<?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: Week 5 Hot Hands and Cold Shoulders</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fantasyfootballfools.com/start-or-sit/week-5-hot-hands-and-cold-shoulders/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fantasyfootballfools.com/start-or-sit/week-5-hot-hands-and-cold-shoulders/</link>
	<description>We play with it until it sticks that way.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:55:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Daniel</title>
		<link>http://www.fantasyfootballfools.com/start-or-sit/week-5-hot-hands-and-cold-shoulders/comment-page-1/#comment-483</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:50:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fantasyfootballfools.com/?p=767#comment-483</guid>
		<description>One can neither win, nor lose a debate. What they can do however, is express to their respective consituents whether or not they logically make sense to them and make them feel as though they are truly fighting for them. They can connect with them, and hit home with the diverse modes that reflect the worldviews of their constituent base. Apparently, judging by the nature of the reaction from both sides, both sides are claiming victory, when this is actually incalculable. It is simply a reflection that both candidates followed through with the hypothesis stated above.
 
So... no one &quot;won&quot; or &quot;lost&quot; the debate. The prevailing views of either opponent will logically come through as the representative majority in the end on voting day. And of course from the Republican view it will stop the bleeding, which is a turn around from the commonly held views of the formerly &quot;incompetent&quot; Sarah Palin. If having Sarah Palin avoid any gaffes was the objective, then yes... they won. Same goes for Biden.. no gaffes or mysoginist attacks = a win. Pretty low standards for both, but c&#039;est l&#039;avis.

My vote still went to Obama. That&#039;s the most elated I&#039;ve ever felt in my entire life for ever having cast a vote for a candidate to high public office.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One can neither win, nor lose a debate. What they can do however, is express to their respective consituents whether or not they logically make sense to them and make them feel as though they are truly fighting for them. They can connect with them, and hit home with the diverse modes that reflect the worldviews of their constituent base. Apparently, judging by the nature of the reaction from both sides, both sides are claiming victory, when this is actually incalculable. It is simply a reflection that both candidates followed through with the hypothesis stated above.</p>
<p>So&#8230; no one &#8220;won&#8221; or &#8220;lost&#8221; the debate. The prevailing views of either opponent will logically come through as the representative majority in the end on voting day. And of course from the Republican view it will stop the bleeding, which is a turn around from the commonly held views of the formerly &#8220;incompetent&#8221; Sarah Palin. If having Sarah Palin avoid any gaffes was the objective, then yes&#8230; they won. Same goes for Biden.. no gaffes or mysoginist attacks = a win. Pretty low standards for both, but c&#8217;est l&#8217;avis.</p>
<p>My vote still went to Obama. That&#8217;s the most elated I&#8217;ve ever felt in my entire life for ever having cast a vote for a candidate to high public office.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
