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.