response to critical space

Jasmine's question 1 has to do with Verderber and the importance of relying on the art of persuasion as an important rhetorical tool. Verderber confounds me to the degree that he wants the audience to follow his rules of thumb. However, those rules are slightly ambiguous. It is only as if he is taking into consideration one side of the coin - or if he has bothered to look at both sides he sees the same thing - basically a double headed coin. I agree with Jasmine and her example of going to an economics speech and in one instance sharing the same views as the speaker and in another instance feeling as if she is being "gently" persuaded/pushed to change her views. I have had several issues with Verderber especially when it comes to his belief that the personality of a speaker makes them more compelling or allows the audience to see them as more knowledgeable than someone with a lackluster personality. I find this hard to believe because then you are discounting the true genius of people such as Steven Hawking - is he listened too, admired, followed, and published because he rolls around in a wheelchair and talks through a computer - or is he truly given credit for his incredible mind? If he walked like the rest of us and talked in a human "robotic" monotone would we still flock to hear his lectures? And what about Bill Gates? He's not much to look at and in any other profession he would definately be on the underdog/outcast side of the fence - but since he broke out with an incredible new-fangled computer software package before anyone else he is someone to be respected, looked up to, and sought out for advice. Dignataries from other countries even go to his house for dinner- how many of us in the personality overload department can make that claim? Is this just a fluke? So I believe everythig comes down to perception just as Jasmine is asserting and no matter how much we try to keep an open mind our perceptions still rule how we act and think.