| Member |
Upgrading to Wife 1.0 Last year a friend of mine upgraded from Girlfriend 4.0 to Wife 1.0 and found that it's a memory hog leaving few system resources for other applications. He is also now noticing the Wife 1.0 is also spawning Child-processes which are further consuming valuable resources. No mention of this particular phenomenon was included in the product documentation, though other users have informed me that this is to be expected due to the nature of the application. Not only that, Wife 1.0 installs itself so that it is always launched at system initialization where it can monitor all other system activity. Some applications such as PokerNite 10.3 , Bachelor Party 2.5, and Pubnite 7.0 are no longer able to run on the system at all, causing the system to lockup when launched (even though the apps worked fine before). Wife 1.0 provides no installation options. Thus, the installation of undesired plug-ins such as Mother-in-law 55.8 and the Brother-in-law Beta is unavoidable. Also, system performance seems to diminish with each passing day. Some features my friend would like to see in the upcoming Wife 2.0:
I myself wish I had decided to avoid all of the headaches associated with Wife 1.0 by sticking with Girlfriend 3.0 Even here, however, I have found many problems. Apparently you cannot install Girlfriend 4.0 on top of girlfriend 3.0. You must uninstall Girlfriend 3.0 first, otherwise the two versions of Girlfriend will have conflicts over shared use of the I/O port. Other users have told me that this is a long-standing problem that I should have been aware of. Guess that explains what happened to versions 1 and 2. To make matters worse, the uninstall program for Girlfriend 3.0 doesn't work very well, leaving undesirable traces of the application in the system. Another identified problem is that all versions of Girlfriend have annoying little messages about the advantages of upgrading to Wife 1.0! VIRUS ALERT All users should be aware that Wife 1.0 has an undocumented bug. If you try to install Mistress 1.1 before uninstalling Wife 1.0, Wife 1.0 will delete MSMoney files before doing the uninstall itself. Once that happens, Mistress 1.1 won't install and you will get an "insufficient resources" error message. To avoid the aforementioned bug, try installing Mistress 1.1 on a different system and " never" run any file transfer applications(such as Laplink) between the two systems. FYI: Don't even think about a shared directory!!!!!!!!! | |||
|
Member |
Morgan, did you see that you have now obtained 100 responses on this thread! Congratulations! Although, I am a little jealous.  I found a good word for this thread: Cotquean I hadn't heard of it, though it is evidently a term used disparagingly for "a man who involves himself overmuch in women's affairs". It is Anglo-Saxon for "house woman": "cot" (small house) + "quean" (woman). My source says that it owes its "sting" to the entrenched belief the woman belongs in the home. Bah! Humbug! | |||
|
| Member |
M-WCD dates it to 1547 and has two definitions for cotquean: 1 archaic : a coarse masculine woman 2 archaic : a man who busies himself with women's work or affairs So, you too can be a cotquean, regardless of your sex! The AHD and OED have similar definitions. The quean rhymes with twen in twenty Tinman | |||
|
| Member |
Interesting, Tinman. Another term for "a mannish woman" is gynander, and of the course the etymology is evident. | |||
|
| Member |
quote: "Although some hardy men of the 17th and 18th centuries might swim or bathe in a creek or pond, bathing was in general considered unnecessary, uncomfortable and immodest. Thus the English diarist Samuel Pepys (1633-1703) expressed surprise that his wife had taken one bath in her lifetime and was considering taking a second - and when Philadelphia's Elizabeth Drinker took a therapeutic _shower bath_ in 1799 it was remarkable enough to be recorded in her diary as her first bath in 28 years!"[/QUOTE] I found this while looking for something else: http://www.takeourword.com/Issue039.html#Words%20to%20the%20Wise Actually, ordinary people took only two baths ever — when they were born and after they died. Hence Sir John Harington's famous astonished remark about Queen Elizabeth: "She bathes twice a year whether she needs it or not!" There were, however, bath-houses which were popular with the rich but these were not primarily for bathing. Their function was much the same as "massage" parlors today. The general practice was to wear the same clothes all winter. It was considered unwise to remove any article of clothing until the end of May. Hence the saying: "Ne'er cast a clout till May be out". Sorry, but that term ("don't throw the baby out with the bath water) arose in the mid-19th century, in English, anyhow. It is thought that Thomas Carlyle translated it from a German proverb. It is purely a metaphorical expression. Tinman | |||
|
| Member |
quote: I inadvertantly edited another post, thinking I was posting this one. Oh, well ... Haggar the Horrible, Oct. 24, 2004. Tinman | |||
|
| Member |
Tinman, that was hilarious.  I remember this wonderful thread. We surely had fun with it! | |||
|
Member |
What a great thread! Hmm - I usually try to call people by their names . . . or by some endearing and mutually amusing nickname. ******* "Happiness is not something ready made. It comes from your own actions. ~Dalai Lama | |||
|
| Member |
Three years ago I wrote on page one of this thread about the battle to keep womenfolk out of the bar of the local Conservative Club. I am sure that many of you will have lost sleep worrying about this - hence the update. I am now on the Committee of the club and thankfully all attempts by limp husbands and uppity women to allow female ingress have been repelled. On the horizon however is the spectre of a Special General Meeting where the main item on the agenda is female membership. This will take place sometime in May. The voting could be close and I will advise you of the outcome. I don't know what the world is coming to. | |||
|
| Member |
Oh, FatStan, you can wail away all you want, but, deep down, we women all know that you love us!  BTW, FatStan has brought up a thread that some of you newer members may enjoy. We had a lot of fun with it! When we had an MSN site with most of our pictures, I remember that FatStan is one good-looking man! Keep us informed, FatStan, of your important work in this field! | |||
|
| <Asa Lovejoy> |
According to journalist/author Oriana Falucci, it's coming to Islam! 30% or Eurpoe is now Islamic, and growing madly! Soooo, Stan, no need to worry about women joining your club - pretty soon they'll all have to wear burkas and walk four paces behind! http://www.powells.com//review/2006_04_02This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Asa Lovejoy>, | ||
|
| Member |
Hello Kalleh - You're right, that was a good thread. Asa - Thanks for that excellent link. I shall order the book. We were talking about this subject in the pub last night. A friend commented that he had read an article that showed how Islam would be (if current trends continue) the dominant religion in England by the year 2018. | |||
|
Member |
The most recent figures, quoted on TV on Sunday, suggest that if current trends continue practising Moslems will outnumber practising Christians in the UK by the year 2040. "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson. | |||
|
Member |
I am surprised that it will take so long. It's my observation that there are very few practising Christians in the UK - plenty that have been baptised as such and who go to church for weddings and funerals - but practising? Precious few. Richard English | |||
|
| Member |
I just really don't think it should make a difference. Everyone should be free to pursue his/her religion. Period. | |||
|
| Member |
More than three years have passed and the news is not good. The women have,because of the apathy of the male membership, inveigled their way into full membership of the Conservative Club (I have resigned from the committee). This entitles them to vote in the AGMs and gives them unrestricted access to the Gentlemen's Bar. It was indeed a sad day that this happened. I don't suppose I'll ever come to terms with it. They are now sitting at the bar tainting the beer with their perfume and rabbiting on about make-up and celebrities. It is the thin end of the wedge - soon they will want to be on the committee and running the show (emits stifled cry). Some friends of mine have allotments (a strange but harmless pursuit). There is apparently an element of gardening that goes on but I think that the main purpose is to have somewhere to go to get away from the wife to get some peace (similar to going to the Conservative Club in the past). Alas the womenfolk decided that they should be involved and claimed their own plots. The allotments had basically run themselves for over one hundred years but now "We need a committee" wailed the women and so it came to pass. Now they have decided that the place needs to be tidier - the men are instructed to tidy their tools away when not being used and to keep everything "looking neat." They are now arranging "Open Days" for children to visit and look at plants. One of the chaps remarked that he may as well stay at home. I don't know what the world is coming to. I hope you are all well. I was very sorry to read about Jerry. | |||
|
| <Asa Lovejoy> |
My condolences to you, Stan. Perhaps you might take up a new hobby - one that many British lads seem to enjoy - that's 99% female-free: http://www.bmfa.org/ | ||
|
Member |
Oh, dear. Hello, FatStan. Nice to make your acquaintance. So sorry your world has fallen apart. However, I have no time to talk at the moment, because I must maximize the months remaining before I will be forced to wear a burka and no longer be permitted to hang out with "the guys" at my local pub (although this is Pennsylvania, so we call it a "tavern.") Back in the '60s we would have called you a Male Chauvinist Pig, FatStan, but now we only think of you as quaint. Our ability to patronize you shows just what a long way we've come, baby! Cheers-- Wordmatic | |||
|
| Member |
I am not sure if "First Wives Club" is available in England, but if so, I'd recommend it highly, Stan. | |||
|
| Member |
What is it? Richard English | |||
|
Member |
| |||
|
| Member |
They have. I din't see the film or read the book but I am aware of them. "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson. | |||
|
| <Asa Lovejoy> |
Aww, c'mmon, they had books over there before we did! The First Wives Club's premise is that many men marry women who help them to become successful, then dump them for one that's better suited to their upscale images. Some such women gather to conspire for revenge. A bit of a dated premise nowadays, but a rollicking good fun chic flick. | ||
|
| <Asa Lovejoy> |
As regards exclusive enclaves, Stan, it's hitting in both directions! http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7015552945 | ||
|
| Member |
Asa - Thanks for the link but I don't think that would be my cup of tea. I am surprised though that the health and safety Stasi haven't clamped down on this yet. These aircraft could fall out of the sky and land on someone's head! There's already talk this week about schools banning football in case someone gets hurt. Running in the playground is also to be prohibited because a child may fall over and get hurt. "The First Wives' Club" - Haven't seen it but I've heard it's a fantasy film written by a woman! I've said this before and I'll say it again. Women are only as equal as men allow them to be. There have been women's rights movements for the past forty or fifty years but their achievements are basically concessions grudgingly conceded by the superior sex. Why else would you continue to need legislation to aid you in your unattainable quest for equality. In Great Britain we have a situation where there are insufficient women of quality to fill government positions so positive discrimination is used to promote them to posts way beyond their capabilities. It is painful to see them in the Commons and on TV so clearly out of their depth. The unfortunate thing is that if you are female and have ability, you are still tarred with the positive discrimination brush. As those of you who know me will appreciate, there is an element of tongue in cheek here but you have to admit that there is a basis of truth! | |||
|
| Member |
There was also a report this week of a school suggesting that children should wear safety goggles while using blutac. Of course we shouldn't believe everything that we see in the papers. "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson. | |||
|
| <Asa Lovejoy> |
Most of them are beer drinkers - but after the flying's done. Both have happened. Still, if you can find an unused airfield...
There's a parallel here between the definition of a Puritan and a politician. Both are people who live in dread that someone, somewhere, might be having fun. 
You've had at least one Queen who outmaneuvred her male contemporaries, and a PM (Attila the Hen) who seems to have traded estrogen for testosterone, and then there's Shakespeare's famous fictional woman with such traits, Lady Macbeth - or was that MacDeath? | ||
|
| Member |
By the way Bob, I read a substantial portion of your "unpublished book" and found it provided entertainment (otherwise I wouldn't have read a substantial portion). You seem to have a relationship with alcohol not dissimilar to mine. | |||
|
| Member |
I'm hurt. Deeply hurt. And I don't even know what your relationship with alcohol is.  "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson. | |||
|
| Member |
I'm sorry that you're hurt Bob. Rub some alcohol into it. | |||
|
| <Proofreader> |
I read that article twice and still can't figure out what "blutac" is. If the name is any indication, you should actually wear bio-hazard suits to work with it. | ||
|
| <Asa Lovejoy> |
From the same article: And at one primary school, a three-legged race was dropped from sports day because it was too dangerous. Well, children with three legs have an unfair advantage. But then Stan might say that all males have three legs, whereas women might argue that their brains are directly attached to their third legs. It all gets terribly muddled.  | ||
|
| <Proofreader> |
But three-legged children also pay more to have their uniforms made. As for an unfair advantage, I know my third leg, during a race, has a tendency to not only fly up and hit me in the face, but to swing wildly, tripping my opponents. | ||
|
| Member |
I'm so glad we're using this thread again; it has been a favorite of mine! Good one, z! My favorite part of "First Wives Club" was the song at the end, sung by the women of course: "You Don't Own Me!" More tongue and less truth than you are willing to admit, I am sure. | |||
|
| Member |
blutac = Blu-tack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-tack Richard English | |||
|
| Member |
I've taken Kalleh's advice and now have read this thread from its beginning. It is hilarious, and I've come to forgive, even love, FatStan. However, I still feel a bit unsettled in my own mind as to the terms "housewife" and "homemaker." The term "wife" does not bother me one way or the other. I have been one for nearly 39 years. It holds a positive connotation for me. I feel the terms "husband" and "wife" are of equal status. What's interesting to me now is the slight evolution in my reactions to "housewife/homemaker" then vs. now. Back in the days when I stopped working to stay home with young children, I hated thinking of myself as a housewife (or as Erma Bombeck would have said, "Justa Housewife"). The term "homemaker" sounded warmer and fuzzier, but was as unexciting. I had been a newspaper reporter before kids, an occupation more exciting than that of chief cook and bottle washer. The part that was gratifying in this mix, of course, was the parenting. For me at that point, "stay-at-home mom" was the most comfortable designation. Now after 33 years of a second career in PR, as a working mom, dutiful daughter of an elderly, now deceased, mother, and volunteer for several organizations besides, I have finally left the rat race and retired! I have found it a blessed relief to join the ranks of the stay-at-homes, but I still do not want to call myself a "housewife" and would only grudgingly accept "homemaker." For me, saying "I'm retired" has so much more status, because it means I have graduated from my career into a privileged state. The housewifery is merely incidental. I'll take care of [some of] it [and let the rest slide], but let's just pretend it didn't happen. In short--there's got to be a better word for this stay-at-home status, but I don't know what it is. FatStan, would you please peel me a grape? Wordmatic | |||
|
| <Proofreader> |
My wife refers to me as "sluggard". Wasn't he the cartoon character who palled with Nancy? Is it praise or insult? | ||
|
| <Asa Lovejoy> |
I had no idea you lived in Puerto Rico! I bet it's lovely!
Boy, howdy, are you ever privileged! I'm about your age, but will never be able to retire. As for "housewife," back when I was still single, I checked out some websites for Russian and Ukranian women looking for a spouse. The website used "home economist" as the euphamism for "housewife." Come to think of it, it's a pretty positive term, since, as you know, good stay-at-home women don't sit around all day and munch bonbons while watching HSN. Do you get that channel in Puerto Rico? Asa the enviousThis message has been edited. Last edited by: <Asa Lovejoy>, | ||
|
| Member |
Asa, I wouldn't say it was hopeless until I talked with a financial advisor. There is a lot of talk these days about people "never" being able to retire, but it all depends on what you want to retire with. If you are satisfied with a modest lifestyle and are easily entertained (as with this group!), it may very well be possible, and sooner than you think. Ignoring the parts about Puerto Rico, as my relations in professional life, were always public. WM | |||
|
| <Asa Lovejoy> |
Eeeeeek! I just saw that I omitted the word, "don't" in that sentence about stay-at-home women.  Red-faced Asa | ||
|
| Member |
You know what I love about this thread? It was started by our beloved Morgan. She was the energy and force that got this board started. Without her, we wouldn't have made it, I am sure. | |||
|
| Member |
I just thought you were being ironic (something we American's can't really understand, but, let's pretend for the others!) WM | |||
|
Copyright © 2002-12