You should have been more clear about what the fuck you were talking about then since these organizations don't appear in the article. This has all to do with MTA's unethical behavior. So you're WAAAAAAAAAAAAY off-topic here.
Leaving the vehemence of your reply aside, there is no need for these organizations to have appeared in the article. Why? For the simple reason that the second half of that very same sentence clearly addresses the point. To anyone with any interest in the issue of Pamela Geller's activities, the reference would have been clear. In the same way, for example, one could read an article about Nixon's visit to China and say of Nixon "You can hear his language in private was far saltier than the dishes he ate at the banquet with Zhou Enlai." In this case, the article would have said nothing about the expletives on the Watergate Tapes, but anyone with any knowledge of Nixon would have known to what one was referring. References and allusions are part of the warp and weft of the art of speech and writing. I suggest you learn more about them.
No, I just assumed you were a left-wing lunatic.
It seems that you do that with pretty much everyone here. That, presumably, is why I write posts like #1827224, why I submit posts from far-left groups like this and why I post reproductions of racist posters by the Soviets such as this:
image
in the comments on Quote #113882. Perhaps you ought to look at what people say for a little while before making assumptions about them.
Pretty sure I've seen your comments before on Christian related topics and you certainly weren't that defensive when people criticize Christianity.
I'm not a Christian; not everybody comes from a Christian family. So sue me. However, it is also true that what we see here represents a tiny number of the world's Christians, most of whom are not fundie. As you mention it, I've often defended Anglicans and many other types of Christian when assailed by people who, because they don't agree with them, seek to deprive them of the status of Christian, and Christian theologians against those who do not understand the academic discipline of theology.
Nobody called Dawkins a "Christianophobe" before, why is that?
Firstly, because the word is "christophobe," and secondly, because Dawkins expresses the same revulsion of all religions, of which Christianity is just one. If you want to know what I think of Dawkins, there is my comment on the Ken Ham post #113892 which you are welcome to look at. You also fail to distinguish between Dawkins's religious views and his political views; I understand that he is a supporter of the Liberal Democrats which, in British terms, is a moderate party of the center-left. As someone who has lived in the UK, the Liberal Democrats are a byword for moderacy.
