<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Addicted to Addiction</title>
		<description>Comments for Addicted to Addiction at http://www.rcreader.com , comment 1 to 3 out of 3 comments</description>
		<link>http://www.rcreader.com</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:11:39 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.rcreader.com/commentary/addicted-to-addiction/#comment-464</link>
			<description>Great article. Couldn't have said it better myself, and I don't say that often.  - WolfmanMac</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:13:29 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.rcreader.com/commentary/addicted-to-addiction/#comment-459</link>
			<description>Is Mr. Reed really complaining about terminology here, when in every article he includes some ridiculous term of his own? (Republicrats, in this case.) There are different types of addiction. Sure, it can get out of hand sometimes, but I for one am very glad our society has come to recognize other addictions.

What is the point of this Guest Commentary spot? I guess I assumed that it was an opportunity to read varying viewpoints from a variety of authors. If the Reader staff wants to express its Libertarian leanings or admiration of crackpot internet columnists, then why not just feature Reed's column weekly - instead of sticking him up in the guest commentary spot whenever they get the chance?

I enjoy reading through the Reader every Wednesday. But, among other relevant, well-written articles with intelligent discussion, Mr. Reed's always stick out as crazed rants that aren't worth the time it takes to read them. Can't the Reader find anything else to fill the Guest Commentary spot that fits in with the rest of their content? - TysonD</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:04:39 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.rcreader.com/commentary/addicted-to-addiction/#comment-456</link>
			<description> 

While it is true that some psychological dysfunctions are being mislabeled as addictions, this commentary does nothing to solve the problem of mislabeling.  Claiming that sarcastic or humorous appellations such as &quot;workaholic&quot; or &quot;chocoholic&quot; are terms actually used in medicine is ridiculous, as is the absurd notion that insurance corporations (among the most profitable businesses in the nation) are being sucked dry by doctors.
 

Further, caffeine is an alkaloid central nervous system stimulant, &quot;the low end of the speed spectrum&quot; as George Carlin once put it, and certainly [i]is[/i] physically addictive.  If you really want something to be indignant about, how about the fact that this addictive drug, a bitter-tasting drug which requires extra sugar to also be added to make a drink palatable, is commonly and deliberately added to beverages marketed to [b]children[/b].
 

You want to go on a crusade, there's a legitimate target for you.
 

 &gt;:( - David K. M. Klaus</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:06:59 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
