<?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: Sunday Times article version two</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kierenmccarthy.com/2007/05/26/sunday-times-article-version-two/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2007/05/26/sunday-times-article-version-two/</link>
	<description>News and views on domain names, the Internet and life in general</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:11:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: A Sunday Times article what was written for me at kierenmccarthy.co.uk</title>
		<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2007/05/26/sunday-times-article-version-two/comment-page-1/#comment-2139</link>
		<dc:creator>A Sunday Times article what was written for me at kierenmccarthy.co.uk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2007 12:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kierenmccarthy.co.uk/2007/05/26/sunday-times-article-version-two/#comment-2139</guid>
		<description>[...] And the commissioning editor didn&#8217;t like it. But she was very pleasant about it and didn&#8217;t say &#8220;I don&#8217;t like it&#8221; but offered some other feasible reason. I agreed to rewrite it. So I wrote another version. I like this version too. Anyway, at 8.15pm, I get an email on my Blackberry saying that the piece was ready to go, they had made a few changes, but if I have any problems please call - she&#8217;ll be there until 10.30pm. My Blackberry would only show the first four paras or so, but it was clear it has been comprehensively rewritten. I asked her to add whoever had rehashed it to the byline. She said, no it was fine. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] And the commissioning editor didn&#38;#8217;t like it. But she was very pleasant about it and didn&#38;#8217;t say &#38;#8220;I don&#38;#8217;t like it&#38;#8221; but offered some other feasible reason. I agreed to rewrite it. So I wrote another version. I like this version too. Anyway, at 8.15pm, I get an email on my Blackberry saying that the piece was ready to go, they had made a few changes, but if I have any problems please call &#8211; she&#38;#8217;ll be there until 10.30pm. My Blackberry would only show the first four paras or so, but it was clear it has been comprehensively rewritten. I asked her to add whoever had rehashed it to the byline. She said, no it was fine. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Name Wire: The Product Naming Blog</title>
		<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2007/05/26/sunday-times-article-version-two/comment-page-1/#comment-2138</link>
		<dc:creator>Name Wire: The Product Naming Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2007 20:40:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kierenmccarthy.co.uk/2007/05/26/sunday-times-article-version-two/#comment-2138</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Recent Sale, Book Highlight Value of Sex.Com and Porn.com Domain Names...&lt;/strong&gt;

It&#039;s a sad but true fact that seedy domain names are among the most valuable on the Internet. A recent story set to be printed in the UK Sunday Times explores about the utter skullduggery around the sex.com domain name, which was stolen by Stephen Mic...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Recent Sale, Book Highlight Value of Sex.Com and Porn.com Domain Names&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>It&#8217;s a sad but true fact that seedy domain names are among the most valuable on the Internet. A recent story set to be printed in the UK Sunday Times explores about the utter skullduggery around the sex.com domain name, which was stolen by Stephen Mic&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

