<?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: BBM3 package passes customs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tomatom.com/2005/11/bbm3-package-passes-customs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tomatom.com/2005/11/bbm3-package-passes-customs/</link>
	<description>The insiders&#039; guide to food and drink in Melbourne. Since 2005.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 07:40:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ed Charles</title>
		<link>http://www.tomatom.com/2005/11/bbm3-package-passes-customs/comment-page-1/#comment-249</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed Charles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:19:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tomatom.com/?p=174#comment-249</guid>
		<description>It was. Can&#039;t wait until the next one.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It was. Can&#8217;t wait until the next one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paz</title>
		<link>http://www.tomatom.com/2005/11/bbm3-package-passes-customs/comment-page-1/#comment-248</link>
		<dc:creator>Paz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2005 03:15:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tomatom.com/?p=174#comment-248</guid>
		<description>Cool package to receive!

Paz</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cool package to receive!</p>
<p>Paz</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed Charles</title>
		<link>http://www.tomatom.com/2005/11/bbm3-package-passes-customs/comment-page-1/#comment-247</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed Charles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:35:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tomatom.com/?p=174#comment-247</guid>
		<description>I was uncharacteristically very polite about it but you&#039;ve hit the nail on the head. It makes me feel good about Epicure. Similarly, I don&#039;t think the London papers don&#039;t seem to be as good as ours apart from The Observer Food Monthly which my mum posts out to me which is a great glossy. I;ve always found many of the established American mags have a very fixed form in terms of type and content. the new generation of mags such as Wired, Fast Company and Ready Made are different. But they are not food mags.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was uncharacteristically very polite about it but you&#8217;ve hit the nail on the head. It makes me feel good about Epicure. Similarly, I don&#8217;t think the London papers don&#8217;t seem to be as good as ours apart from The Observer Food Monthly which my mum posts out to me which is a great glossy. I;ve always found many of the established American mags have a very fixed form in terms of type and content. the new generation of mags such as Wired, Fast Company and Ready Made are different. But they are not food mags.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Niki</title>
		<link>http://www.tomatom.com/2005/11/bbm3-package-passes-customs/comment-page-1/#comment-246</link>
		<dc:creator>Niki</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2005 04:57:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tomatom.com/?p=174#comment-246</guid>
		<description>I was also surprised at the dated look of the SF Chronicle food section. It looked like something from the 80s. Plus I was surprised it didn&#039;t include any restaurant reviews. Certainly the Aussie papers seem to be far ahead in terms of content and aesthetics. 
I recently saw a US edition of Gourmet and honestly thought it was a vintage edition from 1985. Not so - it was current. Based on those two experiences, I can understand the US craze for the clean lines and fresh colours of Donna Hay and her ilk.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was also surprised at the dated look of the SF Chronicle food section. It looked like something from the 80s. Plus I was surprised it didn&#8217;t include any restaurant reviews. Certainly the Aussie papers seem to be far ahead in terms of content and aesthetics.<br />
I recently saw a US edition of Gourmet and honestly thought it was a vintage edition from 1985. Not so &#8211; it was current. Based on those two experiences, I can understand the US craze for the clean lines and fresh colours of Donna Hay and her ilk.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

