<?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:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: I Want My Wank Back, Yahoo</title>
	<atom:link href="http://haarball.wordpress.com/2006/02/22/a-flickr-deviation-stop-walking-start-running/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://haarball.wordpress.com/2006/02/22/a-flickr-deviation-stop-walking-start-running/</link>
	<description>Gleeful observations.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2009 07:14:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: A Bunch of Wankers? at tossr</title>
		<link>http://haarball.wordpress.com/2006/02/22/a-flickr-deviation-stop-walking-start-running/#comment-66</link>
		<dc:creator>A Bunch of Wankers? at tossr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:43:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://haarball.wordpress.com/2006/02/22/a-flickr-deviation-stop-walking-start-running/#comment-66</guid>
		<description>[...] Speaking of self-abuse, a post over at Schadenfreude got me wondering about whether we need a rough unit for estimating time in the same way that the size of Wales is often used as a rough unit for estimating area; could we, perhaps, adopt the wank as a measurement of time? If ever I have to give a rough estimate of the time it took to do something, I usually arrive at a vague figure like &#8220;thirty-five, forty minutes&#8221; or whatever (for some reason I&#8217;m incapable of rounding to the nearest fifteen minutes like most normal people), but using a precise measurement in such an imprecise way feels wrong to me. Instead, maybe a wank could be the name given to roughly five minutes; therefore, it didn&#8217;t take me &#8220;thirty-five, forty minutes&#8221; to drive across town the other day, but &#8220;seven or eight wanks&#8221; (or maybe &#8220;seven or eight knuckles&#8221; in polite company). [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Speaking of self-abuse, a post over at Schadenfreude got me wondering about whether we need a rough unit for estimating time in the same way that the size of Wales is often used as a rough unit for estimating area; could we, perhaps, adopt the wank as a measurement of time? If ever I have to give a rough estimate of the time it took to do something, I usually arrive at a vague figure like &#8220;thirty-five, forty minutes&#8221; or whatever (for some reason I&#8217;m incapable of rounding to the nearest fifteen minutes like most normal people), but using a precise measurement in such an imprecise way feels wrong to me. Instead, maybe a wank could be the name given to roughly five minutes; therefore, it didn&#8217;t take me &#8220;thirty-five, forty minutes&#8221; to drive across town the other day, but &#8220;seven or eight wanks&#8221; (or maybe &#8220;seven or eight knuckles&#8221; in polite company). [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
