>And yet I would like to see someone on
>this list give an actual defense of the positions that a number
>of people on this last have criticized in other than ad hominem
>terms. For example, see Angela's replies to Justin. I have
>never seen such a lengthy filibuster since Southern senators
>gave up defending lynching. And yet Justin had given a
>whole series of specific arguments which invited specific
>responses.
You're saying that you would like to see someone on this list give "an actual defense of positions that a number of people on this list have criticised" without the latter being able to confirm that these positions are either held by any of those writers cited or, indeed, by those people who you demand defenses from? This catch-all strategy -- and it's not at all surprising that the phrases "positions that a number of people on this last have criticized" and "defending lynching" are substitutable -- is a stalinist practice. You're demanding that someone confess to or recant what are trumped-up charges.
If, then, responses to this look like filibuster to you, then maybe you need to wonder whether, as I remarked to Justin, "making an argument" consists in a summation leading to a conclusion. A conclusion for what, exactly? I know it bugs you to be accused of being a statist, but what does a 'filibuster' refer to other than the passing or changing of laws (or, at the very least, the modelling of political practice on the passing and changing of laws) by the state?
Angela