HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: PRES DEBATE
Summary: Gag.
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:20:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsi.1992Nov5.182057.12013
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <ewright.720905879@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com
(Edward V. Wright) babbles:
> Actually, this is nothing new, just the same old double standard the
> left has been using since the 1960's.  "American Must Not Interfere
> In The Affairs Of Other Nations."  (Thought, of course, it's perfectly
> fair for other nations to tell us how to run our affairs.)

The left???  It's straight out of Patrick Buchanan's platform.  And
George Bush's, too, if you count a repressive monarchy which only
abolished slavery in 1962 telling us how to run--and when to stop--
a war.  Get a clue, dude.
 
> Now, Rob, what would a socialist know, or care, about living in a free
> country?  

What would a moron who can't distinguish between economic systems
(e.g., socialism) and political systems (e.g., democracy) know about it
either?  I'm afraid it's off to re-education camp for you, Edward.

               *** ***
Ken Perlow   ***** *****
05 Nov 92   ****** ******   15 Brumaire An CCI
            *****   *****   gadfly@ihspc.att.com <- New address.
             ** ** ** **             ^^^
...L'AUDACE!   *** ***   TOUJOURS DE L'AUDACE!  ENCORE DE L'AUDACE!
Newsgroups: soc.singles,talk.politics.misc
From: puter@orphan.nashvil.ingr.com (PuterDude)
Subject: Re: Education and the Single World
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:33:02 GMT

 kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>>blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>
>>>Any goober with half a brain, perseverence and luck can get a college degree.
>>Would someone explain why I'm still here then?
>Maybe because you have a whole brain?

7 on suckup meter.

-- 
(Puter is a deranged individual at puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com)
When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one,
an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
				  -- Edmund Burke
Xref: sparky soc.singles:30324 alt.pagan:12692 alt.romance:13878 alt.sex:35642 alt.polyamory:1749
From: isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.romance,alt.sex,alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:11:51 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY


Well, I'll throw my two cents in here to be scarfed up and flamed at...
I see a problem with same-sex parents, it's that the child(ren) will
-probably- (see, I'm NOT saying WILL) miss out ona wide range of
emotional responses and thought patterns.. They'll either see all-male,
or all-female type behaivor. Of course, single-parent child-raising has
the same problems..  Now, am I saying that single/same childraising shoudn't
take place? No. But I do see it not being as effective as hetero, just
due to lack of exposure. (ok, flame away)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: What do you Am men think about Am wome
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:01:49 GMT

julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:

>atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik) writes:
>>Women look for love and find sex while men look for sex and find love!

>Guess I'm just demanding.  I look for love AND sex AND Scrabble, myself.

Yes, but have you found it???

-- 

Kiran Wagle                           <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: PRES DEBATE
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:43:27 GMT
	<1992Nov9.010922.11400@netcom.com>
	<1992Nov11.062227.8133@oracle.us.oracle.com>
	<BxKu13.20q@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu's message of 12 Nov 92 00:15:02 GMT

In article <BxKu13.20q@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:


   wkaufman@us.oracle.com (William Kaufman) writes:

   >    What I'm finding distressing is that rational Republicans (a
   >majority of them, to be sure, yourself included) haven't tossed the
   >extremists out.  Or walked out themselves.

I'm no friend of Robertson or Buchanan, but to be fair the Democrats
haven't thrown out Wellstone or ... oh hell, that guy Jane Fonda used to
be married to.

   Yes, this amazes me too.  Maybe Tsongas and Rudmann can get the center
   together in a new party.

They both *swear* they're not starting a new party, just trying to get
their respective parties to move toward the "socially liberal, fiscally
conservative" position.  (I'm not sure that *is* the "center".)
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: What do you Am men think about Am women?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:56:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.005730.17744@news.acns.nwu.edu> drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max) writes:
>                                                             BTW squirrels
>like to sleep in your sleeve while you watch TV (they aren't big TV fans it
>turns out)

The squirrels are holding out for smell-o-vision, which will have much more
meaning for them.  Chimpanzees are big TV fans, though.  There's a zoo in
Britain that provides captive chimps (and orangutans, too) with TV sets to
ward off boredom.  Some researchers at Central Washington University have
a study underway to determine chimps' viewing preferences, both with and
without control of the channel selector.  Since these chimps are fluent in
ASL, we might actually get some reviewsof the shows, too.

-- Herb Huston
From: brad@optilink.UUCP (Brad Yearwood)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Late at night
Date: 10 Nov 92 05:30:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <lfmp4bINNb6s@news.bbn.com>, ahsiung@bbn.com (Anita Hsiung) writes:
#
# Gosh, it's almost 11pm, I'm still in the office.  Why am I always the
# one to turn on the burglar alarm?

[Can't pass this one up.]

Guess it's 'cuz that alarm just has a thang for you, hon.

Brad Yearwood    brad@optilink.com
Petaluma, CA
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein)
Subject: Little Rock, ARKANSAS (Here I Come Again)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:50:08 GMT


I was just asked to make tentative reservations for Arkansas again.

So, (not to be redundant), if there is anyone out there who would 
like to get together for dinner at Cajun's Warf, bowling at Professors,
a drink at Wrangler's or whatever, feel free to volunteer.  

All work no play isn't good for the spirit.

				Steve
				(215) 969-6604 or e-mail
From: fred@walter.UUCP (Fred Walter)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Hints (Was Re: What is attractive)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 14:42:29 GMT
Organization: GRW Enterprises

valentin@next3.corp.mot.com writes:
>The response to the 'hints' thread has been great.  I summarized the  
>various opinions I have been gathering:
>
>GUYS:

[text deleted, basically saying that guys need to do alot of extra work]

>GALS:

[text deleted, basically saying that girls should be patient with guys
 when they don't manage to do all that of extra work]

Hmmm. So, I'm supposed to do my damnest to make her feel special. No mention
here of my feelings or desires. And she's supposed to be understanding when
I don't measure up to filling her (usually not directly stated) needs...
again no mention of my needs or wants.

For some reason I don't like this relationship model.

(Why is it that older women are more reasonable about these things ?)

	fred
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Re: Do you remember 1970 to 1980?
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 11:23:43 GMT
Followup-To: misc.misc

In article <9211112207.AA06353@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu writes:
>
>      As part of an impromptu research project, I'd like to know what
>  YOU think the single most important ( dramatic, traumatic ) event of`
>  1970 to 1980 was.

Probably the end of the Vietnam War. (uh, military incursion, sorry)

Or perhaps the election of Ronald Reagan as president in late 1980.

Or perhaps my first date, etc..

This doesn't really belong in soc.singles.

Mark
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: That wacky electoral college
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:46:02 GMT

In article <96094@netnews.upenn.edu>, crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
> 
> OK, this bugs me in every presidential election.  Why do we still have the
> electoral college?  
> 
> -- 

I think it has to do with the fact that you need to hit congressional lawmakers
with a stick to get their attention.  Doing away with it has been proposed
for as long as I can remember (of course that is last week, my mind sorta
self destructed when Clinton won :( ) 
I think that should be a NON-partician (sp?) goal for the next 2 to 4 years
along with the following.

1. Do away with the electoral college!
   [it is my understanding that it was formed because so many people couldn't
    get to the cities to vote, so the town/community would vote locally and
    send a town representative to the city.  It is no longer needed.]
2. Set term limits!  
   [Does anyone know the results of the 14 states which had that on the 
    ballot this time?  I haven't heard.]
3. Balanced budget admendment!
   [speaks for it's self.]
4. Line item veto!
5. Check box for declaring 10% of your taxes to go against deficit!
6. Reduction of time running for election!
   [I don't think 1 to 1 1/2 years is needed to play politics for the upcoming
   election.]
 
> Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu



Larry Billings
---

Well, with the election over it's time for a new .sig [not that the old one
is not appropriate, it's even more appropriate] but let's review it.

Most of us are sad,

[Well, the rest will be soon enough]

No one let's it show,

[And you will have no money to show]

I've been shadows of myself,

[But could still see my position better than most]

How was I to know?

[Can't answer that, but I did know]

*******************************************************************************
NEWSIG
Wantad: Single White Male "WITH" job seeks Single Female with job and 2 or
more kids.  Object: Marriage so we can avoid Clintons tax increases.
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: How would *you* react?
Organization: my opinions only
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:42:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.224717.20401@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:

>but how many actually find emotionally secure and available people
>interesting romantically when they do meet them?

Well, I do.  At least, I did when I met one who was emotionally secure
(among her other wonderful qualities).  I assume I still would.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Hints (Was Re: What is attractive)
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:39:35 GMT

In article <lfgan9INNhub@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com
(Dawn Hardin) writes:
>larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings) writes:

>>You know I love the baby very much, but the first year or two together is
>>always the hardest, because the people have to get to know each other, and
>>having a child can only complicate things.
>>
>>Needless to say, she EXPLOADED!!!
>
>If it had been me, your ass would have hit the asphalt so hard that the
>asphalt would have dented.
>
>That said, I don't think honesty was the problem here.  You were absolutely
>correct to be honest here, because think of the problems you'd have had
>if you lied about something as important as that, and went into a permanent
>relationship with ambiguous feelings about acting as a stepfather without
>having had time alone with the mother first.  It would have really sucked
>for all three of you.  But you can't blame this on being truthful.  

Dawn, I don't think you read the same posting I did (and we both
quoted it).  Larry said that he loved the baby, but he would have
preferred meeting the woman before she had it (or in a universe in
which she didn't have it).  Given that he loved the baby, I don't see
any reason to believe that he would have had "ambiguous feelings about
acting as a stepfather".

Note: I'm attributing to Larry the same feelings I once had, when I
was in a similar situation in which I would have responded similarly.
And when she broke up with me, I was more upset that I wouldn't be
seeing her son any more than about not seeing her.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: girl/lady/female boy/guy/male
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:13:21 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <74211@apple.apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:

>I like gender-neutral terminology, because I consider it an interesting game 
>to try to write that way. (Like all games, it can get ridiculous, like when
>you substitute hubeingkind for humankind.) 

Or perdaughter for person.

>As for whether to use it or not, my advice would be to default to the more 
>common gender neutral terms, like Ms., he or she, humankind instead of 
>mankind, woman instead of girl, man instead of boy. 

How about humanity instead of humankind?  Seems a bit more elegant.



-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Matt Valentine
Subject: Re: Hints
Reply-To: valentin@next3.corp.mot.com
Organization: MOTOROLA 
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:17:19 GMT

Seth Breidbart writes

 >Eventually (after the romance stage) the real feelings  
 >should be more important than sex.   [Matt]

 >What a silly dichotomy.  Why not have the "romance stage" forever?  
[Kiran]

 >I dont really believe that those super-intense feelings that are present  
 >in the first year or so of the relationship are ever as strong again.   
 >Yes, there still can be romance, but the people should start accepting  
 >each other as imperfect. Idealistic visions need to be stepped back to  
 >reality otherwise one or both will end up disappointed. [Matt]
 
> It's possible to have the initial super-intense feelings, and still
> accept the other person as imperfect.  Wonderful, but imperfect.

You and Kiran seem to agree, I guess maybe Ive been missing something.   
Maybe my last SO wasn't so special afterall :-).

Matt
valentin@next3.corp.mot.com

The opinions expressed here are strictly my company's.
From: bill@ka2qhd.de.com (Bill Luzenko)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: a question in search of an answer!!!
Keywords: men
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:57:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: ka2qhd - Ocean NJ

I went to a dance and danced with my male friend. Since I am a man I was
called queer. question: why can two women dance together and be friends,
but when two men do the same they are two homos? Can someone answer this
question? WHY!!!
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: pickerig@eee.bham.ac.uk (Mr. G. Pickering)
Subject: Re: I'm singel...   :(
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1992 15:02:57 GMT
Organization: The University of Birmingham, England
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Mike Garcia (migarcia@hfglobe.intel.com) wrote:
: I can't spell...  hahhaha I just noticed that I spelled single wrong.. hahhaa
: Oh well this is me..
: 
: Hiya,
: 
:      Well let me see, <<looking in a mirror>>
[DELETED]

Oh dear, I hereby declare you well and truely toasted.
Mega-flames from hell are at this moment burning down
your door.

Think, before you drink, before you post.

Your post belongs in alt.penpals, or some such group.

Sorry for the abuse, but you are not the first, and I doubt
you will be the last!

Guy

--
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Guy Pickering                  | School of Electronic & Electrical Eng,  |
| E-MAIL: G.PICKERING@uk.ac.bham | University of Birmingham,               |
| Tel: (021) 414 4340            | Edgbaston, Birmingham. B15 2TT.         |
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| "I have ten pairs of trainers...One for each day of the week" - Sam Fox  |
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: PRES DEBATE
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 03:07:04 GMT

Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

>Kirian, how many dead lakes constitue something wrong?

You see, that is the problem.  Dead lakes do NOT constitute something
wrong.

One of the most telling conclusions of the NAPAP was that those dead
northeatern lakes were only alive for a brief period after the area
was logged.  Core samples show that all but a handful of those lakes
have always been acidic.  this is confirmed by Indians' histories,
which say the lakes were never a source of fish.  Never, that is,
until the forests were cut, thus allowing runoff and ash to neutralise
the acid.  Then, as I recall, the lakes were stocked with fish.  Now,
as the lakes revert to their historical state, people who sell fishing
equipment are screaming.

>Ever looked at the price over time curve for maple syrup?

No, but if you can direct me to same, and convince me there are not
other reasons, such as deforestation and loss of small farms, that
might account for the increase (if that is what you mean) do tell me.

>What constitutes certainty of harm?  The supremacy of anerobic organisms?

No, real science.

Quoted from an article in _Reason_ by William Anderson (Jan 92)
on Edward Krug, the NAPAP, and politics:

(The first article referred to, co-authored by Charles R. Frink, is
"Acid Rain on Acid Soil: A New Perspective." _Science_, 1983)

"Krug and Frink noted that acidity in lakes and streams had positive
correlations with land use, a point verified by the EPA in 1989.  Core
samples taken from the bottom of many Adirondack lakes show increased
acidity in the recent past but also show they were acidic and fishless
before European settlement.  Krug noted in his article "Fish Story,"
published in the Heritage Foundation's 'Policy Review,' that the
translation of the Iroquois word 'adirondack' is "bark eater," and
history has shown that many of these lakes and watersheds failed to
provide fish and game for the Indians."

"Trout survived better in the Adirondacks around the turn of the
century
than in earlier times because of extensive slash-and-burn logging of
that
area.  Eliminating the acid vegetation caused the soil to become more
alkaline (a high pH), reducing the acid flowing into lakes and
streams.  In
turn, the lakes became more hospitable to fish.  After "forever wild"
legislation stopped the logging in 1915, the watersheds reverted to
acid
soils and vegetation, and the lakes became acidic again.
-- 

Kiran Wagle                           <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: Hints (Was Re: What is attractive)
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:28:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.193318.13867@fid.morgan.com>, sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
> In article <96274@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
> (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov4.182033.9837@b8.b8.ingr.com> larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings) writes:
> >
> >
> >I'm confused here.  She had a child, and you broke up because you thought
> >the child would complicate things?  Or -- she had a child, and you broke
> >up because you wanted her to get rid of the child?  
> 
> I read it as, she broke up with him because he would have _preferred_
> that she didn't have a child.  The child didn't prevent the
> relationship, but she was apparently insistent on somebody who
> preferred a woman who already had a child to a woman without one.
> 
> It's also not clear that she realized this.
> 
> Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com


Actually I didn't perfer her not to have the baby, and I explained this to her,
but she kept up with a hypothetical scenario.  I have always been told, the 
first two years is a learning period which needs as few outside distractions
as possible.  Never having been married, I had to take other people's word for 
this.

BTW, the original reason she had the baby was her and the hubby were having
problems.  She thought that a child would bring them closer.  It added to
the fights and the marriage ended in a nasty divorce.

Larry Billings
Most of us are sad, No one lets it show,
I've been shadows of myself,How was I to know?         Eagles
*******************************************************************************
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: PRES DEBATE
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:32:08 GMT
	<1992Nov4.171823.7753@b8.b8.ingr.com>
	<1992Nov4.221203.18305@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu's message of 4 Nov 92 22:12:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.221203.18305@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:

   In article <1992Nov4.171823.7753@b8.b8.ingr.com> larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings) writes:
   >In article <Bx5uC3.4LG@access.digex.com>, huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
   >> 
   >> None of these problems (global warming, ozone depletion, rainforest
   >> destruction) can have a lasting solution without human population control.
   >> Since George Bush is one of the two chief obstacles, that's why I voted
   >> against him a few hours ago.
   >
   >Please excuse my Obvious ignorance, but pray tell just how is George Bush
   >one of the "two chief obstacles" in the problems of WORLD OVERPOPULATION???????

   Largely through the simple but effective technique of blocking
   funding for any international aid projects that include the
   distribution of contraceptives or birth control information.  This
   policy was initiated under Reagan and continued under Bush.
   Fortunately for the planet, it seems likely that this policy will be
   rescinded early next year.

Whooo you're gonna have to give me a source for that ... since as I
recall it was blocking funding for birth-control and contraception
programs including funding for *abortions*.

I don't think it's any *smarter* a policy, but they weren't
anti-birth-control in general.
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Xref: sparky soc.singles:30513 alt.pagan:12775 alt.romance:13939 alt.sex:35959 alt.polyamory:1765