<?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: Ugly Real Economic Growth Chart from Singapore Statistics-Part 2</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.aeternus.sg/2010/ugly-real-economic-growth-chart-from-singapore-statistics-part-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.aeternus.sg/2010/ugly-real-economic-growth-chart-from-singapore-statistics-part-2/</link>
	<description>Excel, SharePoint, PowerPoint Training Courses</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 16:14:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: AusSteelMan</title>
		<link>http://www.aeternus.sg/2010/ugly-real-economic-growth-chart-from-singapore-statistics-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1357</link>
		<dc:creator>AusSteelMan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:12:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aeternus.sg/?p=4078#comment-1357</guid>
		<description>Whilst i agree with what you have said in this post, the PT chart shown here is basically a reworking of the original data, but tidied up a little, I think that the PT post quiet obliviously used the reworking as a stepping stone to develop a Panel Chart.

Now I am not saying that the panel chart is better or worse than your suggested alternative (here or originally), but if you are going to respond to the PT alternative &amp; comment on your alternative, then at least state what the PT alternative is, not the half way point. That is, show a bit more integrity.

You both offer good info websites, no need to be squabbling.

Anyway, that is my 2 cents worth.
Thanks,
ASM</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whilst i agree with what you have said in this post, the PT chart shown here is basically a reworking of the original data, but tidied up a little, I think that the PT post quiet obliviously used the reworking as a stepping stone to develop a Panel Chart.</p>
<p>Now I am not saying that the panel chart is better or worse than your suggested alternative (here or originally), but if you are going to respond to the PT alternative &amp; comment on your alternative, then at least state what the PT alternative is, not the half way point. That is, show a bit more integrity.</p>
<p>You both offer good info websites, no need to be squabbling.</p>
<p>Anyway, that is my 2 cents worth.<br />
Thanks,<br />
ASM</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

