<?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: you might be a terrible writer if&#8230;</title> <atom:link href="http://www.manifestdensity.net/2008/08/18/you-might-be-a-terrible-writer-if/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.manifestdensity.net/2008/08/18/you-might-be-a-terrible-writer-if/</link> <description>Just another WordPress weblog</description> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:04:33 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator> <item><title>By: Tom</title><link>http://www.manifestdensity.net/2008/08/18/you-might-be-a-terrible-writer-if/comment-page-1/#comment-1474</link> <dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:30:53 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://127.0.0.1:8888/?p=653#comment-1474</guid> <description>Justin, that photo is absolutely exempted.  That sort of thing needs to be encouraged.
Ben, you&#039;re right that of the three criteria outlined here, the first is the most problematic.  I bet some good friends have used that formulation in the past -- I wouldn&#039;t be surprised to learn that I had, too.  But its lazy allure must be resisted.
Also, you are of course right about the &quot;A and B and C&quot; formulation being the correct one. But the offense that prompted me to write this post didn&#039;t hew to that standard, making it that much worse. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Justin, that photo is absolutely exempted.  That sort of thing needs to be encouraged.<br
/> Ben, you&#8217;re right that of the three criteria outlined here, the first is the most problematic.  I bet some good friends have used that formulation in the past &#8212; I wouldn&#8217;t be surprised to learn that I had, too.  But its lazy allure must be resisted.<br
/> Also, you are of course right about the &#8220;A and B and C&#8221; formulation being the correct one. But the offense that prompted me to write this post didn&#8217;t hew to that standard, making it that much worse.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Justin</title><link>http://www.manifestdensity.net/2008/08/18/you-might-be-a-terrible-writer-if/comment-page-1/#comment-1473</link> <dc:creator>Justin</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:25:13 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://127.0.0.1:8888/?p=653#comment-1473</guid> <description>Does my latest &lt;a href=&quot;http://flickr.com/photos/incanus/2774884750/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;photo blog&lt;/a&gt; count? </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does my latest <a
href="http://flickr.com/photos/incanus/2774884750/" rel="nofollow">photo blog</a> count?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: ben wolfson</title><link>http://www.manifestdensity.net/2008/08/18/you-might-be-a-terrible-writer-if/comment-page-1/#comment-1472</link> <dc:creator>ben wolfson</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:33:30 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://127.0.0.1:8888/?p=653#comment-1472</guid> <description>There ought to be an exemption on the first item if you&#039;re actually writing about lions, tigers, and bears. (Although even there the preferred form is &quot;lions &lt;strong&gt;and&lt;/strong&gt; tigers and bears&quot;, not &quot;lions, tigers and bears&quot;.) </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There ought to be an exemption on the first item if you&#8217;re actually writing about lions, tigers, and bears. (Although even there the preferred form is &#8220;lions <strong>and</strong> tigers and bears&#8221;, not &#8220;lions, tigers and bears&#8221;.)</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
