With the recent board change, the default setting was email notifications for followed content, plus to automatically follow any thread you posted in. That's a lot of emails ;). But you can go into your profile, click on notification settings, and turn all that off.

Pretty sure it was her realtor.

So it sounds like it's not unreasonable to expect more from a realtor/inspector. My family hasn't had great luck homebuying. We none of us knew anything and just blindly put ourselves into the hands of the realtor. Bewteen us we've made what feels like all the mistakes. My sis was the only one who came to distrust her realtor during the process, but she just closed her eyes to red flags and hoped nothing too bad would happen. (The expensive repair surprises only capped off an already bad process.) I'm hoping to learn from past mistakes, and be proactive and smarter about it this time.

A few years ago my sister bought a house, and she was very frustrated with her realtor and the realtor-rec'd home inspector. They refused to exercise any sort of professional judgement on her behalf. Upon being given the frankly scary 20-odd page list of everything wrong with the house, she asked the inspector what it all meant - which of these things are major, which are minor, which are the things you'd expect in a house like this and which aren't. In short, for the inspector to not just give her a giant list of facts, but to then exercise a bit of professional judgment and explain the signifiance of those facts, as he saw it. But he refused - said she'd have to contact individual contractors to get a cost estimate for fixing. But she wasn't looking for a detailed cost estimate for fixing from him, but more of a general sense of "how serious are these problems?" But nope, he insisted that was outside of his purview - all he does is list the problems, not discuss the problems. Ditto for the realtor - she refused to offer up any sort of professional opinion about the pros and cons of buying this house with these problems at this price. Wasn't her job. Well, my sister wasn't thrilled about that - what is the point of hiring professionals to help if they won't exercise any professional judgment? And for that and other reasons, she didn't trust her realtor at the time. And then they had 3 or 4 major problems with the house in the first month of ownership (a/c not working, plumbing backed up into the kitchen, and a major roof leak) - they spent over 20K fixing things in that first month. So one can't help but wonder if the realtor and inspector refused to exercise any judgment, because their judgment would have been to run away. So did my sister just get a bad realtor and inspector, or were they right that the sort of professional judgment she expected them to offer is simply not what realtors and inspectors do? (In which case, what sort of professionals *do* offer that kind of help with home-buying?) I've been curious ever since, and as we might be looking to buy a home, I'm rather interested in figuring it out.

Roget's International Thesaurus or equivalent: not a student edition, or a concise edition, but the biggest, most giant thesaurus you can manage. I started with Roget's American Edition, because we already had it, but got an older edition of the international thesaurus when I saw it was twice the size of the American one: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060185759/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I wouldn't skip SM 6a/b unless there's a compelling reason, especially if you are planning to skip pre-algebra, too. As another poster has said, wrt whether to skip 6, SM6 is part of the primary math program, and if it's been working for you thus far, why not finish it? My oldest is in 6th grade and will finish 5b. She's like your kids, in that she's good at math, but not necessarily gifted. I've been angsting over 7th grade pre-algebra - both if we should do Aops, or the Dolciani I have, and what to do about 6a/b. I really think she would benefit from consolidating and extending her arithmetic through SM6, but I want to aim for 8th grade algebra unless it proves to be a bad idea for her in practice. My plan is to do both SM6 and pre-algebra concurrently, to get the benefits of both SM6 and 8th grade algebra. We do two math sessions already (tb/wb and ip), so doing two math programs won't be a huge change.

Fwiw, the test prep resources that I have looked into focus on reviewing and filling in content and content-related skills gaps, not test-gaming skills (Erica Metzger on critical reading and grammar is an example). I think they are worth working through on their own merits - that it's good to have those skills in general.

Thank you so much! I was having the same problem as the OP, and this worked perfectly :).

I think it *is* important to understand the difference - but I also don't see how general you could reliably diagram the difference without understanding it, either - not when it comes to complicated sentences, anyway. You'd have to be *really* good at pattern-matching to be able to reliably diagram complicated sentences without actually understanding the difference, wouldn't you? And if you *were* that good at pattern matching, then you'd basically have an intuitive understanding of the difference - I don't think giving an explicit name and concept to what you already see would be too difficult, would it? Or maybe I'm not understanding the situation. In any case, I do think being able to distinguish between active and passive verbs is important - is the subject *doing* the verb or is the verb *being done* to the subject? Seems like you'd be likely to mis-identify the subject if you didn't get the difference. And if you *can* reliably tell the subject in both cases, then you must have *some* sort of intuitive understanding of the difference - you could use that to work on the explicit understanding. And wrt transitive vs intransitive - if you can't tell the difference, I'd think you'd be prone to mis-identifying direct objects, wouldn't you? I admit I'm shaky on this one - I know the difference in theory but I don't *feel* the difference. I'm hoping that working through diagramming with my dd11 will help me on this. So I do think that an understanding-through-diagramming approach can be helpful (instead of a strict understand-first, diagram-second approach), but you have to make sure the understanding part actually happens, kwim - that you move beyond a strictly procedural understanding of diagramming. In any case, I'm having problems with setting up a dichotomy between understanding grammar VS diagramming - I mean, isn't the whole point of diagramming to *aid* you in *understanding* grammar? What good does the ability to diagram do you if you have no idea how the diagram connects to the grammar itself? How can you use your diagramming skill to help you make sense of complicated grammar if you don't know how diagramming connects to grammar? I think seeing how diagramming connects to grammar and how grammar connects to actual understanding is probably *the* most vital thing in teaching grammar. Better less grammar that is thoroughly understood and connected to real life, than lots of complicated diagrams and grammar definitions that are, so far as the student is concerned, utterly unconnected to anything real. (And better still is complicated grammar that is fully understood and connected to real life - that's where one's grammar knowledge helps make one a better thinker, as well as a better reader and writer.)

I do Spelling Through Morphographs with my dd11. She does well with everything but the part where I orally spell a word (like w-r-i-t-i-n-g) and she's supposed to identify the word. She's truly abysmal at it, and nothing I've done to try to break it down into more manageable parts seems to help much. She seems unable to remember the letters in order, and she also finds it very difficult to put the letters together into a recognizable word (once we can get them in her head in the first place). Either something about the pattern of letters instantly sparks recognition in her brain, or she's stuck. I've modified the activity by spelling the word in chunks - just the first morphograph, and after she gets that, adding on the next morphograph and so on. And while the activity has the class first identify the words spelled by the teacher and then has the students spell the same words, I've started doing it backwards - having her spell the words first and only then try to identify them from me spelling them (so she has an idea of what she's listening for). But none of that has really made it doable - she *hates* the activity and I don't feel like she's improving at it - I'm just repeatedly dragging her through it. I'm tempted to just skip it (it's not a major part of the program), but I'm hesitant to do so when I don't understand the point of the activity within the program, and, more importantly, because I don't understand what about it is so hard for dd11. Maybe this is evidence of an underlying problem that we really need to work on? Thoughts? (Honestly, I'm not sure I'd do all that much better myself - if someone orally spells a word without giving any visual input, it's all just gibberish for me, too. I need to write down each letter as it comes in order to make any sense of it.)

How did you manage that, because we couldn't get canada to work either.

We did that for Sochi and it worked well. But when we got TunnelBear today ($10), we were not able to stream from either BBC or CBC - we still somehow registered as out-of-country. Understandable that they'd want to eliminate that loophole, but it's still annoying. Anyone successfully stream *these* olympics from another country with TunnelBear? Is there something we could do to make it work? (What we're doing right now is a week's free trial of the YouTube TV thing, to watch the opening ceremonies.)

That first paragraph makes me think of anxiety and/or strong empathy. It sounds like it hurts her for her teacher to fail, so she's taking on extra responsibility to help him avoid it. Eta: also, wrt your second paragraph, it sounds like she might be a zealous rule-follower in this situation as a means of supporting her beloved teacher, than because she's inherently drawn to rule-following for its own sake. In that case, the rule following and resulting tattling might be more of an symptom than the core issue itself.

I was thinking, wrt "be happy or be (proven) right", that there's a lot of ways to live the Truth without winning arguments, but there's not a lot of ways to live the Truth without, you know, *living the Truth*. And even now, while I accept the theoretical possibility of there being ways to stand and live Truth that don't involve explicit debates (and Internet essays ;)), I am hard-pressed to actually *name* any concrete alternatives. I think that might be a helpful thing to do - brainstorm concrete ways to live out the ideal of justice, for example, that don't involve calling out people for doing wrong. Is not justice far more than identifying wrongdoers? Then there ought to be many just things to do in addition to calling out wrongdoing. It would be good to think through what some of them might be - find some concrete moral alternatives, so there's more choices than to stand up for justice via tattling or to look the other way for peer approval.

I heard "Do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?" a *lot* as a kid, and put like that, I'd pick being right, because *not* aiming to be right was unthinkable. As an adult, I eventually understood what people were getting at with that rhetorical question, but I still think it sets up a false dichotomy. I think a better way of putting is: Do you want to be *proved* right, or do you want to be happy/have playmates? I think the actual dichotomy isn't between *being* right in reality and being happy, but between trying to make people *acknowledge* you are right versus being happy. It's unthinkable to choose being happy or having playmates over seeking and acting in line with capital-T Truth - the morality of such an action isn't very good at all. But to choose the greater good of building relationships with others versus the lesser good of winning an argument - well, that *is* in line with trying to be a morally good person. As a kid and young adult, I definitely had trouble separating *being* right from trying to win the argument - I felt the moral duty to stand up for truth meant arguing till others agreed with me. And I was unable to judge the relative importance of things - *all* truth equally mattered and was worth defending to the death, every time. (Yes, I was a fun kid to raise ;).) And my parents did a lot to help me learn to accurately see nuances I used to be blind to. But that whole "do you want to be happy or be right" thing was more of a hindrance than a help, because it set up a false dichotomy - confirmed my b&w assumptions that not arguing was the same as not standing for truth, instead of challenging them.

I trend toward black & white thinking, and I've had real trouble - as an adult - trying to find consistent moral reasoning for why not to tattle. (One of my kids has a habit of tattling on their siblings, so I keep working at it.) Too often the conflict gets framed as "but they're doing wrong" (true) vs "but people hate when you tattle" (also true). But resolving the tension by declaring that it's better to not make my peers mad at me, even if that means looking the other way when they do wrong - well, that's not exactly building moral fiber, is it? And it directly contradicts the formal teaching kids get, which is that they should *tell a trusted adult* if bad things are going on, even if it will make their peers mad. I know what people actually mean is that you should tell the big things, and not tattle about the small things. But aside from the fact that kids get little actual *guidance* in determining big-v-little (just after-the-fact disapproval when they get it wrong), *why* does "people hate when someone brings wrongdoing to light" apply on little things but not on big things? As far as I can tell, it's because the little things "don't matter" - so rocking the boat isn't justified - but big things *do* matter, so rocking the boat *is* justified. And so the key moral distinction seems to be between wrongdoing that doesn't matter (and so isn't "real" wrongdoing), and wrongdoing that *does* matter. And, yeah, us black & white rule followers have a real problem with the usually unspoken idea of "wrongdoing that doesn't *really* matter". On the one hand, it matters because there are rules and there is punishment for not following the rules - the powers-that-be really *do* treat it as wrongdoing of some sort. But on the other hand, our peers all treat it as "acceptable" wrongdoing, and treat tattling as the greater crime. And the really confusing part is that the powers-that-be *also* often treat tattling as the greater crime, even though *they* are the ones who made the rule. God forbid you make people uncomfortable by pointing out wrongdoing that isn't *that* important, not important enough to be worth making people uncomfortable, right? There's absolutely no parallels to the epidemic of people looking the other way when it comes to "little" sexual indiscretions, right? Yeah, so I think that "people hate when you tell them they do wrong" - the usual reason given for not tattling - is a crap moral reason for not tattling on the little things. Plus, the whole idea of "wrongdoing that doesn't *really* matter" that underlies it is a crap moral category. If "not tattling on the little things" is going to have any legit moral standing, it needs to have a different definition of what makes something morally "little" and why the greater moral good is to let it slide. I don't have nearly as good an answer as I'd like to have, but here's what thoughts I do have (based on Christian ethics, as we're Christian). First off, too often the goal of tattling is to "get the other person in trouble" instead of a more constructive goal of helping the person turn from their sin or protecting the victims of the wrongdoer. With my dc, I do talk about directly addressing it with the erring sibling *before* coming to me. But while this reduces tattling, it doesn't help wrt the social aspect, or how *refraining* from speaking up can also *serve* a legit moral goal. In our Christian tradition (Lutheran), there's the idea of overlooking less serious mistakes out of love - that we let other people go on being wrong without comment when commenting would cause greater harm than the wrong itself. This is because concord among people is itself a positive good, and it can't be preserved if every small fault is constantly pointed out. But at the same time, errors and wrongdoing themselves do harm, and ignoring serious harm in the name of preserving concord is not good, either. So in b&w thinker terms, the moral duty to oppose evil does *not* mean that we are obligated to *always* speak up whenever *anything* wrong is done. We are always to do good and oppose evil, but doing good can involve overlooking offenses and suffering the consequences of others' wrongdoing *without* confronting them with it, when the consequences of their sin are small and little good is likely to be done by pointing their wrongdoing out. IDK, as a b&w thinker who is trying to learn nuance but not indifference (imo most people's "solution" for b&w thinking is to introduce a morally neutral "grey" category, where we don't need to care because it just doesn't matter), I think a real problem with b&w thinking is its tendency to elevate principles over people. But the solution isn't to learn how to elevate people over principles (the usual solution). Rather, I think it's to realize that principles are supposed to serve *human* good, not some abstract unconnected-to-actual-people good. The b&w thinker ideal is to serve principles *in order to* serve people. But it's rather easy to forget that serving principle is just a *means* to the end of serving people, and to equate the two, so that we think that serving principle *is* serving people, which allows us to leave actual people out of the equation in the name of serving them. I think we b&w thinkers need to realize is that serving people well requires *more* than serving principles. Justice always matters, but justice isn't the *only* thing that matters, justice isn't the *only* good. In this fallen world, which is both imperfect and imperfectible (by humans), we can't achieve all the good all the time. The best we can aim for is *as much good, as much of the time* as we can, knowing it will never be perfect. Which is hard for us b&w thinkers. I think we b&w thinkers, instead of learning to embrace the moral grey of things that don't matter, need instead to accept that *this isn't a perfect world* and so *there are no perfect solutions*. That doesn't mean there are times to *abandon* principles by arguing they "don't matter here" - they *always* matter. Instead, it's a matter of looking to see *all* the goods involved in a given situation - not just focusing on our favored good. And it's a matter of accepting that in this fallen world we have to balance goods as best as we can, without ever doing evil to achieve them. And that we aren't going to be able to serve *all* the goods perfectly. I think the nuance we b&w thinkers need to learn is that there's a *difference* between not perfectly achieving all the goods that ought to be achieved, and actually *doing evil* to achieve good. Honestly, I think that's the key nuance needed, right there - there's a difference between discerning morally right actions from morally wrong actions, and choosing the best, wisest action from the pool of morally right actions. AKA, there are usually *multiple* morally right answers, that are good and not evil, and we can acknowledge that *without* denying that there *are* wrong answers, too. So with the tattling issue, maybe it's worth thinking about what other goods are involved, in addition to the good of justice, and whatever good the rule in question is meant to promote. As Christians, if we are the victim, it's a legit upholding of justice to let their sin against us go and not hold it against them (but we can't make that decision on behalf of others who were sinned against). You can think about the goal of the rule that was broken, and alternatives to telling the teacher that could help uphold that goal; as well, you could think about whether telling the teacher helps or hurts the goal of students respecting and upholding the rule. There's also the good of building relationships, and whether constantly pointing out everyone's wrong is helping or hindering that. And there's addressing the issue of whether you have responsibility to point out a given wrong, whether failing to point it out *is* morally wrong, and so you have to do it no matter how unpopular it makes you. In that case, it might be worth brainstorming ways to point it out that minimize the negative fallout and maximize other goods. How can you point out others' wrongdoing in ways that are genuinely loving to *them*, not just loving towards the ideals of justice? (And if the classroom rules are *not* serving justice, as honestly it sounds like they maybe aren't, then now could be a time to discuss how not all legal rules match up with the moral law like they ought. I think people today break rules far too lightly - just because a given rule could be otherwise without being morally wrong, people justify breaking it. Actually, I think the standard ought to be to *follow* rules, even if they could legitimately be otherwise, and only break rules that themselves break the moral law. But even so, blind rule-following is *not* a sure-fire path to justice.) IDK if any of that helps. I just really have a thing about the morality, or lack thereof, of the no-tattling culture, even as I *do* think that good is not best served by pointing out each and every thing done wrong.

Kind of jumping in way late, but hopefully this is more-or-less pertinent to the ongoing discussion :). I think that feelings can be a guide to finding objective capital-T Truth - they provide a complementary approach to logic. We're human, we're going to have emotions, period - the ideal of dispassionate thinking is just not human reality (and I don't think it's even desirable as an ideal). (I'm thinking of C.S. Lewis and "men without chests" - emotions are *strong*, and principles that aren't backed by emotions aren't principles that actual human beings can hold strongly in practice, when push comes to shove.). Our feelings, like our thinking, are going to help or hinder us in seeking truth; what our feelings aren't going to do is stay out of the way. Just because we think we are thinking dispassionately doesn't mean we are; it just means we aren't aware of what we are feeling - and how it is affecting us. (And ditto for people who think their feelings are untainted by logic or thinking; there's thinking involved - it might be *bad* thinking - but it's not absent from the party.). And just as we can learn to think and examine our thinking in ways that help guide us *to* truth (or that pull us away from it), we can learn to feel and examine our feelings in ways that help guide us to truth (or pull us away from it). And our feelings can be a corrective for faulty thinking just as much as our thinking can be a corrective for faulty emotions. (I once read a logical argument that seemed airtight to my eyes, but whose conclusion morally repulsed me. And though it bothered me to not be able to find flaws in his argument, I did not change my position. I let my moral feeling trump my logic - and I acknowledged as much to myself. It was somewhat ironic, as the arguer taught that if you are unable to poke holes in a logical argument, you are *morally obligated* to accept the conclusion as true. If you felt otherwise, those feelings were by definition lying to you, because logic is the only path to truth. Now, rejecting a logic argument as false because you hate the conclusion is bad logic, of course. But rejecting your moral feelings as false because a single logic argument came to a contrary conclusion - idk, I think that's a recipe for bad living, myself. It's not great, when your feelings and thinking are at odds - but I don't think ignoring your feelings and going whole-hog on your thinking gets you any closer to the truth than ignoring your thinking and going whole-hog on your feelings would.) But I think that empathy is different - it's more a guide to understanding someone else's *subjective* experience. I think it can be useful and helpful in keeping the impact of objective truth on actual humans front and center in our considerations. But sometimes I think people combine empathy with a belief that anything that causes someone pain (or certain kinds of pain) is inherently wrong. And that can allow subjective experiences to trump objective truth - where objective truth is delegitimized not by showing it is objectively wrong, but by showing that it causes *subjective* pain. Empathy, which allows us to share someone else's subjective experience, then can then become a way to side-step having to wrestle with finding objective truth, instead of input to consider in wrestling with finding objective truth.

I usually just start the next book, but sometimes, if we finished faster than expected, I use the "extra" time to do the math supplements I always mean to get to but never seem to find time for. But in general I don't match up any of our programs with the school year. Wrt "pushing them along too quickly": on the one side, I've found that we slowed down quite a bit in upper elementary, once we hit serious fractions and multi-digit divisors and other problems that have a lot of moving parts, so to speak. It just takes longer to work the problems, and it has taken dd11 more time to master the concepts and procedures. All that adds up to more time spent on a given level. So moving along fast in the earlier years doesn't mean you'll keep that pace all the way through. But on the other side, there's more to do in math, even arithmetic, than to just speed through a standard program. Finishing up your main program "early" gives you time to go deeper and farther, or to do more playing around with math, or to work on side topics.

Institute for Excellence in Writing. Here's a link to the poetry memorization: http://iew.com/shop/products/linguistic-development-through-poetry-memorization-teachers-manual-cds

This was a timely thread bump for me. I've just been thinking that my quest to learn to enjoy poetry has stalled. I got from "why a poem when prose is so much better?" to appreciating the *sounds* of poetry through nursery rhymes and children's poems. Nursery rhymes and poems for kids were way more accessible and, oh, "obvious" in their use of poetry elements (both sounds and images) than the Very Great Poems I attempted to study in AP English. I had sort of thought you identified rhyme and rhythm through marking up the rhyme scheme and stress pattern - the idea you could just *hear* it through reading it aloud without having to figure out what you were supposed to hear first was a revelation to me. (Also the importance of reading poetry aloud was a new thing.) Nursery rhymes are especially fun because because you can really get a nice sing-song rhythm going, and unlike with "serious" poems, it's totally ok to do that the nursery rhymes :thumbup:. And it really helps in learning to hear what's going on in poetry - plus it's just plain fun ;). And poetry for young kids also has pretty "obvious" images - it's relatively easy to understand. And so much of it is just plain silly, ridiculous fun with words - and the sort of fun that you can appreciate without having to think and re-think, and the sort of fun that's enhanced and not ruined by exaggerating the sounds and images. In addition to nursery rhymes, my kids and I really enjoy Edward Lear and T.S. Eliot's Book of Practical Cats - it's easy to feel the rhythm of the words and it's so fun to say, plus the meaning is fun and not terribly hard to grasp. But I've not managed to move beyond fun kids' poems. Especially I've not been able to appreciate the imagery of poems - still feels like an overly complex circumlocution instead of, you know, just *saying* what you mean ;). I've given myself permission to just read poems aloud and enjoy the rhythm and not bother to try to figure out the meaning (appreciating 50% is better than appreciating 0%), but mostly I just haven't been seeking out poems. But in this thread I read most of the poems people posted, and I did enjoy them :). I really appreciated both of these :).

I love Brave New World - lots of great things to discuss. There is sexual content, though - it's not terribly explicit, but is intentionally disturbing - it's plot-relevant, though (might be worth pre-reading). Turning sex into a meaningless-yet-'healthy' way of having fun is part and parcel of the dystopia - one with disturbingly relevant parallels to how our culture treats sex. I definitely plan on studying it with my kids when they are in high school. Eta: I have not read Walden Two, but reading a description, I can see how they'd complement each other. They are both envisioning the same sort of world, but Walden Two portrays it as a utopia, while Brave New World portrays it as a dystopia.

I'm LCMS (aka Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod). We're theologically conservative, but not fundamentalist. The pp is right that in the 60s/70s era there was something of a fundamentalist borrowing/influence in the LCMS, particularly wrt the inerrancy of Scripture, and in some places that might have held over to today. (Not in any churches I've attended, though.) Interestingly, today the most theologically conservative LCMS churches are actually going to be the ones with the *least* fundamentalist influence. That's because theologically conservative in the LCMS means holding to the Lutheran Confessions, and there are some major, major differences between Lutheran theology and fundamentalism. I mean, *huge*. And so the people/churches who borrowed most from fundamentalism/evangelicalism were the people who were *least* interested in being Lutheran, the least theologically conservative in a Lutheran sense. Even so, most of the borrowing I know of wasn't of the hellfire and brimstone variety. Generally speaking, I'd say a Lutheran Church ought to be a good bet - our theology is very grace-focused, and there's not a history of hell and brimstone style preaching or legalism (our bugaboo is usually trying to avoid falling off the antinomian side of the road). Individual churches do vary, but I think the Lutheran church would be a good one to try. Here's a link to a sermon by a Lutheran pastor that might be helpful for your friend: The Gospel for those broken by the Church. There's video, audio, and a transcript, all free: https://www.1517legacy.com/1517blog/rodrosenbladt/2014/02/the-gospel-for-those-broken-by-the-church

Given that I am not trying to hide my history nor do I care if dh sees my history, nevertheless, to me there's a difference between *dh seeing my history in the course of doing something else, *dh looking up my history in order to find something he has standing permission to find, *dh looking up my history to see what I've been doing (whether he's curious for good reasons or bad, whether he's doing it out of idle interest or very pointed interest). It's just weird and off-putting to me when people deliberately seek out information about you without your involvement. For most things, if a person wants to know, they just ought to *ask*. Also, when it comes to opening computer files (not just seeing the name in a history), some of what I write and store on my computer *is* private. I don't care if dh knows that I am writing in my private journal, but that doesn't mean I want him *reading* my private journal. Not because I'm ashamed of it or because it would be horrible if he saw it, but because it's *private* - stuff I am thinking about or musing about that isn't prettied up for outside consumption. It's not *bad*, but it's not meant for outside eyes, either. But I do understand dh not treating my school assignments with the same assumption of privacy that he would treat my private journal. Still expect him to ask first, although I would understand him not realizing that asking mattered to me in that instance. I'd educate him otherwise, though ;).

That's a little different to me, as I don't consider the websites dh visits to be private the way I consider his actual personally generated content to be private. If an interesting-looking site popped up in the search history, I'd have no qualms about following it. It wouldn't even have to be if I was checking the history in purpose - because there are plenty of sites I get to solely through the search history (because I'm too lazy to bookmark them), so in looking for them, I'd naturally see what other sites had been gone to.

I'd feel a little weird it - something about the looking up my file without asking thing. Which is a bit odd, because if I'd just left a printed version laying around, I wouldn't care if dh picked it up and read it. I mean, I wouldn't write anything for public consumption that I wouldn't want dh to read. Seeing it in a history and then opening it up to read it isn't *that* far off seeing it laying around the house and reading it. But idk, I guess there's something about actually opening up my file without asking that seems a little invasive. Even though a school assignment isn't anything private. Idk, my feelings are complicated here, and maybe a little non-sensical, idk. I would have no problem with dh reading my assignment, but I'd feel weird about him reading it without asking. I'd have no problem with him poking around my computer files, but I want him to ask first. I guess I see my computer files as *mine*, and while there's the presumption that I'd allow dh to see whatever if he wanted to, I also have the presumption that he'd *ask* first, even though the answer's an almost guaranteed yes - I wouldn't say no without a particular reason. Fwiw, asking first matters to me, even though it's mostly just pro forma, since we both expect that the default answer would be yes.