<?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: 100 Days in the News: day fourty-eight project:Nature You Terrible BEAST!!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://100days.allyreeves.com/2008/11/10/100-days-in-the-news-day-fourty-eight-projectnature-you-terrible-beast/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://100days.allyreeves.com/2008/11/10/100-days-in-the-news-day-fourty-eight-projectnature-you-terrible-beast/</link>
	<description>Making Media Meaningful</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:37:34 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://100days.allyreeves.com/2008/11/10/100-days-in-the-news-day-fourty-eight-projectnature-you-terrible-beast/#comment-68</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2008 05:00:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://100days.allyreeves.com/?p=257#comment-68</guid>
		<description>Thanks for your comment Klio. I'm a firm believer that rural areas possess a fair amount of knowledge and know how as well, but it mostly goes unnoticed until someone with a degree who can write a paper stumbles upon it. The tone of my entire response is intended to be playful. I should add a touch of back ground and say that I am from small towns and still often work in small towns, though I currently live in a fairly large city and work in academia.

 My understanding is that each place, both rural and urban, does not see value in the knowledge that other possesses.
The rural will not embrace urban knowledge until is sees function in it, and the urban will not embrace rural knowledge until it's researched to death.

My overall intention was to make a few jokes and a few jabs. I'm in the woods and feeling good and looking at more pecan trees than people. Your jab in return is appreciated. You get a shadow monster dedicated to you!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your comment Klio. I&#8217;m a firm believer that rural areas possess a fair amount of knowledge and know how as well, but it mostly goes unnoticed until someone with a degree who can write a paper stumbles upon it. The tone of my entire response is intended to be playful. I should add a touch of back ground and say that I am from small towns and still often work in small towns, though I currently live in a fairly large city and work in academia.</p>
<p> My understanding is that each place, both rural and urban, does not see value in the knowledge that other possesses.<br />
The rural will not embrace urban knowledge until is sees function in it, and the urban will not embrace rural knowledge until it&#8217;s researched to death.</p>
<p>My overall intention was to make a few jokes and a few jabs. I&#8217;m in the woods and feeling good and looking at more pecan trees than people. Your jab in return is appreciated. You get a shadow monster dedicated to you!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Klio</title>
		<link>http://100days.allyreeves.com/2008/11/10/100-days-in-the-news-day-fourty-eight-projectnature-you-terrible-beast/#comment-67</link>
		<dc:creator>Klio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:38:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://100days.allyreeves.com/?p=257#comment-67</guid>
		<description>I think it is fallacious to assume that greater cognitive function would lead to greater innovation, knowledge etc... These things come not only from pure thought, but also build upon already existing human knowledge (great ideas simply do not pop up out of nowhere). Human knowledge tends to be concentrated in in urban areas (at least in the pre-internet era), and so of course that is where innovation arises. The idea that nature improves cognitive function is completely compatible with a history of innovation arising from urban areas.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it is fallacious to assume that greater cognitive function would lead to greater innovation, knowledge etc&#8230; These things come not only from pure thought, but also build upon already existing human knowledge (great ideas simply do not pop up out of nowhere). Human knowledge tends to be concentrated in in urban areas (at least in the pre-internet era), and so of course that is where innovation arises. The idea that nature improves cognitive function is completely compatible with a history of innovation arising from urban areas.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
