Saturday, January 3, 2009

Fun, sighs.

Various ancestors of mine, particularly the ones still alive, are prone to giving us treats, ostensibly for my little boy, but what's his is mine so . . .

They already do enough when it comes to clothes (tip: if you're about to have your first baby, don't bother buying a single stitch of clothing; you're going to have more than enough bought for you for the first 6 months, or at least until everyone gets bored of your child), but he seems to expect more tribute and booty from the poor devils, and they oblige!

Anyhoo, one (rather tasty) treat he got last week was a box of funsize ice-creams, which are apparently suitable for him because they are small, and he is small:

This concept is logical, apart from the fact that he could, like most toddlers, quite happily consume a metric tonne of neopolitan, given half a chance.

I have only one gripe with this. Why is it called 'funsize'? It's tiny. What's so fun about it? In my mind, a funsize chocolate bar would be the size of a Ford Transit. You should be able to burrow in it and hold a small party in memory of your teeth.


  1. come to think of it, fun size isn't so fun, its more like a tease, a bait so to speak.

  2. Fun size ice-creams should be gargantuan, filling entire continents. he could sue you for deprivation in later years, so be careful what you offer him. it may be used as (slightly mouldy comwe the day) evidence against you.

  3. It is called "funsize" because you will have to eat three times as many and which equates to 1.5 * the normal size thus building in an automatic profit and forcing you to buy more so they will be on hand. They have all the fun with that size.


I'm going to risk taking comment moderation off for a bit, so if you're a web-bot, a robot, a bot-fly or a bottom-dwelling sediment-feeder, then please refrain from commenting.

Otherwise, have a go. S'fun.