<?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: Defiantly reaching out</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.wordsaredelicious.com/2009/01/defiantly-reaching-out/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.wordsaredelicious.com/2009/01/defiantly-reaching-out/</link>
	<description>A blog about words, language, and content strategy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Jul 2010 04:17:57 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Helen Baker</title>
		<link>http://www.wordsaredelicious.com/2009/01/defiantly-reaching-out/comment-page-1/#comment-6</link>
		<dc:creator>Helen Baker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:17:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wordsaredelicious.com/?p=88#comment-6</guid>
		<description>I agree about using over-the-top words when a simple one (or maybe two) would be just as good (I was going to write &#039;suffice&#039; then; how ironic).

How about &#039;undertake&#039; (carry out) and &#039;facilitate&#039; (enable)?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree about using over-the-top words when a simple one (or maybe two) would be just as good (I was going to write &#8217;suffice&#8217; then; how ironic).</p>
<p>How about &#8216;undertake&#8217; (carry out) and &#8216;facilitate&#8217; (enable)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
