"Rhetorical Pedagogy" Response

I should begin by saying that I may have read this piece poorly, as I did break up four-page chunks with watching four-minute chunks of poker on television. That being said, I would like to comment on what Covino deemed essential to good writing. Good writing he claims comes from knowledge of rhetoric. This I do not dispute. However, he claims that good rhetoric comes from the study of rhetoric through civilized history. This claim is invalid. People use rhetoric--as Covino implicitly states in his final paragraphs--every time they use language. When one engages in a conversation with another human being, she will specify her language, her manarisms, and her expressions to the individual with whom she is speaking. This coule be one scientist speaking in scientific jargon to her superior in a respectful manner. If she is a scientist, it is safe to assume that she is not likly aware of the great history of rhetoric. The conversation might easily be translated into a formal report. If the conversation involved rhetoric, then this report--if translating accurately--will use the same rhetoric. If this report is understandable to her superior, could it be considered good rhetorical writing?