<?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: 2009 Chocolate Awards diary &#8211; part 2</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.seventypercent.com/2009/06/2009-chocolate-awards-diary-part-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.seventypercent.com/2009/06/2009-chocolate-awards-diary-part-2/</link>
	<description>Home of the chocolate connoisseur</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:41:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: ari</title>
		<link>http://www.seventypercent.com/2009/06/2009-chocolate-awards-diary-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-10677</link>
		<dc:creator>ari</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:09:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seventypercent.com/?p=474#comment-10677</guid>
		<description>I admire Mott Green, he is humble man who won the  prize</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I admire Mott Green, he is humble man who won the  prize</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joules</title>
		<link>http://www.seventypercent.com/2009/06/2009-chocolate-awards-diary-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-5695</link>
		<dc:creator>Joules</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Nov 2010 00:36:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seventypercent.com/?p=474#comment-5695</guid>
		<description>Hi,

Not sure if this is the correct forum to ask my questions, but I would like to know how I can join the Acdamey or get inviolved? Also when will the next judging/ awards take place?

Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>Not sure if this is the correct forum to ask my questions, but I would like to know how I can join the Acdamey or get inviolved? Also when will the next judging/ awards take place?</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin Christy</title>
		<link>http://www.seventypercent.com/2009/06/2009-chocolate-awards-diary-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-5517</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin Christy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 2010 01:45:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seventypercent.com/?p=474#comment-5517</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m approving your comment here because it really is comical, and better to show it than be accused of censorship. If you had bothered to do any research though or looked at the various online resources, you could easily see by whom and how the Awards were judged and get an idea of the number of entries (100s in fact).

You negativity is ridiculous, unnecessary and unhelpful. While not perfect, the point of the Academy/Awards is to promote fine chocolate. If you have any interest in this, you should at least approach the Awards with an open mind before you condemn them. The judges were largely independent and made up of chefs, journalists, food writers and international chocolate figures. None of the Academy members who entered products were allowed to judge in those sections.

Yes there are things to improve, yes there can be more transparency and information. The Academy is a voluntary organisation with no paid staff. Those of us involved put in months of free work to make the Awards happen - hence the annoyance of reading uninformed tirades like the above. It&#039;s not always easy to get out information about how things were done, but you might consider giving the benefit of the doubt before mouthing off.

Rather making statements out of ignorance, don&#039;t you think it would have been better to ASK about the points you raise - in public or directly to the Academy - before you voice an uninformed opinion? You know you might be surprised to find out that you would get an answer, and your input and comments might be valued, if phrased in a different way.

There is plenty of this kind of stuff out on the web - but if you do it on my site, I&#039;m going to answer you!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m approving your comment here because it really is comical, and better to show it than be accused of censorship. If you had bothered to do any research though or looked at the various online resources, you could easily see by whom and how the Awards were judged and get an idea of the number of entries (100s in fact).</p>
<p>You negativity is ridiculous, unnecessary and unhelpful. While not perfect, the point of the Academy/Awards is to promote fine chocolate. If you have any interest in this, you should at least approach the Awards with an open mind before you condemn them. The judges were largely independent and made up of chefs, journalists, food writers and international chocolate figures. None of the Academy members who entered products were allowed to judge in those sections.</p>
<p>Yes there are things to improve, yes there can be more transparency and information. The Academy is a voluntary organisation with no paid staff. Those of us involved put in months of free work to make the Awards happen &#8211; hence the annoyance of reading uninformed tirades like the above. It&#8217;s not always easy to get out information about how things were done, but you might consider giving the benefit of the doubt before mouthing off.</p>
<p>Rather making statements out of ignorance, don&#8217;t you think it would have been better to ASK about the points you raise &#8211; in public or directly to the Academy &#8211; before you voice an uninformed opinion? You know you might be surprised to find out that you would get an answer, and your input and comments might be valued, if phrased in a different way.</p>
<p>There is plenty of this kind of stuff out on the web &#8211; but if you do it on my site, I&#8217;m going to answer you!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Special Awards Fan</title>
		<link>http://www.seventypercent.com/2009/06/2009-chocolate-awards-diary-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-5516</link>
		<dc:creator>Special Awards Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 2010 01:26:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seventypercent.com/?p=474#comment-5516</guid>
		<description>With CLASSIC awards like &#039;Most promising new bean to bar chocolate maker&#039;  and &quot;Changing the way people think about chocolate&quot; this incestuous offense to the chocolate buying public should be shut down for good. If it wasn&#039;t full of everyone connected to everyone, then there would be no contoversy.

Oh look... frequent winners Thorntons and Paul Young are connected to the awards by money through their paid PR officer who organises them! Oh look... Rococo are frequent winners and also part of the acedemy! 

It&#039;s great how the public is shown all the shiny awards on the packaging of chocolates but never told what the award is for specifically nor are the public told how many competitors there were (2 or 50? We know which is nearer the truth!)

Neither is it made clear to the public exactly how the chocs are judged and if the judges are connected or not to the makers or receive free chocolates, hospitality or are truly independent.

Neither is it made clear to the public if there is money paid to the academy by winners to enter or to use the logo.

Neither is it made clear that chocolates are submitted by the makers so that it is possible the chocoates are not the same as we might buy in the shops.

If anyone had any sense of self respect and could notch down their ego they would at least ensure if they win they were not on the list of judges that year or the next....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With CLASSIC awards like &#8216;Most promising new bean to bar chocolate maker&#8217;  and &#8220;Changing the way people think about chocolate&#8221; this incestuous offense to the chocolate buying public should be shut down for good. If it wasn&#8217;t full of everyone connected to everyone, then there would be no contoversy.</p>
<p>Oh look&#8230; frequent winners Thorntons and Paul Young are connected to the awards by money through their paid PR officer who organises them! Oh look&#8230; Rococo are frequent winners and also part of the acedemy! </p>
<p>It&#8217;s great how the public is shown all the shiny awards on the packaging of chocolates but never told what the award is for specifically nor are the public told how many competitors there were (2 or 50? We know which is nearer the truth!)</p>
<p>Neither is it made clear to the public exactly how the chocs are judged and if the judges are connected or not to the makers or receive free chocolates, hospitality or are truly independent.</p>
<p>Neither is it made clear to the public if there is money paid to the academy by winners to enter or to use the logo.</p>
<p>Neither is it made clear that chocolates are submitted by the makers so that it is possible the chocoates are not the same as we might buy in the shops.</p>
<p>If anyone had any sense of self respect and could notch down their ego they would at least ensure if they win they were not on the list of judges that year or the next&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

