Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mit-eddie!barmar
From: barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: How "coke" will back out...
Message-ID: <4300@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-May-85 23:48:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.4300
Posted: Thu May 16 23:48:30 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 18-May-85 01:22:53 EDT
References: <657@vortex.UUCP> <518@umd5.UUCP>
Reply-To: barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin)
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 27

In article <518@umd5.UUCP> zben@umd5.UUCP (Ben Cranston) writes:
>Now, maybe this should go to net.rumor or maybe
>even net.politics, but there is an interesting correlation between the
>sudden (and evidently unplanned for) change in formula, the sanctions we are
>putting on the Nicaraguans (note sugar is their second biggest export, after
>coffee), and the fact that the Contra's politial leader is the former manager
>of the Coca Cola plant in Managua...
>
>I may have voted for the man, but he's messing around with my Coca Cola!
>I mean, is *NOTHING* sacred?

I did't see a :-), so I assume that this person is serious, and I will
make a rebuttal.  The formula change was not sudden.  A couple of days
after the change was officially announced I read an article in a
reputable newspaper (I think it was either the NY Times or Wall St
Journal) that described the measures that were used for the last couple
of years to keep the planning secret.  The formula change has been in
the works for around two years.  For an example of one of these
measures, the company told distributors to let their inventories run low
because a new version of the can was going to be distributed this year
in honor of Coke's 100th birthday; of course, the real reason for this
request was that they wanted to be able to get the new formula Coke on
the distributors' shelves rapidly.
-- 
    Barry Margolin
    ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
    UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar