<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaTalk posts tagged with 1142</title>
	<link>http://metatalk.metafilter.com/tags/1142</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with '1142' at MetaTalk.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2002 02:59:30 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2002 02:59:30 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>I love the thread-ends</title>
		<link>http://metatalk.metafilter.com/2129/I%2Dlove%2Dthe%2Dthreadends</link>
		<description>When a MeTa thread has played its course, chattiness and jokes sometimes rush in. Although I realize it&apos;s a minority sport, I just love &lt;b&gt;thread-ends&lt;/b&gt;. There&apos;s something ecological about using left-overs for imaginative and friendly banter. Is my excuse, anyway...&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Like soon-to-be-deleted threads on MetaFilter, they serve a useful pressure-valve purpose: they redirect playfulness away from serious discussions and probably inhibit initiating purposefully chatty posts. At least for me. Is this acceptable, now that MetaTalk has become specifically Meta again? Or, at least, can it be lived with?  I hope so.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metatalk.metafilter.com,2002:site.2129</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2002 02:59:30 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>1142</category>
		<category>chat</category>
		<category>cult</category>
		<category>longboat</category>
		<dc:creator>MiguelCardoso</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


