I would DEFINITELY go to the Adam Andrews talks, especially if my dd were younger. I don't think the two are going to be all that similar. If I am correct (and you can certainly email him to find out for sure - he is very responsive), the first talk will be about actual literary devices, and the second talk will be about how to discuss literature with your kids - plot, character, setting, the climax of the story. I wouldn't go to talks by publishers that I didn't have an interest in. Especially if there is something else you'd rather hear? What would be the point, kwim? I *would* go to talks by publishers that I *am* interested in. They can better articulate the underlying philosophy of their program and how to best use it. I have never been to a talk by an experienced homeschooler that benefited me much, except when they talked about things like scheduling your day, running the household, discipline (mine, not the kids :)), etc. I was pleasantly surprised by some things I learned from a BJU rep - and I learned how his product compared to other publishers that people who have actually used these products aren't even aware of. I learned more from Jessica Hulcy about unit studies than I learned from a mom who talked about unit studies. I learned more from Steve Demme than I learned from a talk about how to use math manipulatives like cuisinaire rods. I learned more from Rob Shearer than I learned from a mom who gave a talk on the chronological study of history. I learned more from a few hours of SWB than I've learned from every mom's talk about classical education that I've ever attended all together. So, if it was something I was really interested in, I'd go hear the author/publisher before I'd go hear someone who was going to talk about the topic in general. Do not miss SWB is she is there. And get there early because the seats go fast. I feel the same about Rob Shearer, but that's obviously my personal preference. Many publishers *are* homeschoolers, and they get so much feedback everywhere they go... they are usually a wealth of information, even when they are talking about things that don't pertain to their products (many offer other tlaks... Demme, Pudewa, etc.). I would go to a mom's talk if she were speaking to an issue that actually applied to me... things like needed encouragement, how to homeschool with little ones under foot, how to deal with learning difficulties, etc. I would not to go a mom's talk about how to use a curriculum. I *might* go to something like a Cathy Duffy talk on how to *choose* a curriculum (learning styles), but even these sort of talks are usually presented by someone trying to sell you on the idea that you really do need their product to navigate homeschooling successfully... (a book, a guide). Yes, you get to see samples of everything at the booths. Sometimes you buy on site, sometimes you order and they ship. Don't buy anything that isn't already on your list unless you sleep on it first. Every convention I've been to has a book check area, where you can drop off your items as they accumulate and pick them up at the end of the day. Sometimes there's a fee, sometimes it's free. Take advantage of it. It's worth it! I would do that before I'd do something on wheels because I like to be flexibile and mobile! LOL Good luck and have fun!

Carli! No, not at all! I didn't take anything you said personal. I know that there are those "keep up with the Jones" types around here. I was simply pointing out that you don't have to fit that stereotype just becuase you live in the suburbs. I've been on these boards for many years, and this topic comes up a LOT... and the general consensus is ALWAYS that life in suburbia is a slow death in a hell hole with no redeeming value. Well, only if you let it be! LOL Seriously, though, the real point that I was trying to make is that simple living really doesn't have anything to do with where you live and whether or not you are self sufficient. It's about keeping things simple. Sure, it's great to know various trades so that you can fix things yourself, etc., but there are other skills that are just as great to develop, and we all have the same 24 hours, and you can't do everything. My husband loves mechanical work, but he hates yard work and carpentry and painting. He'd rather work a few extra hours at the job he loves and earn the money to hire a carpenter or painter. A self sufficient lifestyle isn't a simpler lifestyle... it's a *different* lifestyle, and I imagine that among those who are living more self sufficiently, there are some who do so simply, and some who don't. The same with people in the city or people in the suburbs. Some live extravagantly and some live quite the modest, simple lifestyle. That's the distinction I was trying to make. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was reacting to your post specifically. I really wasn't. :) Robin ETA: To the OP, if you're still reading, all I was *really* trying to do is answer your question and say that yes, you can live simply in the suburbs surrounded by technology. Don't confuse simplicity with things that don't have anything to do with simplicity, kwim? No matter where you live, this can be done! Good luck!

We live simply in the burbs. It can be done. Work is work. My husband's work requires he be near large industry. That is his work, and it is as valid as working the land. I don't feel like we're missing out on a better lifestyle just because we don't produce our own food. That work is just as hard! And Just because we're in the burbs doesn't mean we're "keep up with the Joneses" type. We have a decent house in a nice neighborhood and are thankful for the HOA becuase we've been on the other side and we appreciate a few rules. I cook from scratch, we have modest tastes and budgets for clothing, etc., but more importantly we don't go crazy with a busy lifestyle. Our lives are pretty simple. I don't think simplicity equates "self sufficient on the farm", although most use the term "simple lifestyle" with the lifestyle of the amish, etc. I think simplicity should also imply an ease of lifestlye. For me, certain conveniences actually make life easier. Good plumbing removes a LOT of hassles, kwim? LOL Because of the long hours my husband works, our smaller lot is easier to care for than the acreage we used to have. He doesn't want to have to come home to another job! And I can not tell you how much simpler my life is now that I don't have to drive 30 minutes to the store or the library or the doctor or anywhere else. And I don't have to fill my car up with gas as often, either. I enjoy having neighbors - I like to get to know people. I'd rather have people at my door than a cow :). I have lived in the city where there was perpetual traffic/road repair and concern about crime, and I have lived in the country, and I can honestly say that living in the suburbs has been the easiest, simplest place we've ever lived. *Could* I maintain a garden and raise chickens if I had to? Sure. But I don't want to. That would be too complicated for me -- I could more easily live simply in a downtown second story flat! I think there's a lot of over-romanticizing of the country life. For those who love it, I say great! But it's not any better or any more rewarding than any other good, productive way of life. P.S. Most of the neighbors in my subdivision have one or two fruit trees, and they plant vegetables in their flower beds or in pots or small plots. I think you can do things for self sufficiency even in a small inner city house.

Pamela, I wasn't offended by the eek comment. Honest!! But if you go back and read thewhole post again, you will see that the particular quote you were responding to was in the context of when the child gets "ratty about the consequences"... the way I read the post, most of the suggested lines were very gentle, but this one was a little harsher and offered only in response to a child who was complaining about their consequences. I can see going at it the way you suggest, but when the kid starts smart mouthing, I can also see telling her that if she wants to get mad about her situation, she needs to get mad at herself, not at you for enforcing the conseuqnces. If a child is compliant and remorseful, I agree that sort of talk would be like rubbing their face in it, but if the child takes an attitude about the rules and conseuqnces... well, I thought that line was actually quite mild! LOL

Sorry, this was supposed to be under King Alfred...

One more way to look at it... You add an es anytime the plural form creates a new syllable, because every syllable needs a vowel. Simple as that. There are two basic exceptions which are easy to remember: 1. If the word ends with a silent e (age, lace, judge, bridge - all words pointed out in this thread already). In those cases, the silent e attaches to the s in the suffix and becomes the necessary vowel for the final syllable. You wouldn't make the word lace plural by spelling it lacees. The silent e in the root word plays multiple roles in the plural form - it still forces the long a sound and the soft c sound in the root word, but it also provides a vowel for the final syllable. 2. If the word ends in y, you turn the y into an i and add es. bunny - bunnies. You just have to remember this rule. For us, it has been a LOT easier to remember it this way than the cumbersome way this is usually taught (if a word ends in z, s, etc.)

Thank you! I will check these out. Robin

Was she really? I didn't have my glasses on last night, so I didn't pick up on that little detail. If she was lip synching, then I now why... she can not sing in tune. We watched her live once, and she was so flat it was awful. I can't imagine what they have to do in the studio to correct that on her recordings. The only reason she's making it is because she writes original songs. You sure could tell who the real talents were last night... the acoustics were bad... only the really great voices sounded good last night. Brooks and Dunn, etc. Sugarland (she's the bomb). Re: Garth - I think he's stuck in a time warp, and promotes his hey days instead of new success. Sort of like the Beach Boys ;). I'm pretty sick of his overpublicizing his public life, to be honest. The way he would drag his wife up onto the stage to accept awards with him like no one loves their wife as much as he does, and then he leaves her for Trisha... and then he starts doing that with Trisha (proposing marriage on stage during a performance? I'd have slapped him!)... ugh!! As far as what he did... well, he missed his cue at the beginning of his song and came in with the chorus during the wrong meausre, and when he gave his acceptance speech, he thanked Reba (who presented the award) and called her "Miss Yearwood." LOL

They used to be important to me. But they're not anymore. Now I go only if there will be something or someone there I really, really, want to see or hear... there is nothing like talking to the author of a program to get straight answers to all your questions, and recommendations for how to best use a program. Notgrass History will be at my convention this year, so I might go see to see them. I enjoy visiting with people from publishers like Memoria Press, and the guy from Rainbow Science, etc. In that sense, it is motivating/encouraging becuase I'm connecting with real live people and I like keeping up with them from year to year... I genuinely enjoy getting to know these people (the way I like to keep in touch with everyone here). SWB has been to our convention twice. She is definitely a "don't miss." There really are some good speakers out there who are worth their weight in gold... I've received some of my most important, valuable grounding from Rob Shearer and SWB. I can't imagine what my homeschool would look like if it weren't for their sessions. These boards haven't fulfilled that role to the same degree. Going to meet Hank the Cowdog was fun, too :).

We're wrapping up 3rd year, starting 4th year cycle history next year, and would like to incorporate the history of modern theatre (Broadway, etc.) and its cultural impact. Any good resources to use as a basic guide (considering the fact I'm pretty clueless :))? Thanks, Robin

My mom would be 89 this year. And she was late 40's when I was born (my siblings are 15, 13 and 8 years older than me - I'm a change of life baby, and my mom's neighbors all gave her a baby shower when I was born because she had gotten rid of everything :))

Sometimes others ground for lighter reasons, and it's really not as harsh as you might think. For bad grades, perhaps a parent would tell a child no social activities during the week... they have to come home every day and get their homework done and not watch tv or talk on the phone. Often this applies to weekdays only, and lasts until the child has brought their grades back up, etc. I don't see this sort of "grounding" as harsh... people on these boards do this sort of thing all the time and they call it tomato staking (as you noted). It's a form of disciplining in terms of working with them to develop good habits and get rid of the old bad ones. ETA: I deleted this out of respect for my dd's privacy. But you're right... people call different things grounding... and having a child that is easily distracted and will do ANYTHING to get out of her work (she is the QUEEN of procrastination and deflection), I can see how some parents might have to use mild grounding to keep their kids indoors and focused on their work when their kid has been slacking too much.

In our house it means you can't do anything or go anywhere. Or receive phone calls. It's kind of like lock down. Solitary confinement :). Rarely happens here... only for the most severe offenses.

Believe me, Doran... it's not worth thinking about! LOL She's a singer and she just performed her song on stage with water pouring down on her. And it's not a song about rain, either. The upside is that Garth Brooks messed up big time, both in his song, and when he gave his acceptance speech, which I enjoyed witnessing :).

Isn't it dangerous to mix water and electricity? LOL Bizarre... And she looked so surprised when it was all over. Sigh. This is what you're left to ponder when Sunday night TV is *boring*! (watching CMA awards, in case anyone is wondering...)

Grin! Yeah, I resemble that remark :).

Lisa, how tragic. Said a prayer here. Robin

Most the gays I know are men (because I have a male gay family member). None of them have children. I don't know many lesbians. I wonder how many of the children in those marriages, though, are from previous marriages or from adoption (like the one cited in the article). Adoption is competitive and expensive. I don't competely disagree with some of your other points, but they are not tax code issues. I will stick by the fact that as far as the tax code goes the marriage break is definitely a encouragement for that activity. There was a fight when legislature had made an amendment to the code that PUNISHED married couples... that was overturned and we now enjoy, once again, a break on our taxes if we are married filing jointly. Again, I don't think it's the government's argument *against* gay marriage, it's the reason why gay marriage will impact tax revenues, etc.

Sure it does. It might not matter to you or to someone else, but it matters to the federal budget (and the IRS/tax code). You know, I am always so very surprised by this argument. If I were a gay person arguing for my right to marry, the *last* thing I would use is the, "Animals do it so we're normal" argument. I think it is very demeaning to gays to compare their loving relationships to the behavior of animals. And most animal homosexual behavior is not actually sexual, it is affectionate beavhior. Dogs and lions will hump each other, but they'll also fight over a female in heat. Straight men in a prison environment will engage in homosexual behavior but return to their girlfriends or wives. All that is about being horny. It's not about the sort of union that marriage represents. I sure hope we don't get to the point to where marriage is reduced to simply a license to have sex. What a sad day that would be for everyone.

Kay, thanks for the book recommendation! I'm not so sure I would have wanted to live in the Depression, but I think I would like to have experienced WWII. Maybe. Except my parents wouldn't speak of their lives during that time period, especially my dad who served in the Navy. I'm wondering if it hasn't been romanticized a little too much, given how my parents tried so hard to put that behind them and forget about it.

You have to look at the generalizations, not the exceptions. Generally speaking, straight couples marry with the intent to start a family. Gay couples do not have children as commonly... not at all. In a way, they are in the same boat as infertile straight couples... they have to find surrogates, incur the cost of artificial insemination, or adopt. They are not baby producers in the same way. I know that many won't agree with this line of thinking but believe me.. this is THE reason why marriage is rewarded by the government - it's not for emotional or religious reasons... it's for economic ones.

See my post to Pam above. I don't think it would make any difference one way or the other re: gays hiding behind marriages. FWIW, this to me is not a religious issue (the legalization of gay marriages). The reason why the government sanctions marriage and gives tax credits for it is because they WANT people to marry and have children (i.e. future workers and tax payers). Healthy, growing families is vital to the future of a country. They give tax credits and favor to families and married couples for this reason. One of the fundamentals of government tax policy is to tax activity you want to discourage, and give tax breaks to activity you want to encourage. That's why they give tax breaks for certain expenses, like mortage interest and other business investments, because it will encourage those activities, and those activities are good for the country. It does not make sense to give tax credits to an activity that doesn't naturally lead to the outcome the government wants to promote. That is why I am not sure I believe that anything other than the traditional family should be recognized by the government for tax benefits. When you get right down to it, this is like a business decision on the part of the government with no emotion or religion attached to it at all. That does not mean that there can't be a way for same sex couples to enjoy some sort of recognition for the purposes of being the next of kin for decision making purposes, etc. (although I would argue that much of that can be taken care of with wills and powers of attorney). And if certain religious sects can conduct marriages that aren't recognized by the state, then I don't see why gays can't enjoy similar unions. I don't think that the government should *force* insurance companies to cover the partners of their gay policy holders... but more and more large companies are making that possible, and this really sparks a completely different discussion (health insurance). I don't think that insurance needs should be a reason to change marital law. And I don't think that the reason for the promotion of marriage (from a governmental point of view) leaves much room for recognizing gay marriage. Not that they are less in love, or less committed, or less productive as individuals... but because gay marriage does not help grow the population or bring added stability to social fabric. Not to any great extent, such that the government should start budgeting tax breaks for them all. I have gay friends that I love dearly, but this is the way I honestly feel about it. It sounds cold hearted, I know... and I'm sorry for that. But government and taxation usually requires a non-emotional point of view. I do think it would be good if gay couples had a way of having a civil union of some sort, because I'm sure that recognition and public commitment is very important to them, but I don't know that that union should receive the same governmental preference, if that makes sense.

I'm beginning to think we're talking about two different things. Acceptance of gays so that they don't feel pressured to live dual lives, etc., is one thing. The government legally recognizing gay marriage is another. You can have one without the other. There can be acceptance of couples who are not legally married, and there can be discrimination against couples who are (for example, discrimination that some in biracial marriages face). I really don't think that the federal government recognizing same sex marriage is going to change the way people feel about gays or the way gays come to terms with their identity, and I don't think any of that is the reason gays want the right to marry in the first place. I don't see how offering a man an opportunity to marry another man will somehow encourage him out of the closet and into a same sex union and remove whatever social/familial pressures that have been keeping him in that closet. I highly doubt a gay man will marry a woman because he really, really, really wants to be married so badly that he would rather marry a woman than be single. He's not being pressured to marry, he's being pressured to suppress a desire... and for reasons that legalizing gay marriage doesn't begin to address. Using the "office talk around the water cooler" analogy that Phred mentioned, I really don't think that a gay man standing at the water cooler will receive a different reaction to "My hubby and I" than he would receive to "My partner and I". Whether or not they are legally married will matter very little to how that goes over. The people who accept them would accept them either way. The people who wouldn't... well, they're not going to change just because it's a legal union. Just my two cents, Robin

I find other time periods fascinating, but I don't think I'd *really* want to experience the real thing. I wory too much about where I'd use the bathroom and how often I'd get to shower. I guess I've camped too often. This reminds me of the time on the old boards we discussed going on an authentic mush... in a weatherproof sled with a see through cover/roof and quality shock absorbers, sipping a mug of hot chocolate, and looking forward to an evening arrival at the nearest hotel, a hot meal and turn down service :).

Pineapple ice box cake? A large cobbler? Gooey butter cake (made with cream cheese)? Dump cake? All good, crowd pleasing, and very simple (throw a few ingredients together. Good luck!