<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title>The Beatles Bible - Topic: How should fame be used?</title>
	<link>http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/all-together-now/how-should-fame-be-used/</link>
	<description><![CDATA[The Beatles&#039; songs, albums, photos, places and much more, including a day-by-day guide to their career from 1957 to 1970 and beyond, plus profiles of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Ringo Starr and many others.]]></description>
	<generator>Simple:Press Version 5.2.6</generator>
	<atom:link href="http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/all-together-now/how-should-fame-be-used/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <item>
        	<title>mja6758 on How should fame be used?</title>
        	<link>http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/all-together-now/how-should-fame-be-used/#p63925</link>
        	<category>All together now</category>
        	<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/all-together-now/how-should-fame-be-used/#p63925</guid>
        	        	<description><![CDATA[<p>There was the beginning of an interesting exchange of views between myself and Funny Paper in the "Our 'cute Beatle' not so cute in Vancouver" in the Paul McCartney section of the forum. I won't quote them here, but should anyone want to read them, they are posts 26, 33 (4th paragraph on) &#38; 34.</p>
<p>I've been away from a computer for a few days, on the Isle of Wight, but I would have wanted to split this off into a separate question anyway.</p>
<p>I accept Funny Paper's opinion as a point of view, though I thoroughly disagree with his view as ...]]></description>
        	        	<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:32:06 +0000</pubDate>
        </item>
</channel>
</rss>