Author Topic: It’s obvious really (Read 3330 times)

Bunny · « **on:** August 20, 2005, 10:44:58 pm »

If Nestle are re-launching Texan (although it was of course Rowntrees who last made it) of course Mars should re-launch Secret bars. They are missed at least as much as Texan.

And Cadburys should re-launch Frys Five Boys (they dont have to do much - it was ordinary chocolate with five boys on the wrapper).

loulou · « **Reply #1 on:** August 21, 2005, 12:33:34 am »

I don't miss Secrets half as much as I miss Cabana. Why can't they chuck some cherries in a bounty and a layer of caramel. It would make me happy.

oldspice · « **Reply #2 on:** August 21, 2005, 10:17:39 am »

Well they could but you'd have to ask Mars to do that. It would be wonderful actually because there would be the milk and plain versions to enjoy.

They could call them Bounty Premium or something to reflect something has been added.

marble · « **Reply #3 on:** August 21, 2005, 02:45:29 pm »

I was puzzled over this one. He who must be ignored assures me that Nestle actually made Secrets not Mars.

I will have a cabana too.

oldspice · « **Reply #4 on:** August 21, 2005, 03:32:15 pm »

Oh well, I stand corrected. I could have sworn in was marketed under the Galaxy label. If it was Nestle they can keep it. They way they have adulterated my favourite bars over the years (Toffee Crisp, Lion Bar) indicates that even the long-awaited return of Texan may spell dissappointment.

goldencup · « **Reply #5 on:** August 21, 2005, 06:43:17 pm »

Was that a deliberate spelling mistake Oldspice? It worked rather well if so.

loulou · « **Reply #6 on:** August 21, 2005, 06:45:13 pm »

goldencup · « **Reply #7 on:** August 21, 2005, 06:50:57 pm »

Quote from: marble

I was puzzled over this one. He who must be ignored assures me that Nestle actually made Secrets not Mars.

I will have a cabana too.

We're not ignoring him - he seems to be ignoring us!

loulou · « **Reply #8 on:** August 21, 2005, 06:52:16 pm »

Who is "he who must be ignored"? Are we talking about paulham?

goldencup · « **Reply #9 on:** August 21, 2005, 06:55:39 pm »

Well I was presuming so.

loulou · « **Reply #10 on:** August 21, 2005, 07:01:59 pm »

why must he be ignored?

oldspice · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2005, 09:25:29 pm »

I think it's a pun - a play on "she who must be obeyed" (was that Rumpole?).

smurfboy · « **Reply #12 on:** August 22, 2005, 03:18:38 pm »

It was indeedy.

News:

Author Topic: It’s obvious really (Read 3330 times)