HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: taylor@ccrs.emr.ca (Trevor Taylor)
Subject: Re: Attraction -> Acquiantance or vice versa?
Organization: Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Ottawa
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:42:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.061836.4210@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.192418.7360@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>>No man in his right mind wants to be a "wannabee".  A wannabee is the guy
>

[ stuff deleted to save space]

[more stuff deleted, conclusion kept]
>
>I finally decided that I like friends, be they male or female. 
>Considering my major/job choices (computer science, microsoft) 
>I'm 4 to 5 times likely to make a friend from a man as a woman
>most of the time (when most of the time is spent at school/work).
>But I don't assume I will get romatically involved with friends;
>I don't "make friends" as a way to "get dates"; and (most important)
>I realized that life happens whether you're romatically involved or
>not. 
>
>-jen

Perhaps the problem with a lot of people is , in general (at least
with males - I've never been female yet], as soon as a guy goes
looking for a women , then his behavior changes from the regular
individual he is to an agressive " I must impress women to get
women " type personality. (By the way, I admit to have behaved this
way in the past).

Jen is correct, as soon as you start to assume that everybody is 
a potential friend first, then this allows behavior to be more relaxed
(or normal - whatever that is ....) and is thus less likely to scare
the hell out of women. (Or anybody). If the pressure is lifted
from the individual woman, then that woman will also be more relaxed and
more likely willing to be friendly.. 

Great stuff, Jen

Trevor
==============================================================
Taylor@ccrs.emr.ca
"You can lead a lemming to a cliff but you can't make it jump"
==============================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 22:55:31 GMT

In article <adtr70q@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.202503.23860@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>>Whether you or I or the rest of the world agree with it is irrelevant--
>>the characteristics that are important to her are the characteristics
>>that are important to her and who are any of us to say that her priorities
>>in her personal life are 'wrong'?
>
>Didn't say they were wrong- her preferences are her choice, not mine.
>I just think they are based on archaic and outdated ideas.

Well, if she places so much importance on ideas that you feel are archaic
and outdated, then she's probably better off dating people with similar
'archaic and outdated' ideas.

Trygve
--
I was Hitler's Postman by Fenton Laurence-Goebbels.  All the previously
unknown details of Hitler's life known only to his postman.  "The most
riveting biography of Hitler since 'Hitler's Diaries II, the Revenge.'"
 -- Bert Kudsworthy, NYSE book reviewer.      Pub at $18.95 / Only $6.22
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: Females have it easy!
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 12:13:12 GMT

tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:

>In article <oneil.725163466@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>>falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:
>>
>>>In article <oneil.724571180@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>>>|
>>>|I'm sure that there are plenty of females in the same position.  While I
>>>|was in college, I had a lot of very nice, very funny female friends who 
>>>|could not for the life of them get a date.  They were reasonably attractive
>>>|women as far as societal standards go.
>>
>>>Gee, that's awful.  How many and what kind of men were they asking out?
>>
>>Hey!  These girls were chasing after guys all over the place.  They'd ask
>>classmates to come over and study with them.  They'd ask guys to come to 
>>dinner in the dorms with them.  I think they made themselves quite available
>>for dating.  Unfortunately, most of them suffered from Nice Girl (TM) s
>>syndrome, ending up as the "sis" to talk to.

>One of the important things to know when flirting shamelessly (in person
>anyway) is that, when you're not serious and just doing it for fun, to
>put in subtle cues that show your lack of intent (this also makes the
>flirting much less threatening if your flirt object would also not be
>willing to let things go beyond recreational flirting).  These cues can be
>very subtle and still completely effective.

Nah.  I think that the guys that they were inviting over were jerks because
they wouldn't have considered these girls for various reasons, including
the fact that they weren't fashion model lookalikes.  They weren't 
unattractive, but they weren't Christie Brinkley either.

>I've noticed that it's not all that uncommon for some people to emit these
>cues all the time without being aware of it--indeed, for someone who does
>not feel confident about dating situations, it can be a mechanism for
>reducing the feeling of rejection, should it occur.  The recipient of this
>attention then picks up on these cues (though not necessarilly being aware
>of them consciously) and thinks, "s/he's a nice girl/guy, but just as a
>friend."

The guys weren't that great looking either, to be honest, but they were
going to hold out for "something better."

>How to determine if this could have anything to do with your friends' 
>problems or how this might be addressed, I don't know.  Obviously we 
>need some sort of class on the subject to teach us how to recognise
>these behaviors and learn to control them.

No.  I think tha these guys should have given more of a chance to these
girls.

I am not sure why I had better luck than my friends.  I mean, I think I'm 
attractive, although certainly no more attractive than my friends.  Maybe it
was because I had a lot of comp sci/engineering type male friends.  

Sharon
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: orc@vpnet.chi.il.us (david parsons)
Subject: Re: Ankle bracelets
Organization: Department of Atomic Text Units
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:56:56 GMT

In article <281@cnmhnet.UUCP> keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:
[On preferred ways to wear ankle bracelets]
|The proper way for
|them to be worn is above the ankle, and only with High Heels.

   This may be a case where ones milage may vary.  I can see the
point of wearing them above the ankle, but that a comfort issue. 
As for high heels (which are, 99% of the time, A Bad Thing), well,
there's something very appealing about a woman returning to bed,
wearing nothing aside from an ankle or waist chain; in most cases,
high heels lead to nylons (or the like), which will be put on over
the chain, and which looks rather, umm, misdressed.


|If you
|want to see something stupid, look at a woman wearing an ankle bracelet
|with flat shoes.

   (visualising a certain woman with an ankle bracelet and Doc
Martins...) Stupid?  No, not at all; actually, rather sexy.  Milage
may vary quite a bit here, and it may have to do with what your
standards of beauty are.  If you're not particularly attracted to
the traditional standard of female beauty, interesting jewelry
won't make it any more attractive than before.

                ____
  david parsons \bi/ "biases -R- us"
                 \/
From: pooh@Apple.COM (Wendy Nather)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Date: 24 Dec 92 14:20:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Internet Refugee Camp

In the referenced article, krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>
>If I say something like:
>	"Maybe you could take me out next time."
>That would not be an ultimatum/demand, but a _suggestion_, that she could
>take or leave, as she will.  The only person that this might offend, is a
>woman who thinks that she is "too good" to spend any of her own money
>on a man, or one who thinks that the man is "supposed" to pay all of the
>time.

Keith, I don't like your suggestion, and here's why.  As a woman
who does indeed ask men out, and who pays even if invited, I
consider treating someone to a dinner to be a gift, and I think
it's crass to ask for a gift.  So your actions would be the
equivalent of giving me a gift and then saying hopefully,
"Maybe you could give me a gift too."  Well, maybe I was planning
to, but your crass suggestion just put me right off my feed.
I don't like having someone tell me when to give him gifts
that I would otherwise have freely given.

This also reminds me of people who keep very careful track
of every instance of give-and-take in the relationship to
make absolutely sure they don't give more then 50%.  After
exactly one gift, you want to make sure you get yours too.
This attitude is also an enormous turnoff for me.  I hate
bean-counters in a relationship.  

If I got into a relationship with a man where I felt
*over time* that I was giving a lot more than he was,
I'd approach the subject by saying I thought our relationship
was very one-sided.  But I would not ask for gifts to
balance my internal checkbook.

Pooh
	pooh@apple.com
From: keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:25:26 GMT
Organization: California-Nevada Methodist Homes

In article <kR2LwB3w165w@iowegia.uucp> mine@iowegia.uucp (shelley kitsis) writes:
>why did she post this message, right?! Maybe I don't know what it 
>feels like to be in love with someone, but I do know that there 
>are no "fireworks" with either of them!
>               Shelley

Oh Shelley!  This is a very important phrase in your psyche.  You
say that there are no fireworks.  Then for Jesus' sake 8-) don't
marry either one of them!  You don't want to marry someone just
because you feel that "...well, he's a nice guy, so I guess I
ought to marry him...".  Sure it helps that they are nice guys, 
but there has to be that "spark" or "chemistry" in order to
finish off the package.  I urge you; don't worry about getting 
married.  When you quit worrying about it, then the right man
for you will come along, and there will be fireworks.  And the
old saying is true, that is, "...when you are least expecting
it, it will happen..."  Good luck.
--Keith
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: SF ISO S*M
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:09:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <75983@apple.apple.COM> pooh@Apple.COM (Pooh) writes:
 
|Pooh (who was recently shown a new use for the metal end of a riding crop
|      and a glass of ice water)

Somewhere on the east coast a light bulb has appeared over the head of
a certain netter and a pickle is placed into the freezer...
-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira        | Auspex Systems | "Ask me about my vow of silence." |
| johnf@auspex.com    | Santa Clara CA |                                   |
+==========================================================================+
Xref: sparky soc.singles:34491 soc.women:21742 soc.men:21558 ba.singles:2767
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men,ba.singles
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract 
From: rcf@netlink.cts.com (Bob Forsythe)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 20:13:12 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

> In article <1992Dec16.073753.27294@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickl
> )In article <1992Dec15.163407.5960@netcom.com> desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Ch
> 
> )>	You're a sanctimonious prig. And don't give me this drivel about
> )>that being an ad hom attack.
> )>
> )
> )     No, not at all.  I just have high standards for myself and others
> )which apparently you do not have.
> 
> Don't give up so easily!  There's definitely a very slim chance that
> Desiree *might* realize that her entire posting is very little *but* one
> giant ad-hominem attack if you wait for her to calm down a bit.  [I wouldn't
> count on it much, but it's a possibility.]

     On the other hand, it's quite possible that Rohwer is, in fact, a 
sanctimonious prig.  To suggest that someone who doesn't share his rather 
"religious" diatribes hasn't "high standards" speaks for itself, I would 
think.

Bob c/o The OTH Gang

--                    
INTERNET:  rcf@netlink.cts.com (Bob Forsythe)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!rcf
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: rossi@mtu.edu (Rossi)
Subject: Re: Tell Me Something about Balls
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:58:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.192504.26760@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>
>Do balls itch?  And if so, why???

  Poor nance.  How can I fill you in without making the rest of 
womanhoodlums go green around the gills with envy?  The short jocular
answer is no.  When washed and left to dangly dry they do quite
nicely.  It's in this tite short tite jean world we live in that
problems arise.  (and I'm so proud I didn't even have to use
the b word.  jjd strike me dead if I rerear that thread :)

  The most torturous thing is a scratch that can't be itched.  Most
guys skip the sublime (in the Nietzschean sense of the word only)
pleasure when they have the issue announce itself and scratch in 
that good ole tribal way.  Some others will constantly walk around
with this tense look - like a baby when it's figuring out how to do.
Another method is to carry around car keys or some change and play 
with it.  It soothes away the desire to scratch and provides a 
substitute for that favorite pacifier.

  A tip for the experimental sorts amung us.  Please do not squeeze.
I will say that again.  Please do not squeeze.  Scratch lightly with
affection.

   songbird

Lets see how long this thread dangles...
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: pcorless@cisco.com (Peter Corless)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Response to Liz: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Date: 23 Dec 1992 02:42:04 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Lab, SRI International
Distribution: world
Reply-To: pcorless@cisco.com (Peter Corless)
NNTP-Posting-Host: corless-mac.cisco.com

In response to post:
From: liz@vfl.paramax.com (Liz Loquacious)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract

> Ever try a relationship based on mutual respect and compassion instead of
> this quid pro quo crap?

Gee. Aren't you asking a lot of this jaded, self-important and emotionally
scarred society of ours? Your ideas may sound too radically responsible for
most Americans...

;-)

-Pete.


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kevin@clsi.COM (Kevin Cameron)
Subject: Re: Any Jewish Mensches Left Out There??
Originator: kevin@dubhe
Reply-To: kevin@clsi.com
Organization: CAD Language Systems Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 15:44:33 GMT


In article <msgiwB3w165w@iowegia.uucp>, mine@iowegia.uucp (shelley kitsis) writes:
> I'm a 33 year old single, Jewish female, about ready to give up 
> looking for that one "special" Jewish guy out there!
> I've gone to extremes to try and meet some. i.e. Jewish Singles 
> Cruise; put an ad in a Jewish Singles magazine, and jetted off all 
> over the states to meet (some) the ones that responded to my ad.  I
> have to admit, I did meet some very nice Jewish gentlemen, but 
> there just didn't seem to be any fireworks!
> Where are you?? I'm in Des Moines Ia. (if you don't know where 
> that is, a map might help) where the Jewish community numbers 
> about 4,000. Unfortunately, all the singles move away to go to 
> college, and don't return!
> I was raised conservative, and belong to the conservative 
> synagogue here in town. I'm a professional and work in the medical 
> field. I'm pretty laid back, easy enough to talk to, honest, 
> sincere, considerate and am told, attractive. (guys, how often do 
> you run into a blonde Jewish girl?)
> If you are out there somewhere, I'd love to hear from you! I'm not 
> asking for the world; just that you're

> Jewish, male, honest, sincere and adventurous! 

- but you are cutting a lot of people out of the running, why not just go for
  male, adventurous & (possibly) sincere - you might have more fun/fireworks.

> It would be nice if you too were single 
> (never married) and love children!
>                         Shalom!

Is your religion doing you any favours ?

Kev.
-- 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: munn@a.cs.okstate.edu (MUNN THOMAS JOSEPH)
Subject: Re: We're Being Repressed!!!!!
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 08:56:47 GMT


This is often a problem in a puratannical society.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-         Thomas Munn "This above all to Thine own self be true."            -
______________________________________________________________________________
 :wq
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (Piglet)
Subject: Re: Women: would you go out with a man dum
Organization: who? what? where?
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:01:28 GMT

In article <92353.015428SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.201312.2999@exu.ericsson.se>, exudtn@exu.ericsson.se
>(Derek Nelson) says:
>>>>In article <1992Dec16.172504.29957@cbnews.cb.att.com>
>>eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans) writes:
>>>>   I have to.
>>>In article 92Dec16200914@hatteras.cs.unc.edu, martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu
>>(Charles R. Martin) >writes:
>>>No you don't.
>>Yes, she does if and only if, she is smarter than every man on the planet.    h
>>Whic
>>may or may not be the case depending on your point of view. :-)
>>Derek
>
>If Piglet is up in the cerebral wattage zone where it gets damned
>hard to quantify, she may be making an assertion about her ability
>to get along with male type people of the same general wattage.  Or,
>to be sure, their ability to cope with her.
>
>It doesn't neccesarily mean she thinks she's got a brain the size of a
>planet.

And you want me to open the door?!?


Piglet, contemplating the quantification of her cerebral wattage zone....
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: How come we aren't getting it?
Date: 23 Dec 92 22:32:59 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:

>This, of course, makes things much more difficult--a rather large
>portion of the population only wants love/understanding/intimacy/etc.
>from those who can't or won't give it to them.  

This is true to an extent but I think this explanation is overused. People 
are too quick to assume that there is a deep-rooted neurosis at work if they 
go for a few years without matching up with anyone. In fact, given the depth 
and breadth of compatibility people expect with their partners these days
and the difficulty in finding someone using modern rules of dating, sometimes 
I think it's a wonder that anyone ever finds a long-term partner.

I think several contradictions within the culture contribute to this. In
other words I think the problems are in the culture and not so much in the
individual.

(1) Women are told both that a relationship is the most important thing in
their lives, and that they are expected to be independent. It seems like a
pretty clever solution to me to spend your time being interested in less-than-
available men. You're in a relationship, sort of, and you also have a lot of
independence. Some women stay unhappy about this situation and some women
embrace it once they figure out what is going on. (I'm sure this applies to
some men as well.)

(2) People are taught to judge others on the basis of superficial
characteristics and are much less adept at determining temperamental
compatibility (which is more important in the long term than superficial 
characteristics or a certain number of shared interests, IMO.) 

(3) People learn that if their partner possesses certain characteristics, 
that will raise their social status. They tend to over-focus on these 
socially approved characteristics rather than asking themselves "what do 
*I* really want in a partner?" Or they try to find someone who has both 
sets of characteristics...well, the more characteristics are specified, the
harder it is to find someone who has all of those characteristics.

[...]

>Now, naturally, as soon as her interest became generally known, a half-
>dozen of her female friends and acquaintances all immediately decided
>that they wanted to date him.  (This situation has not sorted itself out
>yet and he may end up hiding in the cellar or something.)

Is this the cellar with the dungeon in it? :-)

-- 
Stef                Just as there are laws of Conservation of Matter and
stef@apple.com      Energy, so there are in fact Laws of Conservation of 
                    Pain and Joy. Neither can ever be created or destroyed.
                         But one can be converted into the other. 
                                                         --Spider Robinson
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: morton@rtpnet06.rtp.dg.com (John R. Morton)
Subject: Re: Over 40 and single....Anyone that "OLD"?
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 04:34:59 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

[someone offers]
>> Men in that age group are all looking for the young "Tenderoni"
>> to make him feel like a kid again.  Can't men realize that 
>> most younger women see them as either a "Father Figure" or
	
	yeah..yeah..yeah, GREAT CHANCE TO LEARN FOLLOWS:
	IF YOU ARE UNDER 30:
	a) write down the social image you have of people who are 40.
		Include your impressions of them, any objections you may
		have to any behaviour, any other observations.
		Seal this in an envelope, and put it in a safe place.
	b) Open this and read it when you reach 31.

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Subject: Re: Females have it easy!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:18:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.205242.27619@cbnews.cb.att.com> eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (Piglet) writes:
>In article <lj3ugnINNi6u@news.bbn.com> dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>>....  But cheer up -- on the whole, we're every
>>bit as miserable as you are.
>Except for me.

Or me.  I haven't been miserable in at least four days!

-- 
-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+
Nance Colucci                                      att!ihlpl!colucci
"It'll be better than before.  Yesterday's gone.  Yesterday's gone!"
-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+*+
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Do you have a good pickup line?
Date: 1 Jan 93 20:53:42 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:

>A ideal pickup line should only receive a positive response from those who are
>compatible, and a negative response from everyone else.  It's a great
>time-saver.  As such, it should only have about a 1% or 2% success rate.
>The higher the success rate, the worse the line.

So what's yours? 
                                     
--
                   The older woman flirts with a self-controlled awareness 
Stef               which can make her assaults much more deadly than the
stef@apple.com     blind rushes of the young  -- Iris Murdoch