<?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: Ground Rules</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mybadpants.com/2010/02/08/ground-rules/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mybadpants.com/2010/02/08/ground-rules/</link>
	<description>Like genetics, only funnier!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:39:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: crisitunity</title>
		<link>http://www.mybadpants.com/2010/02/08/ground-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-103</link>
		<dc:creator>crisitunity</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:08:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mybadpants.com/?p=60#comment-103</guid>
		<description>Why? It&#039;s just a word. It&#039;s not one I ever want to be called - punching and mace would ensue - but it&#039;s only a word.

&lt;strong&gt;Because it&#039;s the &quot;nuclear weapon&quot; of discourse.  I realize that over time words gain and lose significance, and that a generation ago the &quot;F&quot; word was at the same level...yet it simply doesn&#039;t have that impact today.  Right now, today, there is no use for that word in debate.  Not even in angry debate.  Deploying that one is just invoking scorched earth policy and ending the discussion.

Remember that these rules are essentially for new commenters...what would I or would I not approve?  If someone needs to nuke the debate stream, then they don&#039;t need to contribute at all.

Also keep in mind, each and every one of these rules/criteria exists because I&#039;ve already encountered it.  So really, these are a review of my past behavior, and I&#039;ve NEVER approved a comment that decided to &quot;go there&quot; linguistically.

Are these capricious and arbitrary?  Yes, unapologetically so.&lt;/strong&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why? It&#8217;s just a word. It&#8217;s not one I ever want to be called &#8211; punching and mace would ensue &#8211; but it&#8217;s only a word.</p>
<p><strong>Because it&#8217;s the &#8220;nuclear weapon&#8221; of discourse.  I realize that over time words gain and lose significance, and that a generation ago the &#8220;F&#8221; word was at the same level&#8230;yet it simply doesn&#8217;t have that impact today.  Right now, today, there is no use for that word in debate.  Not even in angry debate.  Deploying that one is just invoking scorched earth policy and ending the discussion.</p>
<p>Remember that these rules are essentially for new commenters&#8230;what would I or would I not approve?  If someone needs to nuke the debate stream, then they don&#8217;t need to contribute at all.</p>
<p>Also keep in mind, each and every one of these rules/criteria exists because I&#8217;ve already encountered it.  So really, these are a review of my past behavior, and I&#8217;ve NEVER approved a comment that decided to &#8220;go there&#8221; linguistically.</p>
<p>Are these capricious and arbitrary?  Yes, unapologetically so.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Oregon Sunshine</title>
		<link>http://www.mybadpants.com/2010/02/08/ground-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-101</link>
		<dc:creator>Oregon Sunshine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:28:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mybadpants.com/?p=60#comment-101</guid>
		<description>Ok, just making sure it wasn&#039;t the religious one.  Because, if it was, then I was going to give you a really, really hard time about it at home.  ;-P

&lt;strong&gt;LOL, no...&quot;taking the Lord&#039;s name in vain&quot; (as it was called in my youth) is certainly not something I could hold against a commenter.  Yes, I&#039;m often abjectly uncomfortable with it, especially when I do it; but that&#039;s simply not something I could stand on a soapbox about without hanging a giant neon &quot;Hypocrite&quot; sign around my neck.&lt;/strong&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok, just making sure it wasn&#8217;t the religious one.  Because, if it was, then I was going to give you a really, really hard time about it at home.  ;-P</p>
<p><strong>LOL, no&#8230;&#8221;taking the Lord&#8217;s name in vain&#8221; (as it was called in my youth) is certainly not something I could hold against a commenter.  Yes, I&#8217;m often abjectly uncomfortable with it, especially when I do it; but that&#8217;s simply not something I could stand on a soapbox about without hanging a giant neon &#8220;Hypocrite&#8221; sign around my neck.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Oregon Sunshine</title>
		<link>http://www.mybadpants.com/2010/02/08/ground-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-100</link>
		<dc:creator>Oregon Sunshine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:59:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mybadpants.com/?p=60#comment-100</guid>
		<description>Which &quot;C&quot; word?  Please be clear.  I can think of several.  Do you mean one you say at home or the one I abhor?

&lt;strong&gt;Rhymes with &quot;punt&quot; and will not be tolerated (i.e. the one you abhor).&lt;/strong&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Which &#8220;C&#8221; word?  Please be clear.  I can think of several.  Do you mean one you say at home or the one I abhor?</p>
<p><strong>Rhymes with &#8220;punt&#8221; and will not be tolerated (i.e. the one you abhor).</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
