<?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: Friday&#8217;s five: 30 March</title>
	<atom:link href="http://strivepr.com/2007/03/31/fridays-five-30-march/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://strivepr.com/2007/03/31/fridays-five-30-march/</link>
	<description>experts in digital PR and social media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2011 05:01:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: sherrilynne</title>
		<link>http://strivepr.com/2007/03/31/fridays-five-30-march/comment-page-1/#comment-8567</link>
		<dc:creator>sherrilynne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:20:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strivepr.com/wordpress/2007/03/31/fridays-five-30-march/#comment-8567</guid>
		<description>I agree. How about profits mean saying sorry when your lawyer tells you that you have to.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree. How about profits mean saying sorry when your lawyer tells you that you have to.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Heather Yaxley</title>
		<link>http://strivepr.com/2007/03/31/fridays-five-30-march/comment-page-1/#comment-8484</link>
		<dc:creator>Heather Yaxley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:56:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://strivepr.com/wordpress/2007/03/31/fridays-five-30-march/#comment-8484</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the link - and also the note on the Mirror apology.  I believe there is an art in insincere communications - and relish it like the back-handed compliment, stylish insult and faint praise.  This is almost a lost art, probably because it takes more wit than the bully-boy approaches that are more common today.

Is the direct, open approach always better - can&#039;t more often be conveyed through what isn&#039;t actually said?

Maybe the media could try that old &quot;I love you means never having to say you&#039;re sorry&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the link &#8211; and also the note on the Mirror apology.  I believe there is an art in insincere communications &#8211; and relish it like the back-handed compliment, stylish insult and faint praise.  This is almost a lost art, probably because it takes more wit than the bully-boy approaches that are more common today.</p>
<p>Is the direct, open approach always better &#8211; can&#8217;t more often be conveyed through what isn&#8217;t actually said?</p>
<p>Maybe the media could try that old &#8220;I love you means never having to say you&#8217;re sorry&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

