<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for New Mattel line lets you wear Barbie&#8217;s discards]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by caniscandida</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/barbie/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:52:57 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/barbie/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Did Ken ever really have a purpose?</strong></p><p>I mean, did Barbie ever really find out what an orgasm is? &nbsp;And if so, how? &nbsp;And with who?</p><p>
It is positively chilling to think that Ken was somehow involved ...</p><p>
Nevertheless, he might be useful for painting signs, with "w"s which are in fact flipped-over "m"s.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Did Ken ever really have a purpose?</strong></p><p>I mean, did Barbie ever really find out what an orgasm is? &nbsp;And if so, how? &nbsp;And with who?</p><p>
It is positively chilling to think that Ken was somehow involved ...</p><p>
Nevertheless, he might be useful for painting signs, with "w"s which are in fact flipped-over "m"s.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by spaceshaper</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/barbie/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:47:20 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/barbie/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Ken's purpose?</strong></p><p>Arm candy. A placeholder. Barbie's been waiting all these years for the right butch girlfriend to come out with.</p><p>
Or perhaps I should say, tsk tsk, to make a gentle grammatical point, &nbsp;"with whom to come out".</p><p>
And hey, Canis, forget about the Gore w already. You know, "accept the things we cannot change.... wisdom to know the difference". Yadda yadda yadda.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Ken's purpose?</strong></p><p>Arm candy. A placeholder. Barbie's been waiting all these years for the right butch girlfriend to come out with.</p><p>
Or perhaps I should say, tsk tsk, to make a gentle grammatical point, &nbsp;"with whom to come out".</p><p>
And hey, Canis, forget about the Gore w already. You know, "accept the things we cannot change.... wisdom to know the difference". Yadda yadda yadda.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by caniscandida</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/barbie/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:38:02 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/barbie/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>The headman peers</strong></p><p>through those inscrutable eyeholes in his head, and asks, "Well? &nbsp;'Whom' is next?!"</p><p>
But yes indeed, we have already been through the high desirability of killing off the undesirable, trouble-making "whom."</p><p>
Or, failing that, should we revert to a 9th-century condition, and start declining all nouns, pronouns and adjectives, with genitive and dative along with nominative and accusative forms?</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>The headman peers</strong></p><p>through those inscrutable eyeholes in his head, and asks, "Well? &nbsp;'Whom' is next?!"</p><p>
But yes indeed, we have already been through the high desirability of killing off the undesirable, trouble-making "whom."</p><p>
Or, failing that, should we revert to a 9th-century condition, and start declining all nouns, pronouns and adjectives, with genitive and dative along with nominative and accusative forms?</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #4 by caniscandida</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/barbie/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 02:17:58 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/barbie/4</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>By the way, SpaSh,<p>did you see this, on cod and river herring?:<p>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/dining/02cod.html?ex=1207800000&amp;en=8cd073133c7a91e6&amp;ei=5070&amp;emc=eta1" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/dining/02cod.html?ex=12 ...<p>
The term "marine sustainability" is actually used.<p>
Sam Wells might be interested too, but he seems to be on vacation.</p></p></a></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>By the way, SpaSh,<p>did you see this, on cod and river herring?:<p>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/dining/02cod.html?ex=1207800000&amp;en=8cd073133c7a91e6&amp;ei=5070&amp;emc=eta1" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/dining/02cod.html?ex=12 ...<p>
The term "marine sustainability" is actually used.<p>
Sam Wells might be interested too, but he seems to be on vacation.</p></p></a></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #5 by spaceshaper</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/barbie/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:00:10 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/barbie/5</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>I don't generally carry a torch for archaisms</strong></p><p>but I have a sentimental fondness for "whom" when it a) is technically correct and b) falls at the end of a (written) sentence. I seldom if ever use it in speech however. Is that a double standard?</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>I don't generally carry a torch for archaisms</strong></p><p>but I have a sentimental fondness for "whom" when it a) is technically correct and b) falls at the end of a (written) sentence. I seldom if ever use it in speech however. Is that a double standard?</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #6 by caniscandida</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/barbie/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:21:15 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/barbie/6</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>&quot;I carry the torch!,&quot;</strong></p><p>quoth Ruth Buzzi, in an ancient "Laugh-In" segment with an Olympic-Games theme. &nbsp;Circa 1968, the political issue affecting the Olympic Games was not Tibet (or Taiwan, or the Uighurs, or Falun Gong) but Tlatelolco, in what is now north-central Mexico City, a place with a lovely Nahuatl name and a painful history of injustice and blood.</p><p>
Dear SpaSh,<br>
sentimental fondness is by no means an emotion to be despised; so please know that I gladly chuck you under the chin for using "whom," even when "who" might do, whether in writing or speaking.</p><p>
And no, that is certainly not a double standard, if we follow different grammatical principles when we speak and when we write. &nbsp;That is normal, in fact. &nbsp;Writing prose is misinterpreted as merely a record of speech; it is not that at all; it is a very formal and distinct use of language, which borrows some attractive features from speech, sometimes, but also has attractive features of its own which speech lacks.</p><p>
As for "the Gore w": If it made sense to command me to stop feeling nauseated whenever I see that ridiculous, insulting, hideously uninspired idea of an idiotic graphic designer, and if it would help at all, then I would say, by all means, keep commanding me. &nbsp;But, alas, I doubt your command will work, and I am just going to have to cope with yet another uglification and stupidification, in this already nauseatingly multivalent visual world.</p><p>
Come dici, "Yadda yadda yadda."</br></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>&quot;I carry the torch!,&quot;</strong></p><p>quoth Ruth Buzzi, in an ancient "Laugh-In" segment with an Olympic-Games theme. &nbsp;Circa 1968, the political issue affecting the Olympic Games was not Tibet (or Taiwan, or the Uighurs, or Falun Gong) but Tlatelolco, in what is now north-central Mexico City, a place with a lovely Nahuatl name and a painful history of injustice and blood.</p><p>
Dear SpaSh,<br>
sentimental fondness is by no means an emotion to be despised; so please know that I gladly chuck you under the chin for using "whom," even when "who" might do, whether in writing or speaking.</p><p>
And no, that is certainly not a double standard, if we follow different grammatical principles when we speak and when we write. &nbsp;That is normal, in fact. &nbsp;Writing prose is misinterpreted as merely a record of speech; it is not that at all; it is a very formal and distinct use of language, which borrows some attractive features from speech, sometimes, but also has attractive features of its own which speech lacks.</p><p>
As for "the Gore w": If it made sense to command me to stop feeling nauseated whenever I see that ridiculous, insulting, hideously uninspired idea of an idiotic graphic designer, and if it would help at all, then I would say, by all means, keep commanding me. &nbsp;But, alas, I doubt your command will work, and I am just going to have to cope with yet another uglification and stupidification, in this already nauseatingly multivalent visual world.</p><p>
Come dici, "Yadda yadda yadda."</br></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>