not a demand for it. To understand that statement and what was meant, you have to read the complete interview, because Carrie Jenkins did not indicate "no demand" as is often bandied about here, but she meant there is not sufficient demand for it. If you read the entire interview, Carrie Jenkins places that statement in context. That showed two things: 1) Carrie Jenkins was only the messenger (which we collectively shot many times over), and 2) the group responsible for either authorizing or recommending the drinks being sold on campus is the food and services group.

In explaining the reasoning behind the "not a demand" statement, she referenced the survey done by the food and services group in which they reported that there was not sufficient demand for caffeinated drinks. However, that study had been done several years before the interview with Carrie, and more importantly, no study had been re-commissioned by the food and services group since the Church clarified its position on caffeinated soda.

That tells me that the powers that be (one or more individuals) in the food and services group have a bias against the caffeinated drinks. I believe that there is sufficient demand for caffeinated drinks on campus--at least at the sports venues. This belief comes even though I rarely drink caffeinated drinks (but will sometimes take a drink of my wife's diet Dr. Pepper). I think common sense tells us all that there is sufficient demand--especially since the Church's clarification on the subject matter.

So my comments about needing a funeral (again, retirement is a better word) means that I don't see this changing until either 1) the current powers that be retire, or 2) they receive an outside mandate. I don't believe there is a high probability of an outside mandate, given that these service groups tend to be given autonomy to do their thing.