KFC - But it tastes like Chicken
John K
"Just some information for those who care.
KFC has been a part of our American traditions for many years.
Many people, day in and day out, eat at KFC religiously. Do they
really know what they are eating?
During a recent study of KFC done at the University of New Hampshire,
they found some very upsetting facts.
First of all, has anybody noticed that just recently, the company
has changed their name? Kentucky Fried Chicken has become KFC. Does anybody
know why? We thought the real reason was because of the "FRIED" food issue.
It's not. The reason why they call it KFC is because they can not use the
word chicken anymore. Why? KFC does not use real chickens. They actually use
genetically manipulated organisms. These so called "chickens" are kept alive
by tubes inserted into their bodies to pump blood and nutrients throughout
their structure. They have no beaks, no feathers, and no feet. Their bone
structure is dramatically shrunk to get more meat out of them. This is great
for KFC because they do not have to pay so much for their production costs.
There is no more plucking of the feathers or the removal f the beaks and
feet.
The government has told them to change all of their menus so they do
not say chicken anywhere. If you look closely you will notice this.
Listen to their commercials, I guarantee you will not see or hear the word
chicken. I find this matter to be very disturbing. I hope people will start
to realize this and let other people know. Please forward this message to
as many people as you can. Together we make KFC start using real chicken
again."
Stuart
John K wrote in message <84ukqf$q38$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
>Just got this one today. Sounds like an urban legend in the making.
>
>"Just some information for those who care.
> KFC has been a part of our American traditions for many years.
> Many people, day in and day out, eat at KFC religiously. Do they
> really know what they are eating?
Hey, I finally get to be the first one to say it, check www.snopes.com
Gerald Belton
wrote:
>Listen to their commercials, I guarantee you will not see or hear the word
>chicken.
Hmmm... I just saw a KFC commercial.... "KFC - We do chicken right."
Gerald "this is old news" Belton
"Pick up a clothing catalogue. They tend to use food words, which is
ironic since the women modeling the "chocolate" or "oatmeal" sweater
live on spring water and heroin." -- Elaine Richards explains color
names in alt.peeves
Lynrd
Gerald Belton wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2000 00:28:27 -0500, "John K" <kru...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Listen to their commercials, I guarantee you will not see or hear the word
> >chicken.
>
> Hmmm... I just saw a KFC commercial.... "KFC - We do chicken right."
>
> Gerald "this is old news" Belton
>
I wonder if that was a "Money Back" guarentee??
ZipPy[TiT][WASTED]
"We're gonna Boogie-oogie-oogie 'til you just can't Boogie no more"
dilligaf
to the private butchers, the next best to KFC and then the regular packers
got theirs. By the way, he will never do that again and to date he is
unable to eat chicken
Bob "They sure looked like real chickens to me" Winkler
John K <kru...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:84ukqf$q38$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> Just got this one today. Sounds like an urban legend in the making.
>
> "Just some information for those who care.
> KFC has been a part of our American traditions for many years.
> Many people, day in and day out, eat at KFC religiously. Do they
> really know what they are eating?
<snip>
. Why? KFC does not use real chickens. They actually use
> genetically manipulated organisms. These so called "chickens" are kept
alive
> by tubes inserted into their bodies to pump blood and nutrients throughout
> their structure. They have no beaks, no feathers, and no feet. Their bone
> structure is dramatically shrunk to get more meat out of them. This is
great
> for KFC because they do not have to pay so much for their production
costs.
> There is no more plucking of the feathers or the removal f the beaks and
> feet.
> The government has told them to change all of their menus so they do
> not say chicken anywhere. If you look closely you will notice this.
> Listen to their commercials, I guarantee you will not see or hear the word
Leo G Simonetta
<kru...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Just got this one today. Sounds like an urban legend in the making.
SNIP
>The government has told them to change all of their menus so they do
>not say chicken anywhere. If you look closely you will notice this.
>Listen to their commercials, I guarantee you will not see or hear the word
>chicken. I find this matter to be very disturbing. I hope people will start
> to realize this and let other people know. Please forward this message to
>as many people as you can. Together we make KFC start using real chicken
>again."
I got the same one today with the following on the bottom!
> > > > > Deidre Williams-Bishop
> > > > > Mis Tech, Boston/Hingham
> > > > > Boston (617) 626-1295
> > > > > Hingham (781) 740-1600 ext.112
Anyone have any idea about whether the University of New
Hampshire attribution is typical or new?
--
Leo G. Simonetta
lsimo...@my-dejanews.com
Melissa Gutierrez
> check www.snopes.com
Er, might want to amend that for expedience:
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/food/kfc.htm
On the topic of genetically tweaked chicken, there was
a lovely "mutated" chicken in the fake products segment
of The Man Show [1] episode that debuted on 12/29/1999.
The chicken consisted of a stack of roughly three dozen
chicken wings stacked with a plastic chicken head on
top, which cursed and made noises about wanting to die
because of its freakishness.
Melissa "thought mock apple pie was weird" Gutierrez
1. The Man Show is a guy-oriented comedy show with new
episodes weekly on the USAian cable network Comedy
Central. URL: http://www.comedycentral.com/manshow/
Rocking T Ranch
> >as many people as you can. Together we make KFC start using real
chicken
> >again."
Leo G. Simonetta wrote
> I got the same one today with the following on the bottom!
>
> > > > > > Deidre Williams-Bishop
> > > > > > Mis Tech, Boston/Hingham
> > > > > > Boston (617) 626-1295
> > > > > > Hingham (781) 740-1600 ext.112
>
> Anyone have any idea about whether the University of New
> Hampshire attribution is typical or new?
I got a copy a couple days ago with the same footer.
Pete "Tastes just like chicken because it IS chicken" Theer
--
Pete & Justine Theer
Rocking T Ranch & Poultry Farm
Raising Chickens, Ducks, Guineas, Peafowl, Pigeons, Quail, Pheasants
and a little hell in Kempner, Texas
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Frank Hurst
dilligaf wrote in message ...
>My son worked last summer at a farm that grew chickens. The best ones went
>to the private butchers, the next best to KFC and then the regular packers
>got theirs. By the way, he will never do that again and to date he is
>unable to eat chicken
>
>Bob "They sure looked like real chickens to me" Winkler
>
>John K <kru...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:84ukqf$q38$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>>
>> KFC has been a part of our American traditions for many years.
>> Many people, day in and day out, eat at KFC religiously. Do they
>> really know what they are eating?
>
><snip>
>
>. Why? KFC does not use real chickens. They actually use
>> genetically manipulated organisms. These so called "chickens" are kept
>alive
>> by tubes inserted into their bodies to pump blood and nutrients
throughout
>> their structure. They have no beaks, no feathers, and no feet. Their bone
>> structure is dramatically shrunk to get more meat out of them. This is
>great
>> for KFC because they do not have to pay so much for their production
>costs.
>> There is no more plucking of the feathers or the removal f the beaks and
>> feet.
>> not say chicken anywhere. If you look closely you will notice this.
>> Listen to their commercials, I guarantee you will not see or hear the
word
>> chicken. I find this matter to be very disturbing. I hope people will
>start
>> to realize this and let other people know. Please forward this message
to
>> again."
I think Cecil Adams covered this nicely. Apparently, the Commonwealth of
Kentucky decided to copyright their name. After a court fight, rather than
pay royalties on a name that they had been using for years, Kentucky Fried
Chicken decided to change their name to KFC. Also why the Kentucky Derby is
now called the 'Run for the Roses'.
Ken Nicolson
wrote:
>I think Cecil Adams covered this nicely. Apparently, the Commonwealth of
>Kentucky decided to copyright their name. After a court fight, rather than
>pay royalties on a name that they had been using for years, Kentucky Fried
>Chicken decided to change their name to KFC.
Is this true? The use of "apparently" rubs me up the wrong way. I had
heard (just as reliable as your sources, I suspect!) that they dropped
the "Fried" bit because of negative connotations with frying and
cholesterol.
Anyway, in Japan, they're still called Kentucky Fried Chicken as a
visit to http://www.kfc.co.jp/ will show. Heh, even the link to the US
is labelled as kentuckyfriedchicken.com, although I couldn't find the
word "Fried" in the US at all.
Ken "KFCat http://www.kfc.co.jp/bin/kitty_oju.html" Nicolson
David Hatunen
Ken Nicolson <kenn...@gol.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:20:51 -0600, "Frank Hurst" <hu...@fsis.tamu.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>I think Cecil Adams covered this nicely. Apparently, the
>>Commonwealth of Kentucky decided to copyright their name. After
>>a court fight, rather than pay royalties on a name that they had
>>been using for years, Kentucky Fried Chicken decided to change
>>their name to KFC.
>
>Is this true? The use of "apparently" rubs me up the wrong way. I
>had heard (just as reliable as your sources, I suspect!) that they
>dropped the "Fried" bit because of negative connotations with
>frying and cholesterol.
Does it help to know you can't copyright the name of a state?
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@sonic.net) ***********
* Daly City California *
******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
Michael Glaser
Just curious then, and only related in my mind---
How does Kentucky have rights to the name/product Bourbon? Ya can make
the same stuff elsewhere but ya can't call it Bourbon.
Michael "or is *that" a UL?" Glaser
Please direct e-mail to both of the following addresses :
mitc...@image-link.com
mitc...@att.net
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Derek Dugger
it can only be labeled champagne if its from that region of France.
--
Derek Dugger (Killbilly[AsS])
The Poison Okies
http://poisonokies.home.att.net/
ICQ# 44287754
"Michael Glaser" <mitc...@image-link.com> wrote in message
news:3874C341...@image-link.com...
David Hatunen
Michael Glaser <mitc...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>David Hatunen wrote:
>> Does it help to know you can't copyright the name of a state?
>Just curious then, and only related in my mind---
>
>How does Kentucky have rights to the name/product Bourbon? Ya can
>make the same stuff elsewhere but ya can't call it Bourbon.
What gives you the idea Kentucky has some sort of right to that
product name?
I used to buy bourbon made in Indiana. Real rotgut. You just
haven't seen enough cheap bourbon, unless the feds have come up
with some sort of Apellation Controlee ruling. I seem to recall
that fed rules say bourbon is a booze fermented from at least 50%
corn.
Steelhead
about this in the paper first. I looked on their web site and it sounds like
their chicken is fine. Check out http://www.kfc.com/AboutKFC/about_chicken.htm
for the real story. The University of New Hampshire also posted a response to
this rumor, saying that this is a hoax.
http://www.unh.edu/BoilerPlate/kfc.html
Gerald Belton wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2000 00:28:27 -0500, "John K" <kru...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Listen to their commercials, I guarantee you will not see or hear the word
> >chicken.
>
> Hmmm... I just saw a KFC commercial.... "KFC - We do chicken right."
>
> Gerald "this is old news" Belton
>
Deborah Stevenson
On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Frank Hurst wrote:
> I think Cecil Adams covered this nicely. Apparently, the Commonwealth of
> Kentucky decided to copyright their name. After a court fight, rather than
> pay royalties on a name that they had been using for years, Kentucky Fried
> Chicken decided to change their name to KFC. Also why the Kentucky Derby is
> now called the 'Run for the Roses'.
I think I'll just accept that I'm AFU's unofficial trollee.
You can't copyright a name.
The Kentucky Derby is actually now called the Kentucky Derby. At least
according to Churchill Downs, which should know (have a look at
http://www.kentuckyderby.com). It's been called the "Run for the Roses"
for years in the same way that people's spouses are called "Sweetheart."
There is no evidence of any discussion on such a matter at
www.thestraightdope.com, in columns new or old or even in the mailbag.
Deborah "finger-lickin'" Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Michael Glaser
Nope, if its called Bourbon, its gotta be from Kentucky. And yes, I have
seen my share of cheap everything. It is the expensive stuff that stumps
me.
Just read a pretty good story about Bourbon in a food magazine this
Fall. Maybe your Hoosier Bourbon was *bottled* here?
Actually there is a sort of Controlee...Bourbon must be made from corn
(thought it was 100%?) and the barrels have to be charred (unlike Jack
Daniels, which is filtered *through* charcoal). It all comes from a few
counties in Kentucky.
Michael
David Hatunen
Michael Glaser <mitc...@att.net> wrote:
>Nope, if its called Bourbon, its gotta be from Kentucky. And yes, I have
>seen my share of cheap everything. It is the expensive stuff that stumps
>me.
Nope. From http://realbeer.com/maltadvocate/W94/W94BOURB.html:
Tennessee Whiskey is legally the same as bourbon, except it must
be made in Tennessee. Bourbon, contrary to popular belief, does
not have to be made in Kentucky unless the producer wants to say
Kentucky straight bourbon whiskey on the label.
In other words, "bourbon" doesn't have to be from Kentucky,
"Kentucky Bourbon" has to be from Kentucky.
>Just read a pretty good story about Bourbon in a food magazine this
>Fall. Maybe your Hoosier Bourbon was *bottled* here?
>
>Actually there is a sort of Controlee...Bourbon must be made from corn
>(thought it was 100%?) and the barrels have to be charred (unlike Jack
>Daniels, which is filtered *through* charcoal). It all comes from a few
>counties in Kentucky.
Ditto source:
According to the feds, "straight whiskey" must be made from a
mash of grain, distilled at no higher than 80% alcohol, and aged
in new charred oak barrels for a minimum of two years. It must be
at least 40% alcohol when it is bottled. To earn the name
"bourbon" the whiskey must be made from a mash of at least 51%
corn and meet the requirements for straight whiskey.
Oh, and from The Straight Dope at
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbourbon.html:
Bourbon can be made anywhere in the U.S., but all but a couple of
brands are made in Kentucky. Only the state of Kentucky can
produce bourbon with its name on the label.
In other words, bourbon can be made anywhere, but Kentucky Bourbon
can only be made in Kentucky. But that's a truth-in-labelling sort
of thing. [1]
Col. [2] Dave "BS Univ of Louisville 1965" Hatunen
[1] Bourbon County is still, I believe, a dry county
[2] Realio turlio Kentucky Colonel per Gov Edward T Breathitt, 16
August 1965.
Chip Taylor
>
>Nope, if its called Bourbon, its gotta be from Kentucky. And yes, I have
>seen my share of cheap everything. It is the expensive stuff that stumps
>me.
>
>Just read a pretty good story about Bourbon in a food magazine this
>Fall. Maybe your Hoosier Bourbon was *bottled* here?
>
>Actually there is a sort of Controlee...Bourbon must be made from corn
>(thought it was 100%?) and the barrels have to be charred (unlike Jack
>Daniels, which is filtered *through* charcoal). It all comes from a few
>counties in Kentucky.
>
>
>Michael
>
Cite?
According to http://www.straightbourbon.com/whatosbourbon.html:
"Though technically Bourbon can be made anywhere, Kentucky is the only state
allowed to put its name on the bottle."
Also:
"At least 51 percent of the grain used in making the whiskey must be corn"
Chip "wonder what the other 49% is?" Taylor
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Since light travels faster than sound,
isn't that why some people appear
bright until you hear them speak?
-Steven Wright
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Michael Glaser
David Hatunen wrote:
>
> In article <3874D2C9...@image-link.com>,
> Michael Glaser <mitc...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >Nope, if its called Bourbon, its gotta be from Kentucky. And yes, I have
> >seen my share of cheap everything. It is the expensive stuff that stumps
> >me.
>
> Nope. From http://realbeer.com/maltadvocate/W94/W94BOURB.html:
>
> Tennessee Whiskey is legally the same as bourbon, except it must
> be made in Tennessee. Bourbon, contrary to popular belief, does
> not have to be made in Kentucky unless the producer wants to say
> Kentucky straight bourbon whiskey on the label.
>
> In other words, "bourbon" doesn't have to be from Kentucky,
> "Kentucky Bourbon" has to be from Kentucky.
>
> >Just read a pretty good story about Bourbon in a food magazine this
> >Fall. Maybe your Hoosier Bourbon was *bottled* here?
> >
> >Actually there is a sort of Controlee...Bourbon must be made from corn
> >(thought it was 100%?) and the barrels have to be charred (unlike Jack
> >Daniels, which is filtered *through* charcoal). It all comes from a few
> >counties in Kentucky.
>
> Ditto source:
>
> According to the feds, "straight whiskey" must be made from a
> mash of grain, distilled at no higher than 80% alcohol, and aged
> in new charred oak barrels for a minimum of two years. It must be
> at least 40% alcohol when it is bottled. To earn the name
> "bourbon" the whiskey must be made from a mash of at least 51%
> corn and meet the requirements for straight whiskey.
>
> Oh, and from The Straight Dope at
> http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbourbon.html:
>
> Bourbon can be made anywhere in the U.S., but all but a couple of
> brands are made in Kentucky. Only the state of Kentucky can
> produce bourbon with its name on the label.
>
> In other words, bourbon can be made anywhere, but Kentucky Bourbon
> can only be made in Kentucky. But that's a truth-in-labelling sort
> of thing. [1]
>
> Col. [2] Dave "BS Univ of Louisville 1965" Hatunen
>
> [1] Bourbon County is still, I believe, a dry county
>
> [2] Realio turlio Kentucky Colonel per Gov Edward T Breathitt, 16
> August 1965.
>
> --
> ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@sonic.net) ***********
> * Daly City California *
> ******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
Found *my* story. From the April 1999 issue of SAVEUR magazine: (p 94)
"By law, bourbon must be a product of the United States, made from at
least 51 percent corn (mixed with malted barley and rye or wheat) and
aged a minimum of two years (though most are aged at least four) in
charred new oak barrels. No flavorings, colorings or neutral grain
spirits may be added. And most of it (fully 98 percent)---the best of
it---comes from Kentucky, the only state that may be named on the
label."
The capital of bourbon is Bardstown, KY----Not dry. You may be thinking
of Lynchburg, where Jack Daniels is made.
A bit of history---the first makers of Bourbon were refugees of the
Pennsylvania Whisky Rebellion in the 1790's
Michael "and I'm dry this month?" Glaser
Terence P Higgins
> "At least 51 percent of the grain used in making the whiskey must be corn"
Chip "wonder what the other 49% is?" Taylor
Semen, gerbils and spider eggs?
--
there's a big day coming
i can hardly wait
David Hatunen
Michael Glaser <mitc...@att.net> wrote:
>Found *my* story. From the April 1999 issue of SAVEUR magazine: (p
>94)
>
>"By law, bourbon must be a product of the United States, made from
>at least 51 percent corn (mixed with malted barley and rye or
>wheat) and aged a minimum of two years (though most are aged at
>least four) in charred new oak barrels. No flavorings, colorings
>or neutral grain spirits may be added. And most of it (fully 98
>percent)---the best of it---comes from Kentucky, the only state
>that may be named on the label."
In other words, bourbon can be made anywhere, "Kentucky Bourbon"
must be made in Kentucky.
>The capital of bourbon is Bardstown, KY----Not dry. You may be
>thinking of Lynchburg, where Jack Daniels is made.
Bardstown and Nelson county are wet; I don't believe they were when
I was living there. But dryness does not tell you whisky cannot be
made; you can make bourbon in a dry county but you can't sell it
there.
I see in
http://www.kentuckyconnect.com/heraldleader/news/012999/local/docs/29Edwards.htm
that Bourbon County has finally gone wet.
Andrea Jones
<snip, mutant chickens>
>I think Cecil Adams covered this nicely. Apparently, the Commonwealth of
>Kentucky decided to copyright their name. After a court fight, rather
than
>pay royalties on a name that they had been using for years, Kentucky Fried
>Chicken decided to change their name to KFC. Also why the Kentucky Derby
is
>now called the 'Run for the Roses'.
indicates that the Kentucky Derby was _also_ known as the Run for the Roses
long before Kentucky Fried Chicken became KFC. The name is of course a
reference to the "horseshoe" (more like a blanket) of red roses which is
draped across the withers of the winning horse. So while "the Run for the
Roses" may be the suddenly _official_ name for the Kentucky Derby, I must
quibble with the "now called" bit, which is phrased as if this is a new
thing, which it isn't.
Andrea "actually, I'm bored and just want to quibble with someone" Jones
Michael Glaser
In my old age I've found comity with David.
But, *how* are names that are not corporate trademarks protected---Those
foods and beverages that are seemingly identified by region of origin?
Scotch and Champagne come to mind but there seem to be few protected
names compared to the many regionally *unique* products. Can I raise
Belon Oysters outside of Brittany (Bretagne, France) and sell them as
Belon? Coffee is tricky as the names seem to be not protected. Is
pilsner beer only protected when it is Pilsner Beer?
Further, it seems to be fairly easy to control infringements within
borders, but on an international level it must get messy. Are these
protections part of international agreements? Does a list of names
exist?
Michael "Waiting for an official to blow the whistle" Glaser
David Hatunen
Michael Glaser <mitc...@att.net> wrote:
>In my old age I've found comity with David.
whew...
>But, *how* are names that are not corporate trademarks protected---Those
>foods and beverages that are seemingly identified by region of origin?
They aren't protected unless by law (or lawsuit). The French
Appelation controlee systeme is a matter of French law and is
enforced in the EU. Nevertheless many American wineries continue to
produce "champagne" and "burgundy" because it is not law here.
>Scotch and Champagne come to mind but there seem to be few
>protected names compared to the many regionally *unique* products.
>Can I raise Belon Oysters outside of Brittany (Bretagne, France)
>and sell them as Belon? Coffee is tricky as the names seem to be
>not protected. Is pilsner beer only protected when it is Pilsner
>Beer?
If "belon" is a species I expect you could raise them anywhere they
will thrive. Whether you can call them "Belon Oysters" unless it is
a species name is another matter. "Burgundy" has become something of
a generic in the USA but I'm not sure "Belon" woudl be so
considered. I do buy a lot of American-made Swiss cheese,
though. And not all Monterey Jack is made in Monterey. Very little
of it, in fact.
>Further, it seems to be fairly easy to control infringements within
>borders, but on an international level it must get messy. Are these
>protections part of international agreements? Does a list of names
>exist?
Some are part of inter-national agreements, but few are part of
international agreements where "international" means a very large
subset of all the countries in the world.
I believe the Japanese make both bourbon and scotch.
David Hatunen
It was the *Kentucky Derby* when I went twice in the early 1960s
and it was also informally called the "Run for the Roses". I think
the latter term started out as sportswriterese a long time ago.
Dave "Decidedly payed $19.20 and I had a $2 ticket" Hatunen
SpamHater
Frank Hurst wrote:
> I think Cecil Adams covered this nicely. Apparently, the Commonwealth of
> Kentucky decided to copyright their name. After a court fight, rather than
> pay royalties on a name that they had been using for years, Kentucky Fried
> Chicken decided to change their name to KFC. Also why the Kentucky Derby is
> now called the 'Run for the Roses'.
BS. You can't copyright a state name. And the Kentucky Derby is
called the Kentucky Derby. Not even a good attempt.
SpamHater
John K ( a fucking moron ) wrote:
>
> Just got this one today. Sounds like an urban legend in the making.
A UL made years ago, end debunked to death long since.
>
> "Just some information for those who care.
> KFC has been a part of our American traditions for many years.
> Many people, day in and day out, eat at KFC religiously. Do they
> really know what they are eating?
> During a recent study of KFC done at the University of New Hampshire,
> they found some very upsetting facts.
> First of all, has anybody noticed that just recently, the company
> has changed their name? Kentucky Fried Chicken has become KFC.
Just recently? You mean nine years ago (1991).
> Does anybody
> know why? We thought the real reason was because of the "FRIED" food issue.
> It's not. The reason why they call it KFC is because they can not use the
> word chicken anymore. Why? KFC does not use real chickens. They actually use
> genetically manipulated organisms. These so called "chickens" are kept alive
> by tubes inserted into their bodies to pump blood and nutrients throughout
> their structure. They have no beaks, no feathers, and no feet. Their bone
> structure is dramatically shrunk to get more meat out of them. This is great
> for KFC because they do not have to pay so much for their production costs.
> There is no more plucking of the feathers or the removal f the beaks and
> feet.
> The government has told them to change all of their menus so they do
> not say chicken anywhere. If you look closely you will notice this.
> Listen to their commercials, I guarantee you will not see or hear the word
> chicken.
Guarantee is faulty. Their TV ads use the word chicken. Their
print ads use the word chicken. The menu posted in KFC shops
prominently diplays the word chicken several times. Their website
is just chock full of the word chicken. It's as chicken as chicken
can be.
> I find this matter to be very disturbing.
I'll grant that you are disturbed. Misinformed, gullible,
stupid, too? Full of shit? Full of chickenshit?
> I hope people will start
> to realize this and let other people know. Please forward this message to
> as many people as you can.
The clear sign of total bullshit.
Frank O'Donnell
>
>On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Frank Hurst wrote:
>
>> I think Cecil Adams covered this nicely. Apparently, the Commonwealth of
>> Kentucky decided to copyright their name.
>
>
>You can't copyright a name.
>
>The Kentucky Derby is actually now called the Kentucky Derby. At least
>There is no evidence of any discussion on such a matter at
>www.thestraightdope.com, in columns new or old or even in the mailbag.
We appear to have been attacked once again by one of Snopes' "Lost Legends."
The "Copyrighted Kentucky" story is on the www.snopes.com site under "Lost
Legends" where several useful potential trolls are presented, including the
ever-popular "Mr. Ed Was a Zebra" tale, of recent memory.
Rusty
--
"The common people must have loved God. They made so many of Him."--Peter
DeVries
Joseph M. Shair
>
<hack/>
> Nope, if its called Bourbon, its gotta be from Kentucky. And yes, I have
> seen my share of cheap everything. It is the expensive stuff that stumps
> me.
>
> Fall. Maybe your Hoosier Bourbon was *bottled* here?
>
>
I believe that is a (non-urban) legend.
According to Chuck Cowdery, producer and director of "Made and
Bottled in Kentucky," a public television documentary about the
Kentucky bourbon industry:
/Begin unfair use
"..., the question "what is bourbon?" is usually answered with
a definition enshrined in federal law. The definition you usually see
combines the legal definition for straight whiskey, which all bourbon
whiskey must be, with the additional requirements for bourbon.
..., "straight whiskey" must be made from a mash of
grain, distilled at no higher than 80% alcohol, and aged in new charred
oak barrels for a minimum of two years. It must be at least 40% alcohol
when it is bottled. ..."bourbon" the whiskey must be made from a mash
of at least 51% corn and meet the requirements for straight whiskey.
Tennessee Whiskey is legally the same as bourbon, except it must be
made in Tennessee. Bourbon, contrary to popular belief, does not have
to be made in Kentucky unless the producer wants to say Kentucky
straight bourbon whiskey on the label."
/end unfair use
He goes on to say that most bourbon is distilled at lower alcohol
levels to improve taste and that the percentage of corn used is
usually over 60%. In general, for a "straight whiskey" the higher
the percentage of corn, the sweeter the taste.
The idea that bourbon must be made in Kentucky seems to be
the result of Jim Beam advertising.
Full text: http://www.realbeer.com/maltadvocate/W94/W94BOURB.html
Joe "but *really*, officer, I don't drink" Shair
Leo G Simonetta
<pete_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I got a copy a couple days ago with the same footer.
>
>Pete "Tastes just like chicken because it IS chicken" Theer
I decided to poke around a bit and this story is right around
4 years old on Usenet and made its first appearance right here in
afu.
In a post that attributes the research to the FDA and the genetic
manipulation for rapid growth.
Subject: ???Kentucky Fried Chicken???
Date: 03 Jan 1996 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <4cd6ou$6...@crusher.ici.net>
Shortly thereafter we got the four legged variant involving a mad
scientist:
Subject: KFC breeds 4-legged chickens?
Date: 29 Mar 1996 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID:
<Pine.SOL.3.91.960329...@dale.ucdavis.edu>
In a couple more months we are back to the FDA and "hybrid
(Genetically altered):
Subject: KFC
Date: 22 Jul 1996 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <31F3E4...@earthlink.net>
Then across the street in alt.english.usage we're back to four
legs:
Subject: Re: KFC
Date: 15 Nov 1997 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID:
<Pine.GSO.3.94.971115...@morpheus.cis.yale.edu>
The post that Joe is responding to seems to have disappeared but
this time the beasts have no legs and beaks or can't produce
viable offspring with 'normal" chicken.
From: jm...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Michael Bay)
Subject: Re: a question
Date: 23 Nov 1997 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <65a0mk$1...@amy6.Stanford.EDU>
References: <658i0u$51$1...@news1.bu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg,alt.religion.kibology
In wpg.general the supposition is that they are breeding
"chicken parts."
Subject: Re: KFC stranger than fiction?
Date: 23 Nov 1997 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <3477CE...@usa.net>
Back to afu we find them "so genetically engineered and pumped
full of drugs they can't stand"
Subject: KFC: not chicken?
Date: 18 Jan 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID:
<kbacon-1801...@pool074-max7.la-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net>
Four legged fowl returns to afu with a cite of an unspecified
issue of Time Magazine in
Subject: KFC vs. Kentucky Fried Chicken
Date: 09 Nov 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <36477CCD...@uvvm.uvic.ca>
In rec.food.veg we find KFC breediing soft beaked chicken (among
other things)
Subject: KFC does not sell chicken?
Date: 25 Nov 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <73h8v2$m...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>
Next comes "Kentucky Fried Creature," sans beak, legs and even
feathers in alt.hentai.sailor-moon. A critter that "defies
scintific classification."
Subject: Kentucky Fried Creature
Date: 08 Apr 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <370D597A...@deepthought.armory.com>
Instead of a creature (or a chicken) we have a "Clux" in
nyc.transit. A "genetically engineered chicken-based animals
with either four or six legs."
Subject: Re: Department of Redundancy Department (was Re: Why Is
a Train?)
Date: 15 Jul 1999 00:00:00 GMT
And then back to the present with the seminal article for the
current version first posted in rec.sport.softball - featuring
the UNH connection no beaks, feathers or feet.
Subject: IF YOU GO TO KFC READ THIS
Date: 03 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <21d086a8...@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com>
Message-ID: <7mlbcr$og7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Leo "Will research for food" Simonetta
lsimo...@my-dejanews.com
The AFU FAQ is carefully hidden at http://www.urbanlegends.com
Eric Hocking
> David Hatunen wrote:
> > In other words, "bourbon" doesn't have to be from Kentucky,
> > "Kentucky Bourbon" has to be from Kentucky.
>
> "By law, bourbon must be a product of the United States, made from at
> least 51 percent corn (mixed with malted barley and rye or wheat) and
> aged a minimum of two years (though most are aged at least four) in
> charred new oak barrels. No flavorings, colorings or neutral grain
> spirits may be added. And most of it (fully 98 percent)---the best of
> it---comes from Kentucky, the only state that may be named on the
> label."
WHile there doesn't seem to be the same restriction on whisky,
specifically Scotch Whisky. (Personal anecdote alert, KD) At a recent
festive bash, we Austrians were rather pleased to point out to a very
nationalistic Pom[1] that the "Scotch Whisky", so labelled on the
bottle, was in fact distilled and bottled in France. Particularly
Gaulling to a Pom at the moment (but they've always got something to
beef about). Someone postulated that the French could get around this
by the fact that the parent company/importer was based in Scotland.
--
Eric "Whereas superior Austrian champagne is *still* called sparkling
wine, no matter who imports it" Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
=== London, England (ex Melbourne, Australia) ===
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ehocking
http://www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
[1] term of endearment, truly, and not an acronym
K. D.
On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 22:44:04 +0000, Eric Hocking
<ehoc...@twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>WHile there doesn't seem to be the same restriction on whisky,
>specifically Scotch Whisky. (Personal anecdote alert, KD)
No, no, no. You haven't been paying attention. Please do check the
archives and you will see that it was a another person (who, I'm sure,
is glad to be off the hook), responding to MY post, that first brought
this personal anecdote problem in AFU to the attention of the group.
Yeah, that's the way it was......
Personally yours,
-KD
Deborah Stevenson
On 7 Jan 2000 spo...@best.com wrote:
> Remember that old adage about how when you hear hoofbeats you should
> think horses, not zebras? Well, in this case, it *definitely* pays
> to think zebras.
I give. If people ever need somebody to ask "What's a henway?", I'm your
girl.
Deborah "fountain of straight lines" Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Phil Edwards
Hatunen) wrote:
>Col. [2] Dave "BS Univ of Louisville 1965" Hatunen
>
>[2] Realio turlio Kentucky Colonel per Gov Edward T Breathitt, 16
>August 1965.
Huh?
Phil "where I graduated all they handed out was MAs" Edwards
--
Phil Edwards http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/amroth/
"It's hyperbole, or allusion, or personification,
or panettone, or something." - Ray Depew
Christabel La Motte
David Hatunen <hat...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
> Some are part of inter-national agreements, but few are part of
> international agreements where "international" means a very large
> subset of all the countries in the world.
>
> I believe the Japanese make both bourbon and scotch.
Suntory has been making whisky in Japan for decades...
<http://www.suntory.com/company/JWhisky.html>
<http://secure.tastings.com/spirits/japanese.html>
Scotch and bourbon type whiskeys are both produced, though I have
no idea whether or not they're actually labelled and marketed as such.
Xabel "sudden craving for soba and single malt" La Motte
--
"Christabel La Motte" QUACK <lam...@toilet-duck.org> QUACK! Washington, DC
"This is like being nibbled to death by...what are those earth creatures
called -- feathers, long bill, webbed feet, go 'quack'?" "Cats."
"Like being nibbled to death by cats."
spo...@best.com
> Does it help to know you can't copyright the name of a state?
Remember that old adage about how when you hear hoofbeats you should
think horses, not zebras? Well, in this case, it *definitely* pays
to think zebras.
Barbara "talking ones, especially" Mikkelson
--
Barbara Mikkelson | A guy who married a dead woman just ain't normal.
spo...@best.com | No offense intended. - JoAnne Schmitz
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Urban legends and more --> http://www.snopes.com
RRS
>
> I figure its the same as Champagne. There's lots of sparkling wines but
> it can only be labeled champagne if its from that region of France.
I think that Vidalia onions can only be called that if they are actually
grown in Vidalia (Georgia?, USA.)
Robin "sweet as apples?" Storesund
Richard Brandt
> Nope, if its called Bourbon, its gotta be from Kentucky.
You can get you some good Bourbon in Juarez. For certain values
of "good."
Richard "Bootleg" Brandt
--
= Richard Brandt http://www.suite101.com/myhome.cfm/rsbrandt =
"Usenet will get you through times of no cable better than
cable will get you through times of no Usenet."--Kip Williams
Charles Bishop
lsimo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[forward? saying that KFC can't use "chicken" in ads]
>I got the same one today with the following on the bottom!
>
>> > > > > Deidre Williams-Bishop
>> > > > > Mis Tech, Boston/Hingham
>> > > > > Boston (617) 626-1295
>> > > > > Hingham (781) 740-1600 ext.112
>
>Anyone have any idea about whether the University of New
>Hampshire attribution is typical or new?
>
The Hingham phone number gets the Commonwealth of Mass mumblety
Environmental mumblety and environmental police, but the extension didn't
work.
Chalres, at 10:30 pm PST, Bishop
Charles Bishop
<Pine.SGI.4.10.1000106...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>, Deborah
Stevenson <stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On 7 Jan 2000 spo...@best.com wrote:
>
>> Remember that old adage about how when you hear hoofbeats you should
>> think horses, not zebras? Well, in this case, it *definitely* pays
>> to think zebras.
>
>I give. If people ever need somebody to ask "What's a henway?", I'm your
>girl.
>
Ditto "piecost", "potfer"?
Cgarkes
Don Whittington
D.) wrote:
Great, you can neither distinguish between:
a) regulars
b) folk making fun of you
Don "Well, hell, you'd have watched the black death, wouldn't you?" Whittington
--
"Aside from its unscientificaliness, it has destroyed my faith
in my fellow man. (My fellow women are still faithable.)"
--Timothy A. McDaniel on the state of the poll
Don Whittington
Sorry. I don't understand this post at all.
Don "What's a Grecian urn?" Whittington
Michael Glaser
Bob Ward wrote:
>
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 12:37:13 -0500, Michael Glaser
> <mitc...@image-link.com> wrote:
[snipped early back an forth between David and myself.]
If Bob would have followed the thread thorugh early afternoon, he would
have realized that David clued me in to---I misread the article in
Saveur Magazine.
> Sir, by definition, I would like to state that you are full of shit.
No, I was wrong. I took a healthy shit one hour ago.
> By international agreement, bourbon must be made in the U.S.A., or
> it's simply not bourbon. Similar protection exist for scotch, vodka
> and other spirits. One reason for the rule is that it allows
> distillers in the native country to control quality. Another reason?
> It sure doesn't hurt the export business.
Hmm, vodka?
What protections exist for vodka? Is that Russian vodka, Swedish,
Finnish, Canadian or USA vodka...well, I guess they're all protected.
And what about the Japanese and French Scotch that was cited in this
thread?
Michael
cwp
> I figure its the same as Champagne. There's lots of sparkling wines but
> it can only be labeled champagne if its from that region of France.
Err...no?
I used to think that, too, until I saw a bottle of Korbel
in the grocery store: "California Champagne." Perusing
www.korbel.com, it seems as if this particular champagne
is in fact made in California (Sonoma county), using
techniques developed by winemakers in the Champagne region
of France a couple of centuries ago.
cwp "real men drink Diesel"
Deborah Stevenson
On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.SGI.4.10.1000106...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>, Deborah
> Stevenson <stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> >On 7 Jan 2000 spo...@best.com wrote:
> >
> >> Remember that old adage about how when you hear hoofbeats you should
> >> think horses, not zebras? Well, in this case, it *definitely* pays
> >> to think zebras.
> >
> >I give. If people ever need somebody to ask "What's a henway?", I'm your
> >girl.
> >
> Ditto "piecost", "potfer"?
But of course. I retain no knowledge of such things. I don't know why
the chicken crossed the road or the results of crossbreeding of elephants.
I wonder who Ory is and why she felt the need for departure and I research
Della Reese's past clothing. When someone imitates the sound of a knock
at my door, I run to the portal and look around in puzzlement wondering
where my caller has disappeared to.
I should simply rent myself out to the parents of primary graders as a
respite.
Deborah Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Joseph Yuska
The Hingham Environmental police office is a small facility that houses
boats for the police on the Boston Harbor Islands State Park. The only
computers there are ancient PC's for word processing.
The Boston number goes nowhere. Constant circuits busy.
There is no phone listing for a Williams-Bishop, Deirdre Williams, or
Deirdre Bishop in Massachusetts.
Joe Yuska
Frank Hurst
SpamHater wrote in message <38750B46...@aol.com>...
>
>
>Frank Hurst wrote:
>
>> I think Cecil Adams covered this nicely. Apparently, the Commonwealth of
than
>> pay royalties on a name that they had been using for years, Kentucky
Fried
>> Chicken decided to change their name to KFC. Also why the Kentucky Derby
is
>> now called the 'Run for the Roses'.
>
>BS. You can't copyright a state name. And the Kentucky Derby is
>called the Kentucky Derby. Not even a good attempt.
My mistake. Apparently I was in scopes and Cecil on the same day, and me
have mis-referenced or misremebered. I am aware that the Kentucky Derby has
always been called the 'Run for the Roses' unofficially. I thought that
they had adopted officially.
As for the 'Not even a good attempt', above; What was I supposed to have
been attempting other than to share some information that a) turned out to
be an 'Urban Legend' (This is after all the AFU newsgroup) and b) may have
been incorrect (innocently as it was),
c) Not recently discussed that I have seen in the 5-6 weeks I've been
lurking in this newsgroup, and finally d) was not a topic initially set
forth by me. If you have a problem, plonk me. Otherwise, you can hold the
flame bait to yourself. You've had a problem with trollers? Select your
targets a little better.
David Hatunen
Christabel La Motte <lam...@toilet-duck.org> wrote:
>In <xv6d4.533$X8....@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>David Hatunen <hat...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
>> I believe the Japanese make both bourbon and scotch.
>
>Suntory has been making whisky in Japan for decades...
>Scotch and bourbon type whiskeys are both produced, though I have
>no idea whether or not they're actually labelled and marketed as
>such.
It's hard to market a scotch whisky without calling it a scotch
whisky. "Scotch-Flavored Whisky" just doesn't sound like good
marketing.
David Hatunen
Michael Glaser <mitc...@att.net> wrote:
>I read in FORBES FYI that French wines/champagnes are never
>compared/rated/taste-tasted (what is that called?) head-to-head with
>other nation's products. It is always French V. French only. Talk about
>clout!
There may be a reason for that. Some years ago some good French
wines were put up against some good California wines in a
now-notorious blind taste testing in France and the Californias
beat out the French.
Michael Glaser
David Hatunen wrote:
>
> In article <3874F0B4...@image-link.com>,
> Michael Glaser <mitc...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >In my old age I've found comity with David.
>
> whew...
>
> >But, *how* are names that are not corporate trademarks protected---Those
> >foods and beverages that are seemingly identified by region of origin?
>
> They aren't protected unless by law (or lawsuit). The French
> Appelation controlee systeme is a matter of French law and is
> enforced in the EU. Nevertheless many American wineries continue to
> produce "champagne" and "burgundy" because it is not law here.
>
> >Scotch and Champagne come to mind but there seem to be few
> >protected names compared to the many regionally *unique* products.
> >Can I raise Belon Oysters outside of Brittany (Bretagne, France)
> >and sell them as Belon? Coffee is tricky as the names seem to be
> >not protected. Is pilsner beer only protected when it is Pilsner
> >Beer?
>
> If "belon" is a species I expect you could raise them anywhere they
> will thrive. Whether you can call them "Belon Oysters" unless it is
> a species name is another matter.
From: http://match.cuisinenet.com/digest/ingred/oyster/types.shtml
"OSTREA EDULIS
The Belon is the most well known of these oysters. They are round,
symmetrical, expensive,
and always flavorful. They should never be cooked. They will not be
available in markets
during the summer (the non-R months) because this is the time when the
oysters spawn,
causing the texture to become gritty and the flavor to diminish.
Also called: European oyster, flat oyster
In England: Dorset, Whitstable In America: they have been successfully
cultivated, especially in Blue Hill (Maine) and in
the Pacific Northwest
In France: Belon -- the classic example of Ostrea edulis and, for some,
the epitome of oyster eating. The Belon is native to Brittany."
UL?
I read in FORBES FYI that French wines/champagnes are never
compared/rated/taste-tasted (what is that called?) head-to-head with
other nation's products. It is always French V. French only. Talk about
clout!
While someone can point out where some local expert mixed things up,
there is a gentlemen's agreement among those with *a reputation*.
Stephen Churchill
2000 14:25:37 GMT:
Well, the wine makers of the Champagne region of France contend that
champagne (the drink) comes *only* from that part of the world, and
all the rest are merely "sparkling wines." It's not just the
technique, supposedly, but the grapes, the soil, the climate, etc.
Whether there is a *legal* definition of the term "champagne" in the
USA or not, I can't tell you. But I've been told by someone who has
some experience with wines [1] that the "experts" would never refer to
a sparkling wine made outside of this region as anything *but*
sparkling wine.
Of course, if someone with more specific expertise can come up with
something better, I stand corrected. My own are of expertise is that
the best beers come from Canada. [smiley deleted]
Stephen "Labatt's Ice, please" Churchill
________________________________
"An hour sitting with a pretty girl on a park bench passes like
a minute, but a minute sitting on a hot stove passes like an hour.
THAT'S relativity." -Albert Einstein
-------------------------------------------
stephen....@bigfoot.com ICQ#1806322
Lynrd
RRS wrote:
>
> Derek Dugger wrote:
> >
> > I figure its the same as Champagne. There's lots of sparkling wines but
> > it can only be labeled champagne if its from that region of France.
>
> I think that Vidalia onions can only be called that if they are actually
> grown in Vidalia (Georgia?, USA.)
>
> Robin "sweet as apples?" Storesund
Well, the ones in my garden were Vidalias, but I'm not in
Georgia....Vidalia is a type of onion...
--
ZipPy[TiT][WASTED]
"We're gonna Boogie-oogie-oogie 'til you just can't Boogie no more"
N Jill Marsh
> I read in FORBES FYI that French wines/champagnes are never
> compared/rated/taste-tasted (what is that called?) head-to-head with
> other nation's products. It is always French V. French only. Talk about
> clout!
> While someone can point out where some local expert mixed things up,
> there is a gentlemen's agreement among those with *a reputation*.
Huh? Tasting across countries (including France) is what international
competitons are all about. Pick up any Wine Spectator, wines tend to be
evaluated either between others of the same region/country (e.g., Napa
Valley, Bordeaux) or type (e.g., particular varietal, Ice Wines).
I would have said that the "French over all" snobbery largely disappeared
among most serious oenophiles some time ago.
And a note about Champagnes: the last time I kept track of that
controversy, the French had won the lawsuit; one shouldn't use the word
"Champagne" on the label if it wasn't made in the Champagne region. I
suppose people still use it to denote a wine made by the methode Champenoise
if they don't want to market it within the EEC, but most makers changed
their labels a few years ago.
Sparkling Canadian wines made by the methode Champenoise are labled as such,
other sparkling wines are labled just as sparkling. This is also the
labelling method for Australian and Californian sparkling wines I see on
sale here in Ontario. The Champagnes just say "vin mousseux", the label
doesn't ensure they were made by the "methode Champenoise", hmmmmm.
nj"my only vice"m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See, here he comes stealing through the undergrowth, his face shining
with the light of pure intelligence. There are no limits to Jeeve's
brain power. He virtually lives on fish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hatunen
N Jill Marsh <njm...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>And a note about Champagnes: the last time I kept track of that
>controversy, the French had won the lawsuit; one shouldn't use the
>word "Champagne" on the label if it wasn't made in the Champagne
>region. I suppose people still use it to denote a wine made by
>the methode Champenoise if they don't want to market it within the
>EEC, but most makers changed their labels a few years ago.
The Frecnh may have won a lawsuit in the EU (not the EEC) but not
everywhere. In California Korbel and Cooks, among others, still
call their sparkling whites "champagne". Many other California
wineyards do abjure the use of the word "champagne", including, fo
course, those with a French connection such as Domain Cahndon and
Piper.
>Sparkling Canadian wines made by the methode Champenoise are
>labled as such, other sparkling wines are labled just as
>sparkling. This is also the labelling method for Australian and
>Californian sparkling wines I see on sale here in Ontario. The
>Champagnes just say "vin mousseux", the label doesn't ensure they
>were made by the "methode Champenoise", hmmmmm.
Does one really care how *Canadian* sparkling wines are made?
Leo G Simonetta
<gamb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Vidalia
It appears that the vidalia onion name is a federally protected.
According to http://www.blandfarms.com/
"As fame of these delicious onions grew, farmers sought to
preserve the uniqueness of this crop by acquiring legal status.
In 1986, Georgia's state legislature did just that by limiting
the growing area of the onions to 20 southeast Georgia counties.
In 1989, the Vidalias gained federal recognition and protection
through the federal Marketing Order No. 955. This order makes the
selling on non-Vidalia Sweet Onions as Vidalias illegal. "
And on http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/sm-bus-c.htm
"Marketing orders are binding on all individuals and businesses
who are classified as "handlers" in the geographic area covered
by the order. Marketing orders are distinguished from marketing
agreements, which are binding only on handlers who are
signatories of the agreements. The definition of handler and
handling depends on the particular program. As defined in most
agreements and orders, a handler is anyone who receives the
commodity from producers, grades and packs it, transports, or
places the commodity in commercial channels. Handlers must comply
with the grade, size, quality, volume, or other requirements
established under the program."
Google is your friend!
Leo
--
Leo G. Simonetta
lsimo...@my-dejanews.com
Jim Skillman
>
> RRS wrote:
> >
> > Derek Dugger wrote:
> > >
> > > I figure its the same as Champagne. There's lots of sparkling wines but
> > > it can only be labeled champagne if its from that region of France.
> >
> > I think that Vidalia onions can only be called that if they are actually
> > grown in Vidalia (Georgia?, USA.)
> >
> > Robin "sweet as apples?" Storesund
>
> Well, the ones in my garden were Vidalias, but I'm not in
> Georgia....Vidalia is a type of onion...
All Vidalia onions are sweet onions, but not all sweet onions are
Vidalias.
To be sold as a Vidalia, the onion must have been grown in a defined
area around Vidalia, Georgia, as designated by the USDA.
In spite of all the assistance the government has given these growers,
including building them a huge climate controlled warehouse, they treat
their seasonal workers horribily. For this reason their onions taste
bitter in my mouth. I prefer the Texas sweets.
--jim
JGM
> > The government has told them to change all of their menus so they do
> > not say chicken anywhere. If you look closely you will notice this.
> > Listen to their commercials, I guarantee you will not see or hear the word
> > chicken.
>
> Guarantee is faulty. Their TV ads use the word chicken. Their
> print ads use the word chicken. The menu posted in KFC shops
> prominently diplays the word chicken several times. Their website
> is just chock full of the word chicken. It's as chicken as chicken
> can be.
This thing must really be on a roll, though (*). The KFC in my li'l town (not
particularly well known for cyber-sophistication) has added the single word
"CHICKEN" to the message area under the KFC sign, in apparent answer to the
rumour.
Though I'd still like somebody to explain to me what a "side breast" is.
JGM
(*) The KFC forwardlore, that is. The pseudo-chicken's on a rubber biscuit.
Nathan Tenny
cwp <cwpa...@alve.com> wrote:
>Derek Dugger <derek...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> I figure its the same as Champagne. There's lots of sparkling wines but
>> it can only be labeled champagne if its from that region of France.
>
>
>I used to think that, too, until I saw a bottle of Korbel
>in the grocery store: "California Champagne."
It's a French, or maybe a European Union, regulation. Merkins are free to
violate it on their home turf, but it's considered a misrepresentation
by the real Champagne foundries.
Cite: I'm sloppy about cites on Fridays. From the text at
<http://www.champagnes.com/info/la_cham.html>, it's possible to infer that
a law defining the region in which champagne is produced exists and dates
from 1927, but it doesn't say exactly what the regulations are. They're
probably at that same site somewhere.
NT
--
Nathan Tenny | Words I carry in my pocket, where they
Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA | breed like white mice.
<nten...@qualcomm.com> | - Lawrence Durrell
Madeleine Page
[snip discussion of whether Champagne can be so-called if it doesn't come
from France]
>Well, the wine makers of the Champagne region of France contend that
>champagne (the drink) comes *only* from that part of the world, and
>all the rest are merely "sparkling wines." It's not just the
>technique, supposedly, but the grapes, the soil, the climate, etc.
>Whether there is a *legal* definition of the term "champagne" in the
>USA or not, I can't tell you.
Me neither. But there is such a legal definition in England. Back in the
late fifties [L], the Champagne Growers' Association (or some such) took
the makers of a truly execrable drink to court over their advertising
slogan. The drink was Babycham, a nauseatingly sweet hen's noseful of
fizzy glop whose major ingredient was pears. It was served in individual
serving-size bottles and was a big hit with the beehive hairdo set. The
manufacturers styled it "The Genuine Champagne Perry". The French won the
court case, I am gratified to report.
>Of course, if someone with more specific expertise can come up with
>something better, I stand corrected. My own are of expertise is that
>the best beers come from Canada. [smiley deleted]
True, at least for them as likes gnat's piss.
Madeleine "Ruddles for me" Page
David Martin
>
> Lynrd wrote:
> >
> > RRS wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that Vidalia onions can only be called that if they are actually
> > > grown in Vidalia (Georgia?, USA.)
> >
> > Georgia....Vidalia is a type of onion...
>
> All Vidalia onions are sweet onions, but not all sweet onions are
> Vidalias.
>
> To be sold as a Vidalia, the onion must have been grown in a defined
> area around Vidalia, Georgia, as designated by the USDA.
>
> In spite of all the assistance the government has given these growers,
> including building them a huge climate controlled warehouse, they treat
> their seasonal workers horribily. For this reason their onions taste
> bitter in my mouth. I prefer the Texas sweets.
I have heard that all sweets (that's probably all comercially
grown sweets) start life in Texas. That is, vidalia onions
(and others, possibly) are started in Texas and then transplanted
to Georgian soil. I think it had to do with the length of the
growing season needed for high quality sweets, although locals
contend it is Texas soil that makes them high quality.
David "1015Y" Martin
Lynrd
Intersting...
The onions in my garden were purchased as seed onions, clearly marked as
Vidalias, at the local Wal-MArt....I guess the seed onions could have
come from Vidalia country, but when I plopped 'em into our Tennessee
soil, they immediatly became just "Sweet Onions".
Boy, the things you can learn...
John Francis
>
>>I read in FORBES FYI that French wines/champagnes are never
>>compared/rated/taste-tasted (what is that called?) head-to-head with
>>other nation's products. It is always French V. French only. Talk about
>>clout!
>
>wines were put up against some good California wines in a
>now-notorious blind taste testing in France and the Californias
>beat out the French.
Chateau Montelena Chardonnay waltzing off with the top prize.
The French still have the edge on the red wine front, though.
But the California growers are getting ever closer. Unfortunately
their prices are also getting close to (and in some cases exceeding)
the price of a bottle of premium French tonsil-washings.
--
John "where are the Pomeroy's Clarets of yesteryear?" Francis
shanihn
hundred (possibly 1000) addresses in the header on this very subject.
The particular email I received was started by an employee at the U.S.
Dept. of Treasury, and it snowballed. There was also an interesting
reply by U.S. Air Force Deputy Regional Counsel telling them what asses
they are, and so on. The Pentagon is exceptionally bad about
forwarding ULs and the like.
In article <38762F48...@my-dejanews.com>, JGM
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
John K
I was just passing along an Email I had received and thought this group
might be interested. Since I do not read this group often I thought it
might be of interest. Funny thing is I only passed it along and made no
comments. You assumed an awful lot.
Unlike you I do not keep up up the latest ULs. Judging by the length of
the thread it seems that it did generate some interest.
You should also clean up your act or someone will tell you mom and you will
have your computer privileges revoked for a month.
"SpamHater" <aol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:38750DD7...@aol.com...
Phil Edwards
>Derek Dugger <derek...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> I figure its the same as Champagne. There's lots of sparkling wines but
>> it can only be labeled champagne if its from that region of France.
>
>Err...no?
>
>I used to think that, too, until I saw a bottle of Korbel
>in the grocery store: "California Champagne." Perusing
>www.korbel.com, it seems as if this particular champagne
>is in fact made in California (Sonoma county), using
>techniques developed by winemakers in the Champagne region
>of France a couple of centuries ago.
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be allowed here. "Me/thode champenoise"
used to be the tag used to indicate that the stuff was champagne-like;
"me/thode traditionelle" seems to do the same duty now. But I don't
drink non-French champagnestuff often enough to be sure.
Phil "the last three words are optional" Edwards
--
Phil Edwards http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/amroth/
"It's hyperbole, or allusion, or personification,
or panettone, or something." - Ray Depew
Phil Edwards
Hatunen) wrote:
>It's hard to market a scotch whisky without calling it a scotch
>whisky.
It is?
Phil "TWOWIAVBP" Edwards
JoAnne Schmitz
>According to http://www.straightbourbon.com/whatosbourbon.html:
>
>"Though technically Bourbon can be made anywhere, Kentucky is the only state
>allowed to put its name on the bottle."
So bourbon from Tennessee can't call itself Tennessee Bourbon?
More seriously, can the label on a bottle of bourbon from Tennessee
have nothing about Kentucky on the label, not even a map of Tennessee
with the boundaries and surrounding states labeled on it?
JoAnne "This Is Not Kentucky Bourbon" Schmitz
JoAnne Schmitz
wrote:
> Though I'd still like somebody to explain to me what a "side breast" is.
I don't know if this is what they're referring to, but there are two
kinds of breast parts sold at KFC: the regular breast like the kind
we're all familiar with, and the keel, which includes the breastbone,
two tiny little bones one on each side, and a big wad of white meat.
Ask for a keel next time. It's the best white meat piece and much
easier to pick apart than any piece other than the leg.
JoAnne "you'll be glad you did" Schmitz
JoAnne Schmitz
wrote:
>Apparently I was in scopes and Cecil on the same day
Barbara, check your hubby for fleas.
JoAnne "and keep a short leash, willya?" Schmitz
Nathan Tenny
JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:51:57 GMT, ch...@xwb.com (Chip Taylor) wrote:
>
>>According to http://www.straightbourbon.com/whatosbourbon.html:
>>
>>"Though technically Bourbon can be made anywhere, Kentucky is the only state
>>allowed to put its name on the bottle."
>
>So bourbon from Tennessee can't call itself Tennessee Bourbon?
I think "its name"=="bourbon", not "Kentucky" or "the state's name". It's
a confused sentence.
Cite: I'm pretty sure there's abundant proof (rimshot goes here) at
<http://www.onguide.com/topshelf>, but I'm not able to check at the moment,
as their nameserver is down.
I'm trying to think of a non-Kentuckian bourbon-like whisk[e]y whose label
I know the text of. Jack Daniels (billed on the label as "Tennessee Sour
Mash Whiskey") doesn't make it on a technicality; they don't age the stuff
in new barrels, so they couldn't call it a bourbon no matter where they
were located.
Phil Edwards
wrote:
>Get a life... Are you the self appointed NG moderator?
>I was just passing along an Email I had received and thought this group
>might be interested. Since I do not read this group often I thought it
>might be of interest. Funny thing is I only passed it along and made no
>comments. You assumed an awful lot.
>Unlike you I do not keep up up the latest ULs. Judging by the length of
>the thread it seems that it did generate some interest.
>You should also clean up your act or someone will tell you mom and you will
>have your computer privileges revoked for a month.
Hi John. Stick around.
Hi 'Spamhater'. Bugger off.
Phil "so say I and so say the folk" Edwards
R H Draney
thread...I tried sending it last night and my newsreader kept freezing
up...wasn't sure until tonight that I hadn't already sent it three
times)....
Michael Glaser wrote:
> But, *how* are names that are not corporate trademarks protected---Those
> foods and beverages that are seemingly identified by region of origin?
>
> Scotch and Champagne come to mind but there seem to be few protected
> names compared to the many regionally *unique* products. Can I raise
> Belon Oysters outside of Brittany (Bretagne, France) and sell them as
> Belon? Coffee is tricky as the names seem to be not protected. Is
> pilsner beer only protected when it is Pilsner Beer?
>
> Further, it seems to be fairly easy to control infringements within
> borders, but on an international level it must get messy. Are these
> protections part of international agreements? Does a list of names
> exist?
Then there's the case of Tabasco...a Mexican state, and by derivation,
the name of a
pepper originating there...the word "tabasco", however, cannot be used
in the name of
any hot sauce (even those containing the appropriate species of peppers)
except those
made by the McIlhenny Company of Louisiana....r
--
"You are not expected to believe that I really have vibrating
rhubarb in my house."--Peter Deutsch
Andrew C. E. Reid
>(First, apologies for possibly dragging this message out of its proper
>thread...I tried sending it last night and my newsreader kept freezing
>up...wasn't sure until tonight that I hadn't already sent it three
>times)....
>
>Michael Glaser wrote:
>
>> But, *how* are names that are not corporate trademarks protected---Those
>> foods and beverages that are seemingly identified by region of origin?
>>
>Then there's the case of Tabasco...a Mexican state, and by
>derivation, the name of a pepper originating there...the
>word "tabasco", however, cannot be used in the name of
>any hot sauce (even those containing the appropriate species
>of peppers) except those made by the McIlhenny Company
>of Louisiana
From AFU's zeitgeist to today's headlines -- the
January 7th Chicago "Tribune" had an article about how
the Slovenian government, having extricated itself from
Yugoslavia and wanting to join the EU, would like to
have the trademark, breeding records, and genetic
stock for the Lipizzaner (sp?) horses back.
They apparently originated in a town in Slovakia
back in Austro-Hungarian days, and what with the wars
and border movements and so forth, the genome and
records are mostly in Italy and Austria these days.
Of course I haven't retained any details, but I got a
good impression of how these things work -- once you
get a sufficiently powerful regulatory body backing
you up, you're set.
Andrew "AFU GmbH, for instance..." Reid
Brian Yeoh
> Michael Glaser <mitc...@att.net> wrote:
> >I read in FORBES FYI that French wines/champagnes are never
> >compared/rated/taste-tasted (what is that called?) head-to-head with
> >other nation's products. It is always French V. French only. Talk about
> >clout!
> There may be a reason for that. Some years ago some good French
> wines were put up against some good California wines in a
> now-notorious blind taste testing in France and the Californias
> beat out the French.
Yes, I was reading an article about that in the FT[1] about how wine was
becoming more and more dominated by the Australians, Chileans and
Californians. This blind test was prominently mentioned there.
In Forbes FYI, also, in a recent issue Christopher Buckley and PJ O Rourke
did a blind wine identifying test. As I recall, the clear winner was a
French wine, but a $<smallnum> Chilean wine was rated much higher than a
$<bignum> French wine (which both thought was some gutter trash like
Gallo, IIRC).
Brian "not intending to be an oenophile" Yeoh
It was as if even the most intelligent person had this little blank
spot in their heads where someone had written: "Kings. What a good
idea." Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It
was its tendency to bend at the knees.
Terry Pratchett, _Feet of Clay_
Mike Sphar
Tenny) once write the following? Read the book:
>It's a French, or maybe a European Union, regulation. Merkins are free to
>violate it on their home turf, but it's considered a misrepresentation
>by the real Champagne foundries.
They're just jealous because some of California's sparkling wines are
beating them in competitions.
In a similar vein, I heard from a tour guide in Mexico over the holidays
that some persons outside of Mexico decided to try to produce their own
Mezcal[1], and Mexico successfully petitioned some trade organization or
another to declare that to be called "Mezcal" it must be produced in a
specific region of Mexico.
[1] yes, that drink with the worm in it
--
Mike Sphar http://mikey.sanjoseweb.com mi...@matches.com
These giraffes have been driven insane by the rats in their heads.
-- Strange Wilderness
Olivers
>
> In a similar vein, I heard from a tour guide in Mexico over the holidays
> that some persons outside of Mexico decided to try to produce their own
> Mezcal[1], and Mexico successfully petitioned some trade organization or
> another to declare that to be called "Mezcal" it must be produced in a
> specific region of Mexico.
Mezcal (better "mescal") can be produced anywhere in Mexico (or any
where else for that matter) and is a generic "type" name
implying/suggesting a poduct distilled from the fermented "sap" of agave
and related plants (although commercial needs and depraved marketing
dilute a lot of mescal with cheaper grain alcohols. Presumably folks in
Guatemala, etc. can make mescal
No worm (con gusano) is required, but traditionally the mescals from
Oaxaca come that way. In the "good old days" the mescals from Monte
Albano were of high quality.
"Tequila" is mescal, but by agreement/statute was produced within the
vicinity of the small town of Tequila in the state of Jalisco, although
current practices seem to have broken that mold. The best (at least in
the eyes of the new sophisticated upscale fans) tequilas,white (new) or
aged (straw to gold) are made from the "blue' agave and are so labelled.
Traditionalists cling to a simple name of yesteryear, Sauza's Hornitos,a
medium priced beverage of no little sophistication served over ice with
a dish of cut key limes (and no salt). Herradura Blanco, another oldy,
packs a good kick behind a smooth edge.
Pancho Villa was a teetotaler! _The Life and times of Pancho Villa_,
Friedrich Katz, Stanford Univ.Press,1998,985pp,Pheewww!
>
> [1] yes, that drink with the worm in it
>
> --
> Mike Sphar http://mikey.sanjoseweb.com mi...@matches.com
>
> These giraffes have been driven insane by the rats in their heads.
> -- Strange Wilderness
--
TMOliver
"Without occasional excess,
Moderation remains impossible."
N Jill Marsh
> The Frecnh may have won a lawsuit in the EU (not the EEC) but not
> everywhere. In California Korbel and Cooks, among others, still
> call their sparkling whites "champagne".
Until they export them. In the local liquor store Korbel's label says only
"California Sparkling Wine" with a "Traditional Champagne Method" at the
top. Tasty, but not a lot of bang for the buck.
nj"always up for field researsh"m
Deborah Stevenson
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Andrew C. E. Reid wrote:
> From AFU's zeitgeist to today's headlines -- the
> January 7th Chicago "Tribune" had an article about how
> the Slovenian government, having extricated itself from
> Yugoslavia and wanting to join the EU, would like to
> have the trademark, breeding records, and genetic
> stock for the Lipizzaner (sp?) horses back.
>
> They apparently originated in a town in Slovakia
Wrong Sl--Slovenia.
> back in Austro-Hungarian days, and what with the wars
> and border movements and so forth, the genome and
> records are mostly in Italy and Austria these days.
>
> Of course I haven't retained any details, but I got a
> good impression of how these things work -- once you
> get a sufficiently powerful regulatory body backing
> you up, you're set.
It's more complicated than that. This has been brewing for awhile; there
was an article in the New York Times at the end of last September,
discussed in rec.equestrian, when Austria officially stated they were
going to fight the Slovenian effort to assert ownership over the name
"Lipizzan" and sundry other matters related to the breed.
This would be complicated enough already--think of Germany insisting that
you couldn't call a dog a German Shepherd unless it was born in Germany,
for instance, or Labrador doing the same for Labrador retrievers--but then
toss in the fact that the Austrian Lipizzaners at the Spanish [just
to complicate national allegiances further] Riding School are a *major*
Viennese tourist attraction with long historical associations. "Major" as
in "made it into a Disney movie" even.
So it's The Big Organization vs. Popular Fame and Opinion. The good side
might be a takedown of some of the bogus "Lipizzan" shows that tour the
US, but I'm dubious that they'll care about the EU if they haven't cared
about Austria independently.
It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
Deborah Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Andrew C. E. Reid
>
>On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Andrew C. E. Reid wrote:
>
>> From AFU's zeitgeist to today's headlines -- the
>> January 7th Chicago "Tribune" had an article about how
>> the Slovenian government, having extricated itself from
>> have the trademark, breeding records, and genetic
>> stock for the Lipizzaner (sp?) horses back.
>>
>> They apparently originated in a town in Slovakia
>
>Wrong Sl--Slovenia.
Arrrgh. In my defense, I'll note that I actually
*did* get it right in the first paragraph, but not
the second. I'm clumsy, not (that) stupid.
> [Good stuff about touristy-ness of it in Austria snipped]
>So it's The Big Organization vs. Popular Fame and Opinion. The good side
>might be a takedown of some of the bogus "Lipizzan" shows that tour the
>US, but I'm dubious that they'll care about the EU if they haven't cared
>about Austria independently.
>
>It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
The Tribune article closed with some discussion to the
effect that there was hope for a compromise, whereby the
Slovenians could get copies of the "breeding book" and
rights to the name, in exchange for joint custody of
the name, or sole custody contingent on granting
favourable licensing terms to the Austrians.
As you say, likely to be interesting.
Andrew "Dubya" Reid
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> Deborah Stevenson <stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> > I give. If people ever need somebody to ask "What's a henway?", I'm your
> > girl.
>
> Sorry. I don't understand this post at all.
>
> Don "What's a Grecian urn?" Whittington
No, no. What's a Peruvian net?
Charles Wm. Dimmick
Andrea Jones
>In article
<Pine.SGI.4.10.1000108...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>, Deborah
Stevenson <stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> [Good stuff about touristy-ness of it in Austria snipped]
>
>>So it's The Big Organization vs. Popular Fame and Opinion. The good side
>>might be a takedown of some of the bogus "Lipizzan" shows that tour the
>>US, but I'm dubious that they'll care about the EU if they haven't cared
>>about Austria independently.
>>
>>It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
>
> The Tribune article closed with some discussion to the
>effect that there was hope for a compromise, whereby the
>Slovenians could get copies of the "breeding book" and
>rights to the name, in exchange for joint custody of
>the name, or sole custody contingent on granting
>favourable licensing terms to the Austrians.
well. The Lipizzan farm up in Gurnee, IL, where I made my first
acquaintance with the famous white horses and the cool as hell dressage
they do, comes to mind. I don't remember how old I was, but I do know
that's when I told my riding teacher I was going to quit riding hunt seat
(for jumping) and start learning dressage. The farm is still there, or at
least was as of last June, when I left the area for warmer climes. It's
definitely worth a visit.
Andrea "and when I get rich and famous, I'm gonna ride one!" Jones
Deborah Stevenson
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Andrea Jones wrote:
> One wonders what the effect would be on the reputable foreign breeders, as
> well. The Lipizzan farm up in Gurnee, IL, where I made my first
> acquaintance with the famous white horses and the cool as hell dressage
> they do, comes to mind. I don't remember how old I was, but I do know
> that's when I told my riding teacher I was going to quit riding hunt seat
> (for jumping) and start learning dressage. The farm is still there, or at
> least was as of last June, when I left the area for warmer climes. It's
> definitely worth a visit.
>
Tempel Lipizzans. Famous also for the ULish incident a few years ago when
some joyriding yahoos crashed their car into Tempel's huge, aging, and
rather valuable manure pile, causing a fire that apparently had to simply
burn itself out over a period of weeks.
Actually, my guess is that anybody not in the EU will continue to use the
term as they please, much in the way, as the thread earlier indicated, the
US could care less about France's restrictions on the word "champagne."
Deborah "resident of methode champenoise" Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Mike Sphar
following? Read the book:
>> In a similar vein, I heard from a tour guide in Mexico over the holidays
>> that some persons outside of Mexico decided to try to produce their own
>> Mezcal[1], and Mexico successfully petitioned some trade organization or
>> another to declare that to be called "Mezcal" it must be produced in a
>> specific region of Mexico.
>
>Mezcal (better "mescal")
Hmm...really? Every dictionary I look in say both spellings are valid and
don't claim that one is preferred over the other.
Plus, I find several web sites of a few Mexican distilleries I just checked
who also label it "Mezcal". I hadn't heard there was a holy war brewing
over the spelling.
>can be produced anywhere in Mexico (or any
>where else for that matter) and is a generic "type" name
>implying/suggesting a poduct distilled from the fermented "sap" of agave
>and related plants (although commercial needs and depraved marketing
>dilute a lot of mescal with cheaper grain alcohols. Presumably folks in
>Guatemala, etc. can make mescal
I simply can't believe a small tourist town tour guide would ever steer me
wrong. It's unthinkable!
--
Mike Sphar http://mikey.sanjoseweb.com mi...@matches.com
REALHAMSTER cannot be twisted into a Möbius strip, squeezed into a
singularity, or made to accomodate anything larger than a Tomahawk
cruise missile. -- http://www.realhamster.com/faq.html
Thomas Prufer
>"Tequila" is mescal, but by agreement/statute was produced within the
>vicinity of the small town of Tequila in the state of Jalisco, although
>current practices seem to have broken that mold. The best (at least in
>the eyes of the new sophisticated upscale fans) tequilas,white (new) or
>aged (straw to gold) are made from the "blue' agave and are so labelled.
>
The tale as I heard it is that mescal is distilled only once, and
tequila twice. And from the same vectors that consuming the worm will
make you very very drunk.
Thomas "reversal of cause and effect, that" Prufer
Andy Walton
(Thomas Prufer) wrote:
:The tale as I heard it is that mescal is distilled only once, and
:tequila twice. And from the same vectors that consuming the worm will
:make you very very drunk.
The version I heard is that eating the worm would make you see visions.
Either way, my observation matches yours -- the worm is at the bottom of
the bottle. Worm or no, when you drain that bottle to its dregs, you'll
see visions. Few of them good.
:Thomas "reversal of cause and effect, that" Prufer
Indeed.
--
"I'd love to sell out completely. It's just
that nobody has been willing to buy." -- John Waters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com * http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
Michael Glaser
JoAnne Schmitz wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:51:57 GMT, ch...@xwb.com (Chip Taylor) wrote:
>
> >According to http://www.straightbourbon.com/whatosbourbon.html:
> >
> >"Though technically Bourbon can be made anywhere, Kentucky is the only state
> >allowed to put its name on the bottle."
>
> So bourbon from Tennessee can't call itself Tennessee Bourbon?
>
> More seriously, can the label on a bottle of bourbon from Tennessee
> have nothing about Kentucky on the label, not even a map of Tennessee
> with the boundaries and surrounding states labeled on it?
>
> JoAnne "This Is Not Kentucky Bourbon" Schmitz
I seems like they are saying one can't call it _Kentucky
Bourbon_...that's all.
My experience with Micro Breweries (we consulted a start-up in Indidana)
is that labeling was under state control. Each label was submitted to
the state authority for approval. There is a short list of what must be
on the label and one of the things is *where it is made*.
There are few Federal liquor laws. This Bourbon thing sound like a
Commerce or Trade law rather than a liquor law.
Michael
Please direct e-mail to both of the following addresses :
mitc...@image-link.com
mitc...@att.net
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Michael Glaser
R H Draney wrote:
>
> (First, apologies for possibly dragging this message out of its proper
> thread...I tried sending it last night and my newsreader kept freezing
> up...wasn't sure until tonight that I hadn't already sent it three
> times)....
>
> Michael Glaser wrote:
>
> > But, *how* are names that are not corporate trademarks protected---Those
> > foods and beverages that are seemingly identified by region of origin?
> >
> > Scotch and Champagne come to mind but there seem to be few protected
> > names compared to the many regionally *unique* products. Can I raise
> > Belon Oysters outside of Brittany (Bretagne, France) and sell them as
> > Belon? Coffee is tricky as the names seem to be not protected. Is
> > pilsner beer only protected when it is Pilsner Beer?
> >
> > Further, it seems to be fairly easy to control infringements within
> > borders, but on an international level it must get messy. Are these
> > protections part of international agreements? Does a list of names
> > exist?
>
> Then there's the case of Tabasco...a Mexican state, and by derivation,
> the name of a
> pepper originating there...the word "tabasco", however, cannot be used
> in the name of
> any hot sauce (even those containing the appropriate species of peppers)
> except those
> made by the McIlhenny Company of Louisiana....r
> --
> "You are not expected to believe that I really have vibrating
> rhubarb in my house."--Peter Deutsch
Yes, but that is a brand name, a corporate owned trademark. Only one
company may make the product under that name.
I was curious how generic names for *classes* of products that are made
by different corporations are protected---And *if* all the names we
assume are protected, are on some list.
Stephen Suffet
>
>
> I was curious how generic names for *classes* of products that are
> made by different corporations are protected---And *if* all the names
> we assume are protected, are on some list.
>
Greetings:
In the USA, trademark protection cannot extend to a generic or common
terms for a particular product. For example, I cannot register "Apple"
as a trademark for the fruit we know an an apple. But someone has, of
course, resistered "Apple" as a trademark for a line of computers.
Furthermore, "Apple" has also been registered as a trademark for a
bank ("The Apple Bank for Savings, FSB"). In the USA, this is allowed
when confusion between the two products is unlikely to occur. Thus we
have "United Air Lines" and "United Van Lines" as the trademarks of two
unrelated companies.
Regards,
Steve
Olivers
>
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2000 14:50:22 GMT, Olivers <ol...@calpha.com> wrote:
>
> >"Tequila" is mescal, but by agreement/statute was produced within the
> >vicinity of the small town of Tequila in the state of Jalisco, although
> >current practices seem to have broken that mold. The best (at least in
> >the eyes of the new sophisticated upscale fans) tequilas,white (new) or
> >aged (straw to gold) are made from the "blue' agave and are so labelled.
> >
>
> tequila twice. And from the same vectors that consuming the worm will
> make you very very drunk.
>
in the agave bulbs and add no more than a bit of legend to the booze, no
more borracho, no hallucinations beyond those expected from gulping down
a jug of mescal (the older spelling,, now subject to an overusage of "Z"
especially in Mexico, apparently to push the native-American side of the
diverse culture. Mescal becomes mezcal; Juares, Juarez, likely an
attempt to clarify the local "z" sound, centuries ago miscarried into
Spanish as "s". Like English, Spanish is a much mutable language. Long
ago, Quixote became Quijote, Mexia became Mejia and Mexico should have
become Mejico, all with no change of pronunciation, just linguistic
practice, but more significant, I suppose, than the USAian excise of the
"u' from armour and glamour.
Much tequila exported these days is but pale imitation of the real
thing, greatly cut by grain alkie, because agave grows slowly (and
mostly not very "thickly"). Demand outstrips supply, and folks not used
to the real thing are easily pacified by "almost vodka with a dash of
flavoring".
There is a Tequila Goddess. Having given us the magic elixir, she on
occasions that we drink too much too rapidly demands that we kneel and
return some to her.
Charles Wm. Dimmick
>
> > Then there's the case of Tabasco...a Mexican state, and by derivation,
> > the name of a pepper originating there...the word "tabasco",
> > however, cannot be used in the name of any hot sauce (even
> > those containing the appropriate species of peppers)
> > except those made by the McIlhenny Company of Louisiana.
> Yes, but that is a brand name, a corporate owned trademark. Only one
> company may make the product under that name.
In a related vein, one of the hot sauce brands that regularly
graces our table (because it is mild enough for my wife to use)
is "Jalapeno" brand, from Mexico, but made with Chili
peppers, _not_ jalapeno peppers.
Charles
Softmachine22
Chicken was to get out of a requirement that Colonial Sanders had that
stipulated that every Kentucky Fried Chicken had to give free food to
homeless people. Can anyone confirm this?
Remove nospam to reply.
Marco Antonio Spalzo
No. No one can confirm it.
HWM
> Like English, Spanish is a much mutable language. Long
> ago, Quixote became Quijote, Mexia became Mejia and Mexico should have
> become Mejico,
But Tejas wouldn't just have the same ring, would it now?
Cheers, | De ore leonis libera me, Domine, et a |
HWM | cornibus unicornium humilitatem meam. |
hen...@iobox.fi & http://www.kuru.da.ru
Eric Hocking
>kaye...@hotmail.com (K.D.) wrote:
> > On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 22:44:04 +0000, Eric Hocking
> > >specifically Scotch Whisky. (Personal anecdote alert, KD)
> >
> > No, no, no. You haven't been paying attention. Please do check the
> > archives and you will see that it was a another person (who, I'm sure,
> > is glad to be off the hook), responding to MY post, that first brought
> > this personal anecdote problem in AFU to the attention of the group.
> Great, you can neither distinguish between:
>
> a) regulars
> b) folk making fun of you
You'd think that with an IQ the size of a small stellar system, with the
intellect to outwit HAL, Marvin and Holly[1] on Prozac and with their
thinking caps on, not to mention *really* hot cups of tea, she'd have
figured it...but then again, after just completing the entry test for
Mensa, I'm not particularly impressed with I.Q. measurements. I mean,
question four: square, circle, square-in-circle, squiggle, square? Who
writes "square-in-circle, _squiggle_, square"? Square, squiggle, I can
see, but "_squiggle_, square"? Pulease...
--
Eric Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
=== London, England (ex Melbourne, Australia) ===
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ehocking
http://www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
[1] 2001, Hitchiker's Guide and Red Dwarf respectively
calliope
this question.
In 1990, Pepsi-co changed the name of Kentucky Fried Chicken to KFC to give
the chain a more health conscious image(ie. the Fried part wasn't staring
you in the face).
I know this because my husband was hired by the Pepsi-Co a the same time and
this information was given to him as part of his training package. Pepsi-Co
also owns Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut. He no longer works for this company.
I know that this does not have an official tag on it from Pepsi-Co but the
info he was given (which we have long since thrown away) stated this.
calliope
"Marco Antonio Spalzo" <yahoo_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38790F79...@yahoo.com...
Bossman
I know "trademark protection cannot extend to a generic or common
terms". However, generic or common terms are protected (expecially when
they are associated with a regional or national product---how or by what
means are *these other types* of product names are protected. How do
some liquors or spirits obtain protections while other do not? It there
a term for that?
It seems like there may be less protecton than some think---witness the
Japanese Scotch and various non-French *champagnes* being sold.
Olivers
>
> Olivers wrote:
> > Like English, Spanish is a much mutable language. Long
> > ago, Quixote became Quijote, Mexia became Mejia and Mexico should have
> > become Mejico,
>
> But Tejas wouldn't just have the same ring, would it now?
>
However, come 2030 or so, when the majority of the nation/state's
population will be of Mexican-American ethnic persuasion, the alteration
will be made, retroactively and ex post facto.
...still uncertain as to whether I live near Waco, Huaco, Hueco or even
Huachinango, just up the road from Tehuanca/Towakani/Tonk City.
Lynrd
Olivers wrote:
<Snippity-do-dah>
> There is a Tequila Goddess. Having given us the magic elixir, she on
> occasions that we drink too much too rapidly demands that we kneel and
> return some to her.
>
> --
> TMOliver
> "Without occasional excess,
> Moderation remains impossible."
She also has the power to make the most ubsurd suggestions sound like a
brillant idea at the time....
--
ZipPy[TiT][WASTED]
"We're gonna Boogie-oogie-oogie 'til you just can't Boogie no more"
Thomas Prufer
Walton) wrote:
>The version I heard is that eating the worm would make you see visions.
Just heard another two: The worm is to prove that the mescal is made
form the true and correct agave, as the worm lives only on the agave.
Another is that the worm is actually the remnants of a test for
sufficient proof and a sign of quality: The worm is dropped in the
bottle currently standing under the still, and must be dead by the
time it sinks to the bottom. If it isn't the mescal coming out of the
still is too weak and it's time to stop the run and refill the still
with fresh mash.
Thomas "still like it even though dead worms are a 'sign of quality'"
Prufer