<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:series="http://unfoldingneurons.com/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Nokia 6682 vs Nokia 6620</title>
	<atom:link href="http://reverb.madstatic.com/blog/2006/08/15/nokia-6682-vs-nokia-6620/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://reverb.madstatic.com/blog/2006/08/15/nokia-6682-vs-nokia-6620/</link>
	<description>inspired by the letter M: MURAKAMI, MISTS of MOSCHINO and MITSUKO</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:23:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Samsung T10 vs Sandisk Sansa e280 Mp3 Player at Reverb</title>
		<link>http://reverb.madstatic.com/blog/2006/08/15/nokia-6682-vs-nokia-6620/comment-page-1/#comment-4894</link>
		<dc:creator>Samsung T10 vs Sandisk Sansa e280 Mp3 Player at Reverb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:17:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reverb.madstatic.com/blog/2006/08/15/nokia-6682-vs-nokia-6620/#comment-4894</guid>
		<description>[...] for you faithful readers they&#8217;re the same marketing company that sent me the Nokia 6682 that I wrote about. If you read a lot of Vancouver blogs you&#8217;ll probably notice a few others are participating [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] for you faithful readers they&#8217;re the same marketing company that sent me the Nokia 6682 that I wrote about. If you read a lot of Vancouver blogs you&#8217;ll probably notice a few others are participating [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ghosty</title>
		<link>http://reverb.madstatic.com/blog/2006/08/15/nokia-6682-vs-nokia-6620/comment-page-1/#comment-377</link>
		<dc:creator>Ghosty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:01:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reverb.madstatic.com/blog/2006/08/15/nokia-6682-vs-nokia-6620/#comment-377</guid>
		<description>I suppose I am a bit generous but coming from a similar phone in the 6620 and also from a SE T616 prior it&#039;s definitely an improvement.  I didn&#039;t know you could get the k800 here. It&#039;s definitely very nice, but then again I would expect those pictures out of a 3.2 megapixel phone any clue on the costs?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I suppose I am a bit generous but coming from a similar phone in the 6620 and also from a SE T616 prior it&#8217;s definitely an improvement.  I didn&#8217;t know you could get the k800 here. It&#8217;s definitely very nice, but then again I would expect those pictures out of a 3.2 megapixel phone any clue on the costs?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryan Cousineau</title>
		<link>http://reverb.madstatic.com/blog/2006/08/15/nokia-6682-vs-nokia-6620/comment-page-1/#comment-374</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryan Cousineau</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:13:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reverb.madstatic.com/blog/2006/08/15/nokia-6682-vs-nokia-6620/#comment-374</guid>
		<description>This is ridiculous, but I have had this phone for months, and didn&#039;t realize the voice activation didn&#039;t require training. Thanks!

On the other hand, you are pretty generous to the 6682&#039;s camera. Just because it&#039;s one of the better ones out there doesn&#039;t mean it was any good. Well, on its good days it is pretty good. But have you seen the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=211635487&amp;size=l&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;flickr pix&lt;/a&gt; coming out of the k800i?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is ridiculous, but I have had this phone for months, and didn&#8217;t realize the voice activation didn&#8217;t require training. Thanks!</p>
<p>On the other hand, you are pretty generous to the 6682&#8242;s camera. Just because it&#8217;s one of the better ones out there doesn&#8217;t mean it was any good. Well, on its good days it is pretty good. But have you seen the <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=211635487&amp;size=l" rel="nofollow">flickr pix</a> coming out of the k800i?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.471 seconds -->

