Dean Wilbur Rhetoric Hubbard dianetics sicientology

[degraded being]

yah, that's what I realized as well and as Face has so astutely communicated several posts up:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...sicientology&p=1007560&viewfull=1#post1007560



Rhetoric has basic truths, and Aristotle observes this and forms a organized body of knowledge called Rhetoric = logos, pathos & ethos + 5 canons + logical fallacies. Isn't it nice we have a means to organize our thoughts.

Classical Rhetoric 101 Series
An Introduction
A Brief History
The Three Means of Persuasion
The Five Canons of Rhetoric – Invention
The Five Canons of Rhetoric – Arrangement
The Five Canons of Rhetoric – Style
The Five Canons of Rhetoric – Memory
The Five Canons of Rhetoric – Delivery
Logical Fallacies

Hubbard says to Dean Wilbur in 1936, 5 years after he left GWU:



so hubbard remembers this and it sticks in his head. The world is Rhetoric & Culture.

Rhetoric = the art of persuasion = appeals to Ethos (credibility), Pathos (emotions) & Logos (logic)
Culture = "Culture (/ˈkʌltʃər/, from Latin: cultura, lit. "cultivation"[SUP][1][/SUP]) is a concept based on a term first used inclassical antiquity by the Roman orator Cicero: "cultura animi" (cultivation of the soul)"

Hubbard then creates his own body of knowledge & culture. Calls it scientology but it's actually hubbardology. Uses Ethos, pathos & logos all over the place in his writings to persuade & influence.


As Mockingbird pointed out, one justs needs a superficial understanding. And that's all I have, I am no expert at Rhetoric, just learning as well.

Just a little bug I have about it.

Framing all of the analysis as "Rhetoric" seems weird to me. Rhetoric as a classical subject, using terms such as 'logos' and 'pathos' suggests that the study of all of the intricacies of persuasive language stopped a century or more ago. It seems that rhetoric suggests more formal writing such as speech writing, official writing etc. I know Hubbard used a lofty style at times when he puts himself "up there" as the saviour and inspiration for mankind. However, his policies, advices, all sorts of attempted persuasion to all sorts of people, seem to me to be not rhetoric, in the sense of the classical understanding of what rhetoric is, but just language used in Hubbards contexts, which include of course, persuasive language, authoratative language, a lot of plain bullshit, narrative style sometimes (in drugged or alcohol affected style) and other things. Whatever classical rhetoric hubbard did use, he was using other conning language a lot more. Language that would be best referred to with more modern terms IMO.


To confuse the matter, the word 'rhetoric' is not misused when certain ways of using language are referred to as 'rhetoric'. The word itself is still used and is not outdated.
However, when rhetoric as a subject, and not just a word is used in these ESMB dissertations and break downs of Hubbard's methods, I often get a feeling like when you go to a school and find yourself in the wrong classroom. Everything is mostly ok, but something is just a little amiss. Rhetoric is still studied, but people can do an entire degree and perhaps a postgraduate degree, and study all sorts of things about language use and manipulaton without using the terms used in classical rhetoric.

 

[Gib]

Just a little bug I have about it.

Framing all of the analysis as "Rhetoric" seems weird to me. Rhetoric as a classical subject, using terms such as 'logos' and 'pathos' suggests that the study of all of the intricacies of persuasive language stopped a century or more ago. It seems that rhetoric suggests more formal writing such as speech writing, official writing etc. I know Hubbard used a lofty style at times when he puts himself "up there" as the saviour and inspiration for mankind. However, his policies, advices, all sorts of attempted persuasion to all sorts of people, seem to me to be not rhetoric, in the sense of the classical understanding of what rhetoric is, but just language used in Hubbards contexts, which include of course, persuasive language, authoratative language, a lot of plain bullshit, narrative style sometimes (in drugged or alcohol affected style) and other things.

Whatever classical rhetoric hubbard did use, he was using other conning language a lot more. Language that would be best referred to with more modern terms IMO.

To confuse the matter, the word 'rhetoric' is not misused when certain ways of using language are referred to as 'rhetoric'. The word itself is still used and is not outdated.
However, when rhetoric as a subject, and not just a word is used in these ESMB dissertations and break downs of Hubbard's methods, I often get a feeling like when you go to a school and find yourself in the wrong classroom. Everything is mostly ok, but something is just a little amiss. Rhetoric is still studied, but people can do an entire degree and perhaps a postgraduate degree, and study all sorts of things about language use and manipulaton without using the terms used in classical rhetoric.

screw modern times, I'm looking at what Hubbard learned, thru his Dean Wilbur, at the time, in 1930. That's the blueprint, not modern times.

Of course he improvised, for he introduced Hard Sell, and Positioning, which are but refined forms of Rhetoric.

Cross posted from another tread:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...Hubbard-ever-told/page9&p=1008545#post1008545

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

screw modern times, I'm looking at what Hubbard learned, thru his Dean Wilbur, at the time, in 1930. That's the blueprint, not modern times.

Of course he improvised, for he introduced Hard Sell, and Positioning, which are but refined forms of Rhetoric.

Cross posted from another tread:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...Hubbard-ever-told/page9&p=1008545#post1008545

I think he didn't get anything from Dean Wilbur and I doubt the book was a blueprint for anything Hubbard said or wrote.

There may have been some things there that struck Hubbard's fancy.

But I suspect that what Hubbard extracted and used was what Hubbard interpreted from his own eyes.

I doubt anyone of us would see the same thing from the same words.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Yeah, some people have an amazing level of entitlement about how their words and ideas should be accepted and responded to. The way it is expressed can be very subtle.

Very true and in hubbards case he was often in selling mode and used rhetoric as one tool to convince people to buy his product, I expect it came naturally ... then after a while his followers took over and sold it for him using the same sales "skills" (which included rhetoric) just as almost every person alive who sells for a living does or who wants agreement or something done his or her way.

When others started doing the selling for him hubbard could concentrate on being the messiah and not bother himself with flogging product, his use of rhetoric at that point was just to re-enforce what we had already bought.

I can't honestly understand all this fuss about the use of rhetoric ... it's as if some people are trying to complicate the whole thing ... perhaps to make themselves feel less stupid for falling for it in the first place?

We were all sold a crock by a salesman or saleswoman and they (like hubbard) used whatever they could to suck us in ... yippee doo, it happens every day, it makes the world go round.

We live in a global marketplace.

Am I missing something?

 

[Gib]

I think he didn't get anything from Dean Wilbur and I doubt the book was a blueprint for anything Hubbard said or wrote.

There may have been some things there that struck Hubbard's fancy.

But I suspect that what Hubbard extracted and used was what Hubbard interpreted from his own eyes.

I doubt anyone of us would see the same thing from the same words.

The Anabaptist Jacques

so why did he write Dean Wilbur 5 years after he left GWU to tell Dean Wilbur he would you his book to write a book in the future?

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

so why did he write Dean Wilbur 5 years after he left GWU to tell Dean Wilbur he would you his book to write a book in the future?

Who knows and who cares.

I don't doubt that Hubbard sincerely believed he learned something of value from Dean Wilbur.

But I suspect that was part of Hubbard's own delusions of knowing more than others.

It was probably just a good book on standard rhetoric and not a book with some special secret that Hubbard used to conquer us all.

Just get the book and see for yourself.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[mockingbird]

Okay Gib , I think it is fair to zero in on specific uses of rhetoric as ethos , logos and pathos to examine . For many it can help and it certainly is very unlikely to hurt any , so that is a great risk reward ratio.

I can think of some surely - for ethos ( authority) Hubbard's many fake credentials and accomplishments like his degrees and trumped up war record and his claim of healing himself from being crippled and blind . They make him an instant expert - if believed . His stating that Scientology works every time if exactly applied is given with such confidence and unwavering certainty it implies thorough study to logically arrive at such a conclusion . His claims of having traveled far and seen all kinds of men in all kinds of situations and having studied nineteen primitive races seems to be something that would impart extraordinary wisdom to the few who pursue such efforts . His claims of doing all that research into the whole track weave a fantastical image of distant stars and wondrous worlds , of amazing adventures but most of all that he found and overcame the mechanisms that he said made remembering those things disabled in others . All the space opera was a big claim to ethos - as proof of his technology's workability and therefor his expertise . And the only way to test or verify it we believed ( incorrectly) was to go as far up the bridge as Hubbard but he could always claim he went further and further so no proof has to ever come .

For pathos ( emotions ) all the claims of proving men are good appeals to our desire to be good , his claims that Scientologists are smart and trying where "wogs" are not makes us feel like we are better than others , that is an appeal to vanity or pride or arrogance , he carries this further as he highly compliments staff saying they have a sacred trust and crusade . He goes on with Sups and this becomes far , far more in the Sea Org . They truly are painted as the elite of Earth far , far better than all others beyond any doubt . That is a powerful emotional boost and validation against any outside ideas - as they are the ideas of lesser beings .

Magneto , Lex Luthor , Doctor Doom and Galactus can take lessons in arrogance from many Sea Org members . Hubbard concentrates much of his efforts into using fear of damnation to appeal to people to comply . Fear is a primary motivation of almost all Scientologists , fear of letting down others . Hubbard uses claims of an utterly hopeless slide into blindness , amnesia and constant pain as an immortal eternal spirit for any who do not completely devote their lives to him and sacrifice any other goals to serve his .
he talks of endless trillions of years in agony and the extinction of the human race on earth to dig deep into fear . He also uses blind irrational hate ( rightly called disgust by Jon Atack ) to motivate disregarding all criticisms out of hand and always attacking the attacker.


For logos ( logic or logical sounding statements ) he used the tone scale and lots of scientific seeming claims around it to pretend research and scientific methodology went into it . With big charts and columns it looks like a real organized body of info and the length and many complex and technical words serve to reinforce the lie . And his claimed "discoveries" by name sound scientific . The term technology itself is a claim to a logical method and verification . In KSW he claims uniform workability which means this is a bona fide science that has been validated and its time has come . When he claims to remember admin materials from the whole track it makes a claim they are valid from past civilizations . The tape Org Board and Livingness was the reference that pushed me over the line as focusing intently on it and the awareness characteristics for each division and department with the combination of scientific sounding names and descriptions made me think this was the real deal . His frequent borrowing of terms from engineering makes his ideas sound scientific and as valid as material sciences which get tested very thoroughly . His use of a meter made it seem to involve science in measuring and studying something . It seems like a scientific instrument after all and he claimed it required expert handling so it must do something .

Really I could go on for hours . I see nothing but persuasion and fraud and stolen ideas that never made miracles in all of Dianetics and Scientology . I have been doing this so much and so long and from so many angles I see fallacies and they relate to rhetoric and sublime writing and misdirection and stolen doctrine from others to control thought , emotion and behavior in all his works . It is all I see in them now . EVER . I just am directed by someone or a post to a Hubbard reference or idea and instantly see elements of the con in multiple terms from multiple subjects ( including critical thinking , hypnosis and NLP and psychology , other cult language and my own impressions on how cons are made and cults and abusive relational dynamics )

I am at a very different place than most will probably ever be - or need to be on this . Hubbard always sought to persuade by rhetoric and always lied to my mind . I am truly sorry for any still clinging to any hope it is at all otherwise . All his tricks boil down to creating confusion , pretending to solve it and then making more confusion and getting compliance with his methods to bring on more compliance and confusion in a never ending road to total slavery. Confusion and misdirection off it that seems to cure it - even temporarily , then it returns and demands more direction from Hubbard to relieve it . And this is always done with lies . ALWAYS .

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Okay Gib , I think it is fair to zero in on specific uses of rhetoric as ethos , logos and pathos to examine . For many it can help and it certainly is very unlikely to hurt any , so that is a great risk reward ratio.

I can think of some surely - for ethos ( authority) Hubbard's many fake credentials and accomplishments like his degrees and trumped up war record and his claim of healing himself from being crippled and blind . They make him an instant expert - if believed . His stating that Scientology works every time if exactly applied is given with such confidence and unwavering certainty it implies thorough study to logically arrive at such a conclusion . His claims of having traveled far and seen all kinds of men in all kinds of situations and having studied nineteen primitive races seems to be something that would impart extraordinary wisdom to the few who pursue such efforts . His claims of doing all that research into the whole track weave a fantastical image of distant stars and wondrous worlds , of amazing adventures but most of all that he found and overcame the mechanisms that he said made remembering those things disabled in others . All the space opera was a big claim to ethos - as proof of his technology's workability and therefor his expertise . And the only way to test or verify it we believed ( incorrectly) was to go as far up the bridge as Hubbard but he could always claim he went further and further so no proof has to ever come .

For pathos ( emotions ) all the claims of proving men are good appeals to our desire to be good , his claims that Scientologists are smart and trying where "wogs" are not makes us feel like we are better than others , that is an appeal to vanity or pride or arrogance , he carries this further as he highly compliments staff saying they have a sacred trust and crusade . He goes on with Sups and this becomes far , far more in the Sea Org . They truly are painted as the elite of Earth far , far better than all others beyond any doubt . That is a powerful emotional boost and validation against any outside ideas - as they are the ideas of lesser beings .

Magneto and Galactus can take lessons in arrogance from many Sea Org members . Hubbard concentrates much of his efforts into using fear of damnation to appeal to people to comply . Fear is a primary motivation of almost all Scientologists , fear of letting down others . Hubbard uses claims of an utterly hopeless slide into blindness , amnesia and constant pain as an immortal eternal spirit for any who do not completely devote their lives to him and sacrifice any other goals to serve his .
he talks of endless trillions of years in agony and the extinction of the human race on earth to dig deep into fear . He also uses blind irrational hate ( rightly called disgust by Jon Atack ) to motivate disregarding all criticisms out of hand and always attacking the attacker.


For logos ( logic or logical sounding statements ) he used the tone scale and lots of scientific seeming claims around it to pretend research and scientific methodology went into it . With big charts and columns it looks like a real organized body of info and the length and many complex and technical words serve to reinforce the lie . And his claimed "discoveries" by name sound scientific . The term technology itself is a claim to a logical method and verification . In KSW he claims uniform workability which means this is a bona fide science that has been validated and its time has come . When he claims to remember admin materials from the whole track it makes a claim they are valid from past civilizations . The tape Org Board and Livingness was the reference that pushed me over the line as focusing intently on it and the awareness characteristics for each division and department with the combination of scientific sounding names and descriptions made me think this was the real deal . His frequent borrowing of terms from engineering makes his ideas sound scientific and as valid as material sciences which get tested very thoroughly . His use of a meter made it seem to involve science in measuring and studying something . It seems like a scientific instrument after all and he claimed it required expert handling so it must do something .

Really I could go on for hours . I see nothing but persuasion and fraud and stolen ideas that never made miracles in all of Dianetics and Scientology . I have been doing this so much and so long and from so many angles I see fallacies and they relate to rhetoric and sublime writing and misdirection and stolen doctrine from others to control thought , emotion and behavior in all his works . It is all I see in them now . EVER . I just am directed by someone or a post to a Hubbard reference or idea and instantly see elements of the con in multiple terms from multiple subjects ( including critical thinking , hypnosis and NLP and psychology , other cult language and my own impressions on how cons are made and cults and abusive relational dynamics )

I am at a very different place than most will probably ever be - or need to be on this . Hubbard always sought to persuade by rhetoric and always lied to my mind . I am truly sorry for any still clinging to any hope it is at all otherwise . All his tricks boil down to creating confusion , pretending to solve it and then making more confusion and getting compliance with his methods to bring on more compliance and confusion in a never ending road to total slavery. Confusion and misdirection off it that seems to cure it - even temporarily , then it returns and demands more direction from Hubbard to relieve it . And this is always done with lies . ALWAYS .

What is interesting about this is that most of us became exes when the point we clung to became untenable to us.

I left when I learned philosophy and so the logos went out for me.

For some others it is when they find out his credentials are false.

And for others when they saw are the bizarre emotions that permeates Scientology organizations.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[I told you I was trouble]

What is interesting about this is that most of us became exes when the point we clung to became untenable to us.

I left when I learned philosophy and so the logos went out for me.

For some others it is when they find out his credentials are false.

And for others when they saw are the bizarre emotions that permeates Scientology organizations.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Yes, true enough and for others (myself included) it was simply a case of getting out when it was finally "safe" to do so ... when nothing anyone could do to me any longer mattered (ie OSA or another scientologist).



I was originally trapped as a 17 year old by sales techniques (which automatically includes some rhetoric) ... but I remained trapped by the glue that formed as a result and I knew it even as it was happening and could do nothing about it if I wanted to remain in touch with my children.

I believe many people remain in the cult due to what is effectively entrapment often enforced by other scientologists for personal gratuitous enjoyment.

The real trick was to work out what was going on at the time I willingly allowed myself to be dragged in ... sadly, it wasn't a difficult question for me to answer but it blew the whole thing wide open for me and I made peace with myself as a result.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Hubbard may have learned rhetoric from Dean Wilbur.

But he learned the Tone Scale from Dean Wormer:

http://youtu.be/2V3CfD8TPac

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Gib]

Okay Gib , I think it is fair to zero in on specific uses of rhetoric as ethos , logos and pathos to examine . For many it can help and it certainly is very unlikely to hurt any , so that is a great risk reward ratio.

I can think of some surely - for ethos ( authority) Hubbard's many fake credentials and accomplishments like his degrees and trumped up war record and his claim of healing himself from being crippled and blind . They make him an instant expert - if believed . His stating that Scientology works every time if exactly applied is given with such confidence and unwavering certainty it implies thorough study to logically arrive at such a conclusion . His claims of having traveled far and seen all kinds of men in all kinds of situations and having studied nineteen primitive races seems to be something that would impart extraordinary wisdom to the few who pursue such efforts . His claims of doing all that research into the whole track weave a fantastical image of distant stars and wondrous worlds , of amazing adventures but most of all that he found and overcame the mechanisms that he said made remembering those things disabled in others . All the space opera was a big claim to ethos - as proof of his technology's workability and therefor his expertise . And the only way to test or verify it we believed ( incorrectly) was to go as far up the bridge as Hubbard but he could always claim he went further and further so no proof has to ever come .

For pathos ( emotions ) all the claims of proving men are good appeals to our desire to be good , his claims that Scientologists are smart and trying where "wogs" are not makes us feel like we are better than others , that is an appeal to vanity or pride or arrogance , he carries this further as he highly compliments staff saying they have a sacred trust and crusade . He goes on with Sups and this becomes far , far more in the Sea Org . They truly are painted as the elite of Earth far , far better than all others beyond any doubt . That is a powerful emotional boost and validation against any outside ideas - as they are the ideas of lesser beings .

Magneto , Lex Luthor , Doctor Doom and Galactus can take lessons in arrogance from many Sea Org members . Hubbard concentrates much of his efforts into using fear of damnation to appeal to people to comply . Fear is a primary motivation of almost all Scientologists , fear of letting down others . Hubbard uses claims of an utterly hopeless slide into blindness , amnesia and constant pain as an immortal eternal spirit for any who do not completely devote their lives to him and sacrifice any other goals to serve his .
he talks of endless trillions of years in agony and the extinction of the human race on earth to dig deep into fear . He also uses blind irrational hate ( rightly called disgust by Jon Atack ) to motivate disregarding all criticisms out of hand and always attacking the attacker.


For logos ( logic or logical sounding statements ) he used the tone scale and lots of scientific seeming claims around it to pretend research and scientific methodology went into it . With big charts and columns it looks like a real organized body of info and the length and many complex and technical words serve to reinforce the lie . And his claimed "discoveries" by name sound scientific . The term technology itself is a claim to a logical method and verification . In KSW he claims uniform workability which means this is a bona fide science that has been validated and its time has come . When he claims to remember admin materials from the whole track it makes a claim they are valid from past civilizations . The tape Org Board and Livingness was the reference that pushed me over the line as focusing intently on it and the awareness characteristics for each division and department with the combination of scientific sounding names and descriptions made me think this was the real deal . His frequent borrowing of terms from engineering makes his ideas sound scientific and as valid as material sciences which get tested very thoroughly . His use of a meter made it seem to involve science in measuring and studying something . It seems like a scientific instrument after all and he claimed it required expert handling so it must do something .

Really I could go on for hours . I see nothing but persuasion and fraud and stolen ideas that never made miracles in all of Dianetics and Scientology . I have been doing this so much and so long and from so many angles I see fallacies and they relate to rhetoric and sublime writing and misdirection and stolen doctrine from others to control thought , emotion and behavior in all his works . It is all I see in them now . EVER . I just am directed by someone or a post to a Hubbard reference or idea and instantly see elements of the con in multiple terms from multiple subjects ( including critical thinking , hypnosis and NLP and psychology , other cult language and my own impressions on how cons are made and cults and abusive relational dynamics )

I am at a very different place than most will probably ever be - or need to be on this . Hubbard always sought to persuade by rhetoric and always lied to my mind . I am truly sorry for any still clinging to any hope it is at all otherwise . All his tricks boil down to creating confusion , pretending to solve it and then making more confusion and getting compliance with his methods to bring on more compliance and confusion in a never ending road to total slavery. Confusion and misdirection off it that seems to cure it - even temporarily , then it returns and demands more direction from Hubbard to relieve it . And this is always done with lies . ALWAYS .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI8AMRbqY6w#t=38

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69F7GhASOdM

 

[Moderator 3]

After ESMBers have successfully completed their assignment regarding "Hubbard's use of Rhetoric in order to convince us of certain things", perhaps they'll consider an assignment on "ESMB Poster's use of Rhetoric in order to convince us of certain things".

 

[Gib]

After ESMBers have successfully completed their assignment regarding "Hubbard's use of Rhetoric in order to convince us of certain things", perhaps they'll consider an assignment on "ESMB Poster's use of Rhetoric in order to convince us of certain things".

"What Is Rhetoric?

Rhetoric is simply the art of persuasion through effective speaking and writing.

For many in our modern world, the word “rhetoric” has a pejorative meaning. They see rhetoric as the manipulation of truth or associate it with an overly fastidious concern with how things are said over what is said. But from ancient times up through the early 20th century, men believed learning the art of rhetoric was a noble pursuit and considered it an essential element of a well-rounded education. They saw rhetoric as a vital tool to teach truth more effectively and as a weapon to protect themselves from those who argued unfairly and for nefarious purposes."

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/11/14/classical-rhetoric-101-an-introduction/

Mod 3, type into Google (Use the Google)

Rhetoric and law. or any such variation

Rhetoric is scientology is why it gets away with religious cloaking thru scientology hired lawyers.

This man tried to help people caught up in the nefarious use of Rhetoric unbeknown to people, and he used Logos, which Aristotle favored:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/

Using Ethos, one should consider David Mayo's tag line when he posted here.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

After ESMBers have successfully completed their assignment regarding "Hubbard's use of Rhetoric in order to convince us of certain things", perhaps they'll consider an assignment on "ESMB Poster's use of Rhetoric in order to convince us of certain things".

I can do this.

Here is an ESMB training video made with our popular posters:

http://youtu.be/HJ3mySvxQQc

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Moderator 3]

"What Is Rhetoric?

Rhetoric is simply the art of persuasion through effective speaking and writing.
...

My point EXACTLY!

 

[I told you I was trouble]

I've finally lost the will to live.

Thanks Gibby.


​

 

[Mystic]

Shhhh...don't tell anyone until they are ready: "Rhetoric" is nothing more than a failed art of BULLSHIT in words. A human person does not have to be influenced by: argument, rhetoric, logic, words in general or specific, books, minds or bullshit.

 

[JustSheila]

So when my parrot, Wendy, didn't want to come out of the aviary today because she'd been in all week and I had to convince her and said, "Do you want to climb down on your own or would you rather get on my shoulder?" and she climbed down and left the aviary on her own, was that rhetoric?

Does it work on all animals, then, too?

How about plants?

 

[Mystic]

So when my parrot, Wendy, didn't want to come out of the aviary today because she'd been in all week and I had to convince her and said, "Do you want to climb down on your own or would you rather get on my shoulder?" and she climbed down and left the aviary on her own, was that rhetoric?

Does it work on all animals, then, too?

How about plants?

Kisses to Wendy.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

"What Is Rhetoric?

Rhetoric is simply the art of persuasion through effective speaking and writing.

For many in our modern world, the word “rhetoric” has a pejorative meaning. They see rhetoric as the manipulation of truth or associate it with an overly fastidious concern with how things are said over what is said. But from ancient times up through the early 20th century, men believed learning the art of rhetoric was a noble pursuit and considered it an essential element of a well-rounded education. They saw rhetoric as a vital tool to teach truth more effectively and as a weapon to protect themselves from those who argued unfairly and for nefarious purposes."

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/11/14/classical-rhetoric-101-an-introduction/

Mod 3, type into Google (Use the Google)

Rhetoric and law. or any such variation

Rhetoric is scientology is why it gets away with religious cloaking thru scientology hired lawyers.

This man tried to help people caught up in the nefarious use of Rhetoric unbeknown to people, and he used Logos, which Aristotle favored:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/

Using Ethos, one should consider David Mayo's tag line when he posted here.

And he wore ascots---don't forget ascots.

Hubbard did not use formal rhetoric.

He was a Gorgias, not a Cicero.

Rhetoric was not a secret tool he used to put one over on us.

We were fools.

It's that simple.

The Anabaptist Jacques