Difference between revisions of "Talk:Tea"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
British cons (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Didnt mean to imply it was a lie, just an inaccuracy. Tea, and the psychoactive component caffeine, are not narcotics. SOrry if I offended.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT) | Didnt mean to imply it was a lie, just an inaccuracy. Tea, and the psychoactive component caffeine, are not narcotics. SOrry if I offended.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
:I'm not entirely sure why the article has to state that tea is not mentioned in the bible. Are we going to have the same line in articles about potatoes, whiskey, and computers?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT) | :I'm not entirely sure why the article has to state that tea is not mentioned in the bible. Are we going to have the same line in articles about potatoes, whiskey, and computers?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Good point, Brit. I wasn't mentioned either, but I still exist.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 00:54, March 26, 2007
I strongly dispute the contention that my definition was conceived of in anything but the utmost veracity.
Didnt mean to imply it was a lie, just an inaccuracy. Tea, and the psychoactive component caffeine, are not narcotics. SOrry if I offended.Palmd001 19:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
- I'm not entirely sure why the article has to state that tea is not mentioned in the bible. Are we going to have the same line in articles about potatoes, whiskey, and computers?--British_cons (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- Good point, Brit. I wasn't mentioned either, but I still exist.Palmd001 20:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)