HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fkittred@spchp11.BBN.COM (Fletcher Kittredge)
Newsgroups: alt.support
Subject: Re: Mom at College
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:12:55
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., 10 Molton Street, Cambridge, MA
	02138
NNTP-Posting-Host: spchp11.bbn.com
In-reply-to: Barbara Carlson's message of Wed,  2 Sep 1992 14:33:44 -0400 


Valerie;

	As a parent, I want to point something out.  Your mother chose
to have you.  It was a decision she made, without any input from you.
Her decision obligated her to do her best to give you a healthy, save
and supportive environment until you became an adult.  It sounds like
she failed this obligation.  Her decision to have a child did not
obligate you in any way, it was her decision to have you, not yours.

	Some disturbed parents try to reverse roles with their
children, and force the children to take care of the parents.
Effectively, the parent becomes the child and the child becomes the
parent.  This is destructive for both parties.  Don't let her do it.
She is the parent, she should take care of you, not visa versa.

	You can not make your mother better.  She has to make the
decision herself and take the steps to heal herself.  You should be
careful that help you give her does not allow her to avoid making this
decision.  By supporting her, you may be hurting her.

	On a more practical note, if she has been married to your
father for 24 years, she has not been working outside the home for 24
years and they are seperating, shouldn't she get alimony enough to
support herself?

good luck!
fletcher
--
/* Fletcher Kittredge
 * BBN Software Products
 * 150 CambridgePark Dr,  Cambridge, MA. 02140
 * 617-USE-FINK  /  fkittred@bbn.com  /  fkittred@das.harvard.edu
 */
Xref: sparky alt.support:1269 alt.recovery:3039
From: murphyg@Software.Mitel.COM (Gary Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.support,alt.recovery
Subject: Re: Need Support re Job
Date: 31 Aug 92 02:15:34 GMT
	<MURPHYG.92Aug24205649@peplinsk.Software.Mitel.COM>
	<1992Aug27.230113.8561@mits.mdata.fi>
Organization: Applications Software II, MITEL Corporation, Kanata, Ontario,
	Canada
In-reply-to: jjj@mits.mdata.fi's message of 27 Aug 92 23:01:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.230113.8561@mits.mdata.fi> jjj@mits.mdata.fi (Joni Jarvenkyla) writes:

   For job problems: find what you have to be interested in your job, and
   get interested into it. Or the hard way: get a new job and get really
   interested into it. Make it a lifestyle.

   I figured this out too late, when I already had left a very good
   workplace behind.

I'll second the positive part of this advice: never quit a job expecting
it will improve your lot, because this only works in very extreme
conditions --- I quit once because my employer wanted _me_ to sign bogus
import forms, but that is a little different than just not liking the
job.  In his whole career, I am not aware of Morita _ever_ advising
someone to quit their job (or leave their spouse!).  That sort of change
is no where near as good as a rest.

There are lots of dull jobs with few redeeming features, but you are not
your job and many find they can do the drudgery by only seeing the
paycheck and doing what pleases them after hours --- I highly recommend
this, and I know with my own career, it was what I did after hours that
9 times out of ten landed me the better job I could quit to move in to.
And if you have no other interests?  Composer John Cage (sadly departed
and I miss him already) chose his hobby of Mycology because it was next
to 'music' in his pocket dictionary!  He became a world-class expert.
You never know until you try.

--
Gary Lawrence Murphy - Gary.Murphy@software.mitel.COM - (613) 592-2122 x3709
                "How do I know what needs to be done?"
                         "Ask the situation."
Newsgroups: alt.support
From: davis@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Barbara Davis)
Subject: Re: Denial
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:40:18 GMT

Bear, you always give us lots and lots of details.  It is obvious that much
thought and caring goes into your postings.  Over the months I have been
reading what you post, one thought keeps cropping up.

I'm asking that you just "try on" the notion that you are a rescuer of hurt
women.  Only you will be able to tell if the label fits and if you reject it
I won't bring it up again.

I think you are offering women you care about what you think you want, 
someone to love you and to take away the pain of the abuse you suffered as
a child.  I think you are modeling for them the way you want them to treat
you.

You appear to feel that you can love someone enough to give them good self
esteem.  You seem to be saying that if someone loved you as much as you love
them and if they were as supportive of you as you try to be of them, all
other issues of self-esteem would be healed.

It is my experience that self-esteem doesn't come from someone telling us we
are worthwhile.  It comes from us telling ourselves we are worthwhile.  The
more someone else tries to convince us we are great the more of our energy 
goes into proving them wrong.  Soon we have no energy for anything else.

When someone tries to rescue us in the name of love, they actually rob us of
the power to heal ourselves.  If one of these women you have been involved
with tried to rescue you, you would be furious and would reject their
efforts.

This is why I think you are meeting so much of what feels like rejection to
you.  You are so sensitive to the feelings of others.  You see their pain
and you want to make it go away.  You are a giving and caring person and so
you try and try to heal their pain.  The harder you try the more they push
you away.

We must each heal our own pain.  We are empowered by friends who listen to
us without offering advice, who love us whether we are right or wrong,  who
let us into their lives and offer us emotional intimacy.

Don't give up your sensitivity or your caring, just recognize that you can't
heal others no matter how much you love them.  Healing is from within 
ourselves.

Barb
-- 
Barbara G. Davis                       Internet:  davis@ucsu.colorado.edu
University of Colorado, Boulder 

                   If I don't ask, you can't say, "Yes!".
From: 1260s@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Kathleen Shaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.support
Subject: Re: Why Live?
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:58:22 GMT
Reply-To: 1260s@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Kathleen Shaffer)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD


Ed -

Thank you.  I'm going through something pretty tough to deal with right
now.  I think everyone (or maybe not everyone) has fleeting thoughts
of ending it all.  I know I did when I recently found my ex-boyfriend
in a compromising position with someone who was definitely not me!
I'm trying to feel better about myself - we were in a Long Distance
Relationship (only 44 miles, but I was the one who had to travel, he
didn't like to).  I just feel lousy because he kept telling me for the
last 2 years what a wonderful person I was to have entered his life
and how much he wanted to marry me (even bought my diamond and wedding
rings, picked our invitations, church, etc.).  Oh well...

Anyway, I enjoyed the poem.

Thanks again.

Kathy
(Taylor's master - at least my dog still loves me!!!)
Organization: Graduate School of Industrial Administr., Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: samn@athena.mit.edu (Valerie Samn)
Subject: Mom at College
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:26:25 GMT


My mom called yesterday and said that she was leaving my father and she was
coming in to Boston, from Texas, today.  I would be experiencing the emotional
trauma involved with this except that there are other things that need to to be
taken care of . . . such as where she's going to live after she's kicked out of
my dorm room, how she's going to get a job when she hasn't had a job for over 24
years, how she's going to manage living by herself (if at all . . . if not, that
will be a scary thing for me) and how she will make friends . . . she doesn't
have any hobbies or interests, which leaves group therapy as an option except
that she doesn't believe in counseling (actually, she has a great adversion to
counseling).  She doesn't seem to have ever trusted anyone outside of her
immediate family (thus she is not going to live with her mother and brother
in California) and seems to be able to take offense in almost anything and thus
believes that everyone intends to hurt her in some way.  

Furthermore, i don't know how long i can take having my mother around watching
everything i do and making bad comments about all of my friends (to this day
i can't think of a single friend of mine whom my mother actually *likes* . . . )
while living in the same building with them.  i depend highly on my friends to
keep me sane and to help me through problems, and my mother would not
approve of my trusting others . . . .

meanwhile, i do not know how long i can take being the sole emotional support
for my mother . . . it is very tiring and i am not up to it now . . . 

i want to convince her that people are good and that they will help and it is
not a bad thing to ask for help but that seems to be difficult as she thinks of
helping people as "repaying a debt" . . . .  i hate help in the form of 
'payment' . . . i like helping people and she tells me i waste my time in doing
so and she says that i shouldn't accept help either because then i will owe someone
something for life . . . .  and now she will be independent, or dependent on
me, whichever i can accomplish . . . .

thanks for listening . . . 

-v
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
From: davis@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Barbara Davis)
Subject: Re: CHOOSING to be attracted to someone
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:17:01 GMT

stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:

>libbie@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Libbie Counselman) writes:

>>People have MUCH more control over what attracts them than they
>>often realize!  They can talk themselves into or out of being attracted
>>to all different types of people.  
>[...]
>>So why do some people continue to limit themselves to a certain
>>physical type?  

>In my experience, *some* people can change what physical appearances they
>are attracted to, and some find it far more difficult. I have gotten into
>several relationships - and heard about others - in which one person
>very much wanted to be sexually attracted to the other, but could not manage 
>it. I've been in and known other sexual/romantic relationships that lasted 
>even when one of the partners' physical appearance changed drastically.
> 
>If there are techniques that people can use to change what they find 
>attractive, does anyone know what they are? I know lots of people who would
>love to be able to consider a wider range of people as romantic partners,
>but they cannot because they are only sexually attracted to a particular
>appearance.

I believe the "technique" you refer to is called love.  I have been in
several relationships with men I was not initially attracted to.  When 
friendship grew into love, I found that I couldn't keep my hands off of
them.  I found them marvelously sexy!

32 years ago, my brother-in-law told my sister that as a size 10 she was
fat and that if she got fatter he would not touch her and would start going
to prostitutes.  With the birth of their second child, she gained a lot
of weight and has been very large ever since.  He found that he had no
desire for any other woman and that his desire for her had not lessened.
To this day he is totally devoted to her as she is to him despite the
fact that he is short and skinny :-]

This has also been the case with my Dad loving my mom, another sister being
adored by her husband, and my brother being loved devotedly by his wife.

My wise sister says it is because they were committed to each other, not to
a relationship.  She says they have had 100s of relationships in over 30
years of marriage.

As I said in the beginning, I think the "technique" you refer to is
called love.

Barb
-- 
Barbara G. Davis                       Internet:  davis@ucsu.colorado.edu
University of Colorado, Boulder 

                   If I don't ask, you can't say, "Yes!".
From: joyce@apple.com (Joyce Wermont)
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
Subject: re: CHOOSING to be attracted to someone
Date: 2 Sep 92 01:53:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA


I think Sheryl has been saying that sexual attraction consists not only
of internal impulses, but is socially constructed as well. Both things
are true. Without going into a long discussion on the nature of sexuality
(which I'm sure belongs in another newsgroup), I think it's fair to say
that among many other things, people's *thoughts and beliefs* play an
important role in their sexuality as well as their instincts.

As Sheryl said, some people are more affected by societal brainwashing
than others. But I agree that we're all affected to some degree. Perhaps
society can never stamp out the spark of individuality completely (I
like to think this is true), but it sure has a damn good influence. When
we're given the message over and over that certain people are inappropriate
as objects of desire - whether because they're fat, the same sex, a different
race, or whatever - that clearly *will* affect the amount of openness
we have toward viewing those groups of people in a sexual way. People
will often deny or repress sexual feelings if they're taught those
feelings are wrong. For others, it may not even *occur* to them that
they could find such a person sexually attractive.

But when people are given opportunities to view those "inappropriate"
people in a sexual way, I think some - not all, but some - do open up
to it. We can't really know what people would feel in a culture totally
free of prejudices - there's too much "ought" for there to be "is" - but
I'm willing to bet that it would be different. 

What I mean by "opportunities" is not more brainwashing, with yet
another set of standards. Instead, I mean providing people with positive
images and messages about fat people (or gay people, etc), so that
we can have the thoughts and beliefs necessary to allow ourselves
the *possibility* of feeling sexual toward them. Then, if the instinct
is there, it will have the chance to be expressed.

Joyce Wermont
joyce@apple.com

Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
From: libbie@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Libbie Counselman)
Subject: CHOOSING to be attracted to someone
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:07:48 GMT


>>Richard Pottorff writes:
>>
>>I don't think people are going to stop looking at the way people present
>>themselves to the world, and being judged by it any time soon.  ...

>Sheryl Coppenger writes:
>
>If it's learned behavior, it can be changed.  Why would learned behavior
>confer a reproductive advantage?  Also, standards of beauty in one place
>and time don't necessarily apply in another place and time.  
>

Exactly!  This is precisely what I was trying to express!  Thanks,
Sheryl!  People have MUCH more control over what attracts them than they
often realize!  They can talk themselves into or out of being attracted
to all different types of people.  Look at how popular fat people were
just a century or two ago, and look at how unpopular they (we) are now!
And I find I am much more desireable to the men in cultures where "thin
is NOT in" than here in the US.  

So why do some people continue to limit themselves to a certain
physical type?  I can understand limiting oneself to characteristics
that have to do with how smoothly the relationship goes - the kinds of
things that have to do with common values, such as religion (if that's
important to you), intelligence and/or education (again, if that's
important to you), desire or lack thereof for family, common goals,
etc.  However, I cannot understand why physical appearance would be so
important that one would use is as an eliminator, since the 
unattracted person can change their feelings, and the "attractive" 
person's appearance could change over time.  Is that really MORE
important than these other characteristics?  And if not, then should
one use it as the deciding factor BEFORE one even finds out about the
more important things?  I think not.

I'd like to think that as people realize that they *can* change what
attracts them, that they would keep the door open to get to know people
for whom they do not have an immediate attraction.  This at least gives
both people the opportunity to *develop* an attraction, and see what
happens.  To reject someone solely because of their appearance means *two*
people may miss out on something good.


-Libbie C.
  

Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
From: dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott)
Subject: Re: Update on whitewater equipment for larger folks
Organization: Sony Microsystems, San Jose, CA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 00:12:34 GMT


In article <1992Aug24.235556.24361@speedy.aero.org>, nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel) writes:
|> Height might also be an issue - I'm just average height and I fit in most
|> IKs (though not off-the-rack wetsuits) so I can't say.  Taller folks should
|> have a somewhat easier time with catarafts for the most part but might get
|> their feet wetter than I do.

Height is an issue for IKs.  Don't forget that when you are sitting
with your legs out that your rear end contributes to your leg length.

Boats like the Hyside Padillac, Sotar, and Aire Lynx can fit pretty
tall people.  I have a friend who is over 6'5" who has no trouble with
his Lynx.

My Padillac is the expedition model, which is a bit longer than the
standard boat, and can also carry a lot more stuff, and I usually have
12 inches in front of my feet when I'm sitting with my legs flat.  This
is a great boat for a tall or fat person getting started, both in terms
of stability and in terms of building muscles and skills (in other
words, it's a pig, so you have to think fast and paddle hard, but you
probably won't swim too many rapids).

Cats are certainly a neat idea (if it weren't for the new IK and my
loss of a $180 paddle last weekend, I'd probably be buying one).
There's a small one-person cat called the Pack Cat, which will not hold
too much extra weight, but it is good for tall people.

--
...David Elliott
...dce@smsc.sony.com | ...!{uunet,mips}!sonyusa!dce
...(408)944-4073
..."I take my arms and I wrap them around my art." - F
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
Subject: Re: CHOOSING to be attracted to someone
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:27:37 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

libbie@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Libbie Counselman) writes:

>People have MUCH more control over what attracts them than they
>often realize!  They can talk themselves into or out of being attracted
>to all different types of people.  
[...]
>So why do some people continue to limit themselves to a certain
>physical type?  

In my experience, *some* people can change what physical appearances they
are attracted to, and some find it far more difficult. I have gotten into
several relationships - and heard about others - in which one person
very much wanted to be sexually attracted to the other, but could not manage 
it. I've been in and known other sexual/romantic relationships that lasted 
even when one of the partners' physical appearance changed drastically.
 
If there are techniques that people can use to change what they find 
attractive, does anyone know what they are? I know lots of people who would
love to be able to consider a wider range of people as romantic partners,
but they cannot because they are only sexually attracted to a particular
appearance.

First posting here - apologies if I've violated any group etiquette.

--
Stef                 In the force if Yoda's so strong, construct a 
stef@apple.com       sentence with words in the proper order then 
                     why can't he?                         /fortune
From: st1lv@rosie.uh.edu (McLeod, Stephen)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism,alt.atheism,sci.physics,talk.religion.newage,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Subject?
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:19:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Houston
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug26.195300.24632@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...
>In article <25AUG199210545351@rosie.uh.edu> st1lv@rosie.uh.edu (McLeod, Stephen) writes:
>>In article <25701@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes...
> (misuse of 'topiary' for ossuary)
>>(comment on my misuse of topiary.)
>>> Incredibly witty reparte'
>>> and then the reply...
>     Yes, you were sufficiently unclear.  A 'topiary' is a place where
>     there are a bunch of bushes.  If you were referring to an 'ossuary',
> 
>                                    dale bass

Okay.  I erred.  Please substitute 'ossuary' for 'topiary' (A word, which I
assure you I will not misuse again! :) )  Let see now, how can I weasel out
of this.  Oh yea... it was a software bug, that's the ticket.  See, I actually
*wrote* 'ossuary' but my... uh... spelling checker, yea, that's it, my spelling
checker had a bug and substituted 'topiary' (which any fool knows means artfully
trimmed bushes) in for every occurence of 'ossuary.'  
Uh... Well for what it is worth, I did include a definition.  Do I get any
browny points for that?  :)  (hopeful grin).
---
Stephen McLeod    Death is not the worst thing that can happen from smoking.
The Eternal?, now hairless, Student  
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu ()
Subject: Re: Bible or Not?
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulu
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:04:19 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu


>	One thing many Satanists, not to mention many scientifoc agnostics, 
>ontological geurillas, discordians, fundamentalist wiccans (especially dianics) 
>and ceremonial magicians (which satanism is an offshoot of, BTW)  would like
>to see is the death of the Xtian church.  Not, necessarily, out of spite, but
>rather out of the fact that it has been the single most backward, twisted, 
>progress-impeding, tradition-impeding, bigoted, and just plain bull-stubborn 
>(apologies to tauruses) STUPID religion out there.  Most sects of Islam are
>more open minded than an average Xtian denomination.

I agree with the first part, but WHOA on the second... Islam? Open minded?
I think this was true historically; muslims were tolerant of people of other
religious denominations living within the borders of Islamic nations, but today
we see the very opposite. Does anyone remember Lebanon? Iran etc? 
Seems to me the rise of fundamentalist islam is responsible for much suffering
in the world. Open minded? In Saudi Arabia they don't allow women to DRIVE! 
It may be true that Muslims in the developed nations are not as obnoxious as
Xtians, but this is probobly because xtians are entrenched in the power 
structure wheras muslims are in no position to impose their views on others.
BTW- some of the kurds, who are persecuted by muslims in both Turkey and Iraq
are decendants of the original Yedzis who are considered to be the first 
"Satanists"

>even a stupid one, for the concept that one cannot go out into Daley Plaza at
>midnight, take off all ones clothes, rub blue stuff all over oneself, and dance
>around a bonfire?
>	If you WERE a xtian, you just get confused.  If you weren't a xtian, 
>you probably DO it, if not for the hell of it, than for spite.

I dunno any muslims or jews who would do this either. I do know some gnostics
pagans & satanic types who would.... Hmmmm...

-Scott 
Newsgroups: alt.satanism