<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Mathew's comments - Latest Comments in Bloggers are parasites &amp;mdash; so what&amp;#63;</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2007 19:58:58 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Bloggers are parasites &amp;mdash; so what&amp;#63;</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/03/05/bloggers-are-parasites-so-what/#comment-1311833</link><description>I agree, Tony.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Mathew</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2007 19:58:58 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Bloggers are parasites &amp;mdash; so what&amp;#63;</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/03/05/bloggers-are-parasites-so-what/#comment-1311831</link><description>Never mind that mainstream media of all stripes have been leeching off of each other for years -- I find it enormously hypocritical that they label bloggers for something they've been doing for a long time.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;After all, (some) bloggers are just as good following a piece of news published (or "broke") by some media giants as some journalists [present company excluded of course]-- and almost all are a great deal faster.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Cheers&lt;br&gt;t</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Tony</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2007 19:29:58 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>