Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #159250 > unrolled thread

History--customer service training film--party lines

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 10:13 -0800
    Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-13 13:29 -0600
      Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-13 17:09 -0400
        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 14:23 -0800
        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-02-14 15:50 -0500
          Re: History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 17:27 -0800
            Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-15 09:45 +0000
      Re: History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 14:20 -0800
        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> - 2016-02-13 14:33 -0800
    Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> - 2016-02-13 14:02 -0800
      Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> - 2016-02-13 14:28 -0800
        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 18:13 -0800
      Re: History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 14:29 -0800
        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-14 00:53 +0000
      Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-13 19:03 -0600
        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 21:30 -0500
        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-13 21:40 -0500
          Re: History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 19:30 -0800
            Re: History--customer service training film--party lines JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 22:33 -0600
              Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-14 00:24 -0500
                Re: History--customer service training film--party lines JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 12:57 -0600
            Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-14 00:05 -0500
              Re: History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 21:21 -0800
                Re: History--customer service training film--party lines "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 17:30 +1100
                  Re: History--customer service training film--party lines "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 02:33 -0500
                  Re: History--customer service training film--party lines JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 13:00 -0600
                    Re: History--customer service training film--party lines "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 07:28 +1100
                    Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-14 20:14 +0100
                      Re: History--customer service training film--party lines JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 16:33 -0600
                    Re: History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 17:23 -0800
                      Re: History--customer service training film--party lines mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-15 10:45 +0000
                        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-15 12:48 +0000
                        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 05:11 +1100
                      Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 18:52 -0700
                        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-18 11:37 -0600
                          Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-18 20:57 -0800
                            Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-18 21:11 -0800
                              Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-18 21:15 -0800
                            Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 01:04 -0600
                              Re: History--customer service training film--party lines "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:26 +1100
        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 18:39 -0800
          Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-13 22:15 -0600
          Re: History--customer service training film--party lines "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-02-14 07:32 -0500
            Re: History--customer service training film--party lines "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-14 07:13 -0600
            Re: History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 17:21 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#159372

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 00:24:21 -0500, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Feb 2016, JimP wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 19:30:30 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 9:35:36 PM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's that very process of junking that raises the current prices.
>>>>
>>>> If everything had been kept, then there'd probably be enough supply for
>>>> demand, and hence the price would be low.  Indeed, some of the demand is
>>>> likely due to rarity, an everyday item isn't as interesting for most
>>>> people.
>>>
>>> I don't know if this is a myth, but I heard that old comic books are
>>> rare and worth money because they were something people didn't
>>> bother to save.  In contrast, you can't even give away old National
>>> Geographics because they're so commonplace--people would always keep
>>> them*.
>>
>> Same with the Classic Comics. Cost was $1.25, when I checked about
>> 1980, they were worth less than that. My parents tossed out, 1980
>> prices, $700-800 worth of my comics. They figured I wouldn't want them
>> after Navy boot camp. I had Silver Surfer, Haunted Tank, Easy Company,
>> and Fantastic 4 number ones. And several issues after that. I think I
>> had some Spiderman Annuals to.
>>
>When I was buying comics, they were 15 and 25 cents each.  And I got rid 
>of my collection about the time I got rid of my Tom Swift Jr. books and my 
>Tom Corbett SPace Cadet books, selling them to a used book store for a 
>pittance.

We paid 10 cents, and later on 12 cents per issue of regular comics.
Annuals were expensive at 75 cents.  When they went to 25 centsfor
monthly issues  most of us stopped buying.

In 1980 I saw prices for a regular monthly issue at $1 or more. I
realize the artists, etc. were finally getting paid, but I couldn't
see paying that. Couldn't afford it either.

>It took me about 23 years before I saw another Tom Corbett book, a pair of 
>them in a used book store window, I rushed over the next day, paid five 
>dollars each for them.  And haven't seen any since.  Luckily those are at 
>Project Gutenberg, so I've read the whole series, about seven books, in 
>recent years.  I had a nearly complete set, but not all of them.

I'll look for that on Gutenberg. I saw 'Tom Corbet Space Cadet !' on
teevision. Cadet Happy looked like he was years older than the others.

>I've read some Tom Swift Jr. books since, they used to be common at used 
>book sales, but that tapered off.  I ended up buying about six last 
>summer, at 5.00 each, at one used book store.  A mix of some I'd never 
>read, and some I had once owned.

Tom Swift and his Betatron. his Spaceship, etc. Kinda like The Hardy
Boys but more science related stories.

>I'd love to have the comic books back, simply so I could relive that 
>period.  But I won't spend money to duplicate them, even if I could 
>remember details about issue numbers.  But I got nothing for them when I 
>got rid of them, so I'd have been so much better off keeping them.
>
>   Michael

Yeah, it would be nice, but my annual income to get one or two of them
isn't a option.

-- 
JimP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159324

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 9:35:36 PM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote:
>
>
>> It's that very process of junking that raises the current prices.
>>
>> If everything had been kept, then there'd probably be enough supply for
>> demand, and hence the price would be low.  Indeed, some of the demand is
>> likely due to rarity, an everyday item isn't as interesting for most
>> people.
>
> I don't know if this is a myth, but I heard that old comic books are
> rare and worth money because they were something people didn't
> bother to save.  In contrast, you can't even give away old National
> Geographics because they're so commonplace--people would always keep
> them*.
>
I'd say that's true.  Any used book sale used to have endless National 
Geographics here, now most won't take magazines.  It was different a few 
decades ago,  a wider variety of magazines would appear, Scientific 
American (the old style) and computer magazines and Popular Science and 
Mechanics.

The family collection goes back to the thirties, at least.

>
>
>> Early home computers were generally collectible all along, because they
>> never sold that many.  But once they became a more consumer thing, say
>> 1977, the numbers started going up.  Some Apple II's may carry a premium
>> price, but there were so many of them that generally they don't.  Too many
>> were sold (over a decent number of years) and lots were kept in the back
>> of the closet, probably the new cost too high for someone to scrap until
>> much later. It gets worse even later, since computers got fairly generic
>> as things moved on, and sold terribly well.
>
> FWIW, I recently discarded a lot of old computer junk, and no one was
> the least bit interested in even _seeing_ any of it, let alone in wanting
> it.
>
>
> * I had a bunch of old Geographics (the library was giving them away),
> but I found almost all the articles boring.  There were a few early
> technical articles, but they were more on cutesy color pictures of a
> closeup of a circuit card or spectrum diffraction, and text was more of
> a press release.  What is far more interesting to me are the old ads.
>
> For instance, back in the 1920s, a lead company extolled the value of
> lead as a useful additive to paint (which it indeed was), while today
> lead paint is blamed for a lot of problems.  In the 1940s, the company
> that made the ethyl lead additive for gasoline pushed its advantages.
> Various major corporations would take out dignified full page ads
> extolling their company's research or virtues.  In WW II, the ads
> pleaded with people _not_ to buy their products or use them sparingly.
>
> I suspect the Geographic's readership was in mostly affluent households,
> and ad space was costly.
>
>
I seem to recall the ads coming and going.  Nominally, you aren't 
subscribing to a magazine, but joining the National Geographic Society,
so profit wasn't a consideration.  As the ads increased in recent years, I 
thought there was a period when there were no ads, or very few ads.

On the other hand, since the copies still exist, one can get a feel for 
things by looking at the ads.  At least about taking a ship (or later Pan 
Am) to somewhere exotic, with your Zenith portable radio, and of course 
all those ads for military academies for the boys.  And all those classic 
Coca Cola ads.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159326

On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 12:00:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote:


> On the other hand, since the copies still exist, one can get a feel for 
> things by looking at the ads.  At least about taking a ship (or later Pan 
> Am) to somewhere exotic, with your Zenith portable radio, and of course 
> all those ads for military academies for the boys.  And all those classic 
> Coca Cola ads.

Yes, the steamship ads for international tourism travel were interesting.  
Also, the railroads and bus lines had nice ads.

I didn't like the military academy ads.  I knew a kid who went to one.
While he liked it, we visited him out there and life seemed like boot
camp.  Indeed, his younger brother went too, and they remained long time
friends with some of the teachers.

I stand corrected about one thing you mentioned.  I had a co-worker who
collected Coke stuff and I gave him the Coke ads from my copies.  As an
aside, Coke had a massive advertising campaign--there are zillions of old
print ads.  Indeed, the company was pretty shrewd, they enticed a huge
market of people to buy their flavored water.

obcomp:  An IBM woman VP wrote a memoir, and in it she talked about her
first post in Atlanta, HQ of Coke.  Everyone drank it there.

P.S.  One book on the company says the "secret formula" is nonsense.
Both Coke and Pepsi know full well all the formulas. I think I mentioned
I once did a simple taste test with friends between Coke and Pepsi, and
no one could tell the difference.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159330

<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message 
news:0af5db9e-d955-42be-bc59-b0e747d21103@googlegroups.com...
> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 12:00:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote:
>
>
>> On the other hand, since the copies still exist, one can get a feel for
>> things by looking at the ads.  At least about taking a ship (or later Pan
>> Am) to somewhere exotic, with your Zenith portable radio, and of course
>> all those ads for military academies for the boys.  And all those classic
>> Coca Cola ads.
>
> Yes, the steamship ads for international tourism travel were interesting.
> Also, the railroads and bus lines had nice ads.
>
> I didn't like the military academy ads.  I knew a kid who went to one.
> While he liked it, we visited him out there and life seemed like boot
> camp.  Indeed, his younger brother went too, and they remained long time
> friends with some of the teachers.
>
> I stand corrected about one thing you mentioned.  I had a co-worker who
> collected Coke stuff and I gave him the Coke ads from my copies.  As an
> aside, Coke had a massive advertising campaign--there are zillions of old
> print ads.  Indeed, the company was pretty shrewd, they enticed a huge
> market of people to buy their flavored water.
>
> obcomp:  An IBM woman VP wrote a memoir, and in it she talked about her
> first post in Atlanta, HQ of Coke.  Everyone drank it there.
>
> P.S.  One book on the company says the "secret formula" is nonsense.
> Both Coke and Pepsi know full well all the formulas. I think I mentioned
> I once did a simple taste test with friends between Coke and Pepsi, and
> no one could tell the difference.

I certainly could when I was a teenager. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159331

In article <dial85F6up4U1@mid.individual.net>, hgww@gmail.com says...
> 
> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message 
> news:0af5db9e-d955-42be-bc59-b0e747d21103@googlegroups.com...
> > On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 12:00:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On the other hand, since the copies still exist, one can get a feel for
> >> things by looking at the ads.  At least about taking a ship (or later Pan
> >> Am) to somewhere exotic, with your Zenith portable radio, and of course
> >> all those ads for military academies for the boys.  And all those classic
> >> Coca Cola ads.
> >
> > Yes, the steamship ads for international tourism travel were interesting.
> > Also, the railroads and bus lines had nice ads.
> >
> > I didn't like the military academy ads.  I knew a kid who went to one.
> > While he liked it, we visited him out there and life seemed like boot
> > camp.  Indeed, his younger brother went too, and they remained long time
> > friends with some of the teachers.
> >
> > I stand corrected about one thing you mentioned.  I had a co-worker who
> > collected Coke stuff and I gave him the Coke ads from my copies.  As an
> > aside, Coke had a massive advertising campaign--there are zillions of old
> > print ads.  Indeed, the company was pretty shrewd, they enticed a huge
> > market of people to buy their flavored water.
> >
> > obcomp:  An IBM woman VP wrote a memoir, and in it she talked about her
> > first post in Atlanta, HQ of Coke.  Everyone drank it there.
> >
> > P.S.  One book on the company says the "secret formula" is nonsense.
> > Both Coke and Pepsi know full well all the formulas. I think I mentioned
> > I once did a simple taste test with friends between Coke and Pepsi, and
> > no one could tell the difference.
> 
> I certainly could when I was a teenager. 

Famously, the CEO of Pepsi could--he preferred Coke.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159373

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 17:30:23 +1100, "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
><hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message 
>news:0af5db9e-d955-42be-bc59-b0e747d21103@googlegroups.com...
>> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 12:00:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On the other hand, since the copies still exist, one can get a feel for
>>> things by looking at the ads.  At least about taking a ship (or later Pan
>>> Am) to somewhere exotic, with your Zenith portable radio, and of course
>>> all those ads for military academies for the boys.  And all those classic
>>> Coca Cola ads.
>>
>> Yes, the steamship ads for international tourism travel were interesting.
>> Also, the railroads and bus lines had nice ads.
>>
>> I didn't like the military academy ads.  I knew a kid who went to one.
>> While he liked it, we visited him out there and life seemed like boot
>> camp.  Indeed, his younger brother went too, and they remained long time
>> friends with some of the teachers.
>>
>> I stand corrected about one thing you mentioned.  I had a co-worker who
>> collected Coke stuff and I gave him the Coke ads from my copies.  As an
>> aside, Coke had a massive advertising campaign--there are zillions of old
>> print ads.  Indeed, the company was pretty shrewd, they enticed a huge
>> market of people to buy their flavored water.
>>
>> obcomp:  An IBM woman VP wrote a memoir, and in it she talked about her
>> first post in Atlanta, HQ of Coke.  Everyone drank it there.
>>
>> P.S.  One book on the company says the "secret formula" is nonsense.
>> Both Coke and Pepsi know full well all the formulas. I think I mentioned
>> I once did a simple taste test with friends between Coke and Pepsi, and
>> no one could tell the difference.
>
>I certainly could when I was a teenager. 

I can still tell the difference. Pepsi uses more high fructose sugar
than Coke Cola.

-- 
JimP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159379

"JimP" <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:0lj1cbltpdrobpr4rmsm6l4rc64ddif3ak@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 17:30:23 +1100, "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>><hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
>>news:0af5db9e-d955-42be-bc59-b0e747d21103@googlegroups.com...
>>> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 12:00:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On the other hand, since the copies still exist, one can get a feel for
>>>> things by looking at the ads.  At least about taking a ship (or later 
>>>> Pan
>>>> Am) to somewhere exotic, with your Zenith portable radio, and of course
>>>> all those ads for military academies for the boys.  And all those 
>>>> classic
>>>> Coca Cola ads.
>>>
>>> Yes, the steamship ads for international tourism travel were 
>>> interesting.
>>> Also, the railroads and bus lines had nice ads.
>>>
>>> I didn't like the military academy ads.  I knew a kid who went to one.
>>> While he liked it, we visited him out there and life seemed like boot
>>> camp.  Indeed, his younger brother went too, and they remained long time
>>> friends with some of the teachers.
>>>
>>> I stand corrected about one thing you mentioned.  I had a co-worker who
>>> collected Coke stuff and I gave him the Coke ads from my copies.  As an
>>> aside, Coke had a massive advertising campaign--there are zillions of 
>>> old
>>> print ads.  Indeed, the company was pretty shrewd, they enticed a huge
>>> market of people to buy their flavored water.
>>>
>>> obcomp:  An IBM woman VP wrote a memoir, and in it she talked about her
>>> first post in Atlanta, HQ of Coke.  Everyone drank it there.
>>>
>>> P.S.  One book on the company says the "secret formula" is nonsense.
>>> Both Coke and Pepsi know full well all the formulas. I think I mentioned
>>> I once did a simple taste test with friends between Coke and Pepsi, and
>>> no one could tell the difference.
>>
>>I certainly could when I was a teenager.
>
> I can still tell the difference.

I don't drink them anymore so I have no idea about that.

Pepsi uses more high fructose sugar
> than Coke Cola.

Neither of them did when I was a teenager, more than 50 years ago now. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159384

In article <0lj1cbltpdrobpr4rmsm6l4rc64ddif3ak@4ax.com>,
JimP  <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 17:30:23 +1100, "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>><hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message 
>>news:0af5db9e-d955-42be-bc59-b0e747d21103@googlegroups.com...
>>> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 12:00:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On the other hand, since the copies still exist, one can get a feel for
>>>> things by looking at the ads.  At least about taking a ship (or later Pan
>>>> Am) to somewhere exotic, with your Zenith portable radio, and of course
>>>> all those ads for military academies for the boys.  And all those classic
>>>> Coca Cola ads.
>>>
>>> Yes, the steamship ads for international tourism travel were interesting.
>>> Also, the railroads and bus lines had nice ads.
>>>
>>> I didn't like the military academy ads.  I knew a kid who went to one.
>>> While he liked it, we visited him out there and life seemed like boot
>>> camp.  Indeed, his younger brother went too, and they remained long time
>>> friends with some of the teachers.
>>>
>>> I stand corrected about one thing you mentioned.  I had a co-worker who
>>> collected Coke stuff and I gave him the Coke ads from my copies.  As an
>>> aside, Coke had a massive advertising campaign--there are zillions of old
>>> print ads.  Indeed, the company was pretty shrewd, they enticed a huge
>>> market of people to buy their flavored water.
>>>
>>> obcomp:  An IBM woman VP wrote a memoir, and in it she talked about her
>>> first post in Atlanta, HQ of Coke.  Everyone drank it there.
>>>
>>> P.S.  One book on the company says the "secret formula" is nonsense.
>>> Both Coke and Pepsi know full well all the formulas. I think I mentioned
>>> I once did a simple taste test with friends between Coke and Pepsi, and
>>> no one could tell the difference.
>>
>>I certainly could when I was a teenager. 
>
>I can still tell the difference. Pepsi uses more high fructose sugar
>than Coke Cola.

Pepsi tastes iffy. Rum and coke is not the same. But it works, sort of, 
with Jim Beam instead (and Pepsi).

This is from Rightopondia. YMMV.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159393

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 20:14:05 +0100, Morten Reistad
<first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>In article <0lj1cbltpdrobpr4rmsm6l4rc64ddif3ak@4ax.com>,
>JimP  <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 17:30:23 +1100, "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>><hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message 
>>>news:0af5db9e-d955-42be-bc59-b0e747d21103@googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 12:00:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, since the copies still exist, one can get a feel for
>>>>> things by looking at the ads.  At least about taking a ship (or later Pan
>>>>> Am) to somewhere exotic, with your Zenith portable radio, and of course
>>>>> all those ads for military academies for the boys.  And all those classic
>>>>> Coca Cola ads.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the steamship ads for international tourism travel were interesting.
>>>> Also, the railroads and bus lines had nice ads.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't like the military academy ads.  I knew a kid who went to one.
>>>> While he liked it, we visited him out there and life seemed like boot
>>>> camp.  Indeed, his younger brother went too, and they remained long time
>>>> friends with some of the teachers.
>>>>
>>>> I stand corrected about one thing you mentioned.  I had a co-worker who
>>>> collected Coke stuff and I gave him the Coke ads from my copies.  As an
>>>> aside, Coke had a massive advertising campaign--there are zillions of old
>>>> print ads.  Indeed, the company was pretty shrewd, they enticed a huge
>>>> market of people to buy their flavored water.
>>>>
>>>> obcomp:  An IBM woman VP wrote a memoir, and in it she talked about her
>>>> first post in Atlanta, HQ of Coke.  Everyone drank it there.
>>>>
>>>> P.S.  One book on the company says the "secret formula" is nonsense.
>>>> Both Coke and Pepsi know full well all the formulas. I think I mentioned
>>>> I once did a simple taste test with friends between Coke and Pepsi, and
>>>> no one could tell the difference.
>>>
>>>I certainly could when I was a teenager. 
>>
>>I can still tell the difference. Pepsi uses more high fructose sugar
>>than Coke Cola.
>
>Pepsi tastes iffy. Rum and coke is not the same. But it works, sort of, 
>with Jim Beam instead (and Pepsi).
>
>This is from Rightopondia. YMMV.
>
>-- mrr

I used to drink rum and Barq's root beer. Tasted better than rum and
Coke Cola.

-- 
JimP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159402

On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 2:01:14 PM UTC-5, JimP wrote:

> I can still tell the difference. Pepsi uses more high fructose sugar
> than Coke Cola.

You can get Coke made with real sugar in glass bottles.  I think it's
made in Mexico.  Not cheap.  Some people can tell the difference.  I can't.

Side note:  every health care provider tells me soda isn't healthy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159425

On 2016-02-15, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 2:01:14 PM UTC-5, JimP wrote:
>
>> I can still tell the difference. Pepsi uses more high fructose sugar
>> than Coke Cola.
>
> You can get Coke made with real sugar in glass bottles.  I think it's
> made in Mexico.  Not cheap.  Some people can tell the difference.  I can't.
>
> Side note:  every health care provider tells me soda isn't healthy.

Coke in cans here contains sugar. (.ie)
I am beginning to think that living is bad for you.
(Yes, I know the diabetis thing)

-- 
greymaus
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159427

On 15 Feb 2016 10:45:41 GMT
mausg@mail.com wrote:

> On 2016-02-15, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 2:01:14 PM UTC-5, JimP wrote:
> >
> >> I can still tell the difference. Pepsi uses more high fructose sugar
> >> than Coke Cola.
> >
> > You can get Coke made with real sugar in glass bottles.  I think it's
> > made in Mexico.  Not cheap.  Some people can tell the difference.  I
> > can't.
> >
> > Side note:  every health care provider tells me soda isn't healthy.
> 
> Coke in cans here contains sugar. (.ie)
> I am beginning to think that living is bad for you.

	Life is a 100% fatal, sexually transmitted disease.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159437

<mausg@mail.com> wrote in message news:slrnnc3b23.34c.mausg@smaus.org...
> On 2016-02-15, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 2:01:14 PM UTC-5, JimP wrote:
>>
>>> I can still tell the difference. Pepsi uses more high fructose sugar
>>> than Coke Cola.
>>
>> You can get Coke made with real sugar in glass bottles.  I think it's
>> made in Mexico.  Not cheap.  Some people can tell the difference.  I 
>> can't.
>>
>> Side note:  every health care provider tells me soda isn't healthy.
>
> Coke in cans here contains sugar. (.ie)
> I am beginning to think that living is bad for you.

Dying is even worse for you.

> (Yes, I know the diabetis thing)
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159544

<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 2:01:14 PM UTC-5, JimP wrote:
> 
>> I can still tell the difference. Pepsi uses more high fructose sugar
>> than Coke Cola.
> 
> You can get Coke made with real sugar in glass bottles.  I think it's
> made in Mexico.  Not cheap.  Some people can tell the difference.  I can't.
> 
> Side note:  every health care provider tells me soda isn't healthy.
> 

The Mexican soda I've seen all uses real sugar.  I don't drink much soda,
but once in a while a bottle of this stuff (never a can) is delicious.


-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159689

On 16-Feb-16 19:52, Peter Flass wrote:
> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 2:01:14 PM UTC-5, JimP wrote:
>>> I can still tell the difference. Pepsi uses more high fructose
>>> sugar than Coke Cola.
>> 
>> You can get Coke made with real sugar in glass bottles.  I think
>> it's made in Mexico.  Not cheap.  Some people can tell the
>> difference.  I can't.
> 
> The Mexican soda I've seen all uses real sugar.

AFAIK, all soda outside the US is made with real sugar; the only reason
US bottlers normally use HFCS is the embargo of Cuba, which makes real
sugar insanely expensive in the US.

Some US bottlers do use real sugar for special production runs--but at
much higher prices than usual.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159760

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:37:16 AM UTC-7, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> AFAIK, all soda outside the US is made with real sugar; the only reason
> US bottlers normally use HFCS is the embargo of Cuba, which makes real
> sugar insanely expensive in the US.

> Some US bottlers do use real sugar for special production runs--but at
> much higher prices than usual.

And here I thought it was because subsidies to corn farmers made corn syrup 
insanely cheap in the U.S. - since other places, like Jamaica, also make cane 
sugar.

However, I thought that in Canada, U.S.-owned companies and free-trade 
agreements put a lot of corn syrup in our processed food, and that would 
include soft drinks.

As well, in Canada, we use sugar beets to make our own sugar instead of 
importing sugar cane from the Caribbean to a significant extent. (Maple syrup, 
on the other hand, is kept expensive in Canada because of the political power 
of its farmers.)

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159761

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 9:57:52 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:37:16 AM UTC-7, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> 
> > AFAIK, all soda outside the US is made with real sugar; the only reason
> > US bottlers normally use HFCS is the embargo of Cuba, which makes real
> > sugar insanely expensive in the US.
> 
> > Some US bottlers do use real sugar for special production runs--but at
> > much higher prices than usual.
> 
> And here I thought it was because subsidies to corn farmers made corn syrup 
> insanely cheap in the U.S. - since other places, like Jamaica, also make cane 
> sugar.
> 
> However, I thought that in Canada, U.S.-owned companies and free-trade 
> agreements put a lot of corn syrup in our processed food, and that would 
> include soft drinks.
> 
> As well, in Canada, we use sugar beets to make our own sugar instead of 
> importing sugar cane from the Caribbean to a significant extent. (Maple syrup, 
> on the other hand, is kept expensive in Canada because of the political power 
> of its farmers.)

Did a Google search, I see that both beet sugar and cane sugar are manufactured 
in Canada; sugar dumped from Europe and subsidized from the U.S. is blocked, 
but food products containing sugar are allowed to go both ways - with a quota, 
at least on what Canada can export to the U.S..

Since sugar from Latin America is allowed into Canada, though, we only pay 
about 10-15% more than the world price for sugar.

So we import sugar cane as well as using our own beets.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159762

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:11:35 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 9:57:52 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:37:16 AM UTC-7, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > 
> > > AFAIK, all soda outside the US is made with real sugar; the only reason
> > > US bottlers normally use HFCS is the embargo of Cuba, which makes real
> > > sugar insanely expensive in the US.
> > 
> > > Some US bottlers do use real sugar for special production runs--but at
> > > much higher prices than usual.
> > 
> > And here I thought it was because subsidies to corn farmers made corn syrup 
> > insanely cheap in the U.S. - since other places, like Jamaica, also make cane 
> > sugar.
> > 
> > However, I thought that in Canada, U.S.-owned companies and free-trade 
> > agreements put a lot of corn syrup in our processed food, and that would 
> > include soft drinks.
> > 
> > As well, in Canada, we use sugar beets to make our own sugar instead of 
> > importing sugar cane from the Caribbean to a significant extent. (Maple syrup, 
> > on the other hand, is kept expensive in Canada because of the political power 
> > of its farmers.)
> 
> Did a Google search, I see that both beet sugar and cane sugar are manufactured 
> in Canada; sugar dumped from Europe and subsidized from the U.S. is blocked, 
> but food products containing sugar are allowed to go both ways - with a quota, 
> at least on what Canada can export to the U.S..
> 
> Since sugar from Latin America is allowed into Canada, though, we only pay 
> about 10-15% more than the world price for sugar.
> 
> So we import sugar cane as well as using our own beets.

But I see from here

http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/statistics-and-market-information/by-product-sector/processed-food-and-beverages/the-canadian-soft-drink-industry/?id=1172167862291

that when it comes to soft drinks, although some premium brands, like the Jones 
Soda Co. use cane sugar, the soft drink industry in Canada, as a whole, uses 20 
times as much corn syrup as beet or cane sugar together.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159765

On 18-Feb-16 22:57, Quadibloc wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> AFAIK, all soda outside the US is made with real sugar; the only
>> reason US bottlers normally use HFCS is the embargo of Cuba, which
>> makes real sugar insanely expensive in the US.
>> 
>> Some US bottlers do use real sugar for special production runs--but
>> at much higher prices than usual.
> 
> And here I thought it was because subsidies to corn farmers made corn
> syrup insanely cheap in the U.S.

The subsidies bring HFCS down to the price cane sugar _would_ be at if
not for the embargo.

> since other places, like Jamaica, also make cane sugar.

Cuba:   14,400,000 t/yr
Jamaica: 1,475,000 t/yr

The US also produces sugar, but the price is so much higher (mostly due
to labor costs) that it's not competitive with HFCS; the only reason we
produce any at all is HFCS isn't a perfect substitute.  People don't
want to put HFCS in their coffee/tea, for instance.

> However, I thought that in Canada, U.S.-owned companies and
> free-trade agreements put a lot of corn syrup in our processed food,
> and that would include soft drinks.

Yes, and that is a natural result of the special trade agreements that
make Canada our (by far) largest trading partner: at times, it can be
difficult to tell one country from the other, especially when it comes
to seemingly simple things like food.

For instance, the US exempts Canadian food from the country-of-origin
labeling that is generally required for int'l trade; since Canadian food
_appears_ to be domestically produced, Canadian farmers can charge the
same prices as US farmers, giving them an enormous advantage.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159813

"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message 
news:na6el1$74g$1@dont-email.me...
> On 18-Feb-16 22:57, Quadibloc wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> AFAIK, all soda outside the US is made with real sugar; the only
>>> reason US bottlers normally use HFCS is the embargo of Cuba, which
>>> makes real sugar insanely expensive in the US.
>>>
>>> Some US bottlers do use real sugar for special production runs--but
>>> at much higher prices than usual.
>>
>> And here I thought it was because subsidies to corn farmers made corn
>> syrup insanely cheap in the U.S.
>
> The subsidies bring HFCS down to the price cane sugar _would_ be at if
> not for the embargo.
>
>> since other places, like Jamaica, also make cane sugar.
>
> Cuba:   14,400,000 t/yr
> Jamaica: 1,475,000 t/yr
>
> The US also produces sugar, but the price is so much higher (mostly due
> to labor costs)

Doesn’t explain why Australia can do it fine
with the  same labor costs that the US has.

that it's not competitive with HFCS; the only reason we
> produce any at all is HFCS isn't a perfect substitute.  People don't
> want to put HFCS in their coffee/tea, for instance.
>
>> However, I thought that in Canada, U.S.-owned companies and
>> free-trade agreements put a lot of corn syrup in our processed food,
>> and that would include soft drinks.
>
> Yes, and that is a natural result of the special trade agreements that
> make Canada our (by far) largest trading partner: at times, it can be
> difficult to tell one country from the other, especially when it comes
> to seemingly simple things like food.
>
> For instance, the US exempts Canadian food from the country-of-origin
> labeling that is generally required for int'l trade; since Canadian food
> _appears_ to be domestically produced, Canadian farmers can charge the
> same prices as US farmers, giving them an enormous advantage.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web