Yeah, I think I have to disagree with this too. It's true that when a dog gets popular, people will jump in and try to take advantage of the boom and won't know what they are doing really. But there have been quite a few breeds ruined by show breeders, collies, Irish setters, trying to up the size of Great Danes and Newfoundland dogs, things like that. As soon as people begin breeding, especially line breeding, for these very specific conformational points, there is trouble - and usually they are totally arbitrary. Look at the Duck Toller which is popular at the moment - someone has arbitrarily decided they shouldn't have white patches. Real working tollers have them, they don't affect their ability to work, but they are wrong somehow so breeders try and reduce them. It's really the idea of these conformational points for non-working dogs that are the issue IMO.

I don't think you need to be more careful about a back-yard dog than you do a "reputable" breeder. Unless you want to show or breed, papers are irrelavent - the kennel club will register any dog whose parents are registered - it is no proof of good health or meeting breed standards. Speaking of which, breed standards promoted by kennel clubs have ruined many dog breeds health and made them useless for the work they were originally intended for. In general, mutts are healthier - the main disadvantage is that they may grow up differently than you expect. But unless I was looking for a working dog, I would get a mutt - with a pure-bred breeder there are too many things to worry about. The dog in the back-yard I would consider if the parents were nice, healthy, friendly dogs and the puppies were healthy and happy. I would prefer an undocked tail myself, there is no good reason to have it done. I'd also consider the pound. There are real advantages to getting a dog that is no longer a puppy.

I think that putting kids together with groups of varying ability can often work well with really small classes. But most schools have classes that are far too large already, so in the end everyone gets shortchanged.

Physical affection varies a lot. I went to a wedding a few years ago I am sure some would have thought I was ignoring my husband and being very affectionate with another guy. Well, the other guy was my very close friend who I hadn't seen in 7 years, we became Christians together, he's a godparent to one of my kids, he is someone I've been through a lot with. And I tend to be affectionate with people I am really close to. But there has never been any kind of romantic issue with us. I think people get really crazy about this stuff - I have known people who wouldn't allow their spouse to have opposite sex friends. My dad even had a girlfriend who was ticked when he wanted to dance with other women (mostly family members) at a wedding, after she refused to dance herself. If people don't know boundaries, then being careful in public won't help. And really affectionate stuff in public settings is different to a degree than affection in a private setting. The latter would be something IMO that requires more care.

My husband just gave me an awesome set of Dalek salt and pepper shakers for my birthday. I would highly recommend them as an exciting gift.

I think that kids should probably be spending the time to learn this stuff in school. If they are supposed to do it on their own time, too much depends on having a home environment that is amenable to practicing.

I never learned mine. It is a big pain in the butt. As I've got older, I've picked it up but when i was a student it caused me a lot of trouble.

We've only done cursive. I'll add printing when dd is comfortable with it.

How have you found no formal spelling goes? We've been doing a light spelling program, but I'm not sure how committed we are to that. We used a phonics up until dd1 was reading and review as required, and i plan to do some formal grammar at grade 4 or so, but I'm not sure about spelling.

If there is just one parent it is parent's group. If there is more than one parent, it is parents' group.

Anglicans don't really have a doctrine of consubstantiation. Some may believe that, but it isn't required, and it isn't always considered a great way to describe those people who might say they hold it. Many believe in transubstantiation, but again it is not a dogma. In fact, consubstantiation was originally a term that the Catholic Church coined to try to describe Lutheran beliefs, but it isn't really clear that they, at that time, had a very clear grasp of the Lutheran teaching. Lutherans tend to avoid the term these days. To be really accurate we would probably say that the EO, CC, nglicans and Lutherans all affirm the real Presence. Ideas like transubstantiation and consubstantiation, and some others, are subsets under that idea. The Catholic Church is very specific in how they talk about it, whereas the other groups prefer not to be dogmatic beyond the real presence.

Catholics, the Orthodox, and some Anglicans (and to some extent some Lutherans) have a slightly different understanding of the visible and invisible Church than many Protestants. Most Protestants would say that all people and church communities who have faith in Christ and subscribe to some basic beliefs are within the Body of Christ. What connects all these groups is faith in Christ, and so all groups that have that are part of the body, though some may be closer to teaching truth than others. These other groups take a slightly different view. They say that the Church has a quantifiable, visible aspect, aside from/in addition to faith in Christ. They believe that when Christ began his Church, he ordained the apostles to be bishops and priests within his Church. They would pass this visible sign of authority down through laying on of hands in ordination. So to these groups, to be fully united to the Church on earth means being united to these successors of the apostles as well as faith in Christ and correct teaching of whatever are considered essentials. Just like in Christ God became united to physical humanity, or in the Eucharist God becomes physical so we can be physically united, the Church is understood to have both a spiritual and a physical aspect. Generally, the EO consider their group is the only group that has this authority, Catholics would consider themselves and also the EO to some extent. So while they would say that those outside the Church may be united to Christ invisibly through faith, and a real Christians, they are missing being visibly united to the physical church which is protected in a direct way from error, and also which is able to offer the sacraments such as the Eucharist. As such, there could be danger in certain types of ecumenical interactions, for example of praying prayers that teach error. This is particularly a concern to the EO and some Anglicans as they have a strong emphasis of the didactic role of liturgy. Even attending a church regularly which is separated from the apostolic Church would be a bad idea, as one would be separated from the sacraments and the body of the visible Church. So members of these groups are very carefully about the ways and situations that they attend other group's churches, or that they pray with other groups. It isn't totally forbidden, but it is something to be considered in a careful way.

Whoever thought property taxes were a good way to fund schools? That is a crazy idea.

I wouldn't have liked to learn manual first. I'm so introverted, I found driving in traffic to use all of my concentration when i started driving to keep my focus outward, so adding a manual transmission would have been a nightmare for me. I learned to drive stick when I was in the army, and we started out on the "driving range" which basically means dirt roads that you can zoom around on 'til your heart's content. They worked really well to develop a feel for the driving without killing people when I mucked up. We also practiced starting on hills by driving up these incredibly steep hills for half a day. We weren't allowed to stop until we could do it perfectly without rolling back. It can also be good to use a truck or vehicle that you won't be too worried about buggering the transmission. I don't think I'd have found a DVD that helpful, except that I did like having a picture in my mind of how the transmission worked. I'm a visual learner, and with machinery I have to be able to picture the mechanism to see what i need to do.

The book The Amateur Naturalist, by Gerald Durrell, has a section on looking at nature in your own home. It might be kind of inspiring.

No, it isn`t ancient, which was my point. What we call Christian fundamentalism today only developed in the 20th century. Even evangelical Christianity only dates from the 18th century. I have no problem with people speaking against fundamentalism or particular forms of Christianity. If RD wanted to speak out specifically against fundamentalism that would be great. it`s timely as there is really a growing fundamentalist movement. And i am sure that is indeed part of the reason he is so popular. But to look at fundamentalism and conclude that is the best Christianity can offer is simply false. Even more so to say it disproved theism in general. RD`s ideas about God are very Christian, and yet he applies them to forms of religion that have a very different concept of God, like deism or pantheism. He complains about the fact that God is just a super-powered old man in the sky, when a deist or pantheist believes no such thing (and nor does an educated Christian for that matter.) It just doesn`t make a lot of sense.

It`s here. He also wrote a book on Dawkins, but it goes on rather longer than is really justified by what it has to say.

I would put this a bit differently. I`d say the God he talks about has never been the God of anyone but a few post-enlightenment fundamentalists. Even those who most rabidly believed in the supernatural in the darkest depths of the dark ages didn`t believe in that God.

I`m not bothered by atheists per se, even ones that argue aggressively. But people need some humility. Because Dawkins seems only to look at the most intellectually poor forms of religion (and really only at Christianity for that matter) he seems to have come to the strange conclusion that only intellectually inferior people can be religious. But how is it actually possible for anyone who is even remotely educated to believe that is what I wonder. Look at history - the greatest thinkers of many ages were religious, and today there are many people as well educated and just as bright as Dawkins that are religious. There are people who have spent their whole lives dedicated to theology and are great scholars, in many different religions. And the same is true of non-theists, deists, and a variety of other religious positions. To me, to come to the conclusion that all religious people - or atheists - must be morons one would have to actually never interact with the human community - otherwise one could only feel humble in the face of the many people who have more insight. I always feel this way when I read the Dali Lama - a man who is smarter, kinder, more educated, braver, and more spiritual than I am, and he has different religious views than I do. I think that is what people find offensive.

He doesnt have to engage religious thought at all - he could remain silent. He chooses to engage himself in religious debate, and that comes with an intellectual responsibility, just like scientific debate. But what he does is make a straw-man argument, which is a fallacy. That suggests that he simply has no clue about how to argue rationally, has no clue that there are better theological arguments out there, or he is being intellectually dishonest. (And since many have pointed out to him that he ignores more substantial theological arguments, I don`t think that is the problem.) If he wants to refute religion on the basis of reason, it would be sensible to know what religion actually teaches. Otherwise, all that he is actually refuting is something he made up.

I`m new here but I love CM. Mind you I tend to be big on principles and flexible on presentation. We`re using mostly Ambleside ,year 1, with my daughter, who is going to be 7 at Christmas. I originally was looking at classical curricula, having been a classics major myself, but I find CM is really a classical curriculum with some things I really value - a more pedagogically appropriate approach to the younger years in particular, and fewer text books. In fact, in the latter point think it is really more classical than some of the other plans i have seen that claim that label.

I think it's important to think about why nature study is important to get the most out of it and to fit it into your life. To me the really important components are: Being outdoors is very healthy, and it has an important affect on brain development, mood, etc. Having unscripted time to fiddle with stuff and be self directed is essential to learning. Kids are concrete learners, and even adults learning is based on concrete experiences from childhood. Nature study is about experiencing things as much as it is about studying them. For us, we are bookish, and I have small kids, and it is cold and rainy herre a lot. Also, like most people these days, it is hard to let your kids just go out, even if you are willing, because it isn't really socially acceptable. We don't do a lot of directed study, other than twice a month with science club kids. But I try to remember that it is really important to us to get out n nature regularly. I don't need to script it, the kids will get into it on their own if we just leave them be. But it's because I'm bookish I find I need to be conscious of getting outside. This year I've made arrangements to meet a friend once a week and do a hike or walk or something. We might have some activities planned, but not necessarily, and it works really well - the kids play and look at stuff and it is easier to get out having made a commitment. Dd1 also does a lot of outdoor things with her dad like fishing and camping, which IMO counts as nature study. How important is it? I think for roughly elementary school kids it is probably more important than art appreciation or even some non-skill academic subjects. On a practical note, a big issue for comfortable time outside I think is the right kind of clothes for the climate and geography in all weather.

I found that when my daughter was struggling at that age, I just needed to wait. I think getting outside, moving the body, and so on is actually more important than doing a program for a 5 year old - those are important components of the brain development needed to read. They will start to be able to blend when they are ready and not before.

ha! I don't really have a good spot for this in my bathroom, but my university Latin prof used to recommend practicing declensions while on the toilet as an effective study tool. Also, he used to encourage drinking brandy while translating, as the label would remind us how to approach the sentences: VSOP - Verb, Subject, Object, Please!

I'm afraid I don't trust his scientific thought, because his ideas about religion and theology are so silly. I had to stop reading "The God Delusion" part way through because I was so embarrassed for him - it is just like reading "creation science" on evolution. I am surprised that some people find him perfectly polite on religion. This is a man who says that parents who teach their kids a religious worldview are abusive. But I really can't take a guy seriously who dismisses Boethius of Anselm or for that matter Tom wright or the Pope, on the basis of only reading Jack Chick or the Westborough Baptists.