pageok
pageok
pageok
Coffee-Infused Coke:

So will Coca-Cola Blak -- a version of Coca Cola infused with coffee -- be good for you, or worthy of a lawsuit?

Bob Bobstein (mail):
I expected the "lawsuit" link to go to a story about a shareholders' derivative suit... Is anyone willing to defend this as a good idea?
12.7.2005 4:58pm
Cornellian (mail):
Heck in true, Dilbert PHB style, "why can't it be both?"
12.7.2005 5:00pm
CCMCornell (mail):
damnit, beat by someone else from big red

BTW, whatever happened to Jolt? That was legalized crack.
12.7.2005 5:31pm
JBurgess (mail) (www):
So drop four NoDoz(TM) into a can of Mountain Dew(TM). Let it rest a couple of minutes and then swirl the can around. Drink. Buzz.
12.7.2005 8:51pm
Jeremy Nimmo (mail):
I wouldn't mind if the same people sue over Raspberry Coke. The most humiliating thing I've done this year is buy Cough Cyrup instead of Coke while ranting about how easy it is to confuse the two vending machine labels.
12.7.2005 9:05pm
Paul N (mail):
Libertarians dream of the day when Coke has cocaine in it again...

Personally, I'm still devastated by the withdrawal of Vanilla Coke. My stockpile will only last so long.
12.7.2005 10:00pm
Ross Levatter (mail):
I think whether or not Coke with coffee in it justifies a lawsuit is a function of how hot the coffee is...:-)
12.8.2005 12:08am
Defending the Indefensible:
Actually, Coca Cola Classic still has coca extract in it, albeit decocainized. It's one differentiating ingredient (none of their competitors are permitted to use it) that makes the formula unique.
12.8.2005 12:04pm