<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Blogcritics Comments on Salam&#039;s story</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<description>A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously.</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2005-2006 by the authors</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 8 Jan 2007 08:36:00 EST</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
<generator>Blogcritics.org custom software</generator>

<item>
<title>Comment by Sten9629 on Salam&#039;s story</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/05/30/025526.php#comment-506710</link>
<description>
500 Internal Server Error
Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or
misconfiguration and was unable to complete
your request.
Please contact the server administrator,
webmaster and inform them of the time the error occurred,
and anything you might have done that may have
caused the error.
More information about this error may be available
in the server error log.
</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">506710@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 8 Jan 2007 08:36:00 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by the skeptic on Salam&#039;s story</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/05/30/025526.php#comment-10274</link>
<description>&quot;Warren responded in an email that he would only run a correction when he was sure he was wrong.&quot;

Isn&#039;t Warren wrong in shifting the burden of proof (truth)? 

Shouldn&#039;t he be honest to his readers that he can not be sure that his earlier comments are true? 

Of course, that would seem like the honest thing to do..........</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10274@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2003 22:43:45 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Swopa on Salam&#039;s story</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/05/30/025526.php#comment-10259</link>
<description>I don&#039;t think you&#039;re likely to get an honest response out of Mr. Warren.

I&#039;ve &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.needlenose.com/pMachineFree2.2.1/comments.php?id=P174_0_1_0&quot;&gt;debunked some of the falsehoods in his column&lt;/a&gt; on my blog (with a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.needlenose.com/pMachineFree2.2.1/comments.php?id=183_0_1_0_C7&quot;&gt;follow-up post&lt;/a&gt; as well).  

In comments on &lt;a href=&quot;http://junkyardblog.blogspot.com/2003_05_18_junkyardblog_archive.html#200334068&quot;&gt;this thread on another blog&lt;/a&gt;, Warren acknowledges reading my objections, and you can enjoy me exposing the flaws in his evasive, half-hearted response.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10259@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2003 17:15:25 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Steve Rhodes on Salam&#039;s story</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/05/30/025526.php#comment-10256</link>
<description>
 He replied that he had tried to contact Salam and was going to again and would follow-up on what Salam wrote and the Guardian article.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10256@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2003 16:49:21 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>