Kw-logo-smaller

Comments

The Warlock Book Review

Book five in The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel series is here! Kidzworld reviews The Warlock by Michael Scott. Back to Article

Please login or register to add comments

mstery1100
mstery1100 wrote:
2011-10-08 17:52:28 -0700

i'm reading the first volume now and love it

report
dontay960
dontay960 wrote:
2011-06-19 17:26:34 -0700

i want the warlock

report
PoreoticsGo-
PoreoticsGo- wrote:
2011-06-04 03:21:15 -0700

BLAAH Awwsum?

report
PoreoticsGo-
PoreoticsGo- wrote:
2011-06-04 03:20:57 -0700

Harry Potter Seiries?

report
cutie-pie_leah
cutie-pie_leah wrote:
2011-05-31 02:05:20 -0700

i (L) harry pattor

report
back to story
Harry

What's your favorite magical book series?

  • Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling
  • Septimus Heap by Angie Sage
  • Inkheart by Cornelia Funke
  • Charlie Bone by Jenny Nimmo

related stories

Micro_relicmaster1-micro
From Catherine Fisher, author of the bestselling teen series Incarceron, comes a new epic adventu...
Micro_galaxycover-review-micro
Klutz is always churning out great books for kids who are curious, on everything from cooking to ...
Micro_thomasandthedragonqueen-micro
Can one young and tiny knight defeat a massive, ancient dragon and rescue the princess? Find out ...

Random in the forums

AlphaT
AlphaT posted in Debating:
"Teh_Skittlez" wrote: "AlphaT" wrote: "Teh_Skittlez" wrote: I should have known using the confederacy as an example would resonate with you. Like you said, it's another topic, but I could also talk about the Pacific slave trade.  I'm not pro slave, but I am against the south=racist bandwagon. I know you're smart enough to not be on that wagon though. Objection: Relevance? How is Pacific Slave Trade significant to the topic? It affected men and women alike (albeit mostly men)? It's not particularly relevant, it's another topic, that's why I'm not going to talk about it.  Oh. Okay.
reply 6 minutes
Teh_Skittlez
Teh_Skittlez posted in Debating:
"AlphaT" wrote: "Teh_Skittlez" wrote: I should have known using the confederacy as an example would resonate with you. Like you said, it's another topic, but I could also talk about the Pacific slave trade.  I'm not pro slave, but I am against the south=racist bandwagon. I know you're smart enough to not be on that wagon though. Objection: Relevance? How is Pacific Slave Trade significant to the topic? It affected men and women alike (albeit mostly men)? It's not particularly relevant, it's another topic, that's why I'm not going to talk about it. 
reply 7 minutes
AlphaT
AlphaT posted in Debating:
"Teh_Skittlez" wrote:I should have known using the confederacy as an example would resonate with you. Like you said, it's another topic, but I could also talk about the Pacific slave trade.  I'm not pro slave, but I am against the south=racist bandwagon. I know you're smart enough to not be on that wagon though. Objection: Relevance? How is Pacific Slave Trade significant to the topic?
reply 12 minutes
Teh_Skittlez
Teh_Skittlez posted in Debating:
"AlphaT" wrote: "Teh_Skittlez" wrote: "AlphaT" wrote: "Teh_Skittlez" wrote: "AlphaT" wrote: "Teh_Skittlez" wrote: Right, I'm obligated to sign up for the draft, and you couldn't even if you wanted to. Then again, women couldn't own and manage land while married until 1718....and it wasn't national until around 1850. You should probably specify where, because the place where I live wasn't even colonized yet in 1718.  Providence of Pennsylvania. However most states didn't accept it until around 1840-50. Maryland had achieved statehood in 1788, but it took them until 1841 to legalize married women to own property, and even them they had no control over the property. This is the case for many states. Face it, early America treated women as property....she was right on that part. But that's all changed. I'm not denying it. I was merely suggesting that you should specify where. Of course, in all the dates you've listed so far, men were also to be bought and sold as property in the U.S. in the states that would become the Confederacy. I would say that their treatment as property was much harsher than that of women in many cases, but yes, of course both men and women have been treated as property by the law in the past, and still are in many places today.    American Slavery didn't discriminate between genders. And for women, it was the same for blacks and whites. Also, pinning slavery and the confederacy together? I thought you knew more about the topic. But that's another debate. I should have known using the confederacy as an example would resonate with you. Like you said, it's another topic, but I could also talk about the Pacific slave trade. 
reply 17 minutes
Ghostling
Ghostling posted in Food:
Vegetables=Potatoes. Potatoes=Chips (crisps). Chips=Good.
reply about 2 hours