<?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: The Thing About the Death of Print&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://avec.teamforce.org/media/the-thing-about-the-death-of-print/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://avec.teamforce.org/media/the-thing-about-the-death-of-print/</link>
	<description>Sinking Ships Since the Dawn of Time</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 16:44:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luke</title>
		<link>http://avec.teamforce.org/media/the-thing-about-the-death-of-print/comment-page-1/#comment-642</link>
		<dc:creator>Luke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 01:46:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://avec.teamforce.org/?p=987#comment-642</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re absolutely right, but it is depth of a different kind I guess.  I think most of the difference is the loss of a narrative driving you deeper into a story, and the facts that story is built around.  Hyperlinking our way through an idea may lead you to more information, and even information that would contradict your thesis.   Of course if you look at your average magazine article the author has no problem bending facts in every direction to fit that narrative, so is it really any better?  Speaking of hopping around my mind is completely frazzled right now and I&#039;m sure this comment reflects that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re absolutely right, but it is depth of a different kind I guess.  I think most of the difference is the loss of a narrative driving you deeper into a story, and the facts that story is built around.  Hyperlinking our way through an idea may lead you to more information, and even information that would contradict your thesis.   Of course if you look at your average magazine article the author has no problem bending facts in every direction to fit that narrative, so is it really any better?  Speaking of hopping around my mind is completely frazzled right now and I&#8217;m sure this comment reflects that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: brad</title>
		<link>http://avec.teamforce.org/media/the-thing-about-the-death-of-print/comment-page-1/#comment-641</link>
		<dc:creator>brad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 00:38:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://avec.teamforce.org/?p=987#comment-641</guid>
		<description>is the ability to hop around and pull info from many sources create a form of depth? I might see it that way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>is the ability to hop around and pull info from many sources create a form of depth? I might see it that way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->