HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbj@cs.washington.edu (Dave Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:07:36 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Aug13.174628.17265@walter.bellcore.com> nobody writes:
>In article <9208130125.AA29602@regal.cisco.com> mlb@CISCO.COM (Marcia Bednarcyk) writes:
>>And gds@cs.ucla.edu writes:
>>
>>|>Also, you usually want to know as quickly as possible if things will
>>|>work out, ie. you want to know if your needs will be met, if you'll
>>|>still be able to give the attention you need to other areas of your
>>|>life, etc.
>>
>>This is exactly what I am protesting: the "are we or aren't we and if we're
>>not I'm leaving" or "cut to the chase" mentality. People want to have it all
>>spelled out in front of them, in black or white, so they can go on to the
>>next decision, finish up with this and go on. Sure it may be efficient, but
>>it's also very cold, and not much fun.
>
>While I don't agree with the urgency implied in the first quote, I don't
>agree with Marcia's implied characterization either. Are we or aren't we
>what? SOs, lovers, friends? People draw a line at different places. I might
>be more inclined towards expressing *interest* unambiguously and finding out
>unambigously whether we are mutually interested in exploring our feelings.
>I would walk if the woman insists on being ambiguous about expressing an
>interest. Some people might want to have details upto their children's names 
>resolved at the beginning. What is fun and what is cold is very subjective.

And what exactly is *interest*?  Marcia's point seems to be that
there's a period when you (and quite likely the other person too)
don't KNOW how interested you are in the other person.  Some of us
(at least Marcia and I) find that phase of a possible relationship
exciting, and a lot of the excitement comes from the ambiguity of
the situation--the not knowing and wondering what's going to happen
next.
>
> [long discussion of flirting deleted, especially since I didn't
>  see anything in the included portion of Marcia's post that even
>  mentioned flirting]
>
>>
>>Walter goes on to say:
>>|> If you are only interested in discovering the object of your affections,
>>|> then why make the affections ambiguous?
>>
>>I guess most people are, they just want to *be* in a relationship rather than
>>*form* one. Me, I find the process of getting there half the fun.
>>
>For some people, getting into a relationship is not the end but the very 
>beginning of a process of discovery and growth and exploration that is far more
>satisfying than *any* method that leads to a relationship and hence not worth
>risking it or wasting time playing games.

Oh isn't that special.  I guess for us low-lifes who don't always 
know whether a given individual is a good match for us (and that
they want to be a match for us) we are doomed to a life of wasted
time playing games....
-- 
  Dave Johnson

"You're not too smart, are you?  I like that in a man."
    --Kathleen Turner in Body Heat 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: smith@mot.com (Jeff Smith)
Subject: Re: Various ramblings
Organization: Gagging Sloth Records
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:57:50 GMT

kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:

> Now that I've experienced what it's like to have a real engine powering
> the car [Mustang GT], I'll never go back.  :-)

Real engine?  Neanderthal, over-weight, cast iron pushrod V-8s are *not*
real engines.  Oh, wait...this thread was about relationships, wasn't it?
Sorry...   :-)

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
***************************************************************************
From: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:22:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Aug20.202224.10065
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: too funky
Originator: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu

In article <3556@eastman.UUCP> garrison@kodak.com (Laurie Garrison) writes:
>Nance Colucci wrote:
>|> Well here again is the issue of choice.  If after marriage a person choses
>|> to not contribute income to the household, that's a choice.  In my opinion
>|> it's a selfish lazy choice.
>boy this statement bothers me.  does this mean that if i get married
>and have children and decide to stay home to raise them through preschool,
>i am making a 'selfish lazy choice'???  choosing to stay home with a
>baby is LAZY???  sometimes i think i would like to find a man who 
>would be willing to stay home and let *me* work...i think work is
>easier!
>in some ways, it is *more* selfish and lazy to go to work and
>not stay home with the kids.  

Staying home with children is hard work.  Going to work every day for
8-9 hours a day is hard work also.  Whichever one is harder depends on
the individuals in question and their situations; some children are
very easy to manage (some are not), some jobs are easy to do (some
are not), etc.

What couples decide to do depends on their respective incomes,
feelings about careers, and feelings about childcare.  In an ideal
world, we would get reduced hours at the same pay to raise children
until they were old enough to go to school, or affordable, available,
reliable childcare.  However, we don't live in an ideal world.  Most
couples are now feeling the pressure to have both parties earn wages
in order to make enough money to raise children, live in a nice home,
etc.

If anyone can afford to stay home and raise kids, while retaining
their position in their career, and making enough money, that is
great, but that is not the reality for very many people.

--gregbo
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: walter (Walter Lego)
Subject: Re: Married Men and Single Women
Followup-To: soc.singles
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Twisted Pair Inc.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 13:05:36 GMT

In article <71114@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>The last time this thread came up, there was a complaint that women become 
>more flirtatious (and therefore more attractive) when they're in a 
>relationship. (This was a complaint because these attractive women turned
>out not to be available.) I believe that the thread was called "broad-band
>come-on mode."

Incorrect. The thread was because of complaints from some single women that 
were overwhelmed by men that they were not attracted to and not because they
were involved.

>Gee, guess it works both ways. What a surprise.
>

No. Mostly it doesn't. Have you ever been married? Most married women
complain about becoming invisible after they start wearing a wedding ring.

					Walter

What disclaimer?
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: zagar@chester.cms.udel.edu (Randy Zagar)
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Reply-To: zagar@chester.cms.udel.edu
Organization: Marine Studies, University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:08:30 GMT

Okay, here's some easy questions.

How much time (per week) do y'all spend dealing with USENET ?

How much time (per week) do you spend doing social activities
(i.e. things that help you meet other people) ?

Do you think this is the most 'productive' distribution of you time ?

-RZ

---
 _____________________________________________________________________________
/                                                                             \
| Randy Zagar                            Get your priorities straight.        |
| Internet: zagar@Chester.CMS.UDel.Edu   No one on their death bed ever said  |
| Bell-net: 302/831-1139                 "Gee, if I'd only spent more time    |
|                                        at the office..."                    |
\_____________________________________________________________________________/

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (on the net)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 18:55:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug22.141943.5995@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>  allisson@turing.toronto.edu (H. Allisson Roome) writes:
> In article <1992Aug22.162235.11394@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
> >In  <1992Aug22.061904.19614@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>  allisson@turing.toronto.e
> >>
> >> Allisson  (if I've forgotten someone - please chastise me in private)
> >
> >Or even if you haven't?  :-)
>
> Now, Larry, you promised that you wouldn't lock me in the hammock swing
> again with the handcuffs ...

We said nothing about the manacles, though.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith)
Subject: Re: 'E' Tickets
Organization: Gagging Sloth Records
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:35:42 GMT

Enough of this nonsense!  Somebody please tell me what an 'E'
ticket is!

If I don't know, does that mean I definitely don't have one?
I'm so confused...

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
***************************************************************************
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Business Trip to LONG ISLAND
Keywords: What to do ????
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:26:57 GMT
Distribution: ny
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug17.141757.1953@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein) writes:
>
>Any offers for company would also be appreciated, drink and buffalo
>wings on me!!!

(He musta got tired of crab legs, see ...)  :-)

-Nance
-- 
Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
                            (_) \(_)                           
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius)
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 11:33:44 GMT
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez

In article <1992Aug21.034557.17131@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>In article <71348@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>>
>>Acting isn't necessarily the antithesis of honesty, openness, warmth - 
>>acting is learning how to communicate effectively (i.e., so that your
>>meaning is correctly interpreted by the audience). It may involve some 
>>exaggeration and simplification. But if you want to get something across, 
>>sometimes it is best to present a simplified version at first. Later on 
>>you can work on refining it. 
>
>Hmm...yes, this is true.
>However, if you actually *are* feeling something, is it "acting" to show
>it?
>
>My point is this:  I don't see how acting is even necessary unless what
>is being conveyed isn't an accurate representation of what is actually
>felt/believed/whatever.

Sounds like you ought to look up Marvin Minsky's _Society of Mind_.
Acting (among other things) allows you to do things you really want to
do when you've got conflicting desires.

Consider: a man thinks a woman is attractive and wants to ask her to
spend some time with him.  Yet, the fear of rejection is strong and
powerful.  He finally sidles up to her and stutters out his desire for a
date with her.  Unless she already finds him attractive, or she thinks
stutterers are cute, this approach will likely result in a negative
first impression.

The skill of acting would allow the man to *convert* his fear into a
stronger, more dynamic presentation.  (Note: public speaking is very
similar.)  You have to control your anger sometimes, right?  Well,
acting is a way of learning to control your other emotions.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

"I 'got a life'.  Now what?"
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Ugly hands
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 10:33:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.224849.24875@mks.com> fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter) writes:
>huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>>Instead of distinct heart and head lines, I've got a simian crease,
>>one line running straight across from the radial to the ulnar edges.
>
>Neat! Do you have that on both hands or just one ? (And if just one,
>is the hand that you use the most often ?)

Just one.  (Yes, although I self-tested as being almost ambidextrous.)

My father, brother, and nephew have simian creases on their less dominant
hands.

-- Herb Huston
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Subject: Re: Married Men and Single Women
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:03:46 GMT

In article <2216@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com> luzenko@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com (Bill Luzenko) writes:
>
>You can say all this confidence mumbo jumbo nance! but the facts speek otherwise
>see this article 39549 and it's another testimony yes yes!

All this confidence mumbo jumbo.











Nothing happened.  Ah well.


-Nance
-- 
Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
                            (_) \(_)                           
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:48:13 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug17.174035.26233@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>  tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>
> On the whole I'm not convinced that you're really taking that much risk
> of missing out on a sexual relationship that otherwise could have
> happened just by becoming friends with someone--sometimes it probably
> just looks that way, since many women prefer to be at least a little
> tactful and "I don't want to date you because I think of you like a
> brother" is so much more polite than "I don't want to date you because
> the thought of seeing you naked makes my skin crawl."

And in fact, by eschewing friendly relationships with women, you could
actually be hurting your chances.  Both because a female friend is the
best qualified to give you the woman's point of view (e.g., in asking
for advice in changing what you wear in order to increase your
attractiveness quotient), and because they *might* introduce you
to their girlfriends ("at first he seems like a geek, but he's really
a great guy once you get to know him").  Plus, increasing the number
of friends you have (regardless of gender) increases the number of social
events you get invited to, which in turn increases your chances of meeting
potential partners.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,talk.bizarre
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Echo, Echo, Echo?????
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 19:22:10 GMT

In article <114m1h+.aahz@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.205430.7491@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>>
>>What?  Are you suggesting that the person who sent me STEF.GIF was lying
>>about it being you?  
>>
>>Trygve   (Sheesh!  Oh, well; even if it's not you, it's still the best
>>          GIF I've got involving a studded leather bikini and a tub of
>>          Cool Whip.) 
>
>Definitely not Stef, since you failed to mention the Uzi that's
>obviously missing from the picture.

Weeeell, it's not so much missing as it's simply hard to see more than
just the end of the handle behind the bungee cords and velcro.


>-- 
>                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
>
>"I 'got a life'.  Now what?"

"Have you tried plugging it is?"   (Courtesy of Stef's Sig Shack.) 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 07:27:03 GMT

dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) paraphrases her friend:
>She said that the typical never-had-any-kind-of-relationship guy doesn't
>have anything wrong with him -- it's not that he's rude or ugly or has
>some major flaw that makes women run away.  They're usually perfectly
>nice men who just have put all of their energies into something other than

Easy to say.  I assert: they _must_ have something wrong with them,
since many of them do not put all of their energies into other things,
and furthermore, many people who _have_ done this still have found
partners.  Try and prove me wrong.  :-)  (Sorry, just feeling
argumentative.  This is glib advice from someone who has (presumably)
never been in the position she is describing.)

>people.  They've been in grad school, or they've been starting a business,
>or whatever it is that they thought was important, and they've never really
>talked much to people.  

What about the ones who have talked a lot to a lot of people?  What
about the ones who think that relationships and friendships are the
most important things in life?

>They may be able to smalltalk, but they've never practised sharing
>themselves with anyone.   

Might I suggest that a simple explanation for this is that they have
not had anybody to share themselves with?  Or perhaps they are simple
people who don't have a dark side to "share."


>that anything a person in that boat could do would be wrong.  The important
>thing was to learn how to talk to people and how to interact with people.

Fine advice if this is the problem.

>She said that the most important thing for them to do is to decide that 
>they'd like a little human company and then to interact with some humans.

>yearning for something to happen to you) then most of them start making
>friends and girlfriends relatively quickly.

Again, glib advice but unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in the
world as I know it.
-- 
Kiran Wagle                             <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
P.O.Box 2083 Bloomington IN 47402-2083      (812) 336-7478 [8p-1a EST]
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Subject: Re: Ugly hands
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:41:04 GMT

>In <1992Aug16.191149.8058@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:

>In an earlier posting, which I've lost, Dawn Hardin mentioned "ugly hands."
>What characteristics make hands ugly?

The weirdest pair of hands *I* ever saw belonged to a guy named
Gilbert who dressed and acted in, shall we say, a rather slimy way.

While the rest of his being was reasonably normal, the palms of his
hands were as light as skin could get.  The last digit of each finger
was puffy and round, like frog fingers.

Why am I doing this, nobody's going to believe it.

-Nance
-- 
Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
                            (_) \(_)                           
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: mlb@CISCO.COM (Marcia Bednarcyk)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:59:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.135903.26170@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>, nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
|> Maybe I'm an anomaly, but I love my lifestyle. 
<the wonderful things about being single deleted for space>

Hooray!

I thought I was the only one who saw and appreciated all those advantages of
being single...who wasn't desperate to get into a relationship with just
*anyone* because it would be compromise and giving up some of the independence 
and freedom that I love. (He's got to be worth it. :-)

Something I don't think I saw which I like is the freedom to fail without 
dragging anyone down with me. If I want to completely rearrange things, and
then I don't like it, I'm the only one who is incovenienced. It's a great
chance to experiment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Bednarcyk                                        ADDRESS: mlb@cisco.com
"Sweaty Snugglebunnies."
"... the meaning of life is to be happy, try not to hurt people, and hope
you fall in love."
From: wjb@moscom.UUCP (Bill de Beaubien)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Psychobabble
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:21:04 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford, NY
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Aahzmandius (aahz@netcom.com) wrote:
: The one I like is: Descartes said, "I think not," and promptly
: disappeared.

Tsk, (A implies B) doesn't imply that ((not A) implies (not B))...

Bill
-- 
"Bless me, Father; I ate a lizard."
"Was it an abstinence day, and was it artificially prepared?"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill de Beaubien / wjb@moscom.com
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Various ramblings...
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:32:21 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug15.034211.38757@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
|In  <1992Aug14.231331.4309@menudo.uh.edu>  kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
|>
|> Remember when Larry Margolis said ...
|
|No.  :-)
|
Musta been a pretty good party.

|
|> (for instance, I don't trust anyone to drive my car).
|
|(Me too.)
|
|> This will probably present considerable difficulty in a
|> relationship, where such trust is required.
|
|I've found that driving a stick shift tends to take care of this.  :-)
 
As the women in the Geo commercial said,

"Men like a women that knows how to drive a stick shift..."

|> and my interest in music (jazz in particular), which also
|> yields little to actually talk about.
|
|Do you ever go to jazz clubs?
 
Just a data point.  I'm working on organizing a net.gathering at a local
jazz club (actually a beach house that has jazz every Sunday and so far
the male/female ratio of the people that have shown interest is about even.
There is *a lot* to talk about when discussing jazz music.  There are so
many sub-genres, so many artists, so many recordings to talk about.

-- 
+============================================================================++
| John Fereira            "Is that all you ever think about?"                |
| johnf@auspex.com                                                           |
+============================================================================++
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra)
Subject: Re: BOINK! BOINK! BALLOONBOINK IN ALBUQUERQUE!
Organization: soc.singles
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:35:42 GMT

johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
> ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra) writes:
> >I must say that either of the two sunsets 
> >beats the piss out of California's.
>  
> Yea, but we've got a better view of the ocean.

     For now.  Hehheh.

--Starcap'n Ra       {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
                        {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
                                          ^---------------The Wrong Choice
                             internet: kennedy@asuvax.asu.edu