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

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
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