Kim wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

While I wouldn't turn down a Bud, I much prefer a
Yuengling Black & Tan or a Guinness Stout. Or a
Genessee Cream Ale.



PAH!!!! Genny Cream Ale. Long, long time since I sipped an ice cold one of
them.

Does Genny Cream make it down to Texas?


Hey, they still brewing the 10-Horse Ale? Or, is my memory fuzzy and
Genny Cream IS the 10-Horse Ale.

Nope, I've never had 10HA. Genny cream has a lot of good taste, but the
lager yeast brewed in an ale style makes for other less desirable
effects for some of us.

I remember the 10-Horse nearly when it was
new, I was up there for a visit. It was stout, but it'd give a grin on 1/2
a one! :)


As for what is fed to babies, it should be remembered
that for a couple of decades in the middle of the
20th century, the "professionals" and "experts" told
us that bottle-feeding was *better* for infants than
the "old-fashioned way". The newfangled "formula"
and all the attendant apparatus was "scientific" and
"progressive", they said. Of course it took a whole
pile of hardware (bottles, sterilizer pot with lid and
bottle rack, nipples, nipple rings, seals, bottle tops,
tongs) the formula itself, and a kitchen to do all the
processing to do what "the old fashioned way" did semi-
automatically.



Whatever's the advertising win for the "period" is what is supposed to be
*ahem* healthy.

I always wondered how on earth babies survived before formula came
along.....

The natural way first, and if that doesn't work, then formula is a Godsend.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Kim wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

obtw - dunno if I ever explained why I stopped editing your call out,
Kim. (Forgive me if you've seen this before.)

I still think your callsign is "inappropriate" for ham radio. Just my
opinion. But it's not my callsign, it's yours, and FCC handed it out
and some others like it, including one in 6 land that has been held by
someone with the first name "Michael" as far back as 1979.

Then it occurred to me that if I heard you on the air I'd certainly
give you a call and hopefully have a QSO. Which would mean giving your
callsign on the ham bands.

Which meant that, inappropriate or not, I'd use your call on the air
but not on Usenet. And that's quite illogical, I think.

So I stopped editing it out.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Well...no explanation needed but, no, I had not seen any reason why you were
not, or whether you were even conscious of the fact that you were not.

OK

Yep, I always wondered what would happen if I gave you a
call on the air.

I would have responded if possible, of course.

Now, I know. And, I'm glad to see that you would not have
ignored me!

Only way would have been if I could not respond.

Although, there are ways around using my callsign on the air. I am the only
one who has to give it, ya know.

Sure - but at some point I'd probably have to give you call just to be
clear about who I was in QSO with.

Hmmmm, maybe I shoulda just left well enough alone.

You mean you should have kept your old call? ;-)

Besides, when have you left well enough alone?

By the way, Michael, in
Florida (if that is who you are speaking of) doesn't have that call any more.

I did not know that! That call moved from CA to MD, last I looked. It
was in my 1979 Callbook and wasn't new then.

Of course "Michael" isn't necessarily a male-only name (remember
actress Michael Learned, who played the mother on "The Waltons"?)


Kim W5TIT

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
ups.com...
Kim wrote:

By the way, Michael, in
Florida (if that is who you are speaking of) doesn't have that call
any more.

I did not know that! That call moved from CA to MD, last I looked. It
was in my 1979 Callbook and wasn't new then.

Of course "Michael" isn't necessarily a male-only name (remember
actress Michael Learned, who played the mother on "The Waltons"?)


Kim W5TIT

73 de Jim, N2EY


Heh heh. I have a good friend here, a lady, whose first name is Jimmy.
Spelled that way. My mom was going to name me Kimberly Charles. When I
learned of this as a teen-ager, I was quite relieved that she had not.
However, I now kinda wish she had, because I think it would be kinda neat to
have the name "Chuck!"

Michael in Florida and I corresponded about his call. I thought sure you'd
seen that news, as I have posted about it a couple of times. Let's see, he
had the call "N5TIT" didn't he? I hope my memory is serving me OK. I had
wanted the N over the W call, but he had it when I was looking it up. I
sent him a note and asked him why a man would have a call like that--let him
know I was just curious. He had the called because he wanted to "honor" the
Tet Offensive (Viet Nam era) but, when he'd been looking, TET was taken.
So, he got the TIT call.

When we corresponded, I'd asked him to let me know if he ever gave it up.
When he did, he sent me a note and let me know. I didn't do anything about
it, because W5TIT is "my call" and just fits until I end up losing my
license or die, whichever shall come first. BUT, he has now changed his
call to a "college" call, I believe it was. Isn't his last name something
like Hunter, or something? Look up the name on QRZ and you'll see what
college...or whatever it is--maybe it's even a sports team, I just don't
remember.

By the way, I pulled a little handheld out here a few weeks ago, carried it
up to my 33-story office and got on the air with my dad for about 10
minutes. First time in .... 3-4 years I've been on the air and the first
time I've even had a radio on in .... 2-3 years.

Kim W5TIT

Kim wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:

Good grief. Take a breath there. I really don't know if you're being gruff
with a reason or if you are somehow insulted by Jim's attempt to caution at
what "experts" may say at any given time.

Jim went and punched my buttons again, he's really good at it, it's all
HIS fault dammit . . . !

You seem way too defensive,

ME? Defensive?! You gotta be kiddding! I've been called a lotta things
over a lot a lot of years by a lot of people but that's a new one.

I think bottle feeding is the preferred mode today,
isn't it?

Definitely not from my vantage point in my particular world. I'm
responding to Kim here too since her comments on the subject are very
similar to yours. Problem is that being "retired" for a couple years
drove me batty so I went out and picked up an industrial machine
design/build project. It's coming together fast at this point and I
don't have much time now to go keyboarding here so I need to keep this
as brief as possible and get back to work.

I have three daughters 41, 35 and 33. All are professionals in various
fields. The eldest is single and in Louisville, no kids, the middle one
is local, has four kids and is a stay-at-home mom. The youngest is also
local, has a 3-year-old daughter and works part time out of her home
office.

The two locals are part of a mob of thirtysomethings, maybe 12 all
told, family, classmates, etc. It's basically a sorority. Almost all of
them are educated and they all live in better-than-average
circumstances here in the suburbs of the northeast corridor. I'm not
certain on this point but I don't know of any who are not in their own
homes. This not Texas or Michigan which brings up the possibility of
some differences in demographics plus I'm not really plugged into what
"average" actually means around here. Very few of these women work full
time. Some peck at part-time jobs. About 2/3 of them are stay-at-home
moms.

Several times a year they all clump together for some birthday or
holiday gathering and I'm usually part of it and is where I make my
"observations". Not to ignore the fact that I also have gobs of
hands-on experience from the "bad old days" Jim cited when the
marketeers supposedly glorified bottle-feeding and sold it. Which I
dispute.

I never counted heads but this mob has a virtual army of under-12 type
kids. Breast feeding amongst this bunch is overwhelmingly prevails.
Once in awhile a bottle has shown up here and there but I don't know if
it was "pumped" or if it was Enfimile . . (sp? Been a LONG time!). So
that's where I'm coming from for whatever it might be worth.

Dee wrote:

"Well when I was planning to have children, I sat down and evaluated
the alternatives based on my lifestyle and the technology available to
me. I ended up working full time and choosing breast feeding for both
children. I didn't care one bit for historical precedence or political
correctness".

Exactly the way I'd expect an engineer to deal with the matter.

Yee-haw!

Kim W5TIT

w3rv

Kim wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
wrote:

WEIRD!


Oh, I think you could find some pretty darned furhter
off-topic discussions than this.

Heck yes.

In fact, bottle feeding frees up a woman to pick up a mic or
slam a fist, as it were.

Or pick up a sodder arn...

it should be remembered
that for a couple of decades in the middle of the
20th century, the "professionals" and "experts" told
us that bottle-feeding was *better* for infants than
the "old-fashioned way". The newfangled "formula"
and all the attendant apparatus was "scientific" and
"progressive", they said. Of course it took a whole
pile of hardware (bottles, sterilizer pot with lid and
bottle rack, nipples, nipple rings, seals, bottle tops,
tongs) the formula itself, and a kitchen to do all the
processing to do what "the old fashioned way" did semi-
automatically.

The "old-fashioned way" was
put down as being vaguely third-world, Luddite,
"horse and buggy" and inferior both physically
and psychologically. Moms who tried to keep the
old ways met with resistance, opposition and
insults.

Uhhh . . are you "explaining" all this to me James or what? If so spare
me willya, I was raised in those days and so were my kids and those
times spanned more than just a couple decades. Yeah there was a bit of
hardware involved but the process was a no-brainer and it wasn't nearly
as complicated as you've intimated. Tongs? sterilizer pot? Bottle rack?
What? Nonsense. Never had any of 'em. By the way the handiest widgets
by far were the 'lectric bottle warmers. Didn't have any friggin'
pacifiers ether.


I had pacifiers in my generation of child-rearing, but I
didn't/don't
believe in them and took it away from my granddaughter
as quick as I could
(meaning as soon as I had her enough to literally keep
her off it until she
didn't know what one was any more when her Mom went to
give it to her, heh
heh).

Pacifier's better than a thumb.

Actually, Jim wasn't
"explaining a thing to you." What Jim is doing is conversing.
Get the
idea? Plus, you ask him that in your "tone," then proceed to
get as
involved with what you are relaying as Jim did. So, are
you "explaining"
also and, if so, let's agree that for the sake of this topic in this thread,
'splainin' might be a good thing...

After all, the "professionals" and "experts" knew
best, right?

As if!

Yeah as if. In the first place you weren't there, I was but
never mind
that little detail. The bottle-feeding days were the biggest move
forward ever in the liberation of women, especially moms.
Finally moms
didn't have to hover over their wee ones 24/7 and were able
to do
"radical" things like trudge off to jobs and even short
vacations
without the kid thus getting the ravenous little beasties out of their
lives for awhile for a break for others to feed. I sure did
my share and so did grandparents and others.

Of course - but that did not mean there was no longer any
need to do it the "old fashioned way".

Good grief. Take a breath there. I really don't know if
you're being gruff
with a reason or if you are somehow insulted by Jim's attempt
to caution at
what "experts" may say at any given time. I think the more
demonstrable
part of Jim's post was that it is the advertising that drives
what is "best"
for...well, anything. Here, it happens to be whether breast
feeding or
bottle feeding is good/better for people.

That's part of it, Kim, and well said! But there's more.

I think a lot of the "professionals" and "experts" really
bought into the idea that bottles/formula were better, and
that the "old fashioned way" was "obsolete". Not because of
$$ or advertising but because they thought "newer is better"
applies to everything.

The two problems with the current politically correct
gotta-do-the-boobs drill are (1) it puts the moms back into
the same
crippled sorts of lives the cave women lived and (2) fathers don't have
to be bothered with the feeding so they can wander off and be Real Men
again. Bull****. Lemmee clue you about the biggie which has
been lost.
A non-mom reapetedly having the sole responsibility for
feeding an
infant is by far the second most powerful bonding force there is.

Ah. So, this is going to come down to some argument for or
against the
"politically correct" angle, for you. Let me give you a clue: moms who
"gotta-do-the-boobs" drill are quite capable of doing the boobs AND all that
you mention above. I bottle fed my first baby and breast fed
my second. I
got to try both and enjoyed both. Neither method prohibited me from doing
anything and I didn't feel cave-like at all, as your
neandrathalian attitude
suggests. One thing that pretty much cannot be argued is that, in a healthy
environment where mom is healthy, breast milk is far superior to
manufactured formula.

Also less expensive, requires less preparation, and conveys some
immunities.

Given that, dads are not at all locked
out of the
experience of feeding, as breast milk can be pumped into
bottles and fed to the baby.

By *anyone*!

Moms are free to pump their breasts at work, saving the milk for
bottle feeding at the nursery, or by dad, or by gramma, or
whomever.
Feeding a baby breast milk does mean that there are any cave
relationships that have to be endured.

And there's no reason a baby can't have both formula and the real
thing, from bottles or from Mom. Another tool in the toolbox, as it
were.

A non-mom can repeatedly have the sole responsibility for
feeding an infant
AND experience the most powerful bonding force there is, simply by feeding
the baby with breast milk through a bottle.

It should be remembered that formula was not invented with the idea
that it would "liberate" moms.

I spent thousands of hours in that mode and looking back I
wouldn't
have missed it for all the world. My sons-in-laws have no
idea what I'm
talking about when the topic comes up

That's really sad.

and the grumpy old ex couldn't
agree more despite the fact that agreeing with me on any
subject galls
her no end.

You are a dedicated dad and that is admirable in terms of the
men in your
generation who wanted nothing to do with the babyhood of their children. My
childrens' father; nor any of my gal-friends husbands, wanted
to change
diapers, feed, bathe, or even watch their child alone.

They missed out big-time, then.

We dragged the kids
everywhere, were expected to maintain the home, get the food on the table
reliably, keep the "kid" quiet and, not only no, but hell no,
dad wasn't about to watch a baby while mom just took a break.

gawd - I dunno any women around here that would put up with that!

What paper diapers? Don't be silly . .

In closing here James ponder this: You've spent more than
just a few
minutes rachet-jawing with my youngest. Who was 100% bottle-
fed as
often as not by her daddy. What evidence do have to offer
which
indicates that she'd have been better off if she'd been boob- fed instead?

Watch bottle-feeding come back again and remember where ya
heard it.

You seem way too defensive, as though Jim was shunning one
style of feeding
over another. I think what Jim was shunning is the readiness
of people to
believe so-called experts, when the experts driving mechanism
is advertising or influence, etc.

You got it. I wish I had some of the books and articles from
those days that pushed bottle/formula as the *only* way for
a good parent to feed a child.

I recall cases where babies were allergic to cow's milk, and
the family had the extra cost and complexity of getting goat's
milk for the formula. The idea of using the "old fashioned way" wasn't
even considered.

And yet despite all that repression, the "old fashioned way" was reborn
in the 1960s from near-oblivion, and has increased in popularity ever
since.

Of course there's a direct connection between that example and
the "newer is always better" mindset in many technological areas...

I think bottle feeding is the preferred mode today,
isn't it? It doesn't have to "come back," because it hasn't
gone anywhere
in the past 20 years, or so. Most women I know who are having babies these
days are bottle feeding--though many more than used to are
feeding breast
milk, pumped while they are at breaks at work and refrigerating the milk for future use.

What I see the most of is "mixed mode". Some Mom, some formula, some
right from the source, some in bottles. If you see someone
feeding a baby with a bottle, the bottle's contents may or may
not be "formula".

And we're only talking about 6 months to a year before the kid is using
a sippycup or similar device.

Kim W5TIT

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
oups.com...
Kim wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:

Good grief. Take a breath there. I really don't know if you're being
gruff
with a reason or if you are somehow insulted by Jim's attempt to caution
at
what "experts" may say at any given time.

Jim went and punched my buttons again, he's really good at it, it's all
HIS fault dammit . . . !


heh heh. Can I actually begin to believe that I am having a "fun" exchange
with you, Mr. Kelly?

You seem way too defensive,

ME? Defensive?! You gotta be kiddding! I've been called a lotta things
over a lot a lot of years by a lot of people but that's a new one.


Well, after all, you are discoursing with me, and it really did seem just a
little on the defensive side. Maybe a misinterpretation on my part.

I think bottle feeding is the preferred mode today,
isn't it?

Definitely not from my vantage point in my particular world. I'm
responding to Kim here too since her comments on the subject are very
similar to yours. Problem is that being "retired" for a couple years
drove me batty so I went out and picked up an industrial machine
design/build project. It's coming together fast at this point and I
don't have much time now to go keyboarding here so I need to keep this
as brief as possible and get back to work.


Ah. Don't get caught outside the door (ummm, you'd have to read the book,
"Prey" to understand). GRIN I think you meant you were responding to
Dee, too, as you are directly responding to my comments--er, this is Kim
here--above. I can only wish I'll get to retire and get to play a lot at
ham radio before the company I work for ends up sending all our work
"elsewhere" for other people to do.

I have three daughters 41, 35 and 33. All are professionals in various
fields. The eldest is single and in Louisville, no kids, the middle one
is local, has four kids and is a stay-at-home mom. The youngest is also
local, has a 3-year-old daughter and works part time out of her home
office.


Sounds like a cut across the average for even around here, I'd say. I am 50
and I've resembled any one of them (well, except for the single part--I
never got to be "single" for any real length of time. Married pretty much
outta HS, divorced three years later, a year after that began a 14-year
relationship with my long-time, and still, friend; now married 16 years and
this is it. No more.

The two locals are part of a mob of thirtysomethings, maybe 12 all
told, family, classmates, etc. It's basically a sorority.

I understand. This sounds kind of the way my younger sister, now about 45
or so, lived her life. Always had a clutch of girlfriends to "run around"
with and play the suburban mom/wife with. I was witness to this for a
couple of days and ran screaming away from it. Moms who just seemed to love
getting up, loading x-number of kids into their vehicle as the
drive-to-school mom for that week, run around and do errands--some even for
the other moms--, etc., etc. I mean, I have an office job and have even
lived in a cubicle for an extended period of time, but PUHLEEZE put the
brakes on when it comes to that kind of happiness....LOL

Almost all of
them are educated and they all live in better-than-average
circumstances here in the suburbs of the northeast corridor. I'm not
certain on this point but I don't know of any who are not in their own
homes. This not Texas or Michigan which brings up the possibility of
some differences in demographics plus I'm not really plugged into what
"average" actually means around here. Very few of these women work full
time. Some peck at part-time jobs. About 2/3 of them are stay-at-home
moms.


Believe it or not, you are describing pretty darned average for around here.
I'll never forget mid-chewing on a tuna sandwich a couple of years ago as
the 22-year old on the other side of the cubicle wall was having a melt-down
because her childrens' "nanny" and house maid were embroiled in a real
argument over whose responsibility it actually was to be sure the baby was
ready for mum and pop in the afternoons when they get home from work!!!!!
WHAT???!!!

Several times a year they all clump together for some birthday or
holiday gathering and I'm usually part of it and is where I make my
"observations". Not to ignore the fact that I also have gobs of
hands-on experience from the "bad old days" Jim cited when the
marketeers supposedly glorified bottle-feeding and sold it. Which I
dispute.


Well, Jim? Have you anything to say about whether you were actually making
it the bad ol days, or whether you were drawing a picture of how "we" like
to listen to and believe the, uh, experts, when they really may only be
spewing what gets them the buck that particular day? I think it's the
latter and that Mr. Kelly is misunderstanding your intention. But, even
with an intention such as he may believe, this has made for an interesting
topic in this here amateur radio newsgroup...heh heh

I never counted heads but this mob has a virtual army of under-12 type
kids. Breast feeding amongst this bunch is overwhelmingly prevails.
Once in awhile a bottle has shown up here and there but I don't know if
it was "pumped" or if it was Enfimile . . (sp? Been a LONG time!). So
that's where I'm coming from for whatever it might be worth.


Well, imagine the lifestyle you describe, above, and trying to lug around
bottles, etc. I mean, I did it, but MAYBE (big maybe) if I had it to do
over, the ease of breastfeeding would bring a bigger appeal next time
around. I bet if you ask your daughters or their friends, though, that they
are breast pumping. It is so commonplace today that women walk through our
halls at work non-chalantly (sp?) carrying the apparatus with which they do
the pumping, often in an unused office or in the restroom.

Dee wrote:

"Well when I was planning to have children, I sat down and evaluated
the alternatives based on my lifestyle and the technology available to
me. I ended up working full time and choosing breast feeding for both
children. I didn't care one bit for historical precedence or political
correctness".

Exactly the way I'd expect an engineer to deal with the matter.

Yee-haw!

Kim W5TIT

w3rv


Kim W5TIT

Kim wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Kim wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:

Good grief. Take a breath there. I really don't know if you're being
gruff
with a reason or if you are somehow insulted by Jim's attempt to caution
at
what "experts" may say at any given time.

Jim went and punched my buttons again, he's
really good at it, it's all HIS fault dammit . . . !

Heck, I wasn't even trying to do that...

heh heh. Can I actually begin to believe that I am having
a "fun" exchange with you, Mr. Kelly?

They're all fun, aren't they?
I think bottle feeding is the preferred mode today,
isn't it?

Definitely not from my vantage point in my particular world.

I have three daughters 41, 35 and 33. All are professionals
in various
fields. The eldest is single and in Louisville, no kids,
the middle one
is local, has four kids and is a stay-at-home mom. The
youngest is also
local, has a 3-year-old daughter and works part time
out of her home office.

Sounds like a cut across the average for even around here,
I'd say. I am 50
and I've resembled any one of them (well, except for
the single part--I
never got to be "single" for any real length of time. Married
pretty much
outta HS, divorced three years later, a year after that began a 14-year
relationship with my long-time, and still, friend; now married 16 years and this is it. No more.

The two locals are part of a mob of thirtysomethings,
maybe 12 all
told, family, classmates, etc. It's basically a sorority.

They're lucky to have all that support around.

I understand. This sounds kind of the way my younger sister,
now about 45
or so, lived her life. Always had a clutch of girlfriends
to "run around"
with and play the suburban mom/wife with. I was witness to
this for a
couple of days and ran screaming away from it. Moms who just
seemed to love
getting up, loading x-number of kids into their vehicle as the
drive-to-school mom for that week, run around and do errands--
some even for
the other moms--, etc., etc. I mean, I have an office job and have even
lived in a cubicle for an extended period of time, but PUHLEEZE put the
brakes on when it comes to that kind of happiness....LOL

Main point is whether it's a choice or not, I think.

Side note: How many men get those kinds of choices?

Almost all of
them are educated and they all live in better-than-average
circumstances here in the suburbs of the northeast corridor. I'm not
certain on this point but I don't know of any who are not
in their own
homes. This not Texas or Michigan which brings up the
possibility of
some differences in demographics

Also local culture. Plays a big role, believe it or not.

plus I'm not really plugged into what
"average" actually means around here. Very few of these
women work full
time. Some peck at part-time jobs. About 2/3 of them are
stay-at-home moms.

Here on Philly's Main Line, we have the whole spectrum, from
stay at home moms with babies to moms with highpower professional jobs
and nannies who are doing full-time-plus jobs. And pumping...
Also single moms, blended families, families where one or the other
parent travels a *lot* for work, etc., etc.

Believe it or not, you are describing pretty darned average for around here.
I'll never forget mid-chewing on a tuna sandwich a couple of
years ago as
the 22-year old on the other side of the cubicle wall was
having a melt-down
because her childrens' "nanny" and house maid were embroiled in a real
argument over whose responsibility it actually was to be sure
the baby was
ready for mum and pop in the afternoons when they get home from work!!!!!
WHAT???!!!

What's the problem? That's an important issue and mom was miles away.

One problem in many careers today is that you cannot simply drop
out of the workforce for several years and then hope to find a
job later, because things change too fast.

Several times a year they all clump together for some
birthday or
holiday gathering and I'm usually part of it and is where I
make my
"observations". Not to ignore the fact that I also have gobs
of
hands-on experience from the "bad old days" Jim cited when the
marketeers supposedly glorified bottle-feeding and sold it.
Which I dispute.

Your oldest is 41 and youngest is 33. That means you were in baby mode
from about 1964 to 1975 or so. The period of intense selling I was
talking about was somewhat earlier.

And all of yours were 100% bottlefed, right?

Well, Jim? Have you anything to say about whether you were
actually making
it the bad ol days, or whether you were drawing a picture of
how "we" like
to listen to and believe the, uh, experts, when they really may only be
spewing what gets them the buck that particular day?

My first point is that there *was* a time when bottle/formula feeding
was definitely pushed as *the best way* to feed a
baby. At least in the USA that I lived in. The old fashioned way was
definitely discouraged, or at least put way down on the
bottom shelf behind the counter.

But the main point is that the "professional experts" pushed that
idea, and people bought it hook, line and sinker. And there are
major analogies to "modern" technologies.

I think it's the
latter and that Mr. Kelly is misunderstanding your intention.

Oh yes.

But, even
with an intention such as he may believe, this has made for an interesting
topic in this here amateur radio newsgroup...heh heh

Then I have succeeded in my purpose!

I never counted heads but this mob has a virtual army of
under-12 type
kids. Breast feeding amongst this bunch is overwhelmingly
prevails.

Sure - because, for them, it's easier and better.

Once in awhile a bottle has shown up here and there but I
don't know if
it was "pumped" or if it was Enfimile . . (sp? Been a LONG
time!).

Enfamil. Isomil. All sorts of stuff. Price a case some time.

So
that's where I'm coming from for whatever it might be worth.

Well, imagine the lifestyle you describe, above, and trying to lug around bottles, etc.

As opposed to lugging around the....alternative apparatus...

I mean, I did it, but MAYBE (big maybe) if I had it to do
over, the ease of breastfeeding would bring a bigger appeal
next time around.

BINGO! You've done both and found "the old fashioned way" was actually
easier and better for *you*.

I bet if you ask your daughters or their friends, though, that
they
are breast pumping. It is so commonplace today that women walk through our
halls at work non-chalantly (sp?) carrying the apparatus with
which they do
the pumping, often in an unused office or in the restroom.

'zactly.

Dee wrote:

"Well when I was planning to have children, I sat down and evaluated
the alternatives based on my lifestyle and the technology available to
me. I ended up working full time and choosing breast feeding for both
children. I didn't care one bit for historical precedence or political
correctness".

Exactly the way I'd expect an engineer to deal with the matter.

And look which technology won out....

73 de Jim, N2EY

Kim wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Kim wrote:

By the way, Michael, in
Florida (if that is who you are speaking of) doesn't have that call
any more.

I did not know that! That call moved from CA to MD, last I looked. It
was in my 1979 Callbook and wasn't new then.

Of course "Michael" isn't necessarily a male-only name (remember
actress Michael Learned, who played the mother on "The Waltons"?)


Kim W5TIT

73 de Jim, N2EY


Heh heh. I have a good friend here, a lady, whose first name is Jimmy.
Spelled that way.

There's also the actress James King...

My mom was going to name me Kimberly Charles. When I
learned of this as a teen-ager, I was quite relieved that she
had not.
However, I now kinda wish she had, because I think it would be kinda neat to
have the name "Chuck!"

Could be worse. Could have been "Kimberley Clark..."

Michael in Florida and I corresponded about his call. I
thought sure you'd
seen that news, as I have posted about it a couple of times.
Let's see, he
had the call "N5TIT" didn't he? I hope my memory is serving me OK.

It was a 6 land call. Same suffix, tho.

I had
wanted the N over the W call, but he had it when I was looking it up. I
sent him a note and asked him why a man would have a call like that--let him
know I was just curious. He had the called because he wanted to "honor" the
Tet Offensive (Viet Nam era) but, when he'd been looking, TET was taken.

Yes! I remember now!

So, he got the TIT call.

And FCC gave it to him.

When we corresponded, I'd asked him to let me know if he ever
gave it up.
When he did, he sent me a note and let me know. I didn't do
anything about
it, because W5TIT is "my call" and just fits until I end up
losing my
license or die, whichever shall come first. BUT, he has now
changed his
call to a "college" call, I believe it was. Isn't his last
name something
like Hunter, or something?

Oh no, I'm not going for that old joke...

Look up the name on QRZ and you'll see what
college...or whatever it is--maybe it's even a sports team, I
just don't remember.

I'll take a look. Thanks for the info.

By the way, I pulled a little handheld out here a few weeks ago, carried it
up to my 33-story office and got on the air with my dad for about 10
minutes. First time in .... 3-4 years I've been on the air and the first
time I've even had a radio on in .... 2-3 years.

Cool! Glad to hear it.

Kim W5TIT

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
I love the cream ale, but it can leave me with a headache th e next
day. Darnit! Genny Red, on the other hand, has the right balance of
flavor, non-complexity, and cost to get a thumbs up from me.

As for Yuengling, I don't want that Porter mixed with anything,
thankyouverymuch! Porter or the Amber ale works for me.

We'll have to do a taste-test some time, Mike.

As for what is fed to babies, it should be remembered
that for a couple of decades in the middle of the
20th century, the "professionals" and "experts" told
us that bottle-feeding was *better* for infants than
the "old-fashioned way". The newfangled "formula"
and all the attendant apparatus was "scientific" and
"progressive", they said. Of course it took a whole
pile of hardware (bottles, sterilizer pot with lid and
bottle rack, nipples, nipple rings, seals, bottle tops,
tongs) the formula itself, and a kitchen to do all the
processing to do what "the old fashioned way" did semi-
automatically.

I'd be remiss if I did not add that in Ireland, New and nursing mothers
received Guiness Stout even while still "in hospital", as it is
considered to have many good health effects. While the more Baptist
among us might be aghast at such a thing, I suspect there might just be
a bit of wisdom in that.

More than "a bit"...

The "old-fashioned way" was
put down as being vaguely third-world, Luddite,
"horse and buggy" and inferior both physically
and psychologically. Moms who tried to keep the
old ways met with resistance, opposition and
insults.

Quite perverted, that!

Mid-20thcentury US culture could be hilariously funny, too.

Check out:

http://www.lileks.com/institute/gallery/index.html

particularly the "regrettable food" section.

After all, the "professionals" and "experts" knew
best, right?

As if!

Snort

Yet some of them, even today, will tell us that they know
how ham radio should be, even better than we hams do.

73 de Jim, N2EY