<?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: ORTSAC 1962</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.stogiereview.com/2009/06/05/ortsac-1962/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.stogiereview.com/2009/06/05/ortsac-1962/</link>
	<description>Cigar reviews with a video twist</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:44:17 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://www.stogiereview.com/2009/06/05/ortsac-1962/#comment-80953</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 06:19:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stogiereview.com/?p=4304#comment-80953</guid>
		<description>Hey, fellow cigar smoker here... Maybe its just me, but I can not for the life of me see how such a piece of crap as this Orsac could have burned for 2 and a half hours +? Were you even smoking it or taking a pull every 10 minutes? Was it perhaps to humid (the mushy foot) I just dont get it.  I have smoke Camacho Triple Maduros and I may have one burning for about 145 to two hours TOPS IF IM REALLY CONSERVATIVE, which Im usually not - I mean when I want to smoke, I smoke. Anyway, Im gonna buy one just to see what kind of burn time this thing has but for no other reason trust me.  Thanks for your good work and Ill be back !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, fellow cigar smoker here&#8230; Maybe its just me, but I can not for the life of me see how such a piece of crap as this Orsac could have burned for 2 and a half hours +? Were you even smoking it or taking a pull every 10 minutes? Was it perhaps to humid (the mushy foot) I just dont get it.  I have smoke Camacho Triple Maduros and I may have one burning for about 145 to two hours TOPS IF IM REALLY CONSERVATIVE, which Im usually not &#8211; I mean when I want to smoke, I smoke. Anyway, Im gonna buy one just to see what kind of burn time this thing has but for no other reason trust me.  Thanks for your good work and Ill be back !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Other News and Reviews &#171; The Weekly Cigar</title>
		<link>http://www.stogiereview.com/2009/06/05/ortsac-1962/#comment-73454</link>
		<dc:creator>Other News and Reviews &#171; The Weekly Cigar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:58:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stogiereview.com/?p=4304#comment-73454</guid>
		<description>[...] Walt from the Stogie Reviews shares his views on the Ortsac 1962. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Walt from the Stogie Reviews shares his views on the Ortsac 1962. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dk_fxn</title>
		<link>http://www.stogiereview.com/2009/06/05/ortsac-1962/#comment-73446</link>
		<dc:creator>dk_fxn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:14:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stogiereview.com/?p=4304#comment-73446</guid>
		<description>I am a fan of interesting marketing ideas, but this seems a bit over-the-top IMO.  Especially for a cigar that apparently doesn&#039;t meet the hype...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am a fan of interesting marketing ideas, but this seems a bit over-the-top IMO.  Especially for a cigar that apparently doesn&#8217;t meet the hype&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Walt</title>
		<link>http://www.stogiereview.com/2009/06/05/ortsac-1962/#comment-73379</link>
		<dc:creator>Walt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:11:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stogiereview.com/?p=4304#comment-73379</guid>
		<description>Jeff,
I asked a couple people on Twitter if they experienced the same problem and unfortunately, they have. I&#039;m hoping that the ad is something that will be removed as it clearly causes a problem by covering up the content.

If the ad isn&#039;t removed from the system, or changed, we will have to consider turning off our overlay ads. Thanks for mentioning the problem as it wasn&#039;t present when I watched the video a couple of days ago.

-Walt</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jeff,<br />
I asked a couple people on Twitter if they experienced the same problem and unfortunately, they have. I&#8217;m hoping that the ad is something that will be removed as it clearly causes a problem by covering up the content.</p>
<p>If the ad isn&#8217;t removed from the system, or changed, we will have to consider turning off our overlay ads. Thanks for mentioning the problem as it wasn&#8217;t present when I watched the video a couple of days ago.</p>
<p>-Walt</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff</title>
		<link>http://www.stogiereview.com/2009/06/05/ortsac-1962/#comment-73353</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 04:11:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stogiereview.com/?p=4304#comment-73353</guid>
		<description>Walt, I couldn&#039;t even watch the review I was so annoyed with the ads that kept popping up.  Used to be  limited to just the bottom of the video but now it&#039;s plastered all over your face, and they keep coming back...sorry.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Walt, I couldn&#8217;t even watch the review I was so annoyed with the ads that kept popping up.  Used to be  limited to just the bottom of the video but now it&#8217;s plastered all over your face, and they keep coming back&#8230;sorry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Tom half of Ed &#38; Tom</title>
		<link>http://www.stogiereview.com/2009/06/05/ortsac-1962/#comment-73316</link>
		<dc:creator>The Tom half of Ed &#38; Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stogiereview.com/?p=4304#comment-73316</guid>
		<description>When I see a simple, plain box with a non fancy band, I am attracted to it. The flash and gimmick are a turn off. I&#039;d probably give this cigar a try just for the sake of trying it though.

As for the music during the slide show segments and credits... I think it&#039;s a good addition and keeps everything flowing. But I know exactly what you mean about how time consuming it can be during editing. In the end, I don&#039;t really care if there is music or not in a review. I just like to add it to ours.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I see a simple, plain box with a non fancy band, I am attracted to it. The flash and gimmick are a turn off. I&#8217;d probably give this cigar a try just for the sake of trying it though.</p>
<p>As for the music during the slide show segments and credits&#8230; I think it&#8217;s a good addition and keeps everything flowing. But I know exactly what you mean about how time consuming it can be during editing. In the end, I don&#8217;t really care if there is music or not in a review. I just like to add it to ours.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas</title>
		<link>http://www.stogiereview.com/2009/06/05/ortsac-1962/#comment-73272</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2009 13:34:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stogiereview.com/?p=4304#comment-73272</guid>
		<description>Don&#039;t like this marketing myself. I just like a simple cab or box of cigars that are bold and tastey. I don&#039;t need this extra crap. Call me a traditionalist. 
Anyways, great review as always! Cheers!
T</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t like this marketing myself. I just like a simple cab or box of cigars that are bold and tastey. I don&#8217;t need this extra crap. Call me a traditionalist.<br />
Anyways, great review as always! Cheers!<br />
T</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
