<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Blogcritics Author: Kim W</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<description>A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously.</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:52:23 EDT</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
<generator>Blogcritics.org custom software</generator>

<item>
<title>Announcement: Short-content feeds</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<author>Phillip Winn</author><description>Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we&#039;re sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable.

Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren&#039;t favorable to duplicate content, and don&#039;t always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds.

We hope that you&#039;ll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it&#039;s only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.</description>
<category>Administration</category><guid isPermaLink="false">0@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Single Review: Hilary and Haylie Duff&#039;s &quot;Our Lips Are Sealed&quot;</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/08/105223.php</link>
<author>Kim W</author><description>Hilary Duff and her older, significantly less attractive sister, Haylie, have done a remake of one of the great songs of the &#039;80s: &quot;Our Lips Are Sealed&quot; by the Go-Go&#039;s. Hilary has a new movie coming out (A Cinderella Story) and this song is part of the soundtrack which is slated for release on July 13. The video is available at MTV.com.Now, I&#039;m one of the few people in the adult world who admit to liking some Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson videos, so I know blonde teen schlock when I see it and this? This isn&#039;t even schlock. It&#039;s crap, pure and simple. Terrible.First problem? The arrangement is awful - kind of techno pop and slow. It&#039;s like when my old cassettes would drag. Second problem? Hilary ain&#039;t no Belinda Carlisle and Haylie ain&#039;t no Jane Wiedlen. These two can&#039;t sing together, there is no harmony whatsoever and neither did justice to the original. It&#039;s awful.Third? The video also features snippets of Hilary&#039;s upcoming movie. If she had ANY credibility, it was totally shot when the first clip was shoved in my face.Fourth? The video director evidently has a sister-sex fetish. The last minute of the video is nothing but the two of them hugging, spalshing each other with water and suds, touching and even a close up of them holding hands. Keeping in mind that Hilary is all of 17, that makes it even more disturbing.They? Should have kept their lips sealed.</description>
<category>Music</category><guid isPermaLink="false">16352@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:52:23 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>