<?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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Stoned Vs. Not Stoned Part One:  The Goods &#8211; Live Hard, Sell Hard.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://namedropacid.com/2010/02/stoned-vs-not-stoned-part-one-the-goods-live-hard-sell-hard/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://namedropacid.com/2010/02/stoned-vs-not-stoned-part-one-the-goods-live-hard-sell-hard/</link>
	<description>Just another FUCK ANTHONY BARKER IN HIS FUCKING FACE weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:50:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Stoned Vs. Not Stoned Part Two: The Goods &#8211; Live Hard, Sell Hard &#171; Name Drop Acid</title>
		<link>http://namedropacid.com/2010/02/stoned-vs-not-stoned-part-one-the-goods-live-hard-sell-hard/comment-page-1/#comment-486</link>
		<dc:creator>Stoned Vs. Not Stoned Part Two: The Goods &#8211; Live Hard, Sell Hard &#171; Name Drop Acid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:38:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://namedropacid.com/?p=535#comment-486</guid>
		<description>[...] Read Part One Here. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Read Part One Here. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Tower</title>
		<link>http://namedropacid.com/2010/02/stoned-vs-not-stoned-part-one-the-goods-live-hard-sell-hard/comment-page-1/#comment-484</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Tower</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:03:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://namedropacid.com/?p=535#comment-484</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re amazing.

The only way you can enjoy the Goods is with aid. That movie had so much potential and it fucking bombed. I still scratch my head wondering how Piven could have mustered up the courage to promote the film. I feel visually raped in many ways.

I should re-watch it under the influence though. I actually do this very thing and purposely get films that look really bad just to see how good they are &quot;on pot&quot;. Case-in-point, &quot;The Invention of Lying&quot; and some other recent semi-decent comedy, name escapes me at the moment.

Brilliant until comedown.

I love the way you think. So next time freezies, mallrats and pot.

Down to Earth sucked, bad.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re amazing.</p>
<p>The only way you can enjoy the Goods is with aid. That movie had so much potential and it fucking bombed. I still scratch my head wondering how Piven could have mustered up the courage to promote the film. I feel visually raped in many ways.</p>
<p>I should re-watch it under the influence though. I actually do this very thing and purposely get films that look really bad just to see how good they are &#8220;on pot&#8221;. Case-in-point, &#8220;The Invention of Lying&#8221; and some other recent semi-decent comedy, name escapes me at the moment.</p>
<p>Brilliant until comedown.</p>
<p>I love the way you think. So next time freezies, mallrats and pot.</p>
<p>Down to Earth sucked, bad.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

