<rdf:RDF
	xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>
<channel rdf:about="http://interconnected.org/home/mini/_8765">
	<title>Interconnected Mini Links</title>
	<link>http://interconnected.org/home/mini/_8765</link>
	<description>Links alongside interconnected.org (Single link 8765)</description>
	<dc:rights>Copyright Matt Webb</dc:rights>

<items><rdf:Seq>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://interconnected.org/home/mini/_8765" />
</rdf:Seq></items>
</channel>
<item rdf:about="http://interconnected.org/home/mini/_8765">
<title>Social rhetoric</title>
<link>http://interconnected.org/home/2002/11/19/the_idea_of_a_social</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>"Just as rhetoric presents a methodology for telic conversation (conversation abstracted to be directed), social rhetoric can present a methodology for telic community or teams (a group abstracted to be directed). Social rhetoric has the properties of being available for anyone to use; able to operate within a restricted environment; of being able to handle ambiguities, exceptions, and what happens when individuals operate in a way that isn't immediately handled by the rules (so instead of rules it's a network of incentive fields). Now deriving social rhetoric is the hard part. I have three suggestions."</p>]]></description>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>
