Photographs in bars
Madeleine Page
Jim Stewart wrote:
: Was informed recently that it is illegal to photograph someone in a
: bar (Canada) on the grounds that it might incriminate them. Does
: anyone know if this is real or an old crock? Thanks, Jim
Quick answer: don't know.
Long-winded answer, lodged firmly in M*TT* territory: until about twenty
years ago, it was illegal for a customer to carry alcohol in a bar in
Ontario. If you wanted to move to another table, it was necessary for the
waitperson to carry your beverage (one of the language's less lovely
words, that). In addition, it was illegal for the patrons of a bar to be
visible from the street: bars had heavy curtains or blocked up windows.
Plus, in order to buy beer or liquor from the government-run stores (the
only legal source), you had to write your order down, and the order had to
include your full name and address. In addition, the government-run stores
were not allowed to display liquor, as this was thought to be too
enticing.
Given these sorts of regulations, the one above seems marginally less
improbable.
Madeleine "internym goes here" Page
Jim Stewart
RFerrie
Madeleine Page wrote:
>
> Jim Stewart wrote:
> : Was informed recently that it is illegal to photograph someone in a
> : bar (Canada) on the grounds that it might incriminate them. Does
> : anyone know if this is real or an old crock? Thanks, Jim
>
>
> Long-winded answer, lodged firmly in M*TT* territory: until about twenty
> years ago, it was illegal for a customer to carry alcohol in a bar in
> Ontario. If you wanted to move to another table, it was necessary for the
> waitperson to carry your beverage (one of the language's less lovely
> words, that). In addition, it was illegal for the patrons of a bar to be
> visible from the street: bars had heavy curtains or blocked up windows.
> Plus, in order to buy beer or liquor from the government-run stores (the
> only legal source), you had to write your order down, and the order had to
> include your full name and address. In addition, the government-run stores
> were not allowed to display liquor, as this was thought to be too
> enticing.
>
> Given these sorts of regulations, the one above seems marginally less
> improbable.
>
> Madeleine "internym goes here" Page
And, of course, don't forget that until *quite* recently (what, five
years maybe?) it was forbidden for beer commercials on TV to show people
*pouring* the beverage into a glass (I believe it's still forbidden to
show folks actually *consuming* it). I wonder who thought up the idea
that seeing a flow of beer into a glass would turn us into hopeless
alcoholics.
Renee "prefers 'Waitron' to waitperson"
Gregory Johnson
In article <33DE39...@rocketmail.com> RFe...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com writes:
>And, of course, don't forget that until *quite* recently (what, five
>years maybe?) it was forbidden for beer commercials on TV to show people
>*pouring* the beverage into a glass (I believe it's still forbidden to
>show folks actually *consuming* it). I wonder who thought up the idea
>that seeing a flow of beer into a glass would turn us into hopeless
>alcoholics.
Forbidden by whom?
Currently Congress is debating passing legislation regulating ads for
liquor on television, because no such laws now exist. The "ban" on
TV ads for liquor is imposed by TV stations and liquor manufacturers,
but this voluntary arrangement is beginning to erode in some places.
Given this, I would be surprised if there exists
a *law* saying you can't show pouring/consumption of beer on TV.
--Greg
Clive D.W. Feather
In article <5rl7k2$r...@panix2.panix.com>, Madeleine Page
<mp...@panix.com> writes
>Long-winded answer, lodged firmly in M*TT* territory: until about twenty
>years ago, it was illegal for a customer to carry alcohol in a bar in
>Ontario.
In Saskatchewan too, according to a Canadian friend of mine (this is my
memory of the conversation at the time it was illegal, not his memory).
But I remember getting drunk and playing darts in a very nice English-
style pub in Toronto in 1979. No restrictions on carrying your drinks.
Clive "called to the bar" Feather
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Director of Software Development | Home email:
Tel: +44 181 371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | <cl...@davros.org>
Fax: +44 181 371 1037 | <cl...@demon.net> |
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address |
Madeleine Page
Gregory Johnson wrote:
: RFe...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com writes:
: >And, of course, don't forget that until *quite* recently (what, five
: >years maybe?) it was forbidden for beer commercials on TV to show people
: >*pouring* the beverage into a glass (I believe it's still forbidden to
: >show folks actually *consuming* it).
: Forbidden by whom?
: Currently Congress is debating passing legislation regulating ads for
Legislation for whom?
The post to which this was a follow up made it clear that the topic under
discussion was liquor laws in Ontario. Perhaps, given that TWIAVBP, I
should have added "Canada" in my original post.
Madeleine "lived in Toronto for many years, but finally had to move
because of all the marauding polar bears" Page
John Varela
In <33de0526...@news.nbnet.nb.ca>, ste...@nbnet.nb.ca (Jim Stewart) writes:
>Was informed recently that it is illegal to photograph someone in a
>bar (Canada) on the grounds that it might incriminate them. Does
>anyone know if this is real or an old crock? Thanks, Jim
The way I heard it from a politically aware person in Washington was that
you should never let anyone photograph you with a glass in your hand.
John Varela
(delete . between os2 and bbs to e-mail me)
Bob Hiebert
In article <5rlpvv$i...@panix2.panix.com>, mp...@panix.com (Madeleine Page) wrote:
>: >it was forbidden for beer commercials on TV to show people
>: >*pouring* the beverage into a glass (I believe it's still forbidden to
>: >show folks actually *consuming* it).
>
>: Forbidden by whom?
>
>: Currently Congress is debating passing legislation regulating ads for
>
>Legislation for whom?
>
>The post to which this was a follow up made it clear that the topic under
>discussion was liquor laws in Ontario. Perhaps, given that TWIAVBP, I
>should have added "Canada" in my original post.
I would like to point out that it is the Canadian company Seagrams that has
broken the voluntary ban on TV advertising that is causing the US Congress
to consider legislation banning TV advertising of liqour.
Bob "and now the circle is complete" Hiebert
---
E-mail address is invalid. Correct to reply.
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, mp...@panix.com (Madeleine Page) said:
>Plus, in order to buy beer or liquor from the government-run stores (the
>only legal source), you had to write your order down, and the order had to
>include your full name and address. In addition, the government-run stores
>were not allowed to display liquor, as this was thought to be too
>enticing.
A columnist in the Toronto Globe and Mail, Richard Needham, had a running
"joke" about the person whose job it was, at the end of the day, to
separate those written orders into separate piles for "John Smith",
"Winston Churchill", and "William Shakespeare". Ah, the LCBO. Where else
but Ontario would they call the liquor store the "Liquor CONTROL Board"
For those of you who haven't experienced the liquor stores under this
regime, it's hard to imagine. Here was a whole store that just had racks
and racks of written lists - no bottles, no pictures, just lists of every
brand and type of liquor under the sun, with a code number beside each.
You filled in your order sheet with your name and address, and the code
numbers, took them to the back of the store, and they brought you out your
bottles, already wrapped in plain brown bags. Heaven forbid that you
should look inside the bags to verify the order or something - you might
give innocent people a glimpse of the demon rum!
--
Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com), Rochester Flying Club
<a href="http://www.servtech.com/public/ptomblin/rfc/">RFC Web Page</a>
<a href=http://www.beapilot.com/>Stop Dreaming, Start Flying</a>
I don't buy from spammers or visit their web sites.
Jim Everman
Madeleine Page wrote:
>
> The post to which this was a follow up made it clear that the topic under
> discussion was liquor laws in Ontario. Perhaps, given that TWIAVBP, I
> should have added "Canada" in my original post.
I think it's fasinating how often people overlook where the poster
is coming from!
BTW, the laws you mentioned (for Ontario) sound a lot like the
laws that use to be in effect in Ohio (part of the USA).
Particularly about not being able to carry your own drink, and
the state run liquor stores. On the other hand, a parent could
buy wine or beer for thier minor child - at least for consumption
with a meal.
I'm not sure what the current status is, I moved to St. Louis (a city
in Missouri, USA) several years ago and lost intrerst in Ohio drinking
laws.
--
Jim Everman eve...@Anet-STL.com
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by
stupidity.
Mark Shaw
> Jim Stewart wrote:
> : Was informed recently that it is illegal to photograph someone in a
> : bar (Canada) on the grounds that it might incriminate them. Does
> : anyone know if this is real or an old crock? Thanks, Jim
(read: Southern Baptists) are said to have taken to photographing
the license plates of vehicles in the parking lots of those types
of drinking establishments that feature inadequately-clad dancers.
They then obtain the name and address of the person to whom the
vehicle is registered from the state, and send him/her the photo
along with a "concerned warning" that someone may be using his/her
wheels to visit such establishments without their permission.
Source: Mark Davis show, WBAP radio.
--
Mark "takes the train" Shaw
======================================================================
-^v------^v------^v------^v------^v------^v------^v-------------------
bip bip bip bip bip bip bip beeeeeeeeeeeee
RFerrie
Gregory Johnson wrote:
>
> In article <33DE39...@rocketmail.com> RFe...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com writes:
> >And, of course, don't forget that until *quite* recently (what, five
> >*pouring* the beverage into a glass (I believe it's still forbidden to
> >that seeing a flow of beer into a glass would turn us into hopeless
> >alcoholics.
>
>
> Currently Congress is debating passing legislation regulating ads for
> TV ads for liquor is imposed by TV stations and liquor manufacturers,
> but this voluntary arrangement is beginning to erode in some places.
>
> Given this, I would be surprised if there exists
> a *law* saying you can't show pouring/consumption of beer on TV.
>
> --Greg
"Congress"? What is this Congress of which you speak? As was clearly
indicated in the message *I* quoted, I am happily ensconced in Ontario,
Canada, land of many peculiar alcohol regulations. For example, in
Toronto, there's a 3-block area where even restaurants can't sell wine
or spirits with dinner.
But I don't know if there's any law against driving barefoot.
Renee, eh.
Rick Tyler
On 30 Jul 1997 15:11:58 GMT, ms...@Jasic.Usc.Nti.Kcom (Mark Shaw)
wrote:
:> Jim Stewart wrote:
:> : Was informed recently that it is illegal to photograph someone in a
:> : bar (Canada) on the grounds that it might incriminate them. Does
:> : anyone know if this is real or an old crock? Thanks, Jim
:
:Interesting parallel: Here in the Dallas area, bossy do-gooders
:(read: Southern Baptists) are said to have taken to photographing
:the license plates of vehicles in the parking lots of those types
:of drinking establishments that feature inadequately-clad dancers.
:They then obtain the name and address of the person to whom the
:vehicle is registered from the state, and send him/her the photo
:along with a "concerned warning" that someone may be using his/her
:wheels to visit such establishments without their permission.
:
:Source: Mark Davis show, WBAP radio.
:
I would be ever-so-much more comfortable if you had described this as
a (new?) UL in its birthing process. I know that the good Mr. Shaw
knows *far* too much about the UL biz to use a disc jockey as a source
of Real Facts.
-- Rick "T. Radio is the home of both Rush Limbaugh and NPR -- need we
say more?" Tyler
-------------------------------------------------
"I lied." -- E.G. Land aka Gary Landers aka BARD
aka Nat Turner aka Francis Farmer aka Fanny aka
blondeand14 aka Captain Tripps (and still counting)
Harry MF Teasley
Motto. When someone says something folks here have heard only nine
hundred billion times, like "My mom said it so it must be true," or, "you
stupid fucking bastards." AFU has never decided on a motto, having so
many good ones from which to choose, so calling out new ones, but being
coy about doing so, is just one more of those things about afu culture
that is so rapidly disappearing in the face of the destruction of Usenet.
Read the faq, at www.urbanlegends.com. Like anyone still takes posting to
afu seriously enough to read the faq anymore.
Harry "sigh" Teasley
--
"Your hate would be but a guttering birthday candle to the Martian Death
Ray of my ire." -SC
Visit the AFU archives at www.urbanlegends.com
David J Richardson
Subject says it all.
Geez, this group gets lots of traffic.
--
David J Richardson
bo...@crafti.com.au & http://www.crafti.com.au/~borad/
SOPHIE ALDRED (ACE IN DR WHO) MELBOURNE NOV 21-23 - ASK ME ABOUT IT!
Linda Lawson
On 29 Jul 1997 13:00:50 -0400, mp...@panix.com (Madeleine Page) wrote:
<snip>
>Ontario. If you wanted to move to another table, it was necessary for the
>waitperson to carry your beverage (one of the language's less lovely
>words, that).
personally I find 'beverage' a perfectly lovely word, rolls all around
your tongue and has a nice fruity weight to it in prose or poetry.
[Hint to the poets in the froup]
Plus I like the ambiguity - is it an innocent fresh and natural fruit
drink? or dark and sinister and 80 proof? Ah, the mysteries of
beverage.
--
Linda 'stirred, not shaken' Lawson
Bob Church
In article <EE4r0...@xcski.com>,
ptom...@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>For those of you who haven't experienced the liquor stores under this
>regime, it's hard to imagine. Here was a whole store that just had racks
And vice versa. I grew up in Wva and Ohio, where State Stores resembled
Fort Knox, then I would watch Dragnet and they'd have some greasy punk
who'd just robbed a liquor store. It never made sense.
Bob Church
Rick Tyler
On 31 Jul 1997 14:31:01 -0400, he...@panix.com (Harry MF Teasley)
wrote:
:Motto. When someone says something folks here have heard only nine
:hundred billion times, like "My mom said it so it must be true," or, "you
:stupid fucking bastards." AFU has never decided on a motto, having so
:many good ones from which to choose, so calling out new ones, but being
:coy about doing so, is just one more of those things about afu culture
:that is so rapidly disappearing in the face of the destruction of Usenet.
:
:Read the faq, at www.urbanlegends.com. Like anyone still takes posting to
:afu seriously enough to read the faq anymore.
:
:Harry "sigh" Teasley
Many decaffeinated brands taste just as good as the real thing.
-- Rick "Ommmmm Ommmmmmm Ommmmmmm" Tyler
Sirilyan
In article <33DE39...@rocketmail.com>, RFe...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com wrote:
>And, of course, don't forget that until *quite* recently (what, five
>years maybe?) it was forbidden for beer commercials on TV to show people
>*pouring* the beverage into a glass (I believe it's still forbidden to
>show folks actually *consuming* it). I wonder who thought up the idea
>that seeing a flow of beer into a glass would turn us into hopeless
>alcoholics.
Other illegal things in Canadian beer advertising included showing too many
beers in one shot (the magic number was four, IIRC[1]), and showing a
half-empty glass without a half-empty bottle next to it.
This leads me to believe that this is why Canadian beer ads are much more
interesting than American beer ads (even aside from the screw-in-a-canoe
angle). Of course, it does mean that the most likely effect of watching
Canadian beer ads is that impressionable youth get the idea that having beer
around without drinking it is what makes life so fun. I suppose that you
contemplate it, kind of like a lava lamp, but with hops.
-sirilyan "Union brood" @dlcwest.com.
[1] This is all based on recollection of an article from TV Guide several
years back. But who would know more about television than TV Guide?[2]
[2] ObMotto: "And after all, why would they lie?"
Name: Doug Sheppard
Mail: sirilyan (at-sign) dlcwest (period) com
Web: http://www.dlcwest.com/~sirilyan/
Crimes against humanity: net.scum, ARSCC, .misc, SJG, NDP.
Nat Turner
In article <5rl7k2$r...@panix2.panix.com>,
Madeleine Page <mp...@panix.com> wrote:
>Jim Stewart wrote:
>: Was informed recently that it is illegal to photograph someone in a
>: bar (Canada) on the grounds that it might incriminate them. Does
>: anyone know if this is real or an old crock? Thanks, Jim
>
>
>years ago, it was illegal for a customer to carry alcohol in a bar in
>waitperson to carry your beverage (one of the language's less lovely
>visible from the street: bars had heavy curtains or blocked up windows.
>only legal source), you had to write your order down, and the order had to
>include your full name and address. In addition, the government-run stores
>were not allowed to display liquor, as this was thought to be too
>enticing.
>
>improbable.
>
>Madeleine "internym goes here" Page
>
Ah, finally, a straight-forward post written by this person -- and a
remarkably well-crafted one at that!
Good for you, Madeline!
BARD
--
John Varela
>And vice versa. I grew up in Wva and Ohio, where State Stores resembled
>Fort Knox, then I would watch Dragnet and they'd have some greasy punk
>who'd just robbed a liquor store. It never made sense.
In New Orleans there's a drugstore chain that has its own liquor brand.
Sadly, it's been sold to a national chain and that bit of local color
(purple) will be lost.
George Byrd
Speaking about "Re: Photographs in bars"
In <alt.folklore.urban> On 4 Aug 1997 20:06:47 GMT,
<j...@os2.bbs.com (John Varela)> said:
>In New Orleans there's a drugstore chain that has its own liquor brand.
>Sadly, it's been sold to a national chain and that bit of local color
>(purple) will be lost.
OOooga! OOooga! Caution: thread drift ahead.
Searching the FAQ and archives yielded nothing about this factoid, or
bit of popular (well, popular among those folk who vectored it to me)
information (or misinformation):
Supermarket chains package well known brands of liquor (bought in
bulk) as house brands, and sell it much less dear than the brand name
product.
Thus, according to what some forgotten person told me decades ago,
S*feway's house whiskey is really Jack Daniels, but in a different
bottle. I've heard similar assertions about other supermarkets and
distillers.
What, if any, truth or falsehood is there to this?
George "in vino voritas"
--
Opinions above are NOT those of APAN, Inc., and are NOT legal advice.
"A fanatic does what he thinks th' Lord wud do if He only knew th' facts in th' case."
<< Mr. Dooley, as quoted by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. on 5/1/95 >>
Craig S. Thom
John Varela wrote:
> In New Orleans there's a drugstore chain that has its own liquor brand.
> Sadly, it's been sold to a national chain and that bit of local color
> (purple) will be lost.
When I heard the news that K&B had been bought I wondered if the purple
would vanish.
Do they still sell beer in those cute 10 oz cans in Louisiana?
--
Craig S. Thom
http://www.trailerpark.com/juarez/thom
Drew Lawson
In article <5s5im9$gbj$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, geo...@apan.org.SPAM_NOT wrote:
> Searching the FAQ and archives yielded nothing about this factoid, or
> bit of popular (well, popular among those folk who vectored it to me)
> information (or misinformation):
>
> Supermarket chains package well known brands of liquor (bought in
> bulk) as house brands, and sell it much less dear than the brand name
> product.
>
> Thus, according to what some forgotten person told me decades ago,
> S*feway's house whiskey is really Jack Daniels, but in a different
> bottle. I've heard similar assertions about other supermarkets and
> distillers.
>
> What, if any, truth or falsehood is there to this?
I never realized that there *was* a Safeway brand of whiskey, but
that's a different matter.
I have heard this frequently about all store brands, not specific to
liquor. I've heard it from my mother, and associate it with
"Depression babies" who grew up with pressure to save money.
My distrust of it is strengthened by the fact that I've tried both
the "name" and store brands on some items and they ain't the same.
Still, when I was a starving student, I tried to believe it.
Drew "trust me, it tastes just like real butter" Lawson
--
Drew Lawson | If you're not part of the solution,
dr...@furrfu.com | you're part of the precipitate
http://www.furrfu.com/ |
Lee Rudolph
lla...@bellatlantic.net (Linda Lawson) writes:
>personally I find 'beverage' a perfectly lovely word, rolls all around
>your tongue and has a nice fruity weight to it in prose or poetry.
>[Hint to the poets in the froup]
First let's call in the copyeditors and thread police: you left out
the first "a", and the Metaphors for C*nn*l*ng*s thread is across
the way and down the road a fur piece.
>Plus I like the ambiguity - is it an innocent fresh and natural fruit
>drink? or dark and sinister and 80 proof? Ah, the mysteries of
>beverage.
Mary had a NaturaLamb,
She found it rather porous.
Use latex for your dental dam!
Sincerely,
Your friend,
Horace
Lee "over the Tiber and through the woods" Rudolph
Susan Mudgett aka little gator
Drew Lawson (dr...@furrfu.com) wrote:
: My distrust of it is strengthened by the fact that I've tried both
: the "name" and store brands on some items and they ain't the same.
: Still, when I was a starving student, I tried to believe it.
Some store brands really are name brands with store labels. Many years
ago my mother's food co op got a supply of apple juice with the label
of a loacl store chain-direct from the Veryfine bottling plant.
David McFarland
s...@harvee.billerica.ma.us (Susan Mudgett aka little gator) wrote:
>Some store brands really are name brands with store labels. Many years
>ago my mother's food co op got a supply of apple juice with the label
>of a loacl store chain-direct from the Veryfine bottling plant.
This often happens with plastic milk jugs. House brand labels, major brand
caps.
David McFarland
David McFarland
In article <drew-05089...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, dr...@furrfu.com (Drew Lawson) wrote:
In article <5s5im9$gbj$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, geo...@apan.org.SPAM_NOT wrote:
> Searching the FAQ and archives yielded nothing about this factoid, or
> bit of popular (well, popular among those folk who vectored it to me)
> information (or misinformation):
>
> Supermarket chains package well known brands of liquor (bought in
> bulk) as house brands, and sell it much less dear than the brand name
> product.
>
> Thus, according to what some forgotten person told me decades ago,
> S*feway's house whiskey is really Jack Daniels, but in a different
> bottle. I've heard similar assertions about other supermarkets and
> distillers.
>
> What, if any, truth or falsehood is there to this?
Can only speak for certainty about two house brands. "Best Choice" and "Always
Save" are mostly produced by major brand companies. The house brands are
sometimes identical, sometimes made with different recipes/ingredients. Where
a different recipe is used, the result is often better, due to stringent QA
testing. An example is cherry pie filling. "Best Choice" contains app. 50%
more cherries (and therefore less "gloop") than the leading major brand.
FWIW, "Best Choice" is known as a premium house brand, while "Always Save" is
marketed as a generic.
=
David "If it weren't for the last minute, nothing would get done" McFarland
Casper
In <drew-05089...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, dr...@furrfu.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>In article <5s5im9$gbj$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, geo...@apan.org.SPAM_NOT wrote:
>
>> Searching the FAQ and archives yielded nothing about this factoid, or
>> bit of popular (well, popular among those folk who vectored it to me)
>> information (or misinformation):
>>
>> Supermarket chains package well known brands of liquor (bought in
>> bulk) as house brands, and sell it much less dear than the brand name
>> product.
>>
>> Thus, according to what some forgotten person told me decades ago,
>> S*feway's house whiskey is really Jack Daniels, but in a different
>> bottle. I've heard similar assertions about other supermarkets and
>> distillers.
>>
>> What, if any, truth or falsehood is there to this?
>
>that's a different matter.
>
>I have heard this frequently about all store brands, not specific to
>liquor. I've heard it from my mother, and associate it with
>"Depression babies" who grew up with pressure to save money.
>
>the "name" and store brands on some items and they ain't the same.
>Still, when I was a starving student, I tried to believe it.
>
>
>
>--
>Drew Lawson | If you're not part of the solution,
>dr...@furrfu.com | you're part of the precipitate
>http://www.furrfu.com/ |
I dated a food broker (middleman between food mfg and supermarket) for
about a year. Store brand products are probably the same in a region,
just a major processing plant slapping on the correct label.
I doubt a distillery would send their premium product out as a generic
product, but it's possible.
Rick DeBay
Mike Holmans
> Searching the FAQ and archives yielded nothing about this factoid, or
> bit of popular (well, popular among those folk who vectored it to me)
> information (or misinformation):
>
> Supermarket chains package well known brands of liquor (bought in
> bulk) as house brands, and sell it much less dear than the brand name
> product.
>
Doesn't matter whether it's liquor or baked beans, people think this,
as Drew Lawson said.
I Saw Recently an article which explained why they do.
The supermarket chains don't, in general, have factories of their own
which produce their own-brand products. They get their own-brand
products from other suppliers. These other suppliers usually make their
own brand-name product as well. So although LovelyCoffee supply
Cheapskate Supermarts with both LovelyCoffee Gold and Cheapskate
Superblend, Cheapskate Superblend and LovelyCoffee Gold are not the same
product.
At least, not usually.
Mike "own-brand" Holmans
El Sig doesn't much care what brand it is as long as it's wet
Jim Everman
Spog wrote:
> The worse brand of whisky I have ever tasted is Black Cat - available
> in Thailand. It is not just a bad whisky, it doesn't even taste like
> whisky - more like caramel mixed with paraffin.
Am I to understand that you mean the fairly volatile form of
paraffin that might even be used to power an engine, as opposed
to the solid form of paraffin that is sometimes mixed with
chocolate in candys to give them more "body"?
Rush Strong
In article <33E6A11C...@witty.com>, "Craig S. Thom" <cr...@witty.com> wrote:
>John Varela wrote:
>
>> In New Orleans there's a drugstore chain that has its own liquor brand.
>> Sadly, it's been sold to a national chain and that bit of local color
>> (purple) will be lost.
>
>When I heard the news that K&B had been bought I wondered if the purple
>would vanish.
>
>Do they still sell beer in those cute 10 oz cans in Louisiana?
>
Rheingold used to sell 10 oz wide mouth bottles (a la Mickey's Ale) bottles in
New York - we used to call them 'ponies.' Real handy for a gulp and a dash.
- Rush "not that there was much to gulp - we're talking Rheingold" Strong
Please remove [SPAMBLOCK] from my address if replying by e-mail.
Paul Tomblin
>bought by an unsuspecting cot ourist in Vietnam. The screw cap was intact,
>the little paper excise marker thingie was unbroken.
They still doing that? I read about that during the war years (look for
the drill hole on the bottom sealed with wax), and I seem to remember
seeing it on M*A*S*H as well. It probably dates back to the Romans.