Just point out to the spouse that N - U also applies quite well to shoes, purses, collectibles, etc. This is the easy way to maintain the peace.

I applied N - U to my spouse and my ears hurt less, my blood pressure is down, my stress is gone and now I can apply N + 1 to anything I wish.

The guy worries about the 'marital detente syndrome' too much. It is also apparent that the guy can't wrench ('mutual parting reaction') and doesn't like to wrench. He possibly lives in an apartment and definately needs a bigger bike-cave.

Why would anyone read a blog by a guy with so many personal problems, who never once mentioned the bicycle aesthetic. Not a C&V type guy at all.

edit: a southern CA racer, not a C&V guy or blog.

I'm pretty sure I can deal with only one spouse at a time. That would seem to be a wise policy.

What is this "broken parts" of which he speaks?

Must be the modern crap

Good idea on the N-U applied to shoes however.

Isn't the plural of "spouse", properly, "spice"?

Ben

Speece

I read some of the other posts. This is a very fine blog. I'm sure as heck not paying the blogger $2.99 a month for this but apparently there are subscribers. I thought it was a joke at first but one of the posts talks about the subscribers.

no peace.

That's "no peace" not "no, peace" right?

No, speese is the plural of spoose.

I spose so.

I stand corrected

That blog entry is pure spoose.

Speeces.

Am I the only man here with more bikes and more shoes than his wife?

Cycling shoes w/ spd cleats, cycling shoes w/ road cleats, vintage cycling shoes, 3-pin ski boots, mountaineering boots, fishing boots, hiking boots, running shoes, bedroom slippers, flip-flops, sandals, 2 pairs of "everyday" shoes, 5 pairs of dress shoes.

That makes 18 pairs of shoes!
Brent

You wear sandals?!

That's it! Turn-in your man card! Your membership is revoked!

I have many more shoes than my wife, and many more bikes as well. I don't bother to count the shoes. But then I have a much more varied lifestyle than her too.

I suppose I identify with C&V, not just because I like the aesthetics of old bikes, but because I'm cheap. So I have 5 bikes.

The cost to replace the most expensive (and not coincidentally the most modern) one is about $1000-1500, although I'm into the bike for only about $500. Most of my bikes were acquired cheap or free, then tailored to my tastes in similar fashion (cheap or free).

I sold one of my bikes off last year, mostly because a friend of a friend was looking for a cheap bike. I don't think he even rides it, but he did a handful of times. I don't miss having it; the others do the job.

This article, as Centaurious points out, could apply to anything that's done to excess, especially things that require a lot of money. I only keep 5 bikes because the investment in them is minimal. My wife can see the benefit of my riding and accepts that I have several bikes, so it's all good in our house. You have to strike a balance though; get too far out of balance in a selfish way and it will cause discord with your spouse. The problem isn't too many bikes though; it's devoting too much of your resources to selfish pursuits. That's not good for any relationship.

"Speeces" -- as in "I love them speeces to pieces"

Or doesn't that work so well?

Is read the title and thoughts his thread would be about either:

- a reformed polygamist
- weight reduction
- a boob reduction

Mighty Mouse!

"Hear I come to save the day!"
That means that Mighty Mouse is on the way

what a huge waste of time the article and blog is. i'm reminded of the döuchebaggery article on the dave moulton blog. it's not worth reading either, or i would link to it.

if that blog costs $2.99 per month, sheldon brown or c&v should cost some huge multiple of that.

anyone paying $2.99 probably deserves a pie in the face.