HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Originator: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: too funky
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 19:29:03 GMT

In article <9208130125.AA29602@regal.cisco.com> mlb@CISCO.COM (Marcia Bednarcyk) writes:
>This is exactly what I am protesting: the "are we or aren't we and if
>we're not I'm leaving" or "cut to the chase" mentality. People want to
>have it all spelled out in front of them, in black or white, so they
>can go on to the next decision, finish up with this and go on. Sure it
>may be efficient, but it's also very cold, and not much fun.

I don't know what your track record in relationships has been, but I
have been in situations where my SOs (or intendeds) did not
communicate with me, kept things from me, and who even outright lied
to me.  I wanted to be open to possibilities and be able to make
compromises, but I just got tired of putting out all that energy and
not really getting anything back.  Now I want some kind of guarantee
that, at least, the person I'm getting involved with is on the same
wavelength as I am, in terms of where we both think the relationship
is going.

>I guess most people are, they just want to *be* in a relationship
>rather than *form* one. Me, I find the process of getting there half
>the fun.

I like forming relationships too, but I like getting somewhere, not
just going in circles.  (Even if "getting somewhere" means figuring
out that the relationship isn't going to work -- that is better than
just not knowing what's going on.)

--gregbo
From: lairdpg@lub001.lamar.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: FINNS - Nice description, Juha!
Date: 16 Aug 92 22:24:24 +1700
Organization: Lamar University - Beaumont

In article <29003@hydra.Helsinki.FI>, taina@cs.Helsinki.FI (Juha Taina) writes:
> In <1992Aug15.233736.1445@lub001.lamar.edu> lairdpg@lub001.lamar.edu writes:
>>Thanks for the description!  Sounds like you guys have a hard
>>time choosing amongst them!  
> 
> We choosing them?  I'd say that the women do the choosing.  Or,
> perhaps both genders. This is quite a liberal country.
> 
> Juha
> -- 

Yea, it is getting like that in the United States, too.  Women are a lot 
more for E.R.A. (Equal Rights Ammendment) than they used to be in my opinion.
I remember a ways back when we would have "Sadie Hawkins Day" at school.  On
that day, the girls would choose the guys and there would be a race, too.  If
the girl caught you, you were hers (hehehe).  Anyway, it was fun.  But now,
welcome to the real world!  Nice day to you...

Phil
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: loftis@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Loftis)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: THE WRONG GRAND was(Re: Keeping sex interesting)
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:52:31 GMT
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server


	To the original poster.....I would have to say for myself that
sex is still good with my partner, even after all these years.  One
thing I would like to mention is that a partner will know what you like,
you will know how to please her.  When you have new partners, it takes
time to find out how to please her and for her to please you.  I am not
one of those who just likes wham, bam thank you mam.  The first time I
make love to a new partner is awkward.  It takes me awhile to feel
comfortable.  

	I would argue that I enjoy having a permanent partner over new
partners.  

	Kirk
From: luzenko@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com (Bill Luzenko)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: chain of fools
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:06:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Concurrent - Oceanport NJ

The old chains were made from steel. What are the new chains made from?
povlov and his dogs!

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:12:57 GMT

tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>>I suspect this will take some cash, which Trygve will, of course,
>>generously supply for such a noble purpose, right Trygve?  :-) :-) :-)
>
>if it makes you feel better, I'll spot you at least enough for
>a local phone call.

That's our Trygve, generous to a fault :-)

	fred
-- 
Disclaimer: everything I write is my *personal* opinion and does not represent
or reflect the opinion of the company which employs me.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman)
Subject: Guy looking for girl
Date: 15 Aug 92 20:57:22 MDT
Organization: University of Utah, CompSci Dept

Hi, I am a Fermion which means that I am NOT a boson!  Don't get me wrong,
I still am looking for someone cute.

However, I dislike being in the exact same place doing the exact same thing
as somebody else.  You will never find me doing that, ever.

So in that sense, I am a little bizarre.

If there are any other elementary particles floating around, drop me a line,
thanks (That is an elementary particle with OPPOSITE spin)
From: kgorman@star-trek.bbn.com (Karen Gorman)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Mr. Happy
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:37:39 GMT
Reply-To: kgorman@BBN.COM (Karen Gorman)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: archive.bbn.com


In article <14157@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.161026.17729@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>|In  <l94hsnINN1qa@news.bbn.com>  kgorman@star-trek.bbn.com (Karen Gorman) writes:
>|> In article <14127@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>|> >You'd throw up too if someone grabbed you by the neck and tried to jerk
>|> >your head off.  There, there now Mr. Happy, no reason to get upset.
>|> >
>|> >Oh no, he's getting mad again.  His face is turning red.
>|>
>|> But he is so cute when he is mad. :-)
>|
>|You just like him because he stands up for you.  :-)
>
>And he likes her because she sucks up to him. :-)





And who's Mr. Happy are you referring to here?





Karen
Kg@bbn.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: AHHHHHHHHH... what is a BOINK?
From: ttasset@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 02:04:46 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City


In article <1992Aug19.200236.12368@bnr.ca>, ksloan@crchh791.BNR.CA (Kerry Sloan) writes:
> PLEASE help me?!?!?

Isn't a "BOINK" a book written by Hemmingway?

	-Tom-
From: bart@muppet.bt.co.uk (Tim)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:47:32 GMT
Reply-To: bart@muppet.bt.co.uk
Organization: British Telecom

In article 6mhwp@lynx.unm.edu, hays@TECHNET.NM.ORG () writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.162950.5106@muppet.bt.co.uk>, bart@muppet.bt.co.uk (Tim) writes:
>>To a certain extent this kind of thing happens to me too. But not often
>>enough:-( I think certainly there is as kind of perverse duality at work
>>here. For initial contact with strangers, I still bleed though shy. It's
>>only when they know me that they say "Why don't you get rid of this acting
>>shy shit ?"
>
>So pretend you're not initially shy, if it gets in your way.  Warning:  It's
>terribly strongly self-reinforcing behavior.

Yeah, that's valid, but maybe shy was incorrect- it's more like taciturn. The 
point being that acting *yourself* (no 'act' involved) is a synch 90% of the 
time - its only when you have an audience you perceive as important that the
performance sucks. At that time you have to enforce some kind of non standard
behaviour to counter this - acting. My mouth runs about 10 minutes ahead of my
brain :-) so usually I just filter out most the bullshit, hence appearing
reticent.

Hmm, that kinda implies I only hang around with fellow bullshitters 8-}


>>Then again, when you're eating dust at some point later on, you think,
>>"hell, Shoulda scared em off ages ago. Saved some downtime"
>
>Exactly.  This is (IMHO) why women never react positively to nice guys who
>are willing to make ENORMOUS lifestyle changes to accomodate thier tastes:
>it's the line between finding who's best and finding who's desperately willing.

yup, I'd go along with that.

T
---
"But if someone really cared, well they'd take the time to spare
 A moment to try and understand another one's despair
 Remember in this game we call life, no one said its fair"	g'n'r
From: garrison@kodak.com (Laurie Garrison)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:01:45 GMT
Reply-To: garrison@kodak.com (Laurie Garrison)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Image Processing Algorithms Laboratory, Eastman Kodak Co.


 
In article <1992Aug18.002712.20849@sfu.ca>, probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst) writes:
|> In article <Bt5Hzw.KB4@vcd.hp.com> johne@vcd.hp.com (John Eaton) writes:
|> >
|> >Pass a law stating that in a divorce the man shall get the house and kids
|> >while the woman gets the bills and must pay half her salary in alimony.
|> >You would suddenly find a lot of women turning into committmentphobics.
|> >
|> >I know a bad deal when I see one.
|> 
|> then you must feel the same as the three-quarters of women who take a
|> 60+% dive in income after divorces, while seeing their ex-husbands
|> take a comparable rise. i think this equality thing is taking a little
|> longer to work out than we realised...
|> 

of the *many* divorced couples i know, only ONE man wanted custody
of the kids.  hey, can't have your cake and eat it too.  if you don't want
to have to invest the time and emotional support, the least you can do
is provide financial support.

it's a small price to pay for freedom from responsibility.

laurie

ps.  every woman i know with kids who got divorced lowered her standard of
	living because she has the kids.  a few ended up on social
	services for a time.  i have yet to see an ex-husband go on welfare!
	(because of the divorce)


-------
So you put a hold on happiness,  ...a day, a week, a year
you better bring somethin to this party boy, if you party here.
				-Don Henley
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:19:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:

>If after marriage a person choses
>to not contribute income to the household, that's a choice.  In my opinion
>it's a selfish lazy choice.  Nobody but a really insecure individual with lots
>of problems would chose to live off another person and expect the situation
>to work out well.

Are you equating "not contributing income to the household" to "living off
another person"? Why? Do you really think that only activities which earn 
money are worthwhile? Or that activities which don't earn money are always
less strenuous than those which do?

IMO, someone who expects another person to support them financially 
for the rest of their life is stupid, because people are often unreliable. 
But if two (or more) people get together and *decide* that it's in their 
best interest for one (or more) of them to engage primarily or exclusively 
in activities that don't make money, I don't see why this is lazy, selfish,
or immature.

Stef
stef@apple.com
--
To let understanding stop at what can be understood is a high attainment.
Those who cannot do it will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven.
(Chuang Tse XXIII)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:39:11 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In article <1992Aug18.045118.2375@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bathsheba.Grossman@bbs.oit.unc.edu> writes:
>
>Your words are before thousands of women Right Now, so...let's talk about
>bananas instead of statistics - we estrogen-brained bubbleheads think
>they're more fun.

Really?  I find them hard to swallow.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: LJ10717@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Info on club?
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 21:00:03 GMT


Hello,

A friend of mine was once telling me of a unique club called the "Hung Jury."
I don't remember the details, however, I was wondering if anyone over the net
knew anything?  It might be fraternal?

Thanks in advance!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond - lj10717@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com    "After all, diamonds are a
                                                 girl's best friend!"
                                                   MM?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lairdpg@lub001.lamar.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Marcia needs some johnson love, huh?
Date: 13 Aug 1992 01:32:43 GMT
Organization: Lamar University - Beaumont

In article <9208130108.AA29117@regal.cisco.com>, mlb@cisco.com (Marcia Bednarcyk) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.070509.18027@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
> |> (I get the impression that many
> |> people here hardly ever even go to parties, for example).
> 
> What? You want us to go to *parties*? Where the ratios are always terrible,

Yep!                                    Not always!
> and without a good ratio there's NO WAY we'll ever meet anyone, and the peopl

Whatsa good ratio?
 
> are always drunk and I don't drink, and all the women are just looking for me

      Not always

> who dress well and have money falling out of their pockets, and all the guys

                            sounds like "Joe Millionaire, huh (

> are just looking for girls who are tall, thin, beautiful, and have large
> breasts? Where we might have to talk to people in person, and make an effort

More than a mouthful is a waste!   Yea have to get real close

> to be polite and interesting, instead of just being "ourselves"? That's 
> SOOOO artificial!

No, we don't have to use one of those things!  I like the real thing! 
> 
> Add :-) :-) :-) and :-) liberally. Serve with tongue in cheek.

How 'bout tongue in ear (
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Marcia Bednarcyk                                        ADDRESS: mlb@cisco.com
> "Sweaty Snugglebunnies."
> "... the meaning of life is to be happy, try not to hurt people, and hope
> you fall in love."

"... the meaning of life is t find a nice gal, who will take care of you,
owns a liquor store, doesn't get as drunk as you and loves to give lip service!
Now that makes me happy!"

hehehehehehhe

Oh Marcia, what *ARE* we gonna do wit you (
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter)
Subject: How to not look smart (was Re: Various ramblings...
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:46:33 GMT

nobody writes:
>fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter) writes:
>>Be quiet about it. Don't be showy about it. Don't talk about how hard
>>something was - people who know about it will know how hard it was, and
>>people who don't know about it will just think you're bragging.
>
>Silly advice. Talk to Trygve.

Ok.

Trygve, talk to me.

Oh, that's not what you meant ? :-/

What I suggested to Kevin is what I (think) do. It seems to work - I've not
had many people talk about how much of a smart alec I am :-) And if you throw
in the occasional fun-but-not-mainstream activity (like hanging around
upside-down from the rafters at the company picnic :-) you're sure to convince
people that high intelligence is *not* one of your problems. (I'm not sure
why some people disassociate high intelligence with enjoying climbing on
things - climbing on things is only a problem if you let go...).

Anyway, Kevin wanted to know how to not appear as a smart alec, to not appear
as if he's bragging. Trygve is not the person to talk to, because, at first
glance, does appear to be bragging.

And not in a subtle, understated "and it was only a couple of hundred
dollars more, no big deal" way, but in a very blatent "I've got a porsche,
I've got not one, but two companies, and I've got a million" way.

	fred
-- 
Disclaimer: everything I write is my *personal* opinion and does not represent
or reflect the opinion of the company which employs me.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 03:43:58 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <8#9m-=.aahz@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:

>2)  How is getting a life going to solve his problem?  (See below)

>"I 'got a life'.  Now what?"

Well, the owner's manual is a little vague on this topic, but the
Chilton guide is much better at explaining why you want to have a
life and what you might do with it.

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com
The sun is gonna shine again / We're gonna make it 'round that bend
I'll walk another mile with you, 'cause you're my friend
The sun is gonna shine again.			- Graham Parker
Xref: sparky soc.singles:22400 soc.couples:3608 soc.men:14891 soc.women:15170 soc.motss:34889
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.couples,soc.men,soc.women,soc.motss
Subject: Re: BOINK! BOINK! BALLOONBOINK IN ALBUQUERQUE!
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:09:08 GMT
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

I can just see Ron and Larry meeting people at the airport...

"Welcome to Albuquerque, here`s your banana."
-- 
+============================================================================++
| John Fereira            "Is that all you ever think about?"                |
| johnf@auspex.com                                                           |
+============================================================================++
From: swann@acsu.buffalo.edu (Stephen Swann)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Psychobabble
Date: 15 Aug 92 21:24:11 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Aug15.191409.18031@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>>AAAAIIIIEEEE!!!!!  You just DO NOT GET IT, do you?  It doesn't have any
>>ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with logic!  Throw a bucket of ice water in
>>your face *NOW!!!!!!*  Turn your fucking word machine off and listen to
>>the other centers of intelligence.  Listen to your dick, and your guts,
>>and your heart.  Listen to your *humor gland!*
>
>See, Kevin?  Be careful, or you could turn out like this--frustrated,
>confused, losing control of your caps-lock key, and wind up sitting
>in a corner having conversations with your genitalia.

You mean ...other people don't do that?

Hmmmm.  I'm going to have to have a chat with Mr. Happy about this.

-- 
Steve Swann                 |    Speak to me in many voices; make
swann@acsu.buffalo.edu      |      them all sound like one...  -BOC
From: mike.mcaulay@spacebbs.com (Mike Mcaulay)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: deformities and perve
Date: 20 Aug 92 04:07:00 GMT
Reply-To: mike.mcaulay@spacebbs.com (Mike Mcaulay)
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193

kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:

KW>dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
KW>>When I first met my sweetie, I thought he was the funniest looking thing
KW>>I'd ever seen.  I came home from our first date and told my housemate that

KW>Hmm, this seems to confirm what a friend said recently: that women
KW>find men they like physically attractive.  Well, I guess there are two
KW>such women.

This is another of those old-wife-spawned tales that appears to have a
grain of truth to it.  You usually hear: "men fall in love with the
women they find attractive, and women find attractive the men they fall
in love with."  Well, you don't usually hear it EXACTLY like that, cuz
that's really ungainly and spangleswort.  But you get the point.  *IF*
you were a purplish carbuncular pleonastic scintillance, you would, by
default, grasp the grokkulescence of crepuscular tergiversational
lucubrationism.  And then you would, hiccuping, gasp your assent to the
stony-faced crowd of GrandDads.

Anyway, assuming this to be true, it wouldn't be exactly HERE, but
somewhere more, you know, decorous...

---
 . SLMR 2.1 . MU!!!!!
               
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: rudoff@mdd.comm.mot.com (Doug Rudoff)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"..
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:53:48 GMT

In article <BsxoEM.6Gp@news.udel.edu> zagar@chester.cms.udel.edu writes:
>My neighbor told me once that he tried to get one of his female friends to
>go out on a date.  She said
>
>	"Oh, I don't think I could date a friend who was really close."
>
>His response,
>
>	"Okay, I'm self-centered, rude, and I hate your guts.  Now will
>	you go out with me ?"

Well? Did he get a date?
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Doug Rudoff          Motorola, Seattle    INTERNET:rudoff@mdd.comm.mot.com
                                            USENET:uunet!mdisea!rudoff   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: REQUEST
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 01:34:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.170920.3090@memstvx1.memst.edu>
mcsweinberg@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>Ok now do guy's like women who just want sex?

Back when I was young and (more) foolish...

>  I really want to know. Or
>do guys want some girl(women) to fall madly in love with them even if
>they don't plan on seeing them again?

No way.  Falling in love doesn't work unless it's mutual.

Four of my last five girlfriends fell in love with me.  I fell in love
with one.  I hate minus 100% correlations.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Date: 16 Aug 92 15:07:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: convex.thurlow.713977621
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

[466 lines of useless arguing deleted]

Kevin, speaking only for myself, there is zero chance I will ever
read a post from you in this newsgroup that appears to be nothing
more than an enormous lecture on statistics addressed solely to
someone who likely knows it pretty well.

In fact, if you can't get out of the habit of mainly posting huge
line-by-line rebuttals, you should save net bandwidth and use your
time to go out and try to find a life, because I promise you that
fewer people are going to trouble themselves offering you advice.

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com
The sun is gonna shine again / We're gonna make it 'round that bend
I'll walk another mile with you, 'cause you're my friend
The sun is gonna shine again.			- Graham Parker
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: 15 Aug 92 17:00:51 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In article <1992Aug14.223141.18316@cbnews.cb.att.com> eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans) writes:

>What do you mean, tell the good stuff?  I haven't even mentioned the
>smooch Jeff got in the kitchen.  Or the unmentionable (and unidentifiable
>at this point--I took care of the evidence) substances ground into
>the blankets on the grass.  Or the...oops...I just told, didn't I?
><Hang head in shame, peer furtively over shoulder to see if anyone
>was listening--whew!  got away with it!!>

OK, so will everybody who wasn't listening please raise their hands?
<Omit Tale of the Babe, the Dog and the Salsa>

If no one was listening, I guess it's all right [We didn't mention the
Boink Secrecy Oath either. Oops] In the meantime I'm still holding
piglet's chattels hostage...

paul
Newsgroups: soc.singles