<?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: Should TechCrunch Have Published Internal Twitter Documents</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.timetotweet.com/should-techcrunch-have-published-internal-twitter-documents/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.timetotweet.com/should-techcrunch-have-published-internal-twitter-documents/</link>
	<description>The home of Twitter Addicts &#124; From Twitterscripts.net</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:08:26 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Roseli A. Bakar</title>
		<link>http://www.timetotweet.com/should-techcrunch-have-published-internal-twitter-documents/comment-page-1/#comment-260</link>
		<dc:creator>Roseli A. Bakar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 05:56:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.timetotweet.com/?p=723#comment-260</guid>
		<description>Even though they (TechCrunch) did not steal the documents, they should not make it public. 

All they have to do is to get Twitter to confirm that they have the documents to prove to the non-believers.  

After all they are doing this for publicity only... why the need to make it public ??</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even though they (TechCrunch) did not steal the documents, they should not make it public. </p>
<p>All they have to do is to get Twitter to confirm that they have the documents to prove to the non-believers.  </p>
<p>After all they are doing this for publicity only&#8230; why the need to make it public ??</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
