<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Harpymarx</title>
	<atom:link href="http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://harpymarx.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>Personal is the Political</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2013 15:43:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on More evidence (from the DWP) that benefit sanctions don&#8217;t work! by DWP Plots Workfare For Part Time Workers &#124; the void</title>
		<link>http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/more-evidence-from-the-dwp-that-benefit-sanctions-dont-work/#comment-19533</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DWP Plots Workfare For Part Time Workers &#124; the void]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2013 15:43:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/?p=5833#comment-19533</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] has emerged &#8211; that workfare doesn&#8217;t work, that benefit sanctions do little more than drive people into poverty, and that the payments by results Work Programme model is an unmitigated disaster &#8211; is to be [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] has emerged &#8211; that workfare doesn&#8217;t work, that benefit sanctions do little more than drive people into poverty, and that the payments by results Work Programme model is an unmitigated disaster &#8211; is to be [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Erased from history&#8230;?! by Jenn</title>
		<link>http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/erased-from-history/#comment-19527</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jenn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:54:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/?p=11481#comment-19527</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By the way, and sorry for going on a bit, I was wondering if you&#039;d read Dreamers of a New Day by Sheila Rowbotham, and what you thought of it? Because, much as Hidden from History is a bit of a stone cold classic, Dreamers of a New Day (which is from 2010) I found a bit disappointing, in that I thought she was somewhat trying to link the feminist struggles from the modernist period to current ones. At least, she kind of describes them using current vocabulary and keywords, like she talks in terms of &quot;creating spaces&quot; and so on, very postmodernist terms generally. That and, it&#039;s only a few hundred pages, like 300 or so, and she&#039;s covering several decades of feminist movement in the UK and America. So it doesn&#039;t go in too much depth, she can&#039;t really do justice to all the people she mentions, so everyone&#039;s &quot;the socialist feminist so and so&quot; &quot;the anarchist so and so&quot; &quot;the Fabian so and so&quot; and... I don&#039;t know, it struck me the Rowbotham who wrote Hidden From History started the introduction by stating that it came out of a radical movement. Whereas now, it&#039;s harder for her to have that objectivity, cause there is a feminist &quot;phenomenon&quot; providing the market for the book, but is it exactly a movement? She can&#039;t say there isn&#039;t, but she can&#039;t say there is either. And again it struck me as offering a kind of postcard from the golden age of feminism, rather than as a history book. 
Then there&#039;s a book by Sheila Jeffreys called The Spinster and Her Enemies, which is really interesting, and it&#039;s appreciable that she&#039;s sympathetic to a lot of early women&#039;s rights campaigners that (she says) historians aren&#039;t kind about. But again it&#039;s like she&#039;s saying that lesbian separatism is more in tune with the goals of early feminists (obviously...) than socialist feminism or queer theory, and it&#039;s this constant appeal to their authority that&#039;s fascinating to me with all of these books. Plus she has this awkwardness around the discussion of all things genital, which, if you&#039;re going to damn Henry Havelock Ellis at length but can&#039;t mention the facts of life (or of genital intercourse *scowl* anyway) without spluttering with rage... you got a technical problem. I dunno, I found a sincerity there that comes from someone who&#039;s got nothing to lose in terms of perceived huggability in the feminist movement, which I thought was lacking somewhat with the Rowbotham book. 
There&#039;s also an amazing essay where she straight-facedly quotes a book by Rowbotham and Jeffrey Meeks stating that progress &quot;flowed in a broad stream&quot; from the work of Havelock Ellis, where I think they were possibly taking the piss? 
Anyway, I&#039;m just nerding out about glossy-covered feminist tomes at this point. But I mean you&#039;ve been a union and socialist feminist activist for all these years, so I&#039;m interested in your thoughts.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By the way, and sorry for going on a bit, I was wondering if you&#8217;d read Dreamers of a New Day by Sheila Rowbotham, and what you thought of it? Because, much as Hidden from History is a bit of a stone cold classic, Dreamers of a New Day (which is from 2010) I found a bit disappointing, in that I thought she was somewhat trying to link the feminist struggles from the modernist period to current ones. At least, she kind of describes them using current vocabulary and keywords, like she talks in terms of &#8220;creating spaces&#8221; and so on, very postmodernist terms generally. That and, it&#8217;s only a few hundred pages, like 300 or so, and she&#8217;s covering several decades of feminist movement in the UK and America. So it doesn&#8217;t go in too much depth, she can&#8217;t really do justice to all the people she mentions, so everyone&#8217;s &#8220;the socialist feminist so and so&#8221; &#8220;the anarchist so and so&#8221; &#8220;the Fabian so and so&#8221; and&#8230; I don&#8217;t know, it struck me the Rowbotham who wrote Hidden From History started the introduction by stating that it came out of a radical movement. Whereas now, it&#8217;s harder for her to have that objectivity, cause there is a feminist &#8220;phenomenon&#8221; providing the market for the book, but is it exactly a movement? She can&#8217;t say there isn&#8217;t, but she can&#8217;t say there is either. And again it struck me as offering a kind of postcard from the golden age of feminism, rather than as a history book.<br />
Then there&#8217;s a book by Sheila Jeffreys called The Spinster and Her Enemies, which is really interesting, and it&#8217;s appreciable that she&#8217;s sympathetic to a lot of early women&#8217;s rights campaigners that (she says) historians aren&#8217;t kind about. But again it&#8217;s like she&#8217;s saying that lesbian separatism is more in tune with the goals of early feminists (obviously&#8230;) than socialist feminism or queer theory, and it&#8217;s this constant appeal to their authority that&#8217;s fascinating to me with all of these books. Plus she has this awkwardness around the discussion of all things genital, which, if you&#8217;re going to damn Henry Havelock Ellis at length but can&#8217;t mention the facts of life (or of genital intercourse *scowl* anyway) without spluttering with rage&#8230; you got a technical problem. I dunno, I found a sincerity there that comes from someone who&#8217;s got nothing to lose in terms of perceived huggability in the feminist movement, which I thought was lacking somewhat with the Rowbotham book.<br />
There&#8217;s also an amazing essay where she straight-facedly quotes a book by Rowbotham and Jeffrey Meeks stating that progress &#8220;flowed in a broad stream&#8221; from the work of Havelock Ellis, where I think they were possibly taking the piss?<br />
Anyway, I&#8217;m just nerding out about glossy-covered feminist tomes at this point. But I mean you&#8217;ve been a union and socialist feminist activist for all these years, so I&#8217;m interested in your thoughts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Erased from history&#8230;?! by Jenn</title>
		<link>http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/erased-from-history/#comment-19526</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jenn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2013 10:20:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/?p=11481#comment-19526</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The handling of feminist history by the media is very interesting, isn&#039;t it? First there&#039;s the point you make, that a few names of middle-class suffragists, who were not that feminist otherwise, are held up as saviours of women. This isn&#039;t to devalue the enormous sacrifice of those famous suffragettes. Erm, except I&#039;m not sure what it accomplished because they did not do the bulk of the work. In fact, suffrage was finally won in 1918, but from 1914-1918 they stopped campaigning for the vote and campaigned for the war effort and for patriotism and so on instead. So, while the Pankhurst method of setting fire to shit and destroying property brought plenty of attention to the cause, I&#039;m not sure how persuasive it was or how much of a factor it was - I mean reading the literature of the time, it&#039;s like folks just got used to those Pankhurst ladies fucking shit up.

It&#039;s also frustrating to see the media treatment of women&#039;s suffrage. Poor Emily Wilding Davison - I&#039;ve seen so many commemorative pieces, trying to drum up feminist fervour in today&#039;s women, &quot;what would Davison think if she knew we were wearing high-heeled shoes and women were so poorly represented in video games!&quot; - well it&#039;s ridiculous, she wouldn&#039;t give one half of a fuck, it&#039;s just appending a prestigious name to the writer&#039;s pet cause. And, prestigious in terms of suffering-capital, really, a middle-class woman died gorily. I mean you take the raised-eyebrow sassy tone of so much bourgeois feminism since The Female Eunuch pretty much, and you apply it to a woman getting trampled by a horse for the vote, it&#039;s pretty horrifyingly callous.

The only thing from the time I can compare it to is, there&#039;s an article by an ex-suffragist feminist from 1913 straight after it happened, and Emmeline Pankhurst was on hunger strike at the time, and this lady&#039;s basically suggesting Pankhurst should take a leaf from Davison&#039;s book, cause that was a brave, beautiful act executed with total agency. And this is someone who reaaallly hated the Pankhursts, she&#039;d been in the WSPU and had a bad experience. We treat these women like they were all sassy and cool and 100% rational at all times, like they were Lisa Simpson or Hermione Granger or something, truth is, Rowbotham is totally right, they were acting from desperation.

 I can&#039;t think of much more misogynist than writing &quot;why can&#039;t today&#039;s women take a leaf from the suffragettes&#039; book? they were totally together, cool and collected&quot;. We should be mourning them, lamenting that they had to do this, if anything.

Then there&#039;s this constant need to look back to &quot;when feminism was founded&quot;. Like, this group of middle-class women in ye olden days went &quot;well there&#039;s this problem and that, we&#039;re the property of our men, we can&#039;t divorce, basically our livelihood depends on our value as capital, we can&#039;t vote... piffle, this is ridiculous I say, any intelligent woman can see this! I know! Let&#039;s make feminism!&quot;. Then this endless fight between various schools of feminism over whose precursors the original feminists really are. You get this really insidious effect where today&#039;s media figures with their articles on unrealistic beauty standards which somehow manage to drop in a few celeb and big brand names claim that they&#039;re carrying on the legacy of the original feminists, and that the original feminists were in fact the high-profile middle-class ones, who mostly weren&#039;t really feminist, a lot of them continued to embrace the Victorian ideal of womanhood, they just wanted the vote for women as well, in fact one of their arguments was that women wouldn&#039;t cease to embody that ideal even if they had the vote. There&#039;s actually some interesting theological work on Christabel Pankhurst, but she was pretty conservative, as was Emmeline in her later days after her husband died, as was Millicent Fawcett who, apparently, on reading a copy of The Freewoman (a journal of the time that explored the possibilities of homosexuality and questioned the traditional nuclear family) apparently ripped it up and declared it evil. These are only convenient &quot;precursors&quot; if you ignore most of what they did or stood for - which is not fair to them, really. 

The thing is with the big names in feminist history, they&#039;re the women who are given &quot;stories&quot;. You have to be middle-class for this, because you have to be a &quot;protagonist&quot; with &quot;agency&quot; and so on. All working-class campaigners have ever had is their lives and their struggles and the things they did. Without the narrative, they probably just look like what they were - women struggling in a desperate situation. The feminist movement wasn&#039;t founded by some Feminist Mount Rushmore of Great Women. It happened.

Oh and great reading list, by the way. I&#039;ve been looking for the name of the author of that Sylvia Pankhurst book for ages.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The handling of feminist history by the media is very interesting, isn&#8217;t it? First there&#8217;s the point you make, that a few names of middle-class suffragists, who were not that feminist otherwise, are held up as saviours of women. This isn&#8217;t to devalue the enormous sacrifice of those famous suffragettes. Erm, except I&#8217;m not sure what it accomplished because they did not do the bulk of the work. In fact, suffrage was finally won in 1918, but from 1914-1918 they stopped campaigning for the vote and campaigned for the war effort and for patriotism and so on instead. So, while the Pankhurst method of setting fire to shit and destroying property brought plenty of attention to the cause, I&#8217;m not sure how persuasive it was or how much of a factor it was &#8211; I mean reading the literature of the time, it&#8217;s like folks just got used to those Pankhurst ladies fucking shit up.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s also frustrating to see the media treatment of women&#8217;s suffrage. Poor Emily Wilding Davison &#8211; I&#8217;ve seen so many commemorative pieces, trying to drum up feminist fervour in today&#8217;s women, &#8220;what would Davison think if she knew we were wearing high-heeled shoes and women were so poorly represented in video games!&#8221; &#8211; well it&#8217;s ridiculous, she wouldn&#8217;t give one half of a fuck, it&#8217;s just appending a prestigious name to the writer&#8217;s pet cause. And, prestigious in terms of suffering-capital, really, a middle-class woman died gorily. I mean you take the raised-eyebrow sassy tone of so much bourgeois feminism since The Female Eunuch pretty much, and you apply it to a woman getting trampled by a horse for the vote, it&#8217;s pretty horrifyingly callous.</p>
<p>The only thing from the time I can compare it to is, there&#8217;s an article by an ex-suffragist feminist from 1913 straight after it happened, and Emmeline Pankhurst was on hunger strike at the time, and this lady&#8217;s basically suggesting Pankhurst should take a leaf from Davison&#8217;s book, cause that was a brave, beautiful act executed with total agency. And this is someone who reaaallly hated the Pankhursts, she&#8217;d been in the WSPU and had a bad experience. We treat these women like they were all sassy and cool and 100% rational at all times, like they were Lisa Simpson or Hermione Granger or something, truth is, Rowbotham is totally right, they were acting from desperation.</p>
<p> I can&#8217;t think of much more misogynist than writing &#8220;why can&#8217;t today&#8217;s women take a leaf from the suffragettes&#8217; book? they were totally together, cool and collected&#8221;. We should be mourning them, lamenting that they had to do this, if anything.</p>
<p>Then there&#8217;s this constant need to look back to &#8220;when feminism was founded&#8221;. Like, this group of middle-class women in ye olden days went &#8220;well there&#8217;s this problem and that, we&#8217;re the property of our men, we can&#8217;t divorce, basically our livelihood depends on our value as capital, we can&#8217;t vote&#8230; piffle, this is ridiculous I say, any intelligent woman can see this! I know! Let&#8217;s make feminism!&#8221;. Then this endless fight between various schools of feminism over whose precursors the original feminists really are. You get this really insidious effect where today&#8217;s media figures with their articles on unrealistic beauty standards which somehow manage to drop in a few celeb and big brand names claim that they&#8217;re carrying on the legacy of the original feminists, and that the original feminists were in fact the high-profile middle-class ones, who mostly weren&#8217;t really feminist, a lot of them continued to embrace the Victorian ideal of womanhood, they just wanted the vote for women as well, in fact one of their arguments was that women wouldn&#8217;t cease to embody that ideal even if they had the vote. There&#8217;s actually some interesting theological work on Christabel Pankhurst, but she was pretty conservative, as was Emmeline in her later days after her husband died, as was Millicent Fawcett who, apparently, on reading a copy of The Freewoman (a journal of the time that explored the possibilities of homosexuality and questioned the traditional nuclear family) apparently ripped it up and declared it evil. These are only convenient &#8220;precursors&#8221; if you ignore most of what they did or stood for &#8211; which is not fair to them, really. </p>
<p>The thing is with the big names in feminist history, they&#8217;re the women who are given &#8220;stories&#8221;. You have to be middle-class for this, because you have to be a &#8220;protagonist&#8221; with &#8220;agency&#8221; and so on. All working-class campaigners have ever had is their lives and their struggles and the things they did. Without the narrative, they probably just look like what they were &#8211; women struggling in a desperate situation. The feminist movement wasn&#8217;t founded by some Feminist Mount Rushmore of Great Women. It happened.</p>
<p>Oh and great reading list, by the way. I&#8217;ve been looking for the name of the author of that Sylvia Pankhurst book for ages.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Erased from history&#8230;?! by Heather Downs</title>
		<link>http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/erased-from-history/#comment-19525</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Heather Downs]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2013 10:12:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/?p=11481#comment-19525</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[was it only a reward for war work?  there were links with Sinn Fein - Contance Markiewitz was senetnced to deathafter Easter 1916; she was the sister of Eva Gore-Booth who was an activist in the North west and the East London Federation and Womens Freedom League had close ties with the Communist Party which led the Russian Revolution 1917.  There was also a plot to kill PM Asquith.
So maybe there was a motive to &#039;buy them off&#039; with concessions]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>was it only a reward for war work?  there were links with Sinn Fein &#8211; Contance Markiewitz was senetnced to deathafter Easter 1916; she was the sister of Eva Gore-Booth who was an activist in the North west and the East London Federation and Womens Freedom League had close ties with the Communist Party which led the Russian Revolution 1917.  There was also a plot to kill PM Asquith.<br />
So maybe there was a motive to &#8216;buy them off&#8217; with concessions</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Erased from history&#8230;?! by Michael herbert</title>
		<link>http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/erased-from-history/#comment-19523</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael herbert]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Jun 2013 22:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/?p=11481#comment-19523</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I included the working class suffragist movement in my recent book &quot;Up Then Brave Women&quot;; Manchester&#039;s radical women  1819-1918. regards michael herbert]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I included the working class suffragist movement in my recent book &#8220;Up Then Brave Women&#8221;; Manchester&#8217;s radical women  1819-1918. regards michael herbert</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Importance of a safe space for women&#8230; by Steven Singh</title>
		<link>http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/importance-of-a-safe-space-for-women/#comment-19493</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steven Singh]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 02:50:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/?p=11469#comment-19493</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hey harpymarx, my friend Mohan and I started www.safespaceforum.com for discussions on these topics that have been on the brunt-end of cenorship in mainstream social media. Mind you, we are operating out of Alberta - not exactly a socially liberal province in Canada. We&#039;ll be expanding to have a wiki soon. 

Come check us out! Really looking to establish some good dialogue.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey harpymarx, my friend Mohan and I started <a href="http://www.safespaceforum.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.safespaceforum.com</a> for discussions on these topics that have been on the brunt-end of cenorship in mainstream social media. Mind you, we are operating out of Alberta &#8211; not exactly a socially liberal province in Canada. We&#8217;ll be expanding to have a wiki soon. </p>
<p>Come check us out! Really looking to establish some good dialogue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The man doth protest too much, methinks&#8230;. by Importance of a safe space for women&#8230; &#124; Harpymarx</title>
		<link>http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/2013/04/06/the-man-doth-protest-too-much-methinks/#comment-19485</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Importance of a safe space for women&#8230; &#124; Harpymarx]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 21:30:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/?p=11445#comment-19485</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] this because I agree with it. Again, Weekly Worker had something to say about it, which I covered here. No use repeating myself. I was accused by Demarty of &#8220;bowdlerising&#8221; his arguments, [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] this because I agree with it. Again, Weekly Worker had something to say about it, which I covered here. No use repeating myself. I was accused by Demarty of &#8220;bowdlerising&#8221; his arguments, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Jabberwocky Weekly Worker style&#8230;.. by Sometimes words really do mean what they say &#124; Too Much To Say For Myself</title>
		<link>http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/jabberwocky-weekly-worker-style/#comment-19481</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sometimes words really do mean what they say &#124; Too Much To Say For Myself]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 May 2013 09:26:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/?p=11416#comment-19481</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Harpymarx - Jabberwocky Weekly Worker style….. [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Harpymarx - Jabberwocky Weekly Worker style….. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Review: La Mujer Sin Cabeza (The Headless Woman) by S3 strenght</title>
		<link>http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/review-la-mujer-sin-cabeza-the-headless-woman/#comment-19449</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[S3 strenght]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:32:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/?p=5999#comment-19449</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Would it be ok if I quote a few of your posts as long 
as I provide credit and sources back to wordpress.com?

My blog is on the exact same focus as your site and my readers could easily learn from 
much of the info you offer here. Please let me know if this would be fine.
Regards]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Would it be ok if I quote a few of your posts as long<br />
as I provide credit and sources back to wordpress.com?</p>
<p>My blog is on the exact same focus as your site and my readers could easily learn from<br />
much of the info you offer here. Please let me know if this would be fine.<br />
Regards</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on My experience of skills training &#8230;.. A4E style! by Immigration Advice in Hillingdon</title>
		<link>http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/my-experience-of-skills-training-a4e-style/#comment-19446</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Immigration Advice in Hillingdon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 06:01:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/?p=10926#comment-19446</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Great info. Lucky me I came across your site by accident (stumbleupon).
I have book-marked it for later!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great info. Lucky me I came across your site by accident (stumbleupon).<br />
I have book-marked it for later!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>