Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
If everyone really is out to get you, you aren't paranoid.
If everyone really is out to get you, you aren't paranoid.
Just took a brisk walk down to the shopping area to see
for myself if the two liquor stores are open today.
They are. One opened at ten, the other at eleven. Both
close at six.
It's the first time since Prohibition repeal (75 years)
that's happened. I wanted to see history made firsthand.
There was some grumbling about Sunday being their day
of rest but money talks. Less government restriction.
Get used to it.
Smokers, on the other hand, are seeing more restriction
and more taxation (more humiliation, too). Why is that?
Loosening up on alcohol and cracking down on smoking.
If it's going to be a "Nanny State," it's going to be
one in which you can drink and carry a gun but not smoke.
Just took a brisk walk down to the shopping area to see
for myself if the two liquor stores are open today.
They are. One opened at ten, the other at eleven. Both
close at six.
It's the first time since Prohibition repeal (75 years)
that's happened. I wanted to see history made firsthand.
There was some grumbling about Sunday being their day
of rest but money talks. Less government restriction.
Get used to it.
Smokers, on the other hand, are seeing more restriction
and more taxation (more humiliation, too). Why is that?
Loosening up on alcohol and cracking down on smoking.
If it's going to be a "Nanny State," it's going to be
one in which you can drink and carry a gun but not smoke.
Re: If everyone really is out to get you, you aren't paranoid.
On 06 Jul 2008 19:25:58 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>Just took a brisk walk down to the shopping area to see
>for myself if the two liquor stores are open today.
>They are. One opened at ten, the other at eleven. Both
>close at six.
>
>It's the first time since Prohibition repeal (75 years)
>that's happened. I wanted to see history made firsthand.
Laws requiring liquor stores to be closed on Sunday and holidays are written by small
liquor retailers. They tell everyone churches and/or politicians are responsible, and
people believe it. Sometimes they PAY churches to be their fronts.
It's a contest between small and large retailers. When open hours laws are liberalized, it
means small guys are losing clout and big guys like Argonaut are winning. The larger
contest is between liquor stores and major retailers such as 7-11, supermarkets and
Wal-Mart. The next step will be real beer in convenience stoes, then hard liquor in
supermarkets, already legal in CA, HI, AZ, IL, IA , KY, LA, MI. MO, NB, NV, NM, OH, SC, SD
and WI.
>There was some grumbling about Sunday being their day
>of rest but money talks. Less government restriction.
>Get used to it.
Total money spent on liquor is the same. What changes is which retailers get it. Would you
rather give money to locals or the Walton family?
>Smokers, on the other hand, are seeing more restriction
>and more taxation (more humiliation, too). Why is that?
>Loosening up on alcohol and cracking down on smoking.
That too is about money.
>If it's going to be a "Nanny State," it's going to be
>one in which you can drink and carry a gun but not smoke.
There's no profit in stopping drunks with guns.
On 06 Jul 2008 19:25:58 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>Just took a brisk walk down to the shopping area to see
>for myself if the two liquor stores are open today.
>They are. One opened at ten, the other at eleven. Both
>close at six.
>
>It's the first time since Prohibition repeal (75 years)
>that's happened. I wanted to see history made firsthand.
Laws requiring liquor stores to be closed on Sunday and holidays are written by small
liquor retailers. They tell everyone churches and/or politicians are responsible, and
people believe it. Sometimes they PAY churches to be their fronts.
It's a contest between small and large retailers. When open hours laws are liberalized, it
means small guys are losing clout and big guys like Argonaut are winning. The larger
contest is between liquor stores and major retailers such as 7-11, supermarkets and
Wal-Mart. The next step will be real beer in convenience stoes, then hard liquor in
supermarkets, already legal in CA, HI, AZ, IL, IA , KY, LA, MI. MO, NB, NV, NM, OH, SC, SD
and WI.
>There was some grumbling about Sunday being their day
>of rest but money talks. Less government restriction.
>Get used to it.
Total money spent on liquor is the same. What changes is which retailers get it. Would you
rather give money to locals or the Walton family?
>Smokers, on the other hand, are seeing more restriction
>and more taxation (more humiliation, too). Why is that?
>Loosening up on alcohol and cracking down on smoking.
That too is about money.
>If it's going to be a "Nanny State," it's going to be
>one in which you can drink and carry a gun but not smoke.
There's no profit in stopping drunks with guns.
Re: If everyone really is out to get you, you aren't paranoid.
In article <i9g274lhrk5t1r3or8cf1u2c85atopmht7@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 06 Jul 2008 19:25:58 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>Just took a brisk walk down to the shopping area to see
>>for myself if the two liquor stores are open today.
>>They are. One opened at ten, the other at eleven. Both
>>close at six.
>>
>>It's the first time since Prohibition repeal (75 years)
>>that's happened. I wanted to see history made firsthand.
>
>Laws requiring liquor stores to be closed on Sunday and holidays are
>written by small
>liquor retailers. They tell everyone churches and/or politicians are
>responsible, and
>people believe it. Sometimes they PAY churches to be their fronts.
Nice try, but I don't believe you. The complaining is over.
Nearly all the stores are open today. More money to be made.
It's free enterprise. Less government intrusion.
>It's a contest between small and large retailers. When open hours laws
>are liberalized, it
>means small guys are losing clout and big guys like Argonaut are
>winning. The larger
>contest is between liquor stores and major retailers such as 7-11,
>supermarkets and
>Wal-Mart. The next step will be real beer in convenience stoes, then
>hard liquor in
>supermarkets, already legal in CA, HI, AZ, IL, IA , KY, LA, MI. MO, NB,
>NV, NM, OH, SC, SD
>and WI.
There are no "big guy" liquor stores in Colorado. One person
(or corporation) can own no more than one store.
>>There was some grumbling about Sunday being their day
>>of rest but money talks. Less government restriction.
>>Get used to it.
>
>Total money spent on liquor is the same. What changes is which retailers
>get it. Would you
>rather give money to locals or the Walton family?
It's all local here.
>>Smokers, on the other hand, are seeing more restriction
>>and more taxation (more humiliation, too). Why is that?
>>Loosening up on alcohol and cracking down on smoking.
>
>That too is about money.
Taxation, yes. Restriction and humiliation is about getting
the smoke outside.
>>If it's going to be a "Nanny State," it's going to be
>>one in which you can drink and carry a gun but not smoke.
>
>There's no profit in stopping drunks with guns.
There's plenty of money in both guns and drinking.
Bottom line is smokers are getting screwed and other
laws are being liberalized. You caused it with your toxic
smoke. Now live with it.
In article <i9g274lhrk5t1r3or8cf1u2c85atopmht7@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 06 Jul 2008 19:25:58 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>Just took a brisk walk down to the shopping area to see
>>for myself if the two liquor stores are open today.
>>They are. One opened at ten, the other at eleven. Both
>>close at six.
>>
>>It's the first time since Prohibition repeal (75 years)
>>that's happened. I wanted to see history made firsthand.
>
>Laws requiring liquor stores to be closed on Sunday and holidays are
>written by small
>liquor retailers. They tell everyone churches and/or politicians are
>responsible, and
>people believe it. Sometimes they PAY churches to be their fronts.
Nice try, but I don't believe you. The complaining is over.
Nearly all the stores are open today. More money to be made.
It's free enterprise. Less government intrusion.
>It's a contest between small and large retailers. When open hours laws
>are liberalized, it
>means small guys are losing clout and big guys like Argonaut are
>winning. The larger
>contest is between liquor stores and major retailers such as 7-11,
>supermarkets and
>Wal-Mart. The next step will be real beer in convenience stoes, then
>hard liquor in
>supermarkets, already legal in CA, HI, AZ, IL, IA , KY, LA, MI. MO, NB,
>NV, NM, OH, SC, SD
>and WI.
There are no "big guy" liquor stores in Colorado. One person
(or corporation) can own no more than one store.
>>There was some grumbling about Sunday being their day
>>of rest but money talks. Less government restriction.
>>Get used to it.
>
>Total money spent on liquor is the same. What changes is which retailers
>get it. Would you
>rather give money to locals or the Walton family?
It's all local here.
>>Smokers, on the other hand, are seeing more restriction
>>and more taxation (more humiliation, too). Why is that?
>>Loosening up on alcohol and cracking down on smoking.
>
>That too is about money.
Taxation, yes. Restriction and humiliation is about getting
the smoke outside.
>>If it's going to be a "Nanny State," it's going to be
>>one in which you can drink and carry a gun but not smoke.
>
>There's no profit in stopping drunks with guns.
There's plenty of money in both guns and drinking.
Bottom line is smokers are getting screwed and other
laws are being liberalized. You caused it with your toxic
smoke. Now live with it.
Re: If everyone really is out to get you, you aren't paranoid.
On 06 Jul 2008 23:16:56 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <i9g274lhrk5t1r3or8cf1u2c85atopmht7@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>On 06 Jul 2008 19:25:58 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>>>Just took a brisk walk down to the shopping area to see
>>>for myself if the two liquor stores are open today.
>>>They are. One opened at ten, the other at eleven. Both
>>>close at six.
>>>
>>>It's the first time since Prohibition repeal (75 years)
>>>that's happened. I wanted to see history made firsthand.
>>
>>Laws requiring liquor stores to be closed on Sunday and holidays are
>>written by small
>>liquor retailers. They tell everyone churches and/or politicians are
>>responsible, and
>>people believe it. Sometimes they PAY churches to be their fronts.
>
>Nice try, but I don't believe you.
I used to run a chain of >50 liquor stores in TX. I know the politics behind liquor laws.
>The complaining is over.
>Nearly all the stores are open today. More money to be made.
>It's free enterprise. Less government intrusion.
People don't drink more because liquor stores are open Sunday.
>>It's a contest between small and large retailers. When open hours laws
>>are liberalized, it
>>means small guys are losing clout and big guys like Argonaut are
>>winning. The larger
>>contest is between liquor stores and major retailers such as 7-11,
>>supermarkets and
>>Wal-Mart. The next step will be real beer in convenience stoes, then
>>hard liquor in
>>supermarkets, already legal in CA, HI, AZ, IL, IA , KY, LA, MI. MO, NB,
>>NV, NM, OH, SC, SD
>>and WI.
>
>There are no "big guy" liquor stores in Colorado. One person
>(or corporation) can own no more than one store.
Who do you think got that law passed? Thiink hard. Give up? The answer is small liquor
retailers. They are terrified of competing with 7-11, supermarkets and Wal-Mart.
>>>If it's going to be a "Nanny State," it's going to be
>>>one in which you can drink and carry a gun but not smoke.
>>
>>There's no profit in stopping drunks with guns.
>
>There's plenty of money in both guns and drinking.
Yes, but there's no money in stopping them.
>Bottom line is smokers are getting screwed and other
>laws are being liberalized. You caused it with your toxic
>smoke. Now live with it.
Smokers caused it with their shorter life expectancy.
On 06 Jul 2008 23:16:56 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <i9g274lhrk5t1r3or8cf1u2c85atopmht7@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>On 06 Jul 2008 19:25:58 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>>>Just took a brisk walk down to the shopping area to see
>>>for myself if the two liquor stores are open today.
>>>They are. One opened at ten, the other at eleven. Both
>>>close at six.
>>>
>>>It's the first time since Prohibition repeal (75 years)
>>>that's happened. I wanted to see history made firsthand.
>>
>>Laws requiring liquor stores to be closed on Sunday and holidays are
>>written by small
>>liquor retailers. They tell everyone churches and/or politicians are
>>responsible, and
>>people believe it. Sometimes they PAY churches to be their fronts.
>
>Nice try, but I don't believe you.
I used to run a chain of >50 liquor stores in TX. I know the politics behind liquor laws.
>The complaining is over.
>Nearly all the stores are open today. More money to be made.
>It's free enterprise. Less government intrusion.
People don't drink more because liquor stores are open Sunday.
>>It's a contest between small and large retailers. When open hours laws
>>are liberalized, it
>>means small guys are losing clout and big guys like Argonaut are
>>winning. The larger
>>contest is between liquor stores and major retailers such as 7-11,
>>supermarkets and
>>Wal-Mart. The next step will be real beer in convenience stoes, then
>>hard liquor in
>>supermarkets, already legal in CA, HI, AZ, IL, IA , KY, LA, MI. MO, NB,
>>NV, NM, OH, SC, SD
>>and WI.
>
>There are no "big guy" liquor stores in Colorado. One person
>(or corporation) can own no more than one store.
Who do you think got that law passed? Thiink hard. Give up? The answer is small liquor
retailers. They are terrified of competing with 7-11, supermarkets and Wal-Mart.
>>>If it's going to be a "Nanny State," it's going to be
>>>one in which you can drink and carry a gun but not smoke.
>>
>>There's no profit in stopping drunks with guns.
>
>There's plenty of money in both guns and drinking.
Yes, but there's no money in stopping them.
>Bottom line is smokers are getting screwed and other
>laws are being liberalized. You caused it with your toxic
>smoke. Now live with it.
Smokers caused it with their shorter life expectancy.
Re: If everyone really is out to get you, you aren't paranoid.
In article <75a37414gt4a8s7j2ierqrp9b6tcrnjiv7@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 06 Jul 2008 23:16:56 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <i9g274lhrk5t1r3or8cf1u2c85atopmht7@4ax,com >,
>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>On 06 Jul 2008 19:25:58 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Just took a brisk walk down to the shopping area to see
>>>>for myself if the two liquor stores are open today.
>>>>They are. One opened at ten, the other at eleven. Both
>>>>close at six.
>>>>
>>>>It's the first time since Prohibition repeal (75 years)
>>>>that's happened. I wanted to see history made firsthand.
>>>
>>>Laws requiring liquor stores to be closed on Sunday and holidays are
>>>written by small
>>>liquor retailers. They tell everyone churches and/or politicians are
>>>responsible, and
>>>people believe it. Sometimes they PAY churches to be their fronts.
>>
>>Nice try, but I don't believe you.
>
>I used to run a chain of >50 liquor stores in TX. I know the politics
>behind liquor laws.
I still don't believe you. Prohibition was passed on morality.
It was repealed because of the Great Depression.
Blue laws were passed by religion. Colorado's repeal was
economic.
>>The complaining is over.
>>Nearly all the stores are open today. More money to be made.
>>It's free enterprise. Less government intrusion.
>
>People don't drink more because liquor stores are open Sunday.
Didn't say they did. But the two greatest shopping days are Saturday
and Sunday.
One liquor store owner said there are two questions you always
get: What's a good wine under $10 and why aren't you open on Sunday?
>>>It's a contest between small and large retailers. When open hours laws
>>>are liberalized, it
>>>means small guys are losing clout and big guys like Argonaut are
>>>winning. The larger
>>>contest is between liquor stores and major retailers such as 7-11,
>>>supermarkets and
>>>Wal-Mart. The next step will be real beer in convenience stoes, then
>>>hard liquor in
>>>supermarkets, already legal in CA, HI, AZ, IL, IA , KY, LA, MI. MO, NB,
>>>NV, NM, OH, SC, SD
>>>and WI.
>>
>>There are no "big guy" liquor stores in Colorado. One person
>>(or corporation) can own no more than one store.
>
>Who do you think got that law passed? Thiink hard. Give up? The answer
>is small liquor
>retailers. They are terrified of competing with 7-11, supermarkets and
>Wal-Mart.
What did you not understand about "one store, one owner"?
>>>>If it's going to be a "Nanny State," it's going to be
>>>>one in which you can drink and carry a gun but not smoke.
>>>
>>>There's no profit in stopping drunks with guns.
>>
>>There's plenty of money in both guns and drinking.
>
>Yes, but there's no money in stopping them.
>
>>Bottom line is smokers are getting screwed and other
>>laws are being liberalized. You caused it with your toxic
>>smoke. Now live with it.
>
>Smokers caused it with their shorter life expectancy.
Working hard on yours?
In article <75a37414gt4a8s7j2ierqrp9b6tcrnjiv7@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 06 Jul 2008 23:16:56 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <i9g274lhrk5t1r3or8cf1u2c85atopmht7@4ax,com >,
>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>On 06 Jul 2008 19:25:58 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Just took a brisk walk down to the shopping area to see
>>>>for myself if the two liquor stores are open today.
>>>>They are. One opened at ten, the other at eleven. Both
>>>>close at six.
>>>>
>>>>It's the first time since Prohibition repeal (75 years)
>>>>that's happened. I wanted to see history made firsthand.
>>>
>>>Laws requiring liquor stores to be closed on Sunday and holidays are
>>>written by small
>>>liquor retailers. They tell everyone churches and/or politicians are
>>>responsible, and
>>>people believe it. Sometimes they PAY churches to be their fronts.
>>
>>Nice try, but I don't believe you.
>
>I used to run a chain of >50 liquor stores in TX. I know the politics
>behind liquor laws.
I still don't believe you. Prohibition was passed on morality.
It was repealed because of the Great Depression.
Blue laws were passed by religion. Colorado's repeal was
economic.
>>The complaining is over.
>>Nearly all the stores are open today. More money to be made.
>>It's free enterprise. Less government intrusion.
>
>People don't drink more because liquor stores are open Sunday.
Didn't say they did. But the two greatest shopping days are Saturday
and Sunday.
One liquor store owner said there are two questions you always
get: What's a good wine under $10 and why aren't you open on Sunday?
>>>It's a contest between small and large retailers. When open hours laws
>>>are liberalized, it
>>>means small guys are losing clout and big guys like Argonaut are
>>>winning. The larger
>>>contest is between liquor stores and major retailers such as 7-11,
>>>supermarkets and
>>>Wal-Mart. The next step will be real beer in convenience stoes, then
>>>hard liquor in
>>>supermarkets, already legal in CA, HI, AZ, IL, IA , KY, LA, MI. MO, NB,
>>>NV, NM, OH, SC, SD
>>>and WI.
>>
>>There are no "big guy" liquor stores in Colorado. One person
>>(or corporation) can own no more than one store.
>
>Who do you think got that law passed? Thiink hard. Give up? The answer
>is small liquor
>retailers. They are terrified of competing with 7-11, supermarkets and
>Wal-Mart.
What did you not understand about "one store, one owner"?
>>>>If it's going to be a "Nanny State," it's going to be
>>>>one in which you can drink and carry a gun but not smoke.
>>>
>>>There's no profit in stopping drunks with guns.
>>
>>There's plenty of money in both guns and drinking.
>
>Yes, but there's no money in stopping them.
>
>>Bottom line is smokers are getting screwed and other
>>laws are being liberalized. You caused it with your toxic
>>smoke. Now live with it.
>
>Smokers caused it with their shorter life expectancy.
Working hard on yours?
Re: If everyone really is out to get you, you aren't paranoid.
On 07 Jul 2008 15:41:02 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>One liquor store owner said there are two questions you always
>get: What's a good wine under $10
Charles Shaw, aka Two Buck Chuck. It's not sold in Colorado because retailers are afraid
to compete with Trader Joe, therefore there are no Trader Joe stores in Colorado.
>and why aren't you open on Sunday?
Because we don't want to work seven days a week. We picked Sunday so we could blame the
closure on religion.
On 07 Jul 2008 15:41:02 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>One liquor store owner said there are two questions you always
>get: What's a good wine under $10
Charles Shaw, aka Two Buck Chuck. It's not sold in Colorado because retailers are afraid
to compete with Trader Joe, therefore there are no Trader Joe stores in Colorado.
>and why aren't you open on Sunday?
Because we don't want to work seven days a week. We picked Sunday so we could blame the
closure on religion.
Re: If everyone really is out to get you, you aren't paranoid.
In article <h9n574ppaup59tksi4lr45158ppo918685@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 07 Jul 2008 15:41:02 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>One liquor store owner said there are two questions you always
>>get: What's a good wine under $10
>
>Charles Shaw, aka Two Buck Chuck.
I have a bottle. Bought it in California. Haven't opened it yet.
>It's not sold in Colorado because
>retailers are afraid
>to compete with Trader Joe, therefore there are no Trader Joe stores in
>Colorado.
That doesn't make any sense. Why should TJ give a shit?
But anyway my loss. Don't have an IKEA either.
>>and why aren't you open on Sunday?
>
>Because we don't want to work seven days a week. We picked Sunday so we
>could blame the
>closure on religion.
They still don't have to be open on Sunday. Some weren't yesterday.
But they know they'd lose money to the competition.
Less restriction on alcohol. More on tobacco.
Did you choose the wrong drug?
In article <h9n574ppaup59tksi4lr45158ppo918685@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 07 Jul 2008 15:41:02 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>One liquor store owner said there are two questions you always
>>get: What's a good wine under $10
>
>Charles Shaw, aka Two Buck Chuck.
I have a bottle. Bought it in California. Haven't opened it yet.
>It's not sold in Colorado because
>retailers are afraid
>to compete with Trader Joe, therefore there are no Trader Joe stores in
>Colorado.
That doesn't make any sense. Why should TJ give a shit?
But anyway my loss. Don't have an IKEA either.
>>and why aren't you open on Sunday?
>
>Because we don't want to work seven days a week. We picked Sunday so we
>could blame the
>closure on religion.
They still don't have to be open on Sunday. Some weren't yesterday.
But they know they'd lose money to the competition.
Less restriction on alcohol. More on tobacco.
Did you choose the wrong drug?
Re: If everyone really is out to get you, you aren't paranoid.
On 08 Jul 2008 05:14:03 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <h9n574ppaup59tksi4lr45158ppo918685@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>On 07 Jul 2008 15:41:02 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>>>One liquor store owner said there are two questions you always
>>>get: What's a good wine under $10
>>
>>Charles Shaw, aka Two Buck Chuck.
>
>I have a bottle. Bought it in California. Haven't opened it yet.
Their chardonnay won first place at the 2007 California State Fair. I'll bet the judges
were chagrined to learn they picked Franzia in a bottle.
>>It's not sold in Colorado because
>>retailers are afraid
>>to compete with Trader Joe, therefore there are no Trader Joe stores in
>>Colorado.
>
>That doesn't make any sense. Why should TJ give a shit?
Their second store wouldn't be allowed to sell wine, which screws up their business model.
>But anyway my loss. Don't have an IKEA either.
How do they expect yuppies to furnish their homes?
On 08 Jul 2008 05:14:03 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <h9n574ppaup59tksi4lr45158ppo918685@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>On 07 Jul 2008 15:41:02 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>>>One liquor store owner said there are two questions you always
>>>get: What's a good wine under $10
>>
>>Charles Shaw, aka Two Buck Chuck.
>
>I have a bottle. Bought it in California. Haven't opened it yet.
Their chardonnay won first place at the 2007 California State Fair. I'll bet the judges
were chagrined to learn they picked Franzia in a bottle.
>>It's not sold in Colorado because
>>retailers are afraid
>>to compete with Trader Joe, therefore there are no Trader Joe stores in
>>Colorado.
>
>That doesn't make any sense. Why should TJ give a shit?
Their second store wouldn't be allowed to sell wine, which screws up their business model.
>But anyway my loss. Don't have an IKEA either.
How do they expect yuppies to furnish their homes?
Re: If everyone really is out to get you, you aren't paranoid.
In article <dfo6745o270lpebm57e4tpqkeavvmnv574@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 08 Jul 2008 05:14:03 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <h9n574ppaup59tksi4lr45158ppo918685@4ax,com >,
>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>On 07 Jul 2008 15:41:02 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>One liquor store owner said there are two questions you always
>>>>get: What's a good wine under $10
>>>
>>>Charles Shaw, aka Two Buck Chuck.
>>
>>I have a bottle. Bought it in California. Haven't opened it yet.
>
>Their chardonnay won first place at the 2007 California State Fair. I'll
>bet the judges
>were chagrined to learn they picked Franzia in a bottle.
All of their varietals are supposed to be good in spite of
the price. BTW, wine in California is very cheap. Liquor is
expensive. $1.99 Chuck is costlier in TJs outside the Golden State.
>>>It's not sold in Colorado because
>>>retailers are afraid
>>>to compete with Trader Joe, therefore there are no Trader Joe stores in
>>>Colorado.
>>
>>That doesn't make any sense. Why should TJ give a shit?
>
>Their second store wouldn't be allowed to sell wine, which screws up
>their business model.
But their first would.
>>But anyway my loss. Don't have an IKEA either.
>
>How do they expect yuppies to furnish their homes?
Exactly.
But the point is: Drinkers have more freedom. Smokers have less.
Some "Nanny State." You get to drink outside on patios, buy alcohol
on Sunday, carry a concealed gun.
What "Nanny State"? It just looks like another smoker hallucination.
In article <dfo6745o270lpebm57e4tpqkeavvmnv574@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 08 Jul 2008 05:14:03 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <h9n574ppaup59tksi4lr45158ppo918685@4ax,com >,
>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>On 07 Jul 2008 15:41:02 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>One liquor store owner said there are two questions you always
>>>>get: What's a good wine under $10
>>>
>>>Charles Shaw, aka Two Buck Chuck.
>>
>>I have a bottle. Bought it in California. Haven't opened it yet.
>
>Their chardonnay won first place at the 2007 California State Fair. I'll
>bet the judges
>were chagrined to learn they picked Franzia in a bottle.
All of their varietals are supposed to be good in spite of
the price. BTW, wine in California is very cheap. Liquor is
expensive. $1.99 Chuck is costlier in TJs outside the Golden State.
>>>It's not sold in Colorado because
>>>retailers are afraid
>>>to compete with Trader Joe, therefore there are no Trader Joe stores in
>>>Colorado.
>>
>>That doesn't make any sense. Why should TJ give a shit?
>
>Their second store wouldn't be allowed to sell wine, which screws up
>their business model.
But their first would.
>>But anyway my loss. Don't have an IKEA either.
>
>How do they expect yuppies to furnish their homes?
Exactly.
But the point is: Drinkers have more freedom. Smokers have less.
Some "Nanny State." You get to drink outside on patios, buy alcohol
on Sunday, carry a concealed gun.
What "Nanny State"? It just looks like another smoker hallucination.
Re: If everyone really is out to get you, you aren't paranoid.
On 08 Jul 2008 16:36:37 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <dfo6745o270lpebm57e4tpqkeavvmnv574@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>On 08 Jul 2008 05:14:03 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <h9n574ppaup59tksi4lr45158ppo918685@4ax,com >,
>>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>>On 07 Jul 2008 15:41:02 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>One liquor store owner said there are two questions you always
>>>>>get: What's a good wine under $10
>>>>
>>>>Charles Shaw, aka Two Buck Chuck.
>>>
>>>I have a bottle. Bought it in California. Haven't opened it yet.
>>
>>Their chardonnay won first place at the 2007 California State Fair. I'll
>>bet the judges
>>were chagrined to learn they picked Franzia in a bottle.
>
>All of their varietals are supposed to be good in spite of
>the price. BTW, wine in California is very cheap. Liquor is
>expensive. $1.99 Chuck is costlier in TJs outside the Golden State.
Wine is cheap; bottles are expensive. In wines retailing for under $10, the bottle cost
more than the wine -- .60 for the bottle plus .30 for the cork vs. .40 for the wine.
That's why Franzia comes in a bladder and Gallo makes their own bottles.
Screw caps (and bladders) seal better than corks. You can't convince wine buyers of that.
There's a lot of snobbery in wine.
Transportation and wholesaler inefficiencies are also expensive, about a dollar a bottle.
Chuck sells for three bucks in the Midwest and four bucks on the East Coast. The reason is
transportation.
>But the point is: Drinkers have more freedom. Smokers have less.
>
>Some "Nanny State." You get to drink outside on patios, buy alcohol
>on Sunday, carry a concealed gun.
>
>What "Nanny State"? It just looks like another smoker hallucination.
Government has no reason to care whether people injure themselves. It goes into nanny mode
at the request of some industry, most often insurance or pharma, who think they can make
money off safety. That's how we got seat belts, 55 mph speed limit, 21 year old drinking,
motorcycle helmets and antismoking.
There's no profit in controlling guns. With alcohol, various factions squabble over who
controls the market and gets the money. The only thing visible to the knowledgable
consumer is lack of choice, especially in beer. For example, there are several good craft
brewers in the Midwest -- Bell's in Kalamazoo MI, Boulevard in Kansas City, and New Glarus
in WI -- that are not sold in Chicago because beer distributors locked them out with laws
and collusion. They want us to drink Goose Island, which is mediocre but, hey, the company
has a distribution deal with Anheuser Busch. It's all about money and greed.
Award for best title goes to Stickin' It To The Man by Tyranena in Lake Mills WI. Some of
their other titles are: Who's Your Daddy?, Bitter Woman From Hell, Hop Whore, Spank Me
Baby and High Class Broad. Runner up is Arrogant Bastard by Stone in San Diego.
On 08 Jul 2008 16:36:37 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <dfo6745o270lpebm57e4tpqkeavvmnv574@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>On 08 Jul 2008 05:14:03 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <h9n574ppaup59tksi4lr45158ppo918685@4ax,com >,
>>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>>On 07 Jul 2008 15:41:02 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>One liquor store owner said there are two questions you always
>>>>>get: What's a good wine under $10
>>>>
>>>>Charles Shaw, aka Two Buck Chuck.
>>>
>>>I have a bottle. Bought it in California. Haven't opened it yet.
>>
>>Their chardonnay won first place at the 2007 California State Fair. I'll
>>bet the judges
>>were chagrined to learn they picked Franzia in a bottle.
>
>All of their varietals are supposed to be good in spite of
>the price. BTW, wine in California is very cheap. Liquor is
>expensive. $1.99 Chuck is costlier in TJs outside the Golden State.
Wine is cheap; bottles are expensive. In wines retailing for under $10, the bottle cost
more than the wine -- .60 for the bottle plus .30 for the cork vs. .40 for the wine.
That's why Franzia comes in a bladder and Gallo makes their own bottles.
Screw caps (and bladders) seal better than corks. You can't convince wine buyers of that.
There's a lot of snobbery in wine.
Transportation and wholesaler inefficiencies are also expensive, about a dollar a bottle.
Chuck sells for three bucks in the Midwest and four bucks on the East Coast. The reason is
transportation.
>But the point is: Drinkers have more freedom. Smokers have less.
>
>Some "Nanny State." You get to drink outside on patios, buy alcohol
>on Sunday, carry a concealed gun.
>
>What "Nanny State"? It just looks like another smoker hallucination.
Government has no reason to care whether people injure themselves. It goes into nanny mode
at the request of some industry, most often insurance or pharma, who think they can make
money off safety. That's how we got seat belts, 55 mph speed limit, 21 year old drinking,
motorcycle helmets and antismoking.
There's no profit in controlling guns. With alcohol, various factions squabble over who
controls the market and gets the money. The only thing visible to the knowledgable
consumer is lack of choice, especially in beer. For example, there are several good craft
brewers in the Midwest -- Bell's in Kalamazoo MI, Boulevard in Kansas City, and New Glarus
in WI -- that are not sold in Chicago because beer distributors locked them out with laws
and collusion. They want us to drink Goose Island, which is mediocre but, hey, the company
has a distribution deal with Anheuser Busch. It's all about money and greed.
Award for best title goes to Stickin' It To The Man by Tyranena in Lake Mills WI. Some of
their other titles are: Who's Your Daddy?, Bitter Woman From Hell, Hop Whore, Spank Me
Baby and High Class Broad. Runner up is Arrogant Bastard by Stone in San Diego.
Re: If everyone really is out to get you, you aren't paranoid.
In article <ct2874pgtud6thul5tjgc43djius0n2ne4@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 08 Jul 2008 16:36:37 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <dfo6745o270lpebm57e4tpqkeavvmnv574@4ax,com >,
>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>On 08 Jul 2008 05:14:03 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <h9n574ppaup59tksi4lr45158ppo918685@4ax,com >,
>>>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>>>On 07 Jul 2008 15:41:02 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>One liquor store owner said there are two questions you always
>>>>>>get: What's a good wine under $10
>>>>>
>>>>>Charles Shaw, aka Two Buck Chuck.
>>>>
>>>>I have a bottle. Bought it in California. Haven't opened it yet.
>>>
>>>Their chardonnay won first place at the 2007 California State Fair. I'll
>>>bet the judges
>>>were chagrined to learn they picked Franzia in a bottle.
>>
>>All of their varietals are supposed to be good in spite of
>>the price. BTW, wine in California is very cheap. Liquor is
>>expensive. $1.99 Chuck is costlier in TJs outside the Golden State.
>
>Wine is cheap; bottles are expensive. In wines retailing for under $10,
>the bottle cost
>more than the wine -- .60 for the bottle plus .30 for the cork vs. .40
>for the wine.
>That's why Franzia comes in a bladder and Gallo makes their own bottles.
All alcohol is cheap. Taxes, packaging, marketing, advertising, profit,
shipping all make up far more of the final cost
>Screw caps (and bladders) seal better than corks. You can't convince
>wine buyers of that.
>There's a lot of snobbery in wine.
You can convince me. I'd buy it in cans--which is how some of it
is packaged in Europe.
But if you want true aging, you need a cork, and not a plastic one.
>Transportation and wholesaler inefficiencies are also expensive, about a
>dollar a bottle.
>
>Chuck sells for three bucks in the Midwest and four bucks on the East
>Coast. The reason is
>transportation.
And difference in taxation. California protects its industry.
>>But the point is: Drinkers have more freedom. Smokers have less.
>>
>>Some "Nanny State." You get to drink outside on patios, buy alcohol
>>on Sunday, carry a concealed gun.
>>
>>What "Nanny State"? It just looks like another smoker hallucination.
>
>Government has no reason to care whether people injure themselves. It
>goes into nanny mode
>at the request of some industry, most often insurance or pharma, who
>think they can make
>money off safety. That's how we got seat belts, 55 mph speed limit, 21
>year old drinking,
>motorcycle helmets and antismoking.
Medicare and Medicaid care. That's government.
>There's no profit in controlling guns. With alcohol, various factions
>squabble over who
>controls the market and gets the money.
Ever priced a gun? They're not cheap. Restriction makes them pricier.
One wonders why Pharma isn't going after alcohol as they are
(did?) tobacco. On the contrary, after the crackdown by MADD,
liquor laws are loosening.
Tougher nut crack, perhaps. Nearly half the population
takes a drink now and then. When smokers commanded those
numbers, smoking was permitted nearly everywhere there was
no chance of explosion.
Then, too, it doesn't kill in elderhood as surely as tobacco.
(Maybe you're beginning to convince me.) It kills the young
by both accidents and poisoning. But both those have been cracked down
upon. And that happens in smaller numbers than cancer, heart
disease, and emphysema.
The best way to prevent old people from croaking prematurely from
smoking is to prevent them from starting as kids. The quit rate is
dismal.
There has to be a more effective way to accomplish that
than bans and taxes which is responsible for only a few percent.
One wonders why Pharma hasn't hit on an easy button that would make
that happen far more dramatically.
In article <ct2874pgtud6thul5tjgc43djius0n2ne4@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 08 Jul 2008 16:36:37 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <dfo6745o270lpebm57e4tpqkeavvmnv574@4ax,com >,
>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>On 08 Jul 2008 05:14:03 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <h9n574ppaup59tksi4lr45158ppo918685@4ax,com >,
>>>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>>>On 07 Jul 2008 15:41:02 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>One liquor store owner said there are two questions you always
>>>>>>get: What's a good wine under $10
>>>>>
>>>>>Charles Shaw, aka Two Buck Chuck.
>>>>
>>>>I have a bottle. Bought it in California. Haven't opened it yet.
>>>
>>>Their chardonnay won first place at the 2007 California State Fair. I'll
>>>bet the judges
>>>were chagrined to learn they picked Franzia in a bottle.
>>
>>All of their varietals are supposed to be good in spite of
>>the price. BTW, wine in California is very cheap. Liquor is
>>expensive. $1.99 Chuck is costlier in TJs outside the Golden State.
>
>Wine is cheap; bottles are expensive. In wines retailing for under $10,
>the bottle cost
>more than the wine -- .60 for the bottle plus .30 for the cork vs. .40
>for the wine.
>That's why Franzia comes in a bladder and Gallo makes their own bottles.
All alcohol is cheap. Taxes, packaging, marketing, advertising, profit,
shipping all make up far more of the final cost
>Screw caps (and bladders) seal better than corks. You can't convince
>wine buyers of that.
>There's a lot of snobbery in wine.
You can convince me. I'd buy it in cans--which is how some of it
is packaged in Europe.
But if you want true aging, you need a cork, and not a plastic one.
>Transportation and wholesaler inefficiencies are also expensive, about a
>dollar a bottle.
>
>Chuck sells for three bucks in the Midwest and four bucks on the East
>Coast. The reason is
>transportation.
And difference in taxation. California protects its industry.
>>But the point is: Drinkers have more freedom. Smokers have less.
>>
>>Some "Nanny State." You get to drink outside on patios, buy alcohol
>>on Sunday, carry a concealed gun.
>>
>>What "Nanny State"? It just looks like another smoker hallucination.
>
>Government has no reason to care whether people injure themselves. It
>goes into nanny mode
>at the request of some industry, most often insurance or pharma, who
>think they can make
>money off safety. That's how we got seat belts, 55 mph speed limit, 21
>year old drinking,
>motorcycle helmets and antismoking.
Medicare and Medicaid care. That's government.
>There's no profit in controlling guns. With alcohol, various factions
>squabble over who
>controls the market and gets the money.
Ever priced a gun? They're not cheap. Restriction makes them pricier.
One wonders why Pharma isn't going after alcohol as they are
(did?) tobacco. On the contrary, after the crackdown by MADD,
liquor laws are loosening.
Tougher nut crack, perhaps. Nearly half the population
takes a drink now and then. When smokers commanded those
numbers, smoking was permitted nearly everywhere there was
no chance of explosion.
Then, too, it doesn't kill in elderhood as surely as tobacco.
(Maybe you're beginning to convince me.) It kills the young
by both accidents and poisoning. But both those have been cracked down
upon. And that happens in smaller numbers than cancer, heart
disease, and emphysema.
The best way to prevent old people from croaking prematurely from
smoking is to prevent them from starting as kids. The quit rate is
dismal.
There has to be a more effective way to accomplish that
than bans and taxes which is responsible for only a few percent.
One wonders why Pharma hasn't hit on an easy button that would make
that happen far more dramatically.
Re: If everyone really is out to get you, you aren't paranoid.
On 09 Jul 2008 18:47:09 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <ct2874pgtud6thul5tjgc43djius0n2ne4@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>The best way to prevent old people from croaking prematurely from
>smoking is to prevent them from starting as kids. The quit rate is
>dismal.
>
>There has to be a more effective way to accomplish that
>than bans and taxes which is responsible for only a few percent.
>One wonders why Pharma hasn't hit on an easy button that would make
>that happen far more dramatically.
I think they really believed they could reduce smoking to 12% by 2010 .. not with an easy
button but with taxes, bans and social pressure. They gave up when it became evident they
weren't going to make it.
Pharma ran anti-smoking like a business. They delivered empty rhetoric to the public but
privately insisted on measurable results. And they kept their eye on the target: reducing
the smoking rate.
On 09 Jul 2008 18:47:09 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <ct2874pgtud6thul5tjgc43djius0n2ne4@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>The best way to prevent old people from croaking prematurely from
>smoking is to prevent them from starting as kids. The quit rate is
>dismal.
>
>There has to be a more effective way to accomplish that
>than bans and taxes which is responsible for only a few percent.
>One wonders why Pharma hasn't hit on an easy button that would make
>that happen far more dramatically.
I think they really believed they could reduce smoking to 12% by 2010 .. not with an easy
button but with taxes, bans and social pressure. They gave up when it became evident they
weren't going to make it.
Pharma ran anti-smoking like a business. They delivered empty rhetoric to the public but
privately insisted on measurable results. And they kept their eye on the target: reducing
the smoking rate.
Re: If everyone really is out to get you, you aren't paranoid.
In article <h9n574ppaup59tksi4lr45158ppo918685@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
> On 07 Jul 2008 15:41:02 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
> >One liquor store owner said there are two questions you always
> >get: What's a good wine under $10
>
> Charles Shaw, aka Two Buck Chuck. It's not sold in Colorado because retailers
> are afraid to compete with Trader Joe, therefore there are no Trader Joe
> stores in Colorado.
That makes no sense. Pennsylvania has several Trader Joe's stores. Not a
one of them sells wine. NJ has a few TJ's stores and as far as I know,
only one of them has a license to sell wine.
In article <h9n574ppaup59tksi4lr45158ppo918685@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
> On 07 Jul 2008 15:41:02 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
> >One liquor store owner said there are two questions you always
> >get: What's a good wine under $10
>
> Charles Shaw, aka Two Buck Chuck. It's not sold in Colorado because retailers
> are afraid to compete with Trader Joe, therefore there are no Trader Joe
> stores in Colorado.
That makes no sense. Pennsylvania has several Trader Joe's stores. Not a
one of them sells wine. NJ has a few TJ's stores and as far as I know,
only one of them has a license to sell wine.
Re: If everyone really is out to get you, you aren't paranoid.
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:24:35 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>In article <h9n574ppaup59tksi4lr45158ppo918685@4ax,com >,
> Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>> On 07 Jul 2008 15:41:02 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>> >One liquor store owner said there are two questions you always
>> >get: What's a good wine under $10
>>
>> Charles Shaw, aka Two Buck Chuck. It's not sold in Colorado because retailers
>> are afraid to compete with Trader Joe, therefore there are no Trader Joe
>> stores in Colorado.
>
>That makes no sense. Pennsylvania has several Trader Joe's stores. Not a
>one of them sells wine. NJ has a few TJ's stores and as far as I know,
>only one of them has a license to sell wine.
A glance at Trader Joe's store map shows that nearly every metro area where they have
stores has at least four. That's because four is the minimum number to support a
warehouse. It could be that economic feasibility requires a larger cluster where alcohol
cannot be sold. It appears Philadelphia, South Jersey and Delaware is the only such area,
and it has eight stores.
Denver/Boulder MIGHT suport four stores, but definitely not eight. If Trader Joe could
sell alcohol in Colorado, there probably would be four stores in Denver. Dallas, Austin
and Houston are obvious markets for Trader Joe. They don't have stores for the same
reason. (For a consulting fee, I could show them how to get around that problem.)
FWIW, Trader Joe is owned by the Albrecht family of Germany, the same folks who own Aldi.
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:24:35 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>In article <h9n574ppaup59tksi4lr45158ppo918685@4ax,com >,
> Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>> On 07 Jul 2008 15:41:02 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>> >One liquor store owner said there are two questions you always
>> >get: What's a good wine under $10
>>
>> Charles Shaw, aka Two Buck Chuck. It's not sold in Colorado because retailers
>> are afraid to compete with Trader Joe, therefore there are no Trader Joe
>> stores in Colorado.
>
>That makes no sense. Pennsylvania has several Trader Joe's stores. Not a
>one of them sells wine. NJ has a few TJ's stores and as far as I know,
>only one of them has a license to sell wine.
A glance at Trader Joe's store map shows that nearly every metro area where they have
stores has at least four. That's because four is the minimum number to support a
warehouse. It could be that economic feasibility requires a larger cluster where alcohol
cannot be sold. It appears Philadelphia, South Jersey and Delaware is the only such area,
and it has eight stores.
Denver/Boulder MIGHT suport four stores, but definitely not eight. If Trader Joe could
sell alcohol in Colorado, there probably would be four stores in Denver. Dallas, Austin
and Houston are obvious markets for Trader Joe. They don't have stores for the same
reason. (For a consulting fee, I could show them how to get around that problem.)
FWIW, Trader Joe is owned by the Albrecht family of Germany, the same folks who own Aldi.
Re: If everyone really is out to get you, you aren't paranoid.
The Grande Dame of the Panty-Nanny Whack-Jobs (Nits Watson) wrote:
>
> >>>>Just took a brisk walk down to the shopping area to see
> >>>>for myself if the two liquor stores are open today.
> >>>>They are. One opened at ten, the other at eleven. Both
> >>>>close at six.
.
>
Nits, it's good that you raise these fascinating issues and provide
these unsolicited anecdotes. It reminds The BIG N of these important
societal machinations that most normal people hardly think about as
they pursue their own lives. I guess that's why the world has it's
share of neurotic, sphincter-locked, nut-case trolls to keep us
apprised of the insignificant aspects of our daily toils.
Good work Nits. You are almost as irrelevant, inappropriate and goofy
as Troll "Twinkie" Shane. LOL! Silly clown.
TBN
The Grande Dame of the Panty-Nanny Whack-Jobs (Nits Watson) wrote:
>
> >>>>Just took a brisk walk down to the shopping area to see
> >>>>for myself if the two liquor stores are open today.
> >>>>They are. One opened at ten, the other at eleven. Both
> >>>>close at six.
.
>
Nits, it's good that you raise these fascinating issues and provide
these unsolicited anecdotes. It reminds The BIG N of these important
societal machinations that most normal people hardly think about as
they pursue their own lives. I guess that's why the world has it's
share of neurotic, sphincter-locked, nut-case trolls to keep us
apprised of the insignificant aspects of our daily toils.
Good work Nits. You are almost as irrelevant, inappropriate and goofy
as Troll "Twinkie" Shane. LOL! Silly clown.
TBN
