<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="bbPress/1.0.2" -->
<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">
	<channel>
		<title>Forum &#187; Tag: down doopy doo - Recent Posts</title>
		<link>http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/tags.php?tag=down-doopy-doo</link>
		<description>The NewsBiscuit Community</description>
		<language>en-US</language>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 May 2013 02:48:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<generator>http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2</generator>
		<textInput>
			<title><![CDATA[Search]]></title>
			<description><![CDATA[Search all topics from these forums.]]></description>
			<name>q</name>
			<link>http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/search.php</link>
		</textInput>
		<atom:link href="http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/rss.php?tag=down-doopy-doo" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />

		<item>
			<title>Des Custard on "BP explains to US government that oil spill was &#039;friendly fire&#039;"</title>
			<link>http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=4485#post-12614</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 12:20:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>Des Custard</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">12614@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/</guid>
			<description>&#60;p&#62;Actually I think you'll find it's called an Oxbridge comma.
&#60;/p&#62;</description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Oxbridge on "BP explains to US government that oil spill was &#039;friendly fire&#039;"</title>
			<link>http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=4485#post-12580</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 08:15:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>Oxbridge</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">12580@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/</guid>
			<description>&#60;p&#62;Works best as a one-liner IMHO.&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;But if you insist there should be no comma after the word before 'and' at the end of a long list. That's an Americanism and has to be stopped. Like Rikkor.
&#60;/p&#62;</description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>ronseal on "BP explains to US government that oil spill was &#039;friendly fire&#039;"</title>
			<link>http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=4485#post-12566</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 06:51:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>ronseal</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">12566@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/</guid>
			<description>&#60;p&#62;In the war on the environment, you have to expect the occasional casualty, BP spin doctors will explain to the White House today. Sometimes, we have to accept there's a bit of friendly fire.&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;'We expect the Americans will understand completely,' said a BP corporate messaging strategist, 'they've been in this position many times themselves, and I'm sure they will only sympathise with us.'&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;But others are not so sure the Americans will see it that way. Massive pollution, and wholescale loss of life, may not play well with popular opinion, when it happens on their own backyard, some controversialists argue. &#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;[ER. MORE FOLLOWS, AFTER GRAMMATICAL CRITIQUE FROM OXBRIDGE]
&#60;/p&#62;</description>
		</item>

	</channel>
</rss>
