<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Jumped The Snark]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://jumpedthesnark.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[skeim01]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://jumpedthesnark.com/author/skeim01/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Redefining sitcom romance through Jim &amp;&nbsp;Pam]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>Piggy backing on my earlier <em>Office</em> commentary, Allan Sepinwall of the Newark Star-Ledger penned a great article explaining why the Jim/Pam romance is so refreshing, and reverses the unfortunate &#8220;will they-won&#8217;t they&#8221; sitcom trope beget by <em>Moonlighting</em>.  As he points out, there&#8217;s nothing wrong with resolving sexual tension.</p>
<p>(although did we really need to take a shot at <em>Ed</em>?  I think never finding an audience was  punishment enough)</p>
<h3><a href="http://www.nj.com/entertainment/tv/index.ssf/2009/10/the_office_why_jim_and_pams_we.html" target="_blank">The Office: Why Jim and Pam&#8217;s wedding is good for TV comedy</a></h3>
]]></html></oembed>