I'm a one purse kinda gal. I have one of those back-saving ones. Um ... I think it's called a "Healthy Back" bag. Why I like it: I don't have to scrunch my shoulder constantly to keep it from sliding off. There are many pockets. Nearly everything is inside a pocket. I can locate the important stuff in seconds. There are two spring clips for keys and similar, key chain-like items. I keep a digicam and a PDA in there, so it is bulkier than the purses of some other ladies, but I no longer feel like I need to leave my purse in the car because it will only make my shoulders sore, and then carry only a credit card into the store. So then, I have my calculator, measuring tape, and measurements I took of stuff at home -- already with me when I need them. If I decide to snap a quick photo, I have the camera with me already. Also in my purse is a small zipper pouch that I call my "survival pack." It holds a tiny tube of ibuprofen, bandages & a tiny tube of antibiotic ointment, tiny nail file, single use eye drops, a few cough drops, etc. -- all the things that make me more comfortable when I'm not going to be back home for hours. I edit my purse every so often. My purse is not stuffed full. There is room to add a small book and a bottle of water as I dash out the door.

Julie......... you aren 't gonna believe this, but I have an old old book titled.......JULIE.....go figure!!! I was gonna give it to an old gf but she ain't speakin to me..I guess she is intimidated by creativity and jealous......LOL Cara,,, I found the instructions on Craftsters.com

You may save picture on your computer to view better Image by: Baddscorpio

First, the 'long' history' thing. In Junior schools (up to 11 years) history used to be a bit hit-and-miss. One term kids might have studied the Egyptians, the next the Tudors, then the Vikings! All giving little sense of a time line. I think it is 'better connected ' these days, with much emphasis on 'social' stuff, what people wore/ate/jobs they did and so on. By secondary education the subject might start with the outline of the Greeks and Romans, followed by English history . . . Anglo Saxons, Normans, Middle Ages . . . Leading up to exams, usually two years work. Whatever period is taught will be in much greater detail, with more emphasis on politics rather than Kings and Queens. With the odd date thrown in. 'A level' (top two years at school) is similar in approach but much more 'thoughtful'. Modern history has become much more popular partly because the syllabus requires some study of 'evidence based' stuff ie using maps, copies of old documents etc. The part that various religions/beliefs/denominations played throughout history is taught (hopefully) evenly. So for eg the Crusades will not be shown as a thoroughly good thing and the Reformation lessons will give an all-round view of what led to the growth of the Protestant movements in Europe, clash of Crown and Pope . .. and so on. As students have to write several long essays on various topics which are then sent away to be marked any obvious bias in the teaching would quickly become apparent and presumably they would fail the exam . . . which doesn't look good for the school who have to publish their results. I do remember one girl at College who studied history and claimed the only thing of importance was the Trade Union Movement. I don't know if she went on to become a teacher but if she did her pupils were soon have been bored rigid. OT. My Uncle was sent to the US to complete his education in the early '30's as his parents packed up in the UK and moved to the Philippines. He marvelled at the detail with which US history was taught and claimed it was because there was so little of it, it had to be stretched to fill the time available. 'Religious Education' was (and I suppose still is) on every English school curriculum and can be studied up to exam level. Must see if I can find a copy of a syllabus somewhere.