it validates as valid XML on validator.w3. However, RSS feeds have an additional standard for which to comply with...
Hang on there - assuming he's using the W3C Feed Validator at:
http://validator.w3.org/feed/ - then he should be fine, as that validator check specifically for RSS and ATOM feeds, not just XML.
altom55: I won't worry about what FeedValidator.org says about your feeds "looking like webpages" - I checked both of your feeds and not only do they validate fine at the W3C's validator (as you say), but, much more importantly, they operate perfectly well as feeds (i.e. I was able to subscribe without any issues and they load up/look perfectly fine).
I checked your feeds out at FeedValidator.org myself to see why you're getting the "looks like a website" message, and noticed something you may have overlooked: for some reason, FeedValidator is NOT looking at your feed at all, but is loading a website and reading it instead (look at the "source" section on FeedValdator.org's results page for one of your feeds -
http://feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tablelampsforlivingroom.co%2Frss%2Fpod-table-lamps-guide.xml - it isn't showing the feed at all). So there isn't anything actually wrong with your feed, but rather something your with either a) FeedValidator.org or b) your server (serving FeedValidator the wrong page - I doubt this one because the W3C validator ran your feed just fine).
It is worth noting, also, that FeedValidator.org last updated in 2007, while W3C last updated their RSS/ATOM validator in 2010, so it's quite a bit more up-to-date and, as such, probably more reliable.
Sort version:
your feeds are fine, altom55 - nothing to worry about at all.
-Patrick J. B. Simmons | @hobbramble
"If I could give you one piece of advice to remember for the rest of your life, it would be this: when Patrick tells you to do something, do the opposite." - Nolan Ladewski