So today, whilst on the phone to Smurff, i was eating a kit kat, y'know.. as you do.
And, well, it's meant to have WAFER in the middle of it (for people who don't live in england and have never heard of KitKat's.), but guesswhat, MINE DIDN'T. scream gonk gonk
So i was a little annoyed, because they have like 107 calories in them (on top of no wafer). So technically, does that mean that my bar of Kit Kat had more calories in it? Because there was more chocolate than wafer? And i'm guessing that chocolate has more calories than you're average wafer? Meh. I dunno, i've alway's hated math. lol
Don't be getting idea's..(i.e;; don't steal my pics, or else i'll sue you aswell!)
Here is the heartbreaking evidence.
Please, refrain from crying and cawing 'nooooooo' at the computer screen.
 eutrophication · Sat Jan 20, 2007 @ 08:54pm · 4 Comments |
