HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:11:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr10.172338.6906@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:

>I don't know about that last one--I've seen some women be just as 
>vigorous about breaking up other people's relationships as men could
>be.  There have been a couple women of my acquaintance who have been
>given to trying to break up other people's relationships just for the
>fun of it and I've known a few who have been into seducing boyfriends
>of other women they didn't like or were angry with (not that they
>wanted to keep the boyfriend in question).  It also doesn't seem to

	Gee... I wish I had thought about this before meeting that girl. :-(
Boy, some people are soooo dangerous. Makes you wonder....

							Mikeey

>Trygve
From: erc@pogo.Corp.Sun.COM (Ed Carp)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:16:48 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogo.corp.sun.com

In article <1992Apr8.030545.13664@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> 21329KAD@MSU (Kim Dyer) writes:

>Of course, there IS the thought that the person who YOU have just
>wooed away can just as easily leave YOU with 6 kids and a mortgage
>when the NEXT one comes along.

My mother used to tell me, "If she'd leave someone else for you, sooner or later
she'll leave you for yet someone else."
--
Ed Carp                                      415/336-0797 (work)

++ UNIX  SysAdmin, Systems  Programming  Services,  Utilities ++
++ and Programmer Productivity Tools                          ++
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: rfelix@netcom.com (Robbie Felix)
Subject: Re: Staying friends with your SO
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 23:02:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Just a quick story here:

A few years ago I got involved with someone at work. He was a nice
person but had a hard time with committment. I was looking for a "hard
core" commitment so we chose to part ways and be friends.

It was tough. I really liked him. But we were looking for different
things.

I am *NOT* a person who is a big believer in finding SOs on the job,
but I found myself attracted to another person in the office a few
months later. In fact, to my chagrin, the man that caught my interest
sat in the cube next tomy ex SO! I really didn't know what to do.

Well, I told my ex that I was interested in the other person(that was
pretty easy) first. After I dated the new person for about three
weeks( and was pretty sure it was gonna be serious) I had to tell him
that I used to be involved with his "neighbor". I was really unsure
how he would take it.

Wildfire said something about judging a person by who they were rather
than who they slept with. Hear is an almost exact quote from my honey,
"I don't mean to be rude, but I am sure glad it didn't work out with X,
if it had I would have never had a chance". Needless to say, I love
him more everyday.

His reaction was the kind of response I would want to hear under the
circumstances. He goes to dinner with his ex periodically, I go out
and hang with mine sometimes, too. It doesn't seem to be a big problem
for us.

It takes a little time for the wounds to heal after a break-up, but
you can remain friends with an SO.

Good Luck,

rf
Xref: sparky alt.romance:6792 soc.singles:10711 soc.couples:1973
From: csuat@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Pete "Ganders" Favelle)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:19:52 GMT
Distribution: world,soc
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Originator: csuat@lily


on 7 Apr 92 05:59:29 GMT,
rnjx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu said:

> The question is this.  Is it ever morally and/or ethically O.K. to actively
> try to woo one member of an existing relationship from that relationship so
> that you may start one with her/him?  Under what circumstances?  How about
> pursuing someone who's engaged?  Where do you all draw the line?  If it isn't
> O.K., would you still do it anyway?

  As a general rule, I consider _anybody_ currently involved in a relationship
to be `off limits'. My view is always that if _I_ were the one whose SO was
being `wooed' from me, I'd be _seriously_ pissed off, and I wouldn't ever want
to do that to someone.

  As for someone who's engaged, I can't see _any_ way of justifying trying to
start a relationship there. To me, engagement is a commitment to marriage, and
my attitude is that marriage (and, therefore, engagement) is something I'd
_never_ attempt to disrupt.

> I wouldn't say that I'm trying to get advice, because my mind is made up on 
> this issue already.  Yes, this does bear directly on my own life, sadly.  One
> of my undergraduate roommates had a motto:  "Boyfriends are a minor
> inconvenience."  I wish to God I could believe (reconcile myself to) that.

  The most I've ever done is to hope desperately that the relationship would
come to an end by itself so that I'd be able to allow myself to start one with
the object of my desire. And even when it did break up, it didn't work out for
me either... *sigh*. I guess it's just life...

Hugs,

Ganders
--
	      "There's no time for us, there's no place for us."
     "What is this thing that builds our dreams, yet slips away from us?"

-- 
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<
#	     cstxqcv@dcs.warwick.ac.uk / csuat@csv.warwick.ac.uk	     #
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
From: pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com (Pete Ashdown)
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:12:44 GMT

ronan@codon1 (Karen Ronan;161 GPBB;x2-0884) writes:

>>I guess you also don't hold Hitler responsible for  the  second  world
>>war. Just imagine him saying, I am not responsible for anybody's elses
>>actions. Only my own.

>Dear Hank,
>I do not mean this as a flame, just my opinion.
>I really don't think Hitler has anything
>whatsoever to do with this.  People always bring up Hitler to
>prove their point, when it rarely, if ever, proves anything.
>It's just an emotional firebrand that gets people upset.

No doubt.  Not only is it stupid, it isn't accurate.  The original poster and
the followups state that Hitler was entirely responsible for the second world
war.  I guess Mussolini and Hirohito were just pawns then eh?

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

How romantic.
-- 
     James Brown, Mark Hosler, Al Jourgenson.  Coincidence or conspiracy?

DISCLAIMER: My writings have NOTHING to do with my employer.  Keep it that way.
Pete Ashdown  pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com  ...uunet!javelin.sim.es.com!pashdown
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.couples,soc.singles
From: afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison)
Subject: Re: lying to oneself (was Re: Sanctity of relationships)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Ancient Souls Inc.
Distribution: world,soc
Date: 10 Apr 1992 10:45 EST  

In article <1992Apr10.011840.16966@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com writes...
>In  <intrigue.702863510@milton>  intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>>
>> Angelwing -  I have *enormous* hooters!  Honest!  [I lie real good]
> 
>Really?  Then you must lie on your back...

Is that the breast you can do ?? :-)

Don't knocker til you've tried 'er.

> 
>(You really didn't expect me to not go for those, err, that, did you?)
> 

Thanks for the mammaries, Larry. :-)

(My mother was startled by a halter-top when she was carrying me... it's 
not *my* fault. )

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

-- Stephen 

(The only two valid e-mail addresses from now on are ...)
afdenis@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov,  afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov
.. boring .sig follows, press n to skip it.

	Never regret a *choice*.  Rather, save your regrets for the
	choices you *didn't* make.
From: aatresa@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Teresa Kline)
Subject: Re: Ed and Teresa (Carp ????)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Let's mind our own business
Organization: Yeah, *right* !
Date: 15 Apr 1992 08:02 EST  

In article <1992Apr14.024027.10332@usho93.hou281.chevron.com>, hrtcu@usho52.hou281.chevron.com (R.T.Cutler) writes...
>For GOD's sake, consumate this.  DO IT!!!!  And then maybe all of
>us can get some sleep.

Oh....are we keeping you up?  :)

-- Teresa

		Life -- just for the FUN of it!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: sean.casey@EMCB.CC.UTAH.EDU (SEAN THOMAS CASEY)
Subject: sanctity twist
Organization: University of Utah
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:11:31 GMT

	Sorry to sound so blunt on a romance net, but if she started seeing 
someone else, and kept seeing that someone while y'all were together, then 
it's time to shake the exit-stick.  If someone doesn't have the honor enough 
to stay with one or the other, how in the name of God could you trust her 
later on not to find yet another someone, and maybe run off with him?
	To quote Arnold, "HASTA LA VISTA, BABY!!!!!"

		Sepiriz of the Nihrain
From: csuat@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Pete "Ganders" Favelle)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: LOVE sucks. No question about it.
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:02:52 GMT
	<1992Apr2.023052.25816@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
	<1992Apr1.224559.1@pomona.claremont.edu> <ktvm72INNm96@girtab.usc.edu>
	<1992Apr6.223235.1@pomona.claremont.edu>
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Originator: csuat@lily


on 7 Apr 92 05:32:35 GMT,
greg@pomona.claremont.edu (Tigger) said:
> In article <ktvm72INNm96@girtab.usc.edu>, jodar@girtab.usc.edu (Nicholas Jodar) writes:
>> 
>> Love doesn't cause the pain you feel.  Pain is your body trying
>> to tell you that something is wrong.  Being stabbed in the back
>> causes pain.  Being mistreated causes pain.  Having somebody
>> rip your insides out and jumped up and down on you when you're
>> vulnerable causes pain.
>> 
>> You don't have to be in love to feel pain from those things.

> No, you don't.  But if I hadn't been in love, or open to the
> possibility, none of these women could have stabbed me in the back,
> or ripped my insides out, or whatever metaphor you choose.  Only
> in love does one become that vulnerable.  Therefore love does
> indirectly cause the pain.  Without it, there would be no pain, at
> least from that source.

  Ok, so if you never love then you never put yourself at risk from pain
caused indirectly by it. BUT! you also never get the pleasure from being in
love.  Love leaves you vulnerable, but that's because you feel so secure
that you open yourself to the one you love in such a way that _makes_ you
vulnerable. Without it, there'd be no security, at least from that source.
There'd be no pleasure from seeing your loved one smile, seeing their
pleasure, and all those little things that makes you grin stupidly and
generally annoy the hell out of all those around you :-)

  Love can sometimes seem to suck, but only when you've just lost it, or
when you've been without it for a long time. When you're _in_ love, nothing
seems to be better...

hugs,

Ganders
--
	      "There's no time for us, there's no place for us."
     "What is this thing that builds our dreams, yet slips away from us?"

-- 
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<
#	     cstxqcv@dcs.warwick.ac.uk / csuat@csv.warwick.ac.uk	     #
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<
Xref: sparky alt.romance:7277 soc.singles:11492 soc.couples:2169
From: sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 17 Apr 92 19:21:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


>}In <85ed02JIc9Vb00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:

>I answered this already.  Where have I said that *I CARE* that he shows
>no respect?  My feelings about it, however, don't alter the simple fact
>that he is showing no respect.
>
>Why are so many people on this thread so hung up on this concept of
>ownership?  Where did I say anything about ownership or territorial
>claims?  YOU are the one who keeps bringing in that concept, not me.
>The relationship deserves respect because it exists, because it was
>brought into existance by the two people who made it, and because those
>two people, and their choice, deserve respect.  Where does the concept
>of ownership or territory enter into this?  Is it even possible for you
>to view something in a way other than territorial?
>

I don't necessarily have to respect a relationship because it exists.
I don't even have to respect an individual only because he exists.
If he's a rapist or murderer, I sure as hell ain't gonna respect him.
Same as relationships.  I may respect one or both people who happen to
be in a relationship, only because I know them and happen to respect
who and what they are.  

>Jeez Louise, do you always go out of your way to subvert everything?  I
>can't for the life of me see how you got that implication.  I have always
>been talking about how THIRD PARTIES treat the relationship.  Respecting
>a relationship means respecting the choices that were made by the people
>in it.  How does that say ANYTHING AT ALL about any other free choices
>that those people can make?

>Given how you twist things, I don't wonder that you have trouble with
>the concept of respect.  Do you have any concept of "self respect"?
>Is the only way you can view things by what it might gain you?  Respecting

Appears to me YOU are the one having difficulty with the concept that
other people may have different views and/or concepts than you.

The fact that your CAPITOLIZED SO MANY WORDS gave me the impression you
were getting yourself a little excited.

					Steve
					
>a relationship and not trying to harm it "gains" you the same that respecting
>another person and not punching him in the face "gains" you.
>
>--James Preston
From: wkau+@cs.cmu.edu (Wing Keung F Au)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:55:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

>The question is this.  Is it ever morally and/or ethically O.K. to actively
>try to woo one member of an existing relationship from that relationship so
>that you may start one with her/him?

any utilitarian-ist out there?  8-P

-- 

				    FRed W. Au
				    ...!cmu.edu!au+, au+@cmu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: archon@camelot.bradley.edu (Ralph Loizzo)
Subject: Friends Forever
Organization: Bradley University
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:19:37 GMT

"Friends Forever" by Ralph Loizzo


He for love, she for pleasure
several nights they bed together
their joining made a wild fire
he for love, and she for pleasure

Her ailment remained as did his love; concealed.

Time passed on
and she expired
He grew alone 
and took his own
both whom the world admired.

"Friends Forever"
they'd always say
and laughed away
each passing day

but no one knew of their wild fire
he for love, and she for pleasure
and now forever
they lay together
inside the world

He died for love, she for pleasure

Love remains as does the heart; cruel.

***********************************************************************
*                                                                     *
*         Raphael Loizzo       archon@camelot.bradley.edu             *
*                                                                     *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 05:08:12 GMT

stcroix@ultra.com (Bill St. Croix) writes:

>No offense, but I think your pretty much being a real jerk about this
>respect issue.  I'm mean..."Hey, I hate this guy...so I think I'll see
>just how badly I can F*ck up his life." is a pretty piss poor way of being
>"respectful".  I think the respect that Mr. Preston was discussing was not
>based on the individuals involved, but more or less just on the fact that
>a relationship exists at all.

You're assuming that I would be breaking up the relationship just because I
don't like the guy.  That's not what I had in mind.  If I dislike the guy,
I'm much less likely to pay much attention to his presence at all.  Maybe
other people break up relationships just for the sake of breaking them up,
but I'm not one of them.


>Some people have said, "If it were a friend of mine, then I wouldn't make
>any attempt to 'woo' the SO away."  That seems pretty cold hearted to
>me.  "I won't F*ck over a friend, but anyone else is fair game." is pretty
>scary to me!

Scary is in the eye of the beholder.  Not so long ago, I would have agreed
with you.  I don't see it as cold-hearted.  I'd use the word pragmatic.


>In general, gauge respect based on that a relationship exists; not on how
>well you 'like' the people in that relationship.

Sorry, that's an absolute that I don't agree with.  I'm dealing with the
relativity of respect.  If I court someone, and they are happy with the
relationship they have now,  I'm not going to go further to break them up
just for the sake of doing it.  When I see that my efforts aren't
beneficial, I will then have respect for their relationship.


>>There is a default level of respect I accord all people, but the level of
>>respect (or disrespect) beyond that is earned.  
>
>Sounds like you'd be the type to call the guy's family or job and leave a
>message with his mother or boss that, "Tell Joe that I got that ounce of
><insert name of favorite illegal substance here> for him."

Sorry, no.  Even with people I dislike, I would never pull such a stunt,
especially in this day and age of rampant government civil forfeitures.  
I think you're reading more into my statements than is there.
-- 
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
As you're cleaning the orange carpet, you will hear a voice that says, "Fetch 
my cigarettes."  Another voice will say, "THEY'RE ON TOP OF THE REFRIGERATOR."
--(David Vessell)--(Bradley University Computing Services)-(dave@bradley.edu)--
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: aatresa@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Teresa Kline)
Subject: Re: Some things never die!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Yeah, *right* !
Date:  8 Apr 1992 08:00 EST  

In article <ku4b8gINN5gk@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, erc@pogo.Corp.Sun.COM (Ed Carp) writes...
>In article <7APR199208110716@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> aatresa@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Teresa Kline) writes:
> 
>>Maybe you should think about that, Ed! 
> 
>Huh?  What?  [popping back into porting-code-to-linux-land]
>--

Oh, *sure*!  <sniff, sniff>  You'd rather play with your computer than talk 
to me...well, two can play *that* game!  :)

-- Teresa

		Life -- just for the FUN of it!!!!
From: aatresa@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Teresa Kline)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: Ed and Teresa (Carp ????)
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:10:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: lims02.16APR199217102696
Organization: Yeah, *right* !
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <16APR199216563964@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov>, afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison) writes...
>In article <16APR199216271974@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov>, aatresa@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Teresa Kline) writes...
>>Plus a few that were e-mailed...I don't have the separate count.  I'll get 
>>it 
> 
>... no, you're a *blond* !!! You'll *never* get it ! :-)
> 

Then why in blue blazes am I *trying* ?!

> 
>>...if you want it, Stephen.
> 
>... was it *nasty* of me to break this line out of context ? :-) :-)

Not to mention not saying if you want it... :)

-- Teresa

		Life -- just for the FUN of it!!!!
From: gecko@zooid.guild.org (GECKO)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: LYING ON ONESELFNESS
Date: 13 Apr 92 08:02:32 GMT


          Fred Walter writez:
        people with no or low self-esteem 
> 
>Have you never run into people that are really brilliant and 
>competent but who are convinced that they are worthless 
>stupid people ? They are lying to themselves about how stupid 
>they are and believing it. 

       Ah.  But one must understand that to think oneself to be
really fantastically wonderful or deity-like is just as much a lie
as feelings of wretched inadequacy are.  To love one's self too much
is just as silly as hating one's self, and as futile.

       Just a meaningless observation in a meaningless universe...

                                                         - GECKO

      "It's all right!  Indulge yourself.  Punch yourself
       in the nose and bleed.  Then you can get a rock and
       knock your teeth out.  It'll feel good!  And if that
       doesn't help, you can mash your balls with the same
       rock on that boulder over there."
                                          - Genaro
                                                (Journey to Ixtlan)

                                             


gecko@zooid.guild.org
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: koenigp@tramp.Colorado.EDU (KOENIG PAUL M)
Subject: Romantic Ideas For Everyday Use
Keywords:  Ideas
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 04:41:15 GMT

I am interested in hearing other 'little' things  that people do
for/with their SO.     

My latest idea that worked incredibly well with a girl I have been 
seeing for 2 months is this:

I had her over for Chinese food and at the end of dinner I brought
out fortune cookies.  Some of them you can get the fortune out with 
a pair of tweezers and insert your own 'special' fortune.  If you
are clever you can make the sayings reversible so if they are switched
it doesn't make any difference.  I toned it down but the potential is
there to make it as gushy as you want.    

She blushed five shades of red.

Any other ideas?

paul koenig

koenigp@tramp.colorado.edu
From: cs132093@cs.brown.edu (Mark "?" Prince)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: Romantic music list
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:48:35
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Brown University
NNTP-Posting-Host: cslab1f.cs.brown.edu
In-reply-to: esper@cs35b.cs.umn.edu's message of 15 Apr 92 19:09:40 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.190940.2496@news2.cis.umn.edu> esper@cs35b.cs.umn.edu (Dave Sherohman) writes:
?>     Not exactly a full addition, but there's a song I'm trying to get
?>  ahold of which might belong on the list (though I want it because it's
?>  and absolutely_beautiful_ waltz) which I would guess is named "Open
?>  Arms".  I have no idea what album it's on or who it's by, though I do
?>  know it was on the soundtrack from the movie "Heavy Metal".  Any info
?>  that could increase my chances of getting a copy og this song would be
?>  much appreciated.
?>
?>     esper@ima.umn.edu

The song you mean IS called Open Arms and is by Journey.  If you want
a litte more info, please e-mail.

		QuestionMark
--
  _ QuestionMark _   "I don't want the   ((((((((((((((((?))))))))))))))))
 ( )    >>>>    ( )  world, I just want  Internet:   cs132093@cs.brown.edu
  (    (/OO\)    (   your half."         Bitnet:     st102207@BROWNVM       
  o     \__/     o      --They Might     Internet:   Mark_Prince@brown.edu
                           Be Giants     ((((((((((((((((?))))))))))))))))
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples