<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/699096</link>
		<description>Comments by Loren</description>
<item>
<title>Concrete Academic : Update</title>
<link>http://concreteacademic.com/2010/04/update/#IDComment76907856</link>
<description>&amp;quot;Don&amp;#039;t call it a comeback!&amp;quot; Also: I was thinking this site needs more LL Cool J quotes. </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 14:54:11 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://concreteacademic.com/2010/04/update/#IDComment76907856</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Concrete Academic : The Value of Dynasties</title>
<link>http://concreteacademic.com/2009/11/the-value-of-dynasties/#IDComment44310353</link>
<description>Good article, though I wish the love-&amp;#039;em-or-hate-&amp;#039;em mentality wasn&amp;#039;t so present; I think it causes less than deserved appreciation for good games because of who&amp;#039;s playing in them. That having been said, I usually root for the underdog, so I find myself rooting against the dynasties fairly often. I had a huge smile on my face when the Giants beat the Patriots in Super Bowl 42, but winning the previous 18 games was still mighty impressive.  I don&amp;#039;t have statistics, but I wish winning wasn&amp;#039;t so closely tied to money spent. The Yankees&amp;#039; salary this year was 65 million dollars more than that of the next highest-paid team, and 88 million dollars more than that of the Phillies&amp;#039;. Okay, so I have one statistic, but that&amp;#039;s just one team from one sport in one season, so it doesn&amp;#039;t mean much. In general though, I&amp;#039;d like to see a more level playing field. </description>
<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:34:34 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://concreteacademic.com/2009/11/the-value-of-dynasties/#IDComment44310353</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Concrete Academic : Evaluating Intelligent Design</title>
<link>http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/evaluating-intelligent-design/#IDComment41142396</link>
<description>I guess I&amp;#039;d just like to see an agenda shift. Too often the conclusions reached by research are in line with the conclusions of those paying for it. Science/research is fine but when it&amp;#039;s accompanied by scientists&amp;#039; assumptions which they treat as dogma, it casts a pall on the research as a whole. Scientists don&amp;#039;t have the best track record of drawing accurate conclusions from their findings. Maybe agendas should just be left out of it entirely...but I have a feeling that&amp;#039;s where the funding for lots of research comes from. </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:49:39 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://concreteacademic.com/2009/10/evaluating-intelligent-design/#IDComment41142396</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>