| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#281
July 12th 05, 05:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
#282
July 12th 05, 01:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#284
July 13th 05, 12:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com... 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! Oh, I think you could find some pretty darned furhter off-topic discussions than this. In fact, bottle feeding frees up a woman to pick up a mic or slam a fist, as it were. Whether a protest of the topic or not, I couldn't tell, but you've bit right into it, I see. 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). You seem a bit miffed above, don't know why. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. Kim W5TIT |
|
#285
July 13th 05, 01:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kim" wrote in message .. . wrote in message oups.com... 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! Oh, I think you could find some pretty darned furhter off-topic discussions than this. In fact, bottle feeding frees up a woman to pick up a mic or slam a fist, as it were. Well that's one way to tie it into amateur radio (or any other topic for that matter). Whether a protest of the topic or not, I couldn't tell, but you've bit right into it, I see. 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. 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. [snip] 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. I personally found breast feeding to be liberating. If I wanted to go somewhere, all I had to do was stuff a couple of diapers in my purse, grab the baby and go. Didn't have to worry about how much formula to take or how to keep it from spoiling, etc. 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. 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. 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. 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. Kim's got it 100% right here. As mentioned above, I worked full time. Breast milk has many advantages. If the mother is healthy, it is automatically the correct balance for the infant. In addition, it tranfers any immunities that the mother may have to the infant for the duration of the time that the baby is breast fed. 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. 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. 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. 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. It is fantastic to find a dad that takes part as you did. I have to give my daughters' fathers credit for participating in child rearing even though in both cases we divorced for other reasons. 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. What I hope to see is that mothers are free to choose whichever method suits them and their lifestyles. While breast milk has a slight edge, modern pediatrics has insured that formula is an adequate substitute. 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv 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. 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. Kim W5TIT At least in my lifetime, there have always been more women bottle feeding than breast feeding. Most of my daughter's friends bottle feed although she chose breast feeding. She made her decision on her own without pressure from me. She got herself an extra fancy breast pump. It is motorized and does both breasts at once. Somehow this bring about visions of the farm and the milking machines we used to have when I was a child! Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
#286
July 13th 05, 01:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: on Jul 11, 6:33 pm
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. You would "bottle feed" babies BEER?!?!? HOW MANY CHILDREN HAS JIMMIE "PARENTED"? 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. Now explain all of the above to AMATEUR RADIO POLICY. Show your work. 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. "Luddite?!?" :-) Did you breast-feed buggy horses?!? ["Gettum' up Scout...go, kimosabe..."] After all, the "professionals" and "experts" knew best, right? Poor baby...still smarting after trying to hold back the dawn on newer-than-radiotelegraphy modes in amateur radio? Remember Burke's Law: "CW gets through when everything else does." As if! "As if" WHAT? "As if" you made any sense in here with that post? "As if" everyone spoke eastern PA tuff-ese? :-) "As if" anyone else gives a damn? bit bit |
|
#287
July 13th 05, 02:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#288
July 13th 05, 03:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#289
July 13th 05, 05:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. 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. 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. 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! After all, the "professionals" and "experts" knew best, right? As if! Snort - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#290
July 13th 05, 05:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Utillity freq List; | Shortwave | |||
| Navy launches second Kerry medal probe | Shortwave | |||
| U.S. Navy IG Says Kerry's Medals Proper | Shortwave | |||
| Navy Radiomen | General | |||
| Base Closures | Shortwave | |||
Linear Mode
