Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything

Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything MASS COLLABORATION CHANGES EVERYTHING? A Book Report on Wikinomics Executive Summary Tapscott, D. Williams, A.D. (2008) introduced a new concept of Wikinomics in the book WIKINOMICS: HOW MASS COLLABORATION CHANGES EVERYTHING. It was proposed that in the contemporary world, any individual or commercial enterprises cannot realize fast and sustainable innovation on its own. Collaboration with consumers, suppliers and business partners, as well as collaboration within an enterprise or organization is of great importance to its success. Wikinomics envision that in the future all survival enterprises will have to accept rapid globalization and embrace the science and art of mass collaboration. The report is aimed to take a detailed look at the book and discuss why Wikinomics work, how it works and the possibility of it being embraced by all enterprises eventually. At the end of the article, a conclusion is drawn to summarize the research results of this paper. Introduction The boundary of traditional companies is generally thought to be clear and rigid: balance sheet illustrates all properties the ownership of which belongs to a company while the list of members of corporate organizations indicates all employees hired by a company. At the same time, enterprises can manage their boundaries in accordance with expanded production scale and increased organization cost. According to pure theoretical analysis of micro economics, the intersectional point of an enterprise’s production possibility boundary and its organization possibility boundary is the enterprise’s optimal external boundary, where the enterprise’s marginal production revenue equals to its marginal oganization cost. At this point, further expansion of its boundary will lead to situations of losses outweighing gains whereas contraction of its boundary will result in non-maximum profitability. Of course, on the other hand real life situations are much more complex than theor etical analysis – marginal revenue and cost are both theoretical concepts and cannot be accurately measured. Otherwise, operating a calculator at office alone can solve the problem of determining the best size of a company. Meanwhile, due to the diversity of organization forms, organizational costs are not necessarily bound to increase along with the expansion of the organization. Organization forms such as virtual organization, strategic alliance, outsourcing, etc. are gradually being invented throughout enterprises’ development process. The birth of each new organization form can mean a new possibility of organization expansion. But none of these new forms have had the kind of revolutionary influences comparable to that of mass collaboration which involves coordination and collaboration with the mass, partners and even competitors outside an enterprise’s boundary in terms of enterprise production and innovation. This trend has transformed the previously hierarchical, closed workplace into a self-organized, distributed, collaborative human capital network. The new phenomenon is characterized by reporters with the Wired magazine as Crowdsourcing; people in the software industry compared the model to OSB, Open Source of Business; and, Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams, research fellows of New Paradigms think tank, dubbed it â€Å"Wikinomics†. Wikinomics, according to the book Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything by the two research fellows, is a new economic production paradigm based on mass collaboration and open platforms, which is a new economic production model that features all characteristics of â€Å"mass input, common creation†, including such new phenomena as content generation with user participation, external RD activities of an enterpriseà ¯Ã‚ ¼Ã…’ large scale collaborative production, integration of production and consumption, and establishment of sharing platform etc, The authors use a great number of enterprises cases to prove the superiority of the new economic paradigm. However, mass collaboration, at least has not changed everything or even become a business mainstream with more and more entrepreneurs getting doubtful or simply reject. Gold Mines outside of Enterprises Boundary In the book of Wikinomics, the authors choose to begin by citing a case in the mining industry which is actually very thought provoking. A small sized gold mining company in Canada, whose future is almost entirely dependent on whether the company can dig sufficient more gold at low cost on mineral deposits of which it has ownership. The geologists working for the company cannot accurately locate the gold in the short period of time. Facing this situation, the CEO, Rob McEven made a decision that was very unconventional in mining industry: he launched a gold company challenge contest, publishing all geological information the company already had to the whole world via its website and offering a prize of $575,000 to the contestant who provided the best estimate and mining method. The open source prospection resulted in amazing returns more than 1,000 virtual prospectors from 50 countries participated the challenging match and found 110 target locations on the company’s mineral deposit, 50% of which were not found by the company previously. More than 80% of the new target locations were proved to contain great amount of gold and since the launch of the contest more than 8 million ounces of gold was found. According to McEven’s estimation the contest shortened the time needed for conventional prospecting by two to three years and the value of his company also skyrocketed to $9 billion from merely 100 million. The gold company is not Wikipedia, but an enterprise that is engaged in a extremely closed, conservative industry. Here the authors implied that enterprises in any industries can benefit from Wikinomics. But why Wikinomics can enhance enterprises’ business performance? We can consider the gold company as a highly simplified enterprise model. Prospection cost and cost for unearthing the gold are the only input, while the gold is the output and the condition needed for the company to earn a profit is the two categories of cost cannot exceed the value of the gold to be unearthed. The essence of the challenge contest launched by the gold company is that McEven changed the conventional prospection cost which was uncertain and very hard to control and threatened to bring down the company, to a fix amount of money needed for attracting the best bid from outside. The nature of the company’s success is it reduced its cost significantly by taking advantage of external resources. It seems the â€Å"gold† that made the company rich was lying in its mineral deposits, but actually it was in the â€Å"outside†. Take the Lessons Further If we think deeper about the case of the gold company, prospection fees actually can be considered research and development costs of an enterprise. In an enterprise’s cost structure, fees put into research and development (RD) is similar to venture investment. Whether the RD activities can succeed or not, the company has to pay for all the costs. If RD activities prove successful, the enterprise makes economic profit; if those activities prove failures, then the enterprise’s investment will go waste. Yet in the RD models described by Wikinomics, risks and costs of RD activities are jointly shouldered by the enterprise and external specialists. On one hand, participation of outside resources can bring more ideas in and increase the possibility of success of RD programs; on the other, the gold company’s practice of soliciting the best prospection plan is tantamount to inviting bids that can ensure the success of RD programs; the company only needs to pay for RD programs that are successful while the costs of failed RD programs are spread among all bidders. The rise of benefit, or revenue, and the drop of costs both expand the enterprise’s profitability. Then why bidders outside of the enterprise are willing to shoulder the cost of its failed RD activities? Firstly, the cost spread onto each individual is already trivial; the RD cost invested by each individual may be just like lifting one’s fingers; on the other hand, outside bidders that participate in corpora te RD activities may have a mindset that is similar to that of lottery buyers – though the average benefit expectations maybe negative, they are still excited by the possibility of winning a huge amount of prize. A phenomenon I would like to mention is, actually Wikinomics have had its use in much earlier times, long before the human kind has developed so many dazzling technologies and devices. The listing of criminals as wanted by police authorities, or posting ads that offer some kind of incentive to find a lost relative or something value, are both effective use of Wikinomics. The searching cost is huge to should for a police department and is way beyond what a person or family’s can afford. By doing so, the enormous searching cost will be shouldered by the public and the police authorities or a family trying to locate someone or something will only need to pay a much smaller amount of money as an incentive. We can now see from a series of cases of enterprises cited by the authors of Wikinomics that the nature of the secret of Wikinomics is that an enterprise can make use of resources outside its boundary to increase benefits or reduce cost. However, to utilize resources outside of its boundary, a enterprise must do what the gold company had done, that is, disclosing some internal knowledge of the company such as RD platforms and technical standards. If an enterprise follows the logic of Wikinomics, it will inevitably take on the four characteristics that are central to mass collaboration: openness, peering, sharing and acting globally. Mythology and Reality Though Wikinomics has displayed a extremely attractive prospect for enterprises and many enterprises indeed have obtained the â€Å"gold† outside of their boundaries. Yet in reality, we can see still there is only a very limited proportion of enterprises that have chosen to make a change to their traditional prices of running their businesses within their boundaries. Consumers and producers are considered two categories of people that have little in common; openness is deemed as will eventually cause an enterprise to lose its competitive advantage. And more importantly, those enterprises which do introduce into themselves â€Å"mass collaboration and common creation† are considered miracles, rather than normal cases. The book Wikinomics will very likely be read by enterprises managers and owners as a set of mental gymnastics that can spart inspirations, rather than a research report on the trend of changes and reform of enterprises. To what extent has the new economic paradigm of mass collaboration influenced the trend of business operation model? The open source operating system Linux was deemed by many commercial analyst to be the terminator of Microsoft, however, till this day, Microsoft still holds firmly its considerable share in the operating systems market. Open source softwares are still considered by many as a business model that cannot last long. An IDC report indicates (Internet Data Center), the market share of Linux servers slumped to less than 10% last year from its 45% market share in 2012 (Hertel et al, 2003). Many enterprises which intended to switch to Linux from Unix have also slowed their pace down and begin considering Windows Servers provided by Microsoft. The major concerns of enterprises about open source softwares like Linux are security and subsequent assurance, which have also been the two issues where Microsoft attacks open source softwares. As for innovations made with users’ participation, Apple Inc.’s attitude may be representative of that of the majority of enterprises. The iPod and digital set top box Apple TV were cracked and expanded after they hit market, creating many new functions. The official attitude of Apple is, whatever users do with those devices is their own business, but Apple will not provide quality warranty anymore. â€Å"We will not interfere with these behaviors by users, yet once you cracked your Apple devices, they will not be warranted by us anymore†. Put it in a simple way, Apple’s approach toward these activities is â€Å"no blame, no encouragement†- Apple never wants to offend these fanatic consumers, nor it wants to encourage and lead this trend of users participating in innovation. If the Wikinomics success stories are so attractive, then what makes it hard to be taken as a mainstream choice? â€Å"Better to deal with a familiar demon than to stay with a strange angel† is a belief upheld by many entrepreneurs, which shows their hatred against uncertainties, especially situations over which they feel hard to control. Many business owners are adapt at managing relations with stakeholders and do not fear colliding with parties with whom they have conflict of interests, yet they tend to have a hard time dealing with neutral parties due to the fact the their behaviors are hard to encourage or constrain through benefits. A sharp criticism on Linux and Wikipedia is the negative impact they leave on the legitimate rights of private property owners and enterprises to secure profits. When resources are located inside the boundary of enterprises, calculation of cost and profits are a part of enterprises’ consideration. More importantly, these inside resources bear different rights and obligations from that of outsider resources, for example, enterprises’ employees are restricted by explicit or conventional rules and contracts. The traditional task driven model that is based on instructions and control will make corporate managers feel secure. Wikinomics use the movement style of Tarzan of the Apes as a metaphor of the mindset of this kind of enterprises: only when they hold firmly the next tree branch will they feel safe to loose the tree branch in his hands already. The first step of attracting outside resources to invest and participate in common creation is exactly the same situation as loosing the tree branch in hands while not grasping firmly the next one. Thus this step becomes a great barrier that many enterprises always cannot overcome. Organizational Reform Toward Wikinomics In order to realize Wikinomics, it is required not only to have theoretical books, but also practical action. If we realize that Wikinomics indicates the vague and open enterprise boundaries, then internal organizational structure must first make a change before the business open arms to greet resources outside because the traditional hierarchical system is unfit to this new change. For example, Linux community is not like Microsofts management as to manage the project team. And British Encyclopedia editorial department cannot run like Wikipedia management team. Therefore, traditional company organizations are unable to take advantage of a large number of resources that cannot be commanded. In fact, even like the Linux and Wikipedia, the world well-known open source community is not as boundless and unrestrained as we imagine. Linux’s highest decision-making authority rests in its original inventor Linus Torvalds who is supported by a ten-person core team. Below them is the hu ge and categorized Linux application developer community and community part-time administrators. In Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales manages five full-time employees and there are about 5,000 maintainer who manage the 100 million registered users and more than 200 million entries (Eric Raymond, 1999). Both Linux and Wikipedia or other open source communities have a similar internal organizational structure in terms of the company hierarchy system, like a round periphery diffusion from the core layer. The source of power is not primarily from higher authority, but from the knowledge and contribution of members. And the formation of such organizations can provide great opportunities to run in-depth study about wiki organization. Robert Stevens create the geek squad, showing us how to keep the vitality of a small team in a traditional hierarchical organization and to stimulate bottom-up organization ability to innovate. â€Å"Geek squad† was originally an independent electronic equipment services company. When it achieved its original success, it is acquired by the consumer electronics retail giant Best Buy. At the beginning, many people worried about geek squad would have the infected disease of large enterprises. However, under the support of Best Buy CEOAnderson, Geek squad established a set of internal corporate culture which is totally different from Best Buys. (Durman, P., 2007) Geek squad is actually free in Best-Buys organizational boundaries. It first took a network of self-organization and management model before the overall organization. For those reluctant to fully reach beyond traditional boundary, they can try to develop a small team within the organization in order to bridge some gaps wi th Wikinomics. Outsourcing and Crowd-sourcing Outsourcing, has long been a hot topic in business realm which is the contracting out of a business process to a third-party. The major motivation for outsourcing/off-shoring is to reduce cost and improve efficiency and to give full play to its core competitiveness. As previously mentioned, the phenomenon of mass collaboration is also dubbed Crowd-sourcing. A major difference between outsourcing and crowd-sourcing is, outsourcing stresses high professionalism while crowd-sourcing is exactly the opposite and values individual users’ active participation. Therefore here we see another restrictive factor of mass collaboration, or crowd-sourcing: some tasks require professionals to complete and little meaningful individual participation from the â€Å"crowd† can be realized. Conclusion As we look back at analysis throughout the whole passage, we can see many real life constraints on the practical use of Wikinomics. Many enterprise owners and managers are fearful of uncertainties; enterprises’ internal organization structure is not ready for embracement of Wikinomics’ requirements; and many business processes need to be handled by highly trained professionals. However, the concept of reducing cost and improving efficiency through bringing together the strength of a group of people is right all the time. We may boldly introduce the concept of â€Å"Sub-Wikinomics†, a business management model somewhere between outsourcing and crowd-sourcing. Reference Hertel, G., Niedner, S., Herrmann, S. (2003). Motivation of software developers in Open Source projects: an Internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel. Research policy, 32(7), 1159-1177. Eric Raymond, 1999, â€Å"The Cathedral and the Bazaar,† in the Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings On Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary. Sebastopol CA: O’Reilly Publishing, pp. 30. Peter Schwartz, Peter Leyden, Joel Hyatt, 1999. The Long Boom: A Vision for the Coming Age of Prosperity, Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing. O’Farrell, P. N., Hitchens, D. M. W. N. (1988). Alternative theories of small-firm growth: a critical review. Environment and Planning, 20(10), 1365-1383. Durman, P.(2007) Geek Squad Comes to Britain.The Times of London. Fuchs, C. (2008). Don Tapscott Anthony D. Williams: Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. International Journal of Communication, 2, 11.

Julius Caesar Play Essay

In play, Julius Caesar, it has strength that makes the play a famous play. In the play, we could understand characters emotion and behaviors clearly since it is in their own words instead of a narration. From the text from Cassius’s dialogue,† For my part, I have walked about the streets, submitting me unto the perilous night.† we could emphasizes how Cassius is showing off to Casca the braveness he has. Another point would be the speeches that are introduce in the play. Another example would be in Act 1, scene 2 where Antony comments, â€Å"When Caesar says, do this, it is performed. Sometimes not only the characters dialogue could be recognize as his or her personality and characteristics. In this text by Antony, we could feel the powerful leadership from Caesar. Speeches help a better understanding of each character thought towards different people. Such as the speech that Antony gave where it begins with â€Å"Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your earsâ⠂¬ ¦..† In this speech Antony keep repeating â€Å"Brutus is an honorable man†, this shows sarcasms that Antony is speaking out. While reading this speech, you will find confusions where Antony is criticizing Brutus action but on the other hand he keeps stating that Brutus is an honorable man that opposites other facts. This kind of passage grabs the reader attention to think profoundly. The weakness would be the organization of the plot. I believe the play is moving in a speed what I believe is fast. Fast play makes it difficult to recognize clearly with each scenes and acts. For example from the meeting of conspirators to the death of Julius Caesar flows quite rapid. Between those two scenes, I feel a bit empty cause no way that these conspirators did not planned in a way that they could successfully without any obstacles kill Julius Caesar. The play might improve if the process of planning would be added between those two periods. We might absorb characters; personality and perspective towards this event during their planning. Another example would be the death of Calupurnia. The death news was interrupted abruptly during before the war. Calpurnia played such an important role when comforting Brutus and place a spy on him. This shows the role of women played in Roman however she had passed away in a second where no one has expected. Overall the organization is pretty flow and vivid enough. I like how each scene was isolated by the characters in the play where one side is mainly characters that dislike Caesar and the other side would be characters that supports Caesar. The only error would be the speed of the play that gives no time for readers to vividly understand the story. The descriptions of different characters are the best element in the play. Characters were vividly described as I stated earlier. One more example would be when Cassius stated, â€Å"The torrent roared, and we did buffet it with lusty sinews, throwing it aside and stemming it with hearts of controversy†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦..or I sink!†Ã¢â‚¬  In this dialogue we could understand two characters’ thoughts and history background. Cassius put up this fact show that he believes Caesar is not as capable as he should be. Another would be the background of Caesar where he was such a weaker. The diaglouge is very interesting because we could see through what each character wanted to express. One of the interesting dialogues was between Antony and Octavious. Octavious argued to refuse the instruction from Antony. Antony begins to realize the similar power between Octavious and Caesar when Octavious insist to follow left instead of right, so Antony called Octavious as Caesar after the argument of the formation.

“Philosophers”, “architects”, “dreamy professors” Essay

These epithets are most often used to describe the INTP personality type. INTPs love theories and believe that everything can be analyzed and improved. They are not that concerned about the real world and practical things – from the INTPs’ perspective, it is often less exciting than ideas and intellectual pursuits. People with this personality type have no difficulties noticing patterns where others cannot – this makes them brilliant theorists and analysts. The accumulated knowledge is the most valued asset of any INTP. Imagine an immensely complicated clockwork which is constantly absorbing, processing and generating all kinds of theories – this is how the INTP mind works. People with the INTP personality type possess the most logically precise mind of all personality types – they can easily notice even the tiniest discrepancies between two statements, no matter how much time would have passed in between. It is a bad idea to lie to an INTP. They ma y appear dreamy sometimes, but this is not because their mind is resting – quite the opposite. INTPs are enthusiastic and impartial when it comes to dealing with problems – they drill through the details and then develop a unique approach and ultimately a viable solution. INTPs are usually very intelligent and insightful people, able to remain unbiased in any situation. They absolutely love new ideas and theories and would never miss an opportunity to discuss them with other people – however, this never-ending thinking process also makes them look somewhat pensive and detached, as INTPs are perfectly able to conduct full-fledged debates in their own heads. People with this personality type may also find it quite difficult to explain their thoughts to others, even when it becomes obvious that their theories are not easily graspable. INTPs may also move on to another topic before their co-workers or partners have figured out what the INTP wanted to say. INTPs cannot stand routine work – they would much rather tackle a difficult theoretical problem. INTP personalities really have no limits when it comes to theoretical riddles – if there is no easy solution and the topic is interesting enough, an INTP can spend ages trying to come up with a solution. INTP personalities are usually very shy and reluctant when it comes to meeting other people. However, INTPs can also be very friendly and confident when they interact with people they know well or talk about things that interest them. INTPs are flexible and relaxed in nearly all situations,  except when their beliefs or logical conclusions are being criticized. In those cases, the INTP is likely to become very defensive and argue tirelessly. Sharing many personality traits with other T types, INTPs do not really understand or value decisions based on feelings or subjective opinions. In their opinion, the only good solution is the logical solution – INTPs do not see a point in using emotional arguments. Such an approach preserves the â€Å"sanctity† of their intellectual method; however, this also makes it difficult for INTP personalities to understand other people’s feelings or satisfy their emotional needs. Individuals with the INTP personality type are likely to be very open-minded and even eccentric. These traits, combined with their capacity for in ventiveness and original thought, make up a very Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road crossed the chicken depends on your frame of reference. Albert Einstein  powerful mix – it is not surprising that INTPs are responsible for many scientific discoveries. An INTP is unlikely to care much about social expectations and the â€Å"usual† goals such as job security – however, they will do their best to find an environment where their creative genius and potential can be expressed. One of the few bottlenecks that INTPs impose upon themselves is their restless fear of possible failure. No other personality type worries that much about missing a piece of the mental puzzle or overlooking some crucial fact that might lead to a better solution. Unlike their more confident INTJ or ENTJ cousins, INTPs could spend ages reflecting on their actions. Even when an INTP is arguing with someone, this should be taken with a grain of salt – they might as well be arguing with their own mind. If you would like to learn more about the INTP personality type and its traits, download the INTP In-Depth Profile – a 6 0+ page guide covering a number of diverse topics.

Definition and Examples of Paralepsis in Rhetoric

Paralepsis  (also spelled paralipsis) is the rhetorical strategy (and logical fallacy) of emphasizing a point by seeming to pass over it. Adjective: paraleptic or paraliptic. Similar to apophasis and praeteritio. In The English Academy (1677), John Newton defined paralepsis as a kind of irony, by which we seem to pass by, or take no notice of such things which yet we strictly observe and remember. Etymology From the Greek  para-  beside   leipein  to leave Pronunciation:  pa-ra-LEP-sis Examples Lets pass swiftly over the vicars predilection for cream cakes. Lets not dwell on his fetish for Dolly Mixture. Lets not even mention his rapidly increasing girth. No, no—let us instead turn directly to his recent work on self-control and abstinence.(Tom Coates, Plasticbag.org, Apr. 5, 2003)The music, the service at the feast,The noble gifts for the great and small,The rich adornment of Theseuss palace . . .All these things I do not mention now.(Chaucer, The Knights Tale, The Canterbury Tales)We get [in Oprah by Kitty Kelley] the obligatory discussion of whether or not Oprah and Gayle King, her best friend of thirty-four years, are lesbians. There was no foundation for the rumors of a lesbian relationship, except for their constant togetherness and Oprahs bizarre teasing of the subject, Kelley writes, and then, like a conspiracy theorist squinting to see the pyramids on dollar bills, trots out unconvincing insinuations.(Lauren Collins, Celebrity Smackdown. The New Yorker, Apri l 19, 2010) Mark Antonys Paralepsis But heres a parchment, with the seal of Caesar;I found it in his closet; tis his will:Let but the commons hear this testament—Which, pardon me, I do not mean to read . . ..Have patience, gentle friends, I must not read it.It is not meet you know how Caesar lovd you.You are not wood, you are not stones, but men;And, being men, hearing the will of Caesar,It will inflame you, it will make you mad:Tis good you know not that you are his heirs;For if you should, oh, what would come of it!(Mark Antony in William Shakespeares Julius Caesar, Act III, scene two) A Form of Irony Paralipsis: a form of irony in which one gets ones message across by suggesting the outlines of the message that one is struggling to suppress. We are not going to say that paralipsis is . . . the habitual refuge of the courtroom mechanic, who abuses it in order to suggest to the jury what he can very well deny to the judge ever having said.(L. Bridges and W. Rickenbacker, The Art of Persuasion, 1991) The Paraleptic Strike-Through The so-called strike through mode of type has come into its own as a standard device in opinion journalism--even in print. . . .As New York Times blogger Noam Cohen commented a while back, [I]n Internet culture, the strike-through has already taken on an ironic function, as a ham-fisted way of having it both ways in type a witty way of simultaneously commenting on your prose as you create it. And when this device appears in print, its being used exclusively for this kind of ironic effect. . . .The paradox is that crossing something out highlights it. The ancient Greek rhetoricians had a whole vocabulary of terms to refer to different forms of mentioning by not mentioning.(Ruth Walker, Highlight Your Errors: The Paradox of the Strike Through Mode. The Christian Science Monitor, July 9, 2010) Political Paralepsis Obama characterized Clintons remarks as tired Washington politicians and the games they play.She made an unfortunate remark about Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson, he said. I havent remarked on it. And she offended some folks who thought she diminished the role about King and the civil rights movement. The notion that this is our doing is ludicrous.Obama went on to criticize Clintons interview, saying that she spent an hour focused on attacking him rather than telling people about her positive vision for America.(Domenico Montanaro, Obama: Clinton MLK Comments Ludicrous, NBC First Read, Jan. 13, 2008) Paralepsis (or Omission), 1823 Paralepsis, or Omission, is a figure by which the orator pretends to conceal or pass by what he really means to declare and strongly to enforce.Whatever we seem to give up, as a matter of small consequence, we generally pronounce in a higher and softer tone of voice than the rest: this is accompanied with an air of indifference that seems to make light of what we mention, and this indifference generally leads us to end the particulars with the suspension of voice, properly called the rising inflection. Thus Cicero, in his defense of Sextius, introduces his character in the following manner, with a design of recommending him to the favour of the judges: I might say many things of his liberality, kindness to his domestics, his command in the army, and moderation during his office in the province; but the honour of the state presents itself to my view, and calling me to it, advises me to omit these lesser matters. The first part of this sentence should be spoken in a soft high tone of voice, with an air of indifference, as if waving the advantages arising from his clients character; but the latter part assumes a lower and firmer tone, which greatly enforces and sets off the former.(John Walker, A Rhetorical Grammar, 1823)