<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What Ever Happened to Ostracism?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ryderkessler.com/blog/2009/10/what-ever-happened-to-ostracism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ryderkessler.com/blog/2009/10/what-ever-happened-to-ostracism/</link>
	<description>A Provocative View of Cultural and Social Phenomena</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 04 Sep 2010 22:03:22 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Francesca</title>
		<link>http://www.ryderkessler.com/blog/2009/10/what-ever-happened-to-ostracism/#comment-4869</link>
		<dc:creator>Francesca</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:37:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ryderkessler.com/blog/?p=183#comment-4869</guid>
		<description>This is my favorite post yet.  You are absolutely right - it's already awkward the way the the Times Wedding section selects the "winning" couples (is Ivy League love more profound than the love of state school grads?), but certainly, love born from adultery does not need to be celebrated in such a public forum.  Do you think it would be better if they had profiled that couple but left out the fact that they met while she was still married?  If that detail had just been omitted, I guess it would be less of a tacit approval, but I suppose it would also be misleading reporting.  Ugh, I feel so bad for the jilted first husband reading it.  Just leave them out!

Also, I think Michael Vick is different from these examples because he committed an actual crime, not just a societal or ethical blunder.  Also, I really really love dogs, and I miss enjoying the Eagles.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is my favorite post yet.  You are absolutely right - it&#8217;s already awkward the way the the Times Wedding section selects the &#8220;winning&#8221; couples (is Ivy League love more profound than the love of state school grads?), but certainly, love born from adultery does not need to be celebrated in such a public forum.  Do you think it would be better if they had profiled that couple but left out the fact that they met while she was still married?  If that detail had just been omitted, I guess it would be less of a tacit approval, but I suppose it would also be misleading reporting.  Ugh, I feel so bad for the jilted first husband reading it.  Just leave them out!</p>
<p>Also, I think Michael Vick is different from these examples because he committed an actual crime, not just a societal or ethical blunder.  Also, I really really love dogs, and I miss enjoying the Eagles.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
