> I still believe, much to the dismay of some, that schedules have their
>place in the world of multiples, but am finding it not to be the case at
>all with one baby.

Ooh, this fits the bathroom break analogy (scheduling major events, letting
minor events go with the flow) really well.  With your triplets, feedings
*were* a big deal, and *remained* a big deal, and scheduling simplified
life.  With your singleton, feedings became a small deal, and scheduling
would have been silly.  Pretty cool!  I suppose it could go either way with
twins, depending on temperaments of baby, baby, and mother.  But with most
triplet situations, I can see the need to add some sort of structure.

A part of what the scheduling authors play on is our confusion of "major"
with "important".  Feeding a baby (back to singletons here) is of course
important.  That doesn't mean it's a major event.  I figure we can go
without urinating about as long as a baby can go without food.  Eliminating
either activity is eventually fatal.  That makes both activities very
important.  But not major.

Diane Wiessinger, MS, IBCLC  Ithaca, NY
remembering Michael Woolridge (I think) reporting the puzzlement of women in
breastfeeding countries when asked how often they nursed.  How and why
should they know??

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html