<?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/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: cinco.de.mayo</title>
	<atom:link href="http://zarazuam.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/cincodemayo/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://zarazuam.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/cincodemayo/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress.com weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 05:08:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Jablonski</title>
		<link>http://zarazuam.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/cincodemayo/#comment-35</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Jablonski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 20:43:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://zarazuam.wordpress.com/?p=24#comment-35</guid>
		<description>You say &quot;good writing&quot; is one that is &quot;enjoyable&quot; (for the writer) and &quot;deep.&quot; That puts you more in the expressivist camp that focuses on the individual. However, you say that the best way to teach is to have students writer to multiple audiences and for multiple purposes. Why do this, if your definition of good writing oes not have an audience or social element? You either need to revise your definition of good writing or revise your idea of how best to teach good writing. 

P.S. I didn&#039;t quite make sense of your reflecltion on Berlin; you didn&#039;t seem to be commenting on the content of the article at all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You say &#8220;good writing&#8221; is one that is &#8220;enjoyable&#8221; (for the writer) and &#8220;deep.&#8221; That puts you more in the expressivist camp that focuses on the individual. However, you say that the best way to teach is to have students writer to multiple audiences and for multiple purposes. Why do this, if your definition of good writing oes not have an audience or social element? You either need to revise your definition of good writing or revise your idea of how best to teach good writing. </p>
<p>P.S. I didn&#8217;t quite make sense of your reflecltion on Berlin; you didn&#8217;t seem to be commenting on the content of the article at all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
