<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.5" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Here&#8217;s the Paper on Linguistic Action Theory</title>
	<link>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2003/07/07/214/</link>
	<description>The magazine for the project age</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 20:16:53 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Hal
        </title>
		<link>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2003/07/07/214/#comment-14</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2003/07/07/214/#comment-14</guid>
					<description>
        I think you make a great point.  A number of people have suggested my offering a linguistic action perspective is done with the intent of being that new theory.  That couldn't be further from the truth for me.  I see our proposal as augmenting the current commonsense about projects by adding a particular orientation to human-ness to the engineering process.  Those studying the same references we used have made favorable remarks.
      </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you make a great point.  A number of people have suggested my offering a linguistic action perspective is done with the intent of being that new theory.  That couldn&#8217;t be further from the truth for me.  I see our proposal as augmenting the current commonsense about projects by adding a particular orientation to human-ness to the engineering process.  Those studying the same references we used have made favorable remarks.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
