Can honey be obtained?

NO people, I have a question:

If Bernard's claim 'It's like honey, you can't buy, it with money' is true - then where exactly does he obtain his breakfast condiments? or suitable topping for pancakes? - in his own mind?

Is he using metaphors?, if so, what do we understand the true meaning to be. Is he suggesting that even if you could buy honey (which surely we all can for about 56 pence) the 'off-the-shelf' variety is of low quality compared to the real stuff oft found in bee hives. Does he keep bees? - is he saying his bees are the best and he's not selling? Is honey his new girl?, if so, surely she can't be purchased for under a pound.

Perhaps he thinks honey is time travel or a dinosaur ... nobody can buy these things. No way.

He states he is in a rage, is he then progressing to elaborate that to us by mixing up his meanings to illustrate his condition? - Is he upset record bosses have requested the original lyric be removed and he has substituted a nonsensical replacement?

If anyone could shed some light on this ...

Perhaps what he really meant was "it's like money, you can't buy it with honey"?

Technically, that is also inaccurate. I was hoping it might involve more bees.

Maybe does he mean "It's like honey, BUT you can't buy it with money", i.e. love is as sweet as honey and it is priceless. Now,

1. why he removed the BUT (the BUTT :moon:? the BUD ?) is a mystery to me;
2. it doesn't sound like Barney, which I think would be more inclined to write something like "your pussy tastes like honey but I can't pay for it cos I've got no money :(".

Originally posted by Huntsman Technically, that is also inaccurate. I was hoping it might involve more bees.

Perhaps what he meant was "you can't buy it from the bees for money"; the bees don't do it for the money.

Originally posted by Knight of Ni Maybe does he mean "It's like honey, BUT you can't buy it with money", i.e. love is as sweet as honey and it is priceless. Now,1) why he removed the BUT (the BUTT :moon:? the BUD ?) is a mystery to me;2) it doesn't sound like Barney, which I think would be more inclined to write something like "your pussy tastes like honey but I can't pay for it cos I've got no money :(".

Nah, Barney's "style" is more "love juice smells like stale fish". He's not one of these soul crooners who thinks of female genitalia as "sweet" ;)

That's more like it P ... were getting more towards Barney's inner psyche there. Good work.

I'm not certain the bees couldn't be bribed, in a cross human/insect dual pollination situation.

Knight that states 'Ni' I offered that suggestion initially, that he actually could have meant 'true love can never be purchased' i.e. the honey is someone's (his) honey? - but I doubt that's the case.

Thanks, H, I do think that interpretation is heading in the right direction.

Also, when he says "Here comes love," I think it is his own feeling he's talking about, not the other person's feeling for him.

Huntsy it's been too long!

The answer lies in the context. Barney is claiming:

"Here comes love, it's like honey. You can't buy.. it with money".

The subject is the "love", not the "honey". Therefore Barns is claiming that the "love" is both:

a) Like a syrupy toast condiment, and b) Unattainable by fiscal means

The honey is not the thing that's unattainable by money, it's the love.

Which of course is a fallacy anyway as any late night trip to Kings Cross will prove.

:\pimp3:

Yes, the lyric is idiosyncratic. 'I'm a poor man, if you leave me. I'm applauded, then forgotten'? - when he's been sacked, people think that's good? - and then he's left on the shelf waiting for another Mrs. right? - or a group of bees.

DisCount sometimes you open doors where others struggle to find the path to the county that the house is situated where the door stands beckoning ... that's without mentioning any keys.

Your theory sounds plausible, but he sings this lyric in a convincing manner as to thwart your efforts.

Expand.

The main question (after this open metamorphosis) is then whom he is talking about? - a lost love or a love lost?

Or a group of bees.

Boy has deep relationship with girl.

Boy betrays girl (maybe he shags another).

Girl doesn't listen to boy's excuses.

Boy gets angry and remorseful.

Girl leaves and finds another.

Boy is devastated, finds it difficult to move on.

Quite possibly the boy then goes and necks a gobful of BBQ Pringles but that's pure speculation.

:\pimp3:

Boy gains weight.

Boy struggles to clamber on to the lavatory.

Boy whoops and whistles.

Boy rests.

Originally posted by Huntsman Boy gains weight.Boy struggles to clamber on to the lavatory.Boy whoops and whistles.Boy rests.

And don't forget "boy" gets a little bit older than he once was.

Who are you talking about?

Originally posted by Huntsman Who are you talking about?

The one who's in a rage with a girl half his age, of course!

He's a man isn't he?

Originally posted by Huntsman He's a man isn't he?

Exactly my point!

I know P ... I was just being silly.

I realise it's difficult to determine at which point I have understood the gist, rest assured I was on top of the whole gig this time.

So tell me, what makes a man become suddenly challenged by the exploits of small individual pipe smokers en route to the kingdom of the dragons and so forth - is it something you ate?

Well, I suppose it's partly having read the books repeatedly in the dim past, then hesitantly acquiring the DVD, and perhaps unexpectedly having those distant reading memories unleashed, or something like that...

Or maybe it was something I ate...

Probably the latter - I've heard eggs that have just strayed out of date can invoke states of euphoria when digested too close to viewings of blockbuster epics on the digital format DVD.

I guess the 'video recorder' (remember them?) was abolished in your house around the time the gramophone was resigned to the garden near gnome no. 4.

Have you witnessed any attacking of any clones? ... so far myself and my bird seem to be the 'only' folk who enjoyed that specific film. Just when you think you've pegged the SW fans they develop strange tendencies to turn on George ... at the point he's almost crafted Empire II.

But at the end of the day, what do I know. I thought the Jawa animals were actually upright ferrets!

I do recall consuming some bottled gravy that had an unusual texture around that time.

There was a very brief period when I had a VCR (long enough to watch the Substance video a few times) but it disappeared somehow. Basically I just skipped that era in technology.

Attack of the George Clooneys? I haven't seen it. I don't think I'm optimistic enough to buy the DVD when it appears, but I'd be willing to pay $5 to watch it on pay-per-view.

Boy loses will to live...

I wouldn't want to interfere with your decision making patterns Patty, seems your already wired up for access of seemingly all visual amenities. Does the 'Superior Bowl' involve a large screen unit with surrounding sounds or do you stick with films and novelty documentaries about intriguing, unsolved, true crime stories or stuff about ghosts? - I'm surprised to learn you owned and watched the Substance video! ... I thought you'd be ashamed to own anything that didn't look like it had been prized from the surface of Europa.

Attacking George though, seems to be best viewed in the cinema provided you can locate a suitable soft chair not surrounded by people chomping hot dogs or popping corn (difficult I know). It is only sat in front of a 50 ft screen that you can truly appreciate some of the more specialised effects. Thing is, the characters and story make this film, which makes the effects more incidental (almost).

In the UK skipping a technological generation equates to doing without watching films for 15 years ... it is not a valid option.

Saving Private Brian was the last film I really appreciated, mind, I don't watch that many ... probably because I know 99% are filthy.

Actually, Huntsy, Lord of the Pringles is about only the third DVD I own, after Pitch Black and The Matrix (and not counting the ones I wouldn't want my mother to see).

Just a normal size TV I'm afraid.

Are Natalie and Hayden (is that his name?) really that compelling? Or are there other aspects to it?

Never saw Saving Brian; isn't there a lot of blood?

Compelling is perhaps a bit strong, watchable is more appropriate, which is about the pinnacle the acting on the original movies reached - which is okay as they were meant to be comic book epics, which they fully became. The religious undertones came later, but added to it I always thought.

I'm not a sci-fi fan, and I'll leave the subject now with these parting insights:

'Go and see Attack of the Clones, it is an excellent movie - far better than the Phantom Trifle, with some excellent moments which even eclipse some of the earlier films' - 'A better sci-fi film you ain't going to see this year' - and, 'Do it for George' - 'He works hard'.

My movie collection consists of presents from other people, the latest 'Windbag the Sailor' starring Will Hay. I'm not a big collector of films because there aren't that many good films!

If you've seen 'Schindler's Crisps' and were gripped by the content and the level of detail Ste Spielberg launched at the screen, then 'Saving Private Brian' is a must. It is within my all time top 10 - please P, go and watch it. Blood is an integral part of the theme. The single most astonishing war movie ever composed, it fuses scenes which look 'real' whilst retaining (somehow) an engrossing and thoroughly exhilarating plot line based loosely on real life circumstances. (Note, Mr. Spielberg really should have included the other allies).

You may have seen the alternative version ... Saving Ryan's Privates.

Err, wasn't it SHAVING Ryan's Privates? :)

No Muff ... I did a quick search on the internet to ensure I didn't post it wrong!

You might have watched, sorry, a mate of yours might have seen the follow up!

... I was hoping someone might back me up with the Clones film, or the original Saving Private Ryan ...