About 1.5 million kids across the United States of America are successfully homeschooled each year. In every state, no matter the amount of regulation, there are those who claim that more government regulation is necessary. In reality, this is not the case. There are also those who constantly assert that parents, especially non-teacher-certified parents, are not competent enough to educate their own children. Again, this is false.
States with low regulation- those who do not require any parent contact with the state- do not detract from the learning experiance of home-schoolers. In fact, homeschoolers in high regulation states achieve the same percentile ranking on basic skills tests as those in low-regulation states- 86. Obviously, regulation does not equal performance.
In the area of homeschoolers' academic performance, they consistently rank in the 80th percentile of public school students- and that is only the average score. The amount of money spent by parents on homeschooling has little affect on the quality of education. In fact, parents spend an average of $546 on homeschooling to produce these scores, while public schools spend over $5,000 dollars per pupil, achieving very inferior results.
As stated in the opening paragraph, many critics say that parents cannot teach well unless they are certified. Actually, a certified parent only produces results three percentile points higher than non-certified parents- no real difference there. How about education level? When categorized according to their father's education level, homeschoolers only do 8 percentile points worse when their father did not graduate from high school, as opposed to those whose fathers graduated from college. There is even less difference as far as mothers are concerned: 5 percentile points worse, for the same gap.
Then there is the infamous socialization argument: "Kids aren't socialized when they are homeschooled." Reality debunks that argument as well; the average number of activities for students outside of the home is 5.2, and over 98 percent have two or more. As these figures demonstrate, home schoolers encounter many types of people, at least as many as public schoolers.
There are all sorts of stereotypes about home schoolers, ranging from "they are sheltered", to "they perform poorly", to "they are just fanatic kooks." The reason that most home-schooling parents home school their children is not to shelter them, or make sure that they score well, but because homeschooling works better than public schooling. The biased opinions of alarmists should not force home schoolers to quit or submit to the same regulations as public schools.
All of the statistics used can be found at: http://nche.hslda.org/docs/study/ray1997/17.asp
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Haha, good blog. All those homeschool arguements people put up are bullshit. Why am I homeschooled? Because the public school system is teaching the test, not teaching what we need to know to function in the real world. Plus I mean, come on, when we are taught that no matter what you can do anything and that everyone is special, reality gets thrown out the window.
Agreed; excellent blog.
I love the statistics, and the confrontational writing style. *thumbs up*
I plan on homeschooling, at least to (if not through) high school.
one of the hardships on the homeschooled is a developed sense of superiority or an anti-social demeanor. Many combat this with involvement in programs such as the scouts (Boy or Girl, depending on the gender) and also involvement in a good Youth Group program (I'm a christian, deal with it.).
Community sports also helps if the CHILD is interested (don't put your kid into sports so that you can vicariously relive the 'good old days')
The responsibility of being a parent includes educating your child. Take on that responsibility... don't give it over to the government to take the 'easy way out' and treat school as 'cheap daycare' . . .
when you give up a responsibility, the ever-liberal government has no problem trying to take the right as well.
I can't definitively say that public school kids are better or worse off than home school kids. But I could imagine it is much more difficult for home-schooled high school students to master pre-college level science course material or learn foreign languages unless their parents have a strong background in either area. Plus, it doesn't seem like those students would have access to chemistry or biology labs, like I did at my school. I find it difficult to imagine a home-schooled high school student (who wasn't extremely gifted) who was interested in pursuing a major in science being competitive enough to make it into a University of California school or other big research university.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Purity Balls: For the Rich, White, Christian and (Slightly) Perverted
Oh, there are ways.
And when I was in high school, there were many people who failed science classes, despite the great labs.
There are a bunch of language software packages as well. Heck, I can go to the library and learn to speak anything from chinese dialects to russian to german or spanish...
even imaginary languages like Klingon can be learned via a cursory search online.
You would be wrong there. I'm mastering pre college level physics and mastered biology and my mother taught me, and she isn't a scientist. Albeit, I am horrible at chemisty, but I'm just not good at remembering chemistry. Also, there are plenty of kids in public school who do horribly at foreign language and only pass when they go to summer school, where the course work is generally easier. And I'm not bullshiting there, my friend does summer school because he finds far easier to pass than normal school. Some people just aren't that great at mastering languages besides there are computer programs to help you learn spanish, The Rosetta Stone is a phenomenal tool that has helped me learn spanish, even though I am one of those people who has a hard time learning languages. And chemistry and biology labs can be taken at local museums, that's how I did my labs, and there are classes for homeschooled students that are taught by professor in a certain area, and there are community college classes. Home-schooled kids are just as well equipped if not better equipped than most high school students to get into big research universites, hell I can get into a big research university , but I prefer smaller class sizes that you have at liberal arts colleges.
You had a good point, but there are
I never said that public school kids do better than home-school kids, so saying that public school kids fail classes doesn't automatically invalidate my point. I consider taking community college classes not being completely home-schooled, since community college is public school. And I didn't say it couldn't be done, I just said I imagine it would be more difficult. I think its much more difficult to actually learn a language when you aren't interacting with a class full of other people that you can practice your conversation skills with.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
My Latest Blog Posts
I never said public school students fail, I pointed out an observations me and my public school friends have made about our classes and what we've failed in. I guess that's possible, but if you were right about that, then all kids should be doing amazing in foreign language classes, but they aren't, besides my friends who pass the classes can't carry on a conversation with me.
Being homeschooled doesn't mean beings schooled at home 24/7. Community college is public school, howver it teaches to teach, it doesn't teach so students can pass *insert state test*. Where as public school more or less teaches the test, homeschooling and private schools teach so students can make it in college and the real world.
Ok, I am a former public schooled kid, who is now home schooled. In public school, I never learned a lick of Spanish in Spanish class; now that I'm homeschooled, I've learned more Spanish in one year than I did in a year and a half of public school classes.
By the way, home schooling is generally defined as being taught the majority of your classes at home. Just because you take a CC class doesn't mean that you are not home schooled. That's like saying that a kid isn't public schooled, because they go to a private tutor.
Rosetta Stone is good software (and though I used to work for the company that owns/owned it, I'm not biased. heh)
it is expensive though.
lol, yeah i like Rosetta Stone but it's a hell of a lot of money. My Domino's money at work to help out the family was buying the Rosetta Stone, lol.
I have no problem with homeschooling except for that one little statement that is always used in its defense. It's better than public schools. The fact is that while it may work well for some people, it is certainly not the way to go for everyone. I've got a homeschooled friend, so I know a decent amount of homeschoolers. It seems to work fine for some. For others, it does not seem to have worked out quite so well. The type of education is not conducive to everyone.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
Statistics don't lie. If the majority of homeschoolers are doing better than the majority of public schoolers, then home schooling works better than sending your kid off to school, so that they can teach them how to pass the test, instead of teaching them to learn.
I had one teacher in highschool who taught to the test. That was only because the entire class hated her and she had to spend half the year getting over that.
Statistics. We have issues with the statistics.
1)There are a hell of a lot more kids in public shcool than home school situations. That means it is much more likely for their to be problem students in public schools. It also winds up including those public schools that actually do perform poorly. My question is this. How many Public Shool students perform at or above the level of the average homeschooler?
2) Would the students who do well home schooled do well in public schools? If not, why not?
I'm not saying that homeschooling is bad. I just don't think it is automatically better than a Public Schhol education. I think it depends on the student.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
Problem students are part of the problem with public schools. A big advantage of home schooling is that the only person that they hurt is themselves, unless they have brothers and/or sisters home schooled as well. Even in that case, they are easier to control one-on-one. And, as you said, there are more public schoolers than homeschoolers, so saying how many perform better than the average home schooler isn't fair. To get a fair view, you have to use percentages, so about 15% of public schoolers do better than the "average" home schooler.
Lastly, I'm in no position to say how many home schoolers would do well in public school, because that is a hypothetical question. Besides, if they do better home schooled, then home schooling is better, for them at least. However, I pose a [rhetorical] question to you: how many public schoolers would do better in home school?
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
The public school system is, obviously, flawed. The treatment of problem students is probably the biggest flaw with the system, overall. My point there is that those students would significantly lower the average grade of the public schooler.
Actual numbers are not irrelevant. I'll accept 15% as the amount of public schoolers that perform better than the average home schooler. Once again though, how many students does that 15% include. If you say that 10% of a population comprised of 10 million people does better than the average person in a population of 1 million people, that's a big difference. That means that the portion of the larger population doing better than the average of the smaller population equals the entire number of the smaller population. That is why actual numbers matter in this case. That 15% of students could be the same number of students of every home schooler in the country.
You seem to have both gotten and missed the point of my second question. Yes, homeschooling is probably better for some people, but that doesn't mean it is better for everyone and that would have nothing to do with the capabilities or intelligence of the students in question.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
Actually, i think that you missed my point. I'm saying that the home-schooling method, system, or whatever you want to call it, is better than the public school system, not that home schoolers are inherently smarter or more intelligant than public schoolers.
And raw figures are irrelevant in this case. Because the home schooling population is smaller, of course they are going to have "fewer" students at the very top. The way you frame it, you make it sound like the two populations are readying for war or something.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
"Intelligent"
Sorry... I know that was a typo... but that is one of the few words whose irony in misspelling is simply too painful to bear.
Btw... if you get mozilla, there is an automatic spell-check, and it's very helpful for typos.
And, once again, you have missed my point. Isn't it fun when everyone does that? (No, I'm not saying that it's your fault.) My point is that Home Schooling isn't Necessarily better. Some people would not be well suited to it. Some are. Some aren't. As possible as it is to know in such hypothetical circumstances, I know that home schooling would not have worked for me. I am not saying that it is a bad system or any worse than any other system. Nor am I saying that it is better than the Public School system or, at least, the idea, since most public schools do need a lot of work. (Luckily, I went to a very good one.) All I'm saying is that to say that it is BETTER is like saying that chocolate is better than vanilla. Some people would flourish in that kind of environment. Others would not. What I was saying about intelligence is that I don't think it has a bearing on what environment would be more conducive to any particular person's learning.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
A good way to determine the success of education is not dollars spent, but ability of the students to succeed.
Graduation rates of public schools are VERY low, especially compared to home-schooled.
Home-schooled students generally are MUCH more prepared and educated for their grade than public school students. Reading levels are generally higher, as are math scores.
Where home-schooled students, from my observations, seem to be lacking are in social ability and discipline when it comes to due dates for assignments.
I've known a few home schooled kids who failed out of college because they didn't understand that when X is the due date, you can't expect to turn it in on Y date.
However, both the social and discipline issues can be addressed by homeschooling parents with some discipline on their own and by involving the children in groups like the boy or girl scouts, community sports leagues, etc.
No, I agree, not every student is going to do better if home schooled, but OVERALL, home schooling does a better job of educating students than public school.
By the way, if you were saying with that last line that enviroment has no effect on how well a person learns, then that is dead wrong.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
If you believe this: "Statistics don't lie" perhaps your education was not so good as you think. Have you never heard the old saying: "There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics"? There are dozens of different ways to distort the truth with statistics.
Here is an example of one of those distortions:
"If the majority of homeschoolers are doing better than the majority of public schoolers, then home schooling works better than sending your kid off to school"
The truth is probably much closer to:
kids who come from families whose parents are concerned enough about their children's education to even consider home schooling are much more likely to have a positive educational outcome regardless of whether they are actually homeschooled or not, then kids who come from families where education is not a parental priority.
The way this statistical distortion was accomplished was that you took the performance of one group that by definition was 100% selected from a population where the parents obviously place a high priority on education and you compared it to the performance of a second group of kids from a population that was mixed. Some of the parents of the second population care about the educational outcome of their kids but a lot don't. The first population is 100% self selected for success. The second population is not. Obviously this second group is going to have a worse average outcome.
You made an apples to oranges comparison and pretended that it was apples to apples. The positive outcome might be partly due to advantages of homeschooling but it is heavily influenced by the fact that so many of the parents in the second group just don't care if their kids get an education or not.
Consider how homeschooling would work out for kids from the 2nd population if they happened to come from a family where the parents placed a very low priority on education. If the parent/teachers did not bother to check the homework for accuracy or even insist that it be completed do you think the educational outcome would be any better than if the kid went to public school? My guess is that the kid would be ignorant and probably delinquent as well.
I totally favor homeskilling and believe it can have great results if the parents have the right motivations and qualities. But it is not for everyone. The best solution is freedom and competiton. Public schools should continue as an option but there should be vouchers for parents who believe the public schools don't meet their needs. Parents should be able to use the vouchers as they choose so long as it is towards the education of their child. One possible use might be to buy the Rosetta Stone or other educational materials for a homeschooling curiculum. Other possible uses might be a variety of private schools. Competition would drag the quality of public schools upwards and many parents might be content to entrust their children with them.
Excellent explanation on the ease of skewing statistical modeling and analysis.
Also good point about competition. It works in free markets; there is no reason why it couldn't work with schools.
Ah but your liberals will disagree, not only do they hate free markets, but they seem to hate vouchers. Funny how discrimination isn't just a southern ideal anymore?
Remember that those in the south that supported segragation were the southern Democrats.
Won't find that in many text books.
Of course, many textbooks would also suggest that McCarthur went on an unfounded crusade to prove communist ties that didn't exist.
That's what happens when you let the left write the textbooks.
*snicker*
We all know what would happen if they let me write the textbooks.
I'm currently reading the Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.
Great book, though I have some issues with some of their world war 2 coverage.
It is, however, EXCELLENT at showing the actual American History from the colonies through the great depression.
Hmmm..
I'll have to pick myself up a copy!
Funny how the democrats have migrated north so everywhere is discrimination.
Sadly we're told that textbooks are unbiased...what a load of crap.
Oh my... try living in NYS. The great land of the biased liberal bullshit. Almost every "teacher" in the public school system is a left-wing nut job. (Sorry, Colette, you know I love you.)
Oh, they didn't leave here. we just outnumber them. heh.
Actually, Oklahoma is very conservative when it comes to national representatives (Our Congressmen all pretty much kick butt, especially our senators) but on the state level we are kind of liberal.
Our state congress is split right down the middle, and our Gov. is a Dem.
Despite all of that, we did craft a pretty strict illegal immigration bill for the state that, if it survives the courts, is expected to be the model for many other states.
not the first time. Oklahoma also was the first to have the hard crackdown on the manufacturing of crystal meth.
And I'm stuck with Hillary.
What the hell. I'm moving to Oklahoma.
Oklahoma can always use good engineers... Especially in the fields of energy.
We're home to devon energy, which is making leaps in the oil industry, as well as some other wind-based power production groups.
I'm trying to get a friend of mine, who is an engineer in nyc, to come here too.
Pay is less, but cost of living is WAY less.
Wind turbines suck.
I'm not sure government subsidies will even be enough to ever make them economically feasible.
Liberals have many reasons to oppose a free market and/or voucher approach to solving the problems with our public schools. Their biggest fear and the thing that pulls all of the other reasons together in a nice neat package is that they are pretty sure these ideas would WORK.
Here are a few of the reasons. I'm sure once you all start thinking about it you will be able to think up many more.
1) The Teachers Unions feel threatened by a functioning market that would break their monopoly. They are a powerful constituency and when they say jump, the Democrats jump. The unions want more money to preserve the status quo where they are paid for seniority and not performance.
2) The Democrats want the public skewls to be indoctrination factories for liberal ideas. This is the Quid Pro Quo that they demand from the Teachers Union. Most kids learn a lot of BS about tolerance and environmental nonsense but can barely read, write or do arithmatic. And most know nothing of American History or civics except that they have the right to freedom of expression and perhaps a little about slavery. I read article constantly about remedial teaching required at the college level and those are the BEST and BRIGHTEST products of the public skewls.
3) The Democrats need the schools to be bad because it is easier to indoctrinate and manipulate ignorant people.
4) Democrats need the schools to be bad because poor people vote Democrat. People from good schools with good educations may start poor but they don't stay that way for long. When people start earning decent money, they want to keep it and that means voting for Republicans.
All and all there is not a single good reason for Democrats to fix education and lots of reasons why they are motivated to preserve the status quo. Have you noticed that Democrats have been running the governments of most big cities for the past 50 years or more and that is where the very worst schools are found. They have had plenty of time to fix them but they have chosen not to. Why is that? Out in the Red states, our public schools are not half bad.
Parental concern is a prerequisite for any good education, true. Home schooling does take a lot of parental concern, and any parent who doesn't care about the education of their child is never going to home school them. I never tried to say that homeschooling would be better for 100% of the population, only that it is working better for those currently homeschooling, so they should be allowed to home school without being hassled by the state.
"Statistics don't lie" referred to a specific instance, and you took it out of context. I am actually taking a statistics course right now, so I now how much statistics can be distorted, but I only referred to the raw numbers, not an unsupported conclusion.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
Homeschool supposedly is better than public school, but I think it more has to do with learning style. Some students thrive in a public school environment and some thrive in a public and homeschooled environment. So it depends on the student, those tests don't look at that however, so it is an incomplete view.
Excellent style, and presentation of your position.
The question is how to deal with improving the school results for more people. Public schools range from mediocre to failure. Not all parents have the aptitude or time (jobs) to do home schooling. Vouchers seem so obvious a solution.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
I am completely and totally opposed to vouchers. There's no reason for this whatsoever. I just am.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
If you have no reason for your opinion, then it is worth moot.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
Dsclaimer: Not an insult, Jsaj, just some advice.
I am completely aware of the worth of my opinion on the matter.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
There are many details within the implementation of vouchers that can greatly affect the outcome. Because of that I would like to see several states experiment with different plans.
My main reason for supporting vouchers is choice. The public school system is a monoculture. This has become even truer under the 'no child left behind' reforms. Vouchers would allow parents and students to choose from among several private schools as opposed to being forced to attend a public school.
This would allow experimental advances in teaching technique to be evaluated on results alone. Experiment is a much faster way to the truth than inflexible application of tried and true dogma. Parents could be counted on to reward schools that achieved exceptional results with increased attendance and thus funding.
Another advantage would be specific focus of studies. Children have different areas of excellence. If your child has a musical, or artistic gift that could be maximized by attending a specialized school. Similarly verbal or mathematical gifts could be enhanced. It seems obvious that more motivated students could benefit by a less 'one size fits all' structure to education, but less academic students might also be better off.
In early grades a child with deficient preparation is not benefited by lessons that exceed his or her understanding. The enhanced flexibility of smaller schools that could customize the pace as well as type and methods of learning would very likely be of benefit to all. At a high school level a student could pursue a technical or vocational career oriented path. Too many students with no aptitude or desire to attend college graduate high school with no job skills either.
Home schooling is this principle taken to an even smaller class with a parent that is more concerned for each student’s welfare and knowledgeable about strengths and weaknesses. The same voucher funding if provided to families could enable more of them to have a stay at home parent teach their children.
The 'teach the test' factory approach to learning is not ideal. Also variety of schools would help foster a variety of intellectual perspectives, which would lead to a less monotonous culture, and more innovation.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
JSAJ
(Sarcastically) Sure, whatever you say. (Smiles sardonically and shrugs)
All I have to say about No Child Left Behind is "Euch".
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
(Sarcastically) You make real good points and back up all of your arguments with facts, and you never insult people.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
That was uncalled for. I realize that my opinions on vouchers don't have any worth in this sort of conversation. I figured I should mention it seeing as the conversation seemed to be heading in that direction.
And, whether or not you were insulted by what I said, does not mean I was insulting you. When it comes down to it, you can dance around something or you can be straight. If I hadn't said it in so many words, that would not have changed the meaning. Also, I find it Ironic since this is the second time that you have DIRECTLY insulted me. To say that my opinion on the issue is without merit is both acceptable and true. If you had said it was moronic, I would not have cared. Even if I didn't agree with you. However, to attack me is a different story and this is the second time that you have done so.
That being said, this is not the place for discusion of the matter.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
The anti-voucher side of the argument is an important part of the question, but those that hold the position seem reluctant to argue it just as you are. It is inherently harder to argue against the untried. I can go on about the potential improvements without fear of being wrong until the system is tried. Arguments against can't help but appear to support the status quo. This is distasteful because everyone wants to improve education.
The teachers union is the biggest opponent. Since teachers would go from extremely good job security to very questionable security this is understandable. There is always reason to fear change. In this case If we do 'break' public education is there any way rebuilding it later would not result in improving it?
A little sarcasm never hurt a good idea.
Sorry if you were insulted, but sarcasm is generally is generally viewed to be insulting and rude: I was trying to make a point, so that maybe you would think about what you insinuate before you type it. Insults are insults whether or not they are direct, and not everyone has the same thick skin that you claim to have.
I was not the one that I felt that you insulted. Chillbill laid out his well thought out arguments in favor of vouchers, and your sarcasm was inappropiate and rude on a site that is supposed to promote serious discussion and debate.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
*eats another piece of popcorn*
Anybody want a soda? I'm gonna go get a soda from the refreshment stand.
I am not insulted. I was insulting someone, though. Myself. I was mocking myself for my lack of reasons. Why do you think I smiled sardonically and shrugged?
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
Two things.
You said that my comment was uncalled for. If you weren't insulted, then why did you feel that way?
You must not know the definition of sardonic, because it doesn't mean that you are mocking yourself. So you can see why others would take it that you were mocking Chillbill. Sorry for the miscommunication, but still, be more careful about what you post.
sardonic: disdainfully or ironically mocking
Encarta ® World English Dictionary ©
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
Mmmm.. sour patch kids my favourite.
Hey, Lance, I got you a Coke.
?????????
What........
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
(unsarcastically) Don't.***
***Content Edited. Fanaile Essence, November 10, 2007
(sarcastically) but being a pretentious asshole is fun. (smiles)
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
lol, not you, Jsaj. But feel free to be one just the same, it is very fun.
Well, thanks for the permission. :-)
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft