When in Rome...wait...Greece?

The earlier portion of this reading assignment made me think of rhetoric in an ever-changing way. I’ve heard of the three Greek strategies, but until now, “they were just Greek to me.” Pathos(pathos), logos(logos), and ethos(ethos) are the culprits. This is about as much of what these terms meant to me until now. (Unless you are fluent in webdings). He really stepped up in the explanation and understanding of these key elements of rhetoric. He also made an important point about the past, present, and future tenses in argument. Blame, values, and choice respectively relate to the tenses in a way I only now realize.
Then he talks of virtue. Virtue is not always a good thing to have. When trying to persuade an audience, virtue is perhaps one of the most important tools to gain and use, but that does not mean it is the ethical or right thing to do. An audience falsely biased against someone or something, may not respect any efforts to correct the situation, without virtue. (I should probably emphasize virtue much more to adequately explain it's importance to Heinrichs.) They want you to be on their side, no matter what the cost. The statement, "When in Rome, do what the Romans do.",fits quite nicely here. If you are on an audience's terf, you need to do what they do, good or bad, if you want to persuade them. Only other tools of rhetoric can then be applied to divert their points of view.
Going back to the first part of the reading assignment, I wholly support Heinrich’s theories of ethos, pathos, and logos. I believe however, that he made some classification errors when he went into depth about ethos. One of the main parts of ethos was practical wisdom. This seems to fit more into the realm of logos to me. Yes you have to be smart to gain people’s trust, but why does that go under ethos? Ethos, however, is agreeably the most important part of rhetoric. The audience certainly needs to be willing to listen and be persuaded before they will ever let you tap into their minds.