<?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: All in Good Fun</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/creative_class/2009/05/05/all-in-good-fun/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/creative_class/2009/05/05/all-in-good-fun/</link>
	<description>The source on how we live, work and play</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 18:10:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Peter Boumgarden</title>
		<link>http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/creative_class/2009/05/05/all-in-good-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-12208</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Boumgarden</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 15:00:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/creative_class/?p=10403#comment-12208</guid>
		<description>It is an interesting point they raise... the tradeoff between relevance and rigor.  I am not sure the best place to stand on such a divide, nor whether the tradeoff is as clean-cut as it appears.  I think one can remove some parts linked to rigor (e.g. jargon) while still providing timely, well-researched, and readable pieces.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is an interesting point they raise&#8230; the tradeoff between relevance and rigor.  I am not sure the best place to stand on such a divide, nor whether the tradeoff is as clean-cut as it appears.  I think one can remove some parts linked to rigor (e.g. jargon) while still providing timely, well-researched, and readable pieces.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

