HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne)
Subject: Is that really you? ( was Re: Oxymorons, and other important trivia)
Summary: Me thinketh not
Organization: 1-800-Dentist
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:56:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.234231.21202@oracle.us.oracle.com> akao@.com (Adam Kao)?
 puts Monica, Oleg and I in our respective places ... kinda like a hero
  sandwich

[entire 100+ line article explaining what clueless people we are deleted]

	Diane?  Is that really you? 


Desiree

Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: aldridge@netcom.com (Jacquelyn Aldridge)
Subject: Re: Singles services - Together
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:53:46 GMT

craigbr@informix.com (Craig Browning) writes:

>I bet there would be a lot of people interested in any experiences
>ba.singles members have had with singles matchmaking services.

>Would anyone like to tell about their experience with this or anuother
>introduction service?

	One of my friends was mentioning one that he used. It had video
interviews of each person and one could then call the person in the video
to make a coffee date. It had cost about 1000- and he had privileges for a
year.. He hadn't had too much luck with it. The women he picked he didn't 
get to coffee with. I told him I should go in and pick them. He'd probably 
have better luck. 

	Have you noticed on the dating games on tv how often the audience
is better at selecting the right potential date of three for the person
interviewed. People can be very acute in judging whether two other people
are likely to get along, at least on a date.
From: Jawara@Applelink.Apple.COM (Ron Drake)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: HappyHappyHappy! JoyJoyJoy!
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:09:34 GMT
Followup-To: ba.singles
Distribution: ca
Organization: Me, The Whole Me and Nothing But

In article <1993Jan12.022043.2642@netcom.com>, desiree@netcom.com (Desiree
Champagne) wrote:
> 
> In article <Jawara-110193130034@jawara.apple.com> Jawara@Applelink.Apple.COM 
> (Ron Drake) oozes joy, glee and smug attitude with:
> 
> >Too serious.
> 
> 	Serious?
> 
> > All this flamage
> 
> 	Hey, it's cold out -- we gotta keep warm.
> 
> >All this enmity. Adam retiring from the
> >stage with a Gettysburg Address-like post. Desiree telling Ed to "be
> >fruitful and multiply" in the Woody Allen sense. Oleg hurling smelt
> >from the loft. Pre-sex contracts. Post-nasal drip. PMS. Rueing thirty
> >instead of considering the alternative.
> 
> 	I take it you don't the current topics being discussed?
> 
> >I've been guilty of this behavior myself. I'm also guilty of turning
> >over a new leaf.
> 
> 	Yea, and rabbits molt every year too -- what's your point?
> 
> > I side with the two Personal Ads and the woman who
> >said she's been happy since the new year started. The sun is shining,
> >I love somebody VERY much and I'm going skating!
> 
> 	How do you "side" with a personal ad?  Just curious...
> 
> >And, as he bladed into the slough turn at Shoreline, this bright
> >little ditty faded with him into the distance: always look on the
> >bright side of life...
> 
> 	and keep an eye on large semi's bearing down on you at 80mph...
> 
> Desiree

You'll be pleased to know that the semi pasted me. I'm in traction,
typing with one hand and sipping champagne through a Flex-Straw. My
bandages are singed and I've still got a smile on my face. Have a
nice day! =)
From: desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: Cars and Other Fun Stuff (wasRe: Turning 30!!)
Summary: Now that I'm losing my voice
Date: 11 Jan 93 03:40:30 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Who cares

In article <1993Jan11.022859.15031@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
plays with:

>I said:
>
>	S'OK, Des, you're a funky Rolls kinda woman.

	Yea, I'll even take stale ones too. (ar ar ar)

>>>Having a *great* day...
>>	Why?  You get laid last night?
>
>	Not in a Miata, for sure - no room ;-).

	Kenn, Kenn, Kenn. You're not using your noggin.  Think in terms of
how; not in can't...  

	Report back to me.  

Desiree
Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne)
Subject: Re: Perfect Match (was-Re: If he bothers you...)
Summary: First homicide of the year...
Organization: Beds Beds Beds
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:49:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.031747.27629@netcom.com> bob@netcom.com (Bob Becker) 
blabs:

[junk about scores deleted -- we all know the score anyway]

>Great!  Now if all these people will show up for....
>
>		Chicks 'n Dudes '93 - The Boink
> 
>We can all watch them battle it out in person.

	Ummmmm.  Blatent advertisting on the net.  Tell us Bob, what
is your take from all of this?  Besides the perverse pleasure you get
out of watching the participants go at it on the mattress?

Curious,

Desiree

Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: hjb@netcom.com (H. J. Bae)
Subject: Re: Cars and Other Fun Stuff (wasRe: Turning 30!!)
Organization: Peaceful Star Project
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 08:09:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.060858.6121@netcom.com> desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne) writes:
>	SE, I was asking about being happy -- not content.  One can be
>content, at the moment, but still be deeply unhappy. 

to be more specific, being alone alone wont make me happy, whatever
that means [ in times of 'happiness', i was only thinking that, and
also demanding others to delude themselves into thinking the same,
likewise ].  the fact is, i don't want to live it up. i don't want to
make a trip to acapulco, nyc or berlin. and as you know, i don't want
to be with my wife, make that x-wife, i don't want to be alone, and i
don't want to be with anyone else.  i don't want yet another 'single'
thing. no person, no feeling, no idea would ever solve the problem of
this ovulated, oppressive, overdecorated room. in my alone-ness,
contentment, isolation from stupid fucks, i seek only peace & silence.
but after confining myself to swivels, snivels, and swivels of a chair
reading pseudo intellectual detective novels, listening to my neighbor
cry in her loft [ for behind every closed door, there is a woman
crying], i'm affected by momentary loss of contentment, upon occasion,
craving for a 'warm body', that's all. and talking [typing] this shit
in like this is theraputic, actually, and relieves such momentary
lapses, an incision made by some preverse nerve in my brain. yet, as
the singing detective says, you may catch me singing the singing,
thinking the thinking, but nobody will catch me feeling the feeling.

love
hwajin


-- 
hjb@netcom.com
Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne)
Subject: Circle Jerks (was Re: Oxymorons, and other important trivia)
Summary: Elvis was a junkie
Organization: Ed's Hospice For Posting Bulemics
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 05:56:55 GMT


Tim Wood writes in response to Ed Carp's statement that the net isn't
real life and that people often display completely different personalities
on the net than they do in person:

>I think this may be the single most destructive assumption that people
>have about the role of the net.  The net is a meeting of minds.

	I agree and I disagree. (How's that for a non-statement
statement?  I seem to be coming up with those a lot lately...)  The
net can be a meeting of minds (or a meeting of the mindless ).  More
often than not, it's a massive group mindfuck.  (Stukas Over
Disneyland...)
	
	I disagree with TheCarp's statement that people display 
"completely" different personalities in real life than on the net.  The
net allows us all to display a part of our personality -- we choose
which parts we display and when (and how, what, where and why) -- but
they are nevertheless, part and parcel of us, generally.

>  Those
>who repeatedly post in hostile, inane, <place other adjectives of
>interpersonal distaste here> ways only display themselves as marginal
> people. 

	Nope, non, nuh-uh.  People who post in hostile, inane or
idiotic manners are only displaying an *aspect* of themselves.  What
you, as a reader, sees is merely whatever aspect of the writer that
they chose to display, at that time.
	
	And, for the clueless of the net -- a skilled writer can
easily manipulate the readership.  (Oh lord, scads of email over that
one...)  One does not have to be feeling hostile in order to come
across as such.  It's simply the art of stringing together words in a
way that conveys the message.  Deep, huh?

> I have
>a nice list of people to avoid at any future boink that they and I
>happen to attend.

	Are you going to share your list with us?  Pretty please?

	I would be willing to bet that if you were to show up at a
boink with your handy-dandy list in hand, you would not be able to
tell the "offensive" ones from the "non-offensive" ones on your list.
Know why?  Care to hazard a guess?

>One can't excuse an obnoxious personality with the plea that "it's only
>the net, we're just playing with our computers here, aren't we?"

	Well, actually, one could excuse it -- but you didn't want
to hear that now, did you?

>  A lot of hostility could be avoided if
> people would act as if what they said and did and wrote mattered.

	Don't assume that they don't.  And what "matters" greatly to
one, means diddly squat to another.  So it's all dependent upon what
"matters" to each of us, now isn't it?


Desiree


I hate to be sick...
From: HF.HLA@forsythe.stanford.edu (Lisa A. Haupt)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: The Ultimate Condom
Date: 12 Jan 1993 11:38:19 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

Can anyone tell me why they don't make padded condoms?


the seahag
Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: usasales@pandora.sf.ca.us
Subject: Hello!
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:22:09 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
From: grismore@adobe.com (Doug Grismore)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: Having a good day...can you?
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:35:53 GMT
Followup-To: ba.singles
Organization: Adobe Systems

In article <1993Jan6.181732.24599@informix.com>, mcole@sub-40 (Mary Cole)
wrote:
> 
> In article <grismore-050193101048@gutzon.mv.us.adobe.com>  
> grismore@adobe.com (Doug Grismore) writes:
> 
> > I encourage anyone in a good mood to post, and tell us all "I'm having a  
> good day"
> 
> 
> OK, Doug, well, here goes! For some unknown (and also unquestioned)  
> reason, I've been EXTREMELY happy since the holidays! December was a  
> frantic month for me, trying to get all the holiday stuff done on an  
> accelerated schedule so that I could go back east and spend a week with my  
> family.

That was most of it for me - just the whole stress thing about buying gifts
and being "ready" for the holidays (whatever *that* means) is now over and
I'm feeling much better since!  Glad to see you are too, even if not
specifically for that!

> The visit was pleasantly confrontation-free (I usually hear a lot  
> of crap about why I'm not remarried, why I live my live like I do, what am  
> I going to DO with my life, and why don't I move back "home" where there  
> are no earthquakes, mudslides, and an abundance of weirdos?).

I dunno about that - guess it depends where home is.  Mine's here, and I
always see more harmful acts of god AND wierdos anywhere else I travel in
at least this country.  Seattle was especially full of wierdos (but that
would probably be my second choice of place to live, right after here (the
peninsula)).

> My son was  
> an angel on both east- and west-bound flights (a lot to be grateful for!).  
> I've gotten my house reasonably straightened up from the holiday deluge  
> and I feel like I'm back into a normal routine! It's raining here (good  
> for the reservoirs) and it's snowing in the mountains (good for the  
> reservoirs and for skiing).

It'd be mighty nice if Lexington got full enough for powerboats again! 
It's a long haul to go waterskiing/jetskiing from here nowadays!  And the
SNOW!  It even makes close/small ski resorts worth it now! (like Bear
Valley, where I can't remember the last time the bottom half was open and
had enough snow for the ramp!)

> Yep, I'm really happy about things in general!  
> Maybe folks are grumpy because all the excitement of the holidays and  
> parties is over and now the days are blustery and overcast.  Oh dear, I  
> hope I don't incur a lot of wrath by being so cheerful!

I've only been flamed once for the original - let's hope this will allow
others to express something other than frustration on the net!

> 
> Lively up yourself!

I'm there!

> Mary

- Doug
Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Oxymorons, and other important trivia
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:30:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.011213.23977@netcom.com> bob@netcom.com (Bob Becker) writes:
>In article <76145@apple.apple.COM> erc@Apple.COM (Ed Carp) writes:
>>
>>Des, is to not degenerate into snide, nasty, ad hominium attacks but still
>                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^
>					Whuzzat mean?

	It's an ad hominem attack with aluminum siding installed by a
Brit.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Chicks 'n Dudes '93 - "The List"
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:27:44 GMT

In article <73193@cup.portal.com> DeadHead@cup.portal.com (Bruce M Ong) writes:
>
>	And it's always a good idea not to publish attendee list. That way,
>people who come to your party are the ones [go see The Crying Game] who really 
>want to be there. It already takes a lot of initiative and effort to throw a 
>party, invite people, [made it to my top 10 all time favorite movies list]
>make sure everybody is comfortable with everything, etc.; the organizer 
>shouldnt have to be obligated to tell people who will be there. There really
>isnt a reason to have to ask for 'understanding' from the people being invited
>for not publishing the [go see The Crying Game] attendee list. 

Besides, half the people who *say* they're coming don't actually show
up. And an equal number of people contact you at the last minute for
directions, after the "List of attendees" would have gone out. So
forget it! Whoever shows up, that's who's going to be there!

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Newsgroups: ba.singles,alt.romance,alt.romance.chat
From: gerg@netcom.com (Greg Andrews)
Subject: Re: Needing help greeting 30!
Summary: Life begins...
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 06:28:51 GMT

kirk@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Lindstrom) writes:
>
>I'd like to say that the old addage "life begins at 30" really does
>seem to apply.  I think many realize that it is what one thinks of 
>oneself that is important and not so much what others think of
>you.  It seems to happen after you reach 30 (in most happy people
>I know).
>

Ever since I've been young, I've heard people say things like "life
begins at 40" and "life begins at 30".  I always thought "why then
do they worry about wrinkles and thinning hair?"

When I was in my teens, I set my sights on my 18th birthday, when I'd
finally be out of school.  When I was 18, I'd shifted my attention to
my 21st birthday, when I could go to the bars.  When I was 21, I'd
decided the good life would begin when I was earning enough to live
comfortably and be able to fly to Hawaii on vacation.  By the time I
turned 28, it seemed that I'd be happier with a steady girlfriend.
Around my 31st birthday I started wondering if marrying and raising
a child would be more fulfilling.

Lately, though, I've been pondering those adages.  Here's what I think:

Life doesn't begin at 40.
Life doesn't begin at 30.
Life doesn't begin at 21, or 18, or 16.

Life begins today.

  -Greg


-- 
:::::::::::::::::::  Greg Andrews  gerg@netcom.com  :::::::::::::::::::
It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: agram@netcom.com (Andrew Gram)
Subject: Re: Cars and Other Fun Stuff (wasRe: Turning 30!!)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:52:14 GMT

I'm not surprised someone is stunned by hjb's post, but nevertheless
many creative people do live this way.  I'm not sure if the post was
serious, but it sounded that way to me.

Did you say his name was Richard Head?
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: Chicks 'n Dudes '93 - "The List"
Date: 7 Jan 93 01:03:25 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1993Jan6.214729.5118@netcom.com> bob@netcom.com (Bob Becker) writes:
 
| I have received a lot of requests for the RSVP list for
| Chicks 'n Dudes '93 - The Boink.
|I have also received a lot of requests to NOT tell people
|that certain individuals are coming.
|
|So I'm going to play it safe and not give out the list or 
|any attendee information to anybody.
|I didn't get this old by being stupid, ya know!
|
|I hope you all understand.

I was one of the people asking for the RSVP list.  I had a rather unique
reason for doing it.  I thought it might be kind of fun to come up with
little name tags for people attending.  Rather than "Hello: My name is
johnf@auspex.com" I thought it might be fun to include a snippet from 
peoples .sig files, a memorable quote, or just a perceived net.personna
could be printed on it.  Let those that meet you figure out you are.  Lurkers
would just a picture of an ear or something.   I've asked a couple of other
people about helping with this as if I am going to be sufficiently insulting
I would rather it would be a group effort.
From: john.lechmanik@uttsbbs.uucp (John Lechmanik) 
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Needing help greeting 30!
Date: 3 Jan 93 19:01:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Transfer Station BBS, Danville, CA - 510-837-4610/837-5591
Reply-To: john.lechmanik@uttsbbs.uucp (John Lechmanik) 

Turning 30??  It really isn't that bad.  But you do have to ask yourself 
if you are happy with yourself.  If the answer is yes,  then 30 is just 
another year.  On the other hand if you are not happy with yourself (ie, 
job, family problems, hobies, etc) then it becomes a little more 
difficult.  After all being 30 and never married isn't a crime (at least I 
don't think it is).

        My sister just turned 40 and she has been married twice and is 
currently single without any children.  To add to that I am approaching 40 
and haven't been married and I don't have children.  So I can appreciate 
the irritation that parents provide about the lack of grandchildren.  

        Hopefully this helped a little and the BIG 30 won't be so big 
after all....

        John



---
 . WinQwk 2.0 a#0 . Unregistered Evaluation Copy
                                                               
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Transfer Station BBS (510) 837-4610 & 837-5591 (V.32bis both lines)|
| Danville, California, USA. 400+ MB Files & FREE public Internet Access |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: lemay@netcom.com (Laura Lemay)
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Condom
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:08:32 GMT

Lisa Haupt asks:
> >Can anyone tell me why they don't make padded condoms?

Ed Carp questions:
> Uh, maybe I'm just young and stupid (or maybe just stupid), but why would you
> *want* one?


Heh.  


Ain't that just like a guy.








-- 
*********************************************************
Laura Lemay                              lemay@netcom.com
writer of trifles in shadows and blood
*********************************************************
From: janiceg@marvin.Eng.Sun.COM (Janice Gelb)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: Cars and Other Fun Stuff (wasRe: Turnin
Date: 12 Jan 1993 18:22:53 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: janiceg@marvin.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin

{I've lost track of the quotes-within-quotes here: these are taken from 
Bruce Ong's evolution of this thread]

Desiree wrote:
>In an article Doug Grismore writes:
>
>  Being single and being alone are two different things, though, (at
>>least for me...) and it's this difference that seems to make *all* the
>>difference in this discussion (should it go somewhere beyond the challenge
>>to *have* a conversation...)
>
>	Exactly.  Which brings about a question.  How many people out there
>are happy being alone?  Just being alone. Doing things by yourself?
>

Depending on my mood, I can be happy alone, reading, watching TV, working 
on the computer. However, going out alone is often a different story. I 
don't enjoy going to movies, out to eat, etc. by myself -- it's too hard 
to balance a book while trying to scarf up pasta!

>
>>	The way I see it is if somebody is happy being alone, then they
>>don't have a problem with being single either.  Thus, they are not
>>influenced one way or another by the advertising media.  
>>
>

I don't agree with this statement: you can be happy with your own 
company but that doesn't mean that you want to be alone ALL the 
time. I think everyone needs companionship from time to time, 
someone to share life's absurdities with. I don't think it's 
healthy to NEED someone else all the time, any more than I think 
it's healthy to live a hermit-like existence, always alone, never 
needing or wanting the company of anyone else. Like so many other 
things in life, balance is the key.

>>	Looking from a different angle at this.  The media really does
>>a bangup job on portraying an "ideal woman" image.  I say that if
>>somebody is content with their image as a woman, they are not
>>suspectible to this ideal image.  
>

Now this statement I DO agree with: being content with your own image 
(whether you're male or female) does render you less susceptible to 
needing to starve yourself or deck yourself out in the latest fashion 
in order to meet what you think is the universal ideal of woman- or 
manhood.

Let's hear it for self-confidence!

********************************************************************************
Janice Gelb                  | (415) 336-7075     
janiceg@marvin.eng.sun.com   | "A silly message but mine own" (not Sun's!) 
********************************************************************************
From: bob@netcom.com (Bob Becker)
Newsgroups: ba.singles
Subject: Re: Chick 'n Dudes '93 - The Boink
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:30:38 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <Jan.4.13.14.31.1993.6427@net.bio.net> charleen@net.bio.net (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.205812.10479@netcom.com> bob@netcom.com (Bob Becker) writes:
>>
>>Now all we gotta do is get people to show up.  There have been lots
>>of new names appearing on many of the messages so if we can 
>>encourage the new names to show up, we can attach faces to names.
>
>Oww!  I'll come, but you have to promise not to use the staplegun
>like you did last time.
>
OK, but I am going to bring the trapeze and the trumpet.
Newsgroups: ba.singles
From: hwajin@iphasew.com (Hwa-Jin Bae)
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Condom
Organization: Interphase West, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:17:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.220708.22008@netcom.com> bob@netcom.com (Bob Becker) writes:
>In article <1iv6nbINN100@morrow.stanford.edu> HF.HLA@forsythe.stanford.edu (Lisa A. Haupt) writes:
>>Can anyone tell me why they don't make padded condoms?
>>
>
>Not goin' near this one.  Nope.  Not me.  Ain't gonna touch it.
>Uh-uh.  No way, Jose!  I'm outta here.

need not say another word.  we all know why, mr. hypodermic richard.  <grin>


love
hwajin

Newsgroups: ba.singles