I just want one lol. Haven't had any luck yet but will stay persistent.

And orange syringe !!

I'm hoping I'll just happen to be checking when a multi/pills is available. My favorite flavor...

Pills are gone for good they told me over the phone...

I was after one and didn't see any online all day  

If you are right, they are charging way too little.

Edit: when a multiple release is split in unequal numbers, the edition should be (normally) called a "Varied Edition" of XXX. That's not what Jealous states. 

Probably we’ll know when the boxes arrive (or never).

Although multiple exclamation marks are often frowned upon, I see that stance as lacking nuance.

They are in fact highly effective as a means of conveying hysteria and lack of emotional control.

An author might also be writing from the vantage point of a character — like that of a 12-year-old. Or a halfwit. And in such cases, the use of two, five or ten consecutive exclamation marks can serve as a literary tool, enhancing the believability of character dialogue.

_______________


Regarding the jokey comment by Express Post , it isn't difficult to understand why some may consider it insensitive or tasteless. Or simply not funny enough.

But I'm curious whether any reasonable person would describe "Missing out on these is like getting cancer" as:

(i) falling clearly within the Prohibited Content of ProBoards' Community Guidelines*; and

(ii) warranting an intervention to delete the word "cancer".



Is there a member who believes this level of speech curtailment was judicious? Or even a passably-appropriate use of moderator power?

If so, I would encourage that member to exercise their gift of foresight. By spending five minutes thinking their arguments through. This means following those arguments to their logical conclusion. And also considering the precedent set for the forum:


Enjoy a bit of dark humour from time to time? Perhaps as a stress release, a coping mechanism, or for a multitude of other reasons?

Then watch out. Because if you post a video of a standup routine by George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Frankie Boyle or [random comedian], you could soon find it removed.

Some moderator might take it upon themselves to be offended on behalf of everybody else. And then step in as a surrogate parental authority to give you lessons on humour. That may help the rest of us to better understand what is funny and (more importantly) what is not funny. Obviously, the interview with Peter Hedgemont on Today Now!* would be off-limits.


But be careful as well when discussing or posting photos of artwork, especially by certain street artists.

With Banksy, for example, you'd be treading on thin ice. And you may discover that your posted content — like images of Napalm* or Warning Sign* — has been "edited for obvious reasons !!!!!!"

All because [illness / death / violence / war / natural disaster / other tragedy] "should never be a punchline to a joke."

__________


My own position is different: Bar extreme cases, censorship is best avoided.

[And those who demonstrate an excessive keenness to censor other people's posts are taking part in a process which infantilises all of us. That, in my view, is far more harmful to the forum than a rude or provocative comment ever could be.]

The general principle here is based on a premise I believe to be tenable:

The collective maturity of this message board can withstand any threat (actual or merely perceived) deriving from whatever differences of opinion may exist between its individual members.


Moreover, such an approach has the advantage of requiring zero effort on the part of moderators. It's hands-off and non-intrusive.


Let's illustrate the way it could work in practice:

If somebody wishes to advertise their silliness by posting a silly message, how about allowing them the freedom to do so? Give 'em enough rope.

This would make it simpler to identify anyone who consistently writes comments that aren't worth reading. Other members then have the option, like proper adults, of choosing to skip past that person's future posts — leading to potential savings in time and energy.


Reasonable enough?

Now, I don't claim to be certain this is the wisest of all possible approaches. But I am confident it is less unwise than a single person trying to dictate what subject matters are not okay to laugh about.

That's a lot of suckers for these lollies 

Has anyone received their lolly/lollies from the most recent show yet?