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