Daniel65 wrote on 2/6/23 9:05 pm:
> Newyana2 wrote on 2/6/23 2:35 am:
>
> <Snip>
>
>> Someone in the organization has apparently decided that text-based
>> email is just plain, like, very bad evil. Like, worse than, like,
>> stale Twinkies or warm Pepsi.
>
> Your last word prompts me to ask ....
>
> It would seem, to me at least, that Pepsi is the little brother to
> Coca-Cola, at least here in Australia.
>
> In the home of both companies, the U.S. of A., is Pepsi-Cola the
> preferred Cola company over Coca-Cola??

Thanks, guys, for your responses. So it would seem that Coca-Cola might
be marginally more popular than Pepsi!

As I was reading the replies, I recalled seeing, in some U.S, T.V.
program a while ago, a soft drink can with 'Royal C' (on the partially
obscured can), which I wondered if it might have been 'Royal Crown Cola'
which was another Cola Brand we used to have here-abouts!!
--
Daniel

On 6/3/2023 5:24 AM, Daniel65 wrote:
> Daniel65 wrote on 2/6/23 9:05 pm:
>> Newyana2 wrote on 2/6/23 2:35 am:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>> Someone in the organization has apparently decided that text-based email is just plain, like, very bad evil. Like, worse than, like,
>>> stale Twinkies or warm Pepsi.
>>
>> Your last word prompts me to ask ....
>>
>> It would seem, to me at least, that Pepsi is the little brother to Coca-Cola, at least here in Australia.
>>
>> In the home of both companies, the U.S. of A., is Pepsi-Cola the preferred Cola company over Coca-Cola??
>
> Thanks, guys, for your responses. So it would seem that Coca-Cola might be marginally more popular than Pepsi!
>
> As I was reading the replies, I recalled seeing, in some U.S, T.V. program a while ago, a soft drink can with 'Royal C' (on the partially obscured can), which I wondered if it might have been 'Royal Crown Cola' which was another Cola Brand we used to have here-abouts!!

Coca Cola is mildly psychologically addictive.

I've run into two people who can't stop drinking it.
And they're in denial -- if you confront them, they'll
tell you they're doing great and there is "no problem".
One of them has gained weight from drinking it. They
know they've gained weight, and there is "no problem".

https://wexnermedical.osu.edu/blog/addicted-to-soda

Any soda might work to do that, but Coke has stronger
cues than most. Jolt Cola, really gets the job done
(can turn people into nervous wrecks).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolt_Cola

Someone noticed the mild effect, and turned up the
cues, just a bit more. The formulation in that case,
is not just a happy accident.

And even diet soda is not good for you.

Paul

"Spalls Hurgenson" <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote

| And that doesn't even get into the question of what to call the damn
| stuff: pop, cola, coke, pepsi, soda, fizzy-tooth-rotter, whatever.
| Depending on what you ask for and where can get you different things.
| USA is a weird place.
|

I've seen different variations on word maps
showing that soda, pop, and soda pop are the 3
main usages. Coke is also common. And in parts
of the Northeast it's tonic, presumably a carryover
from the days before the AMA kidnapped medicine.

Another interesting one is "pecan". Every variation
of pronunciation is common: PEE-can, pe-CAN,
PEE-cahn and pe-CAHN.

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote

| Any soda might work to do that, but Coke has stronger
| cues than most. Jolt Cola, really gets the job done
| (can turn people into nervous wrecks).
| | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolt_Cola
| | Someone noticed the mild effect, and turned up the
| cues, just a bit more. The formulation in that case,
| is not just a happy accident.
| | And even diet soda is not good for you.
| Sugar and caffeine. Though Coke still also uses
"spent" coca leaf, with the cocaine allegedly removed.
What do they get from that? I don't know.

The big one in the US now for hyper-caffeine seems to
be Red Bull, but there's developed an entire new category
of "energy" drinks, containing caffeine, sugar and trace
vitamins and amino acids, to perpetrate an esotreric
mythology of sophisticated nutrition. The general public
have become convinced that "energy" is a food group.

I'm struck by how manic our culture has become when
I watch movie previews, action movies, TV commercials, etc.
It's even more notable with the sound off. The frames come
so fast that there's no actual "moment" in the video when
something is occurring. It's more like a manic slideshow of
disparate images meant to evoke assoications.

"Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote

| As I was reading the replies, I recalled seeing, in some U.S, T.V.
| program a while ago, a soft drink can with 'Royal C' (on the partially
| obscured can), which I wondered if it might have been 'Royal Crown Cola'
| which was another Cola Brand we used to have here-abouts!!

An early cola drink in the US. I remember it as
a child, but I don't remember it ever being popular.
Maybe it was in some parts of the country. We used
to have two very popular brands. Canada Dry was for
when you wanted to splurge, and could afford it.
American Dry was the cheapo brand. They made all
the popular drinks in generic versions. 20 cans for $1.
I don't think I had Coca Cola until I'd got a paper
route, had my own income, and could splurge on
luxury. :)

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 08:38:12 -0400
"Newyana2" <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> "Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>
> | As I was reading the replies, I recalled seeing, in some U.S, T.V.
> | program a while ago, a soft drink can with 'Royal C' (on the
> partially | obscured can), which I wondered if it might have been
> 'Royal Crown Cola' | which was another Cola Brand we used to have
> here-abouts!!
>
> An early cola drink in the US. I remember it as
> a child, but I don't remember it ever being popular.
> Maybe it was in some parts of the country. We used
> to have two very popular brands. Canada Dry was for
> when you wanted to splurge, and could afford it.
> American Dry was the cheapo brand. They made all
> the popular drinks in generic versions. 20 cans for $1.
> I don't think I had Coca Cola until I'd got a paper
> route, had my own income, and could splurge on
> luxury. :)
>
>

You never had a RC Cola and a Moon Pie? Both were very popular in the
South where I grew up.

I still drink RC and Pepsi.

In message <u5c01m$33ki7$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 1 Jun 2023 22:51:48,
David E. Ross <nobody@nowhere.invalid> writes
[]
>My latest study comparing plain-text E-mail messages versus
>HTML-formatted messages was in September 2021. I found that the average
>bloat factor for HTML-formatted messages was 15.5 times the size of the

That sounds about right for an average. For very short ones, it's
probably much higher, or can be. (Though your report suggests size and
bloat aren't correlated.)

>equivalent plain-text content. I also found that HTML-formatted
>messages contain an average of 10.0 HTML syntax errors per KB of HTML
>markup.

Ah, I haven't looked into that.
>
>Bloat can be important if you are a business that is required by law to
>archive all communications. If the message was broadcast to a large
>audience (e.g., a newsletter), bloat also contributes to Internet
>congestion.

Good points both. But unlikely to influence anyone )-:. [In a world
where all audio files are 44100 hertz stereo, regardless whether they
originate from a 78 say.]
>
>HTML errors in a message might mean that the entire message can be
>clearly and easily read only if the recipient uses the same kind of
>E-mail client as did the sender. It might even require that the
>recipient use the same version of the same brand of client as the sender.

Yes, and that is dangerous. Those within many (most?) organisations also
have no choice: probably to most of them it makes no difference or is
even convenient, as the IT department looks after everything for them,
but for those with any technical awareness, it's frustrating to say the
least.

(Though not quite the same thing, I had one boss who _ordered_ me to
top-post in emails. I did - but only ones to him! No-one else
complained.)
>
>The complete study report -- including methodology -- is at
><http://www.rossde.com/internet/ASCIIvsHTML.html>.
>
I decided to look at it; a very well-produced report. (My only
suggestion would be that the "History" section would be easier to digest
as a table - columns date, bloat, errors, and comments.)

Unfortunately, it will never reach anyone who might actually care. I
presume you just did it out of personal curiosity (and feeling of
resentment, mainly about the bloat*).

* What _sort_ of HTML errors? When looking at machine-generated HTML,
I've generally had to grudgingly concede that it seemed correct in terms
of matching tags, though including vastly too many of them (nested DIV
and TABLE especially, but also turning things off and then back on again
immediately), and closing P tags which I thought wasn't a requirement.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'. Professor Edzart Ernst, prudential
magazine, AUTUMN 2006, p. 13.

"Newyana2" <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote in
news:u5ahbv$6d2t$1@paganini.bofh.team:

> Not
> having an optional menu bar -- having to use the little
> 3-dot thing on the far right -- is a design that could only
> make sense to people who no longer use computers to go
> online, using tiny cellphone screens only.

I'd reckon anyone that has a smart phone is aware of the 3 dot thing.

In fact, I've been developing a Windows dekstop program/utility that batch-runs a
number of wireless link tests, and there is no menu bar, because it doesn't need one.
However, I thought it would be good to offer some settings for the utility, and was
considering using the 3 dots thing, in the upper right'ish corner of the main (and at this
time, only) form, to open said 'Options' form.

I stil haven't floated the idea to anyone else...

In message <u5cid3$35itu$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 2 Jun 2023 21:05:04,
Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> writes
>Newyana2 wrote on 2/6/23 2:35 am:
>
><Snip>
>
>> Someone in the organization has apparently decided that text-based
>>email is just plain, like, very bad evil. Like, worse than, like,
>> stale Twinkies or warm Pepsi.
>
>Your last word prompts me to ask ....
>
>It would seem, to me at least, that Pepsi is the little brother to
>Coca-Cola, at least here in Australia.
>
>In the home of both companies, the U.S. of A., is Pepsi-Cola the
>preferred Cola company over Coca-Cola??

There have in the past been "Pepsi presidents" and "Coca-Cola
presidents", determining which vending machines/dispensers they allowed
in the White House. Whether this is still the case, I have no idea. (I
also don't know if there's any correlation with political party.)

Growing up in Germany about 1966-'71, I was also aware of "Afri-Cola" (I
can't remember which of Coke and Pepsi were available - might be both);
this had a palm-tree on the bottle. I think it _may_ have been a
hangover from a brand developed in wartime when obviously the main two
weren't available in Germany (the logo being designed to imply
connection with the Afrika Korps) - or this may be entirely spurious.

In UK, pubs etc. tend to be one or the other, not both, and when asking
for a Coke I've sometimes been asked "it's Pepsi, is that all right?";
presumably as a result of legal cases in the past. (I now tend to just
ask for a cola, if I want one. [And I mostly go for diet, now I'm
diabetic.])
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'. Professor Edzart Ernst, prudential
magazine, AUTUMN 2006, p. 13.

In message <XnsB0186264D51EAthisnthatroadrunnern@69.80.101.20> at Sat, 3
Jun 2023 13:40:21, DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m>
writes
>"Newyana2" <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote in
>news:u5ahbv$6d2t$1@paganini.bofh.team:
>
>> Not
>> having an optional menu bar -- having to use the little
>> 3-dot thing on the far right -- is a design that could only
>> make sense to people who no longer use computers to go
>> online, using tiny cellphone screens only.
>
>I'd reckon anyone that has a smart phone is aware of the 3 dot thing.
>
>In fact, I've been developing a Windows dekstop program/utility that
>batch-runs a
>number of wireless link tests, and there is no menu bar, because it
>doesn't need one.
>However, I thought it would be good to offer some settings for the
>utility, and was
>considering using the 3 dots thing, in the upper right'ish corner of
>the main (and at this
>time, only) form, to open said 'Options' form.

Can anyone say what the three dots (or, earlier, three lines, sometimes
referred to as "hamburger") is supposed to _represent_? The cogwheel
some use at least suggests machinery - the spanner (wrench in USA)
better for something involved with adjusting things. But three
dots/lines? (It's not even a diaeresis - those are horizontal.)

Most logos/symbols have _some_ origin, though it may be unknown to many.
(I know what the pause symbol represents, for example, but I suspect
many younger folk don't.)
>
>I stil haven't floated the idea to anyone else...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[Did you know your post had that many lines at its end? (-:]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

After all is said and done, usually more is said.

On 6/3/2023 6:30 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote [in part]:
> What _sort_ of HTML errors? When looking at machine-generated HTML,
> I've generally had to grudgingly concede that it seemed correct in terms
> of matching tags, though including vastly too many of them (nested DIV
> and TABLE especially, but also turning things off and then back on again
> immediately), and closing P tags which I thought wasn't a requirement.

I use the World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C's) Web-based test tool. I do
not look at what errors are found, only at the count of errors (not
warnings).

--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Ron DeSantis: Anti-gay, anti-African American, anti-women,
anti-science, anti-education.

On 6/3/2023 9:37 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> In UK, pubs etc. tend to be one or the other, not both, and when asking for a Coke I've sometimes been asked "it's Pepsi, is that all right?"; presumably as a result of legal cases in the past. (I now tend to just ask for a cola, if I want one. [And I mostly go for diet, now I'm diabetic.])

Restaurants never stock both.

Coke and Pepsi insist on exclusive deals with
their restaurant customers.

So if you go to a restaurant and say

"A Coke for me and a Pepsi for my date, my good man"

The server always has to reply

"That'll be two Cokes then"

or

"That'll be two Pepsis then"

Restaurants normally use syrup and a soda dispenser
and that's where the exclusive dealing comes in.
This might be referred to as a "fountain beverage".
The fountain machine, could not have a cylinder of
Coke syrup next to a cylinder of Pepsi syrup.

There is one country, where rum is cheaper than Coke,
and if you ask for a rum and Coke at the bar, the
glass is mostly rum, and there is only a little bit
of Coke in it :-) There aren't too many other countries
where that happens.

Paul

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 16:09:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>In message <2f4h7idf37cnom0g3umhsggevh2uk14l9h@4ax.com> at Thu, 1 Jun
>2023 08:43:50, gfretwell@aol.com writes
>>On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 03:18:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I'm a bit wary of just clearing general cookies, as they tend to store
>>>settings for sites, and I'm not sure how to differentiate. DOM, agreed.
>>>>
>>
>>I have my browser set to delete all cookies on close and I deal with
>>the problems with exceptions. The biggest problem I see is "stay
>>logged in" doesn't work if you lose the cookie. For most places that
>>is not an issue. I think I have about a half dozen exceptions.
>
>OK, that's an approach. I agree, I wouldn't mind not "staying logged in"
>between sessions. But generating the exceptions sounds like a faff -
>especially as you (or at least I!) probably wouldn't realise they needed
>to be excepted until after having lost whatever they were keeping. How
>do you decide an exception needs creating?

I only allow them to keep a cookie if the site won't work without it.
Usually as long as it is open during that particular session, the site
works. I do get that nag screen about whether I want a cookie at all
but that is just a click. I am also careful of not just using tabs and
leaving the browser open since the cookies are still resident and
available to whatever other site I have open.
Facebook is one of the sites that seem to scan your cookies. You see
it in the ads that show up in the feed. Amazon seems to do it too.

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 08:38:12 -0400, "Newyana2"
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>
>| As I was reading the replies, I recalled seeing, in some U.S, T.V.
>| program a while ago, a soft drink can with 'Royal C' (on the partially
>| obscured can), which I wondered if it might have been 'Royal Crown Cola'
>| which was another Cola Brand we used to have here-abouts!!
>
> An early cola drink in the US. I remember it as
>a child, but I don't remember it ever being popular.
>Maybe it was in some parts of the country.

It's usually called RC Cola these days. I think it's still available
almost everywhere in the US.

I haven't tasted it in years, but I remember thinking it was greatly
inferior to both Coke and Pepsi. Would I still feel the same way about
it? I don't know.

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 08:12:19 -0400, "Newyana2"
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"Spalls Hurgenson" <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote
>
>| And that doesn't even get into the question of what to call the damn
>| stuff: pop, cola, coke, pepsi, soda, fizzy-tooth-rotter, whatever.
>| Depending on what you ask for and where can get you different things.
>| USA is a weird place.
>|
>
> I've seen different variations on word maps
>showing that soda, pop, and soda pop are the 3
>main usages. Coke is also common. And in parts
>of the Northeast it's tonic, presumably a carryover
>from the days before the AMA kidnapped medicine.

All of those terms (even "coke") refer to carbonated soft drinks in
general, not just cola drinks.

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 10:26:19 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 21:05:04 +1000, Daniel65
><daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>Newyana2 wrote on 2/6/23 2:35 am:
>>
>><Snip>
>>
>>> Someone in the organization has apparently decided that text-based
>>> email is just plain, like, very bad evil. Like, worse than, like,
>>> stale Twinkies or warm Pepsi.
>>
>>Your last word prompts me to ask ....
>>
>>It would seem, to me at least, that Pepsi is the little brother to
>>Coca-Cola, at least here in Australia.
>>
>>In the home of both companies, the U.S. of A., is Pepsi-Cola the
>>preferred Cola company over Coca-Cola??
>
>The USA is a big country, and customs vary depending what part of the
>country you are talking about. Pepsi was originally launched as the
>cheaper alternative to Coca Cola, and that legacy lingers to some
>degree; it is often seen as the off-brand alternative to Coca Cola.
>But in parts of the country - the South, parts of the mid-West - it is
>the more popular and common brand.
>
>(IIRC, PepsiCo also has a bigger repitoire of brands under its
>umbrella than does Coke, and is a larger company overall. But Coca
>Cola (the soda) is served/purchased more than Pepsi in the US.)
>
>And that doesn't even get into the question of what to call the damn
>stuff: pop, cola, coke, pepsi, soda, fizzy-tooth-rotter, whatever.
>Depending on what you ask for and where can get you different things.
>USA is a weird place.
>
Around Georgia all soft drinks are "Coke".
"What kind of Coke would you like? We have ginger ale, NeHi, 7-Up and
Dr Pepper".

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 06:43:29 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>On 6/3/2023 5:24 AM, Daniel65 wrote:
>> Daniel65 wrote on 2/6/23 9:05 pm:
>>> Newyana2 wrote on 2/6/23 2:35 am:
>>>
>>> <Snip>
>>>
>>>> Someone in the organization has apparently decided that text-based email is just plain, like, very bad evil. Like, worse than, like,
>>>> stale Twinkies or warm Pepsi.
>>>
>>> Your last word prompts me to ask ....
>>>
>>> It would seem, to me at least, that Pepsi is the little brother to Coca-Cola, at least here in Australia.
>>>
>>> In the home of both companies, the U.S. of A., is Pepsi-Cola the preferred Cola company over Coca-Cola??
>>
>> Thanks, guys, for your responses. So it would seem that Coca-Cola might be marginally more popular than Pepsi!
>>
>> As I was reading the replies, I recalled seeing, in some U.S, T.V. program a while ago, a soft drink can with 'Royal C' (on the partially obscured can), which I wondered if it might have been 'Royal Crown Cola' which was another Cola Brand we used to have here-abouts!!
>
>Coca Cola is mildly psychologically addictive.
>
>I've run into two people who can't stop drinking it.
>And they're in denial -- if you confront them, they'll
>tell you they're doing great and there is "no problem".
>One of them has gained weight from drinking it. They
>know they've gained weight, and there is "no problem".
>
>https://wexnermedical.osu.edu/blog/addicted-to-soda
>
>Any soda might work to do that, but Coke has stronger
>cues than most. Jolt Cola, really gets the job done
>(can turn people into nervous wrecks).
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolt_Cola
>
>Someone noticed the mild effect, and turned up the
>cues, just a bit more. The formulation in that case,
>is not just a happy accident.
>
>And even diet soda is not good for you.
>
> Paul

Diet is usually considered worse depending on what chemical they add
to make it sweet.
I just drink iced tea with about 10% of the sugar that is in a Coke.
It is probably better for me and a whole lot cheaper. A quarter's
worth of tea will make a gallon.

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 14:30:14 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>(Though not quite the same thing, I had one boss who _ordered_ me to
>top-post in emails. I did - but only ones to him! No-one else
>complained.)

I retired before e-mailing within a company became common, so I'm not
sure, but I suspect that top-posting is a requirement in most
companies these days.

I've never understood the appeal of top-posting, but that's the way
almost all of my friends and relatives post. I suspect they do so
because the e-mail clients they use make it very difficult to not
top-post, so everyone thinks it's the normal way. So I blame
Microsoft (and Apple? I'm not sure) for the popularity of top-posting.

I've only once gotten a complaint about my not top-posting, in a
Google group I belonged to. The person who complained said she thought
top-posting should be made a standard in the group. I replied "make it
a standard, and I'll leave the group." That was the last I heard of
her opinion.

The standard justification that many people give for top-posting is
that they don't want to have to scroll down to see what was posted. To
me that's nonsense. My reply is that I don't want to have to scroll
down to see what the message is about, then scroll back up to see the
reply.

The real problem with a lot of bottom posting is that many
bottom-posters don't adequately trim what they're replying to, so it's
necessary to scroll much farther down than it should be.

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 15:12:48 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>In message <XnsB0186264D51EAthisnthatroadrunnern@69.80.101.20> at Sat, 3
>Jun 2023 13:40:21, DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m>
>writes
>>"Newyana2" <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote in
>>news:u5ahbv$6d2t$1@paganini.bofh.team:
>>
>>> Not
>>> having an optional menu bar -- having to use the little
>>> 3-dot thing on the far right -- is a design that could only
>>> make sense to people who no longer use computers to go
>>> online, using tiny cellphone screens only.
>>
>>I'd reckon anyone that has a smart phone is aware of the 3 dot thing.
>>
>>In fact, I've been developing a Windows dekstop program/utility that
>>batch-runs a
>>number of wireless link tests, and there is no menu bar, because it
>>doesn't need one.
>>However, I thought it would be good to offer some settings for the
>>utility, and was
>>considering using the 3 dots thing, in the upper right'ish corner of
>>the main (and at this
>>time, only) form, to open said 'Options' form.
>
>Can anyone say what the three dots (or, earlier, three lines, sometimes
>referred to as "hamburger") is supposed to _represent_?

To me, "hamburger, still refers to three horizontal lines (top one
bread, middle one meat, bottom one bread), not three dots.

>The cogwheel
>some use at least suggests machinery - the spanner (wrench in USA)
>better for something involved with adjusting things. But three
>dots/lines? (It's not even a diaeresis - those are horizontal.)

Ellipsis?

>Most logos/symbols have _some_ origin, though it may be unknown to many.
>(I know what the pause symbol represents, for example, but I suspect
>many younger folk don't.)
>>
>>I stil haven't floated the idea to anyone else...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>[Did you know your post had that many lines at its end? (-:]

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 08:31:32 -0400, "Newyana2"
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> I'm struck by how manic our culture has become when
>I watch movie previews, action movies, TV commercials, etc.
>It's even more notable with the sound off. The frames come
>so fast that there's no actual "moment" in the video when
>something is occurring. It's more like a manic slideshow of
>disparate images meant to evoke assoications.
>

I have been a "recorder" guy since my SL7200 Betamax in 1975. I have
noticed most commercials have fast forward in their design. Even going
as fast as it can go, their message still gets through and they know
you are staring at the screen to see when the commercials end. My TiVo
has a 30 second skip option but the Replay TV was best. It skipped
commercials automatically. The powers that be sued them out of
existence.

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 08:38:12 -0400, "Newyana2"
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>
>| As I was reading the replies, I recalled seeing, in some U.S, T.V.
>| program a while ago, a soft drink can with 'Royal C' (on the partially
>| obscured can), which I wondered if it might have been 'Royal Crown Cola'
>| which was another Cola Brand we used to have here-abouts!!
>
> An early cola drink in the US. I remember it as
>a child, but I don't remember it ever being popular.
>Maybe it was in some parts of the country. We used
>to have two very popular brands. Canada Dry was for
>when you wanted to splurge, and could afford it.
>American Dry was the cheapo brand. They made all
>the popular drinks in generic versions. 20 cans for $1.
>I don't think I had Coca Cola until I'd got a paper
>route, had my own income, and could splurge on
>luxury. :)
>

RoC Cola and a Moon Pie. Southern thing and a strike back at Coco Cola
who was the "Disney" of Atlanta.

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 10:52:40 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>On 6/3/2023 9:37 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
>> In UK, pubs etc. tend to be one or the other, not both, and when asking for a Coke I've sometimes been asked "it's Pepsi, is that all right?"; presumably as a result of legal cases in the past. (I now tend to just ask for a cola, if I want one. [And I mostly go for diet, now I'm diabetic.])
>
>Restaurants never stock both.
>
>Coke and Pepsi insist on exclusive deals with
>their restaurant customers.
>
>So if you go to a restaurant and say
>
> "A Coke for me and a Pepsi for my date, my good man"
>
>The server always has to reply
>
> "That'll be two Cokes then"
>
> or
>
> "That'll be two Pepsis then"
>
>Restaurants normally use syrup and a soda dispenser
>and that's where the exclusive dealing comes in.
>This might be referred to as a "fountain beverage".
>The fountain machine, could not have a cylinder of
>Coke syrup next to a cylinder of Pepsi syrup.
>
>There is one country, where rum is cheaper than Coke,
>and if you ask for a rum and Coke at the bar, the
>glass is mostly rum, and there is only a little bit
>of Coke in it :-) There aren't too many other countries
>where that happens.
>
> Paul

That was certainly true in Jamaica in the 60s when I was there. I
thought my drinks were expensive at a "pound" ($2.40 at the time) each
until someone told me I could get a Planter's Punch (Rum and fruit
juice) for a quarter. The times I have been in the islands since I
know better.

On Sat, 03 Jun 2023 12:01:19 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 06:43:29 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 6/3/2023 5:24 AM, Daniel65 wrote:
>>> Daniel65 wrote on 2/6/23 9:05 pm:
>>>> Newyana2 wrote on 2/6/23 2:35 am:
>>>>
>>>> <Snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Someone in the organization has apparently decided that text-based email is just plain, like, very bad evil. Like, worse than, like,
>>>>> stale Twinkies or warm Pepsi.
>>>>
>>>> Your last word prompts me to ask ....
>>>>
>>>> It would seem, to me at least, that Pepsi is the little brother to Coca-Cola, at least here in Australia.
>>>>
>>>> In the home of both companies, the U.S. of A., is Pepsi-Cola the preferred Cola company over Coca-Cola??
>>>
>>> Thanks, guys, for your responses. So it would seem that Coca-Cola might be marginally more popular than Pepsi!
>>>
>>> As I was reading the replies, I recalled seeing, in some U.S, T.V. program a while ago, a soft drink can with 'Royal C' (on the partially obscured can), which I wondered if it might have been 'Royal Crown Cola' which was another Cola Brand we used to have here-abouts!!
>>
>>Coca Cola is mildly psychologically addictive.
>>
>>I've run into two people who can't stop drinking it.
>>And they're in denial -- if you confront them, they'll
>>tell you they're doing great and there is "no problem".
>>One of them has gained weight from drinking it. They
>>know they've gained weight, and there is "no problem".
>>
>>https://wexnermedical.osu.edu/blog/addicted-to-soda
>>
>>Any soda might work to do that, but Coke has stronger
>>cues than most. Jolt Cola, really gets the job done
>>(can turn people into nervous wrecks).
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolt_Cola
>>
>>Someone noticed the mild effect, and turned up the
>>cues, just a bit more. The formulation in that case,
>>is not just a happy accident.
>>
>>And even diet soda is not good for you.
>>
>> Paul
>
>Diet is usually considered worse depending on what chemical they add
>to make it sweet.
>I just drink iced tea with about 10% of the sugar that is in a Coke.

I just drink iced tea with no sugar. Put even a little sugar in it,
and I will hate it and not drink it.

>It is probably better for me and a whole lot cheaper. A quarter's
>worth of tea will make a gallon.

I've never thought about the cost and don't know what it is, but I
just make sun tea, with a giant tea bag.

[snip]

> Diet is usually considered worse depending on what chemical they add
> to make it sweet.

Yes.

I did like the "semi-diet" Coke C2. Then they stopped making that.

> I just drink iced tea with about 10% of the sugar that is in a Coke.

I prefer it unsweetened. I want it to taste like tea.

> It is probably better for me and a whole lot cheaper. A quarter's
> worth of tea will make a gallon.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Authority without wisdom is like a heavy axe without an edge, fitter to
bruise than polish."

On 6/3/23 07:38, Newyana2 wrote:
> "Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>
> | As I was reading the replies, I recalled seeing, in some U.S, T.V.
> | program a while ago, a soft drink can with 'Royal C' (on the partially
> | obscured can), which I wondered if it might have been 'Royal Crown Cola'
> | which was another Cola Brand we used to have here-abouts!!
>
> An early cola drink in the US. I remember it as
> a child, but I don't remember it ever being popular.
> Maybe it was in some parts of the country. We used
> to have two very popular brands. Canada Dry was for
> when you wanted to splurge, and could afford it.
> American Dry was the cheapo brand. They made all
> the popular drinks in generic versions. 20 cans for $1.
> I don't think I had Coca Cola until I'd got a paper
> route, had my own income, and could splurge on
> luxury. :)

I had Coca-Cola as a child. My grandfather drunk 7-Up instead. He said
that since it was clear it couldn't be bad for him.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Authority without wisdom is like a heavy axe without an edge, fitter to
bruise than polish."