I don't know if there's a way to prevent that, but when I've bought things I don't want on the kids' Kindles, as soon as I purchase it, I take their Kindles and delete it from their list. I've had the same issue with Audible. As far as I know, there's no way to keep it from at least showing up in cloud for all the devices under one account. But at least you can delete it from the main scrolling list.

Yup. That's exactly the one I'm talking about! :001_smile:

Logical fallacy. You might as well say: If Jesus was human, then faith in Jesus equals faith in humanity. That would sure spark a doctrinal debate! Someone has a wonderful comic in their siggy that exemplifies this very well...wish I could remember who.

I have to strongly disagree with this. If you are not prepared to use a gun, then don't pick it up. I'm not saying your cousin wasn't prepared to use it. I'm just saying that anyone who buys a gun and thinks its presence alone will be a deterrent is setting themselves up for serious problems. First, thieves will break in with the intention to steal guns. So having guns won't necessarily deter robbers. In some cases, you may increase that risk. (Of course, this greatly depends on who and how many people know you have a gun.) Second, pointing a gun at an attacker will likely escalate a situation. You may easily find your bluff being called and end up in a worse scenario. I mean this nicely....this is very important, basic gun safety. Please, never, ever think that owning a gun and intending to threaten only is a good idea in any form. If you are not prepared to fire it and kill someone, don't pick it up!

I don't exactly know why America has so many guns, but I suspect it is largely due to our history: our revolution against Britain, our Civil War, our Wild West. Our culture is heavily steeped in history where average citizens took up arms to fight the "bad guy" (whoever that might have been at the time). For a long time, the military might take care of problems on foreign soil, but here in the US, it was the people who dealt with most problems. Understanding that gun ownership is are a part of our history is very important to addressing gun ownership in our present world. People are understandably going to resist what has been such an important part of their culture. The mindset that you are the first line of defense for yourself and your loved ones is ingrained in a large part of the country, which is why we probably have a increase in gun sales after tragedies like these. So what works in other countries will not necessarily work here.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. There are limits in place now, often by the stores themselves, even the ones that cater to gun owners. And you have to show ID to purchase guns. I'm not saying stock-piling isn't possible. I'm just saying that for those that are determined to do so, more regulations isn't going to stop them.

Okay. I understand what you're saying. I guess I don't really have a problem with pretend play like that. I don't equate any games or toys with treating violence as fun, per se. I think role-playing, even in the examples you gave, can help kids to learn to identify "bad" and "good," and it also helps them to learn to follow rules. So while I would cringe if my kids tried to play pimp or drug dealer, at the typical age of role-playing like that, they doubtfully have a full grasp of what either really means. I might have one of *those* talks, but I wouldn't be worried about them becoming either a pimp or a drug dealer. The real problem is when kids don't learn that there are "bad" roles and "good" roles. In other words, it's not the games or the toys, it's what is acceptable in the child's environment. If real violence is acceptable or expected, the kid will be more likely to resort to violence. If real violence is unacceptable, the kid learns that, too. "Games are okay. Toys are okay. Hurting your brother or sister is not okay. I don't care what you were playing."

Are you sure it doesn't? Around here, from what I hear from family members who do have guns, it's nearly impossible to do this, anyway. But over-all, I agree with you. There is no easy answer. And I'm cautious with what seems like an easy answer because often that leads to worse problems.

I don't understand. Are you saying that toy guns are responsible for an increase in violence?

Making more rules against guns, etc. seems like a band-aid reaction to me. I think it's easy to blame guns, when they're the instrument being used, but I don't think the problem is the instrument. I think the problem lies in the people, and I think these people would just find another way to cause harm. Would greater regulation really address the cause of violence against kids and in schools? I don't think so. The people that are most dangerous around guns are not going to follow the laws anyway, and there are always going to be ways to get your hands on illegal whatever. I think what is a more likely "cause" is that those who would actually commit these atrocities find encouragement and validation in at least some form via our current technologies. I don't think we should restrict internet access, etc. It's just a reflection of today's world. And that doesn't mean we should be accepting of violence, either. It means we need a different approach. We have so many laws now that it is nearly impossible for the average citizen to NOT do something illegal. And this is in part because of slapping band-aids on problems instead of dealing with the core issues. Our entire legal system is screwed up. Even if you are innocent, don't believe for one minute that you'll be treated as innocent until proven guilty. The US legal system has become an instrument of extortion and bullying. Personally, I think that needs to be dealt with before starting in on increasing firearm regulations.

:lol: No and No. If I know I'm having company, I do make things presentable, both for my house and myself. Generally, though, I *try* not to live in a pig pen. Doesn't always work, though. But enough visits to others with kids at home all day has made me realize that my expectations for my house are too high.

Another vote for one box of cups, enough for them to have a couple of cups a day, if you can afford it. If not, then instant. I would want to be a good hostess, and I really try to make visitors (even family) feel welcomed. BUT I wouldn't allow myself to be taken advantage of again. I would not buy anymore than what was reasonable for them for the visit.

:bigear:

I think these two replies sound pretty good. Thanks!

Sorry I didn't clarify. First, the job is NOT at my current church. It's for a very large church in a different denomination. They already have people on staff that are members of other churches, including other denominations. Second, I don't have a problem working in church settings at all! That's not the issue. Most of my experience is church-related, and honestly, I think I'd be good at this position! The issue is: IF I am asked why I'm not currently involved in anything in my current church, when my resume shows a lot of involvement up to a couple of years ago, what would be a good reply without shooting myself in the foot?

I'm trying to find a part-time job to help cover some school expenses. There's a position open for a receptionist at a local church. I think I would be good at this. I have a good feeling about it, but I'm a little concerned about how an interview would go, and yes, I haven't even submitted anything yet, so I'm kinda jumping the gun a bit, but.... In the past few years, my worldview has changed dramatically. I do not agree with many things that my current church teaches. Dh and I have discussed this, and I have told him I would like to get my name removed from the membership, but we haven't taken that step, yet. A major part of my not being currently involved with anything at church is because I don't feel it is appropriate when I don't agree with their statement of faith. Nearly all of my skills and experience comes from work that I've done in the past with churches. It's a big part of my resume, so in an interview, I can see a question coming up about how my level of involvement is significantly smaller than what it used to be. How would I address that? I don't want to give them the idea I've been too busy with homeschooling to be involved (because that's not really true, and I wouldn't want to make them think I don't have the time for the job) or that I'm being duplicitous with my church. Is this something I should even worry about? edited to add: The position is at a totally different church than the one I am currently attending. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

Absolutely. Thank you for saying this!

THIS! Tetanus shots have their place, BUT they do no good after the injury. You need the other stuff, not the vax! I don't understand why they say otherwise.

I like Kohls, but yeah, I won't pay regular price for anything in that store! I want my 30% discount + sale price. THEN, it's a decent price. If I'm desperate, I'll settle for 20% off. Couple that with their customer service, and I am a MVC. I have not seen them change their tag prices, and I'm in their fairly frequently. But I have heard this. Maybe it's a practice they got caught with and stopped. JCP, on the other hand, never had decent sales. And when I tried going there when they changed things to make their "everyday price" equal to the "sale price," I was very disappointed. Those new everyday-sale prices could not compare to the prices at Kohls, once I included my normal discounts. And their customer service wasn't very good. And the store was horrible to navigate. I don't even bother going there anymore. Publix is my favorite store. I'm in GA, so the BOGO sales are equal to 50% off, and yeah, add some coupons on that, and you've definitely got a deal! Their stores are always clean, easy to navigate (big aisles and bright lighting), and very friendly everyone (except that one bagger that was a psych student and tried to evaluate me while I was checking out...but this frequent shopper only saw her that once LOL). Still, those "You saved $XX today!" on the receipts are completely bogus, no matter the store I'm in!

This bolded is exactly what happens with my family. I'm one of six. We're all married, most with kids, and for whatever reason, someone gets left out of the loop! :svengo: It usually varies on whose turn. And I think it might have more to do with the fact that we simply assume that someone else said something. *shrug* I don't know. I don't take it personally or look more into other than the fact I belong to a spacy family. :rolleyes:

There is absolutely science to back this up...to a point. Things can enter your bloodstream via being absorbed through the skin. Think of all the different medications that are now available through skin patches. And the bottom of your feet is skin, so yeah, it will absorb there, too. Will it absorb better there versus another part of the body? I have not seen any scientific studies to say yes. I do know that for my own kids, Vicks works better on the soles of the feet than on the chest. But that could be due to other factors than the soles of the feet absorbing it better. Essential oils do work best through absorption (topical) or through inhalation (aromatherapy). Not orally, which can be dangerous. Any benefits that come from taking them orally is arguably due to their absorption in the mouth, not from actual digestion. Can essential oils repair damage at a cellular level? Essential oils have a lot of benefits and uses, but I wouldn't put stock in this claim, either.

I have six kids. It depends on the situation who gets to pick first. In the case of bedrooms, NONE of the kids got to pick! The rooms were assigned based on who would be sharing rooms together and what the needs, etc of the occupants. If there was only a couple of kids or if it didn't really matter as to needs who got what, then I would let the oldest pick first, because (theoretically) the oldest will be gone first! So, then the room opens up and the next in line gets a choice. In other cases, the oldest might get to pick first because with age comes responsibility, but with extra responsibilities come extra perks (and occasionally getting first choice is one of those). Other times, I let the youngest go first, usually, this is to avoid possible complications. For instance, the youngest may get to pick the movie because I know the older ones won't pick one appropriate or one that will actually keep his attention. Other times, I make them work it out, or I take the privilege away. This might apply to bedrooms. If it causes an argument, I make the decision or they don't get whatever at all. Other times (particularly wrt breakfast foods!), it's first-come, first-served. So, really, there is no hard-and-fast rule in our house. Regardless, I don't tolerate complaining about who gets what. With six kids, even though I try to keep it as fair and reasonable as possible, I just can't please everyone all the time.

I live in NE GA. We have Gardenias on the North side of our house. They stay green all year, but they don't get full sun, only partial, so you would need to check on that part. But they smell heavenly when they're in bloom! Azaleas might be another option. There are varieties that range from full shade to full sun, so you need to double-check particular varieties, but they also have beautiful blooms in the spring! I second talking to someone in a nursery or garden center.

:iagree: And I love the shoes!!!

Great thread! Does always having a cup of coffee in the morning count? I think I'm going to work on this idea...just a couple of things that done *consistently* would make life easier. There are several things we do that are done regularly, but are too often shoved aside as well.