<?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 for Meetings Along the Edge</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.meetingsalongtheedge.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.meetingsalongtheedge.com</link>
	<description>Design Anthropology &#038; Experience Design</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 07:00:04 +0200</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Shift happens by Il cambiamento avviene &#124; Luca Mascaro dot info</title>
		<link>http://www.meetingsalongtheedge.com/2009/03/15/shift-happens/comment-page-1/#comment-1067</link>
		<dc:creator>Il cambiamento avviene &#124; Luca Mascaro dot info</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 07:00:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.meetingsalongtheedge.com/?p=106#comment-1067</guid>
		<description>[...] meetingsalongtheedge   Condividi [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] meetingsalongtheedge   Condividi [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Watzlawick&#8217;s 5 axioms by admin</title>
		<link>http://www.meetingsalongtheedge.com/2008/06/08/watzlawicks-5-axioms/comment-page-1/#comment-932</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 07:10:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.meetingsalongtheedge.com/?p=72#comment-932</guid>
		<description>I see your point. Our different opinions derive from a different concept of &#039;communication&#039;. In my idea, Watzlawick&#039;s axiom points out that everything can be intepreted as communication, because the receiver is the final judge of what is and what is not communication for him/herself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see your point. Our different opinions derive from a different concept of &#8216;communication&#8217;. In my idea, Watzlawick&#8217;s axiom points out that everything can be intepreted as communication, because the receiver is the final judge of what is and what is not communication for him/herself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Watzlawick&#8217;s 5 axioms by Toto</title>
		<link>http://www.meetingsalongtheedge.com/2008/06/08/watzlawicks-5-axioms/comment-page-1/#comment-931</link>
		<dc:creator>Toto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:14:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.meetingsalongtheedge.com/?p=72#comment-931</guid>
		<description>I think Watzlawick&#039;s first axiom is incorrect. First of all if one tries to communicate it is only communication if the receiver responds to it. If the receiver is not able to interpret the sensed phenomena there is no communication. If there is something like communication the inversion is not &quot;One cannot not communicate&quot;, but &quot;One can anti communicate&quot;. Hence, no communication sits between communication and anti communication.
Anti communication is the form of communication that annihilates communication, resulting in non communication.
An example of annihilating communication is for example professionally used by politicians. Repetitive alternating between communicating and anti communicating the net result is non communication. Useful for such communication is the use of Weasel Words.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Watzlawick&#8217;s first axiom is incorrect. First of all if one tries to communicate it is only communication if the receiver responds to it. If the receiver is not able to interpret the sensed phenomena there is no communication. If there is something like communication the inversion is not &#8220;One cannot not communicate&#8221;, but &#8220;One can anti communicate&#8221;. Hence, no communication sits between communication and anti communication.<br />
Anti communication is the form of communication that annihilates communication, resulting in non communication.<br />
An example of annihilating communication is for example professionally used by politicians. Repetitive alternating between communicating and anti communicating the net result is non communication. Useful for such communication is the use of Weasel Words.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Emotions as grammar and alphabet by cherie</title>
		<link>http://www.meetingsalongtheedge.com/2008/01/27/emotions-as-grammar-and-alphabet/comment-page-1/#comment-10</link>
		<dc:creator>cherie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:49:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.meetingsalongtheedge.com/?p=56#comment-10</guid>
		<description>if emotions help us prioritizing information, I guess i still have to learn to fill my shortlist.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>if emotions help us prioritizing information, I guess i still have to learn to fill my shortlist.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
