Jump to content

Menu

Geek

Members
  • Content Count

    395
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

42 Excellent

About Geek

  • Rank
    Hive Mind Level 5 Worker: Forager Bee

Contact Methods

  • Biography
    I drink too much coffee.
  • Location
    In my own personal TARDIS
  • Interests
    I feign reading domesticity how-to books while I read good stuff and eat chocolate.
  • Occupation
    I'm a culinary sanitation engineer.
  1. You stole 164 cookies!

     

    Rules of the game: if you find this (anyone except the cookie thief themselves) then post here to say "I caught the cookie thief! BUT... someone else took 165 cookies from the cookie jar!" That way we know this player has been caught and we'll look on another profile. Next, copy this entire post and paste it onto someone else's profile (player must have more than 100 posts and must have been active in the last month.) Lastly, change the numbers so each increase by one. It will be easier to track that way. Please post your findings in the thread entitled SOMEONE STOLE A COOKIE! Forum Game. Have Fun!

  2. I disagree. A kid reading Magic Treehouse is still quite capable of missing words, skipping whole lines, missing the vowels in the middle of words, etc. Finger tracking is how I was trained in speed reading. You train the eyes to move more efficiently that way. My kids don't naturally do that and I encourage them to do it. They make far fewer mistakes that way. When I am reading for accuracy--usually non-fiction--I finger track. My retention is a lot better as I glean more depth the first go-thru.
  3. MCP Math is the most similar to what I grew up with. It's a mastery program in the way that Singapore is a mastery program (one topic in depth, move to the next), not how Math U See is a mastery program (same topic all year). I agree with the poster who said it's heavy on technique and drill and weak on the why's and wherefores. It's PERFECT for my 11yo son with high-functioning autism. All the why's in MUS confused him to no end; he just needs to be show the algorithm and given lots of practice. My other two children will not be satisfied with this program. I do a hodge-podge with th
  4. I wasn't raised in the Catholic church but as an evangelical protestant. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. As for my daughter being given the reasons behind the Church's teachings, they do have an end, you know. You can ask, follow up on that lead, which leads to another...well, you know. Eventually it all boils down to some tough questions which, quite frankly, the RCC cannot answer despite the fact that it pretends it can. Huh? They are mutually exclusive constructs. I have to suspect my intellect if I am to believe that a god definitively exists. Have you seen him/her/it? Seeing wha
  5. I think you are misunderstanding what logic is. It's a tool, nothing more. But it's the best one we have if objectivity is our goal. It shows if things are falsifiable or not and allows you to make your best guess based on all available, verifiable information. That is how science works: Only falsifiable data is brought to the table, and it is sifted through to see what makes the most sense. No proclamations of *knowing* are made, unlike religion, which makes *knowing* about the unknown a regular occurrence. Not all religious people live this out, but plenty of them do. If you really adm
  6. PC or Mac? Windows has built-in parent controls that do this. Whoever has administrative rights on the computer must set up an account for each other user and then indicate what kind of account it is. For a child's account you can set what times are allowed. Just this morning my 11yo discovered he couldn't log in as usual because my husband cut him off for a few days. Start Menu > Control Panel > Parental Controls It's all password protected so do the obvious and change yours (as administrator) often and keep it hidden or just in your head.
  7. This. There is no way I would do that. She is taking advantage of you, mommaduck. I know that when we were buying and looked at homes that people were renting, NONE of the renters made the house spotless for us. They didn't even leave while we viewed, saying they wouldn't be inconvenienced. We didn't mind at all.
  8. Hi! We're on another forum now and it's wonderful. If you're interested in joining us, pm me. :)
  9. He has plenty of flaws in his logic according to many theologians. How can it be proof of our finiteness unless you are starting with the premise that god exists? How can you logically conclude that God exists "outside of time because he created it" unless you start from the assumption that he exists? My 8yo dd, when she was 7, said to me: "If God exists outside of time, then he exists outside of space. (Space and time are locked together.*) And to say that God exists outside of space is as stupid as saying infinity + one. How can anything exist outside of everything? If it does, it's
  10. If you believe, ultimately the intellect must be suspended and faith embraced. For some believers this choice is made well outside of core issues; we'll call them Group One. For others their intellect is where they remain until they reach the nuts and bolts, like whether or not god(s) exist(s) at all and what his/her/its/their basic nature is. It is at that point they choose to suspend their intellect and embrace belief. They have reasons to believe that lie outside of falsifiability, but they are reasons to them just the same. Let's call them Group Two. Then you have people who are li
  11. Geek

    TARDISs *is* ungraceful! LOL! (I never thought about it.) I like TARDAE better, too.

     

    That's a great quote, isn't it? It's one of those quotes that grabbed me the very first time I read it.

     

    ~Natalie

  12. Rhea

    I just wanted to tell you I love the quote in your sigy. :)

    Rhea

    PS, forgot to mention, TARDAE rock! (We have an ongoing argument here over the plural of TARDIS. I know it's an acronym, but TARDISs is just so... ungraceful for such a wondrous thing.)

  13. Right. Can you explain how that definition isn't unbelievably arrogant? i.e. negative Are you also saying that doctrine is morality? Are you saying that the only humans capable of morality are those following the *right* doctrine? It sure seems that's what you're saying but I wanted to be sure I hadn't misunderstood.
×
×
  • Create New...