HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 10 Apr 92 06:08:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.romance
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Apr9.202525.25582@cbnewse.cb.att.com> hjanssen@cbnewse.cb.att.com (hank janssen) writes:
+
+On the contrary, the anology makes perfect sense. When Hitler  started
+out.  He did not force anybody to join him, All done by there own free

Speaking of A.Hitler, during the Nazi regime there was a great
amount of experimentation to get Aryan couples to mate and produce
offspring. There where low interrest loans to set up house, tax
benefits and other incentives, I think including payment for childern
born to the marriage. In a sense, his program was just what the
doctor ordered to encourage a return to 'family values' which where
widely acknowledged to be in a state of decline in Germany and
elsewhere in the areas inhabited by Aryan descendents.

With the Nazi betting the drum of 'racial purity', 'family values',
'everyone else is morally corrupt', I can only see a similar campaign
by the outraged citizens against alternative relationships. 

Why do I bring this up, well something has to bring this stupid line
back to something having to do with couples.

-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
From: aatresa@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Teresa Kline)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: Help for Ed
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:04:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: lims01.13APR199217041291
Organization: Yeah, *right* !
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <kuc9e3INNllq@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, erc@pogo.Corp.Sun.COM (Ed Carp) writes...
> 
>OK.  I accept!  Pick me up at 8? :)
>--

Is *that* when your plane lands?????  :)

-- Teresa

		Life -- just for the FUN of it!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft)
Subject: Movie
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 01:14:01 GMT

Someone recently asked the name of a movie starring Tom Hanks as an
American in the RAF stationed in Jerusalem during WWII.  It was on TV
tonight on one of the stations here.  It is called something like
"Everytime We Say Goodbye".  It was released in 1986.

The movie is quite charming in some ways, and certainly doesn't deserve
such a stupid title.  A lot of the interest for me, at least, was the
in detail of the woman's family.  They are Jewish of (originally) Spanish
extraction, and throughout the movie they speak a language that seems to be
as to Spanish as Yiddish is to German.  The cultural detail makes the movie
that much more authentic.

As you might expect, this family doesn't take kindly to the notion of one
of their daughters dallying with some American Gentile.  The choice is
go with the Yank and cut yourself off from your family, or stay with your
family and never see the Yank again.  No prizes for guessing what happens,
but it is a cut above the usual mindless crap (the characters seem intelligent
and thoughtful and the setting is unusual, to say the least).  And the
daughter is something else (what an accent...).

Bobo says check it out.

RNA  
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: grs01153@stat.appstate.edu
Subject: a question
Organization: Appalachian State University
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:31:12 GMT

What exactlty constitutes 'cheatin' on someone?
-- 
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'  
`'Shannon Frady                                     |     This is not         `'
`'GRS01153@appstate.edu                             |                         `'
`'Appalachian State University                      |   a difficult task!     `'
`'Boone, NC                                         |                         `'
`'Doo woppa good times                              |                   -me!  `'
`'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`'
`'                                                                            `'
`'                        Is that legal in this state?                        `' 
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: zaidioa@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU (Omar A. Zaidi)
Subject: Re: A Question for Females
Reply-To: zaidioa@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 19:42:30 GMT

In article <92106.14485232DPO6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>, <32DPO6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> writes:
>     In response to the question you asked, I just have to tell you that I as a
> female would love to get involved with a friend.  Think of all the advantages,
>1) you already know the person.  2) You most likely feel comfortable with the
>person, of you wouldn't be friends with them.  I do know, however, that
>relationships with friends are more trouble then they are worth.  If you do
>go out with someone who you were first friends with, and you break up for some
>stupid reason, you're out of a relationship and a friendship.  This is the way
>I've lost many friends.  In my estimations, it makes more sense to be friends.
>I hope you can understand where we're (women) are comming from.

Ok,
	fine by me, but what is a guy supposed to do when he wants something 
more deep and he has deep feelings for the friend and she does too? Should they
risk ruining the friendship? Also, what if his feelings are preventing him from
leaving her if she says no? I askl this because I've been there and it's not
very fun.

Chap 

zaidioa@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu

Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft)
Subject: Re: LOVE sucks. No question about it.
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 22:53:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.164840.5651@bsu-ucs.uucp> 01jametzger@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
>
[article deleted]
>
>Pooh

Hey, "Pooh", you might want to change your pseudonym.  There is already
one, very long established Pooh on the net, who hangs out in soc.singles.
To the extent that anyone has the net.right to this name, she does.

Perhaps Pooh2 instead, so that we can keep you straight?

RNA
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: world,soc
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 03:36:46 GMT

erc@pogo.Corp.Sun.COM (Ed Carp) writes:

>dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>
>>friends, then I probably would not take an active role, but simply offer
>>myself as an alternative once the relationship has weakened adequately.  If
>
>Sounds rather unethical to me.  Any don;t tell me that you wouldn't take ANY
>sort of role in hastening this along...
>
>You're treading on dangerous ground here, David.

Fine.  I'll shut up.  You're right.  I'm wrong.  Put a bullet in my head.


>>But on the whole, I live by the maxim "All's fair in love and war."
>
>It's not a maxim, or a truism.  I'm not going to get into a fight over situational ethics
>or ethical relativism, but it seems to me that you aren't making the loving choice - either for you,
>or for her.  You're trading long-term happiness for short-term relationship.

Let's just say I've lost a bit of that wide-eyed naivete that makes me see
things in happy feely warm squishy terms and leave it at that, okay?

-- 
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
As you're cleaning the orange carpet, you will hear a voice that says, "Fetch 
my cigarettes."  Another voice will say, "THEY'RE ON TOP OF THE REFRIGERATOR."
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
Xref: sparky alt.romance:6700 soc.singles:10547 soc.couples:1920
From: hjanssen@cbnewse.cb.att.com (hank janssen)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:28:14 GMT
Organization: AT&T

From article <1992Apr7.131701.11791@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, by bicker@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality):
> 
> 
> Yes Yes Yes!  This is precisely what happened, and I'm glad you
> mentioned it.  After realizing that "she" would forsake "him" for "me"
> with no so much as a thought, I could not trust her.
> Relationship: kaput! 
> 
So in this case what would be the problem, because also you  initiated
it,  you  could  not be trusted either. It's pot blaming the pan it is
black...... 
(Do as i say, not as i do............)

> (Of course I coudln't trust myself for a while either.  It took several
> months of soul-searching and morality reinforcement for me to even
> consider seeking a new RP.)
> 

At  least  you  seem  to have some sort on consience, more than can be
said about most people.  :-)


-- 
---------------------------------------------------+-------------------
                  Hank Janssen  (CPU)              | REMEMBER: 
                  att!ihlpb!hjanssen               | It is better 
			                           |      to burn out,
From: ronan@codon3 (Karen Ronan;161 GPBB;x2-0884)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: A Question for Females
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:25:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.sagtkINNt2i
Organization: University of California
NNTP-Posting-Host: codon3.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Apr12.055046.14392@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> bss2p@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Brent S. Stone) writes:

>know is - do women usually avoid becoming involved with friends? 
>From my naive nice-guy viewpoint, it makes more sense to go from 
>friends--> beyond than to   ??? -----> friends.  

What one woman does, has nothing to do with other women.
Some women ONLY want to start out as friends, then become
more. Apparently this woman does not like that idea. Every
woman is a unique person.

Karen

ronan@codon2.berkeley.edu

"Where the seller of stars, for a penny or two, will sell your
Heart's desire to you."
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison)
Subject: Re: Ed and Teresa (Carp ????)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Ancient Souls Inc.
Date: 16 Apr 1992 17:20 EST  

In article <16APR199217102696@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov>, aatresa@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Teresa Kline) writes...
>In article <16APR199216563964@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov>, afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison) writes...
>>In article <16APR199216271974@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov>, aatresa@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Teresa Kline) writes...
>>>Plus a few that were e-mailed...I don't have the separate count.  I'll get 
>>>it 
>> 
>>... no, you're a *blond* !!! You'll *never* get it ! :-)
>> 
> 
>Then why in blue blazes am I *trying* ?!

.. uh... you're a blond (this could go on for a looooooong time. :-)

> 
>> 
>>>...if you want it, Stephen.
>> 
>>... was it *nasty* of me to break this line out of context ? :-) :-)
> 
>Not to mention not saying if you want it... :)

Want it ? Heck, after all this time I'd be luck to recognize it. :-)

-- Stephen 

(The only two valid e-mail addresses from now on are ...)
afdenis@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov,  afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov
.. boring .sig follows, press n to skip it.

	Never regret a *choice*.  Rather, save your regrets for the
	choices you *didn't* make.

Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: karleen sue davis <ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: A Progression of Sorts
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:13:23 -0500

Query:  I've been socialized to believe that marriage is the "goal;" that
the measure of a relationship is how long you stayed together--how close
you came to the goal.  Now, I KNOW this isn't true; the counter-examples
are numerous, but I can't seem to get it out of my head, or my heart anyway.
I'm struggling with the notion that every day I'm with my SO/RP, I'm
confirming a decision I made when I was (age deleted--TOO YOUNG)...and I'm
not even feeling old enough to make that kind of a decision NOW, three years
later.  I don't like the notion of being "mini-married," especially while
I'm in college.  I don't like living out the decision I made back then...I
don't want marriage to be just the "next natural step"--I want now to be
now, and later to be later.  So, I guess the question is; help!  I can see
from the _hundreds_ of messages I've read that you'll be able to see more
in what I say than I can from here...I'm so confused I don't even know the
_question_ anymore!

*sigh*
Karleen
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: karleen sue davis <ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: A Progression of Sorts
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 13:50:27 -0500

In my first post, I was unclear, rendering most of the responses (though
kind) irrelevant to the real problem...Let me clarify:  I'm struggling with
the notion that every day I'm with my SO/RP, I'm confirming the decision I
made when I was very young, a decision I still don't feel old enough to
make.  (marriage)  As a matter of fact, I don't WANT to make that decision
for a good long while--I don't want to think about it, and I certainly don't
want to play at it.  But I am.  We are.  (That's what "mini-marriage" means;
we're together, we're exclusive, and we have barely any friends but each
other because we're attached at the hip.)  I want this focused exclusivity
to come LATER, after college, after I "grow up" (which may be never).  So how
do I change the way *I* see relationships and the progression from the first
shy glance to marriage, and how do I change the relationship I'm in?  (In case
you're thinking of advising me to break up, I should tell you that he's the
sweetest, most loveable guy I ever met.  I know he's "the one," but NOT YET!
I want to be young some more--let me finish puberty, at the very least... ;-)

Karleen
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.couples,soc.singles
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: Ed and Teresa  (Carp ????)
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:12:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.3gzj2ln.tyger
Organization: Cuz I'm a Blonde!

In article <15APR199212373448@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison) writes:
>In article <4905@naucse.cse.nau.edu>, dan@mvaxcs1.cse.nau.edu (Dan McMichael) writes...
>>From article <1992Apr11.093743.10544@willamette.edu>, by ppinkard@willamette.edu (Patrice Pinkard):
>>> I think we should let Ed & Teresa work it out between the two of them.  What
>>> do you think?  It doesn't REALLY involve anyone other than E & T. 
>> 
>>I'd say all of this belongs in E-mail.
>
>Dan and Patrice,
>
>*This* is alt.romance. The above thread *is* a romance (of sorts) going on 
>right in front of our eyes, with an implied invitation for all of us to 
>join in the magic of two people getting to know each other, and the 
>resulting horseplay.  It's *not* quite cutesy enough to move to alt.romance
>chat yet, and the involved parties are editing the posts to keep them 
>short and to the point, so what's the harm ? 

Cutesy or not, the aforementioned byplay is IMHO better suited to ARC than 
here. I have to admit to a certain bewilderment, though. I have an SO, and 
he even reads this newsgroup, but we save the lovey-dovey stuff for email 
and quiet times alone. I'm not sure that I'd *want* everyone sharing the
experience as my relationship with my SO gets more serious. Different strokes
for different folks, I guess.

>*Personally*, I'm having a great time with this one, and I find it more fun 
>than the Sanctity of Relationship thread which is bordering on `Neurotic 
>Possessiveness' these days. *That* puppy went into my kill file days ago 
>along with the `Romance=Hitler' thread, and, if this one bugs you, why 
>don't you just do a `k' on the subject line ?

Kill files are a pain in the butt, and while I use one, I don't like using it.
As I recall, S of R started out as discussion about dating someone that is
already involved with someone else. Has it gone that far afield really? At any
rate which topics are in who's kill files are not germane to this discussion
right now, so UI will just leave that there.

Terry and Ed, I'm being a curmudgeon about it, but I *am* happy for you both.

   Tyger
>
>We won't change it... *promise* ! :-)
>
>-- Stephen 
>
>(The only two valid e-mail addresses from now on are ...)
>afdenis@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov,  afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov
>.. boring .sig follows, press n to skip it.
>
>	Never regret a *choice*.  Rather, save your regrets for the
>	choices you *didn't* make.


-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker        If I gave you Diamonds and Pearls,
      kkohlbec@scueng.scu.edu   would you be a happy boy or a girl?   
      tyger@netcom.com          If I could I would give you the world,
                                but all I can do is just offer you
      A Tyger and a Lady        my love...    _Diamonds and Pearls_
 
                       
        
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: aatresa@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Teresa Kline)
Subject: Re: And Now for Something Apartly Similar...(kiss!)
Summary: I wrote it...I'm glad I wrote it...It takes tough times to...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: READ,KILL,READ,WALK THE DOG,READ,GRIT THY TEETH,READ...
Organization: Yeah, *right* !
Distribution: usa
Date: 10 Apr 1992 08:05 EST  

In article <1992Apr9.213516.8093@metter.fmpmis.metter.com>, virgo@metter.fmpmis.metter.com (Paul "Axel" Virgo) writes...
>Teresa will kick me in my duff,

Nah, I wouldn't do a thing like that...I'm a lady.

Besides, I thought it was funny...nothing like a laugh to start the day. :)

-- Teresa

		Life -- just for the FUN of it!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: ebratton@sunc7.cs.uiuc.edu (Help Wanted...)
Subject: Nice Guy problems
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:49:17 GMT

I've got a problem.  I'm in college, for perspective here.  It seems that
most every time I meet a girl and spend time with them, hoping to eventually
become romantically involved with them, I end up being involved in a deep 
friendship rather than romance.  It's not that I just let things flow along
and they wind up that way.  I most definitely try and express my feelings,
both indirectly and saying them straight out, but the girl has typically 
found that after getting to know me for a while that 'our friendship is too
important and I don't want to jeopardize by going out with you'.  Why?  They
usually say that I'm very easy to get along with and am a great person that
they can tell their problems to.  Well, dang!  That's what I get for being
a true sensitive nice guy!

Help!  Should I try and NOT be so sensitive and give them advice on things, or
should I not spend much time with them initally, but instead just ask them
out right off the bat, so that they can't say that they would be jeopardizing
a friendship?  *sigh*  

Thanks for all replies
:|
-- 
| Erich Bratton | Poultry Engineering |
|-------------------------------------|
| "Where We Make Really good Chicken" |
| University of Illinois at Champaign |
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
Subject: Do You Remember - early '60s edition
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:39:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsd.1992Apr10.183910.14094
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


Or how about:

Gyroscopes - real space-age-looking tops that needed a string and
             could do all sorts of neat tricks

Chatty Kathy - first doll on the market with a pull-string that
             would make her talk.  As she got old and thrown around,
             she'd start to sound like Chuckie.

Water Rockets - made of red and blue plastic, you'd fill them with
             water and launch them and I don't know what else they
             did because we could never get them to work.

Chox -       Multivitamins you could actually chew.

Betsy Wetsy - Doll you'd feed with a toll baby bottle and the
             water would run out of a hole in her bottom.  My mother
             wouldn't let me have one.

Patty Playpal - If you pushed her along just the right way, her
             kneew would unlock and she'd look like she was walking.

Vrrooooom    - You'd mount it on the handlebars of your bike and turn
             a key and it would go "vrrooooom..."


-Nance
"You can take Salem out of the country but."
-- 
  /\/\                       
  \  / /\/\  "Love is lovely.    Nance Colucci     att!ihlpk!colucci
   \/  \  /    Let it grow."   * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ *
        \/      -Eric Clapton      
Xref: sparky alt.romance:7140 soc.singles:11352 soc.couples:2135
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:17:51 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <85ed02JIc9Vb00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:
>However, if a guy who KNEW that she was involved with me made some moves
>on her or flirted with her, that bothered me.  I repeat that I was NOT
>bothered because I was worried that she might drop me.  No, I was bothered
>because the other guy was clearly showing a lack of RESPECT for our
>relationship.  

Depends on who "the other guy" is.  If I couldn't care more about him than I
would about a hole in the wall, why the heck should I give a damn whether or
not he's "respecting" a relationship, if, as you say, I'm not worried that
my SO might dump me?

>		If you KNOW that someone is involved, who keep your bloody
>hands off, that is merely respectful.  And that was the context of the
>original question: knowing that someone was involved and yet pursuing
>him/her anyway.  Under those circumstances, you are scum because you are
>showing a lack of respect for an existing relationship.

So it's basically a matter of territorial claims?  Each person "owns" the
other?  Or, maybe the abstract entity "relationship" owns both (or all)
parties in a relationship?

>Understand?  Those who keep going on about the free will of the person
>being pursued are just missing the point.  It has nothing to do with
>anyone's free will, it has to do with showing respect for an existing
>relationship.  If you want to respect a person's free will, then you
>damned well better respect the free choice that they have already made
>to be in that relationship;

This implies to me that the individual loses his free will when he enters a
relationship.  That one free choice means that the individual is not allowed
to make free choices about the relationship later on.

>			     respect their free will by letting THEM
>decide when the relationship should end without adding your influence.

For a sufficiently narrow definition of "influence"?  If "influence" == FORCE
then I agree with you.

The problem I have with your point, though, is that the concept of "respect"
doesn't seem to have any concrete meaning.  What does "having respect for
a relationship" gain one?

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

Not a model man, not a savior or a saint.
Imperfect in a word, make no mistake.
But I give you everything I have.  Take me as I am...
					- King Crimson, "Model Man"
Xref: sparky alt.romance:6763 soc.couples:1954