<?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: Breaking: Oak Grove Hid No Artifacts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://clog.dailycal.org/2009/01/09/breaking-oak-grove-hid-no-artifacts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://clog.dailycal.org/2009/01/09/breaking-oak-grove-hid-no-artifacts/</link>
	<description>A Cal blog brought to you by The Daily Californian</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:50:08 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Internet casino &#187; How to Win at Playing Casino Games - Cheat the House now!</title>
		<link>http://clog.dailycal.org/2009/01/09/breaking-oak-grove-hid-no-artifacts/#comment-53958</link>
		<dc:creator>Internet casino &#187; How to Win at Playing Casino Games - Cheat the House now!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clog.dailycal.org/?p=6177#comment-53958</guid>
		<description>[...] hits usually pays 35:1. Shop around and you may find different probabilities that are tough to turn down. And, if you are past most casinos, don&#039;t even think of calling. Of a Chinese game a number [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] hits usually pays 35:1. Shop around and you may find different probabilities that are tough to turn down. And, if you are past most casinos, don&#8217;t even think of calling. Of a Chinese game a number [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: adfadsf</title>
		<link>http://clog.dailycal.org/2009/01/09/breaking-oak-grove-hid-no-artifacts/#comment-46631</link>
		<dc:creator>adfadsf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:05:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clog.dailycal.org/?p=6177#comment-46631</guid>
		<description>i wonder how much money this testing costed.

i remember once, on a post made on a website somewhere, the oak people wrote something protesting against the arrest of those who participated in the planting of that oak seed at the chancellor&#039;s place. the poster claimed that the people were arrested for &quot;alleged tree planting,&quot; when on the very same page there were pictures of said people planting the seed in action. the oak people aren&#039;t very bright (logically), but they do know how to be drama queens about everything.

they also know how to be blatent hypocrites, so one can&#039;t really trust their own convictions even on basic terms.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i wonder how much money this testing costed.</p>
<p>i remember once, on a post made on a website somewhere, the oak people wrote something protesting against the arrest of those who participated in the planting of that oak seed at the chancellor&#8217;s place. the poster claimed that the people were arrested for &#8220;alleged tree planting,&#8221; when on the very same page there were pictures of said people planting the seed in action. the oak people aren&#8217;t very bright (logically), but they do know how to be drama queens about everything.</p>
<p>they also know how to be blatent hypocrites, so one can&#8217;t really trust their own convictions even on basic terms.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sludge</title>
		<link>http://clog.dailycal.org/2009/01/09/breaking-oak-grove-hid-no-artifacts/#comment-46261</link>
		<dc:creator>Sludge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:40:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clog.dailycal.org/?p=6177#comment-46261</guid>
		<description>Based on the tiny area selected to test, the alleged conclusion that the area did not contain artifacts is absurd.  I guess there were no scientists involved in the study and of course it was NEVER PEER REVIEWED.  This whole article is FLUFF.  No content.  Look students, you need to discriminate between &quot;information&quot; which is fatally flawed, perhaps intentionally so to support a preconceived conclusion and actual scientifically based information.  Remember, garbage In garbage OUT.  You will be impaired in attempting to make rational decisions, if you fall into the trap of accepting BullSh** as legitimate information. Think, learn and be careful, you live in a Society dedicated to promoting SPAM information for political and personal profit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Based on the tiny area selected to test, the alleged conclusion that the area did not contain artifacts is absurd.  I guess there were no scientists involved in the study and of course it was NEVER PEER REVIEWED.  This whole article is FLUFF.  No content.  Look students, you need to discriminate between &#8220;information&#8221; which is fatally flawed, perhaps intentionally so to support a preconceived conclusion and actual scientifically based information.  Remember, garbage In garbage OUT.  You will be impaired in attempting to make rational decisions, if you fall into the trap of accepting BullSh** as legitimate information. Think, learn and be careful, you live in a Society dedicated to promoting SPAM information for political and personal profit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
