DOCUMENT RESUME ED 325 881 CS 507 322 AUTHOR
DOCUMENT RESUMEED 325 881AUTHORTITLEPUB DATENOTEPUB TYPEEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORSIDENTIFIERSCS 507 322Zeman, James V.A Farewell to Informative and Persuasive Speeches: ARationale and a Proposal.4 Nov 9025p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theSpeech Communication Association (76th, Chicago, IL,November 1-4, 1990).Speeches/Conference Papers (150) -- InformationAnalyses (070)MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.Critical Thinking; Discourse Modes; Higher Education;*Persuasive Discourse; Public Speaking; *RhetoricalInvention; Rhetorical Theory; Speech; *SpeechInstruction; Textbook ContentClassical Rhetoric; *Discourse Aims; RhetoricalStrategiesABSTRACTThe current use of "informative and persuasive"speeches as public address types cannot be justified on functionalgrounds. The types of speeches chosen through which to gain adherenceof minds are secondary to what it is that an individual wishes togain adherence to. Specifically, the chosen thesis will determine thetype of speeches to be employed in any given circamstance. Speechcourses, then, should deal foremost with propositional approaches,thereby eliminating some degree of artificiality from the speakingsituation and offering an inventional methodology that is morescientific. Using a problem solving approach, speakers can determineall the questions which they could ask in order to collect data toarrive at a thesis. From the data they may then, on a topics basis,Lence to gain furtherselect that which they must give to anadherence to a thes s. This "stases" approach of asking subquestionsin describing areas of potential issues is orderly, logical, andefficient. (Thirty-four references are attached.) (KEH)Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
Pm(00A FAREWELL TO INFORMATIVEAND PERSUASIVE SPEECHES:G9A RATIONALE AND A PROPOSALCeJr.74JAMES V. ZEMANNorthern State UniversityAberdeen, SD"PERMISSIONTO REPRODUCEMATERIAL hAS BEEN GRANTEDTHISBYU S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOlUce ot Educational Research and improvementEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTF.R (ERIC)O in* 00cument has been reproduced sereceived from the person Or organtrationoriginating it0 Minor changes have ben made to improvireproduction ournnyTO THE EDUCATIONALRESOURCESINFORMATIOUCENTER (ERIC)."Paper presented at theSCA ConventionChicago, IllinoisNovember 4, 1990Points of view or opinions statedin thisdocu.ment do nOt necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy
-The purpose of this paper will be to look at the use of"informative" and "persuasive" speeches as public addre ). types.I will look at the specific types of speeches and what thespeaker seems to be attempting with each.I will discuss areturn to what some might consider a more Aristotelian approachto the teaching of the kinds of speeches, giving contemporaryjustification for that approach.Finally, I will suggest theclassification system works well when combined with a "newstasis" approach to modern rhetorical practice.It seems that virtually every text on public speaking (andthus, one might reaAon, most courses) offer at least two "types"of speeches for the student in the basic course to present whenthe basic course includes some elements of public speaking or isentirely public speaking.the "persuasive speech."These are the "informative speech" andThis practice even extends tocategories that are utilized for the college and universitycontest formats.One recent study found this practice to beprevalent in nearly ninety percent of the current texts dealingwith public speaking (Zeman, 1987).This practice of using the informative-persuasive typespersists despite evidence to suggest that no real functionalreason exists for this practice.In fact, there is evidence tosuggest the dichotomy used for the informative-persuasive typingis largely an outcome of individual deflnition and cannot bejustified on functional grounds.Contemporary Typing and "Informative" - "Persuasive" Controversy
2Most contemporary text6 use the "informative" and"persuasive" categories to list types of speeches.Com12nts bysome authors include suggesting that these may indeed be separateand identifiable types."The informative speech createsunderstanding by clarifying, enlightening, correctingmisunderstandings, and demonstrating how something works.The persuasive speech tries to influence attitudes or behaviorsby strengthening or changing existing attitudes or by motivatingthe audience to do something" (DeVito, 1990, p. 23)."Theinformative speech is meant to increase knowledge whereas thepersuasive speech is meant to alter or change attitudes andbehavior"(Seiler, 1988, p. 244).Lucas (1989) suggests, "thediff4trence between informing and persuading is the differencebetween 'explaining' and 'exhorting" (p. 52).In fact, to achieve this definite typing, some authors havehad to suggest that the speech should be total source oriented,not receiver oriented, when writing, ". we accept anexclusively source-determined position on persuasion" (Burgoon &Miller, 1990, p. 234).If persuasion is, however, as Brembeck and Howell (1976)have suggested, "Communication intended to influence choice" (p.19), then there is reason to suggest that all communication maywell fit a much larger, all inclusive typology.Cronkhite (1969)points this out when he writes, "It is difficult to conceive of acommunication which would not change evaluative orapproach-avoidance behavior i . some way, and the point of viewthus far expressed has been that symbol manipulation which causes4
--,7---------,3behavior change constitutes pexsuasion.Examples ofcommunications which are purely informative, in this sense arehard to come by" (p. 13).This is conceded by some authors, even though they may stillcontinue to offer the "informative" and "persuasive" type ofspeeches in their texts.Berko, Wolvin, and Wolvin (1989)acknowledge the nature of the controversy when stating,"Traditionally, informative speaking has been defined as thattype of discourse that imparts new information, securesunderstanding, or reinforces accumulated information.Atpresent, however, controversies persist among communicationtheorists in regard to this definition.One question involved irthe debate is whether all speaking is persuasive in nature; thatis, whether the distinction between what has traditionally beendefined as persuasive speaking is simply a matter of theoreticaldegree" (p. 442).As Osborn and Osborn state, "We refer.to the informative speech' as though it were a distinct andseparate category of speaking, but human speechmaking rarelybreaks down into such neat subdivisions" (p. 293).It is not unusual for experimenters using "informative"speeches to find the speeches result in attitude changes on thepart of the receivers of the speeches.Tompkins and Samovar(1964), using an "informative" message, found significant changesin attitudes.Though the speech being typed as "informative" wasnot unanimously typed by panels typing the speeches (in fact,eighty-four percent of the faculty panel and seventy-seven of thestudent panel found the speech to be "informative").0Irwin and
4Brockhaus (1963) found similar results of the effects of"informative" speeches in a study they conducted.Given the evidence of functional unsoundness, it is not onlyreasonable, but imperative taat another approach to speech typingbe examined.A more functional approach is one that types alongan older approach of naming speech types--the propositionalapproach.But one should not utilize a propositional approachjust because it is not an informative-persuasive labelling, butbecause there is a sound rationale for its utilization.A Classical Basis for Types of SpeechesBaldwin (1959) points out that Aristotle claimed there werethree types of oratory--the deliberative, the forensic, and theepideictic.Each of these may be individually described.Of the deliberative, Aristotle claimed the speeches wereAristotle felt that"speeches of counsel or advice" (p. I, 3).the deliberative speeches were those of the future, as expressedby their nature--exhortation and dissuasion.These were thespeeches in which we attempted to get people to act.Thisclassification corresponds roughly to the modern view of a speechto actuate or persuade.Gronheck, Ehninger, Monroe, and German(1988) state, "the (speaker) is never happy until the audienceinternalizes (adopts as its own credo) or acts on the speech.The demand is personal change" (p. 239).Others, such as Wilson,Arnold, and Wertheimer (1978), view this as a form of persuasivespeech.
5Aristotle 2elt the forensic dealt with "justice andinjustice," (p. I, 3) and was, therefore, a speech which dealtwith the past.According to Aristotle, the forensic was theMarsh (1967) added that the modernspeech suited to the courts.concept also deals with ".a completed act" (p. 12).Othermodern writers have tended to call these speeches convincing,thougvs those authors make the speech to convince more inclusivethar just dealing with justice and injustice of acts committed.Epideictic speech, says Aristotle, is for "praise and blame"(p. I, 3).present.The time to which these speeches belong is theThe modern view of epideictic seems somewhat contused.Some writers place this as a special class for the specialoccasions, such as the Fourth of July.Others seem to place itunder persuasive speeches, aimed at getting belief or perhaps thereenforcement of some previously held attitudes.Glancing through the contemporary texts, we may find thetypes of speeches described by various terms other than toactuate, to convince, and to persuade.We fihd such terms as toinform, to entertain, to stimulate, to induce inquiry, toreenforce beliefs and feelings, to inspire, etc.A few of thespeeches seem to lie outside some convenient classificationsystem and are simply relegated to special occasion speeches,ranging from valedictory addresses down to acceptance speeches.Contemporary Speech PurposeAt this point one is prompted to ask, "For what, in general,do we use the types of speeches?"7In answering this question, I
6would contend discourse aims at gaining the adherence of minds.Pis Erickson (1969) states:The purpose of the speaker's discourse would be tomove the membes of his audience toward acceptance oft,his thesis, i.e.;to move them on this continuum someappreciible distance from where they were towardsagreement with the speaker's point of view.Any thesis, proposition, or central idea that onewishes to present for audience acceptance, would bethought of as moving that audience some appreciabledistance on this continuum.The point being made hereis that acceptance or rejection of a speaker's thesisis not an either-or matter of acceptance or rejection.The recipient of the discourse, if he accepts orrejects one's thesis, does so as a matter of degree.Therefore, as far as purpose of discourse is concerned,the speaker or writer finds himself hopefullyattempting to influence others to some degree towardsacceptanceof his position (p. 14).-Propdsitions-of Fact, Definition, Value, and PolicyIf these are the uses of the types of speeches, then, Iwould contend, the types of speeches one chooses through which togain adherence are secondary to what it is that one wishes togain adherence to.Specifically, what one chooses as a thesiswill determine.the type of speeches which will be employed in anygiven circumstance.Having agreed that the gmleral purpose of6
7public address is to put forth (or, if you will, to support) athesis, then we can offer a procedure that is based on criticalthinking as the basis for typing speeches.When Littlejohn and Jabusch (1987) state, "Persuasion iscommunication on which two or more individuals act together tobring about an outcome of change," we have a stated rationale forsaying that discourse arises from the propositions or thesesThey appear in four forms:which speakers advocate.propositions of value, propositions of fact, and propositions ofpolicy--that might correspond to those offered by Aristotle--andpropositions of definition.Propositions of fact may be said to include Aristotle'sforensic oratory.But propositions of fact go beyond the past.They are also concerned with what Erickson says are present andfuture facts.No attempt is made to determine the desirabilityof the facts, merely the "truth" or probability of each.Wewould, therefore, find not only a proposition such as "John Doeis not guilty," but also "Columbus was not the first to discoverAmerica" (past fact), "Flying saucers contain men from outerspace" (present fact), and "It will rain tomorrow" (future fact).Propositions of value appear to correspond to the theses ofAristotle's epideictic speeches.(1991) these concern ".desirable" (p. 35).According to Bartanen and Frankcore conceptions of what isThese then are judgments about things basedon some criteria, hence value.But propositions of value mayalso concern the drawing up of the criteria.We may find aproposition of value to be worded, "Such and such constitutes a.9--
8good book" (developing criteria), or "The Last Mile is a goodbook" (applying data to criteria).Propositions of policy are the materials of which debateseasons are made.More importantly, they are the elements of ourlegislative system and correspond to the theses of Aristoteliandeliberative oratory.with courses of action.Propositions of policy concern themselvesPropositiors of policy may take one oftwo forms; we may find people advocating we cease currentpractices. Examples include "We should offer unlimited free posthigh school education to everyone" (adopt a new policy), or "Weshould abolish foreign aid" (stop present policy).Propositions of definition are those we offer for thepurpose of clarifying concepts.When our goal is simply to seekan understanding of what a concept is, we are offeringdefinition.This would correspond to the classification of onetype of "informative" (Gronbeck, et al.), what Graves and Oldsey(1963) refer to as "questions of meanings" (pp. 89-115), andWalter and Scott's "definitions" (pp. 205-223).Examples include"Free speech is the right to say what you want, where you want,and when you want as long as you don't maliciously harm others byyour actions," and "Anorexia nervosa is an eating disorder,characterized by image distortions, possessing symptoms ofabnormal bodily changes, that may have both physical andpsychological causes, and may be treated by therapy."What is important to realize is that any of the propositionsmight lend itself to a treatment that could be termed"informative," "convincing," persuasive," "entertaining," etc.10
9Whether it achieves the put.)ose the speaker had in mind will, ofcourse, be entirely in the minds of the listeners.Speakersshould begin propositionally and then choose the treatment.At this point I should like to argue that if discourse isthesis oriented, speech pedagogy is offering additionalartificiality to ask students to offer speeches that inform,persuade, etc.; for these are not the true ends, but rather theyare to be viewed as stylistic means to achieve that thesisadherence.I would further argue that in teaching speech coursesby dealing with the propositions we would find some degree ofartificiality eliminatad from the speaking situation, for ourorientation would be toward the message and not toward thestylistic means.Further, the teaching of the propositionalapproach will offer an inventional methodology that is morescientific and more complete than other approaches seem to be.InventionThe nature of the propositions with which the speaker isconcerned has been discussed.Though the propositions did notcorrespond with Aristotle's classification of ethical, logical,and physical set up in the Topica, they did correspond with thekinds of propositions which might arise from Aristotle'sthreefold classification of the types of oratory--the forensic"rising from" the propositions of fact, the epideictic topropositions of value, and the deliberative to propositions ofpolicy.11
10We need now to look at how these types of speeches lendthemselves to various inventional approaches.First we'll lookat some contemporary texts on the inventional process.Secondly,a rationale will be presented for including a "new stasis"approach to modern rhetorical practice.Finally, an examinationof the operation model of this "new stasis" will be made.Modern rhetoric texts deal with the invention process in avariety of ways.Lucas (1989) says,If you think about what you are finding in yourresearch, ycu will see your topic just a little bitdifferently with each note you take.You will find newrelationships, develop new questions, explore newangles.You will, in short, begin to write your speechin your head even as you do the research-As you learnmore about the topic, you will formulate a centralidea, begin to sketch out main points and supportingpoints, experiment with ways of organizing yourthoughts (p. 112).Osborn and Osborn (1988) don't really offer the speaker manyinventional clues as they offer the advice to find a topic,narrow it down, determine the specific purpose, and collectinformation.Gronbeck, et al.,(1988) seem to be making the same type ofcomment when stating:Ordinarily you will start by drawing together whatyou already know about the subject and deciding roughlywhat ideas you want to include.Nearly always,
11however, you will find that what you already know isnot enough.You will need to gather additional infor-mation--facts, illustrations, stories, and examples-with which you can develop your speech (pp. 60-61).Though Barrett (1988) is willing to concede that theselection of the subject will be governed by the speaker, theaudience, and occasion, he offers little more inventive strategythan to state, "Thcre are five fundamental steps in speechpreparation:1.Choosing an appropriate subjellt.the subject to a topic.3.2.NarrowingDetermining the primary end.Wording the proposition carefully.5.4.Using the extemporaneousand conversational mode" (pp. 41-42).From the previous sampl.; we might readily conclude that themodern rhetorician recognizes the need for the speaker to makesome systemic collection of data prior to the presentation of thediscourse.What is notably absent from the previous samples is arhetorical handle to make the inquiry.However, somecontemporary authors have offered more concrete tools to theinventional process.Oliver, Zelko, and Holtzman (1968) offered a more extensiveinventional suggestion when offering a threefold analysis toinclude "assessing the communicator's present state of knowledge;assessing the situation, subject, and what is ce'llled for; anddetermining how much material and what kind, is needed" (p. 95).What is lacking in the above guideline is the means toachieve that determination of which thay speak.One of theauthors extends this analysis in a later text and mentions that13
12in getting the speech ready for delivery one must first passthrough analysis, synthesis, and application.In the analysisand the synthesis processes Oliver (1971) speaks of "looking fordetails," "clarifying your ideas," "evaluating practicalconsiderations," and "finding the major points" (p. 71).Onceagain, what is lacking is the specific methodology.Auer (1967) moved closer to a methodology when he suggestedasking questions such as:Why did I choose this subject in the first place?What-made me think my audience might be interested init?What does my audience probably know about italready?What do I know about it from firsthandexperience?Do I know enough about the subject at thistime--to divide it into subtopics orerelated parts?view its development chronologically?most important features?toto identify itSto recognize itscontroversial aspects? to understand differingvievipointA44664 iifhatOaps.in my knowledge remainto be filled in?Ip.7 A-Nap iecinalid Ruechelle1J1964) have suggested that thee.speaker follovithroUgh,Vith investigation along the steps listedby the philosopher Joiln Dewey.A notable shortcoming of thetext, however, is that only persuasive policy questions areapproached in this manner.What is important to note is that all of the texts sofar mentioned have failed to indicate one essential aspect ofinvention:namely, how does one determine the issues around14
13which any speech is centered.Many modern writers seem to feelthat speakers "instinctively" discover the points around whichspeeches move.Locating the IssuesThe concept of locating the issues is certainly not a newone.Dieter's rather definitive study points out:In Pre-Aristotelian Greek thought, in Aristotle'sphysical philosophy and in the metaphysical rhetoric ofPost-Aristotelian Peripatetics of the Third Centurybefore Christ, it was the rest, pause, halt or standingstill, which inevitably occurs between opposite as wellas between contrary "moves," or motions.In rhetorical.Noesis, it was frequently identified with the thingsought in the zetesis, i.e., the zetema, quaestio, orthe Question (p. 369).Rhetorical stases appear to be closely related tothe traditional fourfold Peripatetic and Stoic analysisof matter.Not intrinsically a part of this analyticalprocess itself but borrowing terminology and procedurefrom it, the stases are halts or blocxs set up andstanding ir the way of the various major (orsubordinatt) steps in the analysis (Nadeau, 1964, p.393).Nadeau (1964) adds that in the Second Century B. C. Hermagores said this fourfold analysis of matter was of conjecture,definition, quality, and objection.15Hermogenes, in the Second
14Century A.D., was still retaining this classification, but withmore extensive divisions.The concept of stases was not exclusively Greek, for many ofthe Latin writers utilized it.Cicero's De Inventione lists theclassification of issue or constitutio as ". the conjectural,.qualitative, definitional, or 4-anslative, either any one ofthese or at times more than one" (p. I, x, 14).that ".every question has its basis."Quintilian felt(p. III, vi, 7).According to Thonssen and Baird (1948):This concept is among the most important contributions of the Latin writers to rhetorical theory.Byelevating the study of inwIntion, and by providing thespeaker with methods by which to find, evaluate, anduse his ideas on a given case, this doctrine exerciseda profound influence upon subsequent theory andpractice in public speaking and debating (pp. 93-94).Having discovered the stases, according to Ad Herennium, "Itremained.to show by what method we can adapt the means ofinvention to each type of issue or its subdivisions and likewisewhat sort of technical arguments one ought to seek or avoid; bothof these departments belong to Proof and Refutation" (p. II, ii,2).This is the same advice Wilson et al. (1990) offer whenstating, "As soon as you commit yourself to a speech subject anda purpose, your prOblem beca-ls one of finding lines of thinkingtht will enable you to accomplish what you want to accomplish(p. 107).A "New Stases" from Problem Solving
15"These lines of thinking" offer the basis for that rationaleIf we are to look at those stepsfor a "new stases" approach.which Dewey (1933) included in the process of reflective thinkingand incorporate the types of questions or propositions into thisschema, we might emerge with the following:1.Locate Problem Area (as a felt difficulty)2.From Problem Area identify any number of SpecificProblems (Articulate verbal formulations with thegrammatical construct of a Question and select one.)ASpecific Problem is any question that needs an answerand involves an issue.We may have problems of fact,definition, value, or policy.3.After the problem is stated, terms should be defined.(It is suggested that one use operational definitions.)4.After definition, the question should be clearlyunderstood so that sub-questions could be asked of thisbasic problem question to help determine what one wouldneed to know in order to get an acceptable answer tothe basic question.5.At this point (usually not before) the student visitsthe library to find the answers to these sub-questionsthis is his data.6.He examines his data so thit a conclusion(s) can bedrawn from it which serves as an answer to the basicquestion and the Thesis of the subsequent speech.7.In the speech the Data become the supporting.material17
16for the Thesis or Central Idea, etc.Now we have a rationale for asking what are the issues,questions, or "new stases."We have stated (1) there exist fourforms for propositions spsakers use, (2) in order to answer themajor issue we ask subquestions, and (3) asking the subquestionsgives direction to our inventional process.At this point we might rightfully ask:What is the natureof the subquestions which we should ask in order to determinewhat we need to know to answer the basic question?Mudd andSillars (1975) offer a rationale for the aAing of thesubquestions in describing arsas of potential issues aJ:1.Questions of the relative advantages anddisadvantages of the proposed policy.2.The acceptability of the criteria used to evaluatejudgments of value and fact.3.The relative importance of the criteria.4.The judgment that is made when the criteria areapPlied to the available evidence.5.The accuracy of the evidence itself (pp. 60-63).It becomes apparent that certain types of subquestionsappear to be releVant to questions of fact, some to questions ofdefinition, more to questions of value, and all to questions ofpolicy.Further, some persons.would assert that the very type ofquestion and, hence, the nature of the proposition which answersthe question are a direct outgrowth of what the speaker seeks interms of an answer.18
17Let us now look at some specific types of problems and seehow a person might utilize this problem-solving approach to thethesis.Let's assume that the speaker has decided to tell anaudience that "Dinosaurs are not reptiles."He apparentlyHe will havealready feels the need to communicate in this area.framed the specific problem as "Are dinosaurs reptiles?" and thendrawn some definitional limits, such as "This is to be concernedwith extinct creatures that were herbivores and carnivores."Heis than ready to ask, "What do I need to know in order to answermy question?"Since this is a sub-set of the question of fact,most of his questions will probably deal with the securing ofevidence and the reliability of that evidence.He will want toask, "What information currently exists regarding thesecreatures?""Are the data reliable?""What are thecharacteristics authorities agree are reptilian?""To whatdegree did dinosaurs possess these characteristics?" and soforth.This for a proposition of fact.What if the speaker is going to frame a specific problem ofdefinition, such as "What is an eglet?"He might ask:(1) Whatis the origin of the concept (etymology)?(2),To what familydoes this concept belong (classification)?(3) What is thisconcept different from (contrast)?(4) What is this conceptsimilar to (comparison)?(5) What are things that illustratethis concept (examples)?(6) What do reputable sources say thatthis concept is (authority)?(function)?(7) How does this concept operate(8) What can the concept be broken into (parts)?(9) What would I exclude from this concept--or what is the19
18concept not (negation)?In answering these questions the speakermight further question the reliability of the evidenct. and thesource of the evidence.Questions that are concerned with value offer subquestionsthat involve criteria and the application of data to that"What is a good book?" could be considered a questioncriteria.of value in which one attempts to establish certain criteria asjustifiable.Some other questions seek to apply data to criteriato make judgments, such as, "Was Abraham Lincoln a betterpresident than George Washington?"In the latter question twoitems must be ascertained generally before the answer can bederived:What is a good president? and what are the data aboutthe two persons which we can evaluate in light of the criteria?We might even ask the question, "Was Abraham Lincoln a goodpresident?"This would still require looking at two questionswhich must be answered.First, what is a good president? andsecond, what are the data that we can evaluate in light of thecriteria of a good president that we establish?Questions of policy seem to imply the treatment along linesthat are inclusive of both value and fact.Most authorities inargumentation will suggest questions of policy lend themselves toanalysis along the lines of stock issues.Zeman (1970) suggeststhe following in manner in her analysis of "Should the electoralcollege be abolished?":1.What is the electoral college?Why was it established?3.What reason(s) exist for changingthe status quo?4.Is the need to change an inherent one?What solutions eliminate the reasons for the change?206.2.5.Would
19the new solutions eliminate the reasons for the change?1.Whatare the advantages and the disadvantages of changing to a newsystem?Tucker (1971) offers much this same approach in suggestingthat speakers should develop a general system approach, and thisin turn could help them in a search for truth.The system ofTucker is the same as the stases concept; however, he doesn'tapply it to specific problems, rather problem areas.Having a stasis approach in mind, the speaker can nowturn to the topics.The substance of what he has done is todetermine all the questions whist) he and others could ask inorder to collect data to arrive at his thesis.From the data hemay now, on a topics basis, select that which he must give to hisaudience to gain further adherence to his thesis.has been orderly, logical, and efficient.further claim it is also effective.21The processThis writer would
20ReferencesTopica(1960).Aristotle.Brigancefs speech communication (3rd. ed.).(1967).Appleton-Century-Crofts.New York:4Baldwin, C. S.(1959).Barrett, H.Ancient rhetoric and poetic.Glouster,Peter Smith.Massachusetts:Practical uses of speech.communication (6th(
"informative" and "persuasive" speeches as public addre ). types. I will look at the specific types of speeches and what the speaker seems to be attempting with each. I will discuss a return to what some might consider a more Aristotelian approach to the teaching of the kinds of speeches
UL 325 & ASTM F2200 Safety Standards for Gate Operator Manufactures, Installers & Dealers What is the UL 325 Standard The standard to which vehicular gate operators are manufactured and tested to is UL 325. In addition to the 325 standard, vehicular gate operators must also be tested to UL 991, which tests for Safety-Related ControlsFile Size: 1MB
What is the UL 325 Standard For products within the scope of the standard, UL 325? UL 325 contains the basic qualifying factors that products must meet in order to be documented (listed) and marked (labeled) as complying with the requirements of the UL 325
6. Creekside Cafe at the KOA 225 County Road 23 325-4736 7. Goldbelt Bar & Grill 800 Main St. 325-7242 8. KJ Wood Distillery 929 Main St. 325-7295 9. Maggie’s Kitchen 705 Main St. 325-0259 10. Bachelor/Syracuse Miner’s Cafe 1222 County Road 14 325-0220 11. Mine Shaft Pizzeria 125
MAN Truck & Bus MAN 324 Typ Si-OAT Dec-11 Mercedes Benz Truck & Bus MB-Approval 325.0 Sep-11 Mercedes Benz Truck & Bus MB-Approval 325.3 Mercedes Benz Truck & Bus MB-Approval 326.3 Mercedes Benz Truck & Bus MB-Approval 325.5 Oct-11 RENAULT Truck SCANIA SETRA MB-Approval 325.0 SETRA MB-Approval 325.5 VOLVO Truck 2005 Volvo Truck 2006 On Highway
· Manual focus · Temperature range -20 to 350 C · 33 Hz (inside the EU, outside 9 Hz) testo 881-1 . The testo 875 and the testo 881 offer integrated location . the measuring range can be extended up to 550 C. High temperatures are generally accompanied by a greater distanc
TVCC NURSING TEAM Mara Poynter, PMC, MSHI, BSN, RN, CCRN-K, Interim Executive Director of Nursing and Allied Health & Nursing Faculty (541) 881-5944 - mpoynter@tvcc.cc Rachel Grace, AS, AS, Nursing Program Coordinator (541) 881-5940 - rgrace@tvcc.cc Brianne Haun, MSN, RN, Clinical Coordinator (541) 881-5942 - bhaun@tvcc.cc
CCDCFS AND JFS PHONE DIRECTORY Bey Ariana (216) 635-3846 Old Brooklyn Ariana.Bey@jfs.ohio.gov F/S - Unit C Goins-Jordan Olivia (216) 432-2677 Billingsley Tammi (216) 881-4892 225 W Tammy.Billingsley@jfs.ohio.gov START Ongoing Dublin Selina (216) 635-3860 Bishop Marvin (216) 881-3322 224 E Marvin.Bishop@jfs.ohio.gov Intake Sex Abuse Bokmiller Michael (216) 881-5509
Glenside, PA 19038 PHONE: 215 881-2000 (Office) 215 881-2747 (Nurse) 215 881-2011 (Child Check) FAX: 215 884-9816 Fatima Rogers Principal fatimarogers@abington.k12.pa.us Kelly Corbett Assistant Principal kellycorbett@abington.k12.pa.us Andrew Hudson Elementary Curriculum Specialist andrewhudson@abington.k12.pa.us Kimberly Stokes
