'Unleashed'
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Cause, see:
But the British did not repeal the Stamp Act. In fact, they put new taxes on the colonies. . . .
Many people were angered when the British would not change the Stamp Act or the new Townshend Act.
See, the Stamp Act was passed in October 1765 and the Townshed Act in 1767... and the Stamp Act was repealed in March 1766. Great. Now I have real confidence in this book. Oh, and! They totally give no explanation for the Proclamation of 1763 which mumble mumble...
Sorry. Reining.
t looks around furtively
Slumbernut?
billytea is extra evil
Emily, I see nothing wrong with explaning that books are fallable. And, part of a reader's job is to read with a critical eye and to question. Since this is a history lesson, you could also bring in the subjectivity of history and how much of history is someone's interpretation.
I know some teachers who have contests with their students to find incorrect information, incorrect grammar, etc. in books or articles. They get extra credit points if they bring it in.
Emily, if you haven't, read Lies My Teacher Told Me.
It only covers the stuff in history books, but the staggering amount of stuff that people think because of wrong textbooks in grade school is enough to make you want to burn the lot of them.
Strength and healing to Ouise's sister, Calli's mother and both families.
Dear co-worker,
I like to enunciate too. But T's don't have to pop. Don't make me keep thinking of ways to cure you of the habit.
Hey ita, how's your french? I have a new guy for you.
When you say French ...
t /12
It works when I need it to. What's the guy's resumé look like?
Emily, I see nothing wrong with explaning that books are fallable.
Yeah, me neither, and I guess we can use this (and I think we may get extra brownie points for noticing the WRONG WRONG WRONGNESS of it). And I'm all about teaching students to really question the author and potential biases and all that (like the text's treatment of the Proclamation of 1763, which is correct but omits relevant information); but when a history textbook gets a historical fact wrong, I (as a hypothetical student) would think, "well, why should I even do the assigned reading from this book if I can't count on it?"