Anyone had this?? I can’t imagine it being even slightly good, but . . . . I really do love those rocks though.

seriously dude, go read the main site before asking about reviews on everything. chances are it’s been done.

YIKES!! Bite my head off. Sorry about that . . . still figuring out how the site works.

I’m not biting your head off; had I intended to put that sort of message through I might’ve called you a newbie or an idiot.

I’m just saying, check out google/the main site to see how things are before making 20 news threads on stuff (or reviving really, really old ones). There’s general forum etiquette on many forums, you should learn up on it. Some sites have really harsh mods that will slap you with warnings and suspensions and whatnot if you do something they don’t like. We’re generally a friendly lot here though. I’m just trying to correct you so you learn how things work. People weren’t very helpful many years ago back when forums first started popping up and just tossed people out who didn’t learn the rules fast enough, it was a very unhelpful sort of environment.

It’s also helpful on many sites to read the captions on the boards if you are unsure where to post something.

Hey thanks, seriously. I AM kinda new to all this. . .  Guess I just got so excited to learn that other people are as into candy as I am . . I’ve never really understood though, on any message board, why people are so against having an old thread revived?

it’s generally considered fine if you have new information to add to the thread that wasn’t available when it was originally posted or to answer unanswered questions; just posting “i agree” or further commenting with “filler” posts is generally frowned upon.

the “why” behind this i do not know. maybe because many people had a chance to read the thread already and don’t want it cluttering up the new topics area again, I don’t know. there are some cases where I think it’s fine if people have good stuff to add, there are other cases where it’s annoying. i’m torn on it myself.

Seriously, dude…give them a break.  I don’t believe that anyone appointed you with the position of “forum moderator”.  I understand that you want to let them know what can happen when you break “rules”, but is reviving an old post even a rule here?  Probably not.  No one else cares, so why should you?  Besides, they can check the site all they want, and maybe Cybele DID review the pop rocks bar, but perhaps they wanted the opinions of everyone else who posts in here.  Even if that wasn’t the case, it’s still just a little ridiculous to jump the gun and bite their head off for no good reason.  Come on, it’s candy for pete’s sake! It’s supposed to be fun!

The only one biting anyone’s head off is you. I WAS being friendly and trying to be helpful.  He wanted a review on the product, I gave him a link to one and a suggestion. Pardon me if my faith and patience is a bit thin in regards to humanity’s intelligence on the internet.

well, pardon me for being sick of people who troll forums that have little patience for new people, whose only purpose in life is always looking to point out this rule and that.  its far too common.  i thought it might be absent here on candyblog, but i guess i was mistaken.

For what it’s worth, I’ve had the Pop Rocks Bar and it’s really great.  The chocolate is surprisingly high quality, and it’s thick, unlike a Nestle Crunch bar where the chocolate is flat.  It’s scored so you can break off bites.  And the popping is really good.  I totally recommend this one.  The pop rocks are unflavored, so they don’t compete with the purity of the chocolate.  Delicious.

i haven’t had it yet, only because the thought of pop rocks in chocolate kind of turned me off, but you make a good point:  they aren’t flavored.  next time i see one i’ll pick it up and give it a try

I’ve seen one called “Fireworks” I can’t remember who made it, only that it felt like two Ghiradelli bars in one, also was a wopping $7.50. The flavor was called “Firworks” and both bars had pop rocks in them.