<?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: Style Points</title>
	<atom:link href="http://baseblogging.net/2006/01/02/style-points/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://baseblogging.net/2006/01/02/style-points/</link>
	<description>A resource for baseball (and other sports) bloggers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Sep 2011 19:01:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Red Hot Mama</title>
		<link>http://baseblogging.net/2006/01/02/style-points/comment-page-1/#comment-95</link>
		<dc:creator>Red Hot Mama</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2006 00:47:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://baseblogging.net/2006/01/02/style-points/#comment-95</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the link. I thought it was funny that the two typos grated on my nerves so. Guess I&#039;d better make good use of the spell check on my own blog.

I&#039;m a firm believer in writing skimmably, and I pride myself on my bullets. Whenever I see a dense, verbose chunk of prose on another blog, I think &quot;who&#039;s going to read that?&quot; But invariably, someone has responded with &quot;Great analysis!&quot; in the comments, and I&#039;m again left questioning my entire belief system. 

Does being bombastic lend you credibility in a baseblog? Or was that post really so excellently fantastic that it transcended the presentation? Or did that person only say it was a great analysis to make themselves feel smarter after they tried and failed to decipher the impenetrable formatting?

Whatever. I&#039;ll stick with the bullets. Mine look like little baseballs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the link. I thought it was funny that the two typos grated on my nerves so. Guess I&#8217;d better make good use of the spell check on my own blog.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m a firm believer in writing skimmably, and I pride myself on my bullets. Whenever I see a dense, verbose chunk of prose on another blog, I think &#8220;who&#8217;s going to read that?&#8221; But invariably, someone has responded with &#8220;Great analysis!&#8221; in the comments, and I&#8217;m again left questioning my entire belief system. </p>
<p>Does being bombastic lend you credibility in a baseblog? Or was that post really so excellently fantastic that it transcended the presentation? Or did that person only say it was a great analysis to make themselves feel smarter after they tried and failed to decipher the impenetrable formatting?</p>
<p>Whatever. I&#8217;ll stick with the bullets. Mine look like little baseballs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

