<?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: Want Tech News? Don\&#8217;t Go to Forbes</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.contentious.com/2005/12/20/want-tech-news-dont-go-to-forbes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.contentious.com/2005/12/20/want-tech-news-dont-go-to-forbes/</link>
	<description>Amy Gahran's news and musings on how we communicate in the online age.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:05:08 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Easton Ellsworth</title>
		<link>http://www.contentious.com/2005/12/20/want-tech-news-dont-go-to-forbes/#comment-50712</link>
		<dc:creator>Easton Ellsworth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:20:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-50712</guid>
		<description>Same goes for any source, printed, online or otherwise, of course.  I do agree with you that Forbes is providing somewhat suspect analyses of blogging and other "new" technologies.  The infamous "attack of the blogs" article was just plain dreadful - one-sided, alarmist and naive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Same goes for any source, printed, online or otherwise, of course.  I do agree with you that Forbes is providing somewhat suspect analyses of blogging and other &#8220;new&#8221; technologies.  The infamous &#8220;attack of the blogs&#8221; article was just plain dreadful - one-sided, alarmist and naive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
