<?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: Christian Communication Pro 2007 Blogging Survey</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2007/02/28/christian-communication-pro-2007-blogging-survey/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2007/02/28/christian-communication-pro-2007-blogging-survey/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:19:20 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bene Diction</title>
		<link>http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2007/02/28/christian-communication-pro-2007-blogging-survey/#comment-73125</link>
		<dc:creator>Bene Diction</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2007 04:01:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.benedictionblogson.com/?p=2976#comment-73125</guid>
		<description>I'm not faulting them Mark, what was the purpose of this survey?

I believe if you say the list isn't being used by the solitictors, that's fair. The fact it is published online means the spammers have already scrapped it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not faulting them Mark, what was the purpose of this survey?</p>
<p>I believe if you say the list isn&#8217;t being used by the solitictors, that&#8217;s fair. The fact it is published online means the spammers have already scrapped it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Kelly</title>
		<link>http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2007/02/28/christian-communication-pro-2007-blogging-survey/#comment-73101</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Kelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:09:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.benedictionblogson.com/?p=2976#comment-73101</guid>
		<description>Don't fault them for not representing non-clergy bloggers. The initial purpose was to hear primarily from pastors and other church leaders. The survey also was publicized through Pastors.com's newsletter, Rick Warren's Ministry ToolBox. There was a companion article on using blogs in a church setting.

Other research is needed, for sure. It just wasn't the purpose of this survey.

And, no, the list of respondents isn't being used for commercial purposes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t fault them for not representing non-clergy bloggers. The initial purpose was to hear primarily from pastors and other church leaders. The survey also was publicized through Pastors.com&#8217;s newsletter, Rick Warren&#8217;s Ministry ToolBox. There was a companion article on using blogs in a church setting.</p>
<p>Other research is needed, for sure. It just wasn&#8217;t the purpose of this survey.</p>
<p>And, no, the list of respondents isn&#8217;t being used for commercial purposes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BD</title>
		<link>http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2007/02/28/christian-communication-pro-2007-blogging-survey/#comment-72872</link>
		<dc:creator>BD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:25:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.benedictionblogson.com/?p=2976#comment-72872</guid>
		<description>ar arr arrr!
I have to cut him a lot of slack - he basically targeted professional US evangelicals, and did so to the best of his ability.
It may be just one more list religious spammers can hit for their advertising and products, I wasn't able to find his reasons for his efforts. Ministers and priests already get more than their share of spam.

Blog surveying is hard work, and even though faith blogs make up (last time I checked) about 1 to 3 percent of blogs, I think it will now take a professional research company to give us a reasonable snapshot of 'god blogs' in 2007 and beyond.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ar arr arrr!<br />
I have to cut him a lot of slack - he basically targeted professional US evangelicals, and did so to the best of his ability.<br />
It may be just one more list religious spammers can hit for their advertising and products, I wasn&#8217;t able to find his reasons for his efforts. Ministers and priests already get more than their share of spam.</p>
<p>Blog surveying is hard work, and even though faith blogs make up (last time I checked) about 1 to 3 percent of blogs, I think it will now take a professional research company to give us a reasonable snapshot of &#8216;god blogs&#8217; in 2007 and beyond.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tom reindl</title>
		<link>http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2007/02/28/christian-communication-pro-2007-blogging-survey/#comment-72871</link>
		<dc:creator>tom reindl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:04:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.benedictionblogson.com/?p=2976#comment-72871</guid>
		<description>Bene,

Maybe he should have included another category, such as "closet homosexual".  Then the clergy would have been truly represented.  ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bene,</p>
<p>Maybe he should have included another category, such as &#8220;closet homosexual&#8221;.  Then the clergy would have been truly represented.  <img src='http://www.benedictionblogson.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
