>But I still intend to exclude "mind readers" from it.
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:
>And I think you really recognize your own incoherence so far on this
>issue.
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 11:19 AM -0600 4/1/02, Carrol Cox wrote:
>I think accusations of anti-semitism in this context are usually in bad
>faith.
At 7:40 PM -0500 9/14/02, Carrol Cox wrote:
>Opposition to Saddam (for a U.S. citizen) is a merely symbolic gesture,
>having no material content. 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.