Shouldn't you just LOOK UP a word you're not familiar with?

Just to explain: I do have some people in mind to whom I'm addressing these corrections of grammar and pronunciation and definition, who I hope will get something out of them.

Some people have a big problem with reading and pronunciation because they were never taught phonics and had to learn to read words by wild guesses from the only thing they were taught phonetically -- the first letter and maybe a few others. They never learned the structure of a word but were encouraged to read the whole word instead of sounding it out. It's sad. I wish that the many adults who have this sort of problem -- it's a form of illiteracy -- would take a phonics course.

I was so blessed to have been taught solid phonics in first grade. I'm SO grateful as I see the errors others have to struggle through, very intelligent people who have trouble reading simply because they weren't given this clear and necessary foundation. People who can't spell have also usually been deprived of phonics and encouraged to just wing it as if they were born knowing these things.

If on top of that they were deprived of some basic teaching in history and culture as well, they don't even recognize words and names that such teaching would have given them by ear, so they struggle through in trying to read them and mispronounce names that are familiar to others, to the extent that it's sometimes impossible to figure out when they are referring to something you'd recognize if it were pronounced properly.

Anyway. Today's word is DERISION and in this case it was pronounced correctly but the definition was not looked up, and a wrong definition was given apparently off the top of the head, without bothering to check it. Why I wonder? Was the same attitude taught about looking up definitions as about taking a wild guess at a word in a text?

Education in this country is pathetic since about the 60s thanks to anti-traditional attitudes that got big about that time, but even in my generation there were "progressive" schools that committed this crime against their students. Yep, "progressive" -- systems that were supposedly better than traditional education. Sometimes "gifted" programs taught reading that way, apparently thinking the brighter children were born knowing the English language. I have to assume that most of them intuited enough phonics to be able to learn to read at all.

I got the traditional treatment. I'm SO glad I did.

Anyway: DERISION means contemptuous ridicule or mockery. It does not mean confusion, which is what it was wrongly said to mean.

This came off a discussion of Psalm 2:4:

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

...referring to people who refuse to accept God's rule, meaning that eventually God is going to ridicule and mock them for their attitude toward him.

This is also probably related to the Bible versions problem. I haven't checked the other versions but I know this quotation as I've given it comes from the King James, and it is often the case that even people who hold to the King James don't know what many of its words mean. They might have the same problem with other versions, hard to know, but since there are some words in the King James that are archaic they SHOULD be making a special effort to master them rather than taking wild guesses. "Derision" of course isn't even archaic.

Hoping to find a diet that really can become a lifestyle.

Still losing weight, but more slowly now because I'm not keeping to the lowest calorie count any more, aiming to find the calorie level I could possibly go on living with after I've lost the weight.

Keep seeing ads and articles about this or that diet plan, the latest being the 17-day diet. Read some reviews at Amazon. Really, there's no point in trying a specific diet plan. I can get some ideas from some of them but I don't do well with prescribed detailed recipes. The reason you -- or at least I -- gain back the weight lost on a diet plan is because you can't live with the foods required on the plan. I have to eat what I like. Many diet plans claim you can do this on their scheme, but when you really get into it, no, you can't.

I know I have to cut carbs and I know I have to cut calories. Within those requirements I want food I enjoy eating. I took a Metabolism Type Test on one of these diet plans recently (turns out there are many different versions of this test out there but they all get at the same basic concept) and found out I'm a Protein Type rather than a Carb Type and according to them we are to gear our eating to our type. This makes sense to me up to a point. The "Power Cookie" that is breakfast on the 17-day Diet, for instance, does not appeal to me AT ALL. I love carbs of course but I think we're all different in WHAT carbs we favor and the Metabolic Test seems to recognize that. Carbs are not my first choice for breakfast, I'd much rather have bacon and eggs. Of course I don't mind the hash browns with that, but I've realized that part has to go or at least be cut back to a minimum. Anyway I don't particularly like pancakes or cereal or muffins or cake -- much prefer fruity and creamy pastries but I don't need to eat them very often -- and the Power Cookie sounds too much like a muffin, just a crumbly dry sweet thing. A Carb Type could probably do very well with that sort of breakfast, but it won't work for me.

What DOES make some sense on the 17-day Diet to my mind is the idea of sticking fairly closely to the same foods for a while -- 17 days according to that particular plan -- and then switching to different foods in an effort to stave off the famous Plateau effect which is understood to be caused by your body's adapting to a particular style of eating. It seems worth a try anyway.

I hope that means a simple switch from beef to chicken or fish, or from one kind of veggie to another, so I could do steak and salad for a couple of weeks and then chicken or fish and a different vegie for another two weeks. And I WILL eat the crispy chicken skin, sorry, that's not going away. I'm convinced that high cholesterol is not caused by fat, and some diet plans agree with me about that. My cholesterol has never been very high and I love fat. If there were a Fat Type I'm sure I'd be in that type rather than the Protein Type. Well, maybe that's an exaggeration (but not a big exaggeration -- Bacon, oh yes tons of it I COULD eat, eggs too -- all that yummy fatty yolk, butter of course -- and Hollandaise sauce which is nothing but yolks and butter and lemon has always been a favorite of mine -- heavy cream in coffee for sure, sour cream by the tub -- tangy sour cream dips for instance, the fattiest nuts -- cashews and macadamias -- also avocadoes, and of course the spicy crispy chicken skin etc. etc. etc. I also like the sweet versions of fat, the Haagen Dazs, the cream puffs, the rich chocolatey things etc, but since those raise blood sugars I'm now sticking with the spicy versions instead).

Anyway, this Atkins type of eating I can do quite easily and I don't get bored with it either. I can do a meat-and-veggies dinner almost indefinitely - it's food I love, but it does create carb cravings after a while so I have to be sure I'm getting enough carbs when I do this. So far so good. A piece of toast here, a quarter cup of pasta there, or half a small potato with butter - and not with every meal either. It works, it really does. Just add up the calories and stay close to the allotted number.

Another thing I love is Mexican Salad -- just spicy browned hamburger meat over a pile of lettuce, tomato, cucumber, green pepper, onion etc., and sometimes grated cheese and/or sour cream --carefully measured of course. But I can't cut the salad dressing down to a couple of teaspoons, sorry just can't. It's GOOD salad dressing too, EV olive oil with wine vinegar, minced garlic and herbs, sometimes a dollop of dijon mustard, good stuff. Three tablespoons on a very big raw vegie salad is about the minimum. Again, just add the calories into the total for the day.

I LOVE bacon and eggs but I've found that only one egg and one strip of bacon is surprisingly satisfying. Add a sliced half tomato with salad dressing and a spoonful of cottage cheese OR a piece of buttered toast and that makes a good breakfast for me and only about 250 calories. Just add up the calories and the carbs and check the blood sugar monitor an hour or so later if toast is on the menu. Some days it may be two eggs and two strips of bacon. Way it goes. Just add up the calories.

Of course I'm getting into a routine, even a rut, with these things, and if switching foods is the thing to do to keep up the weight loss I'm going to have to come up with a new routine soon.

===================
April 12: Gotta report that I'm continuing to lose even though I haven't yet switched my routine. Counting calories is the way to go, eating what I LIKE to eat -- that's crucial. You HAVE to eat what you like or you'll never make this a lifetime habit, and it does keep down the hunger pangs when you do. Now it seems I might even be losing too fast and need to up my daily calorie intake a bit. But it's only about a pound a week on average. OK, that's probably not too fast.

It's Suppos-ed-ly, not Suppos-ab-ly

Just have to say in case anyone who needs to know it is tuning in, sorry, just have to say it:

The word is not SUPPOSABLY

There may be such a word but I don't think I've ever heard it used properly. I'm talking about the habit of using it when supposedly is what is meant. It is an error, a mishearing.

The word is SUPPOSEDLY.