I feel that there needs to be a difference between proper and appropriate. I feel that proper tends to be a more general tone where as an appropriate tone would match your setting and audience.

Everyone needs their hook, right? But, I think this expression needs dynamic status as in the expression needs to match the audience to make sure it captures their attention

Kind of the basis of any religion...

Pretty basic concept. Saying words or related words tends to get the audience thing about your topic. But, that just might be brainwashing.

If we're talking about reasoning, it is very psychological. All of these different focuses are connected as we all know. But, something like reasoning connects to the psychology of your audience. I would not deliver the same reasons for an argument to our class as I would say a grade school class.

Kind of the point of this class

Technology has changed this drastically. With the growing popularity of videos, podcast, and even radio shows, an audience doesn't even have to be in a specific setting to hear a speaker. This update in speaking access has definitely bridged the gap between writing and speaking.

It may ignore rhetoric, but it does have its advantages. Factors like your audience, topic, or motive all play role in your usage of the strong or weak defense. And, we've all seen the weak defense beat the strong defense several times this past year.

It goes passed a digital gathering. People can "gather" in person or digitally for events. Some people will even login to see what the digital audience is saying even though they are physically at the event.

I have to disagree with this point that writing cannot be "natural." Yes, generally everyone learns how to speak, while some don't event learn how to write. But, the percent that do learn about writing can translate information more "naturally" because they can better explain their thoughts. If he the point is that talking is more a "natural" function, but it has to be learned just like writing. Just not as intense.

Interesting phrasing here. The way I'm reading this is that writing has turned into a luxury or something that others need to develop for us.

I hope everyone gets the reference.

Communication: the imparting or exchanging of information or news; means of connection between people or places, in particular. Interaction: reciprocal action or influence. At first glance, these words tend to have similar meanings or be sub categories of each other. I just found odd and interesting that Bay/Rickert chose both words rather than one or the other.

Makes me think of Dr. Rivers spiel about traffic lights. Green light obviously means go, but we always hesitate. Because some people think yellow means speed up. That was the gist of it right? @sophist_monster

Interesting choice here. Formulate makes me think back what Vatz said about create vs discover.

Depends which kind of rhetor you are. For this example, if you are say the government official that is involved in this situation, the case could be made that the situation was created. But, if you are a reporter or some media employee, chances are you "found" the situation and translated to the public. At the same time, that's also the literally sense of found, which most likely isn't the meaning here.

Interesting point. If I'm understanding this correctly, the translation is what makes the situation significant . But, shouldn't the situation already be significant? Wouldn't the the translation just be the form of delivery?

Definition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEjXjfxoNXM

Sounds like one big happy family

Are these rhetorical situations temporary instead?

Interesting that all of these speeches are after whatever situation. Reactive vs proactive

Definition

Note of the capital "N."

Okay, hate this generalization, probably fitting for the era. To some extent, some men still fall under this umbrella, but both men and women are experiencing independence from one another now. Also, I feel like women also expected a degree of flattery from men during this era in time.

Ahhhhh I love this gal! Essays are just information in one spot. Whatever, an essay is trying to be prove has already been proven.

I freaking love this sentence. Literally and figuratively, take the strength of your opponent and turn it into your own weapon.

Stronger or more obvious?

I'm confused on what record means in this context? Does mean its usually definition or some other obscure meaning? I cannot grasp the idea of rhetoric as a form of recording.

I love the change from rediscovered to reinvented. Using rediscovered gives that connotation that rhetoric just stopped, while reinvented implies improvement.

Reminds me of man's need to run the world

SO, a reader almost needs to be spoon fed the answers? I don't understand why a reader can't use mental energy. I've always understood the relationship between reader and writer to be a two way street. Yes, the writer needs to write clear and concisely, but the reader also needs to put in the energy to understand complex and simple ideas.

Shouldn't the answer be when humans began to write and speak? Or am I just a naive sophomore?

I understand what she is saying until, "That the finish was an extinguisher." I definitely agree with the first part of this claim. Just to compare it to politics or sports (@sophist_monster): The presidential campaign and college basketball come to mind. A large percent of the population wanted good ole Grandpa Bernie to win and at a few times I thought he was going to beat Hil Gal. For my sports people: most people and myself included thought Duke would dominate the NCAA right now (I still do)(Duke of the Ship). But, back to the point, people back in the 19th century and now still continue to finalize winners before the race really begins.

Sounds like blind faith to me.

Interesting that government was expected to have a religious aspect. Whereas, today people hate that politicians use God's time to justify their choices.

Tends to be a man's tone according to Douglas

I have never really understood poetry until my modern literature class this semester. But, this claim cannot be truer. Maybe not all poetry has a persuasive nature, but for the most part, poets tend to make points by making cunning connections to moments to history or another works. Just to tie it in to modern times, N.W.A back in their day would use moments in their lives for their raps to persuade not only the audience, but everyone.

Seems redundant. I would assume anyone reading this article would know that words are signs for the thing they represent.

Definition: a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa

Interesting move with the italics. Already a very heavy set of words

Even back in the day, media played a crucial role to rhetoric

Caulk

Does this mean that "prophecy" as a word was only used as comforter? Teaching tool? Pedagogy?

Frippery

So true. Our experience dictates what we see, do, and say. It's the same experience we all have with our classes. We need prerequisites in order to take certain classes. Why? So, we discover the "right" aspects of the class.

Blair-"Whenever a man speaks or writes, he is supposed, as a rational being, to have some end in view; either to inform, or to amuse, or to persuade, or, in some way or other,"

Blair-"True rhetoric and sound logic are very nearly allied."

Convincing arguments are based upon reasoning, of which, says Campbell, there are two kinds: scientific and moral.

I feel as if all gestures have ideas attached to them, intentional and accidental. Just think about when an awkward kid is giving a speech, he or she delivers different gestures that are not intentional like rubbing his or her leg or stuttering. These actions very much carry ideas such as being uncomfortable or unprepared.

Organic movements?

Is the connection here relating heroic to justice/fairness?

I'm not picking up the meaning of this sentence. Thinking back to my younger years and different child studies, I assumed children learned by seeing, not comparison. If they are comparing, what are they comparing?

Makes me think of the Jungle Book. One of our brilliant teacher's rants: How the hell does Mowgli know/understand the concept of language?

More of a history question. But would these caves/isolation chambers be used for this very reason of creating hallucinations? Would these images just be mere illusions?

DNA

Might be the asshole in me talking, but this sounds like a high school teacher talking. Either way, even though it's cliché, I appreciate this claim. Essentially, saying that we all take in information differently because we are all different. Just like how we digest food differently.

"Putting lipstick on a pig."

Did these become the same thing?

I see mix and purify serving the same purpose here. I'm thinking that Apple could be creating pure motives by mixing so many motives together. Oddly enough, I think its kind of like cooking. Essentially, the ingredients used in cooking may be pure or not so much. But, by mixing them the impurities are removed. Might have missed the mark...

I'm confused as to why this is pure

Is this in reference to a religious belief?

Definition

Just a side spiel: In terms of an interviewee and data, everything really is data. I'll be interviewing freshmen next semester with other SLU students and some things I have already told the group to take note of in notebooks (ha ha) are the different responses the interviewee gives. In a way, the sad little freshmen turn into our experiment. Everyone in the group records a different response. These responses include the obvious oral responses, body language, and tone of voice.