<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Drive</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ruthhorowitz.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/drive/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ruthhorowitz.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/drive/</link>
	<description>Pictures worth half a thousand words</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 00:06:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ruth Horowitz</title>
		<link>http://ruthhorowitz.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/drive/#comment-135</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ruth Horowitz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:15:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ruthhorowitz.wordpress.com/?p=329#comment-135</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m afraid there is no instant solution. It will just have to percolate a while. Or (to extend the metaphor from my dream) I&#039;ll try one route, and if that doesn&#039;t take me where I need to go, recalculate and try another.

Scrivener&#039;s not hard to try. The word processing feature is very straightforward. The bells and whistles are all in how it lets you handle related documents. I didn&#039;t mention it in the post, but my version expires this weekend, so I have copied it all back into Word. I&#039;ll ship it back into Scrivener when the next beta for Windows becomes available.  (If you&#039;re interested, this would be a good time for you to try it, since you&#039;re starting a new piece.)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m afraid there is no instant solution. It will just have to percolate a while. Or (to extend the metaphor from my dream) I&#8217;ll try one route, and if that doesn&#8217;t take me where I need to go, recalculate and try another.</p>
<p>Scrivener&#8217;s not hard to try. The word processing feature is very straightforward. The bells and whistles are all in how it lets you handle related documents. I didn&#8217;t mention it in the post, but my version expires this weekend, so I have copied it all back into Word. I&#8217;ll ship it back into Scrivener when the next beta for Windows becomes available.  (If you&#8217;re interested, this would be a good time for you to try it, since you&#8217;re starting a new piece.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amalia Gladhart</title>
		<link>http://ruthhorowitz.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/drive/#comment-132</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Amalia Gladhart]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Jan 2011 05:03:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ruthhorowitz.wordpress.com/?p=329#comment-132</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So much for the dream offering the solution, as I&#039;ve heard some translators suggest it can do. But if one night&#039;s dream names the problem, perhaps the next night&#039;s solves the mystery. . .  Or maybe there&#039;s a technological fix? You make me curious about Scrivener (and me a die-hard mac-head). I tend to be very lazy about exploring new software, but maybe it&#039;s time.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So much for the dream offering the solution, as I&#8217;ve heard some translators suggest it can do. But if one night&#8217;s dream names the problem, perhaps the next night&#8217;s solves the mystery. . .  Or maybe there&#8217;s a technological fix? You make me curious about Scrivener (and me a die-hard mac-head). I tend to be very lazy about exploring new software, but maybe it&#8217;s time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
