HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: babcock@manticore.Eng.Sun.COM (Gigi Babcock, Mgr IBM Connectivity)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Help: Breastfeeding premie
Date: 5 Jan 1993 08:00:56 GMT
Organization: Sun
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: manticore

Ok folks, I need help. I really want to breast feed my baby. He was
born at 35 weeks and is now 7 weeks old. He was in intensive care for
the first week due to low blood sugar, jaundice and not eating. I started
pumping (the medela large double pump). My milk supply was great then. 

When he came home from the hospital he still was not eating well so we
just went for a bottle. Had to use the premie nipple from the hospital
though. Still pumping but my milk supply started to drop and I started
having to give him some forula. Tried everything to keep the milk
supply up: lots of sleep, lots of fluids, pumping every two hours.

3rd and 4th weeks, he had a tube put down his nose for us to feed
him from at home since he still was not eating well enough.

Started trying to breastfeed him about 2 weeks ago. He got the hang of it
fairly quickly but when I just breastfeed him, he loses weight real fast.
(Makes sense since my milk supply was well below his needs before he
started the breast feeding so I was giving him about half formula).

Went to lacation consultant and sucking specialist. Started on a course
of "reglan" to help milk supply. Didn't make much difference.
Now I am using the SNS - a pouch for the formula with tubes to my breasts
so the baby sucks the breasts and hopefully stimuates the milk supply.
This isn't working either and I am tempted to give all of this up.
The lacation consultant has verified that I am nursing correctly.
When he is on just the breast he does suck and swollow but not for very
long. I am afraid my milk supply is drying up right before my eyes.
In case it matters, he still has trouble with regular newborn nipples
so we still use premie nipples from the hospital if we do give him 
a bottle. However the sucking specialist said he was sucking just fine.

Any ideas from you breastfeeding pros? 


--
------------
Gigi Babcock babcock@Sun.COM 
Sun Microsystems, 2550 Garcia, Mailstop MTV14-204, Mt. View, CA 94043
From: shari@spring.sas.upenn.edu (shari)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Party for a 3yo help needed!
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:51:13 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1993Jan5.222100.6699@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>  
cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
> My daughter will be turning 3 this year and we wanted to have a party at a
> local Wildlife Park. This park has a petting zoo and a tram ride through 

> Anyway when you have a party there, the parents must pay the total amount for
> all being admitted into the part instead of the park being the middleman or
> collectiong agency. I expect to pay for all the kids. The adults cost $7.00
> each. Now I hate to be cheap, but when considering you have about 20 kids
> coming that amounts to about 35 parents (give or take a few) and at $7 a pop,
> you are talking some cash.
> 
> So am I just being cheap and should I pay for the parents as well, or is  
there
> a way to gracefully state that the kids are free and the parents have to  
cough
> up $7? And that they need to give this to me? (geez that doesnt sound to good
> does it?)
> 
I don't know why you would need 35 adults for 20 kids.  Organize the trip at  
your house .  Ask the parents that you are friendliest with (or grandparents),
how many kids they can take in their cars.  Each car going to the park should  
be able to hold about 3-4 kids.  That would mean that you would have around 5  
or 6 adults needed, not 35.  THe birthday party is for the kids - not for the  
children's parents.  Have the parents, except those that are driving, drop the  
kids at your house and tell them when the kids can be picked up.

I think that it would not be polite to invite the parents as well and then  
expect them to pay their own admission to the park.  If you really want all the  
parents to be included in you party plans, perhaps you could cut the guest list  
somewhat.

Good luck - and happy birthday to your daughter.

Shari Lazarus
shari@mail.sas.upenn.edu

Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: Carol F. Topp <ctopp@cup.portal.com>
Subject: Re: Water for babies
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A7720ACE310100E9@cdr-va-macs2-dynamic.stanford.edu>
X-Xxdate: Thu, 7 Jan 93 00:29:02 GMT
Organization: Private
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d13
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 00:28:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.211134.29675@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> Jan A. Schwarz,
jschwarz@lonestar.utsa.edu writes:
>It seems as if water isn't given to babies like it used to be when I
>had mine (22 years ago!).
>

When I was about to travel from Northern California to the
possibly hot and humid North East with my then 3 month old
son, I asked the pediatrician if I should give him water if the
weather was very hot. He said either to give him water, or
nurse him more. The extra calories won't have any effect. It's
up to us.

After my son was off of all breast milk and formula, I encouraged
him to drink plain water to quench his thurst. Sure he prefers
juice, but it is easy to give a child too much juice. Russell is a
big enough eater that I don't worry about using drinks for him to
get adequate nutrition.

Carol                     ctopp@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: melshinn@agsm.ucla.edu (Maha El-Shinnawy)
Subject: Re: Toilet training FAQ request, me too.
Distribution: na
Date: 12 Jan 93 09:46:44 PST

kohrn@sumax.seattleu.edu (David or Corinne Kohrn) writes:

>Add me to the list of people who would love a copy of this FAQ
>			Thanks
>			Corinne Kohrn
>			kohrn@sumax.seattleu.edu

ME TOO!

Thanks,
Maha.
melshinn@agsm.ucla.edu
From: biddleco@mizar.usc.edu (Susan Biddlecomb)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Sink Bath to Big Bathtub - How???
Date: 12 Jan 1993 09:50:29 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

We did the little bathtub in the big bathtub for about 6 months with 
Anglica, and it seemed to transition her without adverse effects. Partway
through, she spent a weekend with her aunt, who didn't have a little tub in
her bathtub. Angelica seemed to know that this was a different bathtub and 
didn't have any problems, but when she came back home she still needed her 
little tub. Maybe that'll work with your vacation.

Susan




Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: root@metis.tti.com (Operator)
Subject: Re: How to protect your family from the State
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:22:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.235036.4063@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>>
>[...] she nursed
>the child and did not need the formula. But her mistake was notfilling the
>prescription for the vitamins.  The social worker sent warning notices and
>then came to the home, snooped around and interrogated her. She threatened
>to have the chlid taken from them if they "continued to neglect it".  Rather than 
>try to explain to her why they preferred not to give vitamin suppliments to
>their infant child, they simply agreed and from then on filled the prescriptions
>and threw the stuff away.  So caring are the Swedes.

I wouldn't be too hard on the Swedes.  This kind of thing will happen
anywhere that people surrender too much of their freedom to the
government in exchange for some putative collective benefit.  It's the
nature of government.  It's happening here in the US, and still we have
people (right here on the net, in fact) who advocate MORE government
intervention in the parenting of children.  Of course, they want this
intervention to push THEIR particular style of parenting; that the
government might do something else once it has the power doesn't seem
to occur to them.

=====================================================================
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.
Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: tbachman@hamline.edu. (Toni Bachmann)
Subject: Re: Women Stuff
Organization: Hamline University, St. Paul, Minnesota. [The Little U]
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:07:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.184737.10951@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM> linda@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM (Linda Boatright) writes:
>I know this item doesn't belong here but I couldn't seem to find an
>appropriate group in my .newsrc file to post to, so here goes:
>
>Have any women out there dealt with cervical dysplasia and/or
>cervicitis in the past?
>
>Has anyone ever had cryosurgery (freezing of the cervix) or 
>laser or leep?
>
>Thanks in advance!
>
>Linda

You might try posting this question to sci.med - they sometimes discuss
such issues :-)
From: millerj@belize.crd.ge.com (Julia K. Miller)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Yet another solid foods question
Date: 5 Jan 93 14:13:06 GMT
Reply-To: belize!millerj@steinmetz.UUCP (Julia K. Miller)
Distribution: na
Organization: GE Corporate Research & Development

In article <254@trident.datasys.swri.edu> nina@trident.datasys.swri.edu (Nina Rosson) writes:
>...
>Does anybody know why most people start with rice cereal?  Is it because
>it is supposed to be least likely to cause allergies?  Is it possible rice
>could be harder to digest than, let's say, oatmeal?
>...
>--Nina
>mom of Katie, 8.5 mo

	My understanding is that rice cereal is easier to water down.  You can
make it about as thick as milk to start out if the baby doesn't eat from
the spoon well and serve it from a bottle.  It also breaks down pretty fast.
If Corey is dawdling when eating, it will be really soupy before we finish
the bowl (~15 minutes).
	In general, I think that rice is generally less prone to produce an
alergic reaction than something like wheat.  But my doctor did say that 
we could start on rice, oatmeal, or barley.  I have a friend, ~40, who was
put on a restricted diet for alergies and rice was one of the 4 things she
could eat.
	I think every baby is different in what causes a reaction.  My little
guy, ~7 months, gets a red rash on his back and face from any orange vegie
or oatmeal.  The doctor says it is baby excema and will eventually go away.

	Good luck.  Just keep trying things and keep careful records of what
you try.

Julia
Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: AMY.UHRBACH@OFFICE.WANG.COM ("Amy Uhrbach")
Subject: weaning from bottle
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:57:20 GMT

My pediatrican insisted we wean from bottle to cup by 15m.  In our case,
sucking milk from the bottle was contributing to constant ear infections (he
suggests but does not insist for kids without such horrible ear problems).  It
did work:  infections every couple weeks on bottle, only 2 in the 2 years
since!!  Worth a try, at least.

We tried the "big boy, throw away bottles on X date" routine.  It was simple!
Alex asked for a bottle once that day, never again, and was thrilled to use a
cup.  After 2 days of only cups he became quite proficient.  I had been
reluctant to switch, because he was such a cup-slob before.  Seems I was
holding him back.  He did still use a pacifier.  It was clear he needed to suck
still to calm himself.  Dr. had no problems with that.  The issue was sucking
milk into eustachean tubes.
Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: nelson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Mike Nelson)
Subject: Re: Laying newborn on stomach
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:42:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.205818.29421@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> jschwarz@lonestar.utsa.edu (Jan A. Schwarz) writes:
>Well, I'm still not a Grandmother yet but any time now.
>
>What are the thoughts about laying a baby on its stomach or back?
>
>Back when mine were born you were always suppose to put them on their
>stomach to keep them from having a flat head in the back.
>
>I'm not sure this is the way it's done now.  Any thoughts on this from
>all of you out there?
>
>Jan
>

Latest I heard (within last month) wast that the back was favoured
as it posed (via statistics) that fewer SIDs  occurred this way.

We lay our baby on her stomach as we did our first.

Mike N.


Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: clare@nynexst.com (Clare Chu)
Subject: Re: Predict your next child`s sex
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 21:06:27 GMT

In article <1ii0m2INN5vg@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch) writes:
>
>In article <1ihl4lINNph7@sixgun.East.Sun.COM>, Gary Stringfellow writes:
>> 
>> To widen the sample I am asking that you respond, if you have children
>> or can verify this kind of data among your friends, with the number of times 
>> the chart is correct and the number of times it is incorrect. I will post the 
>> results once I have collected the data.
>
>Oh, goody. I do love scientific tests of absurd hypotheses. The rare one 
>that proves correct is always worth studying.
>
> [charts omitted]
>
>> chart. The woman's age from 18 to 45 (Chinese reckoning) is on the top line
>                                        ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
>> Chinese Lunar Calendar), then her baby will be a girl.
>  ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
>You should also clarify what is meant by "the woman's age (Chinese 
>reckoning)". I seem to recall that the Chinese add one year to the date
>as Westerners generally reckon ages, from the date of birth. Or do they 
>add nine months, to yield the woman's approximate age since conception?
>I was 31 years plus two months, by our reckoning--do I look under the
>woman's age as 31 or 32?

  No I think you count how many Chinese New Years have passed by since
  you were born and add one (for the 9 months).

  All I know is that the birthdates are different.  My birthdate
  is 1/13/60, but the Chinese Lunar birthdate is 12/15/(no idea what
  year).  And I am automatically one year old when I'm born.  Then
  when Chinese New Years rolls around, I'm another year older.
  So when I was 2 weeks old, I was actually 2 years old by the
  Chinese reckoning.
>
>Actually, I don't even need the answers to my questions--for all four 
>possibilities, your charts predict that my son must be a girl! :-)

  For me also, although I didn't check carefully, it seems that all
  four possibilities say that my son is a girl also!

>
>> This chart has been taken from a Royal tomb near Peking, China. The original
From: riggle@adobe.com (Kathleen Riggle)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Getting rid of pacifier
Date: 5 Jan 93 19:20:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated, Mountain View

In article <2414@shaman.wv.tek.com> alanj@endeavor18.tek.com (Alan Jeddeloh) writes:
>
>What his does claim works, from 1 year of age onwards, for getting rid of the
>bottle is _The Ceremony_.
>
>    Go through the house and gather up all the bottle &c.  Have the child
>    help.  Explain that she is a big girl now and and doesn't need to use
>    the bottles anymore.  Pack them up in a box and put them Grandma &
>    Grandpa's trunk and wave bye-bye as they drive away.  Or, have her bring
>    them into the doctor's office "to give to the other little babies that
>    need them."
>
>    Thereafter, if she asks for the bottle, you remind her how she is such
>    a big girl she gave them all away and offer her a cup instead.
>
>The *claim* is that it works.  We'll let you know went we get around to weaning
>Laura.  (The pressure is off for now.)


That's a good idea.  What worked for us completely surprised me.  When
we moved Rachel to a toddler bed, she stopped taking bottles.  The
first night she refused the bottle, she had one before nap the next
day, refused it for nighttime again.  It looked like a golden
opportunity, so we stopped at naptime the next day also.  After a week
or so, she asked for a bottle, but Dave said that we don't do bottles
anymore.  She was fine with it.  I can't believe it was that easy!

I'm pretty sure she sees the "big kids" at daycare going down for naps
on cots without bottles and she decided she was a big kid too, now
that she had a big girl bed.

She still uses a pacifier and the usage goes up when she's sick.  It's
sort of a barometer for how she's feeling.  Dave figures she will be
a chain smoker when she grows up.  :-)

Kathie
-- 
riggle@mv.us.adobe.com
Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: CREECH@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Teresa Creech)
Subject: Re: airport waiting area
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:16:16 GMT

In article <16B4D5F7F.BIOSEE@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
BIOSEE@UKCC.UKY.EDU (Stephanie Edelmann) writes:
 
>In article <1755@optigfx.optigfx.com>
>wang@optigfx.optigfx.com (Alice Wang) writes:
>
>>
>>glad to found out that one section of the waiting area
>>was intented for kids.  There was a Little-Tikes Slide,
>>a FP Picnic Table and a Duplo table with plenty of blocks.
>>It was certainly enough to keep Christine entertained for
>>the 45 minutes or so we had to wait.
>
>I've NEVER seen anything like this!  (Airports in New York - Kennedy,
>Detroit, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Lexington, Munich, Frankfurt)  But,
>
>>Alice Wang
>>Mom to Christine, 1 yo
>>wang@optigfx.com
>>
>>
>Stephanie
 
I can add Denver, Dallas, Pittsburg, and Ohare to the list.  NEVER saw
ANYTHING which would help a travler with children.
 
We spent 9 hours in Ohare with two 6 month olds, a 3 year old,
and a 6 year old.  The plane was late (not due to weather or any factor
that we could tell except poor planing).  The only thing the airlines did was
to give us a $20 meal voucher which was only good at certain places and none
of them were close to where we were sitting.  It was a wonderful day :-(
Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren)
Subject: Re: Yet another solid foods question
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 05:40:04 GMT

nina@trident.datasys.swri.edu (Nina Rosson) writes:

>Does anybody know why most people start with rice cereal?  Is it because
>it is supposed to be least likely to cause allergies?  Is it possible rice
>could be harder to digest than, let's say, oatmeal?

Rice is considered to be one of the foods most kids don't have an allergy
for, just as you have guessed.  Both rice and oatmeal are good for
roughage, but oatmeal is higher in fiber content and therefore will
pass more easily through the digestive system, whereas rice tends to
bind and constipate more, unless there is significant amounts of water
to flush out the rice, but most babies won't drink lots of water.  The
rice, coupled with the formula, really does the number on a baby.  As
a help, if you're breast-feeding, mix some of the rice or oatmeal with
breast milk.  Breast milk really aids in better digestion.  It certainly
made the difference in our two boys.

allen
From: carolyn@bucket.rain.com (Carolyn Peterson)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: A few Questions
Date: 9 Jan 93 01:10:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: bucket.carolyn.726541815
Distribution: na
Organization: Rick's Home-Grown Un*x

lisa@elc11.icase.edu (Lisa A. Leutenegger) writes:

>2)  Is it physically possible to change a crib sheet with the
>    matress still in the crib???  We just moved Alex out of his


When I needed to take the crib mattress out, I would put on as much
bedding as possible.  To make the bed, I would put on a pad, a fitted
sheet, another pad, another fitted sheet, a 3rd pad & a 3rd fitted
sheet.  Then I didn't need to take the mattress out of the crib
the next two times--just pull off the dirty sheet and
full-size waterproof flannel covered mattress pad (don't recall the
name for that thing).  This doesn't eliminate having to take the
mattress out of the crib, but cuts down on the number of times it
needs to be done.



-- 
Carolyn Peterson
carolyn@bucket.rain.com
Newsgroups: misc.kids
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: circ on older baby
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:58:45 GMT

In article <199301051401.AA08246@tuna.wang.com> AMY.UHRBACH@OFFICE.WANG.COM ("Amy Uhrbach") writes:
>Our son was premature, couldn't be circumsized when days old.  We decided to
>circumsize for religious reasons, which ARE important to us.  He was 3 months
>old before he was healthy enough.  I requested anesthesia.  My OB, who did the
>circ, refused, said it doesn't hurt babies, they only cry from cold or being
>undressed, etc.  HAH!!!  

Any doctor who whould argue that infants don't feel pain is an idiot (IMHO).
I attended a Bris several months ago, and that baby sure did feel pain.
He cried as if he had been dropped on his head.  Many people say "they
just go to sleep afterwards".  Of course they do, they are going into 
shock.  I don`t think that it hurts infants less than older people, they
just can`t talk to tell you about it.  The one advantage is that infants
DO heal quickly. 

>Or we might have chosen a mohel - I have seen circs at a
>bris which do not seem to faze a baby at all.

As I say, at the Bris I was at the baby screamed bloody murder.  I would
agree on having a Mohel do it if you are going to circumsize.  

Guido
From: dlin@weber.ucsd.edu (Diane Lin)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Sleep Question/Ferberizing
Date: 7 Jan 1993 00:00:02 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: weber.ucsd.edu
Summary: Leach's method is almost identical to Ferber's!

In article <1993Jan6.003754.2732@math.ucla.edu> dmac@julia.math.ucla.edu (saki) writes:
>
>I respect those who find that Ferberizing is their avenue of choice.
>It's not mine. I personally made the choice that progressively teaching
>the child to sleep on its own by letting it cry was not for me. Nor for
>my son, who is now 13 months.
[...]>
>Crying is a signal. I don't think the baby does it to "manipulate"
>me or anyone else. He needs something. It's natural to hunger for
>comfort when something disturbs you. I tend to follow the Penelope
>Leach theories that the middle ground is best---something between
>full Ferberization and completely waking the kid up to distract
>him from the horrors of sleep. I can't help but feel that the
>more secure the baby is---secure in the knowledge that someone
>will come, albeit briefly sometimes, to let him know he's not
>alone---the more he'll feel safe enough to learn to sleep on
>his own, and to settle himself by himself. It works for us. For
>extremely fussy/colicky/needy babies, other theories may work
>better; and certainly for parents whose sleep needs are more
>profound than mine, the trick of letting the baby cry it out
>may be the only solution. 

This is not intended as a flame, but have you actually read Ferber?
What Leach advocates is almost precisely what Ferber's method spells
out, though in much further detail.  (I'm assuming you are talking
about Leach's middle path position as spelled out in _Your Baby &
Child_, p. 310.)  She advocates "visiting" every few minutes, which
means that you do allow your baby to cry for some period, albeit a
short one.  Ferber's timetable, as spelled out in his book, is only
a rough one, and he makes it clear that parents who cannot stomach
listening to their little one cry for more than a little while are
free to substitute shorter time intervals.  In short, I don't
understand precisely the difference between the two methods in your
mind.  Nowhere does Ferber advocate letting the "baby cry it out."
-- 
Diane C. Lin			"Live now; make *now* always the
dlin@weber.ucsd.edu	         most precious time.  Now will 
(Dylan's mom, 2 years)	 	 never come again." (ST:TNG)
Newsgroups: misc.kids