HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dehaller@eldpa.epfl.ch
Newsgroups: alt.surfing
Subject: Re: Anybody ever heared about "MUNDAKA" ?
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:57:03 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

In article <1992Jul28.115743.1@eldpa.epfl.ch>, dehaller@eldpa.epfl.ch writes:
> In article <AXEL.92Jul24162521@avalanche.cs.tu-berlin.de>, axel@cs.tu-berlin.de (Axel Mahler) writes:


   ************* E R R A T U M *************

> I never surfed Mundaka in big conditions, and the best way
> to go surfing is to reach Bakio (a few Kms west to Bermeo) or Sopelana (further
> west).

Apologises to all Mundaka surfers, what I mean by "the best way to go surfing"
is when the swell is not consistent enough to meet Big Mundaka.

If conditions are on, then go for it (mind the locals during week-end...

Emmanuel.
From: cclrt@bristol.ac.uk (Luke Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.surfing
Subject: Re: Point break (the movie) and surf spot answer
Date: 23 Jul 92 08:12:51 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Bristol, England

In article <1992Jul22.145417.2307@gdr.bath.ac.uk> mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D Burdorf) writes:
>
>I saw the movie "Point Break" on video last night.

Not having read any reviews about the film, I paid good money to see this
trash at the cinema. I wish that some real surf movies would make their way
inland sometimes.
Though I must say, I liked the skydiving shots.

>As for the reef I surfed on Sunday, I've gone to the mount and
>the Shaman of surf and I both agree that all I should reveal is that
>it's listed in one of the Surf Reports for England.  What are the
>waves like in Aberwysth anyway?  When does it get good?  Can you
>give me a call and let me know when its on?
>

Sorry Chris, I think you got the wrong chap. I've never surfed in Wales.
My regular spots (I'm a Sunday surfer :-(  ) are along the coast between
Widemouth (North Cornwal) and Morthoe (North Devon).
I don't have a secret spot :-( maybe one day.

Luke.

P.S. Does anyone know what happened to Phil Duke (HP, Bristol) he used
to put up some real good surf reports.
From: cclrt@bristol.ac.uk (Luke Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.surfing
Subject: Re: night session
Date: 29 Jul 92 08:21:48 GMT
Organization: University of Bristol, England

In article <152p8bINNavc@network.ucsd.edu> aglgrad@sdphu1.ucsd.edu (A Garret Lisi) writes:
>Eight thirty p.m., the longboards have headed for home.  The 
>esci-lids have had their fill of the shore break.  It's just 
>me, some scattered macrocystis pyrifera, and four foot sets.  
>Blackness.  The horizon grows higher.  Spin.  Paddle.  Feel 
>the wave without seeing it.  Free fall into the inky black 
>pit.  Howl.  Skegs dig into the face.  Bottom turn.  Drive.  
>The world ahead explodes into sudden white.  Carve for the 
>top.  Launched.  Sky.  Gravity has it's say.  Paddle out for 
>the next one, it's not time to go just yet.  Wind-an-sea, 
>south swell, high tide, 70F water.  Why haven't I lived here 
>all my life?
>
>Shaka,
>-Garrett 

Excellent post. I know that feeling - the rest of the World might as well
just not exist.
Hope to have some sessions like these in September, when the nights start to
draw-in and the swells start to build.

BTW, forgive my ignorance but what is a macrocystis pyrifera, not sure I'd
like to meet one on a dark night just me and thousands of miles of Ocean :-)

cheers,
Luke.
 
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Getting the idea across...
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 04:45:28 GMT

In article <asuccop.712259706@milton>
     asuccop@milton.u.washington.edu (Annemarie Succop) writes:

>   i feel like it's impt *not* to try to talk a new person 'into'
>   polyamory; just as i wouldn't try to 'make' a monosexual person
>   bi or a vanilla person leather, i wouldn't try to make a monogamous
>   person polyamorous.

   Bravo!  But, on the other hand, I am often attracted to people who
are not intially polyamorous.  I'm sure this has happened to other
people as well.  We need a common set of tools to use to describe quite
clearly who and what we are (as much as words can do this) in order to
convey that we're not "cheating, adulterous scum."

   "What does marriage mean to you?" I was asked recently.  I said
quite honestly that I was married to Omaha for the "privileged"
reasons, like mutual health benefits and tax breaks.  On the other
hand, what _marriage_ (the concept) meant to me was two (or more)
people joining together for a single purpose: A stable base for
(esoteric concept coming up) continuation of the species.

   As I said, I tend to favor Heinlein's way of thought... families
exist for the purpose of raising and nuturing responsible
_individuals_.  But getting that across to a 'mundane' (compared to the
polyamorous) is rather... tricky.

      Elf !!!

-- 
Elf Sternberg    __   |     I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss
elf@halcyon.com  \/   | has looked into me.  Neither liked what we saw.
elf@polari.online.com |                              - Brother Theodore
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: asuccop@milton.u.washington.edu (Annemarie Succop)
Subject: scientists
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:07:08 GMT


	hmm

	i think it's more likely that folks in sci fi books are
	statistically more likely to be scientists, and/or that
	folks on the net are statistically more likely to be 
	scientists than it's that sicnetists are more likely
	to be polyamorous.

	i have a job interviewing ppl (for a heath study) about a 
	variety of things, including their sex partners.  i was really
	quite pleasantly surpised when someone i thought of as wildly
	different from me in terms of education, 'advantages', money,
	cultural identity, etc fairly calmly reported that she had
	two serious, steady bfs.

	perhaps scientists are more likely to be in a position to see
	& use high flown descriptors such as 'polymamorous'; i'd
	be very hesitant to theorize that the *ideas*/attitudes are
	more prevalent among the science set.

	annemarie
	asuccop@u.washington.edu


Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: john@n7kbt.rain.com (John Opalko)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Getting the idea across...
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:42:57 GMT
Organization: Two strange people in Forest Grove, OR

In article <asuccop.712306375@milton> asuccop@milton.u.washington.edu (Annemarie Succop) writes:
>
>	then sometimes if i feel like it i'll make the distinction
>	b/w 'legally married' which i have been, 'partnered' which i
>	relaly haven't been, & 'ceremonially married' which i also
>	haven't really been.

Yes!  Bingo!  Deborah and I make a similar distinction.  We feel that there
are actually three kinds of "marriage."  There's the marriage for oneselves,
the marriage for your community, and there's the legal marriage.

We consider ourselves "married" in that, last October, we pledged ourselves to
each other and declared ourselves wed.  This was done solely for ourselves.
There was no one else there.  It was just the two of us by a stream in the
forest.

This, to our minds, is the most important ceremony.

This September, we will have our closest friends over and we will be
handfasted.  This is the ceremony of sharing our commitment to each other with
our community.  This is the second most important ceremony.

About a year after that, we will have the legal ceremony, with blood tests and
relatives, etc.  This is for the families and the bureaucracy.  This is the
least important of all.

None of these marriage ceremonies have contained or will contain any promises,
implicit or explicit, of monogamy or exclusivity.  Even the legal ceremony
will be bereft of the "forsaking all others" clause.


			John Opalko
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Anonymous Post for "Alan Hardy"
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 04:41:14 GMT

The following is an anonymous posting on behalf of an alt.polyamory
reader under the pseudonym "Alan Hardy."

----------

[from Eric Weaver:]

> I would like to ask the readers to whom it applies: What was it that
> made you aware of your own polyness (or perhaps the mononess of others
> and your difference therewith)?

  Well, this seems a good theme for my first post, though for now I'll
be a Nervous Nellie and stay pseudonymous.  (Thanks, Tim for the
post.)
  I had trouble most of my life with imagining myself in a lifelong
monogamous relationship.  I also found nonmonogamy, group sex, and,
later on, bisexuality to be appealing ideas. However, for years I
didn't take them seriously as things I could really do. My attitudes
were influenced, like many others here, by reading science fiction,
particularly Heinlein. But for some reason I never took very seriously
that I could be or would want to be involved in these activities in
the real world. In particular, I had a lot of negative stereotypes,
acquired from general prejudices of the society, not to mention
reading the swingers' ads in het porno magazines, about what kind of
people were involved in non-monogamous relationships.
  It was a stunning, life-changing revelation, when a woman I was
involved with, a fellow scientist, told me that she was bisexual, and
told me about her experiences in threesomes with two bisexual men,
non-monogamous relationships she'd been in, etc. and I realized that
there were people I would actually want to know who did these neat
things.
  That was about a year and half ago, and I spent some time regretting
that I had finally gotten a clue at 29 instead of at 19 or 16.  But I
got over that pretty quick, and have been having a much more enjoyable
(if complex) life since then.

--Alan Hardy
*******

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You mean there are TWO of you, Pierce?
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  God help us all."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Major Charles Emerson Winchester III
From: shava@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Shava Nerad Averett)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: It's all greek to me...;)
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:49:58 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Here's a hit on these concepts from someone who has a background of greek,
theology, and renaissance neoplatonic occutism...!

Eros -- the generative urge, passion, the sexual instinct.  That which 
	causes one to obsess on a partner, to idealize and distort both.
	The source of all creative and existential urges.  Personal energy.

Philios -- The love involved in interpersonal relationships.  Many many
	people associate this with 'brotherly love' because they learned
	the meaning of the word when learning about 'philadelphia' 
	In fact, most relationships among people partake of the concept
	philios -- friendship, 'filial', mother/father-child, whatever.
	It's *personal* love, if you will.

Agape -- Compassion, in the buddhist sense.  Love and feeling-with all
	things.  Grokking. ;)

To my mind, all relationships partake of each of these to some degree.
Even if you don't have an 'erotic' relationship with a friend, when you
get into a brainstorming session, and you are creating something -- when
you are hacking politics -- when you are discussing a new movie -- all 
of these things involve the PHILOSOPHICAL end of the concept of Eros.
That which creates.  And I think it is a fairly interesting map, since it
has always been people who I mesh with as friends most closely on a
creative level, who I find myself attracted to sexually.

In fact, this can be difficult if you work in a creative environment, and
are trying to keep up 'professional' relationships.  How many times have
people been working closely on a design project, and felt compelling 
attraction to each other, and then when they are on another project,
wondered what happened back there?  Eros!

In addition, most relationships partake to some extent of agape.  We
feel for our mother not just because she is our mother, but because she
is part of the idea of mothers, overall, because she is part of the idea
of family, because she *is*.  Because we relate to an individual, we 
realize that we can relate to many things, or anything.  This is the
root of compassion.  Because we can relate to anything, we can relate
to any individual, even ourselves.

So, in fact, sorting these out taxonomically, *EXCLUSIVELY*, is probably
an error produced by the taxonomy itself.  The philosophers who formalized
the terms never thought of them as being neat boxes, but more as the 
primary colors of the color wheel of relationship.


Agape
-- 
Shava Nerad Averett				shava_averett@unc.edu
/*  all materials (c)1992, Shava Nerad Averett, and have nothing significant
    to do with the University of North Carolina, a mostly owned subsidiary 
    of the NC Legislature, a mostly owned subsidiary of the DOT.      */
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: awozniak@zeus.calpoly.edu (The WOZ)
Subject: Getting the idea across...
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 01:55:29 GMT

What's the best way to explain the concept of polyamory to someone
who has never heard of the idea before?

-- 
"I find Thybalt cancels out Tabaffara, don't you?"
"Unless your oponent has studied his Agrippa, which I have."
  --awozniak@morpheus.calpoly.edu  (hey, I'm a fan, not a spellign fanatic)
: main me @ trigger @ desc setdesc me @ swap notify ;
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: jrussell@well.sf.ca.us (Jerry Russell)
Subject: Re:Re:Hello
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 05:37:54 GMT



Thanks to Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell for his reply to my previous post.
The dialog was as follows:

>   I just hate rejection.  My biggest problem is, I seldom have the
>   slightest clue as to why it happens to me.  People just clam up and
>   disappear.  Is it because I'm atheist/pantheist, or just didn't
>   wear enough deodorant?  When I was single it used to drive me nuts.

>> Maybe they had something else occupying their thoughts?  I think
>> [personally] that polyamory implies a willingness to back off as much
>> as it implies a willingness to go forwards.  Rejection may indeed mean
>> that there's some kind of problem involving you, and maybe the problem
>> is so severe that you won't be able to talk it over with the people
>> concerned, but...  but... you really do NOT want to have any kind of
>> relationship if there's problems between the concerned parties so
>> severe that the only way of dealing is running away.

>> If you want a polyamorous relationship, try for one based on affection
>> and honesty, rather than one based on distaste and deception.  Trust
>> me on this, a relationship is really a lot more fun where it's wide
>> open.  [Honest, ...]

>   Still, I think dealing with rejection at the hands of polyamorous
>   women would be an ESPECIALLY terrible experience for me.  According
>   to their world-view, it would be OK for them to love me if they
>  wanted.  So a rejection would be specifically stating to me that
>   I'm somehow not attractive or fun to be with.  This would be a
>   blow!

>> Er... not exactly.  I think you're assuming a lot about somebody you
>> haven't even met yet.  Ladies and gentlemen who deal out biting
>> rejections are not the sort that are fun to have in a poly
>> relationship.  And, a rejection may mean simply that there isn't
>> enough common ground between you.

   That's pretty good advice.  I didn't mean to imply that anyone ought to
go with me just to prevent my feeling bad.  Of course anyone can decide
not to relate to anyone else, for any reason whatsoever.  That's Real Life
101.  I really regret any implication that a woman ought to sleep with any-
one she isn't totally enthusiastic about--I think that would be damned
close to rape in this context.
     On the other hand, the emotional content of my remarks still represents
my reality.  I'm tired of being too conservative or too liberal or too old
or too young or too thin or too shy or too forward or too sensitive or too
insensitive.  I want to be water brothers, grok?

      Jerry Russell
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: ice@netcom.Netcom.COM (I. Chris English)
Subject: Re: I've fallen in love again!
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 10:41:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Service

In article <ICE.92Jul31023824@netcom.Netcom.COM> ice@netcom.Netcom.COM
(I. Chris English) writes:

   I'd rather let the "you're sick" discussions rage elsewhere and
   reserve this group for "you're not alone" kinds of support.

Oops, gulp.

BTW, I'm happy for you!  It sounds like fun.

Chris English.
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:755 soc.bi:9868
From: thom@crayfish.uucp (Thom Cleland)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.bi
Subject: Re: RFD: rmgroup soc.men & rmgroup soc.women
Date: 30 Jul 1992 07:08:05 GMT
Organization: Tenuous at best
NNTP-Posting-Host: crayfish.ucsd.edu

In article <16952@acorn.co.uk> osmith@acorn.co.uk (Owen Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.012918.6956@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf
>Sternberg) writes:
>
>>   I subscribed to soc.men and soc.women.  Just for one week; I read as

<some wisdom deleted>

>>   I have no common ground with these people.  There was NO point I
>>felt comfortable arguing from, on either side, about issues or matters
>>relevant to me or to men in general.
>
>I have also read soc.men and soc.women, and similarly found very little I
>could empathise with. The views were all so stereo-typed and biased towards

Funny this should come up now; every so often I extend slimy
tentacles out into the net and find a couple of new newsgroups
to try, well last time I had the misfortune to stumble onto
alt.sex.cro-magnon, pardon me, I meant alt.sex.wizards, whatever
that's supposed to mean.  Don't read it when you're depressed
about life.  But then again, if those groups didn't exist, they'd
all be posting here trying to pick up those hot bi babes.  

Thanks to the pluralism of hte usenet, they're safely tucked
away in alt.fortress.of.ignorance.  No problem bi me.

tHOM

-- 
Thom Cleland     \ /^^/  >Neural systems/network physiology< >Amigaphile<  
(619) 453-7516    \OO/  >Aoinagi Shito-ryu == bend, and the wind passes <
tcleland@ucsd.edu  ++  >B3 f cdv g++ k+(+) m s+ r+ p growl+ purr++ zzz- <
"Wild magic is graven in every rock, every tree, in every blade of grass" 
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: davidr@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (David Rostcheck)
Subject: scientists & polyamourity
Organization: Ohio State University; Physics Department
Distribution: alt
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:22:02 GMT

annemarie says:
>	hmmm
>	as a female scientist who's been in threesomes w/bisexual men &
>	who's been non-monogamous, i'm trying to figure out if i *know*
>	alan hardy.
>	annemarie
>	asuccop@u.washington.edu

Hmm. This brings to mind a new thread, something I've been noticing
lately. I'm a physicist and it seems that I see lots of net traffic from
scientists who are polyamourous. In fact an early polyamourous
lifestyle reference (brief) I stumbled upon involved scientists. The
book was named "Emergence" by David Palmer (and it's really good); the
reference is just in passing. But anyway, how many polyamourous people
out there are scientists?

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=davidr@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Marley was a Rasta; Moses was a Jew; Jesus was an outlaw, just like
me & you. Let love be our religion; until this life is through, the
next best thing to heaven is a sinful life with you." -T3
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Is this newsgroup archived anywhere?
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:52:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Hello,

I'd like to know if somebody has saved all the posts to this newsgroup since
its inception?  Are they at some anonymous ftp site?

Thanks.

Jon


-- 
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.netcom.com | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: Delurking...sort of
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:24:16 GMT


Welcome Gen.  Just thought I would wish you luck in your discussions of polyamorous
relationships with your boyfriend.  I cannot recommend any other books for you to
read; although, I must admit that Heinlein's work did help me to focus my under-
standing (or acceptance) of polyamorous/polygamous/open relationships.  My wife
didn't care for his work, but then again she hasn't read any of his stuff since
our marriage became open.  Good luck!


From a man that believes in open-marriages,

      __o       Brad Booth                |  Cyclist with an attitude!
    _`\<,_      Bell-Northern Research    |
   (*)/ (*)     Ottawa, Ontario, Canada   |  These opinions?  There mine.
 ------------   bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca    |  I knew I left them somewhere.
From: ebrooks@netlink.cts.com (Eben Rosenberger)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Moment of poly self-discovery
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:19:52 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA


I just wanted to say to David:

I LOVE THAT SIG!

That's all.  Thank you.

--                    
INTERNET:  ebrooks@netlink.cts.com (Eben Rosenberger)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!ebrooks
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
From: davidr@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (David Rostcheck)
Subject: Re: Moment of poly self-discovery
Organization: Ohio State University; Physics Department
	<TJs0NB1w164w@netlink.cts.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:14:02 GMT

>I just wanted to say to David:
>I LOVE THAT SIG!
>That's all.  Thank you.

Heh. Thanks! Since so many people ask about it, I might as well say
that T3 is Timbuk 3, the Austin Texas (I think) band that had the hit
"future's so bright i gotta wear shades" a few years ago. It's from
"Sinful Life" off Eden Alley.

In fact, they have another of my favorite songs, which is appropriate
to this group so ah a-gonna post the sucker :)

i love you in the strangest way
-------------------------------
Hate mail and love letters
Searching for some purpose
Prank call at three AM
Thoughtful and wordless
A message at the tone
What can i say?
i hang up the phone
i love you in the strangest way.

i wish i could just pick you up
Next time you're feeling down;
i wish i could afford to buy
a plane ticket to your town.
i wish we were kids again;
i'd ask you to come out and play
But you're so scary now
i love you in the strangest way.

That time we slept together,
That's as far as it went
Yet though we're not quite lovers,
You're more than a friend...
In a world of black and white,
We meet in half-tone gray
We're different as day and night
i love you in the strangest way


--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=davidr@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Marley was a Rasta; Moses was a Jew; Jesus was an outlaw, just like
me & you. Let love be our religion; until this life is through, the
next best thing to heaven is a sinful life with you." -T3