<?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: What is Videoblogging?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://andheblogs.andyrush.net/make-your-own-video-%c2%bb-blog-archive-%c2%bb-stockstock-an-introduction-to-videoblogging/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://andheblogs.andyrush.net/make-your-own-video-%c2%bb-blog-archive-%c2%bb-stockstock-an-introduction-to-videoblogging/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:21:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gardner Campbell</title>
		<link>http://andheblogs.andyrush.net/make-your-own-video-%c2%bb-blog-archive-%c2%bb-stockstock-an-introduction-to-videoblogging/comment-page-1/#comment-37</link>
		<dc:creator>Gardner Campbell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:59:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andheblogs.andyrush.net/?p=92#comment-37</guid>
		<description>Several thoughts:

1. First and foremost, way cool.

2. My personal favorite is the Alka-Seltzer tummy-poking bit. I didn&#039;t know that was in the public domain.

3. The video (archival and re-mixed) is of surprisingly good quality.

4. I could quarrel with a few of the edits.

5. The audio is atrocious. How hard would it have been to do better? It would be hard to do much worse. Terrible audio just about ruins it for me. YMMV.

6. Thanks for the link. The feed must be quite popular: it took me three tries to get in.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Several thoughts:</p>
<p>1. First and foremost, way cool.</p>
<p>2. My personal favorite is the Alka-Seltzer tummy-poking bit. I didn&#8217;t know that was in the public domain.</p>
<p>3. The video (archival and re-mixed) is of surprisingly good quality.</p>
<p>4. I could quarrel with a few of the edits.</p>
<p>5. The audio is atrocious. How hard would it have been to do better? It would be hard to do much worse. Terrible audio just about ruins it for me. YMMV.</p>
<p>6. Thanks for the link. The feed must be quite popular: it took me three tries to get in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

