HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Help, What Is Wrong With ME?(I'M NEW)
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:07:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.075317.13667@cam.compserv.utas.edu.au>
rthoff@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au (Rudolph van't Hoff) writes:

>I did say it quite clearly that:
>		I am 19, and have been single for the past 3 to 4 years......etc

No, you said

>I am 19, single and have been...
		       ^
>look a comma, I think that means pause!!!!!! and add comment after!!!!!!!!
>
>Well anyway I'm sure you are all just having a bit of fun!!!!! I know I am!

Of course.  That's what this is for, isn't it?

Besides, even the way you want it interpreted sounds like you got
divorced at age 15 or 16.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Testosterone enhances women's sexual desires
Date: 26 Sep 92 23:50:07 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa

In article <1992Sep23.144601.12795@news.acns.nwu.edu>, drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max) writes:

> Ya know Mark, its real easy to see [...]

... why you're trying to change the subject.

   Here's some more info:

   "In the 1980s, researchers gave happily married women who experienced
surgical removal of their ovaries (surgical menopause) tiny amounts of
testosterone along with their estrogen replacement therapy.  All women
reported enhanced sexual desire and arousal and an increase in the 
number of sexual fantasies they experienced compared to women given a
placebo.  The number of orgasms and episodes of intercourse did not
change.

   "This and other studies have confirmed that rather than changing
physiological functioning during sex, testosterone replacement results
in increased sexual motivation and desire in post-menopausal women."

   -- from "Sexuality", a syndicated column by Dr. June Reinisch 
(director of the Kinsey Institute) in Friday's Ottawa Citizen


   HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYBODY!


misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Subject: Re: Embarrasment of the Day
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 03:42:41 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 <6417@gemini.cs.nps.navy.mil> me@gemini.cs.nps.navy.mil writes:

>First:  How does one wear a miniskirt that comes down a few inches below
>        ones pantyline not realize that it's caught in the back of ones
>        stockings.  Sounds like a *heap* of BS to me!

You have a lot of experience wearing miniskirts, obviously.  Would
you care to pass on any tips to 'e', Mr. whatever-the-hell-your-name-is?

>         If you have a nice rear, they wanted to watch; if you have a
>         fat rear, they couldn't watch.  What's wrong with that.  You're
>         the one wearing a short miniskirt in the first place.  If you
>         didn't want men to look at you and perhaps strech their 
>         imaginations, you'd dress a little more conservatively.

Is there any particular man women are supposed to dress exclusively
for, or is it the intergral over all men?  I suppose it's beyond the
pale to think that clothing selection may involve something other than
what'll make men get woodies, huh?

>Article 77159 of soc.singles:
[33 lines (with headers!) deleted.]

We _saw_ the article.  Do you just not know how to drive a newsreader,
or do you just not care about anybody else?

(Actually, this was what pushed me over the edge to flame you.  If
you edit a little better, you can probably get away with posting
more ignorant stuff.)

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, Networking Technical Leader
Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, TX
(214) 497-4405
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Subject: Re: The Engaged Psychobitch from Hell Syndrome
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 02:03:52 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 <1992Sep24.095502.7264@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> ron@turing.toronto.edu (Ron Wessels) writes:

>ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>>Emma (still holding her position!)

>But Emma, holding your position is so ... lifeless.  It's >so< much better
>if you move with the rhythm.

Can she help it if her mother told her to lie back and think of Eire
when she was a little girl? :-)

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, Networking Technical Leader
Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, TX
(214) 497-4405
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: E.W. - It's my birthday today!: )
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:43:08 GMT

> 
> In article <ewillims.717332447@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
> 
>    I'm now the grand old age of 26, over a quarter of a century,
>    aaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!
> 

Wait until 34 rolls around, and you are over 1/3 of the way there.

They say that life doesn't begin till 40.  I hope this is true, because 
mine hasn't yet, at least I hope it hasn't.  How would I know?

Larry Billings
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: BARBIE DOES IT AGAIN!!!!
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:37:50 GMT

joni@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (joni.dunlap) writes:

>I got this from soc.women. Mattel really did it this time It is bad enough
>that Barbie instills an unattainable body image to our little girls now
>they are now reinforcing fear of math.

>     According to the Wall Street Journal this morning, Mattel is selling
>     a product called "Teen Talk Barbie" which says 4 phrases.  One of the 
>     phrases is "Math class is hard".  I can't imagine a product better
>     designed to program math avoidance into little girls.

But--math class _is_ hard!  I never did figger out algebra.  

(Category theory, on the other hand, now that's easy.  Topology too.)

But seriously, I do agree that this is not the kind of thing Barbie
ought to say.  Do make your views known to the offending parties:

>    If you have views on this subject that you would like to share
>    with the Mattel company, you can call 1-800-421-2887 or write to
>    Mattel at 330 Continental Blvd., El Secundo, Ca. 90245.
-- 

Kiran Wagle                           <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: What we find attractive
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 18:12:50 GMT

Here are some results from various psychological studies expressed as
correlation coefficients:

+0.9 level: religion, ethnic background, race, socio-economic status,
            age, political views.
+0.4 level: measures of personality and intelligence, e.g., extroversion,
            neatness, and IQ.
+0.2 level: physical traits, i.e., people tend to select mates who look
            like themselves!

The physical traits included height, weight, hair color, eye color, and
skin color.  However, they also included nose breadth, earlobe length,
wrist circumference, distance between eyes, and lung volume.  One of the
highest, though, was length of the middle finger (+0.61), which seems to
be more important than either intelligence or hair color.

The lengths of my middle fingers are 7.8 cm (left) and 8.0 cm (right).
I'm still trying to figure out how to measure my own interocular distance.

-- Herb Huston
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams)
Subject: Re: The Engaged Psychobitch from Hell Syndrome
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 16:02:48 GMT

In <19v21nINNn1s@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:

>In article <ewillims.717415483@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>>I would not want my fiance/lover to sleep with anyone else no matter 
>>what the reason, even for an altruistic one or because he was living
>>a long way away from me (actually, I would worry about that!:).

>You're engaged to someone far away??!  Wow!  When did this happen?

>How did you two meet?  How did you come to the decision to marry, over the
>intervening distance?

	Did I say I was engaged??  I just meant that I wouldn't want 
someone who I was seriously involved with (be he a fiance' or lover)
to sleep with anyone else!
	I must watch what I say around here! (*GRIN*)
From: me@gemini.cs.nps.navy.mil
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: RE:  Embarrasment of the Day
Summary: Sounds like a load of BS
Date: 26 Sep 92 05:44:43 GMT

First:  How does one wear a miniskirt that comes down a few inches below
        ones pantyline not realize that it's caught in the back of ones
        stockings.  Sounds like a *heap* of BS to me!

Second:  To answer your questions about why the men didn't say anything.

         If you have a nice rear, they wanted to watch; if you have a
         fat rear, they couldn't watch.  What's wrong with that.  You're
         the one wearing a short miniskirt in the first place.  If you
         didn't want men to look at you and perhaps strech their 
         imaginations, you'd dress a little more conservatively.



Article 77159 of soc.singles:
From: epg@nature.Berkeley.EDU (little 'e' string)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Embarrasment of the Day
Date: 23 Sep 92 05:45:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Bourbon Street
NNTP-Posting-Host: nature.berkeley.edu


During breaktime in my accounting class this evening, I accidentally
made a spectacle of myself.  I had just returned to my seat when a woman
came over to me and informed me that the hem of my miniskirt (which
normally comes down a few inches below my pantyline), was tucked into my
stockings.  I quickly pulled it back into place, thanked her, and looked
around to see if anyone else had noticed.  Strangely enough, only one
other woman seemed to have noticed and the three or four men present
(including the Professor) appeared to be completely oblivious to my
"exposure."

This makes me wonder, did the men really not notice, or were they being
polite by not telling me that my skirt was hiked up?  Or is this similar
to the "nice guy" not wanting to look "interested" in a woman?  Or were
they just a bunch of "dirty old men" who wanted to look at my rear as
long as they could?

Just me,

little 'e'

ObPremt: Or perhaps I just don't have the type of *figure* my
accounting Prof is interested in. :)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: yyz@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (donald.w.coons)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:20:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.200745.377@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>In article <lcen5hINN6j9@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.190952.28341@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>>
>
>Well, let him!  There are far worse things I could accuse him of being
>than a pregnant woman.  Being pregnant might be just what he needs.  :-)
>

Actually what Eddie needs to do, involves the act which gets one pregnant.

How's your comprehension on this one Eddie?
From: craig@kralizec.zeta.org.au (Craig Dewick)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Date: 30 Sep 92 08:14:07 GMT
Organization: Kralizec Dialup Unix Sydney: +61-2-837-1183 V.32

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

>When it comes to a human-type lifemate, it's not a really good idea to
>let your gonads do the choosing.  Don't choose at all.  Just go live your life
>and persue your interests and the people you meet along the way will be
>part of your life already, have the same goals, probably be a HELL of a lot
>easier to talk to, and will in time become the most beautiful people in the
>world.

This is what I've been thinking most of the time, but it's a little
difficult to see how this approach will work considering that my
interests and occupation are far from being 'mainstream'. Then again,
I often concurrently think that if I don't mentally 'force' myself to
actively seek a female partner, I'll end up meeting one that is just
right least when I expect it, but also right when I need someone to
help me through my life.
-- 
                                 ________  ________  ___
Craig Dewick               |    /  ___  / /  __   / /  /   --   RAILWAY
Send email to:             |   /  _    / /  _____/ /  /   --   PRESERVATION
craig@kralizec.zeta.org.au |  /__/ |__| /__/      /__/   --   INDUSTRIES
From: brentaa@ac.dal.ca (brent, eh?)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: relationship gone to pot?
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:06:21 -0300
Distribution: na
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Oct1.212146.16302@cheshire.oxy.edu>, ac@cheshire.oxy.edu (Aileen Cho) writes:
> 
>    Thanks for the input. Actually, in response to that last post including
> presumed dialogue between me and him, well, damned if we even talked _that_
> much. And excuse me, but I had no intention of ever wanting him to quit.
> Sometimes I smoked it too. But yes, we didn't communicate very well, and 
> the harder it was to say anything to each other, the more he would take off
> and smoke with other people and talk less and less to me. I don't care that
> he smoked it every day, but there obviously had to be a choice for him. NOt
> both. I suppose it can affect your libido?
>   I'm being a bit sensitive here, but it's because one of the things I try
> hardest to do in interaction with others is _not_ to try and change their
> lives for them. Maybe be a part of that life, but not force it to change.
>    Thanks to all the sympathizers, advisers, etc.
>                                                 --ac

	Well, sounds to me like you got your head screwed on right, my advice 
would be to dump this loser (I realize I can't really know that he is a loser
since I havn't met him, this is a purely judgemental piece of advice, so feel 
free to ignore it...) and find yourself someone who really cares about you.
If he cares more about smoking up than talking to you, it's pretty clear
that the relationship is going nowhere, so you'd probably be better off
without him.
	Of course, I really have no idea of the actual situation, so use
your own judgement....

						-Brontosaur the meddler

P.S.    If you do dump him, I'm available, and I love to talk...... ;-)
 


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 16:29:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.163355.11284@cs.ucla.edu> gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.185358.2086@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>>in <ewright.717452240@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: 
>>] But what kind of dates?  As I've said before, looks per se are
>>] only part of it.  But the sports/fitness craze is a cultural thing.
>>] What do people do when they go out on a date?  They go out running,
>>] or biking, or play tennis, or golf, or racketball.  Or maybe they
>>] go to a baseball or basketball game.
>>All of those are pretty darned atypical--most people I know are more
>>into things like dinner, movies, plays, or just hanging out.
>
>Why do you claim these things are atypical, just because most people
>*you* know are more into other things?  Could it be that some people
>find sports activities more enjoyable, while others find evening
>activities more enjoyable.
>
>I had a lot of friends when I lived in the SF bay area who were into
>sports.  I wouldn't claim that it was atypical for others to
>participate in evening activities, though.

OK, good point--I've never really thought of such activities as "dates"
even though one certainly might do them with a romantic partner, but I
concede that some people might well consider them so.  (Still, there are
people (I would go so far as to say most) who do go on dates that don't
involve participating in a sport, contrary to what EVW claims.)

Actually, I do find sports activities enjoyable--indeed, weightlifting
together seems to be one of the more effective seduction techniques 
(not completely sure why--maybe they just think, "hey, we're hot, sweaty,
and scantilly clad already--might as well do other hot and sweaty things.").

Trygve 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith)
Subject: Re: To all those "Christian girls"
Organization: Gagging Sloth Records
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 21:31:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.062822.15759@newshost.anu.edu.au>, just me writes:
|>  HEY, all of you who are reading the stuff that doesn't carry your address !
|> And not just reading, you're responding to it ! Anyway, I don't mind, at least
|> it proves my point there are no interested girls of the kind I'd like to talk
|> to ...
|> Thanks, folks, and next time try to make fun of somebody else ...
|> I love you all, anyway, and you can't change it.


What?! Did you mean to send email to "christian@girls" or something? What
are you talking about?!

This was *not* a good post to read on two hours of sleep and no coffee...

jds

***************************************************************************
                               * Health and knowledge and wealth and power,
Jeff Smith                     * Passion and poems and sex
smith@fl08-g.comm.mot.com      * I wear a smile like a leather glove,
                               * I won't shut my mouth for less.
                                                - shriekback
***************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 10:22:04 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <ewright.717440628@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>However, I have never known a woman 
>who was attracted to my physique.  In other words, I have never known
>a woman who found me physically attractive.  If my physique does not
>attract women, who can I possibly say that I am physically attractive?

Prove this.
How do you >know< that there have never been any women that find you
physically attractive? Have you asked each and every one of them?

I'm beginning to get the impression that you're using your unattractivness,
whether actual or self-percieved, as an excuse to hide behind.
You continually claim that Physical Appearance is not important, but go
running for its cover every time!
OK- an example. Phil Collins. Lead singer for Genesis. Short, balding, near,
if not over 40, kinda pudgy. He probably gets more offers for sex in a week
than somebody like even Trygve gets in a year. Is he 'Physically Attractive'?
By 'Societal Standards' no, not by a longshot. Is he considered Sexy? You
had damn well better believe it. And its not his money that women are after,
either.
r.
Xref: sparky soc.singles:27077 alt.romance:12291 alt.romance.chat:19143 talk.bizarre:32962
From: mjd@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Mark-Jason Dominus)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance,alt.romance.chat,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: How long has it been?
Summary: p.s. this is all true
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:41:57 GMT
Followup-To: misc.misc
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
In-reply-to: mneeley@nyx.cs.du.edu's message of 6 Oct 92 13:46:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.134605.16183@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mneeley@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark Neeley) writes:
>   How long has it been since you were kissed by a member of
>   the opposite sex?

    Maybe a day and a half.  But it's been nearly eight months since the
last time a lesbian fucked me in the ass with a rubber strap-on dildo.

And yourself?

--

                And for to se, and eek for to be seye
Mark-Jason Dominus 	  			    mjd@central.cis.upenn.edu
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: BARBIE DOES IT AGAIN!!!!
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:10:46 GMT
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: joni@cbnewsf.cb.att.com's message of 30 Sep 92 18:09:24 GMT

... or "Can you see my feet?  Do my shoes match?"
--
Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu/(ne crm@cs.duke.edu) 
O/Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
H/3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am he who walks the States with a barb'd tongue, questioning every
one I meet,/Who are you that wanted only to be told what you knew
before?/ Who are you that wanted only a book to join you in your
nonsense?"  _Leaves of Grass_ xxiii.4.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: The Engaged Psychobitch from Hell Syndrome
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 16:08:33 GMT

In article <29275@hydra.Helsinki.FI> taina@cs.Helsinki.FI (Juha Taina) writes:
>ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>>sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>>ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>>>
>>>>How can anyone be "seriously committed" to a relationship and NOT be 
>>>>monogamous?  
>>>
>>>I've seen it.  I don't know "how", but it is, therefore it is
>>>possible.
>>
>>	I still reserve judgement till I've really seen it work
>>myself...I've seen it attempted and end in total unmitigated
>>disaster!
>
>Just like any other relationship.
>
>There's a high probability that any relationship will fail.  I don't
>think that polygamous relationship is in a bigger risk than a
>monogamous one.

Well, only one of Brigham Young's wives ever sued him divorce.  (She lost
the suit, but Young had to engage in some tricky legal maneuvering.)

-- Herb Huston
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: richwing@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rich Wingerter)
Subject: Re: The Engaged Psychobitch from Hell Syndrome
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 05:04:22 GMT

In article <ewillims.717173729@unix1.tcd.ie>, ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
|> How can anyone be "seriously committed" to a relationship and NOT be 
|> monogamous?  

If you aren't seriously committed to all of your relationships, you are wasting
a lot of people's time.  All you have to do is show up for each of the
relationships you have.  When you're at work, you do work things; when you are
shopping, you shop.


--Rich Wingerter
From: jdavidso@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Bar/Club Scene
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:42:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Sep30.214256.18204
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

Distribution: world

In article <2@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)  
writes:
>  
> I'd have to say I got a slightly better reaction than that.  It was so
> corny and spontaneous that she couldn't help but bust up laughing.  I 
> caught her looking my way a couple more times, perhaps to see if my fly 
> came undone again, and when I made eye contact she just started laughing  
again. 
> She gave a nice friendly wave when I left.
> 
> Question: Was she laughing at me or with me?  
> 
> -- 
I would assume with you, until told otherwise.
--
************************************************************************
 the Lost Cause                       jdavidso@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
(hardwaire guy extraordinaire)       MACTech,NeXTtech; NeXTmail accepted
                      "Everything is relative."
************************************************************************