> I think I won't read Marv's the missent post; it must have beend inspired by mutualmisunderstanding, and is better left to itself. I picked Marv's post to respond to because while he and I continually disagree, we have kept the disagreement reasonably civil over the years; hence I thought a response to him would best keep the focus on the substance of the exchange. Clearly my post provoked heat rather than generated political discussion. I'm in the process, as I have said already, of trying again.
Take issue with his pissiness all you want, but, revolutionarily speaking, Carrol is a fucking saint. This is why I took issue with the pettiness of Marv's misfired message. Carrol is frequently pissy - sometimes viciously and even unnecessarily so - but on balance he's almost transcendentally self-aware and self-exceeding, and I've never seen him take a gratuitous cheap shot at anyone - on- or off-list. You guys just have way too many chips to recognise what an incredible source of wisdom and insight you have in Prof Cox. You're all still trying to be *right* - rather than trying to create the concrete conditions for the possibility of a non-barbarous future.