<?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 collectivelinking</title>
	<link>http://metatalk.metafilter.com/tags/collectivelinking</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'collectivelinking' at MetaTalk.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2003 04:06:01 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2003 04:06:01 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title> I posted this thread yesterday and someone hated it....</title>
		<link>http://metatalk.metafilter.com/3539/I%2Dposted%2Dthis%2Dthread%2Dyesterday%2Dand%2Dsomeone%2Dhated%2Dit</link>
		<description>I posted &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/28376&quot;&gt;this thread&lt;/a&gt; yesterday, in which every word was a link to a different site, something I find fun to do (I do provide alt text for each link). A user commented, however, that this practice should be banned, initially because it is &apos;lame&apos; but later clarified her position. Is this linking style collectively annoying enough to be banned or flameworthy or is really just a matter of individual preference?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metatalk.metafilter.com,2003:site.3539</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2003 04:06:01 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>alttext</category>
		<category>collectivelinking</category>
		<category>links</category>
		<dc:creator>moonbird</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


