<?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: Old news gets the shaft</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.functionalneurogenesis.com/blog/2010/07/old-news-gets-the-shaft/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.functionalneurogenesis.com/blog/2010/07/old-news-gets-the-shaft/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=old-news-gets-the-shaft</link>
	<description>New neurons in the adult brain. How they work and what they&#039;re good for.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Apr 2013 19:09:46 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Noah Gray</title>
		<link>http://www.functionalneurogenesis.com/blog/2010/07/old-news-gets-the-shaft/comment-page-1/#comment-294</link>
		<dc:creator>Noah Gray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 05:28:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.functionalneurogenesis.com/blog/?p=700#comment-294</guid>
		<description>I agree with you. Interesting perspective and analyses are always interesting perspective and analyses. Though I was constrained from divulging any &quot;hot brand new&quot; data from the meeting I just attended, I actually found that tweeting the older, background key points (the &quot;bedrock&quot; of a field, no matter how new) garnered the most response. I believe people can distinguish the very important from the &quot;new and potentially hot!&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with you. Interesting perspective and analyses are always interesting perspective and analyses. Though I was constrained from divulging any &#8220;hot brand new&#8221; data from the meeting I just attended, I actually found that tweeting the older, background key points (the &#8220;bedrock&#8221; of a field, no matter how new) garnered the most response. I believe people can distinguish the very important from the &#8220;new and potentially hot!&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy McKenzie</title>
		<link>http://www.functionalneurogenesis.com/blog/2010/07/old-news-gets-the-shaft/comment-page-1/#comment-284</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy McKenzie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 03:57:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.functionalneurogenesis.com/blog/?p=700#comment-284</guid>
		<description>Good post and I agree this is an important topic. I&#039;m a big fan of blogging, tweeting, etc., old papers.

This goes far beyond just science though. Look at the majority of newspaper readers who are obsessed with the most recent political news but don&#039;t care to read about long term trends and patterns in a history book...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good post and I agree this is an important topic. I&#8217;m a big fan of blogging, tweeting, etc., old papers.</p>
<p>This goes far beyond just science though. Look at the majority of newspaper readers who are obsessed with the most recent political news but don&#8217;t care to read about long term trends and patterns in a history book&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
