HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: definitions, motivations, and a question (was Re: Altruism)
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:06:57
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk's message of 10 Nov 92 19:06:48 GMT

In article <jrk.721422408@zen.sys.uea.ac.uk> jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) writes:
> (The definitions
> I proposed of the words "altruism" and "selfishness" were intended merely
> as a description of the way the words seem to be used in practice,

Actually, I thought they were good definitions, but not at all how the
words were used in practice...*grin*.

> outside the context of undergraduate philosophical discussions.) 

Damn...not in *my* undergraduate philosophy classes.  Maybe if I'd
gotten my degree in philosphy instead of computer science...*sigh*.  The
people in my philosophy classes were more interested in grades than in
discussion...of course, that *was* the early 80's, so maybe things have
changed...

> Such
> references to the external world as are being made are to behaviours on
> whose desirability or undesirability everyone seems to agree, the dispute
> instead being about whether to call the desirable ones "altruistic" and
> the undesirable ones "selfish" or vice versa.

Actually, it seems to me that the discussion is much more about
motivations than about behaviors.  As you say, there is some agreement
as to which behaviors are desirable.  I suppose if we ever finish this
discussion, we can start talking about whether motivations are more,
less, or equally as important as actions...*grin*.

That last seems to have rather a lot of bi-relevance, by the way.  I was
reminded of this by a recent (read it a couple of minutes ago)
demuffining.  Why is it that there's so often the question of *doing*
something (sex) with members of both sexes before saying you're bi?  Why
isn't it based on attraction rather than action?  I was pretty much this
way myself, but I still don't understand it.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~This is my trouble
 can't be an innocent bystander
 in a world of pain and fire and steel~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:14:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.112838.739@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale) writes:
>What is it with you, Graham? Lately you seem to have gotten into a
>"let's be obnoxious to court flames and, when the soc.bi cabal flames
>me, whine that nobody has a sense of humour" mode.

"Probably just an unhappy love-affair" :-)

G
--
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Bisexual libertariansn ear
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:17:54 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

Interesting that Steve Conley pointed out that a lot of bisexuals are
libertarians. I am one myself--I've got the card and everything! Could
this be a trend?
More to the point, how hospitable has the LP been to non-heteros
compared to the Democrats or Republicans?

David A. Tepper
I'm too sexy for meiosis.
-- 
Hey! Wanna .sig?                             
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: rowe@engin.umich.edu (Steven Rowe)
Subject: Re: Finally Doing It ... Coming Out
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 02:37:52 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

Roy,
I'd send this as e-mail, but 1) My mailer is FUBAR and 2) Other comers-
out might be (and probably are) out there.
In a post about a month ago, I gave some advice to someone else on
soc.bi (she's actually here in Ann Arbor).  I haven't heard her reaction
to my advice, but that's sort of what one gets for giving free advice on
the net.
Rather than re-iterate what I said before, let me just say that I *know*
you're scared; egads, there's little more frightening for someone who is
close to their family than the thought of alienating them.  All I can say
is that if they love you, they'll understand and accept.  Or, failing
that, they'll at least cope with it and you'll still be close.
My own parents said "Live whatever way you want, just don't rub our
noses in it."  My relationship with them is still strong, and I just
don't tell them when I've met a lover who is a MOTSS.  I never really
considered my sex life their business anyway.
However it turns out, I'm rooting for you, though.  If you need to
talk or anything, feel free to e-mail me or call (313) 665-0746.
Best of luck.

-- 
Steve Rowe: B0 f- w- c g+ k+ s- e+ r-
     These folks who don't believe in evolution
are the ones who look the most like they could use some.
                                   -Frank Allison
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: orc@vpnet.chi.il.us (david parsons)
Subject: Re: Really blatant flirtation               
Organization: Department of Atomic Text Units
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:21:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.161716.28681@infodev.cam.ac.uk> SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk (S. Arrowsmith) writes:
|In article <1992Nov10.202905.16713@Princeton.EDU> datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:
|>A 45% purity score? 53%? Feh! I spit on you all! I currently stand at
|>96% (but would love any chance to lower that).
|Oh, wow -- a higher purity than mine (somewhere just over 80% and in no
|danger of falling).  Take pride in your innocence, that's what I say!!!!

   No danger, you say?   Hmm, I *distinctly recall one or two data
points which would seem to contradict that statement...
                ____
  david parsons \bi/ "Character assassination; a game the whole family
                 \/   can play!"
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: jcarroll@bach.udel.edu (Royal J Carroll)
Subject: All these muffins!
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 06:39:36 GMT

[I disappear for a few days and all of these muffins pop up!]

*HUGS* to all of those who have de-muffined.  Sorry for the group post,
but with over 150 unread messages to go, individual responses aren't
pratical!

What the hell, a round of hugs all around -- I'm feeling especially good
today!

-James

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
But if some one really cared/well they'd take the time to spare
A moment to try and understand/another one's despair
-Axl Rose, "Breakdown"-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=jcarroll@brahms.udel.edu-
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale)
Subject: Re: My inner man
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 12:42:20 GMT

In <s882916.721456368@otto> s882916@otto (Vikki POLLARD) writes:
>Does anyone know of a better word than penetration? I hate that word
>and are continually searching for another

Well, if you want to be overly simplistic, you could insist that a whole
load of different concepts are, in fact, so intertwined that they cannot
be separated without commiting grevious sin. By doing this, you could
then use terms like:

	A communion of our spirits
	Let's make babies
	Sex
	Making love
	Consummating marriage

Hmmm... Ok, give me another try. Here's a few terms from a slang
thesaurus on my desk:

	horizontal jogging
	interior decorating
	parallel parking
	straight shot (intercourse without contraception)
	dance on the mattress
	go all the way
	have a shag
	hide the salami
	mount
	play mothers and fathers (or play mummies and daddies)
	plonk (?! Maybe orc will like that one)
	poke
	roger
	screw
	score between the posts (very performance orientated:-()


Ciaran.
-- 
---- Ciaran McHale (cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie)
\bi/ Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
 \/  Telephone: +353-1-7021539 FAX: +353-1-6772204
From: P.J.Caldicott@bradford.ac.uk (PJ CALDICOTT)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Sandra Bernhart
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:27:19 GMT
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: 88639066@ccw320

hansene@goose.cps.msu.edu (E.J.H.) writes:

>Hey!
>Did anyone see the story about Sandra Bernhart on NBC tuesday
>night? I had to take a phone call so I missed part of it.
>Did she come out or what? She talked a bit about her
>relationship with Madonna, but from what I saw she was
>pretty ambiguous about her orientation.
>Anyway, everybody send me e-stuff 'cuz I like it.
>oop.

>Ted

I don't know about the interview on U.S. tv but she was in a Brit
mag recently (something like Q or nme) and in it she said she was
Bi but it had been a long time since she wanted to goto bed with a man.
.
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: This has probably already been asked...
Date: 11 Nov 92 08:08:35
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Nov11.131236.10704@dsg.cs.tcd.ie>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie's message of Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:12:36 GMT


In article <1992Nov11.131236.10704@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale) writes:
[question about rejection by both straights and gays]
>As an analogy: hurt often hurts more if it comes from a friend or
>family member rather than from a stranger.

>So, as a bisexual person, I can expect to get shit from straight people.
>To me, the straight people are "strangers" in the analogy. When a GL
>person (who are "family") gives me shit, it hurts much more than
>*comparable* [1] shit from a straight person.

I'm not disagreeing, but I'm curious as to the reasoning.  Why is it
that you see straight people as the strangers and GL people as the
family?  Do you think this is true for many/most/all bisexuals, or just
for you?  Certainly, we seem to have things in common with both.  Is it
just that there is more in common with GL people?  I've been sneered at
by both now (sometimes with the same partner...*grin*) and it seems
about the same to me.  I guess also I don't feel a sense of "family"
with anyone who has the attitude that I deserve abuse for being with a
partner of one sex but not with a partner of the other sex.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...
Date: 12 Nov 1992 00:16:20 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <01010066.idankb@unicorn.resun.com> chris@unicorn.resun.com writes:

->Or is sex with Elf suddenly a "God" given right? :-)  

*presents his voucher*  My mom never told me what it was for!

So where's the queue?

-roy
-- 
Roy S. Rapoport          rsr@soda.berkeley.edu             rsr@ocf.berkeley.edu
"Letters from you make me feel good."  -Laura Creighton
"Why do you guys all have to have penises?" -anon
DISCLAIMER:  "I meant every word of it, but I doubt anyone else did."
From: J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Altruism (was: two men)
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:51:22 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>>>>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>>Not at all.  I would have thought this was easy to understand.  For
>>>example, I could insure my life in favor of you and then kill myself.

>>Exactly - but it would improve life for me. So it is _possible_ to improve
>>the world without benefitting yourself. You said it was _impossible_.

>Ahh...well, here's where we disagree.  I don't think that it would
>improve the world, although I imagine that it would improve life for
>you...*grin*.  See, if you look at this, your life has improved to some
>small (or large, I suppose, if it's a big policy...*grin*) degree.  My
>life has been totalled.  So, I see the net effect to the world as
>negative.  Of course, you might see this as positive - more funds for
>the altruists, removal of a selfish person, or something like that.  I
>doubt that, but you never know...

If you like, I can give you the adress of a good lawyer, specialises
in wills... :-)


/jon

   ___________________ ____ ________________________________________
  / -- Jonathan Harley \  /_   Could be an ever opening flower...  //    //  //
 / J.W.Harley@ncl.ac.uk \/ /  It's the beginning of               // // //////
/_Phone:UK 091 222 8504__\/__a new love inside________________///////////  //
From: winsor@geek.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (js)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: wups!
Date: 13 Nov 1992 00:59:14 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Incorporated, Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: geek.teng.ppd.ti.com

In article <1dulefINNsbs@transfer.stratus.com>, pfieland@citron.sw.stratus.com (Peggy Fieland) writes:
|> In article <1dpi1tINNips@cuda.add.itg.ti.com> winsor@geek.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (js) writes:
|> >Q:  how many of soc.biers are married?  just curious.
|> >
|> >js
|> 
|> I'm married, too.
|> 
|> Peggy


My un-official tally of married-types (including Sarah) is 5.

in no probable order:
Peggy
Sue
Brad
...
me

Any corrections, anybody?  "..." may fill in if s/he wishes.


This tally is kinda fun!

*blow-kisses*
js
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: iw@tosser.Rational.COM (The_Devine_Dolly)
Subject: Re: PC (was Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...)
Organization: Rational
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:45:53 GMT

tweaver@nyx.cs.du.edu (T.C.Weaver) writes:

>I agree with Stephen, and have never needed to be rich or male to say it,
>which is quite lucky, really. As for white, well, my skin hasn't opened any
>doors for me, far as I can see, except inasmuch as it covers my door-opening
>limbs.

But I don't think that Great Britain has the same degree of 
instituionalised racism as exists in the US. I mean it is pretty
bad there, but I do not think that it is as bad as here.

Just using an excuse to e-flirt ....  hi there sweetie! <hug>

Iseult.
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: sa121@cl.cam.ac.uk (S. Arrowsmith)
Subject: Re: New Age Androgynous Bisexuals...
Reply-To: SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk (S. Arrowsmith)
Organization: Surrealists against Lobsters
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:52:53 GMT

In article <Bx8vFG.I4D@cck.coventry.ac.uk> idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid) writes:
>In article <Bx8o98.9E@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>
>>  __                                ____
>>\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \  /
>>/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul"   \/
>
>I still think your signature is crazy.  You're saying "I'm the boy
>without a non-existent thing", no?  Surely we're *all* without all
>non-existent things...
>
Oh, no, I've got *plenty* of non-existent things.  There an absolute
must for doing impossible things before breakfast like getting milk
from the fridge without being pounced on by a cat.  OK, so I haven't
found the particular non-existent object that allows me to do that
yet, but I'm sure I will....
--
\S
SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk   | There's nowt |"And in this moment, I need to be needed
sarrowsm@nyx.cs.du.edu| so queer as  |"When my self-esteem is sinking,
                      | folk....     |"I like to be liked" -- Peter Gabriel
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: cliveg@cix.compulink.co.uk (Clive Grace)
Subject: Re: Get a(nother) clue!
Reply-To: cliveg@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:05:00 +0000


> This reminds me of the time I booked a morning's holiday so that I
> could appear on Kilroy.  "Great!", people said, "We can bring in a
> telly and all watch you in the office!".  I thought "Oh no!  Why can't
> they just be homophobic?  I know how to deal with that...".  

Yeah, well, I omitted to tell anyone that it was on TV, not because 
I'm not out at work but because it all happened so fast that by the 
time the show as on TV, I would have to be on the phone to the office 
saying "Errm, I can't make it in this morning, I'm on Telly", so I 
just rang in sick afterwards  and shuffled into work at midday 
looking pale and ill -- which wasn't *too* difficult considering the 
fact I had to get up at 5:00am to get to London for 7:30am >ooog<.

For clueless you should hear my parents when I told them that I and 
one of my two bisexual lovers was going to be interviewed by Kilroy 
for his magazine column in the Mirror on Sunday -- "Oh, I don't know 
anyone in my side of the  family who reads that"...

...That's okay Mum, I'll send you a photocopy.

Oh NO... DONT!

Clueless parents... poor things. I'm realising that I can't have them 
the way I want them, but that's okay... they can't have me the way 
they want either... I mean, could you imagine me not wearing shiny 
black lycra with a black leather jacket? They could.

+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| "When I grow up, I want to give up being  |cliveg@cix.compulink.co.uk|
| a Journalist and learn how to write..."   |cliveg@cix.compulink.uucp |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+

Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: tweaver@nyx.cs.du.edu (T.C.Weaver)
Subject: Re: Women and I: An Explanation?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 04:03:25 GMT

mlloyd@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Mike Lloyd) writes:

>TWeaver@nyx.cs.du.edu (T.C.Weaver) writes:

>: Dear, women have choices. We exercise them. Muffy claims to be a very oral
>: person (Call the jury! The witnesses! The video-recording equipment!)
>
>Say, T, would a willing volunteer help?  [Mike makes his cilium super,
>hopefully to different effect from:]

Mmm, could you supervise the, ah, equipment? Ah, yes... obviously |-)

Are you operating in English in those brackets? Or is this some nice new
analogue to Valspeak and jive: retro-hippy?

>Limonc^H^H^H^Hberal intentions for the young fla' with half a principle,
>rather than either codger with none between them.

Mm, probably.

Tanaqui
From: winsor@geek.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (js)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Finally Doing It ... Coming Out
Date: 11 Nov 1992 23:02:56 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Incorporated, Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: geek.teng.ppd.ti.com

In article <MUFFY.92Nov11123623@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
|> In article <1drpnoINNn3o@cuda.add.itg.ti.com> winsor@geek.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (js) writes:
|> >In article <iw.721498806@tosser>, iw@tosser.Rational.COM (The_Devine_Dolly) writes:
|> [theory of wanting a particular gender]
|> >|> At the same time I am not sure that I really believe this, because
|> >|> one of the reasons that I freak out about longterm monogamy is the
|> >|> thought of not being able to have sex with the other gender.  
|> >Then change your definition of monogamy.
|> 
|> To what, exactly?  Any change in the definition won't be terribly useful
|> unless you can get your partner(s) to agree to it, in which case all
|> you've really done is redefined the relationship to be non-monogamous.
|> So, why do you think it is useful to change your personal defintion of
|> monogamy?
|> 
|> Muffy
|> --


Okay, I know.  I in deep now.  Let me explain.  Changing generally
accepted definitions (denotations) of words (i.e. using personal connotations in
their place) is a particular form of rationalizing yourself out of an otherwise
uncomfortable position.  Whatever that position may be. (no snickering - I'm
trying to be serious... *grin*)

To the end of feeling more comfortable with the idea of having sex with both
genders forever, one may re-invent monogamy to mean that s/he has sex with only
one partner from each gender.  Thus, effecting a contract to have specific
restrictions on an otherwise polgamous relationship, rather than a monogamous one
that may be unthinkable (to that person) otherwise.

God, I'm long winded!

I said all that just to undo the damage of my previous shorthand for:
"Try committing to one of each.  Then you never have to be without the pleasures
of intimacy with either gender."

Almost forgot another part of your reponse, Muffy - Of course I believe very
strongly that the "contract" should be mutually agreed upon.  Those are, however,
*my* values.

One quick (out of character) response to your final question.
Restated here, so you don't have to use those scroll bars:
"So, why do you think it is useful to change your personal definition of
monogamy?"

COMFORT.

By the By, that was a very good question. (made me think about it again...)
  ee-hugs to ya, Muffy!

js
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Altruism (was: two men)
Date: 8 Nov 92 16:21:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: remarque.MUFFY.92Nov8082102
	<MUFFY.92Oct14211849@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<BwBpo5.7B1@newcastle.ac.uk>
	<MUFFY.92Oct23103547@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<BwqMF6.GGw@newcastle.ac.uk> <MUFFY.92Nov4084700@remarqu
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk's message of 7 Nov 92 19:07:59 GMT

In article <BxD15C.J39@newcastle.ac.uk> J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:

>>>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>>  Well, I believe that it is *possible* to do
>>>>something which is good for someone else but not for you,
>>
>>>You just said "it is impossible to do anything to improve the world without
>>>benefitting themselves by doing so". Now you say it is possible. You seem
>>>confused.
>>
>>Not at all.  I would have thought this was easy to understand.  For
>>example, I could insure my life in favor of you and then kill myself.
>>You would benefit, but it wouldn't be too good for me, eh?

>Exactly - but it would improve life for me. So it is _possible_ to improve
>the world without benefitting yourself. You said it was _impossible_.
>Unless I'm being totally stupid (quite possible, I admit) you're
>contradicting yourself, and that's _not_ easy to understand.

Ahh...well, here's where we disagree.  I don't think that it would
improve the world, although I imagine that it would improve life for
you...*grin*.  See, if you look at this, your life has improved to some
small (or large, I suppose, if it's a big policy...*grin*) degree.  My
life has been totalled.  So, I see the net effect to the world as
negative.  Of course, you might see this as positive - more funds for
the altruists, removal of a selfish person, or something like that.  I
doubt that, but you never know...

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: seamus@ravel.udel.edu (James G Dilmore)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: my roomie
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:06:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BxMFyt.F45
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Nov10.233242.22537@midway.uchicago.edu> orc@amber.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>    And people say *I'm* an e-slut ;-)
>
O please teach me the meaning of eslut.
pant pant.:>
>
>    Experimental verification can be arranged for that, you know. 
>It's quite simple and painless, if slightly messy.
>
You tease.  You have to bring up pain and then you tell me I can't have it.
You are trully mean.  As for the empirical evidence, if you do come down
Princeton way, Delaware is just a stone throw away. :>
>               ____
> david parsons \bi/ shy and demure, but still shameless, e-slut
>                \/
Shy? Demure?  I just don't see it but hey maybe I'm missing something.

From the man who is just bubbling with liberation(you were right muffy),

-- 
Jim Dilmore - seamus@brahms.udel.edu    
               SILENCE = DEATH    
This is not a black and white world,
to be alive I believe the colors must be swirled- Live.
Newsgroups: soc.bi