<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>blog.mignault.net &#187; crank</title>
	<atom:link href="http://john.mignault.net/blog/category/crank/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://john.mignault.net/blog</link>
	<description>Cartoon-drawing diabetic comics-reading pen-fetishizing cycling leftist geek librarian. God, how bourgeois.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:34:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>YABR (Yet Another BBEdit Rant)</title>
		<link>http://john.mignault.net/blog/2009/03/16/yabr-yet-another-bbedit-rant/</link>
		<comments>http://john.mignault.net/blog/2009/03/16/yabr-yet-another-bbedit-rant/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:34:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[crank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emacs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mac]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://john.mignault.net/blog/?p=299</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[TidBITS Home Macs: Ten Surprising Uses of BBEdit: There are undoubtedly other ways to do any or all of these things; all I&#8217;m reporting here is that I&#8217;ve noticed myself reaching for BBEdit to do them, even though, as I say, BBEdit isn&#8217;t my choice for editing text. At $125, BBEdit is pricey for just [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://db.tidbits.com/article/10142?rss">TidBITS Home Macs: Ten Surprising Uses of BBEdit</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>There are undoubtedly other ways to do any or all of these things; all I&#8217;m reporting here is that I&#8217;ve noticed myself reaching for BBEdit to do them, even though, as I say, BBEdit isn&#8217;t my choice for editing text. At $125, BBEdit is pricey for just these tasks, and I&#8217;m not recommending a purchase for these reasons alone.</p></blockquote>
<p>It&#8217;s damn pricey for <em>any</em> tasks, seeing as how pretty much all its &#8220;features&#8221; have been in Emacs for probably at least the last 5 years. Yet year after year, the BBEdit lists are full of &#8216;OMG the keywords are GREEN! BareBones iz Teh Brilliantest!&#8217; As far as I&#8217;m concerned, <a href="http://aquamacs.org/">Aquamacs</a> makes BBEdit even less attractive. Given the ridiculous prices for even minor upgrades and its Dark Ages level of programmability (good luck waiting for that Processing Codeless Language Mode, I mean syntax coloring) BBEdit more and more looks mainly like the clueless Mac fanboy&#8217;s choice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://john.mignault.net/blog/2009/03/16/yabr-yet-another-bbedit-rant/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cranky spelling question</title>
		<link>http://john.mignault.net/blog/2008/10/28/cranky-spelling-question/</link>
		<comments>http://john.mignault.net/blog/2008/10/28/cranky-spelling-question/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:33:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[crank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stupid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[writing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://john.mignault.net/blog/?p=170</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I just may be completely unhip, but when did it become sneak peak as opposed to sneak peek? I only see it spelled the wrong way now. Is this some secret lolcatz post-ironic spelling or something?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just may be completely unhip, but when did it become sneak <em>peak</em> as opposed to sneak <em>peek</em>? I only see it spelled the wrong way now. Is this some secret lolcatz post-ironic spelling or something?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://john.mignault.net/blog/2008/10/28/cranky-spelling-question/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
