Well, you know what happens when you assume... ;). Besides, this board has thoroughly disabused me of the notion that I can expect *any* assumption to go without saying :lol: .

IDK, I haven't seen *anyone* in this thread argue for that. Bolt, who probably came closest, was arguing that "child friendly" events that require *kids* to be held to *adult* standards (or worse yet, better than adult standards), far from being a blessing, are a bait-n-switch burden on parents of young children. And I agree. I've been to adult events that welcomed my child (and I was grateful for it, despite the work involved), and that is an entirely different set of expectations (and experience) than going to an actual family-friendly event, where kids are expected to be *kids*. Yes, it course requires active parenting, but the kind of parenting required to keep kids within *kid* bounds is waaaaaaaaay different than the kind of parenting required to keep kids within *adult* bounds. (And the way adults often have more tolerance for *adult* out-of bounds behaviour than they do for *kids* being *within* kid bounds, though out of *adult* bounds, is a hypocrisy that is very hard to bear at times.) I'm *not* saying that the OP's event, or standards, are applying adult expectations to kids. But I agree with bolt that family friendly events should expect kids to stay within *kid* bounds, but not expect them to act as mini-adults and keep within adult bounds.

I would find out the specific arrangements, yes. But to your last paragraph, "without being a nuisance" is precisely what bolt is saying. Children are only welcome at a child-friendly event so long as they aren't a *nuisance*. Yeah, all young children are nuisances at times, and people have differing ideas as to where the line needs to be drawn. My line is hurting people, pets, or things. Nothing the OP said sounded like it crossed that line, and so I would need explicit guidance to know that there was a higher standard at play. She purposefully declined to offer that guidance, so it's on her that no change was made. Now she's decided she cares enough to offer some guidance, which is fine, and hopefully it will be well received. But people aren't mind readers, and you can get mad all you want for their not following your "obvious" standard, but if you don't actually *tell* them, well, they aren't likely to psychically pick up a clue and change. Would you rather stay silent and live with it, or speak up and achieve change? Both are legit choices, but only one can reasonably be expected to involve a *change*. Staying silent and having change occur is purely a matter of *luck*.

I don't blame her for wanting a change. But just as I don't blame her for wanting a change, I *also* don't blame the other parents for not being able to read her mind. She *chose* to sit silently by as things happened that she didn't like, and now she is *choosing* to speak up. Both are acceptable choices, and I don't fault her for either. But choices have consequences, and one of the consequences of choosing to not speak up is that things don't change. It's not the fault of the other parents for not changing a situation they didn't know she wanted changed. I'm just tired of actually *talking* to people about problems you are having with them being treated as some horrible last resort that they "force" you to, instead of being treated as a most helpful first response in solving problems and building relationships.

Agree there is probably a lot of similarity. But wrt to you hosting do others a favor (and the implied guests ought to expect to do *more*, not *less* to make the event a success than when it's a matter of the guests doing you a favor): well, from a hosting perspective, doesn't that mean you want to concentrate all the more on offering them what most blesses them? Since it's a gift you are primarily giving them, not a gift of mutual enjoyment, I'd think as host I'd sacrifice *my* wants all the more in that scenario. There's not a lot of fun in a "gift" that comes with more strings than an outright fair trade. ETA: I mean, yeah, from a guest perspective I'd be very sensible to the gift the host is offering me and do my best to show my gratitude in deeds as well as words. But from the host perspective I feel I need to be focused on what *I* am offering *them*, not how they are should properly receive it - that's the guest's lookout, not the host's. Also, I'm not sure it's ever the best attitude to look at things we are hosting as a favor we are doing to our guests :think. Even hosting a BIble study seems like the host should act as if the guests are doing *her* a favor by attending, just as the guests always act as if the *host* did them a favor by inviting them. IDK, it would really put me off for my host to feel like they were doing me a favor by inviting me - it would feel like accepting charity.

Yes, this. And I would add, if you realize after starting that there is an expectation mismatch you hadn't known would be an issue, you don't need to blame yourself for it, but don't blame your guests either. (And likewise, guests shouldn't blame their hosts.) Just solve the problem now that you know about it.

Honestly, I think bolt's point is this: If you, the host, *want* to bless parents of young children - not that you are *obligated* to bless the parents of young children, but if you *want* to - it is a great blessing to relieve them of as much of the difficulties attendant to young children as you are able to do. Not that parents of young children are right in *expecting* that behavior - because they certainly aren't - but it is something that many enjoy very greatly when it is offered. *And* it is a form of hospitality that is rarely offered, so it is appreciated all the more when it is found. And if you, the host, are not able to offer that sort of hospitality, then *don't blame your young parent guests for it* (but don't blame yourself, either - you give what you can give). Rather, either explicitly say what you are offering and let them decide if it is worthwhile to come, or just don't invite young parents. The problem bolt was talking about was when people invite young parents and their children under the guise of blessing them, only the hosts for whatever reason did not offer the sort of hospitality that was a blessing *AND* the hosts *blame* their guests for being a burden. It's just bad etiquette to blame your guests for your hosting issues, period, which is *my* main point. (And it is equally bad etiquette to blame your host for your guest issues.)

From the perspective of being a guest, yes, I expect to watch my dc at everything and I don't resent it. If the event's not worth the effort of watching my dc at it, then I don't go - simple as that. And there are a *lot* of things I don't go to. But from the perspective of being a *host*, well, my goal is to to structure the event so as to provide the maximum benefit to my guests while simultaneously not offering more than I have to give. And part of what I can give is a safe place for kids to be kids, where *I* take on some of the difficulties young children bring so as to take some of that burden off the shoulders of their parents for a moment. Granted, if I have hit my limits in what I have able to give - as the OP has - then yes, something's got to change. But it's not the *guests'* fault that I cannot offer everything I have in the past any more (not that it's a negative reflection on me that I can't offer what I used to, either). And it's certainly not the guests' fault that I let them think I was freely offering something that I secretly begrudged. IDK,so much of etiquette is a series of one-sided expectations on the part of the host and guest. As a guest, I assume *nothing* - I assume I am responsible for everything I am usually responsible for, and am pleasantly surprised as the host blesses me with the hospitality they have chosen to give. But as a *host*, I likewise assume *nothing*. I offer what I have to give, freely, and assume that what *I* am giving is all there will be, and don't get upset when my guests don't fill in the gaps. So, yes, ideally, there are no gaps because the host expects they will do everything and the guests nothing, and the guests expect nothing of the host and everything of themselves, and the gaps are dually covered. But when there *is* a gap, as the guest I expect *I* am responsible for filling it myself. But as the *host*, I *likewise* expect I am completely responsible for filling it myself. If I can't do it, then I explicitly *ask* - not assume they "ought to", but *ask* - others for help. IDK, I'm just hearing a lot of focus on how a host deserves better guests, but not how the host can continue to bless her guests though her (emotional) resources are less than they used to be. To me *guests* improve an event by figuring out how to be better guests - it would be very bad etiquette for guests to focus on what the *host* should be doing better. And likewise, *hosts* improve an event by figuring out how to be better *hosts* - it's bad etiquette for hosts to focus on what the *guests* should be doing better. Bolt just took that general principle and applied it specific to kid guests - that in addition to the general rudeness of *hosts* expecting their *guests* to fill in the hospitality gaps (instead of hosts looking to themselves, the only people they can control, to fill the gaps), adults cut other adults waaaay more slack than they give kids, even though adults are far more able than kids to regulate their behavior, and so kid guest behavior gets unfairly slammed twice compared to adult guest behavior.

Originally I thought what you thought - it was just a matter of everyone pitching in at the end to help clean up, which I thought was fine. But she gave more information - that she sees the problem as not that a bunch of unsupervised children making a mess, but that their parents aren't interrupting the adult Bible study to go and "parent" their children. So apparently the expectation isn't that children play on their own while the parents have their study, but that children play "on their own" while their parents *actually* watch them like hawks. Which is an entirely different thing, and rather false advertising to me. I don't mind helping my dc pick up the "kids room" at the end of an adult time (although usually at our events, that is supervised by the people in charge of the kids' room, not the parents, which is nice and adds to the "hospitality for young parents" thing), but if "adult time" is *really* "half an ear on adult time while keeping half an eye on kid time", well that's exhausting and not worth it to me. I've quit purely adult studies because attempting to keep my mobile baby out of trouble while also listening is simply not worth it. An allegedly child-friendly study with separate play areas for the kids that *still* requires me to split my attention and be the one responsible for policing every move my dc makes as they make it? Yeah, that's not that's child friendly, and woe to the poor parent who thought they might actually be able to relax and take a break because they thought the event was designed with kids being kids in mind. I get what bolt's saying now.

In that situation, as a guest I'd be cueing off the host as to whether I was supposed to intervene. If you could see it but didn't say anything, I'd figure you were fine with it. When we are visiting, I don't enforce any of our rules but the general "don't hurt people, pets, or things" plus whatever expectations the host has. So I'd be closing watching you for a cue - I don't want to be making a huge deal of things that don't matter to anyone else. I really think you need to make your expectations, whatever they are, explicit - to me that's part of being the host, taking the lead in setting expectations and communicating it to your guests. I kinda see bolt's point now, though. The unspoken expectation isn't that the *host* will set up her house for success for *all* her guests, including her young guests, but that despite a separate play area being offered for the children so that they can have fun while allowing the parents to concentrate on the Bible study, the *parents* are apparently expected to keep half an eye on their children the whole time *anyway*, even as they are in the separate play area. I *never* would have expected that I was expected to closely supervise my kids *during* the study, given the set-up of "kids play in other rooms as adults have their study". That expectation - of the *parents* of young children being expected to divide their attention from the study to their kids' deliberately separate activity to ensure nothing unwanted to the host happens, instead of the *host* setting up her house and evening to ensure that nothing unwanted happens - does seem like it is the sort of "hospitality" that bolt talked about - where the event is set up so that it is just piling onto the burden of parents of young kids instead of trying to help alleviate it. ETA: I don't go to a lot of things because they aren't set up for young kids and it would be more work than it was worth for me to make up the difference - as pp have said, it *is* hard being a parent of a young kid. But when an event is ostensibly set up as being child-friendly - as when an adult-centered Bible study provides separate play areas for the kids (instead of leaving me to make my own child-care arrangements) - then, yeah, it sort of feels unfair when it turns out that it's *still* mostly on me as the parent to bridge the gap between what the event calls for and what my dc can do :(.

Idk, I don't consider not having to clean up after myself as part of the benefit of enjoying someone's hospitality, unless that is explicitly part of what they are offering. I mean, at parties and such, I always take care of my trash and clean up my spills and otherwise ensure I don't leave things worse than I found them - it's just part and parcel of good manners to me. I see expecting kids to help pick up what they got out completely in line with the general expectations of how a good guest behaves - for me a good guest just doesn't make messes and not clean them up, adult or child. And fwiw, at church events here the adults also collectively clean up everything at the end of the event before leaving, too - cleaning up isn't just for children here.

I really like Koine - they do contemporary arrangements of classic hymns: http://www.koinemusic.com

I ran across it online (http://www.rfwp.com/book/off-the-charts-asynchrony-and-the-gifted-child) - published by Royal Fireworks Press - and thought it looked interesting. But I rarely buy books full price, so I was wondering what others thought of it before I gave in and clicked buy ;).

I define gifted as being at least two standard deviations beyond the norm in general intelligence, with IQ tests being the best measure we have at the moment for determining it (which would mean gifted as having an IQ of 130 or above, with a standard deviation of 15 points). That makes it the top 3% or so of the population. I've been reading interesting discussions about the similarities and differences (and conflicts) between two dominant views of giftedness: giftedness as high achievement (in which giftedness is about achieving at the top of one's peers in a given domain(s), and so people move in and out of giftedness) and giftedness as high potential (in which giftedness is a stable trait that affects individuals throughout their lives, regardless of what they are achieving or not achieving at any point in time). In reading gifted literature, I've appreciate the gifted-potential work far more (the focus on understanding the qualitatively different inner experiences of gifted individuals has been very helpful in understanding myself), but I do love the focus on effort in gifted-achievement work. At any rate, the discussion over the NAGC President's "Taking a Bold Step" article - moving from a definition focused on gifted-potential to a definition focusing mostly (but not exclusively) on gifted-achievement - has been interesting to read (though I am more than a year late to the discussion ;)).

I get it :grouphug:. I'd love to be able to test my oldest, because I've found that "wanting to stop because it was too challenging" and "wanting to stop because it was mind-numbingly boring" looks *very* similar in dd7. About the only way to tell is to observe her behavior during the rest of the day - tired because of boredom leads to an explosion of off-the-wall energy that drains us all. And even then I'm just theorizing. I was identified as gifted in school, and so it was on my radar; dd7 is clearly bright and has exhibited a lot of giftedness markers only without any of the early achievement in reading/math, so I had no idea what to think. So I've just been going slow and steady on school stuff, not wanting to miss anything, and it was only her explosion in reading (six months from non reader to high school level - basically she can read anything she picks up, with understanding) that allowed me to see her very rapid progress from "too hard" to "working very hard" to "working, but success is coming easily" to "too easy" to "so easy it is hard to suffer through", and realize that what I thought was "too hard" in math was probably actually "so easy it is mind-numbing" (and I remember that feeling, and how it drains it out of you). But I have no idea how much practice she *does* need, other than a lot less than I thought. As it is, I'm making a guess and starting from there, adjusting as needed, but it would be nice to have testing that would give a benchmark for where to start - I suspect from my reading on levels of giftedness that she could really fly if I let her, but I don't *know* that, and it's hard not to take the conservative route of incrementally upping the challenge/reducing the review until I find the sweet spot. But it is *hard* only having a floor and *no* idea of her ceiling - if I could afford testing, I would do it in a heartbeat, because it would save a *lot* of time in finding her sweet spot, because I would be starting with an educated guess instead of my current shot in the dark.

My 4yo is gluten free, and it was hard to go from almost-always-gf to always-gf - it definitely required more planning ahead, and committing to only going out to eat at places where there was food of comparable yumminess for dd4 to eat. I don't expect her to be contented with just a burger while everyone else gets a burger and fries - either I find a safe substitution that is just as good *to her* or no one gets fries. If its not worth going out just for safe food, then we just don't go there with dd4. For events with food, I keep some gf treats in the house and always bring them any time we go to something that might possibly involve food treats. If I mess up and don't have anything for dd4, I promise her a treat when we get home, and if it bothers her to see us eating something she can't have, I don't eat it. I don't think making dinner miserable over the diet is the way to go, myself. I work very hard to make staying gf as painless as possible for dd4, which for us means never eating anything as a family unless we have an equivalent and equally yummy safe treat to give to dd4, and pretty much always bring gf treats to any party/gathering/event we go to. I agree with your dh that its not fair to eat yummy food in front of your ds and refuse to let him have any - I just disagree that the only alternate is to let him cheat :grouphug:. Good luck :).

Well, per this page on the MP site, First Form Latin can be done following LC I (instead of doing LC II), or you can go into Second Form Latin after doing *both* LC I and LC II (but you'd need a bridge transition program, which you could email MP about getting). So even disregarding LC I being done lightly in 4th, Second Form Latin in 5th would still be a big jump, and not following the publisher's recommended sequence.

My rising 2nd grader is on a similar level to your dc - reading has taken off, but she has problems tackling unfamiliar multi syllable words - and while I am not bothering to finish the program I used to teach her to read (because she is mostly beyond it), I've started going through Webster's Speller with her. I think practicing on lots of big words broken down by syllables will be good for her.

I'm an INTJ, too :). I'm Lutheran, and I appreciate my tradition's openness to personal questions and doubt, while at the same time upholding what we believe to be Truth - we see saving faith (a thing that God creates and maintains) as interwined with but ultimately separate from our beliefs about God and Truth, so doubts, even serious ones, are perfectly compatible with having saving faith - you don't have to choose between using your brain and having faith. I've struggled with the question of how I can know that what I believe to be the truth really *is* capital-T truth, along with the related (to me, anyway) question of whether my faith is falsifiable - is there anything that I would accept as proof that my faith isn't real? Right now my conclusion is that, no, my faith is unfalisfiable - I *believe* it is true, but, as there is no way to prove it false, there is no way to prove it true, either. I admit, this bothers me some, that the very foundation of everything I believe is not intellectually provable - that I will hold to it no matter how illogical it seems or how many elegant proofs are raised against it. But I can more easily accept having unproven beliefs than not having my faith. The world is bigger than my ability to understand it. That's where I am, anyway - my core faith in Christ is for me like an axiom, not a theorem - it underlies everything, and all my other beliefs are only as good as the assumption that God exists, loves us, and sent Christ to die for us, but the axioms underlying the system (in this case, the world) can't themselves be proven from within the system/world. If that analogy makes any sense ;).

As I was just telling my dh (a pastor), it could be worse - you could have members sending out a survey like that. (But for an outside observer, that survey was full of awesome - I have a decent picture of what the rector's been up to plus how at least two members feel about it (cause they are a committee, and a committee takes at least two, right ;)) - oh, the quixotic fight to show that others feel like you do, via a detailed three-page questionnaire :lol. With self-addressed stamped envelopes, too, it sounds like. Now *that's* dedication.) I do feel for the new rector, because a divided congregation is no fun :(. But, wow, did he do things stupidly. You have to go slowly in making changes as the new guy, especially following a longtime, well-loved rector. I've seen it several times among dh's fellow pastors - they have this vision of *the* way to do ministry, and they change too much too fast while dismissing those who prefer the old 'lesser' way as malcontents or just needing time to adjust. They are more focused on implementing their vision for the church than to find out what vision the *church* has and working to implement *the church's* vision - the pastor may care deeply, but they will only *show* that caring in particular ways, and respecting different views to the point of actually incorporating them into the plan for the congregation isn't one of them :(. Also, per the highly biased survey, the new rector let traditional and important methods of connecting to his congregation slide in favor of administration duties. Thing is, people might appreciate the results of good administration, but that in itself doesn't build connections between people. If you want people to follow your lead - especially when it's a new and controversial approach - you need to work overtime to build connections, not snub those activities as not worth your time. People tend to react to that as evidence that *they* aren't worth your time, and that kills the relationship needed for effective ministry :(.

The Foundation books were my first Asimov books - I read them when I was 11 - loved them! I vote for reading them in the order they were written - so the original trilogy (Foundation, Foundation & Empire, Second Foundation), then the later sequels (Foundation's Edge, and Foundation and Earth), and only then the two prequels (Prelude to Foundation and Forward the Foundation) - the prequels were written last, and assume knowledge of all the other books - I would *not* read them first. (Granted, I actually read Foundation's Edge first, which had a three page intro that summarized the thousand pages that came before ;) - which was enough to understand what was going on, but still I missed so much, as I realized when I went back and read the original trilogy.)

Idk, for me, understanding *why* something happens gets me at least 90% of the way to a solution. I appreciated the viewpoint the post offered - gave me a new and helpful perspective from which to consider things :).

I've thought about it, too. In one book they show a dump truck filling his bowl. Thanks to this thread, I looked up some estimates. 50 cups of dog food in a 20lb bag, 120 cups per cubic foot, and 722 cubic feet capacity in a normal-ish dump truck. Rounding, that's 40lbs of dog food per cubic foot, so 722 40 lb bags of dog food for one day's meal! At $30/bag, that's roughly $21,000/day, which is about $7,200,000/yr for food alone! (Assuming my hasty mental estimating and calculating wasn't too off.) And that's not even counting all the stuff he breaks that they have to pay for. I think they need to buy food in bulk ;).

I've been enjoying Georgette Heyer's Regency romances. So far I've read Cotillion, The Black Sheep, The Foundling, and The Convenient Marriage, and I'm in the middle of Frederica - they're all *awesome*. Great characters, fun plots, and happy endings :).

Special music here is something that doesn't happen every week - a soloist (vocal or instrumental) or handbells or something like that. Choir sort of qualifies - it's not every week, it has the feel of something "extra" - but it's also kind of taken for granted. So the presence of the choir doesn't necessarily feel like there's special music, but the absence of the choir with nothing else extra would definitely feel like a *lack* of special music. (Special music is kind of a thing here - lots of people feel we don't have enough of it right now - choir is the only "regular" special music.) The congregation doesn't sing during it, but that doesn't feel like the main part of what makes special music special - because if the praise team (who is there every week) sings a song on their own, it not only *doesn't* feel special, it tends to be perceived negatively, like the congregation is being excluded.