coffee

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
738 messages Options
1 ... 34353637
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: coffee

J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message <-[hidden email]>, Ron Hunter
<[hidden email]> writes:
[]
>The idea that 'prohibition causes crime' is rather like saying laws
>against murder cause murders.  Rationalization.
[]
It's a simplification. Prohibition gives already-existing criminals (and
criminal organisations) another avenue to make their money. If the
prohibition is crassly drawn up and/or administered in a slapdash
manner, it can make those criminals rich/powerful.

It also depends on what is being prohibited, what percentage want it,
how strongly those who don't want it feel, and the general nature of the
populace. In the UK over smoking, I don't know what the percentage that
want it is, _most_ of those who don't want it (we do have _some_
militants) don't want smokers to actually be persecuted, and -
generalising to a ridiculous extent - the British don't like a fuss. In
the USA over alcohol in the prohibition era, I think at least the
strength of feeling of the antis and the nature of the populace were
different, though again I don't know the percentage that wanted it.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I quite like being cosy and complacent, I'm not doing any harm. I like to
watch talented people make cakes. So there. - Alison Graham, RT 19-25 October
2013
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: coffee

»Q«
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
In <news:-[hidden email]>,
Ron Hunter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 11/25/2013 3:28 AM, Bob Henson wrote:

Ron, you're reviving a bunch of old threads.  Is that intentional?

> The idea that 'prohibition causes crime' is rather like saying laws
> against murder cause murders.  Rationalization.

That's a horrible analogy;  it's not at all like saying that laws
against murder cause murders.

Prohibition of things people want creates black markets, and black
markets engender plenty of crime apart from mere possession and sale
of contraband.

> SOme years back, a nearby city passed a really strong (for the time)
> smoking ordinance.  THe restaurants owners had a fit.  We will go out
> of business, we can't survive, our customers will go where they can
> smoke.

Smoking ordinances don't cause crime;  prohibiting cigarette
trafficking would.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: coffee

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
On 3/23/2014 11:52 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> In message <-[hidden email]>, Ron Hunter
> <[hidden email]> writes:
> []
>> The idea that 'prohibition causes crime' is rather like saying laws
>> against murder cause murders.  Rationalization.
> []
> It's a simplification. Prohibition gives already-existing criminals (and
> criminal organisations) another avenue to make their money. If the
> prohibition is crassly drawn up and/or administered in a slapdash
> manner, it can make those criminals rich/powerful.
>
> It also depends on what is being prohibited, what percentage want it,
> how strongly those who don't want it feel, and the general nature of the
> populace. In the UK over smoking, I don't know what the percentage that
> want it is, _most_ of those who don't want it (we do have _some_
> militants) don't want smokers to actually be persecuted, and -
> generalising to a ridiculous extent - the British don't like a fuss. In
> the USA over alcohol in the prohibition era, I think at least the
> strength of feeling of the antis and the nature of the populace were
> different, though again I don't know the percentage that wanted it.

So, because there are hit men that make a huge profit on paid murder, we
shouldn't have laws against murder?  Makes sense to me.  NOT.


_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: coffee

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
On 3/23/2014 11:52 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> In message <-[hidden email]>, Ron Hunter
> <[hidden email]> writes:
> []
>> The idea that 'prohibition causes crime' is rather like saying laws
>> against murder cause murders.  Rationalization.
> []
> It's a simplification. Prohibition gives already-existing criminals (and
> criminal organisations) another avenue to make their money. If the
> prohibition is crassly drawn up and/or administered in a slapdash
> manner, it can make those criminals rich/powerful.
>
> It also depends on what is being prohibited, what percentage want it,
> how strongly those who don't want it feel, and the general nature of the
> populace. In the UK over smoking, I don't know what the percentage that
> want it is, _most_ of those who don't want it (we do have _some_
> militants) don't want smokers to actually be persecuted, and -
> generalising to a ridiculous extent - the British don't like a fuss. In
> the USA over alcohol in the prohibition era, I think at least the
> strength of feeling of the antis and the nature of the populace were
> different, though again I don't know the percentage that wanted it.

I think the problem during prohibition was that the majority didn't want
prohibition, and that law enforcement was only minimally effective at
controlling the problem because they weren't ready for the type of force
the criminals were using.  Rather like unarmed Bobbies going against
terrorists armed with bombs and full auto machine guns.  Not a good
situation.
Right now, the culture of alcohol is so integral with our very culture
that it would be impossible to even seriously suggest it now.  I would
guess that only a small percentage (under 10%) of the US population
doesn't use alcohol.  If you watch TV, you wouldn't even know that that
small population existed.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: coffee

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by »Q«
On 3/23/2014 12:05 PM, »Q« wrote:

> In <news:-[hidden email]>,
> Ron Hunter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 11/25/2013 3:28 AM, Bob Henson wrote:
>
> Ron, you're reviving a bunch of old threads.  Is that intentional?
>
>> The idea that 'prohibition causes crime' is rather like saying laws
>> against murder cause murders.  Rationalization.
>
> That's a horrible analogy;  it's not at all like saying that laws
> against murder cause murders.
>
> Prohibition of things people want creates black markets, and black
> markets engender plenty of crime apart from mere possession and sale
> of contraband.
>
>> SOme years back, a nearby city passed a really strong (for the time)
>> smoking ordinance.  THe restaurants owners had a fit.  We will go out
>> of business, we can't survive, our customers will go where they can
>> smoke.
>
> Smoking ordinances don't cause crime;  prohibiting cigarette
> trafficking would.
>
There is a bit of trouble with cigarette trafficking between the US an
Canada, and between some of the northeastern states as well.  Of course,
there are still some people in rural Arkansas that would be quite happy
to sell you the products of their stills.  But that is still no reason
to abandon attempts to control what is a major health hazard.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: coffee

»Q«
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
In <news:[hidden email]>,
Ron Hunter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think the problem during prohibition was that the majority didn't
> want prohibition, and that law enforcement was only minimally
> effective at controlling the problem because they weren't ready for
> the type of force the criminals were using.  Rather like unarmed
> Bobbies going against terrorists armed with bombs and full auto
> machine guns.  Not a good situation.

Lack of force wasn't a problem, but lack of institutions which knew how
to investigate organized crime on that scale was a problem.

Then again, maybe the current War on Drugs isn't going well because the
gubment isn't willing to use nuclear weapons.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: coffee

»Q«
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
In <news:[hidden email]>,
Ron Hunter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 3/23/2014 12:05 PM, »Q« wrote:

> > Smoking ordinances don't cause crime;  prohibiting cigarette
> > trafficking would.
> >
> There is a bit of trouble with cigarette trafficking between the US
> an Canada, and between some of the northeastern states as well.  Of
> course, there are still some people in rural Arkansas that would be
> quite happy to sell you the products of their stills.  But that is
> still no reason to abandon attempts to control what is a major health
> hazard.

Prohibition and attempts to control are two different things.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: coffee

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by »Q«
On 3/23/2014 12:53 PM, »Q« wrote:

> In <news:[hidden email]>,
> Ron Hunter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I think the problem during prohibition was that the majority didn't
>> want prohibition, and that law enforcement was only minimally
>> effective at controlling the problem because they weren't ready for
>> the type of force the criminals were using.  Rather like unarmed
>> Bobbies going against terrorists armed with bombs and full auto
>> machine guns.  Not a good situation.
>
> Lack of force wasn't a problem, but lack of institutions which knew how
> to investigate organized crime on that scale was a problem.
>
> Then again, maybe the current War on Drugs isn't going well because the
> gubment isn't willing to use nuclear weapons.
>
I rather think it is a case of resources vs return.  Since most of the
drugs come from other countries, it is possible for the bad guys to just
slip back to the country where they came from.  Lopping off limbs of the
hydra isn't very good if it just grows them back overnight.  Of course
there are other methods, such as capturing a large shipment, lacing with
cyanide, and then releasing it back into the channels.  Of course, then
we would need a whole new entertainment industry, and government....

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: coffee

Daniel-257
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 24/03/14 03:22, Ron Hunter wrote:

<Snip>
> That city now even prohibits smoking while driving, as it is on city
> property.

Several years ago, the state of Victoria, Australia, was proposing to
ban smoking in any car *if* the was a child in the car.

Change of Government since, and I don't think the law has been put to
either House, let alone passed!!

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/28.0 SeaMonkey/2.25 Build identifier: 20140211200211

or

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.25 Build identifier: 20140211195952
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: coffee

Ron Hunter
On 3/24/2014 6:17 AM, Daniel wrote:

> On 24/03/14 03:22, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>> That city now even prohibits smoking while driving, as it is on city
>> property.
>
> Several years ago, the state of Victoria, Australia, was proposing to
> ban smoking in any car *if* the was a child in the car.
>
> Change of Government since, and I don't think the law has been put to
> either House, let alone passed!!
>
 From a health point of view, it makes sense.  I would be quite happy
with a law banning smoking in any enclosed space open to the public,
except in specially filtered, enclosures.  Maybe smoking booths in
airports, etc.  For those who just can't go without a smoke for a couple
of hours.
Hummm.  Maybe an idea for a money-making proposition.  They would look
like the old phone booths.  Just for nostalgia.  Grin.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: coffee

Daniel-257
On 25/03/14 02:25, Ron Hunter wrote:

> On 3/24/2014 6:17 AM, Daniel wrote:
>> On 24/03/14 03:22, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>> That city now even prohibits smoking while driving, as it is on city
>>> property.
>>
>> Several years ago, the state of Victoria, Australia, was proposing to
>> ban smoking in any car *if* the was a child in the car.
>>
>> Change of Government since, and I don't think the law has been put to
>> either House, let alone passed!!
>>
>  From a health point of view, it makes sense.  I would be quite happy
> with a law banning smoking in any enclosed space open to the public,
> except in specially filtered, enclosures.  Maybe smoking booths in
> airports, etc.  For those who just can't go without a smoke for a couple
> of hours.
> Hummm.  Maybe an idea for a money-making proposition.  They would look
> like the old phone booths.  Just for nostalgia.  Grin.
>

Just today ...

http://au.prime7.yahoo.com/v1/news/a/-/local/22182840/new-smoking-bans/

Quote
 From next month smokers won’t be able to light up around Victorian
playgrounds.

New state laws will stop people smoking within 10m of playgrounds, skate
parks, junior sporting events and at public pools.
End Quote

I wonder how "they" are going to determine the 10m (app 10 yards).
Guestimate or differently coloured footpath or something!! But good on
the Gov for having a try.

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/28.0 SeaMonkey/2.25 Build identifier: 20140211200211

or

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.25 Build identifier: 20140211195952
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: coffee

Ron Hunter
On 3/26/2014 3:49 AM, Daniel wrote:

> On 25/03/14 02:25, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 3/24/2014 6:17 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>> On 24/03/14 03:22, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> <Snip>
>>>> That city now even prohibits smoking while driving, as it is on city
>>>> property.
>>>
>>> Several years ago, the state of Victoria, Australia, was proposing to
>>> ban smoking in any car *if* the was a child in the car.
>>>
>>> Change of Government since, and I don't think the law has been put to
>>> either House, let alone passed!!
>>>
>>  From a health point of view, it makes sense.  I would be quite happy
>> with a law banning smoking in any enclosed space open to the public,
>> except in specially filtered, enclosures.  Maybe smoking booths in
>> airports, etc.  For those who just can't go without a smoke for a couple
>> of hours.
>> Hummm.  Maybe an idea for a money-making proposition.  They would look
>> like the old phone booths.  Just for nostalgia.  Grin.
>>
>
> Just today ...
>
> http://au.prime7.yahoo.com/v1/news/a/-/local/22182840/new-smoking-bans/
>
> Quote
>  From next month smokers won’t be able to light up around Victorian
> playgrounds.
>
> New state laws will stop people smoking within 10m of playgrounds, skate
> parks, junior sporting events and at public pools.
> End Quote
>
> I wonder how "they" are going to determine the 10m (app 10 yards).
> Guestimate or differently coloured footpath or something!! But good on
> the Gov for having a try.
>
Red line on pavement, or signs posted 10 meters from the fence/border.
I think most people understand how far that is.  Probably they should
also specify that they have to be downwind from the places too.  Grin.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: coffee

Daniel-257
On 27/03/14 06:08, Ron Hunter wrote:

> On 3/26/2014 3:49 AM, Daniel wrote:
>> On 25/03/14 02:25, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> On 3/24/2014 6:17 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>>> On 24/03/14 03:22, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <Snip>
>>>>> That city now even prohibits smoking while driving, as it is on city
>>>>> property.
>>>>
>>>> Several years ago, the state of Victoria, Australia, was proposing to
>>>> ban smoking in any car *if* the was a child in the car.
>>>>
>>>> Change of Government since, and I don't think the law has been put to
>>>> either House, let alone passed!!
>>>>
>>>  From a health point of view, it makes sense.  I would be quite happy
>>> with a law banning smoking in any enclosed space open to the public,
>>> except in specially filtered, enclosures.  Maybe smoking booths in
>>> airports, etc.  For those who just can't go without a smoke for a couple
>>> of hours.
>>> Hummm.  Maybe an idea for a money-making proposition.  They would look
>>> like the old phone booths.  Just for nostalgia.  Grin.
>>>
>>
>> Just today ...
>>
>> http://au.prime7.yahoo.com/v1/news/a/-/local/22182840/new-smoking-bans/
>>
>> Quote
>>  From next month smokers won’t be able to light up around Victorian
>> playgrounds.
>>
>> New state laws will stop people smoking within 10m of playgrounds, skate
>> parks, junior sporting events and at public pools.
>> End Quote
>>
>> I wonder how "they" are going to determine the 10m (app 10 yards).
>> Guestimate or differently coloured footpath or something!! But good on
>> the Gov for having a try.
>>
> Red line on pavement, or signs posted 10 meters from the fence/border. I
> think most people understand how far that is.  Probably they should also
> specify that they have to be downwind from the places too.  Grin.
>
Yes, I was wondering about "down wind" as I typed my last!!

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/28.0 SeaMonkey/2.25 Build identifier: 20140211200211

or

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.25 Build identifier: 20140211195952
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: coffee

J. P. Gilliver (John)
In reply to this post by Daniel-257
In message <[hidden email]>, Daniel
<[hidden email]> writes:
[]
>From next month smokers won’t be able to light up around Victorian
>playgrounds.
[]
How does the age of the playground enter into it (-:?

[And how does this relate to Mozilla? With the "coffee" subject I
thought there just might be a java connection, but ... (-:]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Don't play "stupid" with me... I'm better at it.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: coffee

Daniel-257
On 30/03/2014 11:31 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> In message <[hidden email]>, Daniel
> <[hidden email]> writes:
> []
>> From next month smokers won’t be able to light up around Victorian
>> playgrounds.
> []
> How does the age of the playground enter into it (-:?
>
> [And how does this relate to Mozilla? With the "coffee" subject I
> thought there just might be a java connection, but ... (-:]

In case you haven't noticed, the discussions in this group *do not* need
any Mozilla connection!!

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/28.0 SeaMonkey/2.25 Build identifier: 20140211200211

or

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.25 Build identifier: 20140211195952
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: coffee

The Real Bev
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 03/23/2014 10:26 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:

> On 3/23/2014 12:05 PM, »Q« wrote:
>> In <news:-[hidden email]>,
>> Ron Hunter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/25/2013 3:28 AM, Bob Henson wrote:
>>
>> Ron, you're reviving a bunch of old threads.  Is that intentional?
>>
>>> The idea that 'prohibition causes crime' is rather like saying laws
>>> against murder cause murders.  Rationalization.
>>
>> That's a horrible analogy;  it's not at all like saying that laws
>> against murder cause murders.
>>
>> Prohibition of things people want creates black markets, and black
>> markets engender plenty of crime apart from mere possession and sale
>> of contraband.

What he said.

>>> SOme years back, a nearby city passed a really strong (for the time)
>>> smoking ordinance.  THe restaurants owners had a fit.  We will go out
>>> of business, we can't survive, our customers will go where they can
>>> smoke.
>>
>> Smoking ordinances don't cause crime;  prohibiting cigarette
>> trafficking would.
>>
> There is a bit of trouble with cigarette trafficking between the US an
> Canada, and between some of the northeastern states as well.  Of course,
> there are still some people in rural Arkansas that would be quite happy
> to sell you the products of their stills.  But that is still no reason
> to abandon attempts to control what is a major health hazard.

If the danger to health were important, tobacco would be made illegal.
What IS important is its taxability.

--
Cheers, Bev
=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=
"Sure, everyone's in favor of saving Hitler's brain, but when
  you put it into the body of a great white shark, suddenly
  you're a madman."                                 --Futurama
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: coffee

The Real Bev
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 03/24/2014 12:44 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:

> On 3/23/2014 12:53 PM, »Q« wrote:
>> In <news:[hidden email]>,
>> Ron Hunter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> I think the problem during prohibition was that the majority didn't
>>> want prohibition, and that law enforcement was only minimally
>>> effective at controlling the problem because they weren't ready for
>>> the type of force the criminals were using.  Rather like unarmed
>>> Bobbies going against terrorists armed with bombs and full auto
>>> machine guns.  Not a good situation.
>>
>> Lack of force wasn't a problem, but lack of institutions which knew how
>> to investigate organized crime on that scale was a problem.
>>
>> Then again, maybe the current War on Drugs isn't going well because the
>> gubment isn't willing to use nuclear weapons.
>>
> I rather think it is a case of resources vs return.  Since most of the
> drugs come from other countries, it is possible for the bad guys to just
> slip back to the country where they came from.  Lopping off limbs of the
> hydra isn't very good if it just grows them back overnight.  Of course
> there are other methods, such as capturing a large shipment, lacing with
> cyanide, and then releasing it back into the channels.  Of course, then
> we would need a whole new entertainment industry, and government....

I don't see the problem here...

--
Cheers, Bev
=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=
"Sure, everyone's in favor of saving Hitler's brain, but when
  you put it into the body of a great white shark, suddenly
  you're a madman."                                 --Futurama
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: coffee

Ed Mullen-9
Bob Henson wrote:

> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> On 03/24/2014 12:44 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/23/2014 12:53 PM, »Q« wrote:
>>>> In <news:[hidden email]>,
>>>> Ron Hunter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think the problem during prohibition was that the majority didn't
>>>>> want prohibition, and that law enforcement was only minimally
>>>>> effective at controlling the problem because they weren't ready for
>>>>> the type of force the criminals were using.  Rather like unarmed
>>>>> Bobbies going against terrorists armed with bombs and full auto
>>>>> machine guns.  Not a good situation.
>>>>
>>>> Lack of force wasn't a problem, but lack of institutions which knew how
>>>> to investigate organized crime on that scale was a problem.
>>>>
>>>> Then again, maybe the current War on Drugs isn't going well because the
>>>> gubment isn't willing to use nuclear weapons.
>>>>
>>> I rather think it is a case of resources vs return.  Since most of the
>>> drugs come from other countries, it is possible for the bad guys to just
>>> slip back to the country where they came from.  Lopping off limbs of the
>>> hydra isn't very good if it just grows them back overnight.  Of course
>>> there are other methods, such as capturing a large shipment, lacing with
>>> cyanide, and then releasing it back into the channels.  Of course, then
>>> we would need a whole new entertainment industry, and government....
>>
>> I don't see the problem here...
>
> Wandering away from the topic - I was quite amused to read the title line
> "Re: Coffee - the Real Bev". Amused, because a "Bev" was a fake coffee, not
> a real one - at least it was in the UK many years ago.
>
> http://bit.ly/1kdag05
>
> Perhaps, in view of your name, you had already come across it?
>
>

In the U.S. that would be short for "beverage."


--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Always try to be modest. And be damn proud of it!
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
1 ... 34353637