Hershey Limited Edition Choc Bars?



S

[email protected]

Guest
what is the deal with all of the limited edition choc bars? I was
browsing around the internets after i tried the below

hershey duoble chocolate is AWESOME!!!
http://www.iamfood.com/cgi-bin/product.cgi?pid=1062

Mocha Almond. i tried this it is pretty good
http://www.iamfood.com/cgi-bin/product.cgi?pid=1070

I wasnt too crazy about this one... Caramel Cappuccino
http://www.iamfood.com/cgi-bin/product.cgi?pid=12985

are they taking a page out of Nestle's kit kat playbook? there are like
71 DIFFERENT kit kat flavors out there

here is a list of all 71 kit kats!!!
http://www.iamfood.com/cgi-bin/asearch.cgi?foodtext=kit kat
 
On 7 Feb 2006 05:32:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>what is the deal with all of the limited edition choc bars? I was
>browsing around the internets..

Turn out this guy is just spamming for his website.

-sw
 
"Steve Wertz" <[email protected]> wrote

> On 7 Feb 2006 05:32:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>what is the deal with all of the limited edition choc bars? I was
>>browsing around the internets..
>
> Turn out this guy is just spamming for his website.

NOOOOO!!!

(laugh) nancy
 
But it's a pretty cool website......I'm jealous of all japan's kit-kat
flavors!

We loved the Hershey's limited edition double chocolate. Chocolate bars
filled with a liquid chocolate center. They were around our stores for
a while but then they seemed to reach the end of the limited run, you
can't find them at the stores any more. So I went to a discount /
closeout store (Big Lots) where they had them four for a dollar. Ten
dollars worth should last us for a while =)
 
>>here is a list of all 71 kit kats!!!
>>http://www.iamfood.com/cgi-bin/asearch.cgi?foodtext=kit kat

>Kit Kat Summer Pine? Must be an African specialty.

Geez...I didn't think there were that many Kit Kat flavors out there.
The mocha, orange cream and dark chocolate ones are all really good.
Hershey has started selling 60% cocao dark chocolate bars in a few
places. One is plain, one has blueberries and almonds IIRC, and one has
cranberries and macadamia nuts. They're not bad at all. I don't know
what's gotten into candy bar makers in the last year or so to suddenly
be experimenting around with all these different flavors, but I like
it.
 
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 09:46:10 -0500, "Nancy Young"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Steve Wertz" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Turn out this guy is just spamming for his website.
>
>NOOOOO!!!
>
>(laugh) nancy

Uh , this wasn't your normal run of the mill spammer. It was
disguised pretty well. I'm sure you, however, saw right through
the ruse the moment you saw it since it was so painfully obvious.

*****.

-sw
 
"Steve Wertz" <[email protected]> wrote

> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 09:46:10 -0500, "Nancy Young"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Steve Wertz" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Turn out this guy is just spamming for his website.
>>
>>NOOOOO!!!
>>
>>(laugh) nancy
>
> Uh , this wasn't your normal run of the mill spammer. It was
> disguised pretty well. I'm sure you, however, saw right through
> the ruse the moment you saw it since it was so painfully obvious.
>
> *****.

That's rich, coming from you. You never struck me as the
'dish it out, can't take it' type. Now I know.

nancy
 
"Steve Wertz" <[email protected]> wrote

> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 09:46:10 -0500, "Nancy Young"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Steve Wertz" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Turn out this guy is just spamming for his website.
>>
>>NOOOOO!!!
>>
>>(laugh) nancy
>
> Uh , this wasn't your normal run of the mill spammer. It was
> disguised pretty well. I'm sure you, however, saw right through
> the ruse the moment you saw it since it was so painfully obvious.

OH! and I just read this part! Yes, it was obvious! One
step down the I just discovered this neato keeno site check
it out!

nancy
 
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:54:16 -0500, "Nancy Young"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>That's rich, coming from you. You never struck me as the
>'dish it out, can't take it' type. Now I know.

I've been using News long enough that people know very well that I
can hold my own. I was just returning your comment back at you
with the requisite amount of brain-power needed to respond to your
witty remark. I don't think I've offended anybody here recently
who doesn't deserve it. Have I? I'll have to pick up the pace, I
know.

I was also apologizing for responding to the original post in the
first place. No reason to get all testy about it.

-sw
 
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:56:48 -0500, "Nancy Young"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Steve Wertz" <[email protected]> wrote

>> Uh , this wasn't your normal run of the mill spammer. It was
>> disguised pretty well. I'm sure you, however, saw right through
>> the ruse the moment you saw it since it was so painfully obvious.
>
>OH! and I just read this part!

How could you possibly miss it? You had to read it to get to the
part where I called you a *****.

-sw (catching up of a few years worth of flames)
 
"Steve Wertz" <[email protected]> wrote

> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:56:48 -0500, "Nancy Young"

>>"Steve Wertz" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>> Uh , this wasn't your normal run of the mill spammer. It was
>>> disguised pretty well. I'm sure you, however, saw right through
>>> the ruse the moment you saw it since it was so painfully obvious.
>>
>>OH! and I just read this part!
>
> How could you possibly miss it? You had to read it to get to the
> part where I called you a *****.

I read the first sentence and thought maybe you had something
interesting to say when out of the corner of my eye, I saw
*****. Obviously nothing worth reading then.

> -sw (catching up of a few years worth of flames)

So you're saying you've been itching to say that? Intriguiging.

nancy
 
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 15:10:47 -0500, "Nancy Young"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> -sw (catching up of a few years worth of flames)
>
>So you're saying you've been itching to say that? Intriguiging.

<sniff> Stop picking on me, Dammit!

Nice Freud imitation, though.

-sw
 
"Steve Wertz" <[email protected]> wrote

> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 15:10:47 -0500, "Nancy Young"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> -sw (catching up of a few years worth of flames)
>>
>>So you're saying you've been itching to say that? Intriguiging.
>
> <sniff> Stop picking on me, Dammit!
>
> Nice Freud imitation, though.

(laugh) And maybe someday I will work on my spelling, too.

nancy
 
I dont own the website, but I am friends with the person who does.

I didnt think that was a crime to discuss an interesting topic that
obviously not everyone knew about.


Steve Wertz wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2006 05:32:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >what is the deal with all of the limited edition choc bars? I was
> >browsing around the internets..
>
> Turn out this guy is just spamming for his website.
>
> -sw
 
On 7 Feb 2006 14:29:44 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>I dont own the website, but I am friends with the person who does.
>
>I didnt think that was a crime to discuss an interesting topic that
>obviously not everyone knew about.

It appears your sole purpose on Usenet is to advertise this site.
Out of 26 posts, you've mentioned that site 24 times. That makes
you scum (and a spammer). Being scum isn't against any law that
I'm aware of, though. You got that much right.

-sw
 
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 15:22:39 -0500, "Nancy Young"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>>So you're saying you've been itching to say that? Intriguiging.
>(laugh) And maybe someday I will work on my spelling, too.

YEAH! And _THAT_ TOO!

:)

-sw
 
Steve,

If I mentioned the NY Yankees 24 times, would I be considered scum or a
spammer? I don't own the Yankees and I am not forcing people to read my
post(s). Your logic is pretty flimsy.

Don't forget that businesses check these groups to read the posts of
their employees and I dont think your actions would warrant a high
opinion.







Steve Wertz wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2006 14:29:44 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >I dont own the website, but I am friends with the person who does.
> >
> >I didnt think that was a crime to discuss an interesting topic that
> >obviously not everyone knew about.
>
> It appears your sole purpose on Usenet is to advertise this site.
> Out of 26 posts, you've mentioned that site 24 times. That makes
> you scum (and a spammer). Being scum isn't against any law that
> I'm aware of, though. You got that much right.
>
> -sw
 
On 8 Feb 2006 11:48:40 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>If I mentioned the NY Yankees 24 times, would I be considered scum or a
>spammer? I don't own the Yankees and I am not forcing people to read my
>post(s). Your logic is pretty flimsy.

You're obviously new to Usenet. There isn't a single person out
here that approves of what you're doing.

>Don't forget that businesses check these groups to read the posts of
>their employees and I dont think your actions would warrant a high
>opinion.

My boss wouldn't know a Usenet server from that smelly asshole
under his nose he calls his mouth. Somebody needs to send him
some anonymous Tic-Tacs or something. You can actually *see* the
fumes coming out of there when he talks.

Was that supposed to be some sort of threat, or are you implying
that you work for iamshit.com and you're expecting a pat on the
back from them for this?

-sw
 
All,

I'm saying Steve, is that the internet isn't that big and you should be
respectful of others, and of course refrain from the name calling, it
just makes you look silly.


-SB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back