PR impact of using Magpie vs 'Online RSS to HTML converters'

[apprentice]

As far as I am aware the more outbound links a page has, the more PR escapes - which could be rather more of an issue as I am talking about the homepage here.

Using Magpie, when the page has loaded and by viewing the source, I can see the 'raw' links of each RSS item that has been fetched and converted by Magpie - is that how a SE would look at the page, or would it just consider only the link been held within the $rss variable? For instance, using an online HTML to RSS converter requires a link back to the service that does the conversion. After the 29th Sep backlink update, I noticed that the related sites according to Google, also included the Rss to Javascript site - probably because it was getting a good chunk out of the homepage's PR - although the site in question has nothing in common with either RSS of JS. Having implemented Magpie to handle my RSS feed box, I can tell the following:

Magpie vs. XYZ Online RSS to HTML converter
Speed - Magpie, easily
Bandwidth Efficiency - Magpie, easily i.e. caching, HTTP conditional GETs.
Ease of use - Pretty straightforward for Magpie installation/config considering my lack of PHP knowledge - online converter slightly easier for average user.
Features - More less the same for both - easier to configure using an online converter.
Impact on ranking -? Your comments here please.

If I was to have a guess, based on my understanding that is outlined above, I would say that using an online RSS to HTML converter is probably more SEO friendly than using Magpie. The online service requires a link back (obviously!) plus the URI of the feed - that is 2 links. Magpie on the other hand doesn't require any link back anywhere, but the output of each of the RSS items is placed raw on the HTML - therefore X number of links, where X equal the number of the RSS items (4 -5 in my case!). Or am I wrong - is it the same case for the RSS items generated by an online service like Rss to Javascript? Please correct me where appropriate. I am bit unclear as to what a spider follows/parses in such scenario.

I really like Magpie in almost every aspect, although the main reason I chose to implement it was the fact that I had to rely on the Rss to Javascript's server which doesn't seem to be the fastest around, but also on the server hosting the actual feed (also not the fastest). Magpie allowed me to use the cached version instead (no delays there), save bandwidth and also not having to worry what happens if the online converter or the feed server goes down.

Regards.

I just noticed that my title for this thread should read "PR Impact of *using* Magpie vs 'Online RSS to HTML converters'"