Sheesh. I've done two posts now for the first time in months and I have had to turn on comment moderation to deal with the diatribes of someone's vendetta against their former church. Either that, or I am dedicated to the censorship of North America's last great free thinker heretic.
I have only ever deleted comment spam and clearly irrelevant comments designed to drive traffic away and gain attention. I think you will still find some of these comments in the archives.
On a more substantive note, I think it is important to reiterate that someone can be your ally without necessarily being just as enthusiastic about whatever it is you bring up at any given time.
I'm reminded of my time as a young leftist when I would be at meetings and members of the Socialist Workers Party (or was it the Socialist Labor Party or the Workers Vanguard or the Revolutionary Communist Party?) would soak up meeting time talking about whatever issue they thought was most important, repeating each other's comments about the same thing. Usually they were valid issues but not relevant to why people were getting together at that particular time.
Here where I live there is an older activist, who I generally agree with, who insists on going to any progressive meeting (usually environmental organizations) and reading long diatribes. His analysis of contemporary problems is pretty good, but his poor social skills (As Douglas Copeland describes a character in Jpod, he has now inside voice) make him impossible to work with. Most of the people I do work with locally feel like they agree with him but do not want to be anywhere near him or associated with him in any way because of the way he carries on. And this is totally in spite of the fact that we all basically agree with him.
I mention this because it seems a lot like the stereotype of the crusty humanist decades long social justice committee chair that I have heard people spin stories about.