Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/10/18

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Is digital photography necrophilia?
From: Mark Rabiner <>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 15:25:00 -0700
References: <004c01c395ab$41a75f20$0264a8c0@CCA4A5EF37E11E>

"B. D. Colen" wrote:
> In response to Dante's anti-digital diatribe -
> Sorry, Dante, but this is precisely what you've labled it - a rant, and
> like most rants it is far more a rhetorical exercise than a rational
> discussion of an important topic.

I had to look that up and found this:
USAGE NOTE: The word rhetoric was once primarily the name of an
important branch of philosophy and an art deserving of serious study. In
recent years the word has come to be used chiefly in a pejorative sense
to refer to inflated language and pomposity. Deprecation of the term may
result from a modern linguistic puritanism, which holds that language
used in legitimate persuasion should be plain and free of
artifice—itself a tendentious rhetorical doctrine, though not often
recognized as such. But many writers still prefer to bear in mind the
traditional meanings of the word. Thus, according to the newer use of
the term, the phrase empty rhetoric, as in The politicians talk about
solutions, but they usually offer only empty rhetoric, might be
construed as redundant. But in fact only 35 percent of the Usage Panel
judged this example to be redundant. Presumably, it can be maintained
that rhetoric can be other than empty.

Mark Rabiner

Portland, Oregon USA
- --
To unsubscribe, see

In reply to: Message from "B. D. Colen" <> (RE: [Leica] Is digital photography necrophilia?)