This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.
To view other archive projects go to
https://archives.mabination.com
-
RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-11-17 08:00
Maybe. The thing is almost no one buys them. They're pure sugar with zero filling, and it's like you're just eating pure nothingness. Not quite worth the money when you could buy something with "presence" like a chocolate bar.
-
Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-11-17 08:05
Oh. Then why does everyone cry for them?
-
RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-11-17 08:12
Because they're really good when people do have them. But it's like eating out of a bag of sugar. Eventually people have to get to a point where it's like "alright, this is a waste and unsatisfying."
-
Mentosftw wrote on 2012-11-17 08:37
Quote from Sumpfkraut;982708:
Oh. Then why does everyone cry for them?
This is just the whole "you don't know what you have till you've lost it" moment for people.
It's really an overreaction.
-
Nithiel wrote on 2012-11-17 09:32
Quote from RebeccaBlack;982713:
Because they're really good when people do have them. But it's like eating out of a bag of sugar. Eventually people have to get to a point where it's like "alright, this is a waste and unsatisfying."
People still eat cotton candy, and that's LITERALLY a bag of sugar.
-
RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-11-17 09:44
But no one consumes it regularly, it just happens to be at amusement parks and maybe there's that one guy who buys it occasionally just to have it.
-
Hazeri wrote on 2012-11-17 11:21
-
Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-11-17 15:23
The first one is fairly... optimistic.
Reminds me of a guy who put up a century old science book on pederasty that no one even knows about to be sold for like 169€. Needless to say after more than a year of it being on my wish list still no one has bought it.
Of course this is still a completely different league. Bloody insane. Not sure whom he intends to lure in with that weird company logo offer. No small-time company who'd profit from the minimum advertising can actually afford it, and those who could aren't stupid enough to do so anyway.
-
Yoorah wrote on 2012-11-17 20:40
A company that makes fatass-producing snacks went under.
...and it went under because its unionized workers went on a nation-wide strike while the company was in rough shape.
I say good riddance.
-
TLCBonaparte wrote on 2012-11-18 01:00
Quote from Yoorah;982884:
A company that makes fatass-producing snacks went under.
...and it went under because its unionized workers went on a nation-wide strike while the company was in rough shape.
I say good riddance.
BUT WHAT ABOUT WALL-E!!!
-
Nithiel wrote on 2012-11-18 01:34
Quote from Yoorah;982884:
A company that makes fatass-producing snacks went under.
Bullshit. Snacks only make you fat if you eat nothing but them. Normal people can eat twinkies and not be fat.
Stop blaming the company for the stupid people that think a box of cakes makes a good dinner. Reminds me of the person who sued McDonalds because their coffee was hot.
-
Nithiel wrote on 2012-11-19 07:04
Update: Hostess is selling off their assets, factories and recipes included, so Twinkies and all the other tasty snacks will continue to be made, simply under different companies.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/11/twinkies_may_survive_the_hoste.html
-
BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2012-11-20 11:17
Nov 19 (Reuters) - Hostess Brands Inc, the maker of the iconic Twinkies snack cake, will square off in a bankruptcy court on Monday against an agent of the U.S. Justice Department, who says the wind-down plan is too generous to management.
The U.S. Trustee, an agent of the U.S. Department of Justice who oversees bankruptcy cases, said in court documents it opposed to the wind-down plan because Hostess planned improper bonuses to company insiders.
The 82-year-old Hostess wants permission to pay senior management a bonus of up to 75 percent of their annual pay so they will stay on and help wind-down the business.
The U.S. Trustee, Tracy Hope Davis, planned to ask New York Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Drain at Monday's afternoon hearing to appoint an independent trustee to oversee the sales of the company's assets.
Several unions also objected to the company's plans, saying they made "a mockery" of laws protecting collective bargaining agreements in bankruptcy. The Teamsters, which represents 7,900 Hostess workers, said the company's plan would improperly cut the ability of remaining workers to use sick days and vacation.
"This would all be aimed at increasing the potential recovery of secured lenders," said the court filing by the Teamsters.
The company, which employs 18,500, said on Friday its operations had been crippled by a bakers strike and winding down operations was the best way to preserve its dwindling cash. Hostess suspended operations at all of its 33 plants across the United States last week as it moved to start selling assets.
Twinkies, Wonder Bread and the company's other well-known brands are likely to be sold to rivals, and the money raised will be used to repay Hostess Brands' creditors.
Those products, particularly the golden, cream-filled Twinkies cakes, are deeply ingrained in American pop culture and have long been packed in school children's lunch boxes.
Hostess blamed heavy debt and burdensome wage and pension obligations for its financial woes. It said a strike by members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM), which began Nov. 9, was part of a long series of battles between labor and management that contributed to the company's inability to restructure its finances and produce and deliver products at several facilities.
But union officials and line workers said last week that union workers had already agreed to a series of concessions over the years and the company had failed to invest in brand marketing and modernization of plants and trucks, instead focusing on enriching owners such as private equity firm Ripplewood Holdings and hedge funds Silver Point Capital and Monarch Alternative Capital.
Officials at the three firms declined to comment.
On Monday, Flowers Foods Inc, which is seen as a potential suitor for some of Hostess's brands, amended and extended its $500 million loan facility, giving it greater financial flexibility. It did not say whether the change was related to a potential bid for Hostess or any of its brands.
"This amendment to our credit facility positions us to take advantage of an assortment of opportunities as we work to achieve our expansion goals," said Flowers Chief Financial Officer R. Steve Kinsey.
Private equity group Metropolous & Co, the owner of Pabst Brewing Co., has already expressed interest in Hostess.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/19/hostess-bankruptcy-hearing-idUSL1E8MJ56420121119
Sickening
giving themselves bonuses while the company went bankrupt
-
Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-11-20 18:05
It should be subject to penal law. Such behaviour disrupts society on a far greater scale than even a mass murderer could ever hope to.