Thank you, ladies! I have a few things from L.L.Bean and I do really like the quality. Their styles and sizes don't always work for me, but when they do work, they are wonderful! We have an Ann Taylor and a Talbots in the same shopping center. I've never bought from either one before, but I think it's time to check them out. Thank you again!

By which I mean, hold up well to ordinary washing and wearing, keep their shape, made of quality fabric that's less likely to develop wear spots or holes or to "pill", etc. (Women's clothing, that is.)

This is me!!! And it gets worse the older I get. I remember marathon shopping with my mom, grandma, aunts, and cousins when I was a kid and it was such a blast. Now, ONE STORE and I am so completely overloaded by the music that's so loud you can't carry on a conversation without yelling, the jostling crowd, the gazillion things to see (all of which my well-meaning daughter has to point out to me!) that I'm just ready to home and pour a glass of wine. In a *silent* room. Alone.

Oh, yes of course. I did know this but for some reason it wasn't coming to mind. Thank you! I look forward to reading the articles.

I was chatting with my husband about this over breakfast, and he said that he thinks that in families, like his family of origin, where there is dysfunction, it's hardest on the oldest. He's a middle child, and as rough as his childhood was for him, he feels like his oldest brother bore the brunt of all of their parents' issues and problems. And it's true that his older brother has struggled the most and had the most difficulties in his career and his marriages. I don't think his youngest brother is unscathed either, though. Well none of them escaped unscathed. But I do think my husband (the middle) has been the most successful and happy, both professionally and personally.

Would you happen to know of any articles about this (which methods of boosting self-esteem were proven to be undesirable) that you could easily point me to? Or if you wouldn't mind taking the time to explain a little more, I'd be grateful to hear it.

I agree with this. I'm an oldest, while I had it the most rough growing up, I also had the easiest time adjusting to adulthood. For my "baby" brother, it was the opposite: easiest childhood, hardest 20's. Contrary to popular opinion, I think middle children are in a great position. They get the best of both worlds. That said, I think there's limited usefullness to birth order psychology. I do think that other factors play a much larger role. But to the extent that I have noticed it to be a factor, I'd say being the eldest is challenging but beneficial, being the middle is pretty nice all the way around, and being the youngest is the most disadvantaged position.

Your poor grandpa. My grandma lost most of her teeth when she was still pretty young, too. And that whole "Little House on the Prairie" thing that Audrey was talking about? Yeah, grandma actually did that, twice (not her choice either time). Homesteading was not romantic. It was lonely, miserable, the hardest work imagineable for the littlest reward, and literally deadly. My grandma was only 12 when her mom died in an actual little house on the prairie. The stories she has told me about those years of her life. . . . good heavens.

This just made me think of something funny. My grandma (she'll turn 100 years old later this month) launches into an absolute fit/lecture/rant whenever anyone (always someone who wasn't actually alive at the time) talks about "the good old days". She explains, adamantly and in great detail, that they were the BAD old days, and she knows because she survived them. :) I love my grandma! :D ETA: I feel like I should explain that my grandma is *not* a complainer. Just the opposite - she has stayed positive and found happiness in some pretty astonishing circumstances. She does not complain about the past. She simply won't put up with anyone else portraying it in a way that it was not.

Nan, this was a lovely and insightful post. It's very easy for me (coming from my old lady, 40-something perspective) to be astounded at the amount of time and money that younger people spend on their phones. Honestly, I have *never* owned a smartphone, not to this day. I still somehow manage to stay in touch with my friends (I chisel messages into rocks ;) ) So it's easy for me to think of it as a luxury, and to shake my head at "kids these days". That was a very helpful insight into why it means so much to them. My limited understanding of history has led me to conclude that practically every generation, in its later years, curses the younger generation. Whatever the particulars of the complaints are, I think what it really boils down to is: they aren't doing things the same way we did them, and the way we did them was obviously the best! We need to step back and realize that differences don't automatically mean flaws. Each generation has its weaknesses, yes, but also its strengths, has things that it does *better* than the ones that came before it.

I wish that I had some brilliant advice to offer you, but I do want to encourage you that there is reason to hope! My daughter went through a very rough time in 9th grade last year, all the same things you're describing. A couple of weeks into our 10th grade year this fall, she asked me why 10th grade is so much easier than 9th was. I told her that it isn't, the difference is that she has learned how to handle the heavier workload of high school. So what was once so difficult that it had her in tears is now just routine. I don't know if that helps at all right now, but hang in there, because it will get better! :grouphug:

Oh, yes, agreed! I think that fitness and blood sugar are profoundly more important than weight/BMI. I also suspect that what is categorized as "normal" BMI is probably too strict. I just wish the study had been based on something more informative than BMI. I get it, BMI is quick, easy, and cheap to measure. But it doesn't tell us much. Two people can have the same BMI and one of them could be more muscular and fit with heavier/denser bones, and the other one sedentary with a higher body fat percentage. It seems to me like what this study "wants" to say is that contrary to popular opinion a little extra fat isn't dangerous and might even be protective. I suspect there's some truth to that! But to prove it, you would have to measure body fat percentage, not BMI. Because otherwise you don't know if the benefits are coming from the extra body fat, or from having more muscle and bone mass. Right? (Correct me if I'm missing something.) I don't know, maybe even body fat percentage is not the right measurement to make. If the protective effects of higher BMI are coming from having denser bones and stronger muscles, maybe a simple body fat percentage test isn't going to make that clear. Hmmm.....

Like others have said, my first thought was Catholic rather than Italian. I think it is a beautiful name and would encourage you to go for it! :)

I'd personally categorize it as "interesting but not definitive". I look forward to more studies being done so that the picture becomes clearer. Like was pointed out in the BU article that Lisbeth linked, weight/BMI *history* is just as important as weight at the time of the study. And I don't understand - one article says the study accounted for smoking, one says it didn't. Has anyone looked at the original study? Also, I'd be a whole lot more impressed if the study had been based on body fat percentage, because BMI doesn't really tell you much. BMI charts are, IMHO, flawed. So a whole study based on "what can we predict about health from BMI?" is asking the wrong question, I think.

I'll never buy anything from any "third party" vendor on Amazon again. I ordered a blood ketone monitor, and I was sent an obviously USED device, which wasn't working! The vendor gave me the run-around and tried a million different ways of avoiding giving me a refund - even going so far as to refuse to accept the shipment went I sent it back to them (at my own expense, of course). Only when I told Amazon that I was going to my bank to dispute the credit card charge did I finally get my money back. (Two months after buying the device!) The thing is, this seller had numerous complaints and negative reviews, which I obviously should have read BEFORE placing my order. But why does Amazon allow people like that to keep selling through their site?

Someone who is more knowledgeable (bolt, anyone) jump in here and correct any misunderstandings that I might have. But here is my understanding of why the "older manuscripts are automatically better" theory has its flaws and limitations. Mark's account of the resurrection (16:19-20) is present in hundreds upon hundreds of ancient manuscripts. It is not present in 2 (yes, just two!), but because those two are the oldest, modern translators working on Westcottand Hort's theory call those two the "most reliable". It is worth noting that one of those two leaves a blank space where that passage should be, indicating that the person transcribing it knew that something should be there. Similarly, the story of the adulterous woman (John 7:53 - 8:11) is present in hundreds (I think I read it was over 900) manuscripts, but is absent in Westcott and Hort's preferred texts. St. Augustine said that this passage had been excised out of fear that it would promote adultery. I don't think any of us actually doubt that these passages should be there. So why would we consider the two manuscripts that don't include them to be "more reliable" than the hundreds that do? Why is "older" superior to "complete"? The difference isn't one of just age, it is also one of geography. I don't know why the Egyptian manuscripts include less information than the manuscripts in other regions, but why should we automatically consider them superior simply because older versions of them exist? Just to be clear, I'm not advocating KJO. But I do think there is value to the KJV, and one major point in its favor is that it is based on the more complete texts. I personally want every possible word that our Lord spoke, and every possible word that the apostles wrote, to be included. I don't feel that I in any way benefit from less information. (Edited for spelling and formatting mistake.)

Thank you for saying this. I really think that learning a second language to the level of fluency requires a great deal of effort, dedication, time, and probably immersion. I'm saying this as someone who has never done it! So this is just what I suspect, not what I know. I took three whole semesters (big deal!) of French in college, and I was shocked by how many people expressed shock that I wasn't fluent. Are you kidding me??? Three courses barely scratched the surface of the French language! I'm sure that even at my best point, I was far less able to communicate in French than your average French 2-year old.

I thought this was a really interesting question: what is the most common second language that people globally are trying to learn? Not sure how definitive this source is, but it's neat, because maps. :D http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/second-languages-of-the-world-infographic

Thanks! :) It is a really interesting book! At least, to me. ;) The author argues that the translation is so beautiful because it was accomplished during the "golden age" of the English language, and because the translators strove so very much for accuracy, thus preserving the beauty and majesty of the original texts. He covers a variety of sub-topics of course, but one little thing that intrigued me was when he pointed out the difference between the modern translators who use adjective-noun form, whereas the KJV has a more frequent use of a noun-of-noun form. For example, "a strong man" versus "a man of strength". The latter sounds more impressive, and it's apparently truer to the original languages as well. Just such a little thing, but it makes a difference!

I feel like I should clarify that the book I mentioned above, The Legacy of the King James Bible, is about the literary and cultural value of the translation. It's not a sectarian or denominational treatise at all. I apologize if this wasn't the correct place for me to post about it (since I resurrected the thread). Since this thread was what prompted/reminded me to read it, it seemed appropriate at the time! :) But I certainly did not mean to sound argumentative. And I just want to be clear that I have tremendous respect and admiration for the Catholic church, so my growing appreciation for the KJV is not at all about any anti-Catholic sentiments. And I continue to be stunned by the stories of people thinking that Jesus and the apostles spoke English. Honestly, I would have thought that was a joke until this thread. I had no idea people really believed that.

Oh, I didn't know that! Definitely not a name I would pick, then, even though I do like the sound of it.

I know this thread kind of died out, but I thought I'd mention that I was in a Christian bookstore recently, and saw this title on the clearance rack: http://www.amazon.com/The-New-King-James-Version/dp/0785251758 This thread inspired me to buy it, even though it's about the NKJV. And then that reminded me that quite some time ago, I had purchased this book, but never read it: http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-King-James-Bible-Celebrating-ebook/dp/B004IEAJMI/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1447642661&sr=1-1&keywords=legacy+king+james+bible I'm not quite finished yet with this latter one, but it's been a particularly interesting read. And it has motivated me to decide that while the NKJV is *wonderful*, truly, for reading and study, I think we (daughter and I) will do our memory work from the original KJV. It really is a beautiful, compelling, powerful translation.

I didn't know that name was uncommon enough to cause confusion or surprise. I love Irish names. I have an acquaintance named Shillelagh (pronounced shih-LAY-lee). I told her that I thought her name was so beautiful, and she said that Americans always think that, but Irish always laugh, because they know what it means: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shillelagh_(club) I still think it sounds pretty though. Like a butterfly or a flower. Never would have guessed "walking stick"! :)

Ah, yes, the images that came up look very familiar! Guess I had forgotten the name. Thanks!

I've never heard of that, so I'll have to google. :)