HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOSEPH ALOYSIUS MCVEIGH)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: How Strong Should a Man Be? (#2)
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:36:14 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>>>
>>>and strong enough to say the 3 most powerful words in the english language,
>>>and mean them whole-heartedly.
>>
>>And for those of you scratching your heads, those three words are:

"Where's the remote?"
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Aloysius McVeigh | "The image of a 'noncompetitive, poor America' just
   jm0i@.Lehigh.edu     |  doesn't stand up. The level of pessimism is just not
       **********       |  warranted when you look at the facts and figures."
       "N.I.N.A."       |           Portfolio Manager Mark Holowesko
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Catwoman! Any Comments?  (Re: Where did I meet my SO?)
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 11:41:08 GMT

julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:
] diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:
] >jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
[ the Truth, Deleted, as it seems to ruin the story line... ] 
] >] ...some of us are wondering if herstory == history on
] >] this most important subject...
] 
] >Actually, it started out a bit earlier than
] >he says there - due to a confused person in
] >alt.personals (a third party).  Since drieux
] >was the only one who posted a reasonable
] >non-flame (!!) to this person, when he couldn't
] >get e-mail to me, he sent it to drieux.  
] 
] >drieux and I started corresponding in e-mail, and
] > ....
] >The rest, as they say, is history!
] 
] My God!  It's "Speak for yourself, John" in modern life!  Some people
] read those stories about early American history too many times...

Actually No, Miles Standish is not really a Good Model.
As I am No Longer in that Profession....

] Don't drieux and Catwoman kind of remind you of colonial settlers?
 
Please to take GeoPoliticalAgenda to talk.politics.misc,
We are Not RepressiveCapitalistExploitersOfIndiginousPopulations
in the Decaying Phase of Decadent Capitalism prior to the 
InEvitable Historical Dialectic of the Class Struggle.

{But I digress....}

] Was the confused third party standish@something.or.other.edu, I wonder?

Well it was a case that his site had a less than complete
set of maps about the real world, and even worse connections
to any NonBrainDeadMailer... so It was a Matter of Hacking
together a Logical BangPath.....

Last I heard he'd done an internship at MicroSmurf in Redmon.

ciao
drieux

ps: and yes, we do have very TraditionalFamilyValues.
I dig drainage Ditches, Chop Wood, and play cribage with her mother,
and she gets me cookies and ice cream.


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"Let's Get Digital, Digital"
	Olivia Newton TheHideousMachOSFKonspirakii
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: criteria
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 07:18:07 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1993Jan06.054357.25436@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>If you were a 20-year-old working in a retirement home, and the only people you
>saw were 80-year-olds, would you say that your lack of meeting an acceptable
>MOTAS was your own, for having requirements that the person be within a
>generation of you?  I tend to think not.

Of course its your own fault. Hell, you know better than this. I don't meet
eligible SOs sitting at my job either (working graveyard shifts) but at least
I try to have a life outside of work where I can meet potential SOs.
r.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (dreas)
Subject: Re: Meeting women in clubs
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 02:12:02 GMT

In article 0ioswB1w165w@momad.li.ny.us, frackas@momad.li.ny.us (George Frackas) writes:
>
>What does one say to a girl in a club, when one wants to meet her?
>I can never think of a single word to say to them.  Sometimes I might 
>make a futile attempt to start a conversation by asking for a light, or 
>for the time, or some stupid crap like that, but after I get the 
>light/time or whatever, it's back to "Duh, I don't know what to say" and 
>I never meet anyone.

Hey, Babe, Let me buy you a drink.
You must be a Libra.
I know, you're Italian.

Haeh, You're Jewish?
Love your nails.   --Frank Zappa (slightly misquoted from "Dancing Fool")
   
>Also, how does one approach a girl he's interested in, when she is 
>hanging around her friends?
 
Join them casually, and look interested in the conversation even if it is
about their PMS problems, yeast infections, etc.

Then follow Mr. Lode's advice on how to pick up girls.

dreas                                  Let's see you flame this one, James



Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: How can people do that?!!
Organization: Intergraph
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:29:15 GMT

In article <C0KIw2.JBn@portal.hq.videocart.com>, dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) writes:
> 
>   I have a good friend who was dating somebody for 1 year while he was 
> engaged. The girlfriend knew of the planned marriage. 3 weeks before the 
> wedding he called it off. 15 months later he married the girlfriend. My
> question isnt how he did it (or why). I know the answer to those. I think
> the real question in these situations is why would you get involved with
> someone who you know is into deception. The girl knew he was engaged. Why
> does she think he wont do the same to her ? 

I think that has to do with wishful thinking, "I can keep him/her from doing
that to me" or "He/she loves me and therefore".  I know that when I was 
involved with a girl that I knew was cheating on me, I thought "She will soon
realize how much I really love her and how much she needs me, and STOP", It
didn't happen.

> I think people who get together
> like this have seriously clouded judgement. 

I did, Love sucks eh?  Deaf, Dum, Blind, and STUPID.

> It's nice to think that the other
> person is doing the cheating FOR YOU, the truth is that they are doing it
> because of WHO THEY ARE, you dont figure into the equation much im afraid.

Unfortunately, most people do not learn this the easy way (ie- reading your
post).

> 
> Dave Fuller
> dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com
> 


-- 
Larry

             This .sig file has been purposely left blank.
From: brentaa@ac.dal.ca (brent, eh?)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: The Classiest Pickup Lines
Date: 10 Jan 93 18:39:52 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <27793@sybase.sybase.com>, mysti@sierra.sybase.com (Mysti Rubert) writes:
> Am I the only one who thinks that speaking to a stranger for the
> sole purpose of engaging in sex is *inherently* unclassy?
> -- 
> ========================
> Mysti Rubert, Oaktown, California 


Now Mysti, one must remember that all of us "nice guys" out here use pick-up
lines for the sole purpose of opening the lines of communication in order
to get to know the other person better and begin what may become a significant
relationship.....if sex should occur in the meantime, that is purely secondary.
;-)

My personal favorite...
"Excuse me, but as I looked at you from across the room, I couldn't help
noticing that you have no idea that I exist.  Do you think it would be 
possible to change that with an evening of enlightening conversation and
passionate sex?"

(yes, one of my friends actually used it, and it worked, but I haven't had the
nerve to use it myself yet...)

					-Brontosaur is back for a little while
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance
From: eomiya@borland.com (Elliot Omiya)
Subject: Re: Meeting guys
Originator: eomiya@genghis.borland.com
Organization: Borland International, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:36:40 GMT

macl6441@mach1.wlu.ca (macleod heather) writes:

>I've been reading a lot lately here about how men should go about meeting
>women, but nobody seems to be giving many suggestions on how women can meet
>men.  I ended a four year relationship a month ago, and I'm ready to meet
>someone new, but I'm not really comfortable with the bar scene.  There are
>guys in some of my classes, but I'm pretty shy.  Can someone give me some
>advice?
>Thanks!!

Hmm, Waterloo, Ontario, sounds cold there.  Got any ski resorts?  Doesn't
matter if you know how, learn well enough so that you can get on the chair
lift and try to pair up with cute guys.  In the U.S. (don't know about Canada)
the average male skier is college-educated, well-off and single, nice odds
if you can get them.  

Good luck!

-=<EHO>=-
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: hypocrisy
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 08:01:05 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1993Jan4.225419.27438@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> mel@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Meloney D Cregor) writes:
>No it isn't.  It may be stupid, senseless, idiotic, and futile, but it
>isn't hypocritical.  Hypocrisy ( again from my Random House College 
>dictionary) is defined as having desirable or publicly approved attitudes, 
>beliefs, principles, etc. that one does not actually possess.

Right- and Shelley said, more than once, that she has dated, sometimes
seriously, gentiles. On top of that, she says she has >TWO< marriage
proposals on the table (at least one from a Jewish man). And she is
crying to the net that she can't find a date? That all these men, up to
and including the two who want to marry her don't meet her specifications?
Her public attitude: 'I can't find anyone I liiikkkeeeee.' (whining included
at no extra charge).
Her actual situation: Men up to her armpits, including two marriage proposals.

I still maintain 1) This is hypocritical and 2) that the underlying fault lies
with Shelley herself, and not with the men or area she's in.
r.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Breaking up is hard to do....
From: thomas@datamark.co.nz (Thomas Beagle)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 04:30:23 GMT
Organization: Datamark International Ltd.

In article <1993Jan8.164658.29682@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:
>Maybe it's the fact that asking somebody if they just wanna be your
>boinkbuddy after they tell you they're looking for an emotional
>relationship seems a bit cold.
>
>>It's a hell of a lot better than pretending to love someone when you
>>do't in order to get sex.
>
>This is indisputably true, but tactless.

Oh, so we're sacrificing honesty in relationships for tact? 

(To merge threads) 

So you're one of these people who believe in letting relationships
drop by never talking to the other person - after all, to tell them it
was over might be tactless.

What would you thought if this prospectiuve partner had given a
different answer? "Ok, I'm prepared to go for a non-deep but friendly
relationship for a while."

They might have had a lot of fun.

>You're right, I am skeptical about this.  I was once in a relationship
>where I thought it was possible to remain 'fucking good friends'.  I was
>wrong.  You can make all the pacts and agreements with your partner that
>you want, but it dosen't preclude the possibility that someone's going
>to develop some kind of deeper feelings, particularly if you really are
>_friends_ and not just acquaintances.  It takes a cold individual to
>completely seperate themselves from the psychological and emotional
>aspects of sex with a friend, at least if it's on any kind of regular
>basis.  

In my single experience with this sort of relationship, we didn't have
any serious problems for the about 8 months that it lasted (and we did
have quite a lot of fun!). Eventually we found that we were starting
to annoy each other and broke up. We're still friends.

-- 
    Thomas Beagle | thomas@datamark.co.nz           Work: 64 4 233 8186
Datamark Intl Ltd | thomas@cavebbs.welly.gen.nz     Home: 64 4 499 3832
 Technical Writer | Yes, I do have long ears, a black nose, and a tail.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (dreas)
Subject: Re: GF ISO GF
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 02:52:15 GMT

Does GF stand for "Green Frog" ?

dreas

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: Question about divorced women...
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:21:38 GMT

In article <b=1rcnj@lynx.unm.edu>, blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
> Promise: Not a word about religion :)
> 
> Is this the right sort of approach?
> r.

It looks like you are doing about the only things possible, letting her
know that you do not wish to run her life, but would like to be included
in her life.  I guess patience(sp?) is the key word.  It takes a long
time to convince someone that you are not like "ALL OTHER MEN/WOMEN".

Good luck.
-- 
Larry

             This .sig file has been purposely left blank.
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance,alt.romance.chat
From: ziggy@liltyke.chi.il.us (Mark R. Hopf)
Subject: Re: Do you have a good pickup line?
Organization: Private Node, Batavia, IL, USA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:54:14 GMT

In article <1ia412INNabb@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
+>In article <Dec30.003237.35917@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> cs151kx@lamar.ColoState.EDU () writes:
+>>		WHAT IS THE CRAZIEST LINE YOU HAVE EVER HEARD?
+>
+>"Would you like to assist me in replicating the pose depicted on page 32
+>of the January 2-8 issue of TV Guide?"

You mean standing there talking in front of a painting?

<looks again at painting in-between Eddie Murphy and Halle Berry>

Oh!   O-o-o-o-o-h!!!  Do you have to keep a copy with you when you do that, 
or is the next line "Well, I have one at home, would you like to see it?"

-- 
Mark Hopf				My System Administrator went to a 
					USENIX convention, and all I got was 
ziggy@liltyke.chi.il.us			this stupid .sig.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: rossi@mtu.edu (Rossi)
Subject: Threaded smorgasboard
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:58:07 GMT

   Subjects rarely stay on target for long.  Divergent threads
rip the bindings of artickles placed upon the subject heads.

   songbird - snagged again this net I did
Xref: sparky soc.singles:35415 alt.romance:15701
From: loosemore-sandra@cs.yale.edu (Sandra Loosemore)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance
Subject: Re: Meeting guys
Date: 5 Jan 1993 19:01:51 -0500
Organization: staff hacker @ Yale Haskell project
NNTP-Posting-Host: functor.systemsz.cs.yale.edu
In-reply-to: macl6441@mach1.wlu.ca's message of Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:03:11 GMT

macl6441@mach1.wlu.ca (macleod heather) writes:

   I've been reading a lot lately here about how men should go about meeting
   women, but nobody seems to be giving many suggestions on how women can meet
   men.  I ended a four year relationship a month ago, and I'm ready to meet
   someone new, but I'm not really comfortable with the bar scene.  There are
   guys in some of my classes, but I'm pretty shy.  Can someone give me some
   advice?

The canonical suggestion (applicable to both men and women, BTW) is to
join hobby clubs or other group social activities.  Informal lessons
or classes are good also.  Some things I've tried are group figure
skating lessons, a war gaming club, and a fencing class.  There are
also things like ballroom dance lessons, book discussion groups,
joining a community orchestra or theatre group, volunteering at a
local zoo or museum, or whatever, depending on your own interests.  I
think the important thing is that you do something you enjoy anyway that
just happens to involve seeing the same people every week so you can get
to know them in a low-pressure situation.

-Sandra
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.abortion.inequity,misc.legal
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Maternity/paternity insurance
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:55:56 GMT

In article <1i7ut8INN7q6@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>In article <1i50iqINNjvu@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>>Hey, that's what we need: paternity/maternity insurance!  Then we wouldn't 
>>>>have to argue about forcing abortion, or withholding child support from 
>>>>children, or insulting with contracts.  Why hasn't someone thought of this yet?
>>>
>>>This is rich!  Would we require all men to carry such insurance?
>
>>How about all women?  I think that's at least as an appropriate requirement.
>
>Sure.  All men.  And all women (of childbearing age).  Fair enough.

The "pre-sex" contract which has been proposed >>IS<< an insurance contract,
according to the legal definition, i.e. "a contract whereby, for a stipulated
consideration, one party undertakes to compensate the other for loss on a 
specific subject by specified perils" (Black's, 5th Ed.). The only difference 
between the "paternity/maternity insurance" which you just endorsed, Michal, 
and the "pre-sex contract", which you have previously rejected, is that the 
principals insure EACH OTHER, and the premiums cancel each other out, so no
actual money changes hands unless pregnancy occurs. Look up "reciprocal 
insurance". Here's how I see it working:

	Woman's (Medical) Insurance Policy:

		Premium: $X
		Benefit: In the event of pregnancy, if policyholder decides to 
			 abort, insurer shall subsidize 50% (or more) of the 
			 cost of the abortion

	Man's (Liability) Insurance Policy:

		Premium: $X
		Benefit: In the event that policyholder shall become liable 
			 for the support of insured's child or children, then 
			 insured shall reimburse policyholder in full for any 
			 and all such liabilities. NOTE: this policy requires
			 policyholder to formally waive all rights to custody 
			 and/or visitation of said child(ren).

Each insures the other, then "pays" the other $X, which is a null transaction, 
since the premiums cancel each other out.

So, why do you endorse "paternity/maternity insurance", but not a "pre-sex 
contract"? What do you see as the essential difference between the two
legal instruments?

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract )
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:07:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.064051.2715@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
> In article <TJG01.93Jan5160303@thdhub.HomeDepot.COM> tjg01@thdhub.HomeDepot.COM (Terry Gardner) writes:
> >
> >   In <1993Jan4.011649.17077@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> >
> >And what is "sensitivity training"?
> 
> I can't claim to know how james does his classes, but when I'm conducting
> a sensitivity training course, I first get my student to relax, usually
> sitting directly in front of me, facing away, with my arms around her; then
> we start with the experience of various ways of touching her hair and
> later progress on to the neck, first with different applications of the
> fingers, different touches and different speeds, then adding in lips, the
> gentle application of the teeth, and the careful and judicious use of the
> tongue in concert with all the above.  Then, we either continue with that
> for a while or go on to more advanced techniques.
> 
> Trygve   (I'm very picky about who gets to be in my classes, but maybe
>           james has some space left open in his.)


Wait a minute, while this may work, I've found that my method is much quicker
and more guarenteed to work.  Tie them up and use a cat-of-nine-tails.  They
get real sensitive-real quick...  Some get so sensitive that you can't even
touch them.
-- 
Larry

             This .sig file has been purposely left blank.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (dreas)
Subject: Re: About Dating Outside One's Group....
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 22:06:37 GMT

In article 1iqnt8INNh2e@golem.wcc.govt.nz, parks_typ@med.wcc.govt.nz () writes:
>Along the same lines ...
>
>
>
>>>>] >  Dating someone outside of
>>>>] >one's faith goes well for a while, but how can you respect someone whose
>>>>] >entire religious beeing is based on error?
>
>I'm very wary of dating people who are practising in their religion, not
>because I think they're wrong but  because I don't 
>believe in any particular religion and have no intention of joining any, therefore
>if things ever came to marriage there would be a major conflict, for example I
>believe to marry a practising Catholic you have to either convert to
                    ^^^^^^^^^^
>catholicism or/and promise to bring up your children as catholics, neither of
>which I would be prepared to do.
>
>
>Also, I can't help feeling a helluva a lot of people who sit in a church on
>Sundays or whenever they meet are hypocrites in that they only obey the
>basic laws of christianity/human kindness in those few hours, the rest of the
>time they kill, steal and generally are everything the 10 commandments tells
>you not to be.
>
>
>Any thoughts on this?  Am I way off the mark?

Up until now, I have avoided the Topic of Catholics, but here it comes:

*I* personally believe in living a life where consideration for others
is just as strong as looking out for number one, despite having been
baptized, confirmed, etc. a Catholic. 

My father lives his life the same way that I do. We never go to church 
except for weddings & funerals. He's a non-practising Catholic who is
married to a practising Catholic. They were kind enough to let me make
my own decisions about religion. 

My mother is quite a case: She goes to church every Sunday, says
her prayers to every saint daily, and moves the beads on her rosary every
time the priest tells her to say a "Hail Mary" after confession.

She is, you could say, devout.

Just because *I* am a Catholic doesn't mean that *I* live my life the way
she does. If there is a God, he is everywhere, and knows that my peace is
made with him. This manifests itself in the way that *I* interact with
people. I primarily believe in mutual respect!

If any woman should ever marry me, I could NEVER force my views on her.
If she's a follower of whatever, I only ask that *she* not force that on me!

I don't speak for all Catholics, I speak for myself!

I would suggest that you look at people individually instead of
making sweeping generalizations about one group or another, OK?

BTW, I make my own commandments for modern times!

dreas

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tedwards@wam.umd.edu (technopagan priest)
Subject: Re: Re^2: Females have it easy!
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:54:37 GMT

In article <4362@novavax.UUCP> bramson@novavax.UUCP (Jennifer Bramson) writes:
>markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
>
>>In article <oneil.725199192@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>>Three, women are the only ones I ever hear referring to her as
>>attractive, which just goes to prove that you really have to be a man to know
>>what turns on a man.

>Which is????????????????????????

Oh sure, I tell you, you tell your friends, they tell
their friends, and before you know it, we'll have a global
catastophy on our hands!

-Thomas
 resident technoshaman
 "lasers and roses"

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (dreas)
Subject: Re: Upper Midwest
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 02:55:30 GMT

In article HE4@unix.portal.com, mzank@shell.portal.com (matthew c zank) writes:

>Okay, if you know so much wher are the places where you can meet
>someone?? Like I say agin and agin the bars or anything else
>like that are useless.

Awww! Poor baby! read my BarTeknik (patented).

It works extremely well in small, intimate lounges
where you become a regular. Women tend to notice
you if you're a regular and pleasant.

I have another date tonight because of this.

dreas