HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: Females have it easy!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:27:32 GMT

In article <16109@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.054837.3942@mtu.edu> rossi@mtu.edu (Rossi) writes:
>>In article (Sandra Loosemore) writes:
>|>markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
>|>
>|>   Cory Everson is perfection.
>
>Who?
>
>| Cindy Crawford
>|>   looks too much like a frail girly woman.
>|>
>|>   Brinkley and Crawford are most certainly not perfect.
>|>
>|
>|   In the general spirit of bashing plastik women:  
>|
>|The only one of the regulars that you see on the runway I'd say
>|Turlington is my favorite.
>
>Who?
>
>Probably, like Sandra, I don't have cable, so I miss out on these wonderful
>bits of entertainment like fashions shows and MTV.
>
>If I *had* to choose a model it would be Cheryl Tiegs.
 
Hey I have cable and I don't know who Hurlington or Cory Everson is!
 
Now my nanny looks sorta like (from the waist up) the Little Mermaid and
sorta like the princess in Alladin.
 
I'm debating if I should keep her. 
 
P.S. I'm gonna gag if I have to sit through one more Disney flick.
 
Although sneaking a pint of rum into Dracula to get a jump on hot tubbing
had it's good points. *SNORK*
 
================================================================================
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
                                 doh#0000000005
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly)
Subject: Re: Females have it easy!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:31:38 GMT
Summary: Fast recovery.

In article <JoeMan.10.724984859@>, JoeMan@ (Joe Tooman) writes:
> Whats wrong with a slut?  First off, I want a woman I can respect. 

Well, that's *your* problem.

> I respect women that have morals and have enough self respect to say no
> once and a while. Second off, I want a woman that hasn't been cirulated
> around too much, I have the desire to lead a healthy life without dieing
> of some STD.  

Not that you'll ever be able to be certain about your dates' past
experiences, unless you're going after young children.  But you're on
the right track there, with that metaphor of woman as worn dollar bill,
to avoid the nefarious "nice guy" trap.

> >Well, Mr. 7-on-a-1-to-10-scale (sounds like a quality improvement
> >project opportunity, if you ask me),

> Believe me it is, I was a 6 last year and I a working on a 8 for next 
> year. :)  Hey you can do a lot by weight lifting and exercising.

Keep at it, dude.  

> Why are you trying to make me out as a geek?  I am active in my
> community, and I meet plenty of suitible women in that environment.

If it quacks like a geek...  You were whining about your inability
to find the woman of your dreams.

> ...  As for your A B and C choices, (A) I did 
> lower my standards somewhat, but it is hard for me to change because
> I am pretty much spoiled when it comes HOT women.  BUT if her
> personality is outstanding I often will not place so much on how she
> looks.  (B) My lifestyle is on the right track IMHO.  I have a great
> social life...

Mazel tov!  So what the h*ll are you complaining about?  Sheesh.

               *** ***
Ken Perlow   ***** *****
23 Dec 92   ****** ******   3 Nivose An CCI
            *****   *****   gadfly@ihspc.att.com
             ** ** ** **
...L'AUDACE!   *** ***   TOUJOURS DE L'AUDACE!  ENCORE DE L'AUDACE!
From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Date: 30 Dec 92 15:18:45 GMT
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP's message of 29 Dec 92 19:26:11 GMT


In article <279@cnmhnet.UUCP> keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:

   In article <gT4cwB1w165w@iowegia.uucp> mine@iowegia.uucp (shelley kitsis) writes:
   >My name is Shelley Kitsis and I reside and work in Des Moines, Ia.
   >For 3 years now, I've tried every available resourse I can get my 
   >hands on, in hopes of meeting an eligible single Jewish "Mensch"!
   >of Judaism. There just aren't any Jewish eligible men here in 
   >D.M., or close by! I'm about ready to give up! Any suggestions from
   >anyone out there??!! I know that eventually, I will probably have 

   Well Shelley, there isn't anything wrong with being surrounded
   by "christians", is there?  Who knows?  Maybe you could join
   that club called "Jews for Jesus".

I'm not sure whether that was meant as a joke, but as a point of 
fact, "Jews for Jesus" is not a club.  More accurately, it is 
a cult, in which members have little or no free will.

Spidey!!!


--
You don't hunt ducks with a turnip! 

 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                                          jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \                                              Do whatever it takes.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: daniel@clsi.COM (Daniel S. Barclay)
Subject: Re: Females have it easy!
Organization: CAD Language Systems Inc.
	<1992Dec25.180737.10994@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<1992Dec25.193834.20166@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<DANIEL.92Dec28131645@algol.clsi.COM>
Date: 28 Dec 92 14:54:51

Chris Penington (cjp8b@virginia.edu) writes:

> 	Chris (who also likes Chinese and Japanese and wouldn't mind
> trying Littlese.....;) )
         ^^^^^^^^
Gee, I didn't know that there was more than on "little e".
                                            ^one, 1, unity; uno, un


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel S. Barclay                    --who's still searching for a good 
CAD Language Systems, Inc.           signature, not liking any of his recent
Suite 101, 5457 Twin Knolls Rd.      feeble attempts to improve on the whiny:
Columbia, MD  21045  USA             Why can't _I_ think of a good signature?

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ccewwm@nusunix1.nus.sg (Wong Wui Ming)
Subject: Re: on the job
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 08:18:53 GMT

I have a few friends who married their colleagues in the same office but
resigned from the company when they get married.  I think you should go
ahead to get to know the person.  If the relationship does not work out,
at least you can say you try.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: cocoa@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Females have it easy!
Organization: Bourbon Street
Distribution: usa 
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:47:01 GMT

In article <JoeMan.9.724896947@> JoeMan@ (Joe Tooman) writes:
>>>but it seems to me that the female does not have
>>>any problem finding a guy anytime she feels like she wants a relationship.
>>
>>And clueless as well.
>>
>Actually Blowfish, I am not clueless.  I, like most, had have my share of
>relationships, and am trying to find a way to shorten the time inbetween.
>Instead of 2 or 3 months, maybe 3 or 4 weeks.  It must be easy for you,
>having such a good relationship with rosy palm.  You must be 'clueless' to
>flame a person in soc.singles.  You must really impress those women with your
>keen intellect.
>
[deleted]

>>>I have a good personality and I am told I rate an 7 on a scale from 1 to 10
>>>looks wise.
>>
>>Gee, I'm so pretty, why can't I get dates. Try a life.
>
>
>I sure you don't have a problem, you just hand them the money and you have
>your instant date (c) that will not run away at the sight of your worm sized
>mantool (tm).  I have more a life then I doubt you will ever have, I don't
>have time to search for people to flame in my spare time, unlike you.  
>You just haven't looked at the mirror recently.  (I wonder why)

I'll tell you why you can't find a girlfriend.  It's because no woman in
her right mind would go out with such an asshole like yourself who foams
at the mouth with petty, childish insults worthy of a hormone-imbalanced
teenage boy.  (Notice how nicely this paragraph is adjusted (tm), etc..)

All Ron said was you didn't have a clue.  And I think he was right on.

Just me,

little 'e'  (not in love with rON, but still annoyed by such childishness)


-- 
*  *  *    Chocolatier at Arms, and Castle Wetware Liason            *  *  *
*  *  *    e-mail: cocoa@netcom.com   -    voicemail: 415-337-4940   *  *  *

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: j_babylo@oz.plymouth.edu (Jessica L. Babylon)
Subject: Re: Females have it easy!
Summary: THen let me be miserable
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 18:57:39 GMT

In article <lj3ugnINNi6u@news.bbn.com> dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>In article <JMD.92Dec18094805@lion.bear.com>, jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec17.174428.5996@novell.com> mlinda@novell.com (M'Linda Taylor) writes:
>> 
>>    >although women do seem to be approached on a sometime daily or weekly
>>    >basis, their problem is weeding through all the offers for a man who
>>    >meets their standards.
>> 
>>    This is all a joke, right?????
>> 
>> I was hopping... er, hoping that it was a joke.
>> Unfortunately I don't think I'm sure anymore...
>
>Believe me, hon, it's a joke.  I have NEVER been approached on anything
>close to a weekly basis.  Not counting out of state e-mail, the most I've ever
>been approached was *maybe* once a month (by someone who actually wanted 
>a real date, not just e-mailed suckups, which at the peak of my
>net.goddesshood did get pretty amazing.)  And that once a month came from
>hanging around SF things and the net and being obnoxiously flirtatious,
>and only happened when I had a teeny baby at home and had to turn down all
>or most of them anyway.  I went through high school and
>the first year of college in pretty much the same misery that the 
>NiceGuy's here complain about, and that was with being fairly pretty
>and (at one time) having that barbie doll figure that I thought I was
>supposed to have, and being reasonably outgoing.  I went through that
>"aargh, I'm the oldest virgin at my college" thing.  Well, I probably 
>wasn't, but it sure seemed that way at times.  
>
>It's just that the grass is always greener, ya'know, and with something
>like 80% of net folks being male, that green grass on the other side of
>the fence is mostly female.  But cheer up -- on the whole, we're every
>bit as miserable as you are.
>
Sigh, so tell me how to be as miserable as you guys please please
please?  My lord, i think that subject header is a damn dipshit
flamebait thing but i'll flame it anyhow, sure females have it easy we
get to pick and choose through every geek(net or no) who thinks he is
god's gift to everyone, and this is just the non-jockish(itch for that
matter) male bimbo people...sigh...so how can i get them to stop?
Sometimes i don't feel like putting up with guy shit, and i feel
guilty when i want to put up with wimmin shit. Boy am i confused. Feel
free to offer analysis and flame at will...

- Roofus "trying to be as miserable as possible" the Goddess


>Dawn
>
>Joseph Campbell gave me hope and now I have been saved.
>"Folk Song" by Bongwater


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp)
Subject: Re: Women, Cats, & Chocolate
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:12:03 GMT

OSSANDER LINDA A (ftlao@acad3.alaska.edu) wrote:
: In article <MARTINC.92Dec21173635@grover.cs.unc.edu>, martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes...
: >In article <21DEC199211532244@acad3.alaska.edu> ftlao@acad3.alaska.edu (OSSANDER LINDA A) writes:
: > 
: >   I am a single and I WAS NOT flaming anyone! 
: > 
: >Why not?
: 
: Because this is not alt.flame...  ;-)

Not *yet*, that is. :)
-- 
Ed Carp			erc@apple.com, erc@saturn.upl.com	801/538-0177

Who and what would you be if you went beyond your deepest fears?
Newsgroups: soc.singles,talk.bizarre,alt.conspiracy
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: More Answers to Dating Questions
Followup-To: soc.singles,alt.sex
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 02:21:39 GMT

tps@jptcs.COM (Tim Sailer) writes:
] drieux, just drieux (drieux@wetware.com) wrote:
]
] : WAS: Subject: Re: Women: would you go out with a man dumber than you?
] : 
] : Ok folks, its time for uncle drieux to explain the facts of life,
] : again.
] : 
] : 1. Never go out with anyone you will have to debrief.
] : 
] : 2. never get emotionally involved with anyone you will
] : have to terminate for reasons of national security.
] 
] Does this mean that I have to date someone that is also Q/Secret
] cleared? :(

I'm Glad You have raised this Thorny Question.

1. IF the person you are planning to date is NOT
cleared to the level of your current and potential
clearance level, then there exists a CLEAR possibility
that you may be engaging in a Breach of National Security,
as it is possible that you may utter something which is not
for dissemination at their level of clearance.

2. If you are interested in dating anyone who has, or 
potentially Might have, a security clearance, then it is
obvious that the two stipulated cases are operable, as you
may be obliged to engage in either of said aforementioned cases.

3. Likewise, there is the possibility that you may be
interested in a person who's level of, actual or potential, 
security clearance is higher than your own, and hence 
obliging them to engage in dangerous security practices.

Therefore, when considering dataing anyone, IF you do not
know for a fact what their current and potential security
clearance level commitments might be, it is advised that you
cease and dissist from considering them as a potential date
for reasons of National Security.

If On the Otherhand you KNOW what their current and potential
security clearance level commitments might be, then take
the previous sipulations as a functioning guide line for
such cases as may from time to time occur.


ciao
Miss Drieux


ps: Just Because the BleedingHeartWimpLiberalMediaMongers
are the PropogandaToolsOfInternationalGodlessKommunism, 
by spreading AgitProp rumours about the end of the coldwar, is
no reason to Let Down YOUR GUARD!

Safe Sex Has a Security component!!!!!


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
From: jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOSEPH ALOYSIUS MCVEIGH)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Attraction -> Acquiantance or vice versa?
Date: 22 Dec 92 18:33:15 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

mel@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Meloney D Cregor) writes:

>The REAL test is can they write their name in the snow?
>The beauty of the test is that it shows not only manhood, but
>literacy and dexterity, as well.

And if he has to stand on something to clear the snow level, then you've
really got a prize.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Aloysius McVeigh | "No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd
   jm0i@.Lehigh.edu     |  only had good intentions. He has money as well."
       "N.I.N.A."       |                               - Margaret Thatcher
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men,misc.legal
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
X-To: KAREN PELTON SCARR
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:08:00 GMT

kpscarr@leland.Stanford.EDU (Karen Pelton Scarr) writes...
>In article <BzKDCM.HAB@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
>Rubin) writes:

>As long as women are the ones who bear children, and the ones who bear primary-
>often *sole*--responsibility for raising them, the choice to have or have not
>is theirs.  And as long as men father children, and are financially better off
>than women, they should contribute money for the child's upbringing (at the
>very least).  Men should not be able to escape their responsibility for
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>"externalities" like children simply by claiming that the mother was a willing
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>participant in the sexual act, and that she knew he didn't want children.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And why not?  Having sex is NOT consent to BEARING a child, for women, though
this is how it used to be.  But for men, having sex is *still* treated as
consent to raise a child.

This is *not* fair at all.


>Accidents happen--and children are not as easily cleaned up (i.e., aborted) as
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>car wrecks.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh, yes they are.  In fact, it takes about an hour.  Car wrecks usually take
a *little* longer...


>Under your vision, what's next?  Court-ordered abortions?  Court-ordered
>pregnancies?  Can't you see that giving the father an equal say is not such an
>easy imposition of equity--or equality?

Why isn't it?  if I choose not to be a father, why do I have to be forced by
the mother's decision to have it?  Indeed, would you consider it fair if I
tried to force YOU to do something against your wishes?

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * Did you know that clones never use mirrors?
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: Women, Cats, & Chocolate
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:36:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.194651.2145@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>In article <20DEC199219303987@acad3.alaska.edu> ftlao@acad3.alaska.edu (OSSANDER LINDA A) writes:
>
>  [lots of drivel deleted]
>
>>AGAIN " I AM SORRY FOR ABUSING YOUR FEELINGS"
>
>Look, you dumb broad, this is soc.singles, the biggest flamefest outside
>of r.a.s not devoted strictly to flaming.  If you don't want to get with
>the program, then stay the fuck out of here.
>-- 
>                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)

Maybe its the holidays?
 
I'm really startin to like Aahz since he's come out of his shell.
 
================================================================================
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
                                 doh#0000000005
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.personals
From: rossi@mtu.edu (Rossi)
Subject: 12 Days Again!
Keywords: birds
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:27:18 GMT

I missed all the fun.  But when you folks let loose those
3 French hens, 2 turtle doves and that partridge.  Smile.  I'll
let ya know if I catch one (or two).  Really I will.  Trust me.  >;-)

   songbird
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: More, women would you....
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 13:09:00 GMT


1. go out with a man who does his makeup better than you?

2. Looks FAR BETTER than you in your teddy......

3. has a worse case of PMS than you've ever seen?

4. Actually Understands the fashion tips.

5. Played on a Women's Hockey Team.

6. Likes you to tie him up with string cheese.

7. This Question will NOT be asked in Polite society.

8. Actually Posted that they were a NiceGuy[tm].

9. Was KNOWN to be a complete DickHead[tm] on the Net,
but rumour had it was a great lay anyway?

10. was only a lurker and did not post rude and silly
things to soc.singles hoping you would send warmfuzzy 
email to him, telling him what a wonderful guy he was.


ciao
drieux


ps: Important Questions we are all Just DYING to hear about.



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
From: dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: SF ISO S*M
Date: 28 Dec 92 17:59:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <75896@apple.apple.COM>, pooh@Apple.COM (Pooh) writes:
> 
> You're right, Aahz -- shall we try climbing rope at 40 paces
> in a.s.b.?  Or winter-issue handcuffs at Dawn?  (Sorry, Dawn.)

Don't apologize.  Just let me know when you and Aahz are showing up so
I can get my chains polished and oiled.

Dawn

Joseph Campbell gave me hope and now I have been saved.
"Folk Song" by Bongwater
Xref: sparky soc.singles:35120 soc.women:21995 soc.men:21973 alt.flame:17536
From: oleg@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract )
Date: 1 Jan 93 03:37:46 GMT
Reply-To: oleg@veritas.com (Oleg Kiselev)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Palo Alto Killifish Loft

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>)>I lack the specific >data on this - (I'm not sure if it's available.)  
>)I.e. "I am making this up as I go and it sounds convincing to *me*".
>I.e Oleg doesn't know either!

You have finally gotten one thing right in this discussion.

Correct, I "don't know either", which is why I don't make bizarre
and baseless assertions.

>His opinions are, of course, opinions and
>to be respected, unlike people who he disagrees with, whose opinions are
>'just making it up' (the nerve!).

There is a difference bewteen an "opinion" and an "assertion".  Please look
it up.  You have made a lot of assertions based on "lack [of] the specific
data" and these assertions don't sound convincing to anyone other than you.

That's an "assertion" and the "specific data" supporting it are the articles 
that challenged your lunacy.

My "opinion" is that you are an idiot.  You are not surprized, I hope.

>(yeah, this is just a flame, but our site doesn't get alt.flame.)

What you posted is not a flame, but a teaspoon of lukewarm sludge.  In that
your posting <1992Dec30.110410.21574@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> does not differ
much from anything else you have had to contribute to the discussion.
-- 
Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.

Oleg Kiselev                                             oleg@veritas.com
VERITAS Software                           ...!{apple|uunet}!veritas!oleg
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Women, Cats, & Chocolate
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:36:35 GMT
	<thurlow.724877659@convex.convex.com>
	<20DEC199219303987@acad3.alaska.edu> <1992Dec21.194651.2145@netcom.com>
	<21DEC199211532244@acad3.alaska.edu>
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: ftlao@acad3.alaska.edu's message of 21 Dec 92 19:53:00 GMT

In article <21DEC199211532244@acad3.alaska.edu> ftlao@acad3.alaska.edu (OSSANDER LINDA A) writes:


   I am a single and I WAS NOT flaming anyone! 

Why not?
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Newsgroups: soc.singles