Jump to content
Old Pro

Tech Support Joke

5 posts / 1719 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

Haven't seen this here, so I thought I'd post it for all of the ladies and for the men to show to their wives.  

See a response from our Tech Support.

Dear Tech Support, 

Last year I upgraded from Boyfriend 5.0 to Husband 1.0 and noticed a distinct slow down in overall system performance, particularly in the flower and jewelry applications, which operated flawlessly underBoyfriend 5.0.

In addition, Husband 1.0 uninstalled many other valuable programs, such as Romance 9.5 and Personal Attention 6.5, and then installed undesirable programs such as: NBA 5.0, NFL 3.0 and Golf Clubs 4.1

Conversation 8.0 no longer runs, and Housecleaning 2.6 simply crashes the system.

Please note that I have tried running Nagging 5.3 to fix these problems, but to no avail. 

What can I do? 




First, keep in mind, Boyfriend 5.0 is an Entertainment Package, while Husband 1.0 is an operating system. 

Please enter command: ithoughtyoulovedme.html and try to download Tears 6.2 and do not forget to install the Guilt 3.0 update. 
If that application works as designed, Husband 1.0 should then automatically run the applications Jewelry 2.0 and Flowers 3.5. 

However, remember that overuse of the above application can cause Husband 1.0 to default to Grumpy Silence 2.5, Happy Hour 7.0 or Beer 6.1 Please note that Beer 6.1 is a very bad program that will download the Farting and Snoring Loudly Beta. 

Whatever you do, DO NOT under any circumstances install Mother-In-Law 1.0 (it runs a virus in the background that will eventually seize control of all your system resources.) 

In addition, please do not attempt to reinstall the Boyfriend 5.0. These are unsupported applications and will crash Husband 1.0.

In summary, Husband 1.0 is a great program, but it does have limited memory and cannot learn new applications quickly. You might consider buying additional software to improve memory and performance. We recommend: Cooking 3.0 and Hot Lingerie 7.7

Good Luck Babe! 

Tech Support

Dear Desparate,

We apologize, there were a few errors in the information our tech support provided to you.

To clarify:

The command ithoughtyoulovedme.html and Tears 6.2 do not preform as well as some of our Junior engineers expected they would.

After years of beta testing these, we have had several reports from other users that have identified some bugs.

Unfortunately, use of these two will install Grumpy Silence 2.5 

Furthermore, if Nagging 5.3 or the Guilt 3.0 update is used in most cases we have seen Grumpy Silence 2.5 get overwritten with Complete Stonewalling 4.0 and will not allow Personal Attention 6.5 to be reinstalled without system failure.

However, some of the information or technician provided you with was right on.

Husband 1.0 is a great program, it does have limited memory and is sluggish when adapting new applications. You can improve memory and performance limitlessly with the following additional Motivation applications: Cooking 3.0, Hot Lingerie 7.7, Praise 6.5 and Encouragement 8.4 

With proper use of Husband 1.0, it will begin running it's own upgrades and auto reinstalling previously uninstalled applications with upgrades such as: Conversation 9.0, Romance 11.2, Personal Attention 7.0 as well as additional entertainment applications like Love Letters 9.0, Romantic Getaway 12.0.

We have also discovered that in a few instances Husband 1.0 will auto install additional maintenance applications such as Housecleaning 2.2, Remodeling 4.4.

This appears to depend on how often you use Motivation applications previously mentioned.

Again, we apologize for any confusion.

P.S. Don't forget to initiate antivirus applications we recommend Hot Sex version 69.0 once a month and Positive Words 9.2 daily to protect against viruses like Affair 1.1 and Porn 3.0 these can easily turn your Husband 1.0 OS into the XHusband 1.0 application. We have also discovered that the more often any version of Hot Sex is ran, the better the Husband 1.0 will perform in all areas. Several users have reported that running Hot Sex four times a week has turned their Husband 1.0 into a SuperComputer capable of multitasking and running several desirable applications at once.

Tech Support Senior Management

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2018 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
    More to come…
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • But you ignored the most important part. He was more accurate relative to the average player on tour than Tiger is to the average today.   Ummm.. No I didn't. He said nothing in that post. Nothing. That was a zero value added post. And he still thinks it is isn't clear Jack was more accurate. You are not smart enough to have an opinion.
    • You just took a pretty solid beating on that last post @TigerIsNumeroUNO. Your statements were incorrect and followed with a fact. Come on man.
    • Jack hit it much shorter than Tiger, so by "degrees offline" we don't know who was "more accurate." Jack played to wider fairways than Tiger typically plays to (which bounced and rolled out less, too), which would increase a player's fairways hit percentage. You aren't comparing apples to apples, hence my comment that you haven't actually "proven" this to be true. He wasn't "so far ahead of anyone." Jack was, throughout his career, more often behind several players in any given year. Tiger won more Vardons than Jack. Tiger won more money titles than Jack. Tiger was also player of the year more times than Jack. Nope. @turtleback, I believe, made a post at one point that detailed every year of Jack's career and talked about the years he could have won the Vardon or the POTY or the other awards, or what year he was clearly the best golfer. Long story short: the facts don't support your, uhhhhh, "recollection." IIRC, he has another post with more detail than this, including the years Jack was "not eligible" for some awards.
    • Statistically Jack was straighter both in percentage and he ranked higher relative to his peers in an era that placed a higher premium on accuracy. And it should just intuitively be correct, because Tiger is known for being inaccurate off the tee. The end. Can I definitively prove Jack would be much better than just top 10? No. But Jack was so far ahead of anyone during his time and before with his record and his continued well play into more recent times. Jack was runner up for the Vardon Trophy in 1983 past his prime. The quality of play didn't jump that much in the thirteen years between that point and when Tiger joined. Jack won ten money titles despite playing fewer tournaments than any other top golfer in his era.  He didn't even qualify for the Vardon Trophy most years. Jack was the first or second best player every year of his career up until age 40 regardless of whether he won player of the year in the same way Lebron James or Michael Jordan is the best player every year regardless of who they give the MVP to. Jack was not just another very good player most years who had a long career. He was the best or second best nearly every year of his career up to 40. I use other sports because I like people who have studied such things, not random internet opinions. That's why I linked the Ted talk.  Baseball has been studied more than any sport. A guy just made the assertion Babe Ruth would be MEDIOCRE AT BEST against Hank Aaron's pitching. I can't prove that Babe Ruth would be a star in Hank Aaron's era with 100% certainty. But you can get 99.9% of the way there. Close enough.  Here is Bill James pointing out how far of statistical outlier Babe Ruth adjusting for changes in era I feel like the guy who revolutionized how sports are analyzed has more credibility than random internet poster. And he was looking at 1927 to today. Hank Aaron played 40 years ago. On Babe Ruth Lost In Time | Articles | Bill James Online  
    • In my opinion, 'Need' is a very subjective term. Did I 'need' a new bag for father's day? No, but I 'wanted' one.... LOL
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Dan42nepa
      (63 years old)
    2. James Dalton
      James Dalton
      (78 years old)
      (29 years old)
    4. mwh1023
      (52 years old)
    5. Skeesh
      (47 years old)

  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...