Ah! YOU were the shoe lady! I remember stories I read here but don't always remember who posted them. Crazy stuff. I don't have any awesome anti-homeschooling stories.

Just copying ancient art. :001_smile:

And absolutely not needed until a kid is about 13 or so--even then only if they want or need the higher level competition and want to be seen by college and pro scouts. I know a lot of baseball families that do travel ball with younger kids and that's great, but it is very expensive and very time consuming with not much trade off. Some kids get burned out and end up injuring their arms or hating baseball.

Isn't it sad that we think 8 might be too old to start a sport? But I know what you mean. If your kid is naturally athletic, 8 is definitely not too young (and as others have said, neither is 11). If you signed him up with Little League, fall is a great time to start. Fall is supposed to be instructional, not competitive like spring. It isn't an official season so things are more relaxed. My dh has coached Little League for years and coached high school ball the last two years. He says that an 8 yo that hasn't played before can throw the ball (or use a tennis ball) up into the air to himself to practice catching, bounce a tennis ball against a wall to do ground ball work, and soft toss the ball up into the air and hit the ball with a bat. That is a few things to get him started (and some things he can do on his own).

Thanks for this link! We went with Saxon because that is what we have been using. I'm watching my ds slowly sink. This looks much more approachable!

Happy birthday!!!

Best telemarketing call I ever had was with a guy from India. After telling him we were moving out of state in two days and had no use for whatever it was he was selling, we spent half an hour discussing Bollywood movies.

:grouphug: :grouphug:

Most of the books were chosen to fit together and to encourage the child to make connections (like you said is already happening). If you really don't like a particular book, you could check over at the AO forum to see what others have found as a good substitute. We cover the "extras" (like nature study, picture study) once every week or two weeks, depending on our schedule. For hymn, folksongs and composer, we listen to CDs while in the car. ETA: I didn't have time to finish this post! Just wanted to add that you need to do what works for your family but I did drop some readings with my oldest and regret it now because some books that come later tie in to earlier books. The books were chosen for a reason and I think when you tweak curriculum or book lists it is good to understand the "whys" behind them in order to make a more informed decision. We skipped Shakespeare in the earlier years. We are doing it now and my younger ones absolutely love it. That would probably be the last thing they wanted me to drop! I would never have guessed that they would connect with Shakepeare plays so much! We read only two plays per year (original plays after reading the shorter versions).

As someone married to a man others find difficult, the line about Hitler and MT struck me funny! :-) (No, he's not a Hitler or abusive in anyway. Just others have commented on how they can't understand how we get along so well in spite of very different personalities.)

I agree. Kids pick up values from somewhere. I think it is good to be intentional and pro-active with parenting in any area of life, especially when I see a message coming from pop culture that is the opposite of what I believe is healthy. My mom grew up in the South in the 1950s. I remember her commenting once that it was weird to be told her whole life that sex was something she shouldn't even think about and then suddenly on the wedding night she was supposed to know everything. My parents were open to discussing sex and any other topic. I don't remember many conversations about sex but I do remember how my dad only had eyes for my mom and how he was very open about his feeling towards her. (My mom was more reserved!) It was normal to us that husbands and wives desired each other. I think they gave me a very positive example of the beauty of sex and how it adds depth to a marriage. As far as the article linked by the OP, I always wonder who these Christians are and which churches they attend. It's strange to me that a church would have a special support group just to maintain abstinence before marriage. We have a men's group (and women's group) where we can discuss any issue--sex or not, married or single. Sin is sin and we are all struggling with something. I'm a conservative Christian but articles like this always make me wonder what all these other conservative Christian are doing. It never matches my reality! :lol:

There is another show similar to Candid Camera where a guy does magic tricks and fools people into believing crazy things. Problem is the main guy has the personality of a door knob and they never reveal the gag. Part of the fun is seeing the reactions of people when they realize it is a joke. Another Candid Camera would be good, I'm sure!

Chicken Rice-a-Roni with Spam, sliced boiled eggs and olives. I sometimes make it for him with just Spam. He and my boys absolutely love it.

I read this three times before figuring out what the problem was. Lol!

Someone posted a few years ago about how she teaches writing using copy work and Narrations. I wish I had it bookmarked! You could take one written narration per week and edit it and have them rewrite it. Point out one thing to work on each time. Would your ds do better with typing it out instead of handwriting it?

Thank you! And that picture will totally be my life today. ;-)

I'm very sorry about your dad. :-(

1) I think it is fair to say that even though someone doesn't swallow every scientific study hook, line and sinker she can still believe science will eventually figure out how the natural world functions. How do you go about judging scientific studies? 2) I had misread your original post when I said that about capitalism. I assumed you were saying that capitalism is the reason some studies are later "debunked." I was pointing out that the problems within the studies later found false were within the studies themselves. When I re-read what you wrote, I realized I completely missed what you were saying. 3) Recognizing that many scientific studies are eventually labeled false is not fear-mongering or anti-intellectualism. I agree it can be used in an attempt to discredit science as a whole but I disagree that that is what is happening in this thread. ETA: Isn't it amazing that we irrational thinkers could devise something as ingenious as the scientific method?

I haven't seen anyone in this thread say that science can't be trusted, only that some scientific studies are ultimately proved to be incorrect so keep that in mind when hearing about the latest scientific breakthrough. Even scientists ( and I know you) would agree with that so I'm confused as to what the problem is. As you have stated before, when new information becomes available, what was once accepted as true is revised. I fail to see how this is a science vs. religion argument.

I might have misread albeto's post. Ha! Looking back I did. I thought she was saying something else. :laugh: I think self-correction in science is a good thing too and didn't mean to imply that it wasn't. I'm not really sure what religion has to do with the discussion but see above ^^^. :001_smile:

If this quote from the article is true, then there is also a problem starts long before capitalism enters the picture. Another major problem is that many study results cannot be reliable reproduced. Oransky cites a famous paper by Dr. John Iaonnidis, “Why most published research findings are false,†that shows the inherent biases and the flawed statistical analyses built into most “hypothesis driven†research, resulting in publications that largely represent “accurate measures of the prevailing bias.â€

Haven't read any of it but I could pull it up. Here is the actual link.

One strain already made it here (scary) and was airborne (even scarier) so I'm surprised that they say it's 'highly unlikely'. In the past it seems like the virus burned itself out because it killed its hosts too quickly. This time it seems to be hanging around longer or at least infecting more people. Maybe I'm mistaken about that though? I couldn't find online where it listed how long the other outbreaks lasted.

She might have meant "author". I read that twice too!

According to WHO, this is correct. The incubation period can be as long as 21 days but the carrier isn't contagious until symptoms show. Then they are contagious for as long as two months afterwards.