HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Singles Bar (Why would you want one?)
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:50:50 GMT
	<1992Sep10.034510.27780@csi.uottawa.ca>
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca's message of 10 Sep 92 03:45:10 GMT


In article <1992Sep10.034510.27780@csi.uottawa.ca> misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:

   In article <JMD.92Sep8114709@lion.bear.com>, jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond) writes:
   > My suggestion to the original poster is to avoid singles bars like the
   > plague.  Try getting involved in some group activities instead.  You
   > are much more likely to meet someone and create a relationship there
   > than in the "meat market".

      Has that actually worked for you?

Definitely so.  Not only did I meet my SO in this way, but also
(perhaps just as important) I met many of my closest friends in such
organizations.  How better to meet people with similar interests?

Note that I said "try getting involved in... ".  I did not say "try
becoming obsessed with..." :-) :-) :-)

					Spidey!!!

--
 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                              		   jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \          Beauty is the purgation of superfluities. -- Michelangelo
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Can we can the suck-up bit?
Keywords: encourage friendship?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 03:48:27 GMT

In article <72095@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>
>>Still, the best compliments are paid in private (now if I can just get
>>Bathsheba and Stef in private for a few compliments...).
>
>trygve, what a courageous viking you are, to post this to a thread with the
>subject line 'Can we can the suck-up bit.'

But what have I to fear from being accused of sucking up?  After all, it
is one of my favorite positions.  (Well, granted there tends to be at
least as much licking as sucking, but I'm not about to quibble over
terminology.) 

>but I'm not to be outdone.
>
>I'll come if Sheba does.

That's the spirit!  I always do like these things to be simultaneous.

Trygve   (Plus it's so convienient--after all, aren't I already more-
          or-less in the middle between you and Sheba?)
From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Organizations vrs. Bars
Date: 15 Sep 92 01:23:53 GMT
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: dy@depsych.Gwinnett.COM's message of 12 Sep 92 12:46:44 GMT


In article <L1NZqB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> dy@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Dr. Yes) writes:

   Josh (Spidey) Diamond writes:
	[^^^^^^ Hey! Don't forget those exclamation points! ]
   >As for detail, there is none.  I didn't go and do some specific thing
   >to create a relationship.  If you think that there is some formula, or
   >set of magic operations which will give you a relationship, then you
   >are crazy.

   But you _are_ suggesting a procedure or mechanism or formula --
   some kind of unconditional helpfulness or courtesy or something.
   Could you give a little more detail. 

I've written on this some already today -- the message-id of the
article is  <JMD.92Sep14184802@lion.bear.com>.  In fact, I recanted on
my "no formula" statement a bit.  I'll just restate my definition of
"loving unconditionally":

>To love unconditionally is to contribute without expectation of any
>reward, or credit, or even love in return.  It is to love in the face
>of no evidence.

>When you contribute to others, and they understand that your
>contribution in not conditional upon anything in return, they will get
>it that you care about them.  And they will want to be with you.  And
>in time, you too will receive such contribution...

Ok -- so I just quoted my own post.  Sue me.

   One of the usual advantages cited for organizations is that they
   lead to networks of friends that overlap and introduce yet other
   people into your orbit.  That hasn't been my experience.  I think
   it's a valid question whether or not it generally happens.

I do think that some organizations are better than others -- but I
also think that if you keep putting energy out there -- if you keep
giving -- you will start to create new relationships.  Kevin Brown
pointed out that taking the risk of rejection will always be a little
uncomfortable -- but if we keep using that "risk muscle" it gets
stronger -- and we feel less uncomfortable.

   JD:
   > Some examples:
   > 
   >     Amature theatre/music groups.
   >     Wine tasting classes (a friend of mine had great success here).
   >     Intramural sports, sports clubs (fencing was great for me).
   >     Any type of classes outside your degree program.
   >     Local hiking club chapters (e.g. Sierra Club, Apalachian Trail Club). 

   [...]

   See, you have supplied some specifics.  How about some more?

Naw, that would be too easy! :-) 

Seriously, you should be able to come up with a few!


					Spidey!!!

--
 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                              		   jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \          Beauty is the purgation of superfluities. -- Michelangelo
From: dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Nice Guys?
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:23:17 GMT
Reply-To: dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

gswst@cislabs.pitt.edu (Gary S. Wachs) writes:

>Well, if you find that being "nice" and "interresting" helps, then so be it.

So, being a boring asshole is working for you?  :-)

Dawn
"Oh, Time!  Of all the dwellers here below 
You only elevate buffoons or fools,
Or him whose anus as an inkstand serves."
The Perfumed Garden of the Shaykh Nefzawl, translated by Sir Richard F. Burton
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Dill Dough
Keywords: Kosher dills, half sours, dill dough.....
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:14:24 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In article <1992Sep10.150340.27145@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith) writes:
>
>Hey, speaking of chilling out...there's this little thing called humor, see.
>IT WAS A JOKE! Geez...

If I'd meant it as a joke, I would have studded it with smileys,
just like this post. (Hmm, studded smileys, that's an interesting
image)

paul
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith)
Subject: Re: chemistry / love at first sight : fact or fiction?
Organization: Motorola Land Mobile Products Sector
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:29:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep08.195757.3575@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep8.130648.24439@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1992Sep7.022243.29268@peponi.wcc.govt.nz>, parks_typ@med.wcc.govt.nz writes:
|> 
|> >|> I'm beginning to think there *is* no such thing as love at first sight.
|> 
|> >You're right, there isn't. There's only attraction at first sight (do believe
|> >otherwise is to say you can love someone purely on a physical basis, which I
|> >don't believe for a minute). Love at first sight is a misnomer for instant
|> >attraction which coincidentally happens to blossom into something more. 
|> >My opinion, as always...
|> 
|> I disagree (see earlier post for details). There are many types of human
|> attractions, and I believe we react to them in accordance with our
|> deep-seated spiritual and biological needs.

Agreed.

 
|> That suggests that there are (this seems obvious) simply levels of
|> attraction/response scenarios, and we select one (on autopilot, if you will)
|> appropriate to our needs, whether we are aware of them or not.
> 
|> On the other hand, the depth of your loneliness may require far more intense
|> therapy - you may need a lover to help you through this time, and bring you
|> out of it by giving of her time, heart, and body.
|> 
|> I suggest that in many cases the choice may be one you don't consciously
|> make. I have observed that life often, and imparatively, changes our
|> perspectives constantly.
|> 
|> If your needs bring yo to the point where they are strongly broadcast to
|> everyone around you, you may find yourself with someone on your arm with
|> precisely the same needs. Whether she becomes a sex-partner-friend or a
|> _lover_ may depend more on her needs than yours.

I agree with basically everything you have said. What does it have to do
with the Love at First Sight myth? Nothing! Given the scenario you decribe
above, there is still nothing to indicate that the two people fell in love
immediately. The "Oh my God I need a woman gee you're beautiful let's go"
feeling is NOT love! Yes, it's attraction, and yes, it's need, and yes, it
may be mutual. But until you know more about that person than that in some
way, they look good to you, you can't honestly call it love.

jds
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Wolf Park? (was Re: Desperation)
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:04:22 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>ones whose presence led to Waterloo's exotic pets prohibition, which
>forbids owning wolves, and also Blue Whales. I love small town governments).

*laugh*  Yup, nuclear-free small towns are a hoot too...

>He  never described the wolves as 'cute'. 

The puppies are cute.

>He did mention they are very impressive (They were about his mass) 
They are impressive.

>breath (Also, they don't share domestic pooches servility towards
>humans, so hasseling the carnivores is just tad dangerous, since 

Wolves are actually less agressive than dogs, I think.  (They fight
for dominance because that's just the way they do things.)  

Wolf-dog hybrids are another matter.  They combine the aggression of
dogs with the predatory instincts of wolves, and this can be an
interesting combination, especially since they are as social as
wolves, and need companionship.  Tying one in the back yard all day
can have unfurtunate consequences, as hybrid owners occasionally all
too painfully discover.

-- 
Kiran Wagle <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Can we can the suck-up bit?
Keywords: encourage friendship?
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:38:26 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

Bathsheba.Grossman@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bathsheba Grossman) writes:

> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>...
>>I'll come if Sheba does.

>A generous suggestion.  How are your Gazongas? perhaps we won't have
>to bother with Tryg at all & could just compliment one another.

You can ask my trainer how they are. 

Using a friend's classification of mammary size (tits, breasts, boobs, 
and gazongas), mine are breasts. 

Tits are the less-than-a-handful kind, and gazongas are the kind that 
qualify as a blunt instrument if wielded properly.

"Officer, we can't find the murder weapon..."

--
Stef                 "What would *you* call the creation of the universe?"
stef@apple.com       "The Horrendous Space Klablooie!"             
                                                              - Watterson
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Various ramblings...
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 08:38:09 GMT

fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter) writes:
>Or they are unemployed.

johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>What does being employeed have to do with being intelligent or for resenting
>someone that they may suspect was more intelligent.  Have you ever been 
>unemployeed?  I have.  It's no fun.  Being unemployed has nothing to do
>with intelligence nor job skills.

What he says.

>Being unemployed does, however contribute to a persons self-esteem.
>It makes it difficult to taken women like Diamond out to dinner when
>you haven't had a paycheck in nine months.

Yah, if it wasn't for that I'd be down there, where ever that Duke place
is, right now.  But I don't know if not being able to really affects my
self-esteem.

							Ross Ridge

-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross						     db	 //
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Diamonds
Date: 5 Sep 92 03:22:58 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <14449@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:

>But of course you've only heard there was a hulking female named Diamond on
>American Gladiators.  You haven't actually watched the show, right?

I wish I had plausible deniability, but I _have_ seen the show :-(
It's on right after SNL, and sometimes I'll be off listening to tunes
or something when it comes on, and I won't pay enough attention to
turn it off immediately.

I guess it beats the monster car-crusher trucks :-)

PS: major news - we'll have NHL hockey on ESPN this year!  Yippee!

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com
Across the evening sky, all the birds are leaving
But how can they know it's time for them to go?		- Sandy Denny
From: diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: "want" vs "need"
Date: 6 Sep 92 17:18:05 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Sep6.031510.5670@csi.uottawa.ca> misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>   If someone told me "I need an SO in order to be happy", I would want
>to ask him or her:  Suppose you didn't have an SO, but you had just 
>found a cure for cancer.  Would you be happy?

I don't think "I need an SO in order to be happy" means "I need an
SO to experience any happiness at all", which is how you are interpreting
it.  If I'd just found a cure for cancer, I'd be happy, but I'd be *happier*
if I had a family to tell about it when I got home.  No, I guess that 
family wouldn't have to be a Quayle-esque Mommie, Daddy, Junior and
Sister, but  adult human beings tend to form family units with other
adult persons of the applicable sex, so the ideal peson would
be an SO.  A group marriage or whatever would be okay too- I just think
it's less likely.

>   Suppose you didn't have an SO, because you were in a (hypothetical)
>society where people never went steady.  But any time you wanted, you 
>could enjoy the company of a desirable MOTAS.  Would you be happy?

No, I wouldn't, and I suspect that this is where the true disagreement lies.
A world like the one you describe doesn't sound *bad*, and I certainly
don't have any problem with anyone who'd prefer to live in that world
than the one that actually exists.  However, I'm just not wired that way.
For me, the most *desirable* MOTASs would be ones that I loved.  As I
mentioned above, I suppose that I wouldn't have to limit that to ONE
significant person (Howard Family-type group marriages would qualify, in
my book).  Sex for sex's sake is okay as far as it goes (as someone
wise once said, bad sex is still a lot better than lots of other things :-))
but ultimately that's not  what I'm looking for.

>misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
>Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.

			--Diamond
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Subject: Re: "want" vs "need"
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 18:39:34 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Sep6.031510.5670@csi.uottawa.ca> misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:

>In article <5069@news.duke.edu>, diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) writes:

>> Well, what about "I need a significant other in order to be happy?" 
>> Does that count?  

>   Well, that (unlike "I need an SO") is, at least, a complete 
>statement.  But it's one I have a hard time believing.

How about, "I need an SO to be as happy as I want to be?"

>   If someone told me "I need an SO in order to be happy", I would want
>to ask him or her:  Suppose you didn't have an SO, but you had just 
>found a cure for cancer.  Would you be happy?

Yup, but even more radical, I'm happy now.  Not about everything
(I'm still trying to figure out what I want to post about a bad
friendship scar), but about so much more stuff than I was a year
ago that I'm thankful that happiness isn't taxable :-)

>   Suppose you didn't have an SO, because you were in a (hypothetical)
>society where people never went steady.  But any time you wanted, you 
>could enjoy the company of a desirable MOTAS.  Would you be happy?

Not if it was a different MOTAS every time.  The shared history and
continuity is very important to me, and I can't build intimacy in one
night.

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com
Across the evening sky, all the birds are leaving
But how can they know it's time for them to go?		- Sandy Denny
From: tarra@skat.usc.edu (Frat Boy)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What knockers!  Crreak.
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:33:33 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: skat.usc.edu

In article <1992Sep11.214610.9753@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>
>You've just never had your elbows treated properly.  Most people I
>know have only one erogenous zone, which includes the elbows.
>
>Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
>
Gee Seth,
	With all of your intimate knowledge of the female body and everything
else for that matter, why don't you start documenting your fabulous life and
either write a best seller, or for those of us with less exciting lives, maybe
a weekly magazine.  You could describe your conquests and all the bird trivia
you know.  A modern day Cliff Clavin if you will.

later,
-- 
"Chicks dig me because I rarely wear underwear"  
					Bill Murray 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: buick@belay (Patrick D. Buick)
Subject: Re: chemistry / love at first sight : fact or fiction?
Organization: Belay Enterprises Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 17:54:53 GMT

In article <4201@moscom.UUCP> wjb@moscom.com writes:
>Emma Williams (ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie) wrote:
>: Well, do you guys feel the same way?  Do you hate it if the woman makes
>: it too obvious that she can't live without you?  Actually, I'm sure you
>: probably do...I have heard men complain before about "clingy" women!
>
>Well, I'd find this a bit flattering, but I'd worry about anyone who really
>felt as if they couldn't live without someone else.  And if the someone else
>was me, it'd probably scare the daylights out of me.  I have enough trouble
>trying to keep my own life in working order without worrying about the
>impact of anything I do on someone else.  

Been there, done that.. I had a 5 year relationship somewhat like that.
I probably was a bit the same way (great... one on one)... and whoo boy,
did we tear each other down.... she's married now, quite happy... husband
is nice (although he wasn't a nice guy to meet her.... interesting point)
I'm just getting over it now 3 years later....

Yep... I dislike it.. I want a confident woman... self-assured... many are
and don't know it.. 

Patrick
>I'll grant that the last point has
>to be taken into consideration if you're in just about any relationship,
>but if someone is that attached, I think it takes on a lot more magnitude.
>
>Bill
>-- 
>"Bless me, Father; I ate a lizard."
>"Was it an abstinence day, and was it artificially prepared?"
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>Bill de Beaubien / wjb@moscom.com 


-- 
===========================| Land Line +1 403 286 9188
Patrick D. Buick EMT, EET  | Internet: buick%belay@uunet.uu.net
Belay Enterprises Inc.     | Internet: buickp@cuug.ab.ca
Calgary, Alberta, Canada   | UUCP:...keyword!calgary!pixel!belay!buick
From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What knockers!  Crreak.
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:02:15 GMT
	<1992Sep7.025433.429@peponi.wcc.govt.nz>
	<1992Sep11.214610.9753@fid.morgan.com>
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: sethb@fid.morgan.com's message of 11 Sep 92 21:46:10 GMT


In article <1992Sep11.214610.9753@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:

   In article <1992Sep7.025433.429@peponi.wcc.govt.nz>
   parks_typ@med.wcc.govt.nz (Rachel) writes:
   >
   >  The last I heard the elbow was
   >not an erogenous zone

   You've just never had your elbows treated properly.  Most people I
   know have only one erogenous zone, which includes the elbows.

Yup.  Includes the whole body... And that's the good news!

Here -- let me massage your left pinkie... :-) :-) 


						Spidey!!!


--
 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                              		   jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \          Beauty is the purgation of superfluities. -- Michelangelo
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Working at a Relationship
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:39:38 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In article <1992Sep4.145852.25869@gvl.unisys.com> liz@prc.unisys.com (Liz Loquacious) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.003025.17430@panix.com>, pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>|> >
>|> It's difficult, but it's not drudgery. That is, if you're doing it
>|> right it isn't. If it seems like drudgery, you're probably tackling
>|> the wrong things. The work on relationships is more like a high-wire
>|> act -- difficult, requiring intense concentration, occasionally panic
>|> inducing, sometimes painful, also often exhilarating.
>
>Yes, I think it can often be exhilarating but that's not said as often as
>I hear "hard work".  But to be fair that probably resonates dread in me
>because the relationships I've seen in my family and my marriage were lacking
>in anything resembling exhilaration.  It really irked me to listen to my
>cousin justifying her commitment to her marriage by telling me.. relationships 
>take a lot of hard work while her husband had left her and was living with 
>another woman. Some people just don't know anything but the struggle and don't 
>know when to let go.  

Keef***ingripes that's going just a tad far. I know someone who remained
committed to her divorce for some time after moving back in with her
ex-husband, but this one take the cake.

You have to have some good examples -- I've been lucky to have some
friends with strong but clearly complicated relationships to serve as
an existence proof. There is a real danger that if you only know the
hard work side, you keep a certain minimum level of misery in your life
because that's the way it feels right :-(

>|> paul    just call me pollyanna

>Okay, this is probably at least mildly amusing but I'm stumped!  What
>does it mean?  Sorry! 

Because I was posting such saccharine optimistic type stuff but
now I take it back :-\

paul
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Subject: Re: E.W. - Weddings....
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 11:57:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.114311.11898@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>I'm sure this would have come as a great shock to the first President of
>the Republic of Ireland, who was born in New York City.
>
>-- Herb Huston (1/64 Irish by descent from Jenny Fulton Bailey)

Are you really, really, really sure?  Your other 63 ancestors could have been
1/16, 1/64, 1/1024 part Irish too.  Your "Irish" ancestor could have been
13/1024 parts Italian, 58/1024 parts Danish, 645/1024 parts Scottish, 11/1024
parts West African, 2/1024 parts Iroquois (a couple Indians who visited
Europe and stayed or something), 331/1024 parts Hungarian, 34/1024 parts
Mongolian (intermarriage from when the Magyars lived in the steppe), and
368/1024 parts Briton.