| | Having your cake and eating it??? WTF!!!Page 3 of 2 (1, 2) | Ok, so if it made sense to put 'you cannot have your cake and eat another'', then surely that is the soft brown smelly stuff too? Cos if you were REALLY hungry, you could have one cake and have enough room for another cake? Or 2 cakes at the same serving?
How about that it's raining cats and dogs........ | |
|
| |
| Having your cake and eating it??? WTF!!!
Posted: 11/9/2011 2:26:35 AM |
Does anyone actually know what that nonsensical cliche is supposed to ACTUALLY mean?
It's a very simple concept relating to a person's greed.
It's similar to "he wants the penny and the toffee" ie he wants to enjoy the benefits of owning the penny whilst still retaining possession of it.
The other ones that also make me laugh are the contradictive ones like
a) Let them go, if it was meant to be they will come back
and
b) If you want somebody you have to be prepared to fight to get them
Hmm, I can see why some on here have problems when accusing others of contradicting themselves.
The two statements aren't contradictory. In the first, the relationship has already commenced, but in the second, it hasn't, so they cannot accurately be said about the same two people.
There is always one saying to contradict another...so wtf do we do! For example:
Look before you leap....
and
He who hesitates...
They are only contradictory if uttered by the same person in relation to the same situation. | |
|
| |
| Having your cake and eating it??? WTF!!!
Posted: 11/9/2011 9:01:09 AM |
How about that it's raining cats and dogs........
Apparently this is because in the old days we used to keep animals in the loft of the house (more like barns than homes) and in certain cases when it rained really heavily and the roof collapsed the animals would fall through the ceiling...hahaha imagine that!!! | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| Having your cake and eating it??? WTF!!!
Posted: 11/10/2011 5:01:44 PM | Unlikely, I also wouldnt want a cherry on top of a cake I was eating
Something thats been frequently nibbled or chewed, even had the odd chunk bitten out of it over the years is far more appealing where this particular type of "cake" is concerned
L plates on a nightie really isnt a very erotic thought | |
|
floyd
| | Joined: 10/14/2011
Msg: 34 | |
| |
| Having your cake and eating it??? WTF!!!
Posted: 11/11/2011 7:33:00 PM | | If, as I suspect, the origin of the saying,was that Papa could have his wicked way with Mama if she was in a state of inebriation but that he shouldn't complain because somebody drunk all the wine! Then surely, he would have been better off just getting her a little bit tipsy and merry as opposed to "completely drunk"... that way, there would have been more wine left and it would have been a win win situation surely? | |
|
| Having your cake and eating it??? WTF!!!
Posted: 11/11/2011 11:35:09 PM |
A friend in need is a friend indeed
I have always thought this a strange one, surely its the person that helps a friend in need that is the friend indeed....?
Write the saying properly and it might become clearer:
A friend in need is a friend in deed.
I.e. a true friend in your hour of need is the friend who actually does something to help. | |
|
| |
| Having your cake and eating it??? WTF!!!
Posted: 11/12/2011 2:47:50 AM | Actually even written out in that format I'm not sure thats what its actually saying
There is only one subject in the narrative
A friend in need IS a friend in deed
its the same person, the friend who is need is the same person being described as being the friend in "deed"
Which to me would be saying that if somebody "needs" you to help them then while that need exists they will seem like your super duper bestest friend by their deeds even if before they had that "need" you barely heard from them
Or is saying the person in need IF you help them will repay you in deeds, IE they now owe you big time as a result
What would be what you said it meant is
A friend in deed is one who HELPS a friend in need" (theres two people in that narrative rather than just one) | |
|
| Having your cake and eating it??? WTF!!!
Posted: 11/12/2011 3:07:39 AM |
Actually even written out in that format I'm not sure thats what its actually saying
There is only one subject in the narrative
A friend in need IS a friend in deed
its the same person, the friend who is need is the same person being described as being the friend in "deed"
Which to me would be saying that if somebody "needs" you to help them then while that need exists they will seem like your super duper bestest friend by their deeds even if before they had that "need" you barely heard from them
Or is saying the person in need IF you help them will repay you in deeds, IE they now owe you big time as a result
What would be what you said it meant is
A friend in deed is one who HELPS a friend in need" (theres two people in that narrative rather than just one)
By the good Lord, Mike, you do do your best to confuse issues. 
Many of these sayings are said in a contracted form so that they form a couplet that is easy to remember and regurgitate.
A friend (when you are) in need is a friend indeed ((one word indeed)).
A stitch (when it is needed in a garment that has a tear) in time (as soon as possible) (saves the garment tear getting worse and could) save nine (stitches to put it right). | |
|
| Having your cake and eating it??? WTF!!!
Posted: 11/12/2011 10:35:23 AM | Whether its "in deed" or "indeed" theres still only one person in the narrative
So it cant be referring to the person who "helps" them as both halves refer to the person with the "need"
You should try reading posts IN context before replying to them really, which would have entailed reading msg 37 too
But silly me, theyre female and its a dating site lol, so why on earth would you risk cutting your chances by actually dealing with context?  | |
|
| Having your cake and eating it??? WTF!!!
Posted: 11/23/2011 5:44:43 AM | MSG 5
What is often the case when you look at the two "meats" involved is that they had offal at home and had been nipping out for the steak.
But I have found out to my own detriment that actually pointing that out to somebody isnt usually a very good idea
| |
|
| |
| Having your cake and eating it??? WTF!!!
Posted: 11/23/2011 6:11:08 AM | A friend in need is a friend in deed.
the phrase does refare to one person if taken as is ,,
meaning if your friend is in need ,, then he/she is only then confirmed as a friend of yours..by being in need ... | |
|
| |
| |
| Having your cake and eating it??? WTF!!!
Posted: 11/23/2011 9:56:02 AM |
Isn't it that when you need a friend they are there and helping you out (in deed) rather than just saying they will help???
There are two ways of pronouncing "IN and DEED" (sorry, not shouting, just trying to put this down so at least I understand it.)
In deed (two words) - in an act of some kind. (ie in something that is carried out)
or........
Indeed (one word) - in fact; in reality; in truth; truly (used for emphasis, to confirm and amplify a previous statement.
So, "A friend (who is there to help when you are in need) is a friend indeed (in fact; in reality; in truth; truly (used for emphasis, to confirm and amplify a previous statement)
So a friend who helps you when you are in need of help is truly a friend.
Conctracted as
A friend in need is a friend indeed. The opposite of this is the oft used question:
Where are all your so called friends when you need them? | |
|
| Having your cake and eating it??? WTF!!!
Posted: 11/23/2011 10:45:26 AM | Actually, I think I'll half concede the friend in need thing inretrospect
Having thought about it I think the easiest "alteration" would be this one
A friend (when) in need is a friend indeed
That can however still work either way
The "friend" in both cases can either be the friend in need, or a friend that helps the person in need
IE
A friend (when youre) in need is a friend (to you) indeed/in deed
or
A friend (who is) in need is a friend (to you) indeed/in deed
The indeed/in deed bit still remains irrelevant, and in both examples the "friend" in both halves IS still the same person
But the sentence works just as well regardless of whether its the person in need or someone who helps that is being discussed
So it can either describe a potentially fair weathered friend OR a genuine friend (or saviour type) | |
|
| Having your cake and eating it??? WTF!!!
Posted: 11/23/2011 11:46:14 AM |
Actually, I think I'll half concede the friend in need thing inretrospect
Having thought about it I think the easiest "alteration" would be this one
A friend (when) in need is a friend indeed
That can however still work either way
The "friend" in both cases can either be the friend in need, or a friend that helps the person in need
IE
A friend (when youre) in need is a friend (to you) indeed/in deed
or
A friend (who is) in need is a friend (to you) indeed/in deed
The indeed/in deed bit still remains irrelevant, and in both examples the "friend" in both halves IS still the same person
But the sentence works just as well regardless of whether its the person in need or someone who helps that is being discussed
So it can either describe a potentially fair weathered friend OR a genuine friend (or saviour type)
So we now have two sayings, one of which is right.
Ah well, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush! | |
|
| Having your cake and eating it??? WTF!!!
Posted: 11/23/2011 11:51:01 AM | A friend in need is a friend indeed / in deed ,both can be true
1. A friend, (when you are) in need, is indeed a true friend. ('indeed')
2. A friend, (when you are) in need, is someone who is prepared to act to show it ('in deed')
3. A friend, (who is) in need, is indeed a true friend. ('indeed')
4. A friend, (who is) in need, is someone who is prepared to act to show it ('in deed') | |
|
Home
login 
