e=mc2 Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Brent Metcalfe:It's obvious based on the photos of the original Resses Peanut Butter Cup that Joseph Smith did not *add* the chocolate afterwards, but it was already there.
e=mc2 Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 CKSalmon:Fig. 5. Is called in Egyptian Reeses-go-on-down-throat; this is one of the governing delectations also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Cup, and to borrow its filling from Kolob through the medium of Cadbury-carb-rush, which is the grand Candy, or, in other words, the governing delectation, which governs fifteen other fixed peanuts or bars, as also Fizzies or the Moonpie, the Aero and the Skor in their annual revolutions. This peanut receives its power through the medium of Kit-kat-chun-kee, or Havi-land-thin-mint, the bars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving filling from the revolutions of the Cup.
e=mc2 Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 This is absolutely one of the most spectacular threads ever...........you guys and gals ROCK!!!!!!!!
maklelan Posted July 20, 2007 Author Posted July 20, 2007 Everyone knows there are chocolate factories and peanut butter factories. What's at dispute is whether chocolate and peanut butter can be joined in such a way as to still be distinguishable from one another after the expiration date. Some say it's impossible, but I think it can be done. But that's a different question than whether or not it has been done PR, or "pre-Reese's". To date, no PR chocolate factory has turned up the slightest residue of peanut butter.This reminds me of a question I've been wrestling with. How can a Reese's be 100% peanut butter and 100% chocolate in one individual being. There really can be no mixture or confusion of substance, or it cannot produce enjoyment, and that is why the substances are united in the first place. Should we think of them as two substances, or united in one?
Tsuzuki Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 This reminds me of a question I've been wrestling with. How can a Reese's be 100% peanut butter and 100% chocolate in one individual being. There really can be no mixture or confusion of substance, or it cannot produce enjoyment, and that is why the substances are united in the first place. Should we think of them as two substances, or united in one?A Mormon would likely say they are united in purpose. But they are heretics who eat a different Reese's, and you shouldn't listen to them.
e=mc2 Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 Makelan:This reminds me of a question I've been wrestling with. How can a Reese's be 100% peanut butter and 100% chocolate in one individual being. There really can be no mixture or confusion of substance, or it cannot produce enjoyment, and that is why the substances are united in the first place. Should we think of them as two substances, or united in one?You must understand that it is only the Reeses Peanut Butter Cup that has two natures. His Father is only the Peanut Butter, with no chocolate. It is a "Spirit" type of Peanut Butter, while the Son has the physical chocolate, but the two really are honestly and truly exactly alike in their nature, substance, and meaning. There is no difference between them for they are One.
Zakuska Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk chocolate that they shall give he shall eat peanut butter also : for milk chocolate laden peanut butter shall every one eat that is left in the land.
maklelan Posted July 21, 2007 Author Posted July 21, 2007 Makelan:You must understand that it is only the Reeses Peanut Butter Cup that has two natures. His Father is only the Peanut Butter, with no chocolate. It is a "Spirit" type of Peanut Butter, while the Son has the physical chocolate, but the two really are honestly and truly exactly alike in their nature, substance, and meaning. There is no difference between them for they are One.I submit that confectioneries were too busy trying to convince the M&M eating heathens that they were a legitimate candy and got sucked into their self-indulgent dialectic. Decades later the important question would be whether or not the paper cup was "from the chocolate," or from both the peanut butter and the chocolate, but none of this has any real bearing on the enjoyment of the snack. While the heathens were concerned about orthodoxy, everyone ignored the orthopappics, and now people actually think it's self-righteous and sinful to be concerned with right eating.
e=mc2 Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 Well of course it is! You simply must eat the peanut butter first without touching the chocolate! There are those who bear testimony that this eating method is true.........
Severian Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 Everyone knows there are chocolate factories and peanut butter factories. Speaking of these factories, has anybody ever put together a definitive study of the interworkings between these and The Little Factory and their industrial complex relationship to pimples?
e=mc2 Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 Those of us with perfect pimples could care less........
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.