<?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/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The New TAC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/06/the-new-tac/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/06/the-new-tac/</link>
	<description>The Tenther Grapevine</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 16:02:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael Boldin</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/06/the-new-tac/#comment-3022</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Boldin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jun 2010 05:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4828#comment-3022</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks Lonny - appreciate the feedback!

As far as the logo - it&#039;s all personal likes or not.

But as far as the home page content (not here on the blog), triple is probably an understatement.  We now have content far more than that available to click through to - above the fold.  That is essential...

I actually should have written here - triple the amount of CONTENT, not articles.  But then again, we now have 6 above the fold where previously it was 3.  So even on that, double.

Either way, glad you stopped by - looking forward to more of your feedback on the regular commentary!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Lonny &#8211; appreciate the feedback!</p>
<p>As far as the logo &#8211; it&#8217;s all personal likes or not.</p>
<p>But as far as the home page content (not here on the blog), triple is probably an understatement.  We now have content far more than that available to click through to &#8211; above the fold.  That is essential&#8230;</p>
<p>I actually should have written here &#8211; triple the amount of CONTENT, not articles.  But then again, we now have 6 above the fold where previously it was 3.  So even on that, double.</p>
<p>Either way, glad you stopped by &#8211; looking forward to more of your feedback on the regular commentary!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lonny Eachus</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/06/the-new-tac/#comment-3021</link>
		<dc:creator>Lonny Eachus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:23:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4828#comment-3021</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Michael: 
 
I am with you on most things. But I am a professional web developer and I disagree about some of the decisions made about your new site arrangement. 
 
First, I am using Firefox on OS X, and I don&#039;t see &quot;triple the number of articles&quot; visible on the page. In fact, it appears to me that the actual content area has decreased in size, while the advertisements have increased in size. I am curious how this corresponds with your claim of &quot;triple the articles&quot;. 
 
Second -- and I freely admit this is solely a matter of personal opinion -- while I can understand the symbolism of your new logo design -- AFTER it had been explained to me -- I see nothing in it that inherently conveys a message about 10th Amendment. In my opinion, even a tiny &quot;10th&quot; would be superior. It would at least convey some kind of actual meaning, as opposed to a set of curved, abstract lines. I look at the &quot;favicon&quot; graphic for the webpage and more than anything else I think of zebras or the little &quot;motion&quot; lines cartoonists use to signify that a ball is moving. Nothing about it -- and I mean literally nothing -- says to me &quot;10th Amendment&quot;. If you can make it as popular and easily recognized as the Nike &quot;swoosh&quot; then that will be great, more power to you, and that issue will go away, but I predict that would be a very major uphill battle. 
 
What I am getting at is that being too abstract might be artistic, but it will also lose you some of the audience that you could really stand to gain instead. 
 
Again, it is not my intent to be critical, except where that criticism might actually be helpful. You are doing good work and I am trying to help you do that. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael: </p>
<p>I am with you on most things. But I am a professional web developer and I disagree about some of the decisions made about your new site arrangement. </p>
<p>First, I am using Firefox on OS X, and I don&#039;t see &quot;triple the number of articles&quot; visible on the page. In fact, it appears to me that the actual content area has decreased in size, while the advertisements have increased in size. I am curious how this corresponds with your claim of &quot;triple the articles&quot;. </p>
<p>Second &#8212; and I freely admit this is solely a matter of personal opinion &#8212; while I can understand the symbolism of your new logo design &#8212; AFTER it had been explained to me &#8212; I see nothing in it that inherently conveys a message about 10th Amendment. In my opinion, even a tiny &quot;10th&quot; would be superior. It would at least convey some kind of actual meaning, as opposed to a set of curved, abstract lines. I look at the &quot;favicon&quot; graphic for the webpage and more than anything else I think of zebras or the little &quot;motion&quot; lines cartoonists use to signify that a ball is moving. Nothing about it &#8212; and I mean literally nothing &#8212; says to me &quot;10th Amendment&quot;. If you can make it as popular and easily recognized as the Nike &quot;swoosh&quot; then that will be great, more power to you, and that issue will go away, but I predict that would be a very major uphill battle. </p>
<p>What I am getting at is that being too abstract might be artistic, but it will also lose you some of the audience that you could really stand to gain instead. </p>
<p>Again, it is not my intent to be critical, except where that criticism might actually be helpful. You are doing good work and I am trying to help you do that. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
