With apologies to Ree, here you go! :) Is this the one you mean? It's not strictly 80's photos -- just funky portrait photos in general, I think.

Congratulations! That's awesome!

My favorite addendum is the one that says this is all a bad joke, they're just kidding and none of it will really go into effect. Oh. Wait. :glare:

Have you checked out KOA? Some of them have cabins, now, and some of the cabins have kitchens and bathrooms in them (others have beds, but you walk to the bathroom and use a campstove). Glad your hubby is coming home!!!

LOL, this is what I was going to say (or something similar ... "No, I'd miss him/her too much"). I have had, and haven't had, a dishwasher and it's not a deal maker or breaker for me. Besides, *I* haven't done dishes regularly for a couple of years now. What are you people with several kids 8+ years old doing dishes for? ;) Just kidding, I know people organize chores differently. Here, all kids 7 and up have a "dish day" -- they do all the dishes on that day.

Funny!

I'm not seeing any such requirement at hslda.org http://hslda.org/laws/analysis/Wyoming.pdf

**If** I have a dishwasher, this is what I do, too! Right now? No dishwasher. So I'd put off canning b/c I couldn't figger out how to keep the jars hot enough. Sitting in a sink of now-hot, now-warm, now-tepid, now-cold water wasn't going to do it. When I whiz the blender I do try to stop before it's completely lump-free because we like lumpy applesauce too. But you're right, this is easier to accomplish by cooking down. The texture IS different (even with some lumps) in the blender version.

This year I'm all about simple. Here are some things I'm doing in making our applesauce this year (I'm canning, not freezing, though): 1) Not peeling the apples. When I whiz them up (see #2 below), the peels are taken care of. You can't even see the peels in the final product. 2) Putting the chopped, raw apples into my blender to whiz them up before putting them in the pot to heat (I'm canning this year, not freezing). WOW this one step saves a ton of time! 3) Heating the jars one by one on the stove right before filling. I have a soup pot half filled with water simmering on a burner, and I add a jar to the water, tipping it on it's side. I wait 15 seconds or so, then use tongs to lift the jar out, making sure to pour the water inside the jar back into the pot (having the hot water flow over the side that wasn't in the water). This has been MUCH easier than getting the jars hot another way. I haven't had to deal with worms, but yes, I'd cut them out if I saw them!

Oh. my. word. I pictured a half-foot-high, black spiky (or at least gelled "straight-up") mohawk. Good grief. That is so NOT distracting. Thanks for the update.

Someone posted this link earlier -- haven't had time to check it out yet, but thought I'd repost in reply to your question. Cheers!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fossett

That's the thing -- no one did know *for sure* that there had been a crash until the plane was found yesterday. It was speculation until then. So that's where the "conspiracy theory" kicked in -- was [someone] faking his death? That's why I was sort of surprised they declared him dead so quickly -- no crash site found. But again, now that it HAS been found and the ID will probably come in as it being him -- well, the conspiracy speculation can be laid to rest. As can he.

I do, I do! LOL, I ordered a pound of dried parsley awhile ago -- WOWZERS. I won't need parsley until 3200 years the other side of heaven!

Haven't read the replies, but am stuck in a dilemma! I feel the same way you do, btw, about fund raisers. Ick. But we just signed a child up for some music instruction and I've found out, now, that there's a required fund raiser ... what do we do, then, if we don't want to participate? The extra funds, from what I can figure out, that we'd have to "donate" (pay) if we don't want to do the fund raiser will more than double the amount of $$ that we will have put into the lessons for the school year (so, say, the lessons were $100, with the "donation" it will come to $225 instead).

Joanne, I've had a few hours now and I want to apologize for jumping into opinion sharing and instructive mode .... I should have honored your first line where you said your post was a *rant*. We all need a good rant, to be sure, once in awhile! And honestly, yours is valid -- if there IS a rule, there perhaps shouldn't be and if there's NOT a rule, then you have a point (and your son shouldn't have to change his hairstyle).

This is true (that I listed behavior in my examples while your son's choice is cosmetic). As I said, I have a son with a hairstyle that some at times would not, shall we say, appreciate and it has nothing to do with behavior -- questionable or otherwise. But the point of my post had to do with rules and whether or not we are to follow them; the principle I tried to convey (perhaps not so very well) would apply whether the subject is behavior or a cosmetic choice. If a rule exists that doesn't allow for a certain behavior (or cosmetic choice) then it doesn't do our children any good to get them thinking that they're special so the rule doesn't apply to *them*. Yes, the better thing would be for some such rules to not even be there; but if they are ...

If we operate in such a way that they think that the rules don't apply to *them*. (I'm writing this post under the thought that this hair rule was there at the beginning and all parties knew about it, btw. If that's NOT the case, then this answer isn't as applicable.) I know your heart, I do, I'm a mom of a great kid with a "different" hairdo too, although I can't say that I have been in a situation where there was a rule about the 'do. With that said ... It's a huge problem, IMHO, in our culture -- people thinking that the rules don't apply to *them*. Drivers running yellow/red lights; folks using their gramma's handicapped parking tags illegally; kids playing on the wheelchair ramp with their bicycles and scooters; not declaring all income tax on the annual form; etc. These things happen because people decide that the rules don't apply to *them*. Of course, the haircut issue is minor compared to these bigger issues! And I *don't* like the rule and the subsequent (or concurrent) judging that goes along with it at all -- my desire would be that the rule not be there in the first place. But if it *is* and it was when you signed on, then I think it does kids a better service to work that through than to say "It's a dumb rule and you can do whatever you want in this case". The kids'-bikes-on-the-wheelchair-ramp is where I had to take a step back in our family, and make the kids see that we can't always get what we want and that there ARE at times rules we don't like that we still have to follow. We live near a public building where there's a fabulously long and curvy wheelchair ramp. The kids played on it for ever so long before the building manager came out and said "no more play" on the ramp. I know my kids, I know they would stop and let wheelchair users pass by if any were present; I know they don't play recklessly, that they were just having fun going up and down, etc. And I wanted to approach the manager with this. But I didn't ... couldn't ... because of the above, and it's been lost as a great place to play. Again, I wish the rule wasn't *there* in the first place, but it is and so we've moved on. Do you have any thoughts on this? Would this apply in your situation, or "not in the least"? I've read your posts and know that you are a fabulous and loving parent! So it's not about that. I'm more just sharing some thoughts I've been having, having recently dealt with a similar (but not the same) issue.

And another (albeit this one with a C4L-ian twist).

:grouphug: anyway!

Nine years "before the norm" is what was mentioned .... that's my thought, too, nine MONTHS is pretty quick in having a missing someone declared dead.

Or chocolate ice cream topping! Melt the chocolate withe some butter and evaporated milk. Pour over the ice cream of your choice (it will harden).

Do you have open credit accounts that you do not use? Like credit cards or lines of credit that are just sitting there? I've heard these are viewed negatively on credit reports because they show available credit but don't show how you would handle that credit if extended. Does that make sense? So you, maybe, have $10,000 in available credit that you haven't touched -- what if you DID touch it? What if you maxed it out? What if you went over or didn't make payments? They can't tell how you would use this credit, where with *active* credit they can see that you are being responsible. It does seem like they'd look at the credit you DO handle responsibly to determine how you'd likely handle the other credit available to you should you extend it -- but from what I've understood, they don't. It's my understanding that having a couple of cards that you use regularly and paying them off regularly (and no open-but-unused credit) is a *good* think in regard to credit scores. Or is this what you're saying you have? We're like Cheryl -- one credit card that dh and I share (and we only use it for bigger-ticket items), and then the house loan in both our names. Debit card for everything else (I can use our debit card online).

Should be http://www.THEpioneerwoman.com ... love this blog.

LOL, it was prophecy ... I *should* have a red face! :) So in *that* context I will have to correct myself; I *have*, ahem, already made acquaintance with tea. ;)