<?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 for Backward Times</title>
	<atom:link href="http://backwardtimes.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://backwardtimes.com</link>
	<description>A Right-Side-Up News Magazine</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 May 2012 00:14:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Top 100 Conservative Websites for 2012 by Alexa Rank by Ken Skaggs</title>
		<link>http://backwardtimes.com/2012/04/top-100-conservative-websites-2012/#comment-8786</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken Skaggs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2012 00:14:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://backwardtimes.com/?p=2210#comment-8786</guid>
		<description>Example?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Example?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Top 100 Conservative Websites for 2012 by Alexa Rank by Cliff Leonard</title>
		<link>http://backwardtimes.com/2012/04/top-100-conservative-websites-2012/#comment-8785</link>
		<dc:creator>Cliff Leonard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 May 2012 21:51:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://backwardtimes.com/?p=2210#comment-8785</guid>
		<description>I just located other individuals that ranked (via Alexa) liberal sites and there numbers seem to be significantly &quot;lower&quot; which means more hits/visitors?  If they do have more hits/visitors what conclusions if any can be drawn from their &quot;higher&quot; rankings?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just located other individuals that ranked (via Alexa) liberal sites and there numbers seem to be significantly &#8220;lower&#8221; which means more hits/visitors?  If they do have more hits/visitors what conclusions if any can be drawn from their &#8220;higher&#8221; rankings?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Chicago- Shootings on the Rise but Still no Snitching by hotel yiwu</title>
		<link>http://backwardtimes.com/2010/08/chicago-shootings-on-the-rise-but-still-no-snitching/#comment-8574</link>
		<dc:creator>hotel yiwu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:40:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://backwardtimes.com/?p=48#comment-8574</guid>
		<description>Realism is the traditional approach of understanding safety and international relations</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Realism is the traditional approach of understanding safety and international relations</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Top 100 Conservative Websites for 2012 by Alexa Rank by Ken Skaggs</title>
		<link>http://backwardtimes.com/2012/04/top-100-conservative-websites-2012/#comment-8500</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken Skaggs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:13:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://backwardtimes.com/?p=2210#comment-8500</guid>
		<description>You are correct sir. According to Alexa, &lt;a href=&quot;http://teapartybrief.com/&quot;&gt;Tea Party Brief&lt;/a&gt; is number 169,815 today, which would put it at number 96 on the list. I&#039;ll see what I can do to fix that. Maybe I&#039;ll just extend the list to 101 top conservative sites, and squeeze it in where it belongs. Thanks for visiting, and commenting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are correct sir. According to Alexa, <a href="http://teapartybrief.com/">Tea Party Brief</a> is number 169,815 today, which would put it at number 96 on the list. I&#8217;ll see what I can do to fix that. Maybe I&#8217;ll just extend the list to 101 top conservative sites, and squeeze it in where it belongs. Thanks for visiting, and commenting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Top 100 Conservative Websites for 2012 by Alexa Rank by JR Elliott</title>
		<link>http://backwardtimes.com/2012/04/top-100-conservative-websites-2012/#comment-8497</link>
		<dc:creator>JR Elliott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:12:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://backwardtimes.com/?p=2210#comment-8497</guid>
		<description>Tea Party Brief, according to Alexa, should be placed at #96

Thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tea Party Brief, according to Alexa, should be placed at #96</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Crazy Animal Rights Lunatics at Namecheap.com by Ken Skaggs</title>
		<link>http://backwardtimes.com/2011/03/crazy-animal-rights-lunatics-at-namecheap/#comment-8290</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken Skaggs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Apr 2012 12:21:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://backwardtimes.com/?p=328#comment-8290</guid>
		<description>OK, maybe the word &quot;nothing&quot; was a bit over the top. I should have said, not much. But I have a pet-peeve about people who put animals before people, or even on the same plane. But I have to ask...  

Is that what this is about to you? (How our behavior compares to animals?) It sounds like you are arguing that, since people do evil things they are not as important as animals. If evil deeds alone were the criteria, I&#039;d have to agree. But that would be backward thinking in my opinion. 

Which animal is the most evil has nothing to do with which one is the most important, in my opinion. It has to do with the food chain, in other words- science. Human beings are at the top, period. We eat the rest (hold the anchovies).

In the case of Bob Parsons going elephant hunting, he did it in a humane way. He specifically picked a place that had too many elephants already, and killed one where several would have to be killed anyway, with or without him. And he did it humanely, one shot, one kill. The reason I called them lunatics at Namecheap is because they played it out as though elephants were an endangered species. They are not. Not only that, but every bit of that animal was utilized by the locals, for its meat and hide (and maybe more, as I recall). 

As far as I&#039;m concerned, if you have hungry people, and too many elephants, the choice is simple- kill one and feed them.

I assure you I am not insecure in any way. And I do have empathy. I love animals, more than I could possibly love any material object, but less that I could love any human being.


Thanks for taking the time to comment. But I disagree.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, maybe the word &#8220;nothing&#8221; was a bit over the top. I should have said, not much. But I have a pet-peeve about people who put animals before people, or even on the same plane. But I have to ask&#8230;  </p>
<p>Is that what this is about to you? (How our behavior compares to animals?) It sounds like you are arguing that, since people do evil things they are not as important as animals. If evil deeds alone were the criteria, I&#8217;d have to agree. But that would be backward thinking in my opinion. </p>
<p>Which animal is the most evil has nothing to do with which one is the most important, in my opinion. It has to do with the food chain, in other words- science. Human beings are at the top, period. We eat the rest (hold the anchovies).</p>
<p>In the case of Bob Parsons going elephant hunting, he did it in a humane way. He specifically picked a place that had too many elephants already, and killed one where several would have to be killed anyway, with or without him. And he did it humanely, one shot, one kill. The reason I called them lunatics at Namecheap is because they played it out as though elephants were an endangered species. They are not. Not only that, but every bit of that animal was utilized by the locals, for its meat and hide (and maybe more, as I recall). </p>
<p>As far as I&#8217;m concerned, if you have hungry people, and too many elephants, the choice is simple- kill one and feed them.</p>
<p>I assure you I am not insecure in any way. And I do have empathy. I love animals, more than I could possibly love any material object, but less that I could love any human being.</p>
<p>Thanks for taking the time to comment. But I disagree.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Crazy Animal Rights Lunatics at Namecheap.com by au contraire</title>
		<link>http://backwardtimes.com/2011/03/crazy-animal-rights-lunatics-at-namecheap/#comment-8287</link>
		<dc:creator>au contraire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Apr 2012 06:54:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://backwardtimes.com/?p=328#comment-8287</guid>
		<description>Seriously, Ken? Coming from someone who hosts a website displaying the worst of human behaviour, by what logic do you state &quot;animals are NOTHING compared to people.&quot;?  Do elephants display the same evil nature you write about on Driver Story?  Does a cow, a chicken, a pig or a sheep carry any malice?  

So by what logic do you put yourself above animals?  Insecurity? Some sort of ingrained lack of empathy?  Bob Parsons is a sociopath, a low life cretin who&#039;s type are being superceded.  And you side with him?  Did it not occur to you that an elephant gets hungry, that it doesn&#039;t differentiate between sown crops and regular scrub?  Did you not know that an elephant doesn&#039;t know about human&#039;s desire to partition property,or that the penalty for transgression would be its life?

I have only contempt and pity for your atavism, your false sense of superiority. But I&#039;m also pleased that a greater proportion of people see beyond such stereotypes. Your sort are on the way out, like the slave ship owners and blackbirders of old.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seriously, Ken? Coming from someone who hosts a website displaying the worst of human behaviour, by what logic do you state &#8220;animals are NOTHING compared to people.&#8221;?  Do elephants display the same evil nature you write about on Driver Story?  Does a cow, a chicken, a pig or a sheep carry any malice?  </p>
<p>So by what logic do you put yourself above animals?  Insecurity? Some sort of ingrained lack of empathy?  Bob Parsons is a sociopath, a low life cretin who&#8217;s type are being superceded.  And you side with him?  Did it not occur to you that an elephant gets hungry, that it doesn&#8217;t differentiate between sown crops and regular scrub?  Did you not know that an elephant doesn&#8217;t know about human&#8217;s desire to partition property,or that the penalty for transgression would be its life?</p>
<p>I have only contempt and pity for your atavism, your false sense of superiority. But I&#8217;m also pleased that a greater proportion of people see beyond such stereotypes. Your sort are on the way out, like the slave ship owners and blackbirders of old.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Is God Real? How We Can Know for a Fact by Ken Skaggs</title>
		<link>http://backwardtimes.com/2011/11/is-god-real/#comment-7827</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken Skaggs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 16:17:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://backwardtimes.com/?p=2074#comment-7827</guid>
		<description>Thank you for your comment. It&#039;s true that all I have to offer is my personal experience. I am convinced that there is no possible way it could be just a series of coincidences. Somebody up there likes me. 

What do you have to say about the accuracy of the Bible? People have been trying to prove it wrong for over 2000 years and still can&#039;t. Coincidence? 

For me, this was the final step. The closer I looked at it, the more convinced I was. At this stage in my life (having spent a few months debating atheists back in 2007, researching so-called Bible fallacies, and looking at the questionable science of evolution, ans since then having so many prayers answered), I now say I am absolutely certain that not only is God real, His name is Jesus, and the Bible is His actual infallible Word.

I welcome your responses.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for your comment. It&#8217;s true that all I have to offer is my personal experience. I am convinced that there is no possible way it could be just a series of coincidences. Somebody up there likes me. </p>
<p>What do you have to say about the accuracy of the Bible? People have been trying to prove it wrong for over 2000 years and still can&#8217;t. Coincidence? </p>
<p>For me, this was the final step. The closer I looked at it, the more convinced I was. At this stage in my life (having spent a few months debating atheists back in 2007, researching so-called Bible fallacies, and looking at the questionable science of evolution, ans since then having so many prayers answered), I now say I am absolutely certain that not only is God real, His name is Jesus, and the Bible is His actual infallible Word.</p>
<p>I welcome your responses.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Is God Real? How We Can Know for a Fact by Rusko</title>
		<link>http://backwardtimes.com/2011/11/is-god-real/#comment-7752</link>
		<dc:creator>Rusko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:02:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://backwardtimes.com/?p=2074#comment-7752</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m sorry, but you haven&#039;t convinced me.  I read the title of this article and thought possibly you might offer some evidence for the existence of god.  I really want the stories of god and the everlasting kingdom of heaven to be true.  I long for any kind of evidence to back up the legends.  That&#039;s probably what kept me reading your article to see what evidence you may be presenting.

I&#039;m disappointed.  

I don&#039;t consider personal experiences (or more accurately, personal interpretations of their experiences) to be evidence of anything supernatural.  My mom thinks that god is real because when my dad was having a heart attack, all the traffic lights turned green for her on the way to the hospital.  She is not that technical, and it never occurred to her that the traffic lights are on a timer and that she just happened to be going the right speed to catch them during their timed sequence.  Still even after explaining that to her, she would rather believe it was god.  If that gives her comfort, so be it.  I am more honest than that with myself.

Even in a court of law, &quot;hearsay&quot; evidence is considered flimsy.  In science, anecdotal evidence is the same as no evidence at all.  It&#039;s not enough to say, &quot;it happened to me&quot;.  You must be able to repeat the experiment and provide details on how others may also repeat the experiment.  If you cannot, then it is likely that it was a coincidence or pure luck.

If you think that you can actually prove the existence of god or anything supernatural, you should contact the James Randi Educational Foundation.  They are offering $1 million dollars to anyone that can prove it.

I know you&#039;ve convinced yourself, and likely have lots of reinforcement from other like minded believers, but I&#039;m pretty sure you&#039;ll need some hard scientific evidence to convince people like me, who are honest enough with themselves and fearless enough to demand real proof.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m sorry, but you haven&#8217;t convinced me.  I read the title of this article and thought possibly you might offer some evidence for the existence of god.  I really want the stories of god and the everlasting kingdom of heaven to be true.  I long for any kind of evidence to back up the legends.  That&#8217;s probably what kept me reading your article to see what evidence you may be presenting.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m disappointed.  </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t consider personal experiences (or more accurately, personal interpretations of their experiences) to be evidence of anything supernatural.  My mom thinks that god is real because when my dad was having a heart attack, all the traffic lights turned green for her on the way to the hospital.  She is not that technical, and it never occurred to her that the traffic lights are on a timer and that she just happened to be going the right speed to catch them during their timed sequence.  Still even after explaining that to her, she would rather believe it was god.  If that gives her comfort, so be it.  I am more honest than that with myself.</p>
<p>Even in a court of law, &#8220;hearsay&#8221; evidence is considered flimsy.  In science, anecdotal evidence is the same as no evidence at all.  It&#8217;s not enough to say, &#8220;it happened to me&#8221;.  You must be able to repeat the experiment and provide details on how others may also repeat the experiment.  If you cannot, then it is likely that it was a coincidence or pure luck.</p>
<p>If you think that you can actually prove the existence of god or anything supernatural, you should contact the James Randi Educational Foundation.  They are offering $1 million dollars to anyone that can prove it.</p>
<p>I know you&#8217;ve convinced yourself, and likely have lots of reinforcement from other like minded believers, but I&#8217;m pretty sure you&#8217;ll need some hard scientific evidence to convince people like me, who are honest enough with themselves and fearless enough to demand real proof.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Top 100 Liberal Progressive Websites for 2010 by Ken Skaggs</title>
		<link>http://backwardtimes.com/2010/12/top-100-liberal-progressive-websites-for-2010/#comment-7508</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken Skaggs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:07:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://backwardtimes.com/?p=115#comment-7508</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re kidding, right? Think about it- the very definition of a Conservative Christian is one who takes the Bible literally. Liberals on the other hand, always take the Bible out of context, and create God in their image (instead of the way the Bible instructs- that we are create in God&#039;s image). This backward thinking is the very essence of Backward Times.

I think you need to re-read the Bible. And this time, instead of trying to twist things to what you wish they said, take it for what it is and change your mind to God&#039;s way of thinking.

If you want to continue this conversation, give me a Bible verse that proves your point, and I will show how you took it out of context (or agree if it is in context).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re kidding, right? Think about it- the very definition of a Conservative Christian is one who takes the Bible literally. Liberals on the other hand, always take the Bible out of context, and create God in their image (instead of the way the Bible instructs- that we are create in God&#8217;s image). This backward thinking is the very essence of Backward Times.</p>
<p>I think you need to re-read the Bible. And this time, instead of trying to twist things to what you wish they said, take it for what it is and change your mind to God&#8217;s way of thinking.</p>
<p>If you want to continue this conversation, give me a Bible verse that proves your point, and I will show how you took it out of context (or agree if it is in context).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

