<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Whirlpool in a Tube</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lexferenda.com/15092007/whirlpool-in-a-tube/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lexferenda.com/15092007/whirlpool-in-a-tube/</link>
	<description>daithí mac sithigh's blog on cyberlaw and more</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:49:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Daithí</title>
		<link>http://www.lexferenda.com/15092007/whirlpool-in-a-tube/#comment-1886</link>
		<dc:creator>Daithí</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:20:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexferenda.com/15092007/whirlpool-in-a-tube/#comment-1886</guid>
		<description>Injurious Falsehood has the coolest name, though.

OTOH, negligence does get a &lt;a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWia3GCzyLQ" rel="nofollow"&gt;song&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Injurious Falsehood has the coolest name, though.</p>
<p>OTOH, negligence does get a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWia3GCzyLQ" rel="nofollow">song</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Young</title>
		<link>http://www.lexferenda.com/15092007/whirlpool-in-a-tube/#comment-1885</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Young</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:17:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexferenda.com/15092007/whirlpool-in-a-tube/#comment-1885</guid>
		<description>Daithi, for an old-world tort its amazing that it still comes up in exams and practice. Detinue, Conversion, Deceit, Injurious Falsehood ....all still relevant but I'd love to know whether there's really anyone successfully grounding cases for such torts anymore.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Daithi, for an old-world tort its amazing that it still comes up in exams and practice. Detinue, Conversion, Deceit, Injurious Falsehood &#8230;.all still relevant but I&#8217;d love to know whether there&#8217;s really anyone successfully grounding cases for such torts anymore.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
