HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Revenge (Was: Re: A Slight Rant)
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:19:30 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr6.024057.17961@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>In article <ktn0gnINNo21@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>>Now THAT'S my idea of a worthwhile thread!  Does anybody have any ideas,
>>thoughts, nasty fantasies that they'd like to share on the topic?

Yeah, plenty.  Some years ago I posted for ideas on getting revenge
with someone who's done you wrong, like signing them up for "Cheese
of the Month Club" in the dead of summer when they are away on
vacation, etc.

Ideas like that make GREAT and often therapeutic fantasies.

Fantasies.  Underscored.
>>
[stuff about revenge repercussions deleted, and too bad because it
was good stuff]

>	Anyone who obsesses on 'getting even' with an ex really should
>consider getting a life.

Well, harsh.  When you're hurting and angry, fantasizing and even obsessing
for awhile about neat ways to get even can be part of the healing process.
It can help you feel back in control after your life has been pulled
out from under you.

But actually DO it?  Believe me, you'll end up regretting it.  Suppose you
steal over to his house in the middle of the night and let the air
out of his tires.  Funny, huh?  But then one of his kids calls a few
hours later and is in real trouble, needs Dad to come pick her up quick
because she is out of gas in a bad neighborhood ...

Or you Superglue his front door shut and his house catches fire.

Or you see him sitting with her in a bar and decide to dump a pitcher
of beer on his head.  Some of it gets on the people next to him (believe
me, beer from a pitcher doesn't all go in the same place when it's dumped)
and you get yourself beat up.

In the long run, whatever it is you do, you are going to have to live with.
Why not let HIM live with the bad deed?  It will last longer and you'll
have more fun thinking about it.

Wanna get revenge?  The best revenge is your own success.

-Nance
"Now I'm saving all my loving for someone who's loving me."  -D.Sommers
-- 
  /\/\                       
  \  / /\/\  "Love is lovely.    Nance Colucci     att!ihlpk!colucci
   \/  \  /    Let it grow."   * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ *
        \/      -Eric Clapton
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Yoo, hoo, Angelllllllwingggggggg.......
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:02:32 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Distribution: na
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr13.155057.15129@u.washington.edu>  intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>
> >> Like I'd say something like oh ...flowers and chocolate.  Or a big dick
> >> and a *really* stupid (but rich) man.
> >
> >How about a big chocolate dick and a stupid rich pansy?
>
> Nope.  But thanks any for offering Larry.
>
> heh  (How was that? .. insult-wise I mean?)

Getting better, but it would be better still if you were accurate.
(I'm not rich, thweetie.)

> Angelwing - Broadening my horizons.

That's not all you're broadening with that chocolate...

(Meow!  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Do You Remember - early '60s edition
Keywords: Way too young.
Date: 9 Apr 92 08:58:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.kyrj+6=
Distribution: na
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Apr8.213623.25321@csc.ti.com> pnichols@ra.csc.ti.com writes:
>	Not really, but I do remember rubik's cubes, hula hoops, and big yellow
				      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

must have a great memory. The 'cube' didn't come out until the early 80's.
My best time was 36 seconds. ';-)
r.
From: jdhevy@orion.oac.uci.edu (John D. Hevy)
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:38:36 GMT


I have to agree with Wildy on this one, I used to think one =had= to
stay away from attached people, that it was morally incorrect to woo
someone away from their established SO.  I held this point of view
to rationalize my own =ownership= of my ex-SO.  So, if I could get that ring
on her finger, she was my chattel, property, and I have a legalistic
ownership interest over her.
Now I realize the fallacy of such thinking, and those who scream so loudly
about not breaking up existing relationships, are really shouting out, "Stay
away from her, she's MINE!"

People change, they grow, their needs are different, and a marriage
certificate can't stop that from happening.  And why do people throw this
slut label on the GF who wants to be with someone that meets their needs?
How about someone heaping some abuse on the head of the guy, too.  What has
he stopped doing or started doing that has resulted in the woman opening
herself to other opportunities.  Is he putting out less effort now that he's
=got= her captured?  Maybe he's just lying back in the easy chair, remote in
one hand and a warm beer in the other, shouting, "Hey, Honey, get me another
beer."

Another point, if she leaves the first guy to be with the second, she might
dump the second.  Yeah, so what?  You might =really= be the one she can
spend the rest of her life with, maybe not.  And to those who marry the
virginal because you feel she'll never leave you, you ain't immune either.
She might ponder what she might have missed and leave you anyway.  Life has no
guarantees or warranties; because everyone is their own person.

John
--
John D. Hevy, KB6RTP   jdhevy@uci.edu          | Sigurd Greywulfe, AoA, LOC
Campus Calendar Office (714) 856-5254          | Incipient College of
Administration 600 (The Admin Penthouse Suite) | Fenwood Knoll, Gyldenholt
University of California, Irvine, CA  92717    | Caid
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Spring Fever or what?
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:09:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.q8yjnq-
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque


By the way, the 'crazy old guy' was Senor Wences. Funny act. Had the guy
on his hand, and the other one in the box.
's OK
's alright...

Appeared on the Muppet Show once.
r.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: mcregor@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Meloney Cregor)
Subject: Re: Love: It is a precious thing?
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:01:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.155330.16451@midway.uchicago.edu> pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) writes:


>So tell me, Mel -- would you rather not have had the relationship
>to begin with?  All relationships end one way or another, so if
>you don't want to end up hurting or being hurt, what's the alternative?
>Would you rather not have any relationships?   What's the REAL point
>of a relationship: to kill or be killed, or to experience, however
>briefly, the feelings of love and companionship?

Apples and oranges, Pooh.

It is irrelevant whether it is good to have had the relationship or not
to the question originally asked, IMO.  Yes, all relationships end, some
end better than others.  This does not alter the fact that you can loose.
To have briefly experienced love and companionship, does not necessarily 
mean one can come out ahead, but still have no regrets.

I do not regret the relationship, but that doesn't mean I didn't lose.  The
real point would be to experience love and companionship and not be killed.

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: Needing not to Need
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 06:00:44 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <BM9L6v.1yq@world.std.com> unicorn@world.std.com (unicorn) writes:
>I know that need is not an attractive quality, and think of the type
>of person you'd probably meet if it were, but how do you stop needing?

Try therapy.
Actually- sort of seriously, it might be a good idea.
Needing is a part of all humans. We need certain things- food, affection,
oxygen, etc.
When 'needs' become overwhelming- or 'you can't get enough', that is a sign
that something is not working right.
r.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tedwards@wam.umd.edu (technopagan priest)
Subject: Re: The "first" "move" (was Re: A R C )
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 09:58:41 GMT

In article <kujk8vINNdpm@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>And May Day is even coming up.  (Wish I knew a guy with a helmet to help
>*me* celebrate.)

Celebrate Beltane with just _one_ guy?

I don't think that's doing the Goddess justice! ;-)

-Tom
 technopagan priest...
 maiden, mother, crone,
 laser, computer, radio
 all in harmony...


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ted5@po.CWRU.Edu (Thomas E. Davidson)
Subject: Two things....
Reply-To: ted5@po.CWRU.Edu (Thomas E. Davidson)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 16:26:38 GMT


	First off, speaking as a biologist, the lemmings thing is not a myth.
They really ARE driven to commit mass suicide. I seriously doubt Disney killed
thousands of them for its own nefarious end. If not through this method, how
else would you explain the sudden disappearance of almost the entire three-year-
old lemming population?
	Secondly, I would NEVER interfere with another relationship. They
ARE santified, and I simply won't allow anyone to break up with their boyfriend
for me unless they have a much better reason. Sorry....

				Tom
-- 
"I know I'm going nowhere,			Tom Davidson, CWRU '95
"and anywhere's a better place to be."		IRCnick: Cupid	
		--Harry Chapin			MUSHnick: Nicodemus
From: shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:56:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Apr8.025018.4511@midway.uchicago.edu> pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) writes:

>(Then again, maybe Dorothy Nelson, the Cosmique Muffin, had something
>there when she requested to be dipped in a vat of chocolate in the
>presence of three chocoholic David Bowie look-alikes ...)
>
Yeah, Dorothy always was the ultimate in good taste.

White chocolate cheesecake, anyone?

<sigh>  The net is a really fickle place, though.  I remember a
time when I was getting offers of kinky pastimes, and all I had
to bring was my hammer and crowbar.... <the net.grandma wanders
off, muttering to herself>
From: caruso@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: A Brilliant Idea....
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:27:51 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas

> Uh-huh. Go call an old friend of the opposite sex and ask him/her if
> s/he'd be interested in going out for dinner and a movie. Don't come back

    Yeah, but what if I've already used up all my old friends?  -- Dave
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Do You Remember - early '60s edition
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:35:32 GMT
Organization: AT&T


Licorice records - flat strips of red or black licorice rolled up
                   to look like the grooves of a record, with a 
                   little jawbreaker in the center to look like the
                   spindle hole?

Sputniks - two pieces of blue sugared communion wafer-like disks
           bowled and stuck together with little round candies
           inside?

Hot Dog gum - cinnamon gum that looked like little hot dogs?

Watermelon candy - coconut candy colored and rolled out and
                   sliced to look like watermelon slices?

Indian pumpkin seeds - pumpkin seeds covered with enough salt to
                       raise the average person's blood pressure
                       through the ceiling?

Fizzies - flavored Alka-Seltzer that tasted like flavored
          Alka-Seltzer?

-Nance

-- 
  /\/\                       
  \  / /\/\  "Love is lovely.    Nance Colucci     att!ihlpk!colucci
   \/  \  /    Let it grow."   * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ *
        \/      -Eric Clapton
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Newspaper personals phenomena
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:11:19 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Apr13.132047.1781@ait.com> eleanor@ait.com (Eleanor Evans) writes:
>Michael Rawdon says.....
>>Ahhhh... so THAT'S my problem.  I don't know how to "pursue" a woman and
>>feel uncomfortable doing so anyway.  (I pursue my cat when she gets outside -
>>or I did when I had a cat.)

>Well, what's the problem?  The pursuit is conducted in much the same way.

You mean that I just need to put food out on my doorstep and wait a while?
:-)

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

Somebody saved me from a fate worse than heaven,
'Cos if I blew it for a single moment I'd blow it forever.
				- Pete Townshend, "Somebody Saved Me"
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: dgl27909@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Douglas G. Lee)
Subject: Re: Discussion Of Romantic Songs
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:43:43 GMT


One of my favorites is the third song on the Chariots of Fire sound track.
No words, but sometimes I think that's an advantage...


Doug Lee   (dlee@uiuc.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: FA.TJM@forsythe.stanford.edu (Richard Blaine)
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:05:29 GMT

In <1992Apr7.153147.17912@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>No! This is all wrong, or if not all wrong, at least based on a notion
>of relationships that is at best stifling and at worst limited. Other
>people's SO's who you are interested in are people too. If you make
>romantic overtures to them, they are perfectly capable of saying, "No,
>thanks" if that's what they mean and "Sure" if that's what they mean. The
>consequences between them and the person they are "officially" involved
>with are their lookout. Now that's not to say bad things may not happen,
>or that you should make a move on someone who's vulnerable to get them to
>do something clearly not in their best interest, but those are dangers
>whether someone is officially attached or not.
>
>A coupla stories:
>One time I mentioned to a friend of mine that I had been fairly strongly
>interested in her, but hadn't asked her out because she was seeing someone
>else at the time and I didn't want to interfere. She responded with a good
>deal of annoyance, pointing out that she wasn't the property of the person
>she was going out with and would have preferred to make her own choice
>rather than having me make it for her.
>
>I am _not_ advocating wooing people in relationships just for the heck
>of it. Nonetheless, if two people start falling for each other and one
>of them is in a relationship already, then (gasp) they should talk
>about what to do rather than one of them deciding unilaterally.
>At least that's my humble thoughts on the matter.

A story:

I met this woman, and fell deeply in love.  Elsa (her name) had been
married before, but her husband died.  We loved each other very
much, and had a fantastic time together (we were living in Paris -
who couldn't have a great time?).

Anyway, the Germans were closing in, and we decided to get away to
Marseilles.  However, she never showed up at the train station, and,
over time, I forgot about her.

Coupla years later, I'm running a bar in Morocco, and who walks in
but Elsa and this guy Victor, who, I find out later, happens to be
her not-so-dead husband!  Well, you coulda knocked me over with a
feather.

Well, I thought about wooing her away.  Even tried it.  She even
made blatant overtures.  I got sentimental, and told her to go back
to her husband.  She did, and they left the country.

So what did I learn?  If you're gonna woo someone, better be damn
sure you wanna go through with it, else, you might end up with some
corrupt French guy!

Rick

At least Louis' a witty guy.  Hate to be stuck here in the desert
with some snobbish Frog!
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women
From: lasala@cs.cornell.edu (Steve LaSala)
Subject: Fraternity "Babes" (was: Re: Frat bashing re re visited)
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:43:09 GMT

In article <12396@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>In article <KRANITZ.92Apr9172005@dspalley.mr.med.ge.com> kranitz@mr.med.ge.com (Wes Kranitz 4-6857 MRCE) writes:
>>Sean,
> 
>>My daughter is a member of a business Fraternity. Obviously, it allows both
>>men and women. However, I don't remember its name. When women were admitted,
>>they were allowed to select the name they were called by. They selected
>>brother. So when she talks about a fraternity brother, 
>
>It should've been fraternity babe.  The use of "babe" is becoming pretty
>widespread and I find it refreshing that women are confident enough of their
>femininity that they are not offended by the use of the term.

	Yes, my wife has taken to this recently.  It started as a way of
expressing irony when asked to offer a "women's view" on some question;
"Speaking as a babe..."  Lately, she's been using the term as an expression
of pride whenever she does something notable, like landing a job, publishing
a paper, cooking a great meal, or upping her weights at the gym;
"Am I a babe, or what?"  ;-)

	As an undergrad, she was a founding member of a chapter of a coed
(by local option) "fraternity" in which both "brothers" and "sisters" are
nationally recognized.

	In some sense, I suppose the use of "babe" could be seen as analogous
to the "reclaiming" of "queer", "fag", and "nigger" by those who have suffered
under such epithets.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: swt@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Newspaper personals phenomena
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:31:27 EST
Distribution: soc
Organization: Cornell University

In article <1992Apr10.052246.19439@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes: 
> In <1992Apr9.194341.14690@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> au138@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John S. Kennedy) writes:
>>I guess it's just that, in this society, the male is the persuer and is
>>trained to take the more active role in persuing relationships.  We have to
>>do something to correct this!
> 
> Ahhhh... so THAT'S my problem.  I don't know how to "pursue" a woman and
> feel uncomfortable doing so anyway.  (I pursue my cat when she gets outside -
> or I did when I had a cat.)
> 
> -- 
> Michael Rawdon
> rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
> University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI
> 
> Can't let go - there's a madness in my soul tonight.
> 				- Bryan Ferry, "Can't Let Go"

I remember once having the obligatory 'are-we-in-a-relationship-or-not'
conversation with a guy, and he asked, "What did you have in mind all that
time you were pursuing me?"  My mind produced the image of myself on horseback
 wearing a highwayman's cape, spurs, and a bikini, carrying a lasso, riding 
him down on the open range.... He couldn't figure out why I was giggling 
so much.
	
			--Beth
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
swt@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU|"Watch what you say, they'll be calling you a radical,
			| A liberal,
			| Fanatical, criminal..."  -- Supertramp
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Spring Fever or what?
Date: 12 Apr 92 21:02:23 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Distribution: world,soc
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr11.174437.5520@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>  tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
> >
> >Angelwing - I seem to be possessed.
>
> Let's see, how about "Demonica"?  She could represent and speak for
> your, ah, less angelic side.

But I thought that "de-Monica" was closer to an *exorcism* of demons...  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: rinehart@aramis.rutgers.edu (Mark J. Rinehart)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Telephone Personals
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:50:46 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Apr15.221720.86967@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> mm0s@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (MARC MOSCHETTE) writes:

> Why do all the newspapers go for the telephone response?  Are people who like
> to write or prefer written responses as a means of testing intelligence,
> sanity, sincerity, etc. just not important to the papers??
> Marc

I doubt it has to do with anything but money - 900 numbers are huge
money makers.


Mark
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max)
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:32:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.153055.28148@u.washington.edu> intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.222755.21043@spool.cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>>In <1992Apr8.025018.4511@midway.uchicago.edu> pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) writes:
>>>I nominate Angelwing for the Soc.Singles.Fantasy.Goddess for
>>>the male contingent.
>>
>>You can't; she ain't single.  She just said so herself in a recent post.
>>
>Oh *reeally*, Michael.  Well I'm not married, so I must be single.  Nyah! 
>
>Angelwing - Do you see a ring on this finger?  *I* don't see a ring on
>this finger.
>
>*------------------------------------------------------------------*
>* Angelwing       |"Two things are wanted by a true man, danger and*
>* U. of Washington| play - therefore, he seeks woman as the most   *
>*                 | dangerous toy."       Friedrich Nietzsche      *
>*------------------------------------------------------------------*
>


Yeh, she only said she wasn't looking, makes her that much more attractive
for the likes of Rich. More of a challenge you know. Go ahead and try to
seduce Angelwing she dares ya.

MaX
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: hevern@cac.washington.edu (M. Hevern)
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Organization: U.W. Information Systems
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 07:05:22 GMT

In article <12407@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
> In article <1992Apr10.170301.12078@u.washington.edu> gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:
>  
> |	Hmmm....betcha Angelwing would seem more manageable if you thought
> |of her as, say, a ST: TNG character (imagine her as a Counselor)(she'd
> |be MUCH better than Commander Cleavage....)
> 
> Of course she would.  She just told us she has tremendous hooters.  Since
> I recently attended a "Tremendous Hooter Management" BOF I'm no longer
> timorous when I meet someone like Angelwing.

And she into tracter pulls, too. Wow, a woman who hangs out at the Tacoma Dome.

--	MH
       *--------------------------------*------------------------------*
       | Michael Hevern			| Voice: (206) 685-3229        |
       | University Of Washington	| * "I can't dance...          |
       | Information Systems		|    I can't talk...           |
       | 4545 15th Ave. NE		|    The only funny thing about|
       | Seattle, WA 98105		|    me is the way I walk."    |
       | Mail Stop: JE-41               |       -- Genesis             |
       *--------------------------------*------------------------------*
	Disclaimer: If I said it I probably meant it (NOT!).  My employer isn't
		responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: soc.singles