Ihad a liter imported a few years back, only had a few shots out it.. harsh tasting stuff. even for 137 proof
you could be dodge material ,,love it ,,poor eliot ha ha ha
- Thread starter Superpac Ninja
- Start date
Ihad a liter imported a few years back, only had a few shots out it.. harsh tasting stuff. even for 137 proof
I picked a 30 pack of old "drive in" movie dvds from the 50's 60's and 70's at Sam's Club. they're like a 90 minute version of that ad ROFL
Jack Meoff
Mopar Maniac
Hard to even get it down the hatch.
Tried the Green Genie.....worse than straight..
But wow......what a wave of that poison...... :tongue3:
Jack Meoff
Mopar Maniac
That sounds cool.
Right now I'm on a Rockford Files bender
And I'm ordering the box set of Hee Haw.
Jack Meoff
Mopar Maniac
Lol!!
Might have rattled my brain cells......
I have three episodes.....now I need more.
BHA43
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Messages
- 304
- Reaction score
- 27
I got all 7 seasons of the Dukes & 2 or three of Northern Exposure I'm working on.
Jack Meoff
Mopar Maniac
Superpac Ninja
Well-Known Member
lmao this thread should be re named scrambled eggs ,ha ha ha ha were all over the place on this one ,,
MiradaMegacab
Well-Known Member
Bacon with those eggs!
Jack Meoff
Mopar Maniac
Double bacon!!
Superpac Ninja
Well-Known Member
well ya of course 
thick cut smoked Canadian back bacon
thick cut smoked Canadian back bacon
Superpac Ninja
Well-Known Member
i could eat all of this
kkritsilas
Well-Known Member
Another data point about Coca-Cola:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola
not looking to get into a fight or argument, just that the information is different from the other web site that was linked to. It's not that important, the real point was that there was some amount of cocaine (amount varies depending on who you get your information from) in the first formula for Coca-Cola (which was originally a patent medicine, all sources seem to agree on that point), and that it has been removed.
Kostas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola
not looking to get into a fight or argument, just that the information is different from the other web site that was linked to. It's not that important, the real point was that there was some amount of cocaine (amount varies depending on who you get your information from) in the first formula for Coca-Cola (which was originally a patent medicine, all sources seem to agree on that point), and that it has been removed.
Kostas
Superpac Ninja
Well-Known Member
Wikipedia isnt a good source of info its just opinions and not factual data mostly
kkritsilas
Well-Known Member
Same can be said about anything on the internet. The site that you posted shows 3 references. How much do you want to bet that the person who put up the site picked and chose some facts from each of those sources that worked with their own opinion? If you are looking for truly definitive, 100% factually correct answers, don't use the internet. Anything on the internet must be taken with a very large grain of salt, and all sites are put up by human beings that bring thier own biases and slants to everything they write. If you want factually correct information, you are going to have to get the information on your own, and not use anything from anybody on the internet.
Closer to the subject at hand, unless you have real Coca-Cola samples from the 1890s-1900s that have not had chemical aging effects from long term storage, and can out it through a mass spectrometer to do a full chemical analysis, not only are the websites presenting anecdotal information, so are most likely their sources. So, while I really do understand the limitations of Wikipedia, I also understand that Wikipedia is not the only site with those limitations. I don't know that Wikipedia is any more or less accurate than any/
most other web sites.
Kostas
Closer to the subject at hand, unless you have real Coca-Cola samples from the 1890s-1900s that have not had chemical aging effects from long term storage, and can out it through a mass spectrometer to do a full chemical analysis, not only are the websites presenting anecdotal information, so are most likely their sources. So, while I really do understand the limitations of Wikipedia, I also understand that Wikipedia is not the only site with those limitations. I don't know that Wikipedia is any more or less accurate than any/
most other web sites.
Kostas
Last edited:
Superpac Ninja
Well-Known Member
i got my info from coca colas web site ,not a second or third party web site
kkritsilas
Well-Known Member
And Coca-Cola's web site is not designed to tell the story that puts Coca-Cola Corp. in the best light especially when the facts cannot be definitively proven either way? And of course, Coca-Cola's lawyers and PR team had absolutely nothing to do with the contents on the web site. While it may have been Ccca-Cola's web site, the correctness of the information there is still open to question.
The information coming from Coca-Cola is no more factually correct than any other web site, including Wikipedia.
Just an example: I've been helping a friend of mine with an on-going glow plug check engine light issue on his 2001 Chevy Silverado. The glow plugs on these vehicles are an issue, as are the fuel injectors. Go onto GM's web site and see if you can find anything from GM on this, or on the 10 year extended warranty that GM made available. Bet you can't, because it isn't there. First party source, yet the information in not there. This is a form of inaccuracy, in this case, not providing full information. All corporate web sites do this; they present information that makes their product/company look its best. The Coca-Cola site is no different. Do you think that Coca-Cola wants to admit they were, at one time, intentionally putting a form of cocaine into people's soft drinks? Do you think they want to deal with that kind of PR headache? No lawyer will allow their company to admit to wrongdoing, no matter how long ago; evidence: lawsuits against the big tobacco companies. People die of lung cancer, 20 years later, tobacco companies are being sued. States and provinces are suing big tobacco companies in order to recover health care costs due to lung cancer caused by smoking, going 20-30 years back. Do you think Coca-Cola wants any part of that? Do you honestly expect that Coca-Cola corp will admit that aspartame has some potential health risks associated with it? Do you think Coca-Cola will admit that drinking their product will lead to obesity? Look at the original commercial that was posted here. A soft drink that was loaded with sugar being promoted as a way to LOSE weight, and to give you an "energy boost" in the middle of the afternoon, even though there will most likely be a crash afterwards? In anybody's book, these are lies, and I have no doubt that Coca-Cola knew that when they made the commerical. Their website is no better, even though it is "first party".
Kostas
The information coming from Coca-Cola is no more factually correct than any other web site, including Wikipedia.
Just an example: I've been helping a friend of mine with an on-going glow plug check engine light issue on his 2001 Chevy Silverado. The glow plugs on these vehicles are an issue, as are the fuel injectors. Go onto GM's web site and see if you can find anything from GM on this, or on the 10 year extended warranty that GM made available. Bet you can't, because it isn't there. First party source, yet the information in not there. This is a form of inaccuracy, in this case, not providing full information. All corporate web sites do this; they present information that makes their product/company look its best. The Coca-Cola site is no different. Do you think that Coca-Cola wants to admit they were, at one time, intentionally putting a form of cocaine into people's soft drinks? Do you think they want to deal with that kind of PR headache? No lawyer will allow their company to admit to wrongdoing, no matter how long ago; evidence: lawsuits against the big tobacco companies. People die of lung cancer, 20 years later, tobacco companies are being sued. States and provinces are suing big tobacco companies in order to recover health care costs due to lung cancer caused by smoking, going 20-30 years back. Do you think Coca-Cola wants any part of that? Do you honestly expect that Coca-Cola corp will admit that aspartame has some potential health risks associated with it? Do you think Coca-Cola will admit that drinking their product will lead to obesity? Look at the original commercial that was posted here. A soft drink that was loaded with sugar being promoted as a way to LOSE weight, and to give you an "energy boost" in the middle of the afternoon, even though there will most likely be a crash afterwards? In anybody's book, these are lies, and I have no doubt that Coca-Cola knew that when they made the commerical. Their website is no better, even though it is "first party".
Kostas
Last edited:
BHA43
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Messages
- 304
- Reaction score
- 27
So tell me a bout Canadian Back Bacon, Is that a pork loin that is processed some how? Looks great! We have reg bacon that is cut from the belly and Canadian bacon that has like a ham taste. That pic looks like a smoked loin?
Superpac Ninja
Well-Known Member
theres back bacon witch is smoked loin then theirs peameal bacon witch is pickled a little and covered in corn meal ,then you fry it
