<?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: Ironically&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.voyou.org/2007/12/30/ironically/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.voyou.org/2007/12/30/ironically/</link>
	<description>Lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:46:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: voyou</title>
		<link>http://blog.voyou.org/2007/12/30/ironically/comment-page-1/#comment-15765</link>
		<dc:creator>voyou</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2008 19:38:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.voyou.org/2007/12/30/ironically/#comment-15765</guid>
		<description>The article is a particularly stark example of using journalistic cliches not just as a substitute for, but in direct opposition to, any kind of coherent argument. The writer uses standard journalistic cliche no. 94 to denote &quot;intellectualism,&quot; (didn&#039;t Heidegger stop being a shorthand for &quot;intellectual&quot; sometime in the mid 60s?) despite the fact that the cliche is dismissive of intelligence, whereas the article is supposed to be a defense of intellectualism. 

Gah, the more I think about it, the more angry I get. Everything that&#039;s wrong with the world compressed into one newspaper column.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The article is a particularly stark example of using journalistic cliches not just as a substitute for, but in direct opposition to, any kind of coherent argument. The writer uses standard journalistic cliche no. 94 to denote &#8220;intellectualism,&#8221; (didn&#8217;t Heidegger stop being a shorthand for &#8220;intellectual&#8221; sometime in the mid 60s?) despite the fact that the cliche is dismissive of intelligence, whereas the article is supposed to be a defense of intellectualism. </p>
<p>Gah, the more I think about it, the more angry I get. Everything that&#8217;s wrong with the world compressed into one newspaper column.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rachel</title>
		<link>http://blog.voyou.org/2007/12/30/ironically/comment-page-1/#comment-15671</link>
		<dc:creator>Rachel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:50:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.voyou.org/2007/12/30/ironically/#comment-15671</guid>
		<description>Why do you think it was so stupid? I thought it was pretty silly, for the reasons that some of the commenters pointed out. Boasting about your job probably makes you look like a bit of an idiot, and most of the men were looking to pick someone up, not &quot;for love&quot;. But do you have a different reason?

However, I think it is possible that men (outside Cambridge, of course) do prefer women who are pretty and sweet, rather than intelligent. I&#039;ve certainly noticed that a lot of women do hide their intelligence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why do you think it was so stupid? I thought it was pretty silly, for the reasons that some of the commenters pointed out. Boasting about your job probably makes you look like a bit of an idiot, and most of the men were looking to pick someone up, not &#8220;for love&#8221;. But do you have a different reason?</p>
<p>However, I think it is possible that men (outside Cambridge, of course) do prefer women who are pretty and sweet, rather than intelligent. I&#8217;ve certainly noticed that a lot of women do hide their intelligence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
