Comments on: Candy Package Sizes v.s. How Fun They Are

By: ClariPossum

ClariPossum — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:06:23 +0000

That and you can fit more of the small ones in the freezer. More ammo!

By: Uncle Ruckus

Uncle Ruckus — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:16:47 +0000

Fun size would have a smaller surface area, so more pressure would be pinpointed. It’s the science that makes knives work.

By: bubsAKAvermin

bubsAKAvermin — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:08:01 +0000

sadly, that’s very true.

now to grab a king-sized Mr. Big!

By: BringingSassyBack

BringingSassyBack — Sat, 09 May 2009 16:15:45 +0000

Exactly. What’s so fun about less candy?

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:37:01 +0000

It appears to me that the amusement of candy is inversely proportinal to the naming of the product.

May that NOT be a lesson.

Don’t blame us Physics Students. it was the engineers who done it… honest

By: Kevin T.

Kevin T. — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:00:45 +0000

In the immortal words of Strong Bad, “Fun size? What’s fun about getting less candy?”

By: ICDK

ICDK — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:52:48 +0000

Oh, this is so funny! For years, I’ve been asking how *that* is considered “fun size”? To me, fun size is the size of the entire bag.

By: Cowicorn

Cowicorn — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:13:47 +0000

I always call the ones smaller than fun size, ecstasy size. Y’know, the Snickers that is one cubic centimeter. The smaller the more fun!!

By: JM

JM — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 04:40:27 +0000

Haha, way too f*cking true! I’ve always hated the dishonesty behind the fun size. It’s not f*cking fun when it’s so f*cking small! King size should be renamed fun size, or maybe fun king size.

By: Empyrean Goddess

Empyrean Goddess — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:27:20 +0000

Hahahahaha.
I lolled =)

By: kat

kat — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:58:08 +0000

wouldn’t it be funner to freeze a king size butterfinger and throw it at someone?
It’s bigger, so it will hurt more.

By: woooh

woooh — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:47:37 +0000

ZOMG INNUENDO!

By: Prawn

Prawn — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:11:56 +0000

w.t.f.

By: Jefoid

Jefoid — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:10:35 +0000

*and therefore less fun* (lest I be accused of missing the point.)

By: Jefoid

Jefoid — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:09:11 +0000

Agreed. I think travel size is always smaller than normal size. Other than that, funniest graph in a while.

By: ...

... — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:02:24 +0000

Fun size is the c*ck tease of the candy world.

By: LHLD

LHLD — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:55:10 +0000

since when is travel size larger than normal size? guess it depends on what you’re working with…

By: Destin

Destin — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:18:16 +0000

Agreed, “fun size” definitely is NOT a fun size.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:37:35 +0000

Really. V.S.?

By: Fred

Fred — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:28:26 +0000

If a small volume of something is supposed to be called ‘fun size’, then shouldn’t the people in 3rd world countries be extremely happy, with all the food they’re not having? Then why are we ruining their good moods with food?

By: Ruby

Ruby — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:21:36 +0000

Depends on what sort of ‘fun’ you’re using them for. Sticking them in the freezer and chucking them at people? That puts the ‘fun’ in ‘Fun Size’ for me!

By: ewwee

ewwee — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:06:05 +0000

Astute observation!