<?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: What is this QuakerQuaker thing?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.quakerranter.org/what_is_this_quakerquaker_thin/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.quakerranter.org/what_is_this_quakerquaker_thin/</link>
	<description>A Weekly Newsletter and Blog from Martin Kelley</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Nov 2010 05:20:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Eileen Flanagan		</title>
		<link>https://www.quakerranter.org/what_is_this_quakerquaker_thin/#comment-977</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eileen Flanagan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2006 08:28:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quakerranter.org/?p=204#comment-977</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Thanks for your thoughts, Martin. Being relatively new to this, I am still learning the blogging etiquette in general, and the Quaker etiquette in particular, regarding things like blogrolling. It&#039;s helpful to hear your suggested guidelines.
I agree with Liz about the pleasure of connecting with Quakers from other branches. It seems to be one of the great gifts of this new medium.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your thoughts, Martin. Being relatively new to this, I am still learning the blogging etiquette in general, and the Quaker etiquette in particular, regarding things like blogrolling. It’s helpful to hear your suggested guidelines.<br>
I agree with Liz about the pleasure of connecting with Quakers from other branches. It seems to be one of the great gifts of this new medium.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: lizopp		</title>
		<link>https://www.quakerranter.org/what_is_this_quakerquaker_thin/#comment-976</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[lizopp]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:52:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quakerranter.org/?p=204#comment-976</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[*sigh*
Yet another no-easy-answer sort of question for this online Quaker community.  Corporate versus individual; spiritual discernment versus personal judgment; intention versus impact.
I predict that until we have webcammed MfWfB for Quaker bloggers, our online conversation and decisions are going to be second-guessed, head-scratched over, and experimented with.  There will be gains and there will be complications and there will STILL be unresolved concerns...
Truth be told, I initially resisted the concept of QuakerQuaker (QQ) for fear of blogs or posts that might get overlooked due to the initial sole contributor&#039;s personal interests or lack of time or energy.  That resistance has lessened--but isn&#039;t totally gone--as other Friends were invited to become contributors.
One of the unexpected pleasures I&#039;ve gotten from QQ is seeing the topics and posts by Friends who aren&#039;t part of liberal Quakerism or for that matter American.  It&#039;s helped me learn about Friends in a way that hasn&#039;t been possible before:   my &quot;personal preference&quot; probably would have kept me circling around in my own little sphere of blogs.  Like a kid on a bike stuck in her own neighborhood, I needed a fun friend to say to me, &quot;Hey, let&#039;s go over HERE where I know some other cool things to do...&quot;
Just for the record, I still don&#039;t show a link to QQ or have a listing of recent contributions to QQ on The Good Raised Up.  I guess that&#039;s my way of saying it&#039;s worth surfing the web, reviewing a bloggers&#039; list of blogs they read, and cross-linking within posts to one another&#039;s blogs.
I&#039;ll be curious to check back to see what other QQ bloggers and readers say.  Thanks for being transparent in this way.
Blessings,
Liz, The Good Raised Up
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>*sigh*<br>
Yet another no-easy-answer sort of question for this online Quaker community.  Corporate versus individual; spiritual discernment versus personal judgment; intention versus impact.<br>
I predict that until we have webcammed MfWfB for Quaker bloggers, our online conversation and decisions are going to be second-guessed, head-scratched over, and experimented with.  There will be gains and there will be complications and there will STILL be unresolved concerns…<br>
Truth be told, I initially resisted the concept of QuakerQuaker (QQ) for fear of blogs or posts that might get overlooked due to the initial sole contributor’s personal interests or lack of time or energy.  That resistance has lessened–but isn’t totally gone–as other Friends were invited to become contributors.<br>
One of the unexpected pleasures I’ve gotten from QQ is seeing the topics and posts by Friends who aren’t part of liberal Quakerism or for that matter American.  It’s helped me learn about Friends in a way that hasn’t been possible before:   my “personal preference” probably would have kept me circling around in my own little sphere of blogs.  Like a kid on a bike stuck in her own neighborhood, I needed a fun friend to say to me, “Hey, let’s go over HERE where I know some other cool things to do…”<br>
Just for the record, I still don’t show a link to QQ or have a listing of recent contributions to QQ on The Good Raised Up.  I guess that’s my way of saying it’s worth surfing the web, reviewing a bloggers’ list of blogs they read, and cross-linking within posts to one another’s blogs.<br>
I’ll be curious to check back to see what other QQ bloggers and readers say.  Thanks for being transparent in this way.<br>
Blessings,<br>
Liz, The Good Raised Up</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
