From c0bd49166ff53f06638c0e4aae214432c4b56468 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joe Carstairs Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2026 13:47:23 +0100 Subject: link chp1 and chp2 --- chapter3.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'chapter3.md') diff --git a/chapter3.md b/chapter3.md index 8a81e2d..c6cbb9f 100644 --- a/chapter3.md +++ b/chapter3.md @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ In the previous chapter, I explored how contemporary green rhetors use catastrophic language, and three reasons why some commentators believe -that this is counter-productive. Given the close relationship between +that this causes rhetors to get the fundamentals of successful rhetoric wrong. Given the close relationship between catastrophe and apocalypse in the imaginations of many people in the West, this begs the question of whether green rhetors ought also to avoid apocalyptic language. Frances Flannery, Professor Emerita of Religion at James Madison -- cgit v1.2.3