Entertain yourself, but do it in right way

 Postman says, in his last paragraph, it will be easy to cause destructions by ourselves in the age of advanced technology. He didn't necessarily stated the machines and techologies as an enemy, however, it will be depends on us whether we accept firmly about change in materials. Also Postman isn't necessarily trying to criticize about the Age of television, he merely wants to guide us to the right path of technology. By supporting Huxley's assertions, Postman's warning was sharp enough to cause wonder between people about amusing ourselves to death in this technological society.

"Mediafest" effect

 For one day, I could not speak and all I could do to communicate was illustrating pictures on the whiteboard and using body languages to explain things. I thought it was going to be easy as the "Facebook fest", but it turned out to be brutal. It was really hard to illustrate instead of talking, and even harder when I kept thinking about the fact that I could not talk. However this "Mediafest" taught me the value of communication. I learned how talking and sharing ideas through speaking can affect me and others. As Postman wrote in his book, we couldn't realize how communication is important untill you actually experience elimination of talking. I personally think elimination of talking can resulted in elimination of thinking and creativity, that way, this 'Mediafest' made me to think about how our society can change depend on the tool that we choose to communicate with others. Will the tool be the piece of machine or actual person?

Postman's statement

Neil Postman expressed his notions in both interview and book about how people can be carelss in communicatining with other people. In his book, Postman mentioned that, "the decline of the Age of Typography and the ascendancy of the Age of Television", it reveals the change in technonology can affect the society and people. As the technology changes, not only our lifestyle is going to change, but even our concept and mind. In his another quote, "our conversations about nature and about ourselves are conducted in whatever 'languages' we find it possible and convenient to employ", it relates what he said in the interview. He said that in next millenium, people will become our language, and further as our communication. Besides, the notions in Postman's book are also revealed in his interview. He merely states the change in generation and the consequences we can get in order to communicate with media. Either way, Postman's opinion has criticism towards us that we don't realize we are "entertaining ourselves to death".

Where is the civility in public?

1. "Civility in public discourse is important". This sentence reveals Chavez's opinion right away. By writing this first sentence, we can see she is already criticizing our carelessness of civility. She is aiming at the lack of civility with examples in many situations such as in politics, newspaper, and literature.

2. Chavez uses the word 'bellicose' by using the politic examples. "When we say a candidate 'took his best shot,' we don't mean he aimed a gun at his opponent. Nor does 'firing a shot across the bow' mean anything more than issuing a strong warning." She indicates that those phrases with bellicosity are not necessarily means what it says. Her opinion wasn't about orginal meanings of those words, it was about how people can use those phrases appropriately. I think she uses the word 'bellicose' to distinguish between the words that are just as belligent, but has different purpose and some words that really are offensive. 

3. A) I think she is telling readers that in order to show our civility, we should use the phrases appropriately and make better word-choice depend on situations. By using the example of person being forced to resign, she shows how people can use inappropriate phrases unconsciously in the situation and don't realize it.

B) She mentions that, "But words themselves aren't the problem -- it's what is behind the words that matters", to show how we can be offensive and hurtful with poor language choices. Chavez certainly thinks that it is not the matter of words, it is the matter of context and contents. Besides, it is our choice to make afforntive argument, even with the words that are not necessarily belligent.

4. I agree with Chavez's notion that it's our own desire to decide the meaning of sentence, not the words. 'One rotten apple spoils the barrel'