<?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: NJ Approves Windfarm Off the Coast of Atlantic City</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.squidforce.com/2008/10/06/nj-approves-windfarm-off-the-coast-of-atlantic-city/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.squidforce.com/2008/10/06/nj-approves-windfarm-off-the-coast-of-atlantic-city/</link>
	<description>Documenting water for waterpersons</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:29:09 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: JohnnyShred</title>
		<link>http://www.squidforce.com/2008/10/06/nj-approves-windfarm-off-the-coast-of-atlantic-city/#comment-156</link>
		<dc:creator>JohnnyShred</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 23:20:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.squidforce.com/?p=1050#comment-156</guid>
		<description>I mean, I got my point across with the windfarm, talked about porn and the inherent unfairness of the power elite of any wing. All the bases were covered.

Those people that are "'into' these types of segments" can read the story in the NY Times without the risk of the prose being choppy or hearing a rhetorical question. We at Squidforce aren't about "rules" or "grammar" or "making sense". 

But we are about "putting words in quotes". So, props to you for adding a little extra punctuation around your "into". Well emphasized.

While we do have the educated waterman coming to the site who doesn't need a ton of splanin', we also have the young, budding waterman that may need to know what a NIMBY is from time to time. So, I don't feel was "dumbing it down", rather I was "tailoring the article to an audience".

Sir, I demand satisfaction. I'm going to throw down the gauntlet here and challenge you to a writing duel. Best article wins Squidforce schwag. Show me how it's done.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I mean, I got my point across with the windfarm, talked about porn and the inherent unfairness of the power elite of any wing. All the bases were covered.</p>
<p>Those people that are &#8220;&#8216;into&#8217; these types of segments&#8221; can read the story in the NY Times without the risk of the prose being choppy or hearing a rhetorical question. We at Squidforce aren&#8217;t about &#8220;rules&#8221; or &#8220;grammar&#8221; or &#8220;making sense&#8221;. </p>
<p>But we are about &#8220;putting words in quotes&#8221;. So, props to you for adding a little extra punctuation around your &#8220;into&#8221;. Well emphasized.</p>
<p>While we do have the educated waterman coming to the site who doesn&#8217;t need a ton of splanin&#8217;, we also have the young, budding waterman that may need to know what a NIMBY is from time to time. So, I don&#8217;t feel was &#8220;dumbing it down&#8221;, rather I was &#8220;tailoring the article to an audience&#8221;.</p>
<p>Sir, I demand satisfaction. I&#8217;m going to throw down the gauntlet here and challenge you to a writing duel. Best article wins Squidforce schwag. Show me how it&#8217;s done.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: charles mencel</title>
		<link>http://www.squidforce.com/2008/10/06/nj-approves-windfarm-off-the-coast-of-atlantic-city/#comment-154</link>
		<dc:creator>charles mencel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:06:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.squidforce.com/?p=1050#comment-154</guid>
		<description>Hey guys, this segment could use some tighter prose.  Stay away from the retorical questions.  Usually, the people that are "into" these types of segments already know enough.  No need to dumb it down.  Plus, there were some other blunders that made it read choppy and somewhat unclear.  The key to good writing is simplicity and making your reader do some work.  Ya know?  Hope it helps.  c</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey guys, this segment could use some tighter prose.  Stay away from the retorical questions.  Usually, the people that are &#8220;into&#8221; these types of segments already know enough.  No need to dumb it down.  Plus, there were some other blunders that made it read choppy and somewhat unclear.  The key to good writing is simplicity and making your reader do some work.  Ya know?  Hope it helps.  c</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
