<?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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Help, Tracy Grant!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/01/11/help-tracy-grant/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/01/11/help-tracy-grant/</link>
	<description>D.C. News, Politics, Media, Arts, and More</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:00:01 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Downtown Rez</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/01/11/help-tracy-grant/comment-page-1/#comment-93196</link>
		<dc:creator>Downtown Rez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:10:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/index.php/2008/01/11/help-tracy-grant/#comment-93196</guid>
		<description>More likely is that Erik is intrigued by this movie offering because he has target-aged children.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More likely is that Erik is intrigued by this movie offering because he has target-aged children.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/01/11/help-tracy-grant/comment-page-1/#comment-92565</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:08:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/index.php/2008/01/11/help-tracy-grant/#comment-92565</guid>
		<description>Ah, another nitpicking swipe at the Post from Wemple. This from the editor of a paper that spelled become &quot;be-come&quot; in the story about the cop in this week&#039;s issue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, another nitpicking swipe at the Post from Wemple. This from the editor of a paper that spelled become "be-come" in the story about the cop in this week's issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Q</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/01/11/help-tracy-grant/comment-page-1/#comment-92545</link>
		<dc:creator>Q</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:49:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/index.php/2008/01/11/help-tracy-grant/#comment-92545</guid>
		<description>From MPAA.ORG -- &quot;A G-rated motion picture contains nothing in theme, language, nudity, sex, violence or other matters that, in the view of the Rating Board, would offend parents whose younger children view the motion picture. The G rating is not a &#8220;certificate of approval,&#8221; nor does it signify a &#8220;children&#8217;s&#8221; motion picture. Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated motion pictures. Depictions of violence are minimal. No nudity, sex scenes or drug use are present in the motion picture.&quot;

Nothing in this description mandates an age.  In fact, the only movies that have a age restriction are those rated PG-13, R, and NC-17, with the latter being the only one where patrons are &quot;carded&quot; to determine age.  So with that, a &quot;G&quot; movie can be for anyone from a screaming 2 year old to a sleepy 98 year old.  

I know you are complaining about the Washington Post and inconsistency, but are you really expecting perfection?  LOL!  Just go see the movie.  If you happen to take a 6 or 7 year old, then you will be complicit with what the Post says, as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From MPAA.ORG -- "A G-rated motion picture contains nothing in theme, language, nudity, sex, violence or other matters that, in the view of the Rating Board, would offend parents whose younger children view the motion picture. The G rating is not a &#8220;certificate of approval,&#8221; nor does it signify a &#8220;children&#8217;s&#8221; motion picture. Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated motion pictures. Depictions of violence are minimal. No nudity, sex scenes or drug use are present in the motion picture."</p>
<p>Nothing in this description mandates an age.  In fact, the only movies that have a age restriction are those rated PG-13, R, and NC-17, with the latter being the only one where patrons are "carded" to determine age.  So with that, a "G" movie can be for anyone from a screaming 2 year old to a sleepy 98 year old.  </p>
<p>I know you are complaining about the Washington Post and inconsistency, but are you really expecting perfection?  LOL!  Just go see the movie.  If you happen to take a 6 or 7 year old, then you will be complicit with what the Post says, as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
