<?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: Bud Light&#8217;s Hilarious Advertisement</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nistler48.wordpress.com/bud-lights-hilarious-advertisement/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nistler48.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress.com weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:03:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: english220</title>
		<link>http://nistler48.wordpress.com/bud-lights-hilarious-advertisement/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>english220</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:03:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nistler48.wordpress.com/?page_id=3#comment-3</guid>
		<description>I agree that this is a great commercial to analyze--I&#039;m just not sure it was the best choice for this week. As you said, it was neither heavy on the Four Causes, nor was it particularly persuasive.

Now, I DID say that you should consider occasionally analyzing an ad that didn&#039;t meet the criteria, but then I need you to dig really deep and think very critically about it. I understand the desire to use this ad when you came across it--but perhaps it would have fit a later section more closely. I&#039;m just not sure it allowed you to write your best analysis.

--Sarah--</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that this is a great commercial to analyze&#8211;I&#8217;m just not sure it was the best choice for this week. As you said, it was neither heavy on the Four Causes, nor was it particularly persuasive.</p>
<p>Now, I DID say that you should consider occasionally analyzing an ad that didn&#8217;t meet the criteria, but then I need you to dig really deep and think very critically about it. I understand the desire to use this ad when you came across it&#8211;but perhaps it would have fit a later section more closely. I&#8217;m just not sure it allowed you to write your best analysis.</p>
<p>&#8211;Sarah&#8211;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kaiah311</title>
		<link>http://nistler48.wordpress.com/bud-lights-hilarious-advertisement/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>kaiah311</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 06:13:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nistler48.wordpress.com/?page_id=3#comment-2</guid>
		<description>Oh my gosh…I don&#039;t think I have audibly laughed at a commercial in awhile!  Although it is vulgar (and seemingly un-purposeful in its vulgarity), I think it works as a means to differentiate itself from every other commercials being aired.  It’s different, attention grabbing and super witty.  It doesn’t bank on sexual innuendo as most beer commercials do; instead it works off of something more basic than that: foul language.  I think it’s great.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh my gosh…I don&#8217;t think I have audibly laughed at a commercial in awhile!  Although it is vulgar (and seemingly un-purposeful in its vulgarity), I think it works as a means to differentiate itself from every other commercials being aired.  It’s different, attention grabbing and super witty.  It doesn’t bank on sexual innuendo as most beer commercials do; instead it works off of something more basic than that: foul language.  I think it’s great.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
