<?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: Huckabee wants a 23% Federal sales tax?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bednarski.us/danny/2007/12/24/huckabee-wants-a-23-federal-sales-tax/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bednarski.us/danny/2007/12/24/huckabee-wants-a-23-federal-sales-tax/</link>
	<description>... just a byte of borscht</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:09:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: danny</title>
		<link>http://bednarski.us/danny/2007/12/24/huckabee-wants-a-23-federal-sales-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-390</link>
		<dc:creator>danny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:23:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bednarski.us/danny/2007/12/24/huckabee-wants-a-23-federal-sales-tax/#comment-390</guid>
		<description>This post attracted the attention of a Federal sales tax advocate. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on perspective, it was caught by my comment spam filter. 

I appreciate the attention but the same exact comment, word-for-word, is being posted all over the blogosphere (other blog sites) in response to Federal sales tax commentary. Jeesh. 

The comment didn&#039;t address my arguments or any other particular parts of my post. Rather it was a generalized argument for a national sales tax to replace the income tax system. As such, I decided the spam filter was right on target.

Update: Yes, even informative comments can be spam if they aren&#039;t relevant to the contents of a blog post. What qualifies as spam is relative. Having dealt with email spam for a number of years, I have very little patience for comments that are intended solely to direct readers to another web site. Such comments are spam if they are spread verbatim across many web sites, don&#039;t address the post in question, lack relevancy, or are abusive. If you wish to comment on a blog post, please feel free to. Just be sure to be respectful. You also don&#039;t earn much respect calling people names, even those as harmless as &quot;stupido.&quot; Another pearl of wisdom is to be kind to others, particularly when trying to convince them of your point of view. Using short URL tools to hide the real URL also doesn&#039;t help your case.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This post attracted the attention of a Federal sales tax advocate. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on perspective, it was caught by my comment spam filter. </p>
<p>I appreciate the attention but the same exact comment, word-for-word, is being posted all over the blogosphere (other blog sites) in response to Federal sales tax commentary. Jeesh. </p>
<p>The comment didn&#8217;t address my arguments or any other particular parts of my post. Rather it was a generalized argument for a national sales tax to replace the income tax system. As such, I decided the spam filter was right on target.</p>
<p>Update: Yes, even informative comments can be spam if they aren&#8217;t relevant to the contents of a blog post. What qualifies as spam is relative. Having dealt with email spam for a number of years, I have very little patience for comments that are intended solely to direct readers to another web site. Such comments are spam if they are spread verbatim across many web sites, don&#8217;t address the post in question, lack relevancy, or are abusive. If you wish to comment on a blog post, please feel free to. Just be sure to be respectful. You also don&#8217;t earn much respect calling people names, even those as harmless as &#8220;stupido.&#8221; Another pearl of wisdom is to be kind to others, particularly when trying to convince them of your point of view. Using short URL tools to hide the real URL also doesn&#8217;t help your case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

