<?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: Never Apologize for Your Chicken</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tylerwillis.net/blog/never-apologize-for-your-chicken/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tylerwillis.net/blog/never-apologize-for-your-chicken/</link>
	<description>"This isn't exactly Rocket Surgery"</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:58:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://tylerwillis.net/blog/never-apologize-for-your-chicken/comment-page-1/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:49:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tylerhwillis.com/blog/never-apologize-for-your-chicken/#comment-2</guid>
		<description>I migrated this post from my original blog and lost the comments. The following comment was posted by Wayne Willis, my father, on August 28th 2006 at 630am:



Super point. I remember, during one &quot;media training&quot; session I went through, the same point got made: &quot;Never start a speech with an apology.&quot; The chicken story makes the same point more vividly ... and therefore, better. I remember finding this &quot;rule&quot; counterintuitive at first, but absolutely correct in practice.

It&#039;s a subset of &quot;always be positive&quot; -- or make your points positively, not negative. Use AND not BUT when you can in an argument.

Another point, during the same training session, was &quot;don&#039;t thank the audience for letting you speak to them. They should appreciate that you did.&quot; That also seemed contrary to good manners to me, but, again, it&#039;s absolutely correct. You don&#039;t need to be arrogant, but thanking THEM undercuts their invitation of you as someone they want to hear from.

I&#039;m always surprised by how most guests on talk shows (e.g., promoting a book or simply providing expert commentary on a subject) respond to hosts who end the interview with &quot;thank you.&quot; The guests invariably respond with &quot;[no], thank YOU&quot; instead of the more correct, and obvious &quot;you&#039;re welcome.&quot; It seems to me that the latter response is correct on a number of levels.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I migrated this post from my original blog and lost the comments. The following comment was posted by Wayne Willis, my father, on August 28th 2006 at 630am:</p>
<p>Super point. I remember, during one &#8220;media training&#8221; session I went through, the same point got made: &#8220;Never start a speech with an apology.&#8221; The chicken story makes the same point more vividly &#8230; and therefore, better. I remember finding this &#8220;rule&#8221; counterintuitive at first, but absolutely correct in practice.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a subset of &#8220;always be positive&#8221; &#8212; or make your points positively, not negative. Use AND not BUT when you can in an argument.</p>
<p>Another point, during the same training session, was &#8220;don&#8217;t thank the audience for letting you speak to them. They should appreciate that you did.&#8221; That also seemed contrary to good manners to me, but, again, it&#8217;s absolutely correct. You don&#8217;t need to be arrogant, but thanking THEM undercuts their invitation of you as someone they want to hear from.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m always surprised by how most guests on talk shows (e.g., promoting a book or simply providing expert commentary on a subject) respond to hosts who end the interview with &#8220;thank you.&#8221; The guests invariably respond with &#8220;[no], thank YOU&#8221; instead of the more correct, and obvious &#8220;you&#8217;re welcome.&#8221; It seems to me that the latter response is correct on a number of levels.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
