Then some woman decided she'd check my ID for beer (I'm creeping up on 30 if you don't mind. But hey, nice to feel under 21 again)
This is the law in many states. In Washington, they have to check your ID if you are under 35. So let's say you're 34 years old and you buy a beer. They don't check your ID because you're obviously older than 21. The store can get fined for this, and the fines are basically the same as selling to a minor. I kid you not.
This is enforced by hiring people to go in to stores and order alcohol. So any random customer could be working for the liquor control board. If he's under 35 and you don't ID him, you're busted. Huge fines for the store, huge fines for the server, and the loss of the server's job.
They created the law because, apparently, plenty of teenagers can pass for 25-30 somethings, and they were getting away with buying alcohol. So, unless the person obviously looks to be in his 40s or later, you have to ID him.
I have to agree. Sears is great. I bought an air compressor and was given false information by the salesman - I asked if it was 100% duty cycle and he said it was. When I began having problems with it 3 months later, I checked the owner's manual and it clearly stated "50% duty cycle. Any more than that is considered abuse."
Since it had been 3 months I didn't think Sears would take it back, so I filed a preliminary claim with my credit card issuer. I then took it back to Sears, expecting a fight.
They gave me zero hassles. Just smiled, apologized for the inconvenience, and refunded my money.
Sears has been great to me over the years in other situations as well. I'll continue shopping there (In fact, I buy nearly all of my tools from them).
If I bought an large screen TV on my CC, then tried to return it, and the place didn't take it back, if the CC issued a chargeback to the company I tried to take it back to, wouldn't that leave me with both the money *AND* the TV? I see loads of potential for abuse there.
No, not really. You'd have to give the TV back to the store and provide proof to the CC issuer that you did so (signed form from the store, or something). If the store refuses to take it and won't issue you anything, generally the CC company will have you mail the item to them.
Crap, until recently, it was perfectly legal to shout "nigger" at a black person.
I don't have a problem with that being legal. Free speech, man.
However, I do think we ought to pass a special law that gives the black person the right to beat you unconscious for doing this, without fear of punishment.;)
Everyone here is likely to blame Microsoft. I'm turning my wrath against the intelligence organizations of various countries. For far too long this BS - malware, viruses, fraud sent via spam - has been mostly ignored. It seems nobody is going to jail for the Paypal scams because Paypal isn't a "real bank". Now they're targeting real banks.
I, for one, am sick of it. Where is our FBI and what are they doing about this? If these were criminals setting up videocameras to record pin numbers at ATMs, you can bet there would be a huge effort to track them down. Well, this is worse than that.
These are obvious. They're pretty decent sized, and there are signs that say "DO NOT ENTER" and other signs that show the direction of travel. The road clearly enters the roundabout going to the right. In fact, it is impossible to enter the roundabout and take a left/within/ it, because of the angles involved.
However, people were crossing the yellow line BEFORE the roundabout starts. They would then enter the roundabout in the other lane's exit and follow it going the wrong direction for 1/4 turn to take a left. They would exit out into oncoming traffic, drive back over the yellow line and back into their lane.
Re:You're not allowed to touch council property
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
Amount -- a measure of quantity. Intent -- a measure of one's determination for action.
There's no direct connection between the two.
There is as far as our government is concerned. Drug laws specifically correlate amount with intent. If you have more than x amount of a substance, it is deemed that you have way too much for yourself, so you obviously intend to distribute it.
Every day, people go to jail for significant lengths of time due to these laws. If more juries would be told of their power of nullification, we might be able to fix this.
LOL. We have a ton of roundabouts here. 2 years ago some clown at the city decided they were great stuff, and promptly had one built. Now they're building them all over the city, replacing perfectly good intersections with them.
And people are stupid. They enter them going the WRONG DIRECTION all of the time. I kid you not! They had to place officers on 24/7 patrol at the first one they built because a large number of people were crossing the yellow line into oncoming traffic and going the wrong way around in order to make a left. They fined a ton of people and a local judge dropped all of the cases, saying the roundabout was "confusing". What's so confusing about yellow lines and "DO NOT ENTER" signs?!
Why make a big stink out of it? Just relax about it.
Bribery, sheesh.
You're the guy that hit him and bribed the judge, aren't you?
You bastard.
Re:You're not allowed to touch council property
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
Not top priority for the council, so he offered to remove it himself. He was told if he removed the graffiti himself he would be prosecuted for criminal damage to council property!
Thus you witness the sheer brilliance of government.
One of the members of a car forum I frequent bought a used car. The driver's window didn't work right, so after a couple of weeks he got around to taking the door panel apart to fix it. In the door panel he found several large bags of cocaine.
So naturally he calls the police to turn it in. They tell him, "If you bring that to us, we will arrest you, and since the amounts are so high you'll be charged with intent to distribute and probably serve a decade in jail."
The poor guy freaked out, had no idea what to do with this stuff. We all told him to flush it down the toilet, which he did.
You would think they'd care about tracking down the previous owner of the car or something, or at least getting this stuff off the street. Nope, instead they're so concerned with enforcing their laws that they'll ruin the life of someone who is trying to do the right thing.
Holy cow. Your senators are just as forthcoming as mine! Such solid points of view as, "I believe we should look closely at this" and "It is crucial that the decisions we make be informed and forward-thinking."
The bastards never take sides one way or the other. It's always, "I understand your concern. I will keep your thoughts in mind. Don't forget to donate to my campaign - I had to sniff my coke off a hooker's breasts last night because I couldn't afford her ass."
It's actually illegal for them to call back after being told this.
Like they care.
I had some jerk call me from some company, no idea who it was. He was faking retardation, trying to play on my emotions to sell me something. Talking real slow, stuttering, etc. The conversation went like this:
Me: "No thank you, please take me off your list." Him: "Ohhhhhhkkayyy sirr... I call back tomorrow." Me: "No, please take me off your list." Him: "Ohhhkayy, I call back tomorrow." Me: "No no, please don't call me back tomorrow. I want you to take me off your list. Please don't call me again." Him, this time in a perfect normal voice: "OK. I'll talk to you tomorrow! Hahahahaha! (click)."
While I give to charities, it's annoying to have (literally) 10 to 15 different Police charities calling every month (among others).
This is why I don't give to charities.
I did once. Last Christmas, we put a bunch of goodies in a shoe box to send to a poor child in Africa. Gave it to a company that was collecting them along with a check to cover postage and such.
In the six months since, I've received half a dozen letters from them begging for more money. Forget it; I'm not doing it anymore. If I can't just donate from time to time without being harassed for the rest of me life then I won't donate at all.
Actually, yes they do. Gee, great, so they walk up and introduce themselves. Then they proceed to act in irritating, overbearing, self-righteous ways.
Only those who are raised by parents that act the same way. Granted, there are a lot of them out there, and these people probably shouldn't be homeschooling their kids, but you have to take the bad with the good.
I would tend to agree, though I think there are certainly cases where kids are homeschooled for the wrong reasons. And in some of these cases, the parents could be pretty darn bad at it.
Absolutely!
His son asked a number of times what they were, which is father would not answer. He said "I'll tell you when you're older." Now to me, that's a perfectly UNacceptable response. The kid was old enough that he should at least have had some sort of sexual education by this point.
Again, we agree. My opinion on this matter is: If the child is old enough to ask the question, then he is old enough to get an honest answer. I can't believe that someone would shelter a child from that in the 8th grade. We took sex ed in 4th and 5th.
Now, could this kid be just as sheltered in this regard if he were enrolled in public school? Sure.
Actually, I doubt it. He'd learn it from the other kids. Which is fine, he needs to.
But at the same time, I think one reason a lot of parents pull kids out of public schools is to shelter them from all the bad stuff that is on display there. Unfortunately, a lot of the bad stuff on display in schools is the same bad stuff on display in the rest of the world, so at some point the kid is going to be exposed to it.
Right on both counts. There is nothing wrong with sheltering your children and letting them be children without the worries of adulthood. However, you need to ensure they are taught about those worries when the time is right.
An example: A friend of ours was complaining because her 5 year old - in Kindergarten - came home wearing lipstick and makeup. Another little girl on the school bus was sharing it with her. Her parents asked her why she was wearing it, and she repeated the line she'd been told by her new little friend: "It makes me look sexy for boys."
I was so glad my daughter was homeschooled at that point. Yeah, she needs to know about boys and sex, and she will - around the 4th and 5th grade (9-10 years of age). 5 year olds shouldn't have to worry about this stuff. I really have a problem with a child that young trying to look "sexy for boys."
Exposing them to it but providing guidance about it is much more productive.
I plan to put computers in my children's bedrooms when they get a little older. I also plan to monitor - but not restrict - their Internet access. My theory is, if they decide to look at porn, I'm not going to stop them, but I want to know about it so we can sit down and have "that talk."
I don't usually reply to ACs, but you're an insightful one:
While learning about religious topics is well and good it is important that children can develop skills in all areas.
You're right. I would suggest that anyone who wants to keep their children home solely based on the religious aspect is wrong to do so. You can send your children to a public school and teach them religion in the evenings.
The parent poster hates Christians and homeschoolers because he was taught nothing but 8 hours of Bible reading every day. No wonder he's so bitter: He had bad parents who didn't do their job. I'd be bitter, too.
We are Christians. We teach religion. It encompasses maybe 5% of our children's total schooling. The other 95% is the same stuff they would learn at school, only at their pace, and they get to explore subjects that schools don't offer (my 7 year old is learning Latin. Latin!! She said she wanted to learn so we bought her a training program. She's been listening to the CDs regularly for a week now, all on her own with no prompting from us.)
My point is that the kids that tend to be homeschooled are probably the same kids that tend to go to college in the first place.
Point taken, and one that I can agree with. Nevertheless - if this many are getting into college, then the situation "thamaht" presented ("By the time she got to public school for her senior year, she could barely pass the classes, because she hadn't learned the foundations yet") is an isolated incident. People who barely pass high school courses don't typically get into, or survive in, college.
I was trying to find a survey that shows the % of homeschooled children who actually hold a college degree, rather than who simply "took college courses." I remember reading something awhile back that showed homeschoolers were more likely to have a college degree, but I can't find it now.
Screw social skills; these kids aren't taught anything of the real world, less their wee lil' minds be corrupted by the evil sinners that don't believe in jesus! Bah.
Ah, I see. The source of your hatred is not homeschoolers, it's Christians. Too bad.
So sit down and STFU.
This is an open forum. I can and will say whatever I darn well please.
Unlike you, I want my children to have a better life than I do: and this means raising them as normal people who are equipped to function in the real world.
Normal people like you? People who hate others simply because they believe in Jesus Christ? That's quite a healthy attitude to be teaching your children. I hope and pray they can see through your hatred, instead of being blindly led by it.
You're talking about quality of education issues. The grandparent, and I, were talking about social skills.
There are some parents that simply shouldn't homeschool. They use homeschooling as an excuse to just keep the kids home, or otherwise don't do a very good job of it. These kids can end up not having the skills they need to function in the real world.
A bad thing? Sure. Isolated to homeschoolers? Far from it. Huge numbers of children graduate from the public school system lacking the same skills. Why? They had bad parents! If you look at successful adults vs unsuccessful adults, homeschooled or not, you'll usually find that parenting, or a lack thereof, contributed to that child's development more than anything else.
Now I will link you to the results of a study that show 74 percent of homeschooled adults aged 18 to 24 have taken college-level courses, compraed to 46 percent of the general U.S. population. Link. In other words, a large majority of homeschoolers are going on to college, compared to less than half of everyone else. This tells me these parents are doing a better job than the teachers you place your trust in.
To further solidify my "value of education" argument, I'll link you to this CBS News article that says, and I quote:
"Homeschoolers have been in the news in recent years, taking top honors at events such as the National Spelling Bee and National Geographic Bee."
Doesn't look like their education is lacking at all.
I know of no studies that show homeschooled kids are "socially inept" or otherwise have any social problems whatsoever. On the contrary, an awful lot of information exists that says otherwise.
Home schooling is no better either. What you get there are socially inept children who are coddled and shielded from the real world.
-1, Doesn't Know Jack About Home Schooling.
Before you run your mouth again, I'd suggest you find a local homeschooling group. Go to one of their meetings and watch the children interact with one another. For kicks, bring along some children of your own - borrow someone else's kids if you don't have any of your own. The point is to introduce strangers into this group of "socially inept children."
Then watch with amazement as the homeschooled children immediately and with no reservations make friends with these strange kids. Socially inept children don't walk up to other kids and say, "Hi, I'm Katie. What's your name? Do you want to go play on the slide with me?"
Slashdot Mirror
Then some woman decided she'd check my ID for beer (I'm creeping up on 30 if you don't mind. But hey, nice to feel under 21 again)
This is the law in many states. In Washington, they have to check your ID if you are under 35. So let's say you're 34 years old and you buy a beer. They don't check your ID because you're obviously older than 21. The store can get fined for this, and the fines are basically the same as selling to a minor. I kid you not.
This is enforced by hiring people to go in to stores and order alcohol. So any random customer could be working for the liquor control board. If he's under 35 and you don't ID him, you're busted. Huge fines for the store, huge fines for the server, and the loss of the server's job.
They created the law because, apparently, plenty of teenagers can pass for 25-30 somethings, and they were getting away with buying alcohol. So, unless the person obviously looks to be in his 40s or later, you have to ID him.
I have to agree. Sears is great. I bought an air compressor and was given false information by the salesman - I asked if it was 100% duty cycle and he said it was. When I began having problems with it 3 months later, I checked the owner's manual and it clearly stated "50% duty cycle. Any more than that is considered abuse."
Since it had been 3 months I didn't think Sears would take it back, so I filed a preliminary claim with my credit card issuer. I then took it back to Sears, expecting a fight.
They gave me zero hassles. Just smiled, apologized for the inconvenience, and refunded my money.
Sears has been great to me over the years in other situations as well. I'll continue shopping there (In fact, I buy nearly all of my tools from them).
Uhmm... that doesn't sound quite right.
It's exactly right.
If I bought an large screen TV on my CC, then tried to return it, and the place didn't take it back, if the CC issued a chargeback to the company I tried to take it back to, wouldn't that leave me with both the money *AND* the TV? I see loads of potential for abuse there.
No, not really. You'd have to give the TV back to the store and provide proof to the CC issuer that you did so (signed form from the store, or something). If the store refuses to take it and won't issue you anything, generally the CC company will have you mail the item to them.
Crap, until recently, it was perfectly legal to shout "nigger" at a black person.
;)
I don't have a problem with that being legal. Free speech, man.
However, I do think we ought to pass a special law that gives the black person the right to beat you unconscious for doing this, without fear of punishment.
Now, you're right about the fact that it is not theft.
Funny you should say that. Look up all of the definitions of steal:
steal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stl)
v. stole, (stl) stolen, (stln) stealing, steals
v. intr.
1. To commit theft.
Steal and theft mean the same damn thing and can be used interchangably depending on context.
The girl was kind of cute but she had a gimpy leg and walked with a limp.
That was my sister, you insensitive clod!
AND I DON'T LOOK LIKE LURCH!!!
Everyone here is likely to blame Microsoft. I'm turning my wrath against the intelligence organizations of various countries. For far too long this BS - malware, viruses, fraud sent via spam - has been mostly ignored. It seems nobody is going to jail for the Paypal scams because Paypal isn't a "real bank". Now they're targeting real banks.
I, for one, am sick of it. Where is our FBI and what are they doing about this? If these were criminals setting up videocameras to record pin numbers at ATMs, you can bet there would be a huge effort to track them down. Well, this is worse than that.
These are obvious. They're pretty decent sized, and there are signs that say "DO NOT ENTER" and other signs that show the direction of travel. The road clearly enters the roundabout going to the right. In fact, it is impossible to enter the roundabout and take a left /within/ it, because of the angles involved.
However, people were crossing the yellow line BEFORE the roundabout starts. They would then enter the roundabout in the other lane's exit and follow it going the wrong direction for 1/4 turn to take a left. They would exit out into oncoming traffic, drive back over the yellow line and back into their lane.
Amount -- a measure of quantity.
Intent -- a measure of one's determination for action.
There's no direct connection between the two.
There is as far as our government is concerned. Drug laws specifically correlate amount with intent. If you have more than x amount of a substance, it is deemed that you have way too much for yourself, so you obviously intend to distribute it.
Every day, people go to jail for significant lengths of time due to these laws. If more juries would be told of their power of nullification, we might be able to fix this.
LOL. We have a ton of roundabouts here. 2 years ago some clown at the city decided they were great stuff, and promptly had one built. Now they're building them all over the city, replacing perfectly good intersections with them.
And people are stupid. They enter them going the WRONG DIRECTION all of the time. I kid you not! They had to place officers on 24/7 patrol at the first one they built because a large number of people were crossing the yellow line into oncoming traffic and going the wrong way around in order to make a left. They fined a ton of people and a local judge dropped all of the cases, saying the roundabout was "confusing". What's so confusing about yellow lines and "DO NOT ENTER" signs?!
Why make a big stink out of it? Just relax about it.
Bribery, sheesh.
You're the guy that hit him and bribed the judge, aren't you?
You bastard.
Not top priority for the council, so he offered to remove it himself. He was told if he removed the graffiti himself he would be prosecuted for criminal damage to council property!
Thus you witness the sheer brilliance of government.
One of the members of a car forum I frequent bought a used car. The driver's window didn't work right, so after a couple of weeks he got around to taking the door panel apart to fix it. In the door panel he found several large bags of cocaine.
So naturally he calls the police to turn it in. They tell him, "If you bring that to us, we will arrest you, and since the amounts are so high you'll be charged with intent to distribute and probably serve a decade in jail."
The poor guy freaked out, had no idea what to do with this stuff. We all told him to flush it down the toilet, which he did.
You would think they'd care about tracking down the previous owner of the car or something, or at least getting this stuff off the street. Nope, instead they're so concerned with enforcing their laws that they'll ruin the life of someone who is trying to do the right thing.
Holy cow. Your senators are just as forthcoming as mine! Such solid points of view as, "I believe we should look closely at this" and "It is crucial that the decisions we make be informed and forward-thinking."
The bastards never take sides one way or the other. It's always, "I understand your concern. I will keep your thoughts in mind. Don't forget to donate to my campaign - I had to sniff my coke off a hooker's breasts last night because I couldn't afford her ass."
It's actually illegal for them to call back after being told this.
Like they care.
I had some jerk call me from some company, no idea who it was. He was faking retardation, trying to play on my emotions to sell me something. Talking real slow, stuttering, etc. The conversation went like this:
Me: "No thank you, please take me off your list."
Him: "Ohhhhhhkkayyy sirr... I call back tomorrow."
Me: "No, please take me off your list."
Him: "Ohhhkayy, I call back tomorrow."
Me: "No no, please don't call me back tomorrow. I want you to take me off your list. Please don't call me again."
Him, this time in a perfect normal voice: "OK. I'll talk to you tomorrow! Hahahahaha! (click)."
Bastard.
While I give to charities, it's annoying to have (literally) 10 to 15 different Police charities calling every month (among others).
This is why I don't give to charities.
I did once. Last Christmas, we put a bunch of goodies in a shoe box to send to a poor child in Africa. Gave it to a company that was collecting them along with a check to cover postage and such.
In the six months since, I've received half a dozen letters from them begging for more money. Forget it; I'm not doing it anymore. If I can't just donate from time to time without being harassed for the rest of me life then I won't donate at all.
Actually, yes they do. Gee, great, so they walk up and introduce themselves. Then they proceed to act in irritating, overbearing, self-righteous ways.
Only those who are raised by parents that act the same way. Granted, there are a lot of them out there, and these people probably shouldn't be homeschooling their kids, but you have to take the bad with the good.
I would tend to agree, though I think there are certainly cases where kids are homeschooled for the wrong reasons. And in some of these cases, the parents could be pretty darn bad at it.
Absolutely!
His son asked a number of times what they were, which is father would not answer. He said "I'll tell you when you're older." Now to me, that's a perfectly UNacceptable response. The kid was old enough that he should at least have had some sort of sexual education by this point.
Again, we agree. My opinion on this matter is: If the child is old enough to ask the question, then he is old enough to get an honest answer. I can't believe that someone would shelter a child from that in the 8th grade. We took sex ed in 4th and 5th.
Now, could this kid be just as sheltered in this regard if he were enrolled in public school? Sure.
Actually, I doubt it. He'd learn it from the other kids. Which is fine, he needs to.
But at the same time, I think one reason a lot of parents pull kids out of public schools is to shelter them from all the bad stuff that is on display there. Unfortunately, a lot of the bad stuff on display in schools is the same bad stuff on display in the rest of the world, so at some point the kid is going to be exposed to it.
Right on both counts. There is nothing wrong with sheltering your children and letting them be children without the worries of adulthood. However, you need to ensure they are taught about those worries when the time is right.
An example: A friend of ours was complaining because her 5 year old - in Kindergarten - came home wearing lipstick and makeup. Another little girl on the school bus was sharing it with her. Her parents asked her why she was wearing it, and she repeated the line she'd been told by her new little friend: "It makes me look sexy for boys."
I was so glad my daughter was homeschooled at that point. Yeah, she needs to know about boys and sex, and she will - around the 4th and 5th grade (9-10 years of age). 5 year olds shouldn't have to worry about this stuff. I really have a problem with a child that young trying to look "sexy for boys."
Exposing them to it but providing guidance about it is much more productive.
I plan to put computers in my children's bedrooms when they get a little older. I also plan to monitor - but not restrict - their Internet access. My theory is, if they decide to look at porn, I'm not going to stop them, but I want to know about it so we can sit down and have "that talk."
I don't usually reply to ACs, but you're an insightful one:
While learning about religious topics is well and good it is important that children can develop skills in all areas.
You're right. I would suggest that anyone who wants to keep their children home solely based on the religious aspect is wrong to do so. You can send your children to a public school and teach them religion in the evenings.
The parent poster hates Christians and homeschoolers because he was taught nothing but 8 hours of Bible reading every day. No wonder he's so bitter: He had bad parents who didn't do their job. I'd be bitter, too.
We are Christians. We teach religion. It encompasses maybe 5% of our children's total schooling. The other 95% is the same stuff they would learn at school, only at their pace, and they get to explore subjects that schools don't offer (my 7 year old is learning Latin. Latin!! She said she wanted to learn so we bought her a training program. She's been listening to the CDs regularly for a week now, all on her own with no prompting from us.)
My point is that the kids that tend to be homeschooled are probably the same kids that tend to go to college in the first place.
Point taken, and one that I can agree with. Nevertheless - if this many are getting into college, then the situation "thamaht" presented ("By the time she got to public school for her senior year, she could barely pass the classes, because she hadn't learned the foundations yet") is an isolated incident. People who barely pass high school courses don't typically get into, or survive in, college.
I was trying to find a survey that shows the % of homeschooled children who actually hold a college degree, rather than who simply "took college courses." I remember reading something awhile back that showed homeschoolers were more likely to have a college degree, but I can't find it now.
Fine, if you don't like the "crappy studies" referenced, why don't you provide some of your own to backup your side of the issue?
Screw social skills; these kids aren't taught anything of the real world, less their wee lil' minds be corrupted by the evil sinners that don't believe in jesus! Bah.
Ah, I see. The source of your hatred is not homeschoolers, it's Christians. Too bad.
So sit down and STFU.
This is an open forum. I can and will say whatever I darn well please.
Unlike you, I want my children to have a better life than I do: and this means raising them as normal people who are equipped to function in the real world.
Normal people like you? People who hate others simply because they believe in Jesus Christ? That's quite a healthy attitude to be teaching your children. I hope and pray they can see through your hatred, instead of being blindly led by it.
You're talking about quality of education issues. The grandparent, and I, were talking about social skills.
There are some parents that simply shouldn't homeschool. They use homeschooling as an excuse to just keep the kids home, or otherwise don't do a very good job of it. These kids can end up not having the skills they need to function in the real world.
A bad thing? Sure. Isolated to homeschoolers? Far from it. Huge numbers of children graduate from the public school system lacking the same skills. Why? They had bad parents! If you look at successful adults vs unsuccessful adults, homeschooled or not, you'll usually find that parenting, or a lack thereof, contributed to that child's development more than anything else.
Now I will link you to the results of a study that show 74 percent of homeschooled adults aged 18 to 24 have taken college-level courses, compraed to 46 percent of the general U.S. population. Link. In other words, a large majority of homeschoolers are going on to college, compared to less than half of everyone else. This tells me these parents are doing a better job than the teachers you place your trust in.
To further solidify my "value of education" argument, I'll link you to this CBS News article that says, and I quote:
"Homeschoolers have been in the news in recent years, taking top honors at events such as the National Spelling Bee and National Geographic Bee."
Doesn't look like their education is lacking at all.
More:
Study Finds Home Schooled Children Better at Social Skills
Children Educated at Home Don't Become Social Misfits
Developmental Phases of Social Development
A Game of Socialization
Homeschooling and the Myth of Socialization
Marvin Minsky Comment on Schooling
THE MYTH OF SOCIALIZATION AND THE VALUE OF PLAY
Questioning Socialization
Sociability of Students in a Home-based Charter School
Social Development or Socialization?
Social Skills and Homeschooling: Myths and Facts
SOCIALIZATION ISSUES
That Dreaded "S" Word
Google is your friend.
1 7910,00.html l .html 5
http://www.familyeducation.com/article/0,1120,58-
http://learninfreedom.org/socialization.html
http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/4336/socia
http://www.faqfarm.com/Parenting/Homeschooling/52
I know of no studies that show homeschooled kids are "socially inept" or otherwise have any social problems whatsoever. On the contrary, an awful lot of information exists that says otherwise.
Home schooling is no better either. What you get there are socially inept children who are coddled and shielded from the real world.
-1, Doesn't Know Jack About Home Schooling.
Before you run your mouth again, I'd suggest you find a local homeschooling group. Go to one of their meetings and watch the children interact with one another. For kicks, bring along some children of your own - borrow someone else's kids if you don't have any of your own. The point is to introduce strangers into this group of "socially inept children."
Then watch with amazement as the homeschooled children immediately and with no reservations make friends with these strange kids. Socially inept children don't walk up to other kids and say, "Hi, I'm Katie. What's your name? Do you want to go play on the slide with me?"