<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wright&#8217;s Probable Slander Against Thomas Jefferson: Only &#8216;Fix News&#8217; Covers It (See Updates)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/04/14/wrights-probable-slander-against-thomas-jefferson-only-fix-news-covers-it/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/04/14/wrights-probable-slander-against-thomas-jefferson-only-fix-news-covers-it/</link>
	<description>The Business End of the Blogosphere</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:24:53 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: TBlumer</title>
		<link>http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/04/14/wrights-probable-slander-against-thomas-jefferson-only-fix-news-covers-it/#comment-121785</link>
		<dc:creator>TBlumer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:31:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/04/14/wrights-probable-slander-against-thomas-jefferson-only-fix-news-covers-it/#comment-121785</guid>
		<description>#1, an NB commenter also made an observation about the technical &lt;a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedophilia" rel="nofollow"&gt;definition of pedophilia&lt;/a&gt;, which is sex with children, not fertile teens.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#1, an NB commenter also made an observation about the technical <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedophilia" rel="nofollow">definition of pedophilia</a>, which is sex with children, not fertile teens.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dscott</title>
		<link>http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/04/14/wrights-probable-slander-against-thomas-jefferson-only-fix-news-covers-it/#comment-121783</link>
		<dc:creator>dscott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:23:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/04/14/wrights-probable-slander-against-thomas-jefferson-only-fix-news-covers-it/#comment-121783</guid>
		<description>First, what was the age of consent in the 1700's?  A female of 15 in those days I believe was considered an adult. In the days of Christ, boy was an adult at 13 and a girl at 12.  The choice of 18 as being an adult came much later.  The Missouri age of consent being 14 was not made in isolation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America 
It is very easy to make false judgements when the yardstick isn't the same.

More importantly, family members share a significant amount of DNA, the idea that Thomas Jefferson did sire other children as the only likely suspect when he had other close blood relatives like a brother or 1st cousin is sloppy science and begs the question of agenda on the part of those making the charges.  Since Thomas Jefferson is dead and his writings left no reference, he can't defend himself, making Rev Wright's assertion a rather opportunistic selfserving charge speaking to the man's lack of character.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First, what was the age of consent in the 1700&#8217;s?  A female of 15 in those days I believe was considered an adult. In the days of Christ, boy was an adult at 13 and a girl at 12.  The choice of 18 as being an adult came much later.  The Missouri age of consent being 14 was not made in isolation. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America</a><br />
It is very easy to make false judgements when the yardstick isn&#8217;t the same.</p>
<p>More importantly, family members share a significant amount of DNA, the idea that Thomas Jefferson did sire other children as the only likely suspect when he had other close blood relatives like a brother or 1st cousin is sloppy science and begs the question of agenda on the part of those making the charges.  Since Thomas Jefferson is dead and his writings left no reference, he can&#8217;t defend himself, making Rev Wright&#8217;s assertion a rather opportunistic selfserving charge speaking to the man&#8217;s lack of character.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
