Oh, you didn't offend. It's just that the sentence seemed odd to me. It stuck in my craw, if you will, but not for the usual reason of offence. If you're interested (or if others are), I know a good video that explains the No True Scotsman fallacy by Theramintrees. I quite recommend his videos, as well as that of his brother, Qualiasoup (strange names, I'm assuming their parents were hippies).
However, I do disagree with your first point. I don't think arguments should be respected at all. I think it's much better to respect the person. Arguments and opinions cannot feel pain, or grievance. People do. Personal offence, though, is not 'real' harm, and should not, I feel, be enough to curtail an argument on, in this case, theology. Opinions should, by all means, be poked and prodded and, if laughable, suitably mocked. If harmful, justly scorned and, if possible, abandoned. For example, just this morning (it's still morning, technically) I read of an atheist blogger being killed in Bangladesh for his 'blasphemous' posts, as well as a list of names being handed in to the government and calls for those people on the list to be killed. To be clear, the punishment for blasphemy is 10 years in prison, there, but there have been vociferous - and wide-spread, this isn't a minority - calls for their death. (I'll provide the links at the end of this post). This is, of course, and extreme case, but it is a good example of my point.
As to your second point, I think you should read this book, as that is not really what he espouses. He certainly does say that there is almost certainly no god, but he doesn't say 'there is absolutely no god', and takes the time to explore arguments from 'the other side', and fully explains why 'the god hypothesis' is fairly weak, and can, for the most part, be shown to be logically fallacious. Although, it was written six years ago. He may have changed his mind. I'm really not conveying his views well, here (I dislike speaking for another), so it may just be best if you did read it. I don't know if you'll find it to your liking, ultimately, but you will gain an understanding (of the man and his views) better than the one I can ever provide.
One last point: I do think that there's a slight difference in the weight of the offences you mention. On the one hand, you have atheists saying there is [probably - very important] no god. On the other, you have creationists trying to throw out, not just biology, but nearly every science we have. Such as geology (six thousand year old earth) astrophysics (god made earth, the universe) and astronomy (same things). Atheists aren't seeking to curtail the rights and freedoms of religious people. However, creationists are trying to brush away nearly every scientific advance of the last couple of hundred years. For my money, I'm going to go with the atheists. All they're doing is exercising their right to say 'you're wrong[, and here's why].' Creationists, on the other hand, are actively trying to create a theocracy and push the pseudo-science into the classroom. There is certainly a middle ground, as you say - and Dawkins has expressed no problem with this - but I do think you're misrepresenting one side, and inflating their actions, and the offence, to a degree that is inaccurate.
Links to the story: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/22/thousands-riot-in-bangladesh-over-writings-of-atheist-bloggers/
Wow. I really am a windbag. Sorry about that. I think I was more than a little miffed at having read those articles above, as well as some other recent, related material.
I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it (or even read all of it). These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.