In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:32:02 -0600, Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
> > blake murphy wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:28:06 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> >>> It may not be much of a difference in the cost per can or bottle, but
> >>> with the soft drink industry selling millions of units, it adds up
> >>> to a major savings. Soft drinks are water, a bit of flavouring and a
> >>> hell of a lot of sugar or HFCS.
> >>
> >> this is the advantage of committing micro-fraud on a mega scale. a
> >> few cents (or even fractions of a cent) add up when you have millions
> >> of them, and the defrauded individuals are unlikely to complain.
> >>
> >
> > Uh, no, that's called "capitalism", blake...also "smart business
> > practice"...
>
> interesting that you would equate fraud with capitalism. i'm not so much
> the leftist that you think i am that i think offering an honest product at
> an honest price won't make you a profit without some kind of thievery.

I don't understand either one of you. Where's the fraud in substituting
a cheaper ingredient? Why on earth would that be called "capitalism"?
Wouldn't the goddamn Commies try to save money on production costs also?

By the way, stay tuned for a blind tasting between Classic Coke and
sugar cane coke. I will have a computer company owner, a professional
chef, a deadbeat and an unemployed person conduct a blind taste test,
supervised by a food chemist with seven years experience in conducting
organoleptic tests of food. It'll take a week or two to get them all
together.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA