<?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: Looking for Alaska, by John Green</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.parenthetical.net/2008/07/10/looking-for-alaska-by-john-green/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.parenthetical.net/2008/07/10/looking-for-alaska-by-john-green/</link>
	<description>YA reviews and book geekery</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:38:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://www.parenthetical.net/2008/07/10/looking-for-alaska-by-john-green/comment-page-1/#comment-52632</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:34:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.parenthetical.net/2008/07/10/looking-for-alaska-by-john-green/#comment-52632</guid>
		<description>Urgh, those safelibraries people can&#039;t tell the difference between &quot;This book is aimed at some people in category X&quot; and &quot;This book is &lt;i&gt;appropriate for all&lt;/i&gt; people in category X&quot;!  How can this be a hard concept?

I know, I know, this is the choir over here, just had to get that off my chest...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Urgh, those safelibraries people can&#8217;t tell the difference between &#8220;This book is aimed at some people in category X&#8221; and &#8220;This book is <i>appropriate for all</i> people in category X&#8221;!  How can this be a hard concept?</p>
<p>I know, I know, this is the choir over here, just had to get that off my chest&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: colorwheel</title>
		<link>http://www.parenthetical.net/2008/07/10/looking-for-alaska-by-john-green/comment-page-1/#comment-52627</link>
		<dc:creator>colorwheel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:57:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.parenthetical.net/2008/07/10/looking-for-alaska-by-john-green/#comment-52627</guid>
		<description>from the link: &lt;i&gt;Here are words and phrases from &quot;Looking For Alaska&quot; most people, except ALA librarians, think are inappropriate for 12 year olds&lt;/i&gt;

MOST PEOPLE, EXCEPT ALA LIBRARIANS is now my new favorite phrase.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>from the link: <i>Here are words and phrases from &#8220;Looking For Alaska&#8221; most people, except ALA librarians, think are inappropriate for 12 year olds</i></p>
<p>MOST PEOPLE, EXCEPT ALA LIBRARIANS is now my new favorite phrase.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam</title>
		<link>http://www.parenthetical.net/2008/07/10/looking-for-alaska-by-john-green/comment-page-1/#comment-52626</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:55:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.parenthetical.net/2008/07/10/looking-for-alaska-by-john-green/#comment-52626</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;Bookworm:&lt;/b&gt;

Yeah, it&#039;s totally creepy.  I don&#039;t mean to imply that it&#039;s the best representative of Christian review sites, by any means; I picked it because it was the first opposition link that came up when I googled the book, and there has been a serious controversy about this book that I wanted to represent somehow.

I went back and forth about even linking to it at all, but I find it frustrating when people with opposing views don&#039;t link to each other.  Like their internets aren&#039;t connected and don&#039;t deserve to be part of the same conversation.

But yes -- I disagree with virtually everything they say (except for the part about this book not being for younger kids), and how they say it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Bookworm:</b></p>
<p>Yeah, it&#8217;s totally creepy.  I don&#8217;t mean to imply that it&#8217;s the best representative of Christian review sites, by any means; I picked it because it was the first opposition link that came up when I googled the book, and there has been a serious controversy about this book that I wanted to represent somehow.</p>
<p>I went back and forth about even linking to it at all, but I find it frustrating when people with opposing views don&#8217;t link to each other.  Like their internets aren&#8217;t connected and don&#8217;t deserve to be part of the same conversation.</p>
<p>But yes &#8212; I disagree with virtually everything they say (except for the part about this book not being for younger kids), and how they say it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jfpbookworm</title>
		<link>http://www.parenthetical.net/2008/07/10/looking-for-alaska-by-john-green/comment-page-1/#comment-52625</link>
		<dc:creator>jfpbookworm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:04:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.parenthetical.net/2008/07/10/looking-for-alaska-by-john-green/#comment-52625</guid>
		<description>That safelibraries.org site is seriously creeping me out, not just for the advocation of censorship (my literary adolescence would have been a much bleaker place had folks like these had their way 20 years ago), but for the lack of transparency (who&#039;s behind this organization?  What&#039;s their agenda?  Who supports them?) and the downright ignorance and/or misrepresentation (implying that inclusion on a syllabus of a library science class constitutes endorsement, or that a stipulation by the parties in a Supreme Court case is precedential; claiming a connection making materials with sexual content available to minors with safety).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That safelibraries.org site is seriously creeping me out, not just for the advocation of censorship (my literary adolescence would have been a much bleaker place had folks like these had their way 20 years ago), but for the lack of transparency (who&#8217;s behind this organization?  What&#8217;s their agenda?  Who supports them?) and the downright ignorance and/or misrepresentation (implying that inclusion on a syllabus of a library science class constitutes endorsement, or that a stipulation by the parties in a Supreme Court case is precedential; claiming a connection making materials with sexual content available to minors with safety).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

