HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What do you Am men think about Am wome
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:13:01 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Graydon) writes:

>My guess on this stuff is related to differences in what people think
>sex is for.  People who think sex is recreation act very similarly,
>modulo cultural gender based communication differences.  Peope who
>think sex is an affirmation of life-long commitment, ditto.  

Excellent point.

And some people think that sex is for a variety of different things,
depending on the people and circumstances involved.

One neat thing it took me a while to learn is that people can be sexual with
each other even if they aren't in the mood for the exact same thing. I had
always thought of sex as something requiring equivalent interest from both 
parties; unless both were in the mood, it wasn't working; if I couldn't
interest my partner in sex, it meant I wasn't desirable; &c. But if one
partner happens not to be particularly horny, sex can be a gift of love, 
and that can be just as wonderful as intense mutual passion.

When one partner has a higher sex drive than the other, both partners need
to be willing to compromise, to explore ways of sharing sexual activities 
that satisfy the horny partner but don't exhaust the non-horny one, and to 
try to keep sex out of any (non-playful) power struggles that may develop 
in the course of the relationship.
                     
--
Stef                 Reality is that which, when you stop believing
stef@apple.com       in it, doesn't go away.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Money and the Single World (was: Education and the Single World
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:18:21 GMT

In article <lgfhqkINN6gv@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>My ex and I always threw our money together, and we always had the same
>feelings of resentment and of being used that Tim describes.  Now that
>I'm on the brink of having the decision to make again, we're opting for 
>seperate bank accounts.  Decision to be re-evaluated in 3-5 years.

My parents maintained three checking accounts, one joint and a separate one
for each of them.  In the early days, Dad probably had all the deposit forms,
but later they divided them up.  The joint account was for paying the
household bills, and Mom controlled the checkbook.  When I asked her about
this scheme, she told me that she refused to share a checkbook with my 
father because he sometimes didn't record deposits and reconciled the account
only about twice a year.

A few years ago I was talking with an attractive, single woman who revealed
that she had never reconciled a checking account.  Every few years she'd
simply close the account and open another one at a different bank.  I never
saw her after that evening.

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance
From: deb@spectra.eng.hawaii.edu (David Barrett)
Subject: Re: Being Alone?
Organization: University of Hawaii, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:46:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.075553.5389@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>In article <oneil.721868088@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>>
>>I honestly believe -- and have been told I'm unusual for this belief -- that 
>>in a relationship, friendship should come before romance.  Personally, I've
>>*never* fallen head over heels in love with someone unless I was friends 
>>first.  Maybe it *is* a little cynical, but I just don't believe in love at
>>first sight, for myself anyway.
>
>I think you are unusual, though not unique, in this respect--it's been
>my experience that for most people, once they perceive you as a friend,
>they will no longer ever be able to perceive you as a potential romantic
>possibility.  Personally, I think your way is more reasonable, but it's
>still very much the less popular tactic.
>
>Trygve 

I think thanks to the novel and movie world we all have this contention that
love and friendship is two sides of a coin.  The connotation of "just a friend"
we perceive as "sorry, but I don't think of you beyond that" or "I don't love
you that way anymore".  This a falacy!  You cannot separate friendship from loveanymore than you can grow an apple without a tree (you can try, some do).
Friendship must come first and then deepen into real love.  If it goes the otherway first then it is most likely a physical attraction or infatuation.  If you
bypass all the steps and hop into a relationship (or bed) then the chances are
doomed to be short and/or miserable later.  If you are one of those whose first
sight discovery skyrocketed into the dream of your life, if you ask around, you
won't find a majority of luck like that.  Over 90% of people today come from
dysfunctional upbringing and are drowning in bad relationships or stayin away 
from the good ones because of following unfortuneately learned habits or advice.If you think that you can't be friends with a lover or a friend cannot be your
lover, then that's what you will get (probably a short romance).  The average
lenght of time for a relationship today is 3 months because that's about how 
long it takes for us to drop our acts or method-of-operation and be ourselves.
Your friends know your true selves and they will make the longest lovers and
potential soul mate.  The ones who will be most dear, will be the ones near the most.

dB
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: dbj@cs.washington.edu (Dave Johnson)
Subject: Re: What is attractive to women?
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 20:32:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.111201.10895@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.224600.29242@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>
>>I also conform by sleeping at night, arriving at work in the morning,
>>and staying throughout the day.  In return for that sort of stuff (not
>>to mention my tremendous native abilities, training, and knowledge),
>>they pay me lots of money.  It certainly seems like a fair tradeoff.
>
>Gads, sleeping at night?  Arriving at work in the morning?  Staying all
>day whether you feel like it or not?  It's so easy to forget that there
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>are people out there who have to put up with this sort of thing.  Well,
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>you've got my sympathies--I can imagine putting up with conditions like
>that for a few days, but as a lifestile choice?  <shudder>
>
>Trygve    (OK, I admit it, I do make my employees show up during the day,
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>           but at least I don't force them to wear ties (t-shirts and jeans
>           are much more typical).  Of course I make a point of having 
>           good enough employees that I don't actually have to show up
>           myself.) 

Typical ruling-class slimy capitalist cretin!!  Oh sure, it's easy
to forget, even though you FORCE your own slave-laborers to endure
such treatment!!

I did like the 'lifeSTILE' bit, though.
-- 
  Dave Johnson

"You're not too smart, are you?  I like that in a man."
    --Kathleen Turner in Body Heat 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tps@jptcs.COM (Tim Sailer)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Money and the Single World (was: Education and the Single World
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:13:34 GMT
Reply-To: tps@jptcs.com
Organization: JPT Computer Solutions, Port Jeff Station, NY
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Sandra Loosemore (loosemore-sandra@cs.yale.edu) wrote:
: Well, this is a pleasant fiction, IMHO.  "It shouldn't be a problem" until
: you split up, and then you're totally screwed.  I've known friends who've
: gone through some *extremely* nasty divorces that were complicated by this
: kind of naiveity in handling their financial arrangements.  E.g., one
: spouse found that the other had totally cleaned out their joint bank
: accounts, trashed his credit rating, and had a restraining order preventing
: him from trying to reclaim any of their other joint assets (furniture,
: car, etc.) pending the divorce settlement.  Similar financial problems can
: occur in the case of death of a spouse.
: 
: Love isn't a substitute for common sense when it comes to money.  CYA
: and visit a lawyer before you do anything as stupid as getting
: married!

Sorry... too late... been married and divorced. I guess I'm one of the 
weirdos that think you should go into marriage like it WILL last forever.
If you go into it taking precautions against 'if or when' it breaks up,
it's a planned failure from the start! My Ex tried to clean me out, and
did a pretty good job of it. But HECK!!! It's only money! I have a job
and drive and ambition, and in 2 years from the divorce I'll be better
off then before the divorce. I guess I have a different way of looking
at marriage. My parents were married, and, IMHO, had the ideal one until
'death did them part' when my Dad was killed. I'd like any future relation-
ship I have to be like this. I'm not talking about dating/live-in. That 
should always be treated as temporary.

Those are just my views, but I'll stubbornly stick to them <donning flame
proof underwear>.

: -Sandra the cynic

Tim the weirdo romantic

-- 
Tim Sailer
JPT Computer Solutions - SCO Sales/Consulting/Administration and Mangling
Port Jefferson Station, NY
(516) 331-9001
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: PRES DEBATE
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:44:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.192032.11866@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, dbj@cs.washington.edu (Dave Johnson) writes:
> In article <MARTINC.92Nov14160302@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
> >In article <92318.104242SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Graydon) writes:
> >
> >
> >This is the costing model that is causing all the trouble in the
> >Northwest US right now: what is the value of the western subspecies of a
> >particular owl, compared to the economic loss to the region if timbering
> >is made impossible to protect that species?

Having been through the northwest US and seen some of the clear-cutting raping
of the land I have to agree with keeping the timber cutters out until they
learn some responsibility.  Clear-cut areas look disgusting for years after
the timber operations have finished and moved on.  A tree should be planted 
for every one that is cut.  My land is all young growth (due to a fire) but
it ages as I age and will continue till my death. (barring another fire)

> 
> Hmmm, I would say it is this sort of all-or-nothing rhetoric
> that causes a lot of the trouble right now.  There are only a
> few extremists who are proposing making timbering impossible,
> and even that is referring only to public lands.  Just because
> Dan Quayle said we could have owls OR jobs doesn't mean we have
> to choose between them.  Most of the environmentalists are asking
> that SOME ancient forests be left uncut--unfortunately, at this
> time there's only SOME left, so the environmentalists are in the
> position of asking that most all of the remaining ancient forests
> be left uncut.
> -- 

The thing that makes me mad about the "public lands" is the FACT that the
overseers of the land will sell Old Growth trees to the timbermen for $1 US
then build a road for the loggers to get to the timber, which cost more than
they made from the selling of the trees, so we joe-blo taxpayers are paying
the people to cut the trees which we supposedly own, while they make large
profits striping the land.

>   Dave Johnson
> 

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: gary@buxhed.enet.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: What is attractive to women?
Reply-To: gary@buxhed.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:19:11 GMT



>In article <1992Nov15.204331.17994@bnlux1.bnl.gov>, 
>schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:


>Try wearing your "Cure" t-shirt to work some time with the
>worn-through-at-the-knees blue jeans and see how long you stay at your
>RealWorld job, assuming that they hire you in the first place.
>Sometimes you have to play by the rules during the day for appearances,
>also if you wish to command any kind of respect from your older
>co-workers who are busy talking about the state of property taxes and
>prime lending rates.  Being a young professional that works with older
>folks means that you can't do just whatever you want to do all of the
>time.  Wearing a tie dosen't necessarily make you a ... oh MY
>GOD!..."conformist"!

	Doesn't it ? I mean your wearing something you wouldn't 
	normally (The tie). To conform to what you think other 
	people find acceptable. Now I'm not knocking it and it 
	may be necessary, but you are conforming.

	Gary.
Xref: sparky soc.singles:31133 alt.sex:36613
From: dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.sex
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:53:21 GMT
Reply-To: dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <1992Nov17.233938.52596@gmuvax.gmu.edu> sparker@gmuvax.gmu.edu writes:
>
>When you ask these little lovelies  for their I.D., you are told, 
>immediately, to fuck off. 
>  If they had any respect for their elders, they would act like 
>humans instead if animals. 
>
>This, you see, is the result of single parent homes.

Not necessarily.  I have both of my original parents and I could tell you
to fuck off as well as anyone.

Fuck off.

Dawn

Joseph Campbell gave me hope and now I have been saved.
"Folk Song" by Bongwater
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: What is attractive to women?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 11:12:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.224600.29242@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>
>I also conform by sleeping at night, arriving at work in the morning,
>and staying throughout the day.  In return for that sort of stuff (not
>to mention my tremendous native abilities, training, and knowledge),
>they pay me lots of money.  It certainly seems like a fair tradeoff.

Gads, sleeping at night?  Arriving at work in the morning?  Staying all
day whether you feel like it or not?  It's so easy to forget that there
are people out there who have to put up with this sort of thing.  Well,
you've got my sympathies--I can imagine putting up with conditions like
that for a few days, but as a lifestile choice?  <shudder>

Trygve    (OK, I admit it, I do make my employees show up during the day,
           but at least I don't force them to wear ties (t-shirts and jeans
           are much more typical).  Of course I make a point of having 
           good enough employees that I don't actually have to show up
           myself.)
From: kellym@wowee.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Kelly Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Do you remember 1970 to 1980?
Date: 14 Nov 92 09:59:24 GMT
Organization: Not an Organization
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (10.17.92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith

In article <9211112207.AA06353@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
>
>       As part of an impromptu research project, I'd like to know what
>   YOU think the single most important ( dramatic, traumatic ) event of`
>   1970 to 1980 was.

I was born, raised, lived, did this, done that, regretted most of it
and wondered what it would be like if I grew up by 1992.

--
%"Vhuuut, you donna' like'a my zooop?" -Fred Flinstone, impersonating a chef
% kellY Martin  UUCP:kellym@wowee.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca  (1:342/53.5@fidonet)
From: taina@cs.Helsinki.FI (Juha Taina)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: finding a soulmate
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:31:21 GMT

In <1992Nov20.160128.13449@panix.com> nancyw@panix.com (Nancy Weiner) writes:

> I am new here..second day or so ..so please forgive the format. Not
> sure I'm doing this right.

Welcome.  You are doing fine.

> Wondering here how many people can really talk to who they are
> dating..and is that a criteria you use?  for me someone could be
> purple and green for all I care if I can really talk to them.
>    tired of meeting conventional guys who clam up all the time..so, is
> being able to tell anything to your s.o something other people look
> for?

I respect people that can talk, and it's even better if they are my
friends.  Another important thing is the ability to listen.

I wouldn't date someone just because she can talk.  The most important
side for me is that my values and life goals are compatible with hers.
We never stop growing, and I'd rather grow together than apart.  Still,
if she can't talk she won't tell me about her values, and if she can't
listen she won't be interested in mine.

Juha Taina  taina@cs.helsinki.fi  Phone: +358-0-708-4247
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: gembura@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jerry Robert Gembura)
Subject: test
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 18:23:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

Don't panic.This is only a test.
From: Mysterious <unknown@uni.verse>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: ABORTION: WHEN Does Human Life BEGIN?
Date: 17 Nov 1992 02:34:38 GMT
Organization: Society of Losers
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.49.16
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d11
X-XXDate: Tue, 17 Nov 92 21:34:44 GMT

In article <195@cnmhnet.UUCP> keith garrard, keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP writes:
>cum join with me, in lobbying our nations lawmakers, into saying
>that life begins at ejaculation?  Thanks a lot.
Hey, smart egg ! Yours maybe did ! But don't ridicule other people's
opinions .There's nothing to thank for, anyway, because the simple things
in life are free.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: helie@bach.udel.edu (Ray Helie)
Subject: Re: How would *you* react?
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:43:44 GMT

mutation@dorsai.com (Florian Lengyel) writes:

" ...
  There's the possibility that they may not
  find you that interesting, or worse. Or they might, but like other
  emotionally secure people who are available, they don't have to
  be interested right away. "

Yup!  I love it!

" ...
  I think there is considerable room for challenge in achieving some kind
  of emotional security for oneself, let alone finding it in others. "

Considerable -- many people have not the strength or courage to achieve it.
(I'm *still* fighting for it!)  8-)
 
" ...
  If you don;t think emotionally secure and available people offer you any 
  romantic challenges, then try seducing one. Try finding out if you
  are as emotionally secure as they are. I think I hit on it. "

You *nailed* it!  People who are emotionally insecure cannot handle someone 
who is not.  It would force them to face their own insecurities, and
that takes a lot of courage.  Why do you think some people become so
attracted to people that are so screwed up?!!  Makes them feel healthy in 
comparison, and they never have to face their own shortcomings.
(How many people do you know who watch all those *wonderful* talk shows 
about people who have no clue what it means to be emotionally healthy?!)
 
Finding an emotionally secure person attractive is not difficult.
Finding an emotionally secure person that's *uninvolved* is the difficult 
part!  8-(  <snif>      8-)

Life *is* great, isn't it?!!!

Ray  8-)

************************************************************************
   Ray Helie         8-)                   University Of Delaware
   [helie@bach.udel.edu]                   Newark, DE
************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.romance,alt.sex,alt.polyamory,talk.religion.misc
From: smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith)
Subject: Re: Prove That Kids are Precious Gifts From God.  (Was: Re: ra-ising c-hildren)
Organization: Gagging Sloth Records
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:01:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.013945.14581@netcom.com>, rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
|> In article <16NOV199214485252@apsicc.aps.edu> jim@apsicc.aps.edu (frost...) writes:
|> >In article <1992Nov16.062327.3208@netcom.com>, rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes...
|> >>In article <1dv474INNn3@manuel.anu.edu.au> Lubosh <Lubosh.Hanuska@anu.edu.au> writes:
|> >>>
|> >>>Okay, but I think little kids are too precious gifts of God to be used
|> >>>for experiments.
|> >>>Lubosh
|> >> 
|> >>     You have to prove there is a God before you can say that little
|> >>kids or anything for that matter is a precious gift from God.
|> >	
|> >	I disagree with this statement. You don't have to prove that
|> >	there is a God to say that children are a rare gift indeed.
|> >	To take and corrupt a fresh childs mind is, or should be a crime.
|> >	If doubt be taken just talk to people who have been trying un-
|> >	successfully to have children of their own.

|> 
|>      Did I miss something here. 

Yes. The entire point of the discussion.

|> Lubosh said "...little kids are too
|> precious gifts of God...", which says that kids are precious gifts
|> from God.  I repeat and add, before Lubosh can say that kids are precious
|> gifts from God, he has to prove God exists and that God says that kids are 
|> precious gifts from HIM/HER in a scientifically verifiable way.

The point was that kids are "too precious" to use as the subjects of
experiments. You chose to jump on the fact that the statement was that
these "precious gifts"were from God. Well...that's a different discussion.

jds

***************************************************************************
                               *
Jeff Smith                     * Can't you just graduate from junior 
smith@ecs.comm.mot.com      * college and start sweeping like the rest
                               * of your kind?  Huh, rave-boy?
                               *              - Mathew Neill Sharp
***************************************************************************

Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:01:15 EST
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are you a Young Transplant?
 <1992Nov17.000122.2248@netcom.com> <1992Nov17.205924.11582@b8.b8.ingr.com>
 <lgipf2INN78a@news.bbn.com> <MARTINC.92Nov18123935@hatteras.cs.unc.edu>
 <92324.030132SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <MARTINC.92Nov19194633@h
 <MARTINC.92Nov21135629@hatteras.cs.unc.edu>

In article <MARTINC.92Nov21135629@hatteras.cs.unc.edu>,
martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) says:
>
>In article <92325.170111SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA
>(Graydon) writes:
>
>   So they take threats seriously, whereas someone who looks like Bluto
>   ought not to need to make the threat in the first place, so they must
>   be joking.
>
>   Graydon
>
>Let me guess -- you're British, aren't you?
>--
>                Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu

Nope, nth generation Canadian.
I would *never* advocate such a viewpoint, nor do I think it
makes sense.  I have run into the existence of such opinions,
though.  (The split between 'big guys are all teddybears' and
'big guys are all dangerous lunatics who want to stuff you
into garbage cans and kick you down the stairs' while frequently
of morbid immediate results *is* a good clue about people's
opinions and self image.)

Maybe you look too much like a Bluto plush toy, as opposed to
the smelly nasty actual pirate article?

Graydon