More than soft drinks and nuts available on this airline

I have subscribed to this thread to stay abreast of the situation. It would be a shame to miss out on all the posts, wouldn't it? Not trying to milk this thread or anything like that. I do know how much I suck at posting messages with substance. And, to the OP, I think this is literally the definition of a soft drink. IBTL
 

Attachments

  • eating-some-breast_o_5420943.jpg
    eating-some-breast_o_5420943.jpg
    210 KB · Views: 35
SkyDog58 said:
Well you make the most references to the hammer and you have it as your avatar. I don’t seem to recall other mods doing any thing like that. You do seem gleeful about your super powers at times. Just my observation.
Click to expand...
Also observable to everyone who frequents the board. It’s no shock that the mod who seems to revel in the ability to ban, is seemingly the least able to differentiate between personal preference and forum rules.
 
Ravioli said:
Why wasn't there any good old fashioned cow milk available?
Click to expand...

Looks like this was a young infant or close to it. It's a bad idea to feed a very young baby cow's milk in general. It's a lot worse to do it for the first time on the airplane. Cow's milk is made for cows. It has completely different content than human milk. It is also a huge source for allergic reactions. Typically, if a child has some kind of digestion/allergy issue, the first question is asked if you feed him cow's milk or if mother drinks milk(if breastfeeding). It's not even all that good for adults. Most humans cannot tolerate cows milk to various degrees.
 
SCCutler said:
Aww, shucks, folks.

Just be nice.

When you're deciding whether to make a comment, ask yourself: "Would I say this in a room with my Mom in attendance?"
Click to expand...


see, now THIS guy has a solid understanding of how the internet works.
 
genna said:
It's a bad idea to feed a very young baby cow's milk in general.
Click to expand...

Like many child allergies, there is strong evidence that failure to expose infants to bovine milk results in the proteins contained within the milk being recognized as foreign later in life.

We get so protective of children that they don't get exposed to things before their immune system 'closes' and pet dander, milk protein, maybe nuts - are all recognized as foreign later in life and the body reacts to them, is the theory.
 
Exhibit A for the "why I love Ted" case.

Ted DuPuis said:
A few observations and a short bio then.

Amount I get paid if someone gets banned: $0
Amount I get paid if nobody gets banned: $0
Amount I get paid for being on the MC: $0
Amount I get paid for not being on the MC: $0
Amount I get paid per hour of work I do related to being on the MC: $0

Reason I agreed to be on the MC: I've been a PoA member for 11 years and value the community. Most of my best friends, indeed people who I consider family (and in the case of my wife who I met here, actual family) are people I met here. I want to see the community continue to thrive. That has always required some level of moderation in PoA's history (kinda like society as a whole)
Reason my avatar got changed to the BanHammer: Jokes from others when I was nominated, since prior to being on the MC my primary criticism of the MC was lack of banhammer use. For some reason, it surprises people that I actually meant what I said and have since voted for a heavier hand on enforcement in many cases
Reason my avatar hasn't been changed since: Because I have other things to do and no particular reason to change it
Reason I reference the banhammer: It's easy for people to understand what I'm talking about
Number of people who I have issued warnings or bans to unilaterally: 0
Number of threads I report: Pretty few. I did not report this thread initially and probably wouldn't have read it unless it had gotten reported
Enjoyment I get out of banning people: 0
Click to expand...
 
Cooter said:
Also observable to everyone who frequents the board. It’s no shock that the mod who seems to revel in the ability to ban, is seemingly the least able to differentiate between personal preference and forum rules.
Click to expand...
That is one opinion...anyone who doesn't like the moderation in any board is free to frequent other forums .
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Like many child allergies, there is strong evidence that failure to expose infants to bovine milk results in the proteins contained within the milk being recognized as foreign later in life.

We get so protective of children that they don't get exposed to things before their immune system 'closes' and pet dander, milk protein, maybe nuts - are all recognized as foreign later in life and the body reacts to them, is the theory.
Click to expand...

Laurie and I tend to agree and have exposed our kids to typical allergens. That said they only got human milk until... I forget what age. I think exclusive for the first... 6 months? I wasn't the milk source so I don't remember as well as my wife. Then we started adding in other items. But they've always been around pet dander, we exposed them to peanuts, all those things we aren't allergic to and would hope they aren't, but many seem to be developing allergies to these days. Thus far, no allergies.

SCCutler said:
Exhibit A for the "why I love Ted" case.
Click to expand...

Aww shucks. Thanks, Spike. :)
 
I think y’all should give me the ban hammer for a day....

tenor.gif


Everybody gets a ban!
 
Last edited:
Stingray Don said:
I think y’all should give me the ban hammer for a day....

tenor.gif
Click to expand...

Despite the (frequent) accusations, we don't actually do that and we do follow what the RoC outlines. Of course the RoC doesn't list item for item every thing that you can or cannot get a warning for, it's a general outline.

The part I continue to laugh at is that if we did, the people who make those accusations would have been banned long ago, but that never occurs to the folks making the accusations.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Like many child allergies, there is strong evidence that failure to expose infants to bovine milk results in the proteins contained within the milk being recognized as foreign later in life.

We get so protective of children that they don't get exposed to things before their immune system 'closes' and pet dander, milk protein, maybe nuts - are all recognized as foreign later in life and the body reacts to them, is the theory.
Click to expand...


"exposing" and feeding are not the same thing. Cows milk is a poor substitute for human milk. Also, the milk issue is not just immunological. Mammals are not designed to process milk past their weaning and most humans fall into that as well. Most of us simply shed the enzymes to process it. There isn't really anything particularly good about milk. It's a sugary drink with some good stuff in it and some bad.

The point i was trying to make is, while some babies may tolerate it just fine, it's not really a good substitute for mother's milk and moreover, i would not want to try it first time on an airplane.
 
That baby could not have been older than a couple of weeks. He "rooted" and latched on to a breast even though the mom had been bottle feeding him. Any older he would have rejected the breast.

Infants that young are at high risk of dehydration. He may have accepted water in a bottle but it wouldn't have satisfied him for long although it would have kept him from being dehydrated. Letting a baby that size scream in hunger is absolute torture for everyone in earshot. They absolutely did the right thing. I've done it.
 
genna said:
The point i was trying to make is, while some babies may tolerate it just fine, it's not really a good substitute for mother's milk and moreover, i would not want to try it first time on an airplane.
Click to expand...

Trying some moo-moo juice on a plane for the first time vs. trying mother's milk (from not your mother) on a plane?

Pick your poison, as the saying goes.

And I did previously state I have zero children, and was not breast fed as a child.
 
Ravioli said:
Trying some moo-moo juice on a plane for the first time vs. trying mother's milk (from not your mother) on a plane?

Pick your poison, as the saying goes.

And I did previously state I have zero children, and was not breast fed as a child.
Click to expand...

In a way, you are right. You are taking some chances no matter what. I'm not sure that I(or my wife) would be comfortable with having my kid trying some lady's milk.

However, this isn't a completely random woman. I suspect that in those parts of the world being a FA is a pretty swanky job with a certain level of trust. Setting aside a very minuscule possibility of disease, there is very little difference between different women's milk. Meaning, there is not a lot of likelihood for some adverse reaction. That likelihood is considerably higher for first time trying cows milk. i.e. you can turn that crying baby into crying, puking, and pooping baby that is rapidly dehydrating. That just went from a noise to a full emergency.

We just had a baby and my wife and i went through a lot of learning on the subject.

EDIT: There is actually a bit of a benefit in doing this as the baby will get the other women's unique antibodies in the milk.
 
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack said:
That is one opinion...anyone who doesn't like the moderation in any board is free to frequent other forums .
Click to expand...

And we do. I get here less and less.

Understand that I am also a board owner - not just a moderator. I have banned exactly one person and that was for committing identity fraud, impersonating a dead veteran to gain access. Community builds itself and inclusiveness must mean those you don't like too.
 
Cooter said:
Also observable to everyone who frequents the board. It’s no shock that the mod who seems to revel in the ability to ban, is seemingly the least able to differentiate between personal preference and forum rules.
Click to expand...
Lmao. Why does everyone assume some nefarious plot? Further what is up with the current environment where people complain about the TOS and enforcement of the TOS on the very platform they are complaining about?

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
tspear said:
Lmao. Why does everyone assume some nefarious plot? Further what is up with the current environment where people complain about the TOS and enforcement of the TOS on the very platform they are complaining about?

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Ironic that you “Lmao” as you make an assumption about what others are assuming.

No nefarious plot assumed here. Only going by what’s been posted.
Ted DuPuis said:
As a father to 3 kids who were breast fed I can say that the lewd comments above by a few of you disgust me. Despite belief by some who are asking to get warnings with points,
Click to expand...
He responds as a disgusted father. In the next sentence he gives a points warning. If the comments were lewd, they should’ve been deleted and warnings given. If they were offensive to him because he has a sentimental attachment to breastfeeding, he should have left the points warning out and challenged the posts as a contributer. It’s not that complicated. All the stuff about not being paid to moderate is beside the point. Not one here suggested there’s a financial interest driving the moderation.
 
@Cooter

This is not the first time you have pounced on Ted. Generally he does a good job separating personal opinions from the TOS. However, I suspect he is a human (well, maybe not he is from KS), and therefore likely to make mistakes. In this case, his mistake was not separating his personal indignation from his moderator hat. Ideally, he should have done it as two separate posts and been a little more obvious about it.

Otherwise, if Ted really did abuse his position, I would expect that the MC would yank him up short; and if the MC did not the community would die fairly fast. Since neither appears to have happened. :shrug: I think a lot of this is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Tim
 
tspear said:
@Cooter
Ideally, he should have done it as two separate posts and been a little more obvious about it.

Tim
Click to expand...


Ideally, Ted would recognize his personal indignation as disqualifying and ask another mod to review the thread and take any necessary action.

But this isn’t an ideal world, neither Ted nor you nor I nor anyone else here is an ideal person, and we need to have enough respect and tolerance for each other to let these things remain little molehills sometimes.
 
tspear said:
@Cooter

This is not the first time you have pounced on Ted. Generally he does a good job separating personal opinions from the TOS. However, I suspect he is a human (well, maybe not he is from KS), and therefore likely to make mistakes. In this case, his mistake was not separating his personal indignation from his moderator hat. Ideally, he should have done it as two separate posts and been a little more obvious about it.

Otherwise, if Ted really did abuse his position, I would expect that the MC would yank him up short; and if the MC did not the community would die fairly fast. Since neither appears to have happened. :shrug: I think a lot of this is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Tim
Click to expand...
It was dropped as far as I’m concerned.

If I’ve addressed Ted’s moderation on the forum before, I don’t recall it. I’ve only had one disagreement w/a moderator in the past, but I won’t mention HER name.;)

I don’t really care that much one way or another but mentioning it isn’t making a mountain out of it. I simply pointed out in my first post that the two seem to have gotten confused. It’s the denial that made an issue out of it. A simple admission would have settled it.

I agree with the rest of your post.
 
Half Fast said:
It might have, but if so his statement about warnings and points should have been left for the other mod to make.
Click to expand...
Neither Ted nor anyone else can issue official warnings or give points unilaterally, however, we can warn people publicly in the thread if we think it is warranted. This is usually done to educate others about posts that cross the line, or threads that are going that way. It’s no secret that we are trying to clean up the locker room atmosphere that sometimes crops up here. Frankly, it’s no surprise to me that a thread about breastfeeding would turn sexual.
 
Everskyward said:
Frankly, it’s no surprise to me that a thread about breastfeeding would turn sexual.
Click to expand...
Well, it is a pilot forum after all. No one should have been surprised.
I must have missed a post that got deleted, I only saw a drool icon. Most people here would consider me a prude and I wasn’t offended.
 
Cooter said:
Well, it is a pilot forum after all. No one should have been surprised.
Click to expand...
Right. Pilots are all kids who still act like they are still 15. Not so much. It’s fine if the tribe you’re with all buy into that, but the MC does not want to cater to that tribe exclusively. If you are unhappy with the philosophy, there are other places .
 
Cooter said:
I must have missed a post that got deleted, I only saw a drool icon. Most people here would consider me a prude and I wasn’t offended.
Click to expand...
A number of inappropriate posts were deleted, which is why you don’t see them.
 
Cooter said:
I don’t believe that at all.
Click to expand...
You cut the part just before where she said "Not so much". IOW, she agrees with you.
Cooter said:
Everybody keeps saying that.......I wonder why?:confused2:
Click to expand...
Maybe because ....it's true? ;)

No one is suggesting that anyone leave- the moderators are attempting to set a tone in this particular community which people may live with, or not as they choose.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Like many child allergies, there is strong evidence that failure to expose infants to bovine milk results in the proteins contained within the milk being recognized as foreign later in life.

We get so protective of children that they don't get exposed to things before their immune system 'closes' and pet dander, milk protein, maybe nuts - are all recognized as foreign later in life and the body reacts to them, is the theory.
Click to expand...

The FA was happy to supply and and the mother was happy to accept. The rest of it is entirely none of yours nor mine nor anyone else’s business.

Your concern for parents being overprotective of their own children’s upbringing is duly noted. However that would belong in another thread. This thread is about feeding a hungry baby.

Now I feel like a tall glass of milk.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Like many child allergies, there is strong evidence that failure to expose infants to bovine milk results in the proteins contained within the milk being recognized as foreign later in life.

We get so protective of children that they don't get exposed to things before their immune system 'closes' and pet dander, milk protein, maybe nuts - are all recognized as foreign later in life and the body reacts to them, is the theory.
Click to expand...

As my grandmother used to say all kids need to eat their pound of dirt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top