You're not debating--you're asserting and accusing without following what was being discussed.

My comment was made to a homeschooler who wanted to know why his or her children needed to be socialized. I was pointed out why and why high schools could be an effective form of socialization. Your claims about your children don't address that original issue--can high schools be effective that way?

Also, of course, we have your say that the kids are okay, but doesn't mean much because, frankly, you have a vested interest in making that claim and you're quite vague about your terms.

You also jump to the very odd assumption that children in schools don't spend ample time with their families and adults. Actually, the ones I know all live with their families--we're talking about American public schools, not Eton, after all.

You also conflated high school students--the subject of my comment with "little kids"--and then seem to leap to the bizarre assumption that the primary relationships of "little kids" who attend public schools are with other "little kids". Come into the mainstream, my dear--you'll find we mainstreamers are very, very important to our children. Heck, we're even important to our teen-agers.

And actually there *are* reasonably controlled studies on the benefits of engaging with peers in various settings. Though, frankly, it's kind of obvious--we're social creatures. And, of course, you don't need "controlled" studies the way you do with drugs--observation with variables taken into account will do just fine. Sociology, psychology, education--the social sciences are rife with this kind of info.

See, you didn't debate--you kind of flounced.

Your next critique is also off-base. I said nothing about whether kids could learn not to bully outside of school. Take a look--nothing. I said that good things--such as the GSAs could happen *in* schools. Look again--and remember--it's not about you. You and your kid aren't important in the great scheme of things. I was pointing out good things about schools. I'm not obsessed with homeschooling the way you are. Most of us aren't.

Though if you really want to go there--your child *isn't* in a position where she can be a student leader for the betterment of her school. She won't get the opportunity to have that kind of sense of empowerment.

Instead of understanding what I was saying about the ability of young teens to work together and make a better school, you read it as being about you and the latest riff of some-of-my-daughter's-best-theatre-buddies-are . . .

So your kid doesn't bully gays. Has she ever defended a gay kid against a bully? Because that's what those GSA kids are doing. It's not simply about being tolerant--it's active, not passive.

Do you understand the difference here?

As for your last paragraph--honestly, it didn't make sense--vague accusations, generic homeschooler chip on shoulder.

Do you actually know what it means to debate? It's not simply reacting. At its best, it's illuminating--educational, even.

Ah, I see, this is very personal, isn't it? In fact, it's a point of dispute between you and your ex.

Sorry, that doesn't make a good argument for homeschooling. Nor does your family's approval of it or your kid's. What would you expect him to say? You're his mother and he's emotionally and financially dependent on you.

He's really not in a situation where he can openly critique you--he's far too dependent on you. And by controlling his schooling, you make sure that will continue to be the case.

By continuing to bash public schools--something I'm sure you do around him--you make it clear that he has no alternatives.

Sorry, you describe exactly the sort of situation that raises alarm bells for some of us. And, of course, you don't recognize what you're telling the rest of us. That's that lack of objectivity and insularity.

And, no, I don't expect that you'll be able to consider and process any of what I've said.

If you've read every single letter then you'll know "my beef" stems from a)the lack of responsibility in the homeschooling movement and b)the destructive homeschooling situations I've seen.

I do, in fact, work on improving public schools--but I care about children, not just schools. Thank you for your concern, but I can continue to work on improving schools and toss off a few letters to Salon.

As it happens, most of the homeschooling debate is dominated by homeschoolers--because they do care more about the issue. I think, therefore, there's something to be said for discussing some of the negatives, particularly as it becomes more common.

I don't, as it happens, unilaterally oppose all homeschooling, but the more I see of it, the more problematic I've found it.

Gourmet had close to a million. Gourmet's demise is all about the switch of ad dollars from print to online. Personally, I loved how Ruth Reichl edited. I loved the quirkiness of the alphabet issue, the grandeur and non-elitism of the international street food issue and I got hooked when she had the nerve to run a cover with a kid's birthday cake on it--she was the antithesis of stuffy and elite.

And, yes, I loved Laurie Colwin's articles years ago.

Gourmet had brilliant articles about food--where it comes from, what we eat and why. It wasn't simply about the recipes--and that's what I liked about it. Reichl, herself, is a superb food writer and it showed in the editorial quality of Gourmet.

Those who niggle about the editorial don't get why the magazine was shut and why it's a very bad sign for print journalism. If a well-edited magazine with a strong brand name, a popular Web site and a readership base of 900,000-plus can't make it, who can?