[Mommyplease]

Little Rock is better.

[techie_g]

Originally Posted by Hollynla

I know exactly what LuvArk means, did you need it explained in more detail? You don't have to be rude in your responses just because you aren't comprehending.

What some would refer to as "behind", others would think is better than the city areas. Many metro areas are advancing in ways that are going backwards. Some of us would rather be in areas you refer to as "behind". Behind doesn't always equal a negative.

For godsake...."behind" means not progressing....not progressing is not a positive.
For example if a city is "behind" in education, that's not a positive (behind on curriculum, hiring qualified teachers/administrators, building schools, planning for overcrowding, etc). Being "behind" on economic development such as attracting industries for jobs is not a positive thing. Cities being "behind" in addressing medical care and facilities (building hospitals, attracting doctors etc) is not a positive thing. Cities being "behind" in not building fire, police and EMT services is not a positive. Cities being "behind" in actively developing a dialogue cross-culturally or racially is not a positive. Cities being "behind" in building adequate and appropriate roads and transportation facilities is not a positive. I could go on and on, but your retort begs the question and is silly on its face....it's sort of like Mr. Obama's assertion that "leading fro BEHIND" is a good strategy on the world stage. Laughable. If a city is standing STILL, it's regressing. Of course some people yearn for the "good ole days"...even the days of slavery, then segregation. Cities that are "behind" on human relations for example are not only "behind", they are BLIND to the world around them and reality. That's just one horrible example where being "behind" is not only "negative", but immoral. Being "behind" is symptomatic of a desire to maintain a level of ignorance or indifference. Frankly of the aforementioned categories, most rational residents, don't want to being "behind".....especially if your house is on fire, or you're having a heart attack, or you have school age children trying to prepare themselves for the FUTURE. Intelligent societies seek progress, not "staying behind" in practically every category or metric. Yes, "BEHIND" does connote a negative assessment - it's laughable and foolish to suggest that being behind is a good thing. Most times that's patently false and sophomoric. Carry on. God Bless.

[techie_g]

PS


Have you ever heard the phrase or assessment of : "Behind the curve" ? the connotation is about 95% negative.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by techie_g

[/b]



For godsake...."behind" means not progressing....not progressing is not a positive.
For example if a city is "behind" in education, that's not a positive (behind on curriculum, hiring qualified teachers/administrators, building schools, planning for overcrowding, etc). Being "behind" on economic development such as attracting industries for jobs is not a positive thing. Cities being "behind" in addressing medical care and facilities (building hospitals, attracting doctors etc) is not a positive thing. Cities being "behind" in not building fire, police and EMT services is not a positive. Cities being "behind" in actively developing a dialogue cross-culturally or racially is not a positive. Cities being "behind" in building adequate and appropriate roads and transportation facilities is not a positive. I could go on and on, but your retort begs the question and is silly on its face....it's sort of like Mr. Obama's assertion that "leading fro BEHIND" is a good strategy on the world stage. Laughable. If a city is standing STILL, it's regressing. Of course some people yearn for the "good ole days"...even the days of slavery, then segregation. Cities that are "behind" on human relations for example are not only "behind", they are BLIND to the world around them and reality. That's just one horrible example where being "behind" is not only "negative", but immoral. Being "behind" is symptomatic of a desire to maintain a level of ignorance or indifference. Frankly of the aforementioned categories, most rational residents, don't want to being "behind".....especially if your house is on fire, or you're having a heart attack, or you have school age children trying to prepare themselves for the FUTURE. Intelligent societies seek progress, not "staying behind" in practically every category or metric. Yes, "BEHIND" does connote a negative assessment - it's laughable and foolish to suggest that being behind is a good thing. Most times that's patently false and sophomoric. Carry on. God Bless.

It's not being "behind" that is the issue. It's how you are applying your values to evaluating the state that is the issue. There is nothing "behind" about small communities not offering the amenities of large urban areas. It's just plain old economics. Criticizing small communities for not having the resources of large cities is silly and laughable. It's fine to point out that such amenities aren't available in the rural setting of much of Arkansas, but it's not because the people living in those rural communities are stupid or backward. It's because the demand for those amenities, and the resources to provide them, aren't there. In the meantime, rural settings have advantages that many rural residents appreciate. They have an opportunity to have real relationships with their mayors and other city officials. They don't have to deal with terrible traffic. When something bad happens, the entire community often pitches in to help. They often have cleaner and healthier environment than people living in urban areas.

No setting is perfect. Every lifestyle has its advantages and disadvantages. And for most people, it's a matter of preference. I think that's what other posters have been trying to point out to you.

[Hollynla]

Originally Posted by techie_g

[/b]



For godsake...."behind" means not progressing....not progressing is not a positive.
For example if a city is "behind" in education, that's not a positive (behind on curriculum, hiring qualified teachers/administrators, building schools, planning for overcrowding, etc). Being "behind" on economic development such as attracting industries for jobs is not a positive thing. Cities being "behind" in addressing medical care and facilities (building hospitals, attracting doctors etc) is not a positive thing. Cities being "behind" in not building fire, police and EMT services is not a positive. Cities being "behind" in actively developing a dialogue cross-culturally or racially is not a positive. Cities being "behind" in building adequate and appropriate roads and transportation facilities is not a positive. I could go on and on, but your retort begs the question and is silly on its face....it's sort of like Mr. Obama's assertion that "leading fro BEHIND" is a good strategy on the world stage. Laughable. If a city is standing STILL, it's regressing. Of course some people yearn for the "good ole days"...even the days of slavery, then segregation. Cities that are "behind" on human relations for example are not only "behind", they are BLIND to the world around them and reality. That's just one horrible example where being "behind" is not only "negative", but immoral. Being "behind" is symptomatic of a desire to maintain a level of ignorance or indifference. Frankly of the aforementioned categories, most rational residents, don't want to being "behind".....especially if your house is on fire, or you're having a heart attack, or you have school age children trying to prepare themselves for the FUTURE. Intelligent societies seek progress, not "staying behind" in practically every category or metric. Yes, "BEHIND" does connote a negative assessment - it's laughable and foolish to suggest that being behind is a good thing. Most times that's patently false and sophomoric. Carry on. God Bless.

Judging by your definition of behind, I'd rather stay behind. That doesn't make me stupid nor does it mean I'm regressing or negative. Your idea of how the world works is what is really laughable.

[spillerNburr]

Originally Posted by WestForkGrant

Diversity is a problem in Fayetteville?
I disagree
There's a major university with students and professors from over 100 countries. Not to mention just next door in Springdale a large Hispanic and Marshallese population. Fayetteville and the area in general attract a lot of people for the Fortune 500 HQ jobs. It could be a lot worse..

Diversity is a problem in and of itself. It causes friction and issues unlike homogeneity which breeds content. I am looking at Fayetteville because it has less minorities in it. I don't want to live in Furigison or Memphis where they have destroyed the city

[okie1962]

Originally Posted by techie_g

OH well.


Carry on. Believe, think, contend, or understand what you wish.


God Bless.

You seem to be very condescending.

[WestForkGrant]

Originally Posted by spillerNburr

Diversity is a problem in and of itself. It causes friction and issues unlike homogeneity which breeds content. I am looking at Fayetteville because it has less minorities in it. I don't want to live in Furigison or Memphis where they have destroyed the city

I hope I don't have an outlook this negative when I become an old fart. I don't think Ferguson or Memphis are comparable to Fayetteville so I guess you're in luck. If you really don't like blacks that much you can easily live in West Little Rock and hardly interact with people that don't look like you. Just my $0.02.