<?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: Dating that old typewriter of yours</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.absurdintellectual.com/2010/02/05/dating-that-old-typewriter-of-yours/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.absurdintellectual.com/2010/02/05/dating-that-old-typewriter-of-yours/</link>
	<description>... since &#039;aught-eight.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Dec 2011 21:33:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Noto</title>
		<link>http://www.absurdintellectual.com/2010/02/05/dating-that-old-typewriter-of-yours/comment-page-1/#comment-5576</link>
		<dc:creator>Noto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:29:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.absurdintellectual.com/?p=6866#comment-5576</guid>
		<description>I dig that website, although it does kind of feel like I should be watching a claymation commercial with that music.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I dig that website, although it does kind of feel like I should be watching a claymation commercial with that music.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Grant Hamilton</title>
		<link>http://www.absurdintellectual.com/2010/02/05/dating-that-old-typewriter-of-yours/comment-page-1/#comment-5574</link>
		<dc:creator>Grant Hamilton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:03:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.absurdintellectual.com/?p=6866#comment-5574</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve got an older electric at my parents&#039; house that I used to use, and I&#039;ll give it a look-see later.

As for cleaning, you might be on your own for that one.

I wonder why the number 5 seemed to be so popular for typewriters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve got an older electric at my parents&#8217; house that I used to use, and I&#8217;ll give it a look-see later.</p>
<p>As for cleaning, you might be on your own for that one.</p>
<p>I wonder why the number 5 seemed to be so popular for typewriters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader</title>
		<link>http://www.absurdintellectual.com/2010/02/05/dating-that-old-typewriter-of-yours/comment-page-1/#comment-5573</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:18:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.absurdintellectual.com/?p=6866#comment-5573</guid>
		<description>Couldn&#039;t find the serial number on my Remington Rand No. 5 Portable, narrowing it down to between 1932-1940. Which I already knew. 

Will hunt with a q-tip in hand later. Anyone know a good cleaning service?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Couldn&#8217;t find the serial number on my Remington Rand No. 5 Portable, narrowing it down to between 1932-1940. Which I already knew. </p>
<p>Will hunt with a q-tip in hand later. Anyone know a good cleaning service?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Grant Hamilton</title>
		<link>http://www.absurdintellectual.com/2010/02/05/dating-that-old-typewriter-of-yours/comment-page-1/#comment-5571</link>
		<dc:creator>Grant Hamilton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:43:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.absurdintellectual.com/?p=6866#comment-5571</guid>
		<description>As an aside, I note that the famed IBM Selectric was also introduced in 1961 -- but my workplace decided to stick with the tried-and-true mechanical version. Is this a very early foreshadowing of a newspaper that failed to grasp changing technology?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As an aside, I note that the famed IBM Selectric was also introduced in 1961 &#8212; but my workplace decided to stick with the tried-and-true mechanical version. Is this a very early foreshadowing of a newspaper that failed to grasp changing technology?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

