HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Women: would you go out with a man dumber than you?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 06:11:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.230028.3150@linus.mitre.org> lkahn@mitre.org (Larry Kahn) writes:
>
>   In keeping with the spirit of a current thread, I'll pose this question 
>for (semi)serious responses.  When does an "intelligence" difference start 
>to matter?  This includes level of education difference as well as someone 
>who's book smart but has zero common sense.

Of course the most difficult part is quantifying intelligence to the 
point where you can determine whether (and how much) a difference
exists.  

Personally, I figure that level of education makes very little difference;
I generally feel that if I can't explain something to a curious individual
with no background on the subject whatsoever, then I don't really understand
it myself.  (On the other hand, radically different levels of interest in
learning about the universe probably would make a difference.)  (However,
I suppose I should note that if someone knows a great deal about a subject
I know little about and is willing to explain it to someone like me, this
does definitely add to the level of attraction.)

As far as raw intelligence goes, that's a lot harder to nail down than
education--I've never been involved with anyone I thought was dramatically
less intelligent than I (hmmmm...actually, even particularly so), but I've
been involved with a few who thought they weren't intelligent and a few
who thought they were supposed to give off the impression that they weren't
all that intelligent.  While this can be a bit frustrating for a short 
while, such people can usually be convinced to drop the facade.

Trygve   (Who thinks that enthusiasm, motivation, and curiosity are much
          more important than anything that is traditionally labeled 
          "intelligence.")
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Females have it easy!
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:55:55 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

dtasman@NMSU.edu (Dan Tasman) writes:

>I'd like to set up a simple experiment ...  
>an equal amount of equally attractive men and women are placed in a social  
>setting.  Wheile the men will probably pursue the women in the traditional  
>manner, the women will be in the position of power to pick and choose who she  
>wants to end up with.  

Well, the net serves as an interesting experiment of this sort. Although
there are fewer women than men on the net, and so you might expect the men
to pursue all the more vigorously and the women to be even more passive, in
fact what you find is that the women take the initiative more frequently 
than apparently they do in society at large.
-- 
Stef                Just as there are laws of Conservation of Matter and
stef@apple.com      Energy, so there are in fact Laws of Conservation of 
                    Pain and Joy. Neither can ever be created or destroyed.
                         But one can be converted into the other. 
                                                         --Spider Robinson
From: monaghn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Mara Monaghan)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Women: would you go out with a man dumber than you?
Date: 16 Dec 1992 03:53:50 GMT
Organization: Department of Geography, U.C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: esb1mac18.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec15.230028.3150@linus.mitre.org>, lkahn@mitre.org (Larry Kahn) writes:
> 
>    In keeping with the spirit of a current thread, I'll pose this question 
> for (semi)serious responses.  When does an "intelligence" difference start 
> to matter?  This includes level of education difference as well as someone 
> who's book smart but has zero common sense.
>    And don't bother asking me if I mind going out with a woman who's 
> smarter than I am.  (Insert huge numbers of smileys here)  I never have.
	                                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
																																																													
You've answered your own question.
[It's obvious: women use intelligence
as a sorting criteria from the very
beginning of a acquaintance ;-) ]

Mara
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Attraction -> Acquiantance or vice versa?
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:23:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:

>	1) how many of you ever approached a woman on your own, whom
>	   you _did not_ find attractive in some way, for purposes of
>	   making her acquaintance?
>	2) how many of you ever, by your own free will, asked a woman
>	   out on a date, whom you did not find attractive in some way?
>	3) how many of you, actively and freely, spend significant amounts
>	   of time with a woman whom you are not attracted to?

By definition, if you spend time freely with someone, you must find
something attractive about them (defining attractive in a very broad
sense). However, many men and women perform the acts you mention without
necessarily intending to pursue a romance with the person. Furthermore, a
lot of people feel an attraction to someone and spend time with them
without a clear idea of what it is they want out of the interaction.

For example, there was a period in my life in which several men behaved in
a semi-friendly, semi-romantic way toward me, courted me with one hand and
held me at arm's length with the other. Obviously they found me attractive
in some way, but it was not a kind of attraction that they could resolve
into either friendship or romance. 
                    
--
Stef                        
stef@apple.com       Suppose there were no hypothetical questions?
From: keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Am I banished?
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:44:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: California-Nevada Methodist Homes

In article <lipnovINN7he@news.bbn.com> dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>My housemate told me of a wedding that she went to where the couple's dogs
>were in the wedding party.  They wore garlands of flowers around their
>necks and accompanied the bride down the aisle.  Now I want to get a dog

You know Dawn, it isn't as unusual as you might think to have
one's dogs as being part of the wedding party.  I'll tell 
you about my wedding this year: My bride & I had always thought
that we wanted to have our dogs in our wedding.  Unfortunately,
her dogs died before she met me, and my dog passed along after 
an adventurous 17 years.  Although we both lost our dogs, we 
haven't forgotten them.  I 've always said that when I get 
married, my dog will be my ring-bearer.  I guess he got tired of
waiting around for me to get married, so he went to doggie heaven.
Same with my bride's dogs.  They were to be her attendants.  So
since they couldn't be here in person, we put them in the wedding
anyway.  Yes, right there in the wedding program, where it tells
the names of the bride & grooms' families, best man, maid of honor,
etc, there are two listings, one for "Honorary Ring Bearer, and another
for Honorary Bridal Attendants", with the names of our dogs listed
as "the Late XXXXXX", etc.  Of course, my Daddy thought we were 
nuts, but everyone who knew me thought it was wonderful that I
had remembered my dog, cause they knew how much he meant to me.  
--Keith
From: tps@jptcs.COM (Tim Sailer)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is gold-digging?
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:33:27 GMT
Organization: JPT Computer Solutions
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Larry Billings (larry@b8.b8.ingr.com) wrote:
: In article <33@jptcs.COM>, tps@jptcs.COM (Tim Sailer) writes:
: > 
: > Well, *I* like to open doors, etc. for women... I was raised to believe
: > that things like that were just 'Manners'. Now, if we're just running
: > around, you get your own car door, but if we're out, and you're wearing
: > a skirt/dress, I'll ALWAYS get the car door so you can get in the car
: > easily without you hemline ending up around your waist, or closing the
: > door on your coat/dress/skirt.... As for opening the door to a building
: > for someone, I'll always hold the door for the person behind me, regardless
: > of who/what gender they are, and then follow them in. I know... so I'm
: > strange.... I can deal with it! :)
: > 
: > Tim
: > -- 
: 
: You may be strange but not entitely unique, I've been there-done that.

Thanks for the vote of confidence! :)

-- 
Tim Sailer
JPT Computer Solutions - SCO Sales/Consulting/Administration and Mangling
Port Jefferson Station, NY
(516) 331-9001
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: small question
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 06:26:20 GMT

erc@Apple.COM (Ed Carp) writes:

] In article <1992Dec10.214852.16800@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] 
] >1. Do You consider Orgasm to be an Addictive/Obsessive Behavior?
] 
] >If You answered NO to question #1, you
] >are CLEARLY in DEEP DENIAL and should
] >seek therapy....
] 
] >ps: >>IT<< CAN be cured....
] 
] Yes, it can.  Just make an appointment with Dr. Ed (aka the talking horse),
] and Dr. Ed will cure you... :) :)  Look for my ad in the Yellow Pages:
] 
] "Orgasm inhibition - fear of orgasm - fear of not having an orgasm..."
] 
] "All these can be CURED!!!"
] 
] "Surface or deep tissue therapy available (both at once at a slight
] additional charge)"
] 
] "Call today - you'll be surprised at how inexpensive you can be cured, and
] how quickly!  Call TODAY!"
] -- 
] Ed Carp, 



Is this what they mean by carping?

Or was that harping?

ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Analysis Standards Supporting HeteroDyne Orthoganal Linear Enhancement Systems
ASSHOLES The Model of the Modern Major Manager's Mangement Tool! 
Posix Compliant, Xwindow InterOperable, A Unix Standard!
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein)
Subject: Re: New Relationships...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:12:39 GMT

In article <Br-JrAmPBh106h@wildrose.infoserv.com> wildrose!rkf@infoserv.com writes:
>sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein) writes:
>
>>I'm flattered.  Shall we start a club?
>
>>  The "Nice Guy in Search for His Princess Club".
>
>>It's interesting.  You always hear about the woman searching for her
>>Prince.  How about us guys?  What are we looking for?  Slugs ????
>
>That's _sluts_, Steve.  ;-)
>
>(Hey, I know spelling flames are a drag, but some errors are just too
>critical to let stand....)
>
>-- 
>-- Ray

No, I meant "Slugs" not sluts.  

(Although, sluts do have their good points in some instances.)

A slut is someone guys would not think twice about having sex with,
but wouldn't even think of making one his wife.  
					
                 Steve Stein  (609) 639-2264
    *******************************************************
    *  Just my opinion, though it could change tomorrow   *
    *******************************************************         
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.men,soc.net-people
From: xxj8754@ultb.isc.rit.edu (X.X. Jin)
Subject: Need a place to live close to East Syracuse, NY
Originator: xxj8754@ultb
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:18:37 GMT

Hi. I am not sure if this is the correct newsgroup to post, but
I just cannot find *room* newsgroup.

I am a graduate student at Rochester Institute of Technology,
and am going to do a co-op at East Syracuse starting January.

I am in urgent need to find a place to live in Syracuse. I am 
male, 22, single, Oriental. I can cope with almost anybody
except drug users.

If you can help me, please type `r'. Thanks.

--
Xia Jin
xxj3910@cs.rit.edu
xxj8754@ultb.isc.rit.edu
Rochester Institute of Technology
(716) 272-7721
-- 
Xia Jin

#include	<standard.disclaimer>
#include	<witty.saying>
From: dvp@oasis.icl.co.uk (Geezer)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:46:20 GMT
Organization: The Mountains of Madness
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

liz@vfl.paramax.com (Liz Loquacious) writes:
> 
> And there's a lot to what Desiree says about reevaluating the situation given
> a "today scenario".  The reality of a pregnancy is a lot different that the
> hypothetical.  I wouldn't have anything to do with someone who wouldn't "allow"
> me to follow my heart in the matter if my feelings changed after and due to a 
> bun in the oven, so to speak. 

Follow your heart by all means but keep your hands off my wallet.

 And yes, if the new dad-to-be had a change of
> heart I'd want to know but it's my health and life that's on the line, not
> his so I do not see the double standard.
> 

But I bet you'd still make him pay if you decided to keep it against
his wishes.
> |> 
> |>      The negotiated agreement shows that a woman and I take
> |> responsibility for our past actions.  Legally, since she does not have
> |> to be sensitive to my changing needs if she wants to abort and I want to
> |> keep the child, why should I be sensitive to her changing needs?
> 
> Ever try a relationship based on mutual respect and compassion instead of
> this quid pro quo crap?  
> 
Where's the mutual respect if only what she desires counts?

> Liz Loquacious 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------              Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year          -------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is gold-digging?
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:11:31 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <yyFyVB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> rcf@netlink.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) writes:

>You've really got to stop evaluating men on the 
>basis of how "special" they make you feel.  That's one of the oldest 
>ploys in the book.

I've "got to," eh?

You're right, Bob.  I see the light.  I should drop my sweetie and start
going out with *real* men who _don't_ make me feel special.  Heaven forbid
I should make them feel special, either.  

  

-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
From: keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Abortion
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:52:18 GMT
Organization: California-Nevada Methodist Homes

In article <1992Dec15.214332.28102@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly) writes:
>Anyway, please accept my apologies.  I know I was pretty mean to
>you, but do feel warmly reassured that I nevertheless truly value
>your basic worth as a person.  OK?  Ciao.

Thanks, Gadfly.  Accepted.  Truce, OK?  I admit it, I like to 
stir things up every once in a while.  This time I happened
to be wrong.  I've admitted it.  Thanks for your reply.
--Keith

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Subject: Re: Attraction -> Acquiantance or vice versa?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:25:21 GMT

In article <75611@apple.apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>
>>stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
><description of men who behaved in a semi-friendly semi-romantic manner>
>
>>That's a new one for me.... the pushme-pullyou relationship :-)
>>I would be interested in hearing how you first met these "ambivalent" men.
>>Was first contact by means of you approaching them, of them approaching
>>you, or by third-party introduction?  I cannot help but think that
>>ambivalence on the part of the one is more likely to happen when first
>>was initiated by somebody other than the one.  What do you think?
>
>I agree with your theory only in the short term. If you ask someone out 
>you will probably not feel ambivalent about them right away, but that's no
>guarantee that ambivalence won't develop sooner or later.
>
Stef, this still seems strange to me.  One would think that folx would
make up their minds sooner or later.  How long does it _really_ take
for somebody to decide whether their interest is romantic or just-friendly?
As for me, I have a real problem with "fence-sitters".

>I met one of the men at work and the other in my college dorm. There
>was no standard courtship ritual in either case, with one person going out
>of their way to ask the other person out. Hardly any of my romances have 
>started that way. They've all begun with two people getting to know each 
>other and trading off making little moves until they're involved. 

I guess then that "stranger things have happenned".  I have seen it happen
all-too-often, that if enough time passes (time enough for folx to "get
to know" each other) without one party or the other "making a move", then
each assumes that the other is not interested, and possibly "adopt" each other
like brother and sister.  In other words, the "window" of mutual romantic
possibilities is finite.

Keith R
>
>--
>                  A more intimate theology, and one more consonant with 
>Stef              the nature of...love, pictures a demonic force engaged  
>stef@apple.com    in continuous creation and participation. - Iris Murdoch


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright)
Subject: Re: Giving and Receiving
Organization: The Cultural Elite
	<1992Dec15.225108.23380@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:16:59 GMT

tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:

>Just to put in a contrary data point, be a little careful of whom you give
>rocks to, when, and under what circumstances.  A little while ago, not too
>long after I got out of surgery for putting my leg back together (me, the
>person who gets hit by cars while bicycling and collects nary a scratch,
>slips in the snow and manages to break and/or dislocate almost everything
>below the knee

Ouch.  Sorry to hear that.

>[...] a friend of mine dropped by and presented me
>with a fairly large rock that, near as I can tell, was a random one that he
>had picked up along the roadside.  He seemed so proud of it, I couldn't bring
>myself to hurt his feelings by mentioning that I really didn't want a rock
>in my bed, but after he left, I did get someone to put it somewhere else.

Wow... practically right after surgery, lying around a hospital bed, he 
still manages to get his rocks off.  I admire your spirit, Trygve.

---Julie (wondering if Trygve set that one up deliberately, or if it was
	  just serendipitous)

Oh, and a p.s. about gifts (yes, I'm actually saying something related to
the Subject, just to break with tradition):  A friend of mine
has a real talent for giving neat gifts that make us all feel appreciated
while costing her very little money (she's poor) and not much effort.
One year she got cheapy white and black sneakers ($2/pair or something) 
and some colored permanent fabric paint and wrote and drew things in bright 
colors on the shoes.  (Maybe I was reminded because the pair for my roommate,
who's a geologist, said, "Ask a geologist..." on one shoe, and "...how to
get your rocks off!" on the other.  Her mom saw them and was trying to see
what they said, and my roommate said something like, "Oh, they say, 'Ask
a geologist about rocks!'")  Another year, she made little kits to make
breads and cakes and things -- assembled the dry ingredients in "mixes"
and put them in little baggies -- and her husband wrote out the recipes
in nice lettering on pretty paper.  Can't remember any others offhand,
but I've always been impressed at how she can make us all feel celebratory
while not making anyone feel burdened by the obligation to buy something
expensive in return.
-- 
%  I wonder why it is that when I plan a route too carefully it      %
%  goes to pieces, whereas if I blunder along in blissful ignorance  %
%  aimed in a fancied direction I get through with no trouble.       %
%                      --- John Steinbeck (_Travels with Charley_)   %
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: pickerig@eee.bham.ac.uk (Guy Pickering)
Subject: Re: Giving and Receiving
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 11:22:20 GMT
Organization: The University of Birmingham, England
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

I am interested more in the sort of things you give to, or like to
receive from, someone who is special to you, not particularly for
Christmas, anytime really. 

I like the toys idea, I would never have thought of Keliedascopes
(HaHaSpellingError).

Guy.


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: gembura@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jerry Robert Gembura)
Subject: wishes
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 21:29:56 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

Merry XXX-mass and a Happy Nude Year everyBODY

Jerry
From: diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Kissing Frogs
Date: 13 Dec 92 18:13:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <Bz6Hqn.DvI@CAM.ORG> souchay@CAM.ORG (Francois Souchay) writes:
>In article <7894@news.duke.edu> diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) writes:
>>"All men are either clueless or assholes.  If you meet one who seems
>> to be neither, he's probably an asshole."
>
>Odd, neither my male nor my female friends fit within this clueless/asshole
>probability density function.  Of course, the men under 30 tend to take
>equality as a given, as opposed to the mid-thirties who need a bit 
>of education. 

Um, this statement was uttered by a 23-year-old, so I'm not sure that
your assumptions about age are justified.  

This was meant to be a joke, but after reading it again I think I'll stand
by it, if I can amend it to include the whole human race and not just the
male half.  My friend said it because I was complaining that some male
in whom I was interested just wasn't getting the idea.  (If I recall the
context correctly, I had asked this person out a number of times, he 
usually said yes, we went out to all kinds of places... but somehow the
relationship just didn't get past that point).  

What he MEANT was, that although I was complaining that this male was
being overcautious, hesitant, afraid to take my signals at face value
(i.e. "clueless"), the alternative would have been for him to be overconfident,
pushy, ready to take ambiguous signals as clearcut signs to move in for the 
kill (i.e. an "asshole").   There's really only one third alternative, 
"mindreader", and they don't come along very often.  Moreover, it made me 
aware that I was doing exactly the same thing; trying to use ambiguous 
non-verbal signals to determine whether my interest was returned, and 
analyzing those signals in the most pessimistic way possible because that 
method offered the least chance of offending the other person and/or getting
my ego blown out of the water.

>Mightn't it somewhat more useful to concentrate on analysing socialization
>in the last decade of the 20th century instead of casting out easy slogans?

Look, it wasn't a slogan, it was a JOKE.  Okay, okay, I didn't include
a smiley because I thought it was obvious.  I have erred.  Retroactive
smiley for the humor impaired: :-).  And I don't think analyzing socialization
in the last decade of the 20th century (whatever the hell that means, and good
luck getting it done on soc.singles anyway)  precludes taking the occasional
cheap but amusing (and non-serious) potshot at the opposite sex.  

>Besides elizabeth, he never stated what category *he* belonged to. Hmph.

He was definitely clueless.

				--Diamond

diamond@acpub.duke.edu| We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn
Elizabeth S. Abrams   | them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress 
		      | but the memory of the smell of smoke, and the  
                      | presumption that once our eyes watered. -Tom Stoppard
Newsgroups: soc.singles