<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: We Need a Sceptic</title>
	<atom:link href="http://twopointouch.com/2006/09/22/we-need-a-sceptic/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://twopointouch.com/2006/blogs/we-need-a-sceptic/</link>
	<description>web 2.0, blogs and social media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:18:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: stephan michael</title>
		<link>http://twopointouch.com/2006/blogs/we-need-a-sceptic/comment-page-1/#comment-10681</link>
		<dc:creator>stephan michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2007 02:06:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://twopointouch.com/2006/09/22/we-need-a-sceptic/#comment-10681</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;stephan michael...&lt;/strong&gt;

I Googled for something completely different, but found your page...and have to say thanks. nice read....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>stephan michael&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>I Googled for something completely different, but found your page&#8230;and have to say thanks. nice read&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Delaney</title>
		<link>http://twopointouch.com/2006/blogs/we-need-a-sceptic/comment-page-1/#comment-497</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Delaney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2006 19:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://twopointouch.com/2006/09/22/we-need-a-sceptic/#comment-497</guid>
		<description>Mmmm yeah. But it&#039;s satire. If it bites, then it has some element of truth. If it doesn&#039;t, then it doesn&#039;t.

One other thing. Satirists only ever target the rich and powerful. That&#039;s its function. If these people can&#039;t bear a little criticism then they need to develop thicker skins.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mmmm yeah. But it&#8217;s satire. If it bites, then it has some element of truth. If it doesn&#8217;t, then it doesn&#8217;t.</p>
<p>One other thing. Satirists only ever target the rich and powerful. That&#8217;s its function. If these people can&#8217;t bear a little criticism then they need to develop thicker skins.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob</title>
		<link>http://twopointouch.com/2006/blogs/we-need-a-sceptic/comment-page-1/#comment-496</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2006 19:11:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://twopointouch.com/2006/09/22/we-need-a-sceptic/#comment-496</guid>
		<description>Dead 20 hasn&#039;t got a publisher so no-one is accountable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dead 20 hasn&#8217;t got a publisher so no-one is accountable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Delaney</title>
		<link>http://twopointouch.com/2006/blogs/we-need-a-sceptic/comment-page-1/#comment-494</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Delaney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:58:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://twopointouch.com/2006/09/22/we-need-a-sceptic/#comment-494</guid>
		<description>Satirists quite often hide their identity. In the UK magazine Private Eye, for example, medical scandals are covered by a correspondent called &#039;M.D.&#039;, architecture by &#039;Piloti&#039;, agrigulture by &#039;old muckspreader&#039;, etc. Anonymity protects the writers from attack and allows them to be more outspoken in their criticism. Though sadly, it hasn&#039;t protected the publishers, who have been taken to court many times.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Satirists quite often hide their identity. In the UK magazine Private Eye, for example, medical scandals are covered by a correspondent called &#8216;M.D.&#8217;, architecture by &#8216;Piloti&#8217;, agrigulture by &#8216;old muckspreader&#8217;, etc. Anonymity protects the writers from attack and allows them to be more outspoken in their criticism. Though sadly, it hasn&#8217;t protected the publishers, who have been taken to court many times.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob</title>
		<link>http://twopointouch.com/2006/blogs/we-need-a-sceptic/comment-page-1/#comment-493</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:28:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://twopointouch.com/2006/09/22/we-need-a-sceptic/#comment-493</guid>
		<description>I think the point is that itâ€™s fine to be critical so long as you are prepared to identify yourslef. Being anonymous letâ€™s Skeptic do stuff that other people would not because theyâ€™d be seen as rude.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the point is that itâ€™s fine to be critical so long as you are prepared to identify yourslef. Being anonymous letâ€™s Skeptic do stuff that other people would not because theyâ€™d be seen as rude.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
