the substance of the example, and then they have to be offended by the characterization of it. If they don't care about Dawkins, there won't be much to be offended about to begin with.

A implies B does not imply that B implies A.

But none of that matters, because that was a tongue-in-cheek response to somebody pursuing a line of argument about something I didn't care about. It was not a serious response.