• sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      It absolutely was. It was tangential to my comment. Information I already had (which you could glean from my comment). And completely unnecessary.

      Thanks for calling out the typo!

          • CaptnNMorgan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            Then the person who originally responded to them wasn’t mansplaining, and used facts to contradict what they said. Then they acted like they already knew that

            • sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              The person who had the lengthy the explanation about cocaine and Coca-Cola was correct - it just wasn’t what I was talking about. I was referencing diet pills in the '50s that were made out of amphetamines (“momma’s little helpers”).

              • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                16 hours ago

                You did so in comparison to cocaine, in response to something that only mentioned cocaine in the context of cocaine cola. If you say it wasn’t cocaine but speed back then, how am I supposed to get that you are referencing diet pills and not at all contradicting the whole cocaine cola bit?

                But yeah, diet pills were basically just speed back then too. I can’t argue that. Not sure why that’s related to cocaine in cola though. Turns out people do all kinds of drugs, especially when readily available.