>I just don't like ascriptions of motive.
At 9:10 PM -0500 10/17/01, Carrol Cox wrote:
>I say that in fact nothing is being done or can be done about the WTC
>attack, and therefore it is in bad faith to demand that I or anyone else
>give what no one can give, an explanation of what should be done.
At 10:04 AM -0500 10/19/01, Carrol Cox wrote:
>If arguing for such solutions won't bring about an early
>(virtually instant) cessation of bombing, they are in bad faith because
>they are a disguised (dishonest) version of what Yoshie and I claim
>should be done: nothing.
At 12:05 PM -0500 10/19/01, Carrol Cox wrote:
>But there is no solution, and it is either incoherent or in
>bad faith to imply that there is.
At 7:40 PM -0500 9/14/02, Carrol Cox wrote:
>And such gestures (as I argued as far back
>as the U.S. invasion of Yugoslavia) are essentially in bad faith,
>whether those making them realize it or not.
At 11:02 AM -0500 10/18/02, Carrol Cox wrote:
>My argument is that not only is that not possible today, but generalized
>descriptions of "The Left" _usually_ represent bad faith on the part of
>the person offering the description.
At 2:54 PM -0600 1/22/03, Carrol Cox wrote:
>It is bad faith to
>make this accusation against Sadaam without including Carter, Reagan, &
>Bush in the indictment.
At 7:18 PM -0500 4/25/03, Carrol Cox wrote:
>It seems to me that statements of the form, "What is wrong with The
>Left," are either unfortunate verbal lapses, not seriously meant, or in
>deep bad faith. Usually it is the former. I have varied over the last
>few years in my response to Zizek on this. I am tending to think his
>usage is in bad faith.