<?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: Qualitative Film Review Scheme</title>
	<atom:link href="http://whathesaid.ca//2007/12/05/qualitative-film-review-scheme/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://whathesaid.ca/2007/12/05/qualitative-film-review-scheme/</link>
	<description>Techie, Teachie, North of 60°</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:31:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://whathesaid.ca/2007/12/05/qualitative-film-review-scheme/comment-page-1/#comment-2652</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:27:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whathesaid.ca/2007/12/05/qualitative-film-review-scheme/#comment-2652</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Jessica. Now to the real question of whether you are flesh &amp; blood, or assembled from many lines of code. I&#039;m just saying that there&#039;s a lot of blog spam that looks like your comment. But, since yours doesn&#039;t link to anything nasty and is also ego-inflating, I went ahead and approved it.

By the way, is there a word out there for blog spam yet? I&#039;ve heard that a blog that is nothing but spam is called a &quot;splog&quot; but what is a single spam comment on a normal blog called? &quot;Blam&quot;?

&lt;strong&gt;Update&lt;/strong&gt;: Looks like &quot;Jessica&quot; isn&#039;t quite legit, but still may not be spam. A quick googling reveals the commenter&#039;s e-mail and IP address popping up with other celebrity names elsewhere (apparently this Jessica is some superduper heroin chic model). And all of the comments mysteriously sign off with a day of the week. I think it&#039;s intriguing enough to leave it where it is. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Jessica. Now to the real question of whether you are flesh &#038; blood, or assembled from many lines of code. I&#8217;m just saying that there&#8217;s a lot of blog spam that looks like your comment. But, since yours doesn&#8217;t link to anything nasty and is also ego-inflating, I went ahead and approved it.</p>
<p>By the way, is there a word out there for blog spam yet? I&#8217;ve heard that a blog that is nothing but spam is called a &#8220;splog&#8221; but what is a single spam comment on a normal blog called? &#8220;Blam&#8221;?</p>
<p><strong>Update</strong>: Looks like &#8220;Jessica&#8221; isn&#8217;t quite legit, but still may not be spam. A quick googling reveals the commenter&#8217;s e-mail and IP address popping up with other celebrity names elsewhere (apparently this Jessica is some superduper heroin chic model). And all of the comments mysteriously sign off with a day of the week. I think it&#8217;s intriguing enough to leave it where it is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jessica Stam</title>
		<link>http://whathesaid.ca/2007/12/05/qualitative-film-review-scheme/comment-page-1/#comment-2649</link>
		<dc:creator>Jessica Stam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:31:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whathesaid.ca/2007/12/05/qualitative-film-review-scheme/#comment-2649</guid>
		<description>Hi...Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..holy Friday</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi&#8230;Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..holy Friday</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://whathesaid.ca/2007/12/05/qualitative-film-review-scheme/comment-page-1/#comment-2645</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:39:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whathesaid.ca/2007/12/05/qualitative-film-review-scheme/#comment-2645</guid>
		<description>You gave me an idea: wealthy film enthusiasts should continuously rent all of the crap at the video store so that others would be forced to watch only good stuff. Sort of a Denial of Service attack. Do you suppose Rogers would object to a single customer renting all 25 copies of &quot;I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry&quot;?

I also wonder if the bad = good movies shouldn&#039;t really be rated as such, but secretly known to only a few trusted, responsible cinephiles. I count &quot;Evil Dead II&quot;, &quot;The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension&quot;, and &quot;Dark Star&quot; among my illicit collection.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You gave me an idea: wealthy film enthusiasts should continuously rent all of the crap at the video store so that others would be forced to watch only good stuff. Sort of a Denial of Service attack. Do you suppose Rogers would object to a single customer renting all 25 copies of &#8220;I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry&#8221;?</p>
<p>I also wonder if the bad = good movies shouldn&#8217;t really be rated as such, but secretly known to only a few trusted, responsible cinephiles. I count &#8220;Evil Dead II&#8221;, &#8220;The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension&#8221;, and &#8220;Dark Star&#8221; among my illicit collection.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Login Firth</title>
		<link>http://whathesaid.ca/2007/12/05/qualitative-film-review-scheme/comment-page-1/#comment-2643</link>
		<dc:creator>Login Firth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:57:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whathesaid.ca/2007/12/05/qualitative-film-review-scheme/#comment-2643</guid>
		<description>With respect to the comment that &quot;it&#039;s so bad that it&#039;s good,&quot; maybe you should consider adding a special rating and icon for that. It could be a red eye--in honour of the film &quot;Red Eye,&quot; which certainly qualifies, especially when you reconsider the film in light of the grandiose &quot;Making Of&quot; special feature of the DVD. 

I think you might also want to consider a special rating and icon for movies that are so bad (and not bad in a good way) that you should actually rent them--but only to play in some sort of device that is known to cause irreparable harm to discs or tapes. Sure, it might cost you a few bucks in penalties, but it would be for the greater good. If you need any inspriation for icons etc, I suggest watching Robert Duvall&#039;s &quot;Assassination Tango.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With respect to the comment that &#8220;it&#8217;s so bad that it&#8217;s good,&#8221; maybe you should consider adding a special rating and icon for that. It could be a red eye&#8211;in honour of the film &#8220;Red Eye,&#8221; which certainly qualifies, especially when you reconsider the film in light of the grandiose &#8220;Making Of&#8221; special feature of the DVD. </p>
<p>I think you might also want to consider a special rating and icon for movies that are so bad (and not bad in a good way) that you should actually rent them&#8211;but only to play in some sort of device that is known to cause irreparable harm to discs or tapes. Sure, it might cost you a few bucks in penalties, but it would be for the greater good. If you need any inspriation for icons etc, I suggest watching Robert Duvall&#8217;s &#8220;Assassination Tango.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

