nine from the futue

this post will be in the future. whoa.

import as comments from nobody

no comments, please

import as comments from neighbors

neighbors can comment.

import as comments from friends and family

friends and family can comment on this.

import as friends and family viewable

friends and family can see this.

import as comments from family

family can comment.

import as comments from friends

friends can comment.

import as comments from everyon

everyone can comment

import as draft

draft post

import as neighborhood viewable

neighborhood viewable post

import as family only

family only post

import as friends only

friends only post

Import as public viewable

public viewable post

ten: lots of words

The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.
The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.

this is the end of the post. cut here.

eight: draft post

this won't show up for import

seven: this has comments

i'll get someone to comment on this.

six: formatting

small font
large font
bold text
italicized text
red text
blue words
green stuff
linked text

left justified: The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.

right justified: The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.

centered: The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.

justified: The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.

1. item 1
2. item 2
3. item 3

• bullet 1
• bullet 2
• bullet 3

blockquoted: The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.

five: centered image

The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.

four: image floated right

The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.

three: left floated image

The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.The Byrne problem will still exist with sticky (future-dated) posts.
I think changing aggregations from created_on dates would be a bad idea for this reason.

I agree with Ben that the created_on date should probably not be fudged--since it's used for this reason. We can set the issued date to whatever it was in the original post and a user can edit that if they want it to sort differently on their Vox blog.

two: this post has some tags

two: tags

1: this post has no title.

am i really logged in?

This is a Beautiful South album cover.

First Post

This is my first Blogger post. This thing sucks compared to Vox.