<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Blogcritics: Comments on Salam gets disrespected</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 by the authors</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 May 2003 14:32:09 EDT</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
<generator>Blogcritics.org custom software</generator>

<item>
<title>Comment by Phillip Winn</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/05/31/015118.php#comment-10285</link>
<description>It&#039;s worth noting that Salam invited speculation through his secrecy, but since there were obviously very good reasons for that secrecy, Warren should have respected that. If he was truly concerned that Salam might be hiding behind a false veil of secrecy, he could certainly have done a better job of couching his speculation in terms that made it clear that it was just that - wild guesswork.

Instead, he started with a wild hypothesis and wrote it up as fact. Even were any of it true (and at this point it&#039;s one person&#039;s word against another&#039;s, though I believe Salam), the lack of respect Warren showed for even the &lt;i&gt;possibility&lt;/i&gt; that he was wrong was surprising. </description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10285@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 31 May 2003 14:32:09 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>