Thank you for mentioning these. The Baldwin Project was a chief reason I wanted an iPad - it makes my iPad a library of hundreds of great children's books. I'd looked for years for an affordable set of Alfred Church's 3-volume English History, and now I "have" it.

Bacon success! I cooked the whole package on low heat - I was a little surprised how much longer it took to cook than vegi-bacon, though I don't know why I should have been; it tastes utterly unlike vegi-bacon. Remembered to put the meat overlapping the fat, though there wasn't any stickage problem anyhow. I must get a pair of tongs. Had some with an egg for breakfast. It was really, really, really good. I think tomorrow there will be a spicy breakfast taco featuring bacon. Many thanks to all my bacon-loving advisors. I wonder what meat I will try cooking next. Fish maybe? Lent is coming right up....

The Scribner School Editions from the '60s. http://www.etsy.com/listing/53311205/the-old-man-and-the-sea-by-ernest http://www.ebay.com/itm/Wind-In-The-Willows-Kenneth-Grahame-1964-School-Edition-Shepard-Illustrated-/290784082660?

Lolly is right; it's presented ambiguously. 6/2(2+1)=9 6/[2(2+1)]=1

Vegetarian lasagne and Caesar salad.

Yes I do! Thank you.

Dang dang dang DANG I just realized it's Friday. [weeping] Tomorrow morning. With the dawn.

Bill: you're frightening me, and making me hungrier. What is rendering the fat? Melting it? Ellie: Good, I'll look for thick-sliced. I already figured out not to buy the kind that had flavoring added. All: many thanks - I may not remember all the tips the first time, but I'll re-read the thread carefully. When I saw coconut oil mentioned, my first thought was, "but that's the kind of fat that's bad for you!" :D

Good, thank you thank you, ladies! I'm drooling a little on my iPad now. It must be frying; I'm Texan so frying and barbecuing are the meat options. I can't wait for lessons to be over. Will a nonstick skillet work?

Backstory: I decided when I went off to college that I was a vegetarian. Dh is a vegetarian. Toward the end of my first pregnancy, I fell off the wagon, and started eating meat again (with dh's blessing, as he isn't ideological about his vegetarianism and I think felt a little manly dragging home the slaughtered mammoth [or HEB roast chicken] for his nursing wife). Upshot: I've only ever eaten precooked meat, and never learned to cook it myself. Dh thinks I should just learn to cook it at home - it doesn't bother him - and so yesterday I bought bacon. I found the meat section, and hung around the bacon shelf, staring helplessly at the hundred varieties, until a woman with an air of domestic competence came up, looked over the bacon, and picked a package of Hormel Black Label Original. So I got that. Now it's in my fridge. What do I do? How long does it last uncooked? Cooked? Do I use oil? There seems to be a lot of fat in it already. What kind of oil? What temperature? Should I have started with bacon at all? Help. Please answer as if you were explaining to a slow ten-year-old.

I think there is a lot of room between "unkindness" and "attacking."

Ah. I understand you better now. I suppose in theoretical principle I disagree - it doesn't strike me as that difficult to construct a rating system that would distinguish between graphic anatomical descriptions and references to horrible events - but I'm not going to push that, as a rating system for books not intended for children is a really terrible idea in the first place. I don't think there ought to be a rating system for films, for that matter, other than G = intended for young children and X = intended for the porn market. Anyway, I apologize again, as I see now where I misunderstood you.

Obviously I have misunderstood you, and I'm happy to apologize for that, as it seemed unlike you. Could you help me out and unpack for me your above sentence, "Clearly, some people haven't read [the Christian Bible]"? Who are the "some people," and why is it clear they haven't read it? ETA: I don't think however, that I said, either, what you're characterizing me as saying.

There's some slippage here from the original objection, which was to anatomically detailed, graphic descriptions of child rape, to ancient literature that refers to horrific events. It's easy slippage to make, as there's no way to post comparative passages. I would happily post the unpleasant passages from Gilgamesh or the Bible here; I could not post (for example) the relevant parts of the Walker Percy book I was foolish enough to read, as it would be immediately deleted by the moderators and possibly get me banned. I'm also disappointed to see the suggestion that people who find such passages unnecessary and obnoxious, even when committed by Great Authors, must have not read the Bible, Gilgamesh, etc. Can we discuss this without the personal unkindness?

'There is no information to show' is all I get when I click on My Content.

The very high prices are usually placeholder prices, from a seller who doesn't have a title currently but expects to have it later; so instead of delisting and relisting, he sets the price at an unrealistic number. Sometimes pricing bots then set prices at just under these numbers.

If you mean legally, the first amendment protects it so long as no actual minor was involved in producing it. So anything in print is legal. But I agree with you. For years people were telling me to read Walker Percy. So I read the Thanatos Syndrome. Graphic descriptions of child rape, apparently meant to be darkly funny? Ick. No thank you.

I would be deeply offended if a sibling, cousin, in-law, or fourth cousin twice removed used a name I had already used up on one of my children. I also get annoyed at people using other words I'm already using. I notice a few of you have used the word "name" in this thread. Quit.

Unless you're firm on using adapted/abridged versions, I would suggest looking at the old Educator Classic Library series. Difficult vocabulary and concepts are explained in the margins, often with useful illustrations for unfamiliar objects. Very popular at our house, and very easy to find super-cheap. The series: http://www.valerieslivingbooks.info/classics.htm http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=&title=&lang=en&submit=Search&new_used=*&destination=us&currency=USD&binding=*&isbn=&keywords=Educator+classic+library&minprice=&maxprice=&mode=advanced&st=sr&ac=qr

Think it would help if you could say, "I'm the plaintiff from that State Supreme Court case with the pious boss who felt he had to fire employees he was afraid he might sexually harass"? Maybe not so much.

One thing to remember about these facts (and here I'm arguing a bit for the defendant) is that this was a summary judgment in the lower court, and an affirmation of that in the higher court. Now an actual lawyer here can correct me, but I understand that a summary judgment is where the defendant says, "Even if the plaintiff were to prove everything she claims is true, she would still lose; because the facts wouldn't support the argument she's making." So the court looks at the evidence "in the light most favorable to the plaintiff": that is, the judge assumes that the plaintiff has proved that all the facts she claims are true, and in this case decided that the law didn't give her the win. So the case gets dismissed, as it would be a waste of everyone's time for her to try to prove them. But the result is that the facts get reported in the press as if the court had found them to be true, when in fact the court has only assumed them to be true for the sake of deciding the summary judgment. So we only see what she has alleged; not what the court would have decided was true if both parties had gotten a chance to present their case. It's an important difference.

This was an affirmation of summary judgment, in which the only question determined by the courts (lower and supreme) was a point of law. There was no determination as to whether the plaintiff had met a burden of proof. Nor did the appellee "argue employment at will"; which is any case a legal doctrine and not an argument. This attractive female person. Being female is, we presume, an integral component to his attraction toward her; one which his male employees would have no danger of finding themselves complicating their working relationships with the employer. Let me put it another way: if women are more likely than men to be fired by this employer, it's still gender discrimination. Now the one thing that leads me to see this a little differently is that, on looking at the facts, this seems to have been a consensual relationship, which (I think) interferes with her arguing successfully that she was treated differently than a male employee just because of her gender. But we were, I thought, talking about principles of law, not about how difficult a plaintiff might find it to prove their case. Surely you see that those are very different things? And you are, I believe, incorrect in thinking that only firing black employees for "attitude" (but not non-black employees) doesn't constitute racial discrimination. As for proof, I'm pretty sure the difficulty in proving this sort of thing is exactly why the employee only has to make out a prima facie case for discrimination, and then the burden shifts to the employer.

You misunderstand. My example had nothing to do with insubordination. It was about having different, and race-based, sex-based, or other-protected-category-based, performance standards for different employees. If your dislike of "uppitiness" or your dress code standards are only enforced against black or female employees, you are likely in violation of state and/or federal antidiscrimination law. Do you understood my first point, that at-will employment is superseded by antidiscrimination law? You may feel very strongly that, as the boss, you can fire an employee for any reason you please; but the law disagrees.

Not a lawyer, but a few things that I thought I did understand about employment law: At-will employment has no bearing on the case if she was suing for illegal discrimination. As others have observed, there are protected categories. Since this was a suit in a state court, I assume it was under state employment discrimination law, not the federal Civil Rights Act. It may be her next move is filing in federal court. Surely firing someone because you're sexually attracted to them, if you're only sexually attracted to that one sex, is discrimination based on sex. It seems beside the point that he replaced her with another woman. Just like you can't fire black employees that you find "uppity" and claim it's not racial discrimination because you hire another black employee with an attitude you find suits you better in a black person. The gender discrimination here seems very straightforward: if she had been a man, he wouldn't have fired her. I'm guessing a federal court would take that "but-for" route.

I think a lot of the games in KTM aren't reinforcement of Miquon concepts so much as a broader grounding in the "mathiness" of the child's world, and a training the child to see these concepts occurring in reality. All I can say is, the combo worked well for us.