<?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: The Best Movie Title Ever - For Any Movie</title>
	<atom:link href="http://1heckofaguy.com/2006/03/22/name-that-flick/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://1heckofaguy.com/2006/03/22/name-that-flick/</link>
	<description>A pastiche of posts, featuring song, dance, snappy chatter plus notes on prose, poesy, love, lust, life, and beyond</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 30 Aug 2008 06:49:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: DrGuy</title>
		<link>http://1heckofaguy.com/2006/03/22/name-that-flick/#comment-32</link>
		<dc:creator>DrGuy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:10:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://1heckofaguy.com/?p=56#comment-32</guid>
		<description>From my point of view, this represents an improvement on the part of the Trib, given that their preferred source of ideas for features for some time now seems to have been &lt;em&gt;The Wall Street Journal&lt;/em&gt;. Usenet groups certainly offer a wider scope of topics (especially in the ~alt~ groups) and provide a more exhaustive (kind alternative term for "obsessive") discussion of these concepts so there is a whole lotta oh, let's call it "inspiration" available. And Usenet groups are arguably more obscure (to non-geek civilians, of course)than &lt;em&gt;The WSJ&lt;/em&gt; so detection of said inspiration is less likely.  Consequently, all in all, stealing from Usenet would seem to be a step up. 

On the other hand, I do object to established publications, including The Trib, ripping off the Usenet groups, Metafilter, blogs, and such since I am counting on similar larcenies for HeckOfAGuy.com's future content.   </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From my point of view, this represents an improvement on the part of the Trib, given that their preferred source of ideas for features for some time now seems to have been <em>The Wall Street Journal</em>. Usenet groups certainly offer a wider scope of topics (especially in the ~alt~ groups) and provide a more exhaustive (kind alternative term for &#8220;obsessive&#8221;) discussion of these concepts so there is a whole lotta oh, let&#8217;s call it &#8220;inspiration&#8221; available. And Usenet groups are arguably more obscure (to non-geek civilians, of course)than <em>The WSJ</em> so detection of said inspiration is less likely.  Consequently, all in all, stealing from Usenet would seem to be a step up. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I do object to established publications, including The Trib, ripping off the Usenet groups, Metafilter, blogs, and such since I am counting on similar larcenies for HeckOfAGuy.com&#8217;s future content.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jenna Jonteaux-McClay</title>
		<link>http://1heckofaguy.com/2006/03/22/name-that-flick/#comment-30</link>
		<dc:creator>Jenna Jonteaux-McClay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:01:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://1heckofaguy.com/?p=56#comment-30</guid>
		<description>Feh.  
So now the Chicago Tribune is taking ideas for lead articles from the Usenet group rec.arts.movies.past-films?  This movie title was discussed ad nauseam just this past week.
So much for new ideas.
Feh again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Feh.<br />
So now the Chicago Tribune is taking ideas for lead articles from the Usenet group rec.arts.movies.past-films?  This movie title was discussed ad nauseam just this past week.<br />
So much for new ideas.<br />
Feh again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
