HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: Breast Feeding + 4 Teeth = Ouch!
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:57:39 GMT

In article <wkwFsB1w164w@seaspray.welly.gen.nz> kerry@seaspray.welly.gen.nz (Kerry Dalley) writes:
>murray@media.mit.edu (Robert Murray) writes:
>
>> Katherine now is the proud owner of 4 teeth - 2 upper and 2 lower. That's
>> great for eating solid foods, but almost every day I hear an anguished
>> cry from my wife indicating that Kate has again bit her in the breast.
>> Ouch!
>
>But I have found the most effective way is to retain some composure (almost 
>impossible BTW)  and say, quietly and firmly..."No, that hurts "  while 
>removing the child from the breast.  Screaming or shouting, whilst perfectly 
>understandable, seems to cause 1 or 2 reactions....Either the baby smiles 
>with glee, and plans to repeat it at the earliest opportunity.
> 
>The other outcome is commonly that the baby gets really frightened, and 
>refuses to nurse...which is difficult for everyone involved....

Well, Sarah teethed early, and Ellen took the "yell" approach.  She'd
yell "Ow!", take Sarah off the breast, look at her and say "Suck!".
Then she'd demonstrate the desired mouth motions for Sarah, with the
mouth not closing.  Sarah was always a good imitator, and this worked
(after what seemed to Ellen like an eternity).  A repeat offense
meant no nursing for a while.  Sarah wasn't getting solids, so
she'd get hungry enough to reinforce the lesson.

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@tti.com to you!)
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:26:56 EDT
From: Chris Himes <CLH7@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Infant snowsuit questions

We received a hand-me-down L.L.  Bean babybag for Doug and loved it.  He was
from 3-7 months old during the time we used it.  We usually would put a hat
on separately, especially just for quick trips to the store, instead of
pulling up the hood part.  We used the hood section for outdoor stroller
walks.  In the car I would let Doug's arms hang outside of the bag--put on a
sweater if it is really cold.  We had a 1 hour ride to daycare, so I didn't
want to get him too hot.  Observing the struggles that other parents went
through to get their babies in and out of snowsuits, I would definitely opt
for the babybag.  We could just slip Doug in and out.

I wouldn't expect to use it for more than one winter, though.  Doug is now
13 mos.  and walking.  I suppose we could use the bag for trips in the car
or maybe for stroller walks, but he loves to get out of the stroller and
walk, so I think we will go with the snowpants/jacket combo this winter.

Chris Himes
From: Johannes.Beekhuizen@p5.f112.n100.z60.wlink.nl (Johannes Beekhuizen)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Midwife info/Food and Fluids in Labour
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 11:36:08 -0100

Hello christine.m.dakes,

On Tuesday October 06 1992, christine.m.dakes wrote to All:

 cmd> Just a question from a soon-to-be-first-time-mom:

Good luck and good health with it!

 cmd> Is vomiting while in labor a given?  Does every woman throw up during
 cmd> labor?  Also heard that one's body eliminates wastes out of both
 cmd> ends while in labor.  True for everyone?  Is this the body's natural
 cmd> response, to get rid of foreign material in the body to have the most
 cmd> room in the body (stomach and intestines) for the actual pushing
 cmd> and delivery?  Seems like a good theory to me....

 It's an interesting statement. We have two kids, and my wife still does not
 know what labour pains are (lucky her). The first one she called the doctor
 at 01:45, and the baby was born at 02:25, with 5 presses (or whatever the
 proper name is, I hope you understand what I mean). The second one was a
 "difficult" delivery, she called at 06:40, and he was born at 07:55. And in
 both cases the doctor was called because she suddenly got tremendous belly
 aches. Good thing we wanted to do the birth at home by the way, we would
 never have made it into hospital.
 But the evening before our first was born, she had a heavy diarrhoea, which
 we attributed to eating too many young leeks. Although I didn't suffer from
 it. Could very well point to your theory of trying to eliminate wastes.


Regards,

       Johannes (friends call me Hans).

Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: johnnyb@flamingo.ims.com (Johnny Battle)
Subject: Re: Sugarbabies
Reply-To: johnnyb@flamingo.ims.com
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:31:31 GMT

Diane Lin writes:
> Johnny Battle writes:
>>The Wall Street Journal of Tues. Sept.22 has an interesting report 
>>on some recent research on giving sugar to babies.  Dr. E. Blass 
>>of Cornell has found that giving sugar to newborn babies reduced 
>>crying by 50%.  They theorize that the sugar stimulates production 
>>of natural "opium-like painkillers" in the babies' bodies. 
>>
>
>Interesting excerpt, and it made me wonder if breastmilk, which is
>*very* sweet, would have the same effect. 

So one would think, but the research reportedly found that lactose
(milk sugar) did NOT produce the calming effect.  I believe that mom's
milk does have quite a bit of the amino acid L-tryptophan, which is a
also a natural tranquilizer.  If a baby doesn't cry a lot, I wouldn't
give him sugar water; but if he does, it's worth a harmless try.  I
would first make sure the baby had gotten plenty of breast milk before
giving her the sugar, though.  Remember, also, that the study found 
that the sugar worked even in very low concentrations; so I would start
(and will start, if our forthcoming baby has the problem) with just
enough sugar or sweet juice to slightly flavor the water, and work up 
from there.
**********************************************************************
Johnny Battle                "The word is but a guest of the reality."

P.S. I've read that honey can cause problems for very young babies, and
I would avoid using that as the sweetener.



Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: Tamara Shaffer <SASTLS@mvs.sas.com>
Subject: Re: Names (don't do this to your kids)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:25:00 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.

>From: mryan@stsci.edu
>Message-ID: <1992Oct8.164356.1@stsci.edu>
>
>A few more names:
>
>Sno White
>
>Tamara Knight
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Ok.  I'm reading this one over and over and thinking "I just don't
get it!"  Wait, "Tomorrow" Knight?  Ok.  It all depends on the
pronunciation.
 
>
>Ken Knott
>
>
 
TAMARA (rhymes with "camera")
Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: cma@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (christine.m.dakes)
Subject: Re: Getting pregnant while nursing
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:37:35 GMT
Summary: my experience


Believe it or not, I know *2* women who got pregnant only a few months
after giving birth and while nursing because for some silly reason
they "thought" that they could *not* get pregnant while nursing!
Thus each has 2 children that are 11(?) and I think 15(?) months apart.

Your period does *not* have to return for you to be fertile.
So, at least for these 2 women, nursing did not have a negative effect
on the chance of conceiving.  

Christine
mom-2-b in Jan. '93

Xref: sparky misc.kids:25641 soc.singles:27367
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Newsgroups: misc.kids,soc.singles
Subject: Re: BARBIE DOES IT AGAIN!!!!
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:10:29 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Indiana University

dlin@weber.ucsd.edu (Diane Lin) writes:

>Nowhere did I imply that Dylan would not be able to defend
>himself if necessary.  BUT, hopefully, Dylan will not be one of those
>kids who hits your kid first.  This is the whole point I'm trying to
>make:  we're raising Dylan to be non-violent and non-aggressive.

And just how is he supposed to defend himself without (as necessary)
resorting to violence?  Oh yes, he's supposed to hide under the desk
in a dress, i forgot.  :-)

>Again, I don't know anyone who would argue that being able to defend
>oneself is a bad idea.  But there's a world of difference between
>acting in self-defense and acting aggressively or violently.  Now,

You've just argued against one of the most important aspects of
self-defense, at least on the playground--the use of violence to
answer violence.  No threat is effective without the ability to
enforce it, after all.  (And that enforcement, in the end, is a guy
with a gun coming to put you in a cage.  We call that 'going to jail.')

If a wild beast threatens you, do you eschew violence?  Do you attempt
to persuade it that killing is wrong and it should stop eating people
and live on a diet of soybeans and gravy? Or do you shoot the bugger?

If a tiger threatens me, I'm not going to treat it as if it were a
a philosopher.  I'm going to treat it as if it were a tiger, and do what
will _work_, not what will satisfy some silly (and empty) philosophy
of 'prosocialism.'  If I can't come up with a better solution _fast_
I'm going to shoot the damn thing.  

(perhaps I need to say 'a solution that works,' even tho it's redundant.)

There is a very important distinction, which you do not seem to be
making, between the _initiation_ of force and the use of force in
self-defense.  The bully, by hitting first, sets the terms of the
interaction.  If your child attempts to treat him as something other
than a thug, or does nothing, he _will_ get teased and harrassed, at
the very least.  Maybe going thru this makes one a 'better' adult
in some ways, but it sure as hell makes life tough for the kid.

Raising Dylan to be non-aggressive is quite different from raising him
to be non-violent in a violent and cruel world.  And childhood and the
playground are both those things.  

Think about him for a change, and not about platitudes and vacuties.
-- 

Kiran Wagle                           <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.kids,soc.singles
From: bhjelle@carina.unm.edu ()
Subject: Re: BARBIE DOES IT AGAIN!!!!
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 12:36:08 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Oct7.184055.20416@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:


>>"Math class is Hard" 
>
>What is wrong with her saying that?  Math class IS hard--for most people.
>It makes Barbie EMPATHIZE with the majority of us who had/are having a
>difficult time in math.  When someone is out of work and depressed do you
>say, tritely, "something will come up" or do you empathize and say "things
>
>I think many of those who are all upset about this are taking it much
>too seriously.  Jeez, it's a _doll_!  Not even  Murphy Brown doll at that!
>Pretty soon folks will be sending Barbie math remedial courses....
>
What is wrong is that their minds soak up all of these subtle and
not-so-subtle messages and it influences them. My 3 year-old Nicole
is already grappling with things that boys do (and girls don't)
and vice-versa. She makes pronouncements on that subject
occasionally. I try to set her straight but she is getting other
messages from so many sources it is hard to fight it.

I think Barbie saying that "math is hard" may be realistic teen-
speak, but it is one of many harmful inflences that sway little
girls away from science and math. It is one that is easily fixed-
just have her say something else.

Brian


Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer)
Subject: Re: Neighborhood dangers...
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:28:57 GMT

In article <9210131345.AA21161@panhed.psc.edu> grant@panhed.psc.edu (Shirl Grant) writes:
>Now, in my neighborhood, Pittsburgh suburbs, there ar no dangers like
>railroad tracks, busy highways, etc.  But my neighborhood is full of
>woods and hills (Western PA).  My kids could fall and hurt themselves,
>and no one would know.  I plan to set time limits on "free play" (like
>30 minutes or something) in which they must check back at the house. 
>If they are not back, I will look for them.

There are two additional things you can do which will help.  First is that
you and your children develop a buddy system.  That means you don't go off
in the woods alone, but always with a friend.  This may not always be
practical, but I HIGHLY recommend this system.

The second thing is to give your children a whistle to wear around their
necks.  They should always wear this whenever off in the woods, whether alone
or with their buddy.  Three short blasts on the whistle is a signal of needing
help.  Lots of people are trained in wilderness and campcraft skills.  These
people will all know what three short blasts on a whistle mean.

If a child falls and breaks a leg and no one knows to rescue her, the use
of whistle can mean the difference between life and death.  
>
>I do not consider myself a negligent parent, but I do not want to be a
>doting parent that will not let their children play without me watching
>every move.  They need their time alone to do those things that they
>can't do with Mommy there, ya know, those things that help them grow up
>healthy and confident.
>
Absolutely.  In fact, in our neighborhood, kids are allowed to walk alone to
one anothers homes or play in the front yards/street at the age of 6.  I
think this teaches them responsibility, independence, and a sense of community.
Of course, we live in a horseshoe so there is no traffic except those who live
on the street (hence kids play in the street).  And there are LOTS of stay
at home parents who all keep and eye out for one another's children.  I think
it's a GREAT neighborhood.  We searched long and hard for it.  

>Am I really out in left field here?  I grew up really sheltered, and
>went absolutely crazy when I moved out.  I do not want to make that
>mistake with my kids.  Maybe I have the age range wrong.  What age
>should we let our kids play in the neighborhood unattended?  Since my
>son is only 2.5, this is truly new ground for me.
>

I think you'll know.  I was thinking I'd let Mitchell go out front alone
with defined boundaries when he was 4.  He turned 4 and I said, "No, not yet."
But the girl accross the street was allowed out at 4 so that's why I thought
4.  Of course, she had older sisters and Mitchell is our oldest.  My guess
is that he'll be out at 6 and Erin will be out at 4.  And one of us will be 
outside in our own yard for the first few months of this new freedom.

-- 
Judy Leedom Tyrer

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"	- William Blake
From: boucher@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Teresa Boucher)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: REGARDING EXPERIMENTS
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:42:33 GMT
Expires: 30 Oct 92 05:00:00 GMT
Reply-To: boucher@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Teresa Boucher)
Followup-To: EXPERIMENTS
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

Someone was asking about experiments they could do.  The neatest one
I've ever seen or done is the ole egg in the bottle trick.

You take a wide mouth bottle that is just smaller than the diameter
of a hard boiled egg.  (I used a 1/2 carafe wine server to do this)

You take a wooden match stick, light it and throw it into the bottle.
Put you hard boiled egg immediately on the top of the bottle and watch
the egg get sucked into the bottle.

To get the egg back out, blow cool air into the bottle and lightly shake
it out while holding the bottle upside down.

It really works and the kids and grown-ups alike like to watch!!!

TRESE BOUCHER
Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: m13079@mwunix (Mary Anne Walters)
Subject: _The American Way of Birth_
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:16:56 GMT


I posted recently referencing a book I had read about but had only very
sketchy info.  Well, now I have the full info and a review.  All who follow
the drugs/no drugs, episiotomy or not, cesarean or not, etc. threads will be
interested:

_The American Way of Birth_ by Jessica Mitford
Dutton/Abrahams; $22 (Due in November)

Mitford interviewed obstet., midwives, and antenatal and postnatal mothers
for this journalistic probe of how Americans are born.  In graceful prose
she relates our appalling infant mortality rate to the obstacles poor women
face in finding prenatal care and decent hospital treatment.  After reviewing
the potential hazards of obstetrical forcepts, electronic fetal monitoring
and diagnostic ultrasound, Mitford discusses the complications mothers often
face after having a cesarean section and examines the financial and legal
motives behind doctors' widespread performance of these largely unnecessary
procedures.  She takes readers on a grand tour of the midwifery scene, from
a Bronx center for low-risk women to a California context in which the
medical establishment harasses home birth midwives with police breakins.
In an epilogue Mitford documents hospital routines and deceptive overbilling,
critisizes the AMA's powerful lobby, which squelches healthcare reform, and
reviews efforts to pass a Canadian-style national health insurance bill that
would eliminate the profiteering of US hospitals and doctors.

(This review appeared in Publisher's Weekly, credited to Genevieve Stuttaford)

The review notes, too, that serial rights went to Good Housekeeping, so I
expect we can get a preview of the book prior to publication in one of the
upcoming issues.

Just more grist for the mill :-)
 
--
--Mary Anne  
"What we have once enjoyed and deeply loved we can never lose, for all
that we love deeply becomes a part of us."  Helen Keller
                                                 [for Alexander]
Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Victims of Bullies
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 22:59:28 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <qNwksB1w165w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>, rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:


|> the bullies.  I do that because I never thought there was very
|> much the victim half of the dyad could do.  (Everyone knows that
|> the victims of bullies have problems as adults.  Only lately have
|> we discovered that bullies grow up to have problems also: often
|> they become spouse or child abusers, have problems on the job --
|> especially dealing with bosses -- and frequently have run-in's
|> with the law, sometime even graduating to adult criminality.  At
|> any rate their behavior is troublesome enough to their parents --
|> who get tired of getting called to the school every other day --
|> that I have no difficulty filling my calender with child
|> patients.)
|> 

I find your assertion that "everyone knows" that the victims
of bullies have problems as adults hard to believe.  I certainly
don't know this.  Many of the successful people I know
were victims of bullies when they were children.

Where I grew up, there were also bullies and victims, but
the prevailing ethos among the adults was exactly the
opposite:  "everyone knew" that the bullies were cowards
who were either badly brought up, or who were very unhappy or insecure,
and would grow up to be no good, and that the victims
were likely to grow up to be better than the bullies.
This may have been "pop psychology", but most responsible
parents and all school officials believed it, and stood
up solidly for the victims against the bullies.

Can you give me some hard evidence for the modern
theory that victims of bullies are "socially challenged"
or whatever the latest wisdom is?

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Juggling Work and Family
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:14:14 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct8.160912.1219@rayssd.ssd.ray.com> d8b@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Boudria) writes:
>
[tells of returning to work ...]
>
>The weird thing I noticed was that my child has a much easier time handling
>things than her children.  By things I mean, change, disruption, anything
>out of the ordinary.  We went on a quickie vacation together to D.C. and
>my son just went with the flow, enjoying everything.  Her kids were much
>more prone to major upset at the least little thing (traffic jams, waiting
>in lines, not getting their juice immediately, etc.).  And the worst part
>was they whined constantly and these kids are 6 and 7!  

You know, I never realized this before I read this post, but when I
compare my child (daycare since age 6mo) to my neices (mother at home),
he is also much better at handling "things."  He is not prone to "are we
there yet" and other such annoyances as they are.

Maybe it has something to do with having to wait his turn in a 
class situation, or answering to someone other than a parent who is
less likely to cater to his every whim?  Or maybe peer pressure?

Now that he's nine and out of daycare, it's certainly nice to hear
that something positive may have come of it in light of all the
negative things I hear, particularly from my stay-at-home-nyaah-nyaah-
I-married-a-doctor-and-you're-a-single-mother sister-in-law.  Thanks,
you made my day!!!

-Nance
-- 
Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
                            (_) \(_)                           
Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: betsyp@apollo.hp.com (Betsy Perry)
Subject: Re: Pregnancy and Wine sauce
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:28:48 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Keywords: pregnancy, food, wine

In article <1bhvuaINNf4h@news.aero.org> hancock@Aero.org (Melody F. Hancock) writes:
>Oh No!  I hadn't even thought of this.  I was on a business
>trip and had seafood in a white wine sauce.  I was in the
>3rd month of pregnancy at the time.  Interesting enough, this
>is one of my favorite dishes.  However, it didn't taste that
>great so I only ate enough not to seem rude.  But I didn't 
>even think of the wine!!!  So, now what?  I've already started
>fantasizing birth defects!

This sort of fear is why I think that the current hysteria about
drinking and pregnancy has gotten out of hand.  

Let's do a little thumbnail calculation.  Assume the "white wine
sauce" had 1/4 cup of white wine per serving.   Now let's assume that
half the alcohol evaporated off during cooking.  (I think that both
these assumptions are conservative, by the way; I'd expect the final
dose of alcohol to be far lower.)  In that case, the final dose of
alcohol to Melody was around 2 tablespoons of white wine.  (1 fluid
cup = 16 tablespoons.)  And wine is, I believe, less than 10% alcohol
normally, so that cuts the dose down to about 2/5 tablespoon of grain
alcohol, slightly more than a teaspoon.

The standard advice about fetal alcohol syndrome is that mothers are
at high risk if they drink *more than four drinks at a session*. 
Almost all of the reputable research emphasizes that the risk is to *heavy*
and *habitual* drinkers.  A woman who consumes two tablespoons of
white wine once in a pregnancy isn't even on the charts.

I may add that, according to Barbara Morse, a professional FAS and FAA
researcher,  heavy and habitual drinkers can reduce their drinking
during pregnancy and *drastically* improve the health of their babies.
FAS isn't as simple as "one sin, and the baby's ruined";  women can
greatly improve their pregnancy outcomes by reducing drinking at ANY
POINT during the pregnancy.  Barbara is very frustrated because the
media focus is leading many women who are at risk for FAS to despair;
they assume that it's already too late for them to help their babies,
and they don't seek the help that's available and that could change
their babies' lives.  Meanwhile, millions of women who are not at 
risk for FAS are living in needless fear.


-- 
Betsy Hanes Perry   (note P in userid)     betsyp@apollo.hp.com
Hewlett-Packard Company
"I'm sorry, I turned off my hearing aid.  Could you repeat the
question, please?"
Newsgroups: misc.kids