it appeared that you, like many who responded, were not aware that it was a parody.

Which is ironic, since you are equating perceptions to perceiving intentions in other people.

I only wondered why you posted it at all.

Well, I tend to post things from postmodern figures I don't like, and Dawkins makes a habit of fitting that characterization, so I thought it would be best to indulge him. In all fairness, you may find the responses from butthurt Foucault and Derrida fans telling me I'm Being Mean and They Didn't Say Those Things and I'm Being Dishonest quite similar to yours.

Or maybe, instead of your rambling nonsense and incorrect assumptions,

lol, you sound like the Trump campaign spokespeople.

Look at it this way; people here post a lot of Dawkins' (and Zizek's, and Harris') actual material to laugh at. An Audience very well-versed in his actual writing would probably be the first to tell the difference between fiction and non-fiction, and those who know his (supposedly) serious work would find the parody funniest. That's why it's here. There's no need to give a full bibliography for jokes on the Internet.