<?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: Intentional or Unintentional? for 6/2</title>
	<atom:link href="http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/</link>
	<description>Comic Book Resources Presents... Comics Should Be Good!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:50:01 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mary Warner</title>
		<link>http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/comment-page-1/#comment-733434</link>
		<dc:creator>Mary Warner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:50:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/#comment-733434</guid>
		<description>I think I heard the modern meaning of &#039;boner&#039; maybe twice in the &#039;80s.  It seems to have been pretty rare until the &#039;90s, at least around here, and it doesn&#039;t seem to be in many movies or anything before then.  And the &#039;mistake&#039; meaning was quite common up until the &#039;90s, and isn&#039;t unheard of now.

I&#039;m pretty sure this was unintentional.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think I heard the modern meaning of 'boner' maybe twice in the '80s.  It seems to have been pretty rare until the '90s, at least around here, and it doesn't seem to be in many movies or anything before then.  And the 'mistake' meaning was quite common up until the '90s, and isn't unheard of now.</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure this was unintentional.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kolyma</title>
		<link>http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/comment-page-1/#comment-731086</link>
		<dc:creator>Kolyma</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 02:33:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/#comment-731086</guid>
		<description>The funniest part about that Batman issue? Drawn by Dick Sprang.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The funniest part about that Batman issue? Drawn by Dick Sprang.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sgt rawk</title>
		<link>http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/comment-page-1/#comment-694123</link>
		<dc:creator>sgt rawk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2008 02:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/#comment-694123</guid>
		<description>The Fifties were a simpler time. Unintentional. Or very possibly THE GREATEST FAILURE OF EDITORIAL ON HISTORICAL RECORD.  

No, Unintentional. Remember, if 1960, the Flintstones were having a &#039;gay old time.&#039; Word meanings change. Boner really used to mean mistake, not ... you know.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Fifties were a simpler time. Unintentional. Or very possibly THE GREATEST FAILURE OF EDITORIAL ON HISTORICAL RECORD.  </p>
<p>No, Unintentional. Remember, if 1960, the Flintstones were having a 'gay old time.' Word meanings change. Boner really used to mean mistake, not ... you know.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ethan Shuster</title>
		<link>http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/comment-page-1/#comment-686120</link>
		<dc:creator>Ethan Shuster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 02:57:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/#comment-686120</guid>
		<description>In recent Star Wars comics, they introduced a Jedi Master called Soon Bayts, aka &quot;Master Bayts&quot;. I&#039;m not sure if he phrase was actually written out, but any subsequent appearances after his first have been extremely rare.

Here&#039;s the &quot;Wookieepedia&quot; entry discussing it:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Soon_Bayts</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In recent Star Wars comics, they introduced a Jedi Master called Soon Bayts, aka "Master Bayts". I'm not sure if he phrase was actually written out, but any subsequent appearances after his first have been extremely rare.</p>
<p>Here's the "Wookieepedia" entry discussing it:<br />
<a href="http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Soon_Bayts" rel="nofollow">http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Soon_Bayts</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ginger</title>
		<link>http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/comment-page-1/#comment-674468</link>
		<dc:creator>ginger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:58:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/#comment-674468</guid>
		<description>erm... at the risk of coming to this very, very late, and coming over perhaps a tad obsessed with willies... 

according to the sainted OED, the earliest cited usage of the word &#039;boner&#039; to refer to an erect penis in print is really late, in clancy sigal&#039;s 1968 novel, &#039;going away&#039;, as in, &#039;the little dog used to raise a boner every time it walked into a room...&#039;. not too much of a stretch to think that denizens of gotham&#039;s criminal underworld were familiar with rude terms for stiffies a few years ahead of the general public, so i&#039;d lean towards justified smirking on this one.

at the risk of seeming unduly concerned, if anyone turns up an earlier example explicitly attached to a tumid member, please do flag it up on here, so i can let my mate over at OED know; it doesn&#039;t mention &#039;bone-on&#039; at all, which is an obvious shortcoming. it&#039;s important to keep up on these things.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>erm... at the risk of coming to this very, very late, and coming over perhaps a tad obsessed with willies... </p>
<p>according to the sainted OED, the earliest cited usage of the word 'boner' to refer to an erect penis in print is really late, in clancy sigal's 1968 novel, 'going away', as in, 'the little dog used to raise a boner every time it walked into a room...'. not too much of a stretch to think that denizens of gotham's criminal underworld were familiar with rude terms for stiffies a few years ahead of the general public, so i'd lean towards justified smirking on this one.</p>
<p>at the risk of seeming unduly concerned, if anyone turns up an earlier example explicitly attached to a tumid member, please do flag it up on here, so i can let my mate over at OED know; it doesn't mention 'bone-on' at all, which is an obvious shortcoming. it's important to keep up on these things.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jake</title>
		<link>http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/comment-page-1/#comment-107097</link>
		<dc:creator>Jake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2007 05:43:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/#comment-107097</guid>
		<description>I have to go with intentional -- the word is repeated just WAY too many times.  Since the terminology was just coming into usage, it would be a true under-the-radar &quot;in joke.&quot;  Also, check out the cover of the issue:
http://www.goldenagebatman.com/cover9.html

If that doesn&#039;t scream &quot;boner,&quot; I don&#039;t know what does.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to go with intentional -- the word is repeated just WAY too many times.  Since the terminology was just coming into usage, it would be a true under-the-radar "in joke."  Also, check out the cover of the issue:<br />
<a href="http://www.goldenagebatman.com/cover9.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.goldenagebatman.com/cover9.html</a></p>
<p>If that doesn't scream "boner," I don't know what does.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Apodaca</title>
		<link>http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/comment-page-1/#comment-105610</link>
		<dc:creator>Apodaca</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:38:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/#comment-105610</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;And to tie this all together, the actor who played Boner Andrew Koenig (son of Walter â€œChekovâ€ Koenig) played the Joker in the fan film â€œBatman: Dead Endâ€&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I think you win this one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>And to tie this all together, the actor who played Boner Andrew Koenig (son of Walter â€œChekovâ€ Koenig) played the Joker in the fan film â€œBatman: Dead Endâ€</p></blockquote>
<p>I think you win this one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ted Watson</title>
		<link>http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/comment-page-1/#comment-105496</link>
		<dc:creator>Ted Watson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:09:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/#comment-105496</guid>
		<description>Evan Walters:  &quot;I think they were getting away with something- the dirtier meaning was sort of known but obscure enough that it would fly over the heads of most readers.&quot; 

An analogous situation was in the 1960s Frankie &amp; Annette &quot;Beach Party&quot; movies. In the first one, Bob Cummings played a scientist who could &quot;freeze&quot; people by touching a particular spot on their foreheads with the tip of his finger. Boneheaded biker Eric Von Zipper (whom Bob taught to do it, but he couldn&#039;t make it work on anybody but himself) &amp; his gang called this &quot;giving [the victim] the finger.&quot; They meant the joke, but it got past the censors.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Evan Walters:  "I think they were getting away with something- the dirtier meaning was sort of known but obscure enough that it would fly over the heads of most readers." </p>
<p>An analogous situation was in the 1960s Frankie &amp; Annette "Beach Party" movies. In the first one, Bob Cummings played a scientist who could "freeze" people by touching a particular spot on their foreheads with the tip of his finger. Boneheaded biker Eric Von Zipper (whom Bob taught to do it, but he couldn't make it work on anybody but himself) &amp; his gang called this "giving [the victim] the finger." They meant the joke, but it got past the censors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Compton</title>
		<link>http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/comment-page-1/#comment-105475</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Compton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:23:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/#comment-105475</guid>
		<description>Hi Jim. Photos i received. Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Jim. Photos i received. Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FunkyGreenJerusalem</title>
		<link>http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/comment-page-1/#comment-105127</link>
		<dc:creator>FunkyGreenJerusalem</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2007 04:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/#comment-105127</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;You were so busy forcing me into a boner, you forgot you were committing one yourself!&lt;/blockquote&gt;

If we accept that the word was known as slang for a stiffy at the time, even if only by a few, then the above quote means that the writer was one of those few.

I read a Wizard interview with Garth Ennis years ago, and he was saying that when he wrote the comic &#039;The Demon&#039; he called a demon in it Baytor. 
And in one issue he had Baytor become king of hell, and had a scene where all the demons were yelling/singing &#039;All Hail the Master Baytor&#039; and characters said &#039;Master Baytor&#039; throughout.
Apparently it got right through and was about to be printed, and someone said the name outloud and realised what he&#039;d done.
Ennis had thought it&#039;d get picked up straight away, he&#039;d put it in as a joke for the team/editors, and was quite enjoying seeing how close to print it would actually get.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>You were so busy forcing me into a boner, you forgot you were committing one yourself!</p></blockquote>
<p>If we accept that the word was known as slang for a stiffy at the time, even if only by a few, then the above quote means that the writer was one of those few.</p>
<p>I read a Wizard interview with Garth Ennis years ago, and he was saying that when he wrote the comic 'The Demon' he called a demon in it Baytor.<br />
And in one issue he had Baytor become king of hell, and had a scene where all the demons were yelling/singing 'All Hail the Master Baytor' and characters said 'Master Baytor' throughout.<br />
Apparently it got right through and was about to be printed, and someone said the name outloud and realised what he'd done.<br />
Ennis had thought it'd get picked up straight away, he'd put it in as a joke for the team/editors, and was quite enjoying seeing how close to print it would actually get.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan K</title>
		<link>http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/comment-page-1/#comment-105109</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan K</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2007 03:54:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/#comment-105109</guid>
		<description>This is one of those ones where you want it to be intentional so much it hurts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is one of those ones where you want it to be intentional so much it hurts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Cronin</title>
		<link>http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/comment-page-1/#comment-105026</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Cronin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2007 00:56:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/#comment-105026</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;This should be an Urban Legend!&lt;/blockquote&gt; If I had a source, you know it would be! :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>This should be an Urban Legend!</p></blockquote>
<p> If I had a source, you know it would be! <img src='http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MarkAndrew</title>
		<link>http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/comment-page-1/#comment-105011</link>
		<dc:creator>MarkAndrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2007 00:09:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/#comment-105011</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;
Iâ€™d vote for intentional as the writer clearly knew what he was up to and like Brian said above, it could easily slip past the editors.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

That&#039;s what I heard.  I cite a source that seemed pretty authoritative at the time, but I forget what that source is.  

This should be an Urban Legend!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>
Iâ€™d vote for intentional as the writer clearly knew what he was up to and like Brian said above, it could easily slip past the editors.
</p></blockquote>
<p>That's what I heard.  I cite a source that seemed pretty authoritative at the time, but I forget what that source is.  </p>
<p>This should be an Urban Legend!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/comment-page-1/#comment-105001</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jun 2007 23:42:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/#comment-105001</guid>
		<description>I think it&#039;s intentional, because you would not use the word boner THAT MANY TIMES if you weren&#039;t going for a joke.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it's intentional, because you would not use the word boner THAT MANY TIMES if you weren't going for a joke.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stephen cade</title>
		<link>http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/comment-page-1/#comment-104951</link>
		<dc:creator>stephen cade</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:38:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/#comment-104951</guid>
		<description>Unintentional--I don&#039;t see it otherwise--sure sometimes people will see what they can get away with--but not like that at that time.

Pops music does this a lot, or rather did, as now you can say these things outright.
Which is a shame.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unintentional--I don't see it otherwise--sure sometimes people will see what they can get away with--but not like that at that time.</p>
<p>Pops music does this a lot, or rather did, as now you can say these things outright.<br />
Which is a shame.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ira Henkin</title>
		<link>http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/comment-page-1/#comment-104948</link>
		<dc:creator>Ira Henkin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:15:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/#comment-104948</guid>
		<description>I read the story some time in 1954-55, and I don&#039;t recall my peers and I taking any particular notice..if we had, the word would have been spread all over our elementary school within minutes, and the issue read to shreds....I still have it</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I read the story some time in 1954-55, and I don't recall my peers and I taking any particular notice..if we had, the word would have been spread all over our elementary school within minutes, and the issue read to shreds....I still have it</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul C</title>
		<link>http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/comment-page-1/#comment-104934</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul C</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:53:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/#comment-104934</guid>
		<description>Ha, ha, ha. Those panels are hilarious. I think the one with the newspaper is the best. &quot;Chortle at Joker&#039;s boner&quot; as if they are laughing that his manhood is small. Also it seems like Joker has a magical power to cause erections when he &quot;shows them how many boners he can make&quot;.

I&#039;d vote for intentional as the writer clearly knew what he was up to and like Brian said above, it could easily slip past the editors. 

Does anyone know who the creative team on the issue were by the way?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ha, ha, ha. Those panels are hilarious. I think the one with the newspaper is the best. "Chortle at Joker's boner" as if they are laughing that his manhood is small. Also it seems like Joker has a magical power to cause erections when he "shows them how many boners he can make".</p>
<p>I'd vote for intentional as the writer clearly knew what he was up to and like Brian said above, it could easily slip past the editors. </p>
<p>Does anyone know who the creative team on the issue were by the way?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Flanagan</title>
		<link>http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/comment-page-1/#comment-104920</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Flanagan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:16:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/#comment-104920</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve got a slang dictionary published as late as 1989 that only has the &quot;mistake&quot;, not the &quot;erection&quot;, definition.  So just because the latter was recorded as early as the 1950s doesn&#039;t mean it was widespread then.

Incidentally, the Penguin Dictionary of Historical Slang (edited down from Eric partridge&#039;s classic original) records yet another meaning: &quot;sharp blow&quot;, used at a couple of English Public Schools in the 19th century.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I've got a slang dictionary published as late as 1989 that only has the "mistake", not the "erection", definition.  So just because the latter was recorded as early as the 1950s doesn't mean it was widespread then.</p>
<p>Incidentally, the Penguin Dictionary of Historical Slang (edited down from Eric partridge's classic original) records yet another meaning: "sharp blow", used at a couple of English Public Schools in the 19th century.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Cronin</title>
		<link>http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/comment-page-1/#comment-104910</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Cronin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:44:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/#comment-104910</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;I think they were getting away with something- the dirtier meaning was sort of known but obscure enough that it would fly over the heads of most readers.&lt;/blockquote&gt; Yeah, that would be how it could be considered intentional - if you think that boner was considered (at the time) such an obscure slang word for penis that the writer knew he could get it past editorial without anyone noticing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>I think they were getting away with something- the dirtier meaning was sort of known but obscure enough that it would fly over the heads of most readers.</p></blockquote>
<p> Yeah, that would be how it could be considered intentional - if you think that boner was considered (at the time) such an obscure slang word for penis that the writer knew he could get it past editorial without anyone noticing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Evan Waters</title>
		<link>http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/comment-page-1/#comment-104906</link>
		<dc:creator>Evan Waters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:37:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/06/03/intentional-or-unintentional-for-62/#comment-104906</guid>
		<description>I think they were getting away with something- the dirtier meaning was sort of known but obscure enough that it would fly over the heads of most readers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think they were getting away with something- the dirtier meaning was sort of known but obscure enough that it would fly over the heads of most readers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
