wrote:

So what's wrong with being fed bottles of Bud?

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

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.

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.

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

As if!

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
wrote:

So what's wrong with being fed bottles of Bud?

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

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.

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.

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

As if!

73 de Jim, N2EY

And now we have a whole generation of hams who hate K5TIT's.

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


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.

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

As if!

73 de Jim, N2EY


Heh, adverstisers.

Kim W5TIT

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.

Yup.

Long, long time since I sipped an ice cold one of
them. Hey, they still brewing the 10-Horse Ale?

Yes, but it's an acquired taste. Some odd stories about
why it's called that....

Or, is my memory fuzzy and
Genny Cream IS the 10-Horse Ale.

Nope, two different things.

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!

I'm getting thirsty!

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.

BINGO!!

The "old fashioned way" didn't sell as much apparatus as the
"new scientific" way.

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.

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

As if!

Heh, adverstisers.

Yup. If there's no market for something, create one!

Kim W5TIT

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

.. . .

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!

I'm getting thirsty!


Down here, back in the day when having a few was more regular for me, there
was a "new" ale called Big Mouth Mickey...'least I think that's what it was.
Don't remember the brewer. It was cheap, as I recall, and some pretty
darned good stuff, taste-wise. We used to buy a 6-pack and have leftovers
after a night at the drive-in, because the stuff was stout enough on one or
two to make ya sit there during a drama movie and grin through the whole
thing...LOL

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.

BINGO!!

The "old fashioned way" didn't sell as much apparatus as the
"new scientific" way.

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.

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

As if!

Heh, adverstisers.

Yup. If there's no market for something, create one!

Kim W5TIT

73 de Jim, N2EY


When I had my babies, I knew the hospital gave a "care" package of samples
of all kinds of stuff when leaving. Well, when some girlfriends had their
kids, a few months before me, it was Huggies (or whatever competitor brand
it was back then--can't remember now) and a baby food that was out back then
made by, I think, Beechnut, or some such anyway. When I was leaving, it was
Pampers and Gerber. I asked about that and they said it was whoever won the
"contract" each period that determined whose "stuff" was given out. Good
grief.

Same, by the way, with prescription drugs--for a pretty good majority of the
time anyway. Whatever a salesperson is peddaling at the doctor's office and
leaves a better impression (read: more free samples) is what the doc pushes
for that malady....

Kim W5TIT

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

. . .

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!

I'm getting thirsty!

Down here, back in the day when having a few was more regular
for me, there
was a "new" ale called Big Mouth Mickey...'least I think that's what it was.
Don't remember the brewer. It was cheap, as I recall, and some pretty
darned good stuff, taste-wise. We used to buy a 6-pack and
have leftovers
after a night at the drive-in, because the stuff was stout
enough on one or
two to make ya sit there during a drama movie and grin through the whole thing...LOL

Never heard of that stuff but the description is one reason I like Sam
Adams or Guinness Stout. One or two is plenty.

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.

BINGO!!

The "old fashioned way" didn't sell as much apparatus as the
"new scientific" way.

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.

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

As if!

Heh, adverstisers.

Yup. If there's no market for something, create one!

Kim W5TIT

73 de Jim, N2EY

When I had my babies, I knew the hospital gave a "care" package of samples
of all kinds of stuff when leaving. Well, when some
girlfriends had their
kids, a few months before me, it was Huggies (or whatever
competitor brand
it was back then--can't remember now) and a baby food that was out back then
made by, I think, Beechnut, or some such anyway. When I was
leaving, it was
Pampers and Gerber. I asked about that and they said it was
whoever won the
"contract" each period that determined whose "stuff" was given out. Good grief.

Product placement. Inexpensive advertising that reaches the target
audience directly. And it can't hurt.

Same, by the way, with prescription drugs--for a pretty good
majority of the
time anyway. Whatever a salesperson is peddaling at the
doctor's office and
leaves a better impression (read: more free samples) is what
the doc pushes for that malady....

Depends on the doc in my experience. But when the drugs are expensive
there's surely a reason to hand out freebies if possible, particularly
for those with less than perfect insurance coverage.

Kim W5TIT

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

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.

Yep, I always wondered what would happen if I gave you a call on the air.
Now, I know. And, I'm glad to see that you would not have ignored me!
Although, there are ways around using my callsign on the air. I am the only
one who has to give it, ya know.

Hmmmm, maybe I shoulda just 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.

Kim W5TIT

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

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 -

wrote:
wrote:

So what's wrong with being fed bottles of Bud?

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

Beats me, I'm not into suds.

As for what is fed to babies,

Ye gawds in all the years I've been lurking in this funny-farm I can't
think of another topic having popped up which is a far afield from the
code test war. Ever. .

WEIRD!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.


73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv