I too love Ruby and their blocks, but I do have to disagree with Rob's statement that C#'s "block" syntax is "obtuse." Certainly it was in the days of straight-up delegates, but the additions of Func<T>, Action, and anonymous methods have really cleaned that up and made it nice and easy to use. Also, I'm not entirely certain what Rob meant by calling LINQ a "Tinker-Toy syntax".

C# example of blocks (loosely based upon Rob's examples):

  //the action argument is the C# version of a block
  // - by specifying Action<Artist> I'm stating that the block
  // - will take 1 parameter, of type Artist
  public void ParseKey(XDocument doc,
                       string elName,
                       Action<Artist> block)
  {
    //using XLinq instead of Nokogiri... *jealous*
    foreach(var node in doc.Elements(elName))
    {
      var artist = new Artist{
        Name = node.Element("Name").Value,
        ArtistId = (int)node.Element("ArtistId").Value
      };
      block(artist);
    }
  }

  //called by:
  public void Main()
  {
    var doc = XDocument.Load("..\db\artists.xml");
    ParseKey(doc, "Artist", artist=>{
      //this is an anonymous method, the equiv
      // of a Ruby block. "artist=>" is the equiv
      // of |artist|
      Db.Save(artist);
      Console.WriteLine(artist.Name);
    });
  }

Certainly it is a bit cleaner in Ruby by way of:

1) Nokogiri is super awesome.

2) Ruby's dynamicness means we don't have to have type ceremony everywhere.

That said, they're pretty equivalent in terms of functionality and expressiveness to me.