<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Adventures in Donor Servicing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/11/26/adventures_in_donor_servicing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/11/26/adventures_in_donor_servicing/</link>
	<description>Reflections on art and architecture by TIME critic Richard Lacayo.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:49:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tyler Green</title>
		<link>http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/11/26/adventures_in_donor_servicing/comment-page-1/#comment-171</link>
		<dc:creator>Tyler Green</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:19:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/11/26/adventures_in_donor_servicing/#comment-171</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s the clearest possible example of why these collector-driven shows are unethical -- and possibly even illegal. (See The Nature Conservancy scandal.)

Still, I can&#039;t help but notice: A few weeks ago you pooh-poohed the National Gallery of Art&#039;s near-identical enterprise. Surely it&#039;s as bad for the NGA to do it as it is for the MFAB? Here&#039;s my post, which has a link to yours.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It's the clearest possible example of why these collector-driven shows are unethical -- and possibly even illegal. (See The Nature Conservancy scandal.)</p>
<p>Still, I can't help but notice: A few weeks ago you pooh-poohed the National Gallery of Art's near-identical enterprise. Surely it's as bad for the NGA to do it as it is for the MFAB? Here's my post, which has a link to yours.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
