October 2020

Better Conversation

cfgrills

To truly listen to a person you must follow ten simple rules. First do not multitask  and give the conversation full attention. Don’t be half in the conversation, be completely focused on the conversation. If not just leave the conversation. Second don’t pontificate let there be a response to your statement. Assume you have something to learn when interesting the conversation. Third use open ended questions to receive a good response. Fourth go with the flow, don’t get bogged down with a question you came up earlier in the conversation. Five if you do not know then just admit that you do not know. Six don’t equate experiences there no the same it’s never the same. Seven try not to repeat yourself it’s condescending. Eight stay out of the weed people don’t care. They want to know about you. Nine the most important listen. Talking puts you in control, but listening will gain your knowledge. Ten and the final rule be brief. People live in a busy world. Keep your mind open and you will be amazed. 

\

The two points that would be most useful in my mind would be the third rule and the eight. I find myself not asking very good questions and receiving very short responses. Also rule eight I need to follow a lot more I find myself going into the woods past the weeds. I need to keep focused on the big picture and the main details.

Room for Debate

cfgrills

For the first paper I would give it a B plus. It was difficult to read in some areas. However he did accomplish his goal of telling the reader why activists are good’ and why we need them. He was able to convey his message to the reader and I was able to gain a point on activities from his reading. Overall I think it’s the better of the two. Also maybe some sources would help with paper.

 

The second paper I would give a B minus. It was also hard to read in some places; it bounced around in some places. However its point was made that we don’t need activists. It showed how much pain innocent people can go through. It also needs to show sources, but overall not a bad paper. The first paper I think was the better of the two.

Rhetorical Analysis

cfgrills

Cooper Grills

Mr.Gillespie 

Writing 101

October, 7, 2020

 

The creator of this post is Colion Noir. He is a gun activist who is fighting to keep the Second Amendment and stop gun bands. He is also a lawyer, as well as a host of a web series. He has over 121 million views on his Youtube channel. He has 1,470,000  subscribers on his Youtube channel, and 765 thousand followers on Instagram. He is from Houston Texas, where he attended The University of Houston along with attending Thurgood Marshall school of Law. He has one parent who immigrated to American, from Nigeria.He is also very pro Rebulican.

The author intended the audience to be gun owners. He creates many posts similar to this one warning of potential government infringement on the Second Amendment. He keeps up to date posts about government regulations and laws on firearms. He is very against disarming the police, as well as dis funding funding for the police. The author wants more anti gun people to see this, and change their mind. He also wants to keep irritating his point that gun laws are bad.

The thesis of this article is that democrats don’t have good gun controls laws. Also a ban on tear gas across the nation. The Portland police responded that if tear gas was not used more physical force would need to be used to control the crowd. The police respond to protesters throwing molotov cocktails at police and police stations. The use of tear gas was necessary for dispersing the crowd of angry protesters. Police also said protesters said they wanted to “kill or injure” police officers.

The author makes appeals through examples showing that tear gas and “weapons of war” are necessary tools to keep peace and order. The author used examples to disprove that it was a peaceful protest. He proved that Senator Ed Markery was not completely true about “weapons of war” and tear gas being used on innocent protesters. He proved that the use of tear gas was completely necessary to stop the angry crowd. The crowd was studded calmly by the tear gas.

The author does freanant posts like these to help prove his point. He avidace for every American to have a gun and to stop new gun laws. These posts keep proving his point over and over. Therefore the author is itterrate his point.  

 

Rhetorical Situations

cfgrills

 

 

Title of Article + Proper MLA Citation for Works Cited page Grant-Davis, Keith. “Rhetorical Situations and The Constituents.” Jstor.org , 1997, www.jstor.org/stable/465644 . 
Summarize the article — include your reaction, thoughts, anything to help you remember its claims. 100 to 150 words This article talks about Rhetorical situations and what defines a Rhetorical situation. As well as what parts make a Rhetorical situation : Exigence, Audience, and Constraints. This article also talks about how a Rhetorical situation may be the problem itself, not the actual event that is being asked about.The Rhetorical situation used in the article is one of the American civil war. It companies how soldiers take ground in battle we take ground on an issue. The author also talks about how some of us pick a point to argue yet we don’t even know or understand the point ourselves.
Define new terms and concepts by quoting or paraphrasing the original author.  Exigence – an urgent need or demand.

Audience – the assembled spectators or listeners at a public event, such as a play, movie, concert, or meeting.

Constraints – a limitation or restriction
How does this reading connect to other articles from class and/or your own research?

 

 I don’t think it really connects to anything we have read but perhaps it connects to  What The Eyes Don’t See.
Based on the reading, craft one question to act as a springboard for class discussion. What are some famous Rhetorical Situations that I may know?