<?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: It&#8217;s not Flock vs. Performancing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2005/12/22/its-not-flock-vs-performancing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2005/12/22/its-not-flock-vs-performancing/</link>
	<description>... at the intersection of media, technology, business and the web</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:04:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Revving a classic cliché at FactoryCity</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2005/12/22/its-not-flock-vs-performancing/#comment-189067</link>
		<dc:creator>Revving a classic cliché at FactoryCity</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2007 02:20:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/index.php/2005/12/22/its-not-flock-vs-performancing/#comment-189067</guid>
		<description>&lt;!--%kramer-ref-pre%--&gt;[...] 8 mathewingram.com/work  Trackback on Dec 22nd, 2005 at 8:54 am [...]&lt;!--%kramer-ref-post%--&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!--%kramer-ref-pre%-->[...] 8 <a href="http://mathewingram.com/work" title="http://mathewingram.com/work" target="_blank">mathewingram.com/work</a>  Trackback on Dec 22nd, 2005 at 8:54 am [...]<!--%kramer-ref-post%--></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Manish</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2005/12/22/its-not-flock-vs-performancing/#comment-41</link>
		<dc:creator>Manish</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:06:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/index.php/2005/12/22/its-not-flock-vs-performancing/#comment-41</guid>
		<description>Performancing is a nice add-in, Flock's pretty nice too. For a *much* more advanced blog editor, check out RocketPost:

http://www.anconia.com/rocketpost

(I designed it.)

It supports built-in photo editing, auto links to related posts, Technorati/Delicious tags, AutoCorrect, and lots more.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Performancing is a nice add-in, Flock&#8217;s pretty nice too. For a *much* more advanced blog editor, check out RocketPost:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.anconia.com/rocketpost" rel="nofollow">http://www.anconia.com/rocketpost</a></p>
<p>(I designed it.)</p>
<p>It supports built-in photo editing, auto links to related posts, Technorati/Delicious tags, AutoCorrect, and lots more.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wolftrust.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Spin it like a journalist</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2005/12/22/its-not-flock-vs-performancing/#comment-40</link>
		<dc:creator>wolftrust.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Spin it like a journalist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2005 05:21:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/index.php/2005/12/22/its-not-flock-vs-performancing/#comment-40</guid>
		<description>[...] Update: I hadn&#8217;t noticed the Flock bashing going around, and have no idea if I fueled it by including a link to Flock in my Performancing Screenshots post. I wonder if a person has that sort of influence from one little link? In any case, I wasn&#8217;t cited in columnist Matthew Ingram&#8217;s post indicating that Performancing&#8217;s success should not be anti-Flock. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Update: I hadn&#8217;t noticed the Flock bashing going around, and have no idea if I fueled it by including a link to Flock in my Performancing Screenshots post. I wonder if a person has that sort of influence from one little link? In any case, I wasn&#8217;t cited in columnist Matthew Ingram&#8217;s post indicating that Performancing&#8217;s success should not be anti-Flock. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Evans</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2005/12/22/its-not-flock-vs-performancing/#comment-36</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Evans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:14:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/index.php/2005/12/22/its-not-flock-vs-performancing/#comment-36</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Why the Flock Bashing?&lt;/strong&gt;

There seems to be a new round of Flock-bashing in the wake of the Performancing blog extension for Firefox. (Check out Mathew Ingram's post for a good round-up on who likes the extension.) Michael Arrington comes to Flock's defense, suggesting the fl...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Why the Flock Bashing?</strong></p>
<p>There seems to be a new round of Flock-bashing in the wake of the Performancing blog extension for Firefox. (Check out Mathew Ingram&#8217;s post for a good round-up on who likes the extension.) Michael Arrington comes to Flock&#8217;s defense, suggesting the fl&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mathew</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2005/12/22/its-not-flock-vs-performancing/#comment-35</link>
		<dc:creator>Mathew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:20:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/index.php/2005/12/22/its-not-flock-vs-performancing/#comment-35</guid>
		<description>Mark:

I know what you mean -- I was disappointed too.  But at the same time, I did like the Flickr integration and a couple of other things Flock had.  Could those all be handled with extensions to Firefox?  Sure -- and that's what the success of Performancing's plug-in shows.  But I think it's a little early to say Flock is dead as an idea.  As Chris says in his comment, I think we're getting a little impatient.

Chris:

Thanks for stopping by.  And I wasn't trying to suggest that you got Mike to respond in your defence -- I think he felt he had to because of some of the things that were being said, which is a shame.  It's one thing to say the Performancing extension is great, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should be giving Flock the last rites.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark:</p>
<p>I know what you mean &#8212; I was disappointed too.  But at the same time, I did like the Flickr integration and a couple of other things Flock had.  Could those all be handled with extensions to Firefox?  Sure &#8212; and that&#8217;s what the success of Performancing&#8217;s plug-in shows.  But I think it&#8217;s a little early to say Flock is dead as an idea.  As Chris says in his comment, I think we&#8217;re getting a little impatient.</p>
<p>Chris:</p>
<p>Thanks for stopping by.  And I wasn&#8217;t trying to suggest that you got Mike to respond in your defence &#8212; I think he felt he had to because of some of the things that were being said, which is a shame.  It&#8217;s one thing to say the Performancing extension is great, but that doesn&#8217;t necessarily mean we should be giving Flock the last rites.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
