John, I'm sorry you feel that I just gave a "whatever" to Strick when you seem to feel that he deserves a longer response. Also, note that the remark I made that you characterize as "snide" was merely a single riposte for several snide remarks sent in my direction. One tit for several tats, if you will. And since Strick seemed to be entirely ignoring the Sojourner Magazine article I linked to, I think I'm pretty safe in assuming that he didn't actually read it until I made my "snide" remark.

I did not, and do not, chose to rebut Strick's attempted point-by-point refutation of Dr. Lawrence Britt's "Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism" for a number of reasons.

First, I posted it as an informational reference, and if Strick (and apparently you) chose to blow it off, that's your privilege.

Second, Dr. Britt has a PhD in political science, is considered an authority on the subject, and, among many other things, writes for Free Inquiry Magazine and several other publications. I think he knows whereof he speaks. I felt no more obligated to try to defend Dr. Britt's position than I would feel had I posted a link to an article on physics by Richard P. Feynman and Strick had attacked that point by point. Strick is entitled to his opinions, but I think Dr. Britt knows more about political science than Strick does, so if he wants to take issue with the "Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism," he can write to Dr. Britt in care of Free Inquiry Magazine and do so directly.

Third, Strick has a tendency (like a couple of others I have encountered on Mudcat in the past) to try to engage someone in a protracted debate by dodging the main points and going after minor nit-picks, often presenting historical events that can be (and have been) interpreted by historians in ways different from the way Strick chooses to interpret them, and stringing them out in supposed point-by-point "refutations" that require scrolling through several screens to read, and would require hours of research to attempt to correct his revisionist history. For example, see his attempted refutation of the "Fourteen Characteristics" or any of several of his posts above.

Fourth, although I enjoy these little debates and often learn a fair amount from them (usually from links people post, such as the one Ellenpoly posted which started this thread), I get weary with people who are here not to learn, but here to try to win arguments. I have a relative like this. If I venture an opinion on something, he leaps in to take the opposite view. On any subject. And once the discussion starts, he won't let it go, and eventually simply wears me out and/or bores to death everyone else present. I've tested him out. I've asserted an opinion that he asserted a few months before, and damned if he doesn't take the position I took in the previous discussion. And there, too, he has to win. Hangs on like a pit-bull. I think it's a testosterone thing. No interest in learning. Just in winning.

Fifth, I don't enjoy these discussions when people get abusive and start make personal remarks about people with whom they disagree. It's a dead giveaway that they think their own argument is weak or downright wrong, but haven't the courage to admit it. And I don't enjoy having to write the same thing over and over because some people either didn't get it the first time or didn't read it at all.

And sixth, Howard Dean delivered one helluva speech here in Seattle yesterday morning. Although I will continue to read these threads and post when I feel impelled to, picking up on a couple of things that Dean said in his speech, I think I can spend my time more valuably doing things other than arguing with someone whose viewpoint is set and will never change, no matter how much information is presented to them.

But don't rejoice yet. I'm not going away.

Don Firth

P.S.: I don't recall who it was who said it, but it makes a pretty good point:   "You have a right to your own opinion. But not to your own facts."