The Observation Deck

I have to second Brian on this one. It is a little difficult to take warnings seriously when the absolute worst becomes the norm. It's becoming a "cry wolf" situation.

And I think that we have already substantially asserted that in the past few months some not so wonderful developments occurred, but for the sake of having a clear and coherent discussion I think we should stop mentioning them in relation to every possible controversial issue.

It is really difficult for someone who will have their first opportunity to vote to try and figure out who to vote for when a thread that was supposed to be talking about the candidateS has become one talking about a candidate. I have gotten next to no pertinent information regarding candidate selection from this forum, except for the website links.

So could we perhaps devote more of this forum to actually discussing the issues/candidates instead of distaste?

Jim,
Orwellian definition:
The adjective Orwellian describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson" — a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments.
The adjective Orwellian refers to these behaviours of State and The Party, especially when the Party is the State:
The political manipulation of language, by obfuscation, e.g. WAR IS PEACE. Using language to obfuscate meaning or to reduce and eliminate ideas and their meanings that are deemed dangerous to its authority.
Invasion of personal privacy, either directly physically or indirectly by surveillance.
State control of its citizens' daily life, as in a "Big Brother" society.
Official encouragement of policies contributing to the socio-economic disintegration of the family.
The substitution of traditional religion with the adoration of state leaders and their Party.
The encouragement of "doublethink," whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent, e.g. giving up liberty for freedom. Similar terms used, are "doublespeak", and "newspeak"
The revision of history in the favour of the State's interpretation of it.
A dystopian future.

Really?

Please stop using that word. Unless you really think Lakewood is a borderline totalitarian society. I don't think a person has ever been expunged.

Thealexa Becker wrote:I have to second Brian on this one. It is a little difficult to take warnings seriously when the absolute worst becomes the norm. It's becoming a "cry wolf" situation.

And I think that we have already substantially asserted that in the past few months some not so wonderful developments occurred, but for the sake of having a clear and coherent discussion I think we should stop mentioning them in relation to every possible controversial issue.

It is really difficult for someone who will have their first opportunity to vote to try and figure out who to vote for when a thread that was supposed to be talking about the candidateS has become one talking about a candidate. I have gotten next to no pertinent information regarding candidate selection from this forum, except for the website links.

So could we perhaps devote more of this forum to actually discussing the issues/candidates instead of distaste?

Jim,
Orwellian definition:
The adjective Orwellian describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson" — a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments.
The adjective Orwellian refers to these behaviours of State and The Party, especially when the Party is the State:
The political manipulation of language, by obfuscation, e.g. WAR IS PEACE. Using language to obfuscate meaning or to reduce and eliminate ideas and their meanings that are deemed dangerous to its authority.
Invasion of personal privacy, either directly physically or indirectly by surveillance.
State control of its citizens' daily life, as in a "Big Brother" society.
Official encouragement of policies contributing to the socio-economic disintegration of the family.
The substitution of traditional religion with the adoration of state leaders and their Party.
The encouragement of "doublethink," whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent, e.g. giving up liberty for freedom. Similar terms used, are "doublespeak", and "newspeak"
The revision of history in the favour of the State's interpretation of it.
A dystopian future.

Really?

Please stop using that word. Unless you really think Lakewood is a borderline totalitarian society. I don't think a person has ever been expunged.

Thank you.

So we agree of definition.

What you are saying is, with your base of knowledge, you do not agree.

Correct?


.

Should the candidates take a stand on homeless resettlement programs?

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Thank you.

So we agree of definition.

What you are saying is, with your base of knowledge, you do not agree.

Correct?


.

Do not agree with what? You misusing a word or how people are using this forum?

And if you are trying to insinuate that my base of knowledge is limited, I assure you, it isn't. I would just like to hear more about the issues themselves, rather than the people or supposed Orwellian conspiracies. This isn't a popularity contest or a Robert Ludlum novel.

And yes, Mr. Call, I do think that the candidates should take a stance on that issue, although I do not necessarily think it should be the sole cornerstone of any campaign.

Thealexa Becker wrote:Do not agree with what? You misusing a word or how people are using this forum?

And if you are trying to insinuate that my base of knowledge is limited, I assure you, it isn't. I would just like to hear more about the issues themselves, rather than the people or supposed Orwellian conspiracies. This isn't a popularity contest or a Robert Ludlum novel.

And yes, Mr. Call, I do think that the candidates should take a stance on that issue, although I do not necessarily think it should be the sole cornerstone of any campaign.

We agree on the definition.

That I am not misusing the word, and Lakewood is quickly approaching...

Oh Thealexa I would never consider that your knowledge base is limited. Just on the
subject of current Lakewood, you are missing much information that is right in front of
your eyes. See, it works!

Popularity contest? What on earth makes you think I care about popularity? If I cared
about that I would sit quietly in the corner, and reap the rewards. I know of three books
being roughed in as we speak, two are non-fiction, and one a murder mystery!


.

I recently heard talk of a candidates forum for them to debate the issues. Perhaps it would be pertinent to discuss what issues we would like to have them discuss.

Personally, I would like to hear what they have to say regarding business in the city as well as sustainability efforts.

And Jim, since you so are so adamant that Lakewood is Orwellian, I guess that explains the 10% drop in population over the past few years. Guess those people were expunged and didn't just move to Westlake and other suburbs. Five Guys must also be doublespeak for Communist Takeover of Local Storefronts. And I guess St. James closing must be a sign that we are destroying religion. Lakewood is not a dystopian society, or even close. The fact that you are equating the two shows you have an extremely negative opinion of the city.

Why don't you find another word to describe the path the city is taking? I don't understand why you think that word makes any sense at all. I mean, I bet with your definition, you could claim any city is "Orwellian".

And here I always thought we were more like A Brave New World.

Thealexa Becker wrote:And here I always thought we were more like A Brave New World.

One would have hoped, but alas Orwellian.


.

Thealexa Becker wrote:And here I always thought we were more like A Brave New World.

I know that when I personally don't take my Soma http://somaweb.org/w/sub/BNW_CostOfStability.html for the day, I am super irritable and ornery. That's when I do most of my posting on the Deck.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Thealexa Becker wrote:And here I always thought we were more like A Brave New World.

One would have hoped, but alas Orwellian.


.

You've obviously not read "Brave New World" if you are hoping for that kind of society...

Valerie Molinski wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Thealexa Becker wrote:And here I always thought we were more like A Brave New World.

One would have hoped, but alas Orwellian.


.

You've obviously not read "Brave New World" if you are hoping for that kind of society...

Valerie

I will admit it was nearly 30 years ago. But I would say that I appreciated the lack of
religion, and the leaning towards more "pleasures" than portrayed in the true
double speak, and portrayal in "1984." Which would have also been about 30 years ago. So if one or the other...

I would still say, of all I am speaking of, and for that matter Thealexa, would still be
described as Orwellian.

FWIW

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Valerie

I will admit it was nearly 30 years ago. But I would say that I appreciated the lack of
religion, and the leaning towards more "pleasures" than portrayed in the true
double speak, and portrayal in "1984." Which would have also been about 30 years ago. So if one or the other...

I would still say, of all I am speaking of, and for that matter Thealexa, would still be
described as Orwellian.

FWIW

First of all, Brave New World was published at good 16 years BEFORE 1984. So it is NOT Orwellian.

And Jim, you may criticize my base of knowledge of the workings of all these things or whatever in Lakewood, but I assure you that I have a very very extensive base of knowledge in literature, and as such, and since you haven't read these books in a while, I can (re)assure you that Lakewood is nowhere near either 1984 or Brave New World.

And you are still misusing Orwellian.

Can we start talking about the issues now?

Thealexa Becker wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Valerie

I will admit it was nearly 30 years ago. But I would say that I appreciated the lack of
religion, and the leaning towards more "pleasures" than portrayed in the true
double speak, and portrayal in "1984." Which would have also been about 30 years ago. So if one or the other...

I would still say, of all I am speaking of, and for that matter Thealexa, would still be
described as Orwellian.

FWIW

First of all, Brave New World was published at good 16 years BEFORE 1984. So it is NOT Orwellian.

And Jim, you may criticize my base of knowledge of the workings of all these things or whatever in Lakewood, but I assure you that I have a very very extensive base of knowledge in literature, and as such, and since you haven't read these books in a while, I can (re)assure you that Lakewood is nowhere near either 1984 or Brave New World.

And you are still misusing Orwellian.

Can we start talking about the issues now?

Thealexa

You always amuse me. I am not the one that started the discussion of Orwellian. However
I would also say that Orwellian would apply to the many Dystopian fiction novels written
by George Orwell.

That said I am figuring that your knowledge base of literature from the past 14 years of
your life far out weighs my 46 years of reading and studying. I will give that to you.

However I am willing to bet, my depth of knowledge on what is happening here in Lakewood in the hear and now, can give me at least a hair's width advantage on you. That
is based merely on you not seeing what I am seeing.

Back on topic it is then.


.

Thealexa Becker wrote:Can we start talking about the issues now?

YES!

PLEASE!

Please start talking issues and quit splitting hairs over literal definitions of figurative interpretations of fiction. Sheesh!

I have a headache.

You go first.

.

Wait------- Before we even start discussing issues, let's start with an even more basic consideration.

The primary election is a month away. Which of the candidates has done anything to tell you, the voter, that they are a candidate, much less what their particular issues are?
Stan Austin

Stephen/Thealexa

I am so very wrong.

Of course Brave New World would have been Huxleyian, not Orwellian.

As such I would still lean towards Orwellian.

Check outhttp://theologica.blogspot.com/2009/05/brave-new-world-vs-nineteen-eighty-four.html for the comparison, which I found to be an over simplification of both
dream merchants selling the world on their version of Utopian/Dystopian societies.

Back on subject.

.