Gransnet forums

Chat

Dedicated argument thread

(143 Posts)
whitewave Sat 28-May-16 08:27:59

? thought that would be a good idea. So if someone is annoying you and you wish to say so perhaps rather than ruining the conversation you could refer the person to whom you wish to have a go at to this thread and then you could argue to your hearts content, being a pain in the ass to everyone else.

This is going to be so popular I just know it is??????????

Elegran Sat 28-May-16 14:54:47

Bat? A chocolate bat? That would be crunchy, like a chocolate frog. Should be bar.

GandTea Sat 28-May-16 14:55:31

A bat ??, surely a chocolate bat is only just better than a chocolate teapot.

trisher Sat 28-May-16 15:10:22

Or a chocolate fireguard!

Elegran Sat 28-May-16 15:22:05

If I want a chocolate fireguard, I will HAVE a chocolate fireguard, so there, and you can't stop me. Yah sucks boo!

Elegran Sat 28-May-16 15:24:17

Just had some more toffee and whole nut (in the interests of research) and my opinion is unchanged.

thatbags Sat 28-May-16 15:40:27

Writes Big Taste Toffee bat (sic) on shopping list.

Anya Sat 28-May-16 15:42:04

Totally bats!

Elegran Sat 28-May-16 16:13:48

At the same time I bought a Big Taste Oreo Crunch bat - both were NEW (their capitals) and introductory offers, each 300g for £2. I've not sampled that yet, but when I have I shall give you a full report.

GandTea Sat 28-May-16 18:36:40

Elegran, go on then, have your chocolate fireguard. Would you like to borrow my carpet cleaner ?

Elegran Sat 28-May-16 19:12:19

grin Maybe I could stand it on a very large plate?

GandTea Sat 28-May-16 19:16:28

You have an answer for everything. grin

rosesarered Sat 28-May-16 20:24:03

Actually, in the good old days Snickers WERE better than Marathons and had FAR more peanuts in them (pre -EU) they were also BIGGER and BETTER.grin

rosesarered Sat 28-May-16 20:25:18

Although I do fancy a big taste toffee bat.?

Jalima Sat 28-May-16 20:33:42

Yuk Yuk Yuk to Snickers and/or Marathons. You can keep them.

I like the sound of a big taste toffee bat though (are they found in caves?)

Why do I seem to have got a total sense of humour failure this morning?
I dunno, don't ask me - got out of bed the wrong side probably, make sure you get back in the other side tonight.

Yours grumpyoldbat

Galen Sat 28-May-16 21:25:35

Ooh! I really want one of those chocolate bars with caramel in the middle!
They are soooo yummy they must be good for you!
Aren't they?

Elegran Sat 28-May-16 21:43:28

Nuts are good for you, so a toffee bat with nuts must be good for you (especially a 300 gram one - three times as good as a 100 g one)

Nelliemoser Sat 28-May-16 22:54:40

No! No! No! Galen they are very very bad for you so there! With knobs on.

Galen Sat 28-May-16 23:01:54

I don't want knuts or nuts!
I want! *I DEMAND* chocolate with caramel ! ( although, having just a a square of darling daughter's malteser chocolate? )

dramatictessa Sat 28-May-16 23:26:45

You're all wrong. The latest report on chocolate is that half a bar mixed with 500 mls formaldehyde will protect you from getting hives, flea bites, nips from horses and rashes from walking in grass. But, a quarter of a bar mixed with 250 mls formaldehyde will give you hives on your backside, guarantee flea bites up your nostrils, a horse in your living room, and a nasty rash every time you go in your garden. If you don't believe me, here's the link to the report anotherloadofstatisticsmadeuptoscareyou.12345*#/789^!#@45. Anyone want to argue with me? wink

whitewave Sun 29-May-16 09:42:12

This threads going well isn't it?

GandTea Sun 29-May-16 09:52:29

Oh for heavens sake WW, it is awful, no one can agree.

Elegran Sun 29-May-16 09:57:39

That report wasn't conducted scientifically, tessa.

Where are the accounts of the subjects being randomly selected from a representative sample of all ages, genders, species and ethnic origins, political affiliations and newspaper preferences? Were those administering the dose aware of who was getting which strength, thus potentially having an unconsciuos bias in their interpretation of results?

Where does it mention whether any control subjects were deprived of any of this powerful medication entirely (and whether there are plans to add it to the list of NGS-approved medication so that everyone can benefit from it, carefully prescribed and monitored, of course)?

Where is the blow-by-blow description of how the chemicals were measured, mixed and administered? Come to that, how were they administered at all? Orally? Intravenously? Rectally? Nasally?

A far better study is the one by Fudgit and Quack, who showed incontrovertibly that they got better results by rubbing a mixture of paraffin, beeswax, and mayonnaise (Hellman's) over the entire body of 1,684 subjects than by administering this orally to 1,625 carefully matched volunteers. 83% of the cutaneous subjects survived, against 27% of the oral ones. There were no cases of beri-beri, dengue fever or athletes foot in any of the surviving subjects. Those who did not survive were not examined due to the over-enthusism of one assistant who summoned a funeral director before informing the principle researcher.

GandTea Sun 29-May-16 10:12:31

You lot are bloody loopy - calls the men in white coats (apart from the chocolate stains)

whitewave Sun 29-May-16 10:24:37

grandtea how dare you contradict me!

trisher Sun 29-May-16 10:26:48

GandTea I absolutely disagree that no-one can agree.