HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Do you remember 1970 to 1980?
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:21:58 GMT
	<1992Nov16.212113.27658@e2big.mko.dec.com>
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: miller@quiver.enet.dec.com's message of 16 Nov 92 20:20:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.212113.27658@e2big.mko.dec.com> miller@quiver.enet.dec.com (Brian A. Miller) writes:

   >In article <9211112207.AA06353@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
   >>
   >>       As part of an impromptu research project, I'd like to know what
   >>   YOU think the single most important ( dramatic, traumatic ) event of`
   >>   1970 to 1980 was.


   Personal: I was born after 1970.  Many of my friends were born after
   1970...

I knew it had to happen.  Someone was going to say it.

How are we supposed to take you seriously when you were born after the
Beatles broke up?
--
		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,alt.pagan,alt.romance,alt.sex,alt.polyamory,talk.religion.misc
From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer)
Subject: Re: raising children
Organization: Netcom - San Jose, CA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 06:23:27 GMT

In article <1dv474INNn3@manuel.anu.edu.au> Lubosh <Lubosh.Hanuska@anu.edu.au> writes:
>In article <BxK3E2.Gv1@access.digex.com> Corun MacAnndra,
>corun@access.digex.com writes:
>>I'd be interested to see an experiment conducted, where two groups of
>>children, both male and female, are raised in households, one of all
>>men, and one of all women. A fair mix would include gays as well as
>>straights on the parent side, in order to give the children as well
>>rounded a set of experiences as possible.
>
>Okay, but I think little kids are too precious gifts of God to be used
>for experiments.
>Lubosh

     You have to prove there is a God before you can say that little
kids or anything for that matter is a precious gift from God.

     Good luck.


GIGO = Gospel In Garbage Out
-- 
       +----------------------------------------------------------------+
      /  Keep Abortion Legal and Safe.  Reduce the Deficit.            /
  +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 /   //  W. David Rohwer   // Amiga       UUCP: apple!netcom.com!rohwerwd |
|  \X/       Go A's!     \X/ 3000UX   Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM      /
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Do you remember 1970 to 1980?
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:07:36 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <MARTINC.92Nov18222158@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>
>How are we supposed to take you seriously when you were born after the
>Beatles broke up?

Who?

			--Diamond

diamond@acpub.duke.edu |   The soul may choose its own society and shut
Elizabeth S. Abrams    |   the door, but the body gets thrown into bed
		       |   with the damnedest people.  --Peter Beagle
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker)
Subject: Re: Talking About Politics  (Was: Re: Where to meet women?)
Organization:  Something close to nothing, but different than the day before
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 01:06:20 GMT

rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>>julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:
>>>
>>>                 Arguing politics is great fun.
>>No, it's not!
>
>     Sure, arguing and talking about politics is fun!!

Yeah! What he said!

(Heaven help us, I'm agreeing with W. David Rohwer...;))

>W. David Rohwer   

Tyger

-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
                            But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: OFWM / OMWF survey
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:56:21 GMT

In article <17097@umd5.umd.edu>, bs42408@yorick.umd.edu (Bryan Lee) writes:
> 
>                          SURVEY
> Maybe it's just my imagination or maybe it's real but it seems
> like there are many more Oriental (meaning East-Asian) Female-
> White Male couples than there are Oriental Male-White Female
> couples.  Has anyone else noticed this trend?  Anyone have any
> idea what might be causing such a disparity?  I myself am
> completely supportive of interracial relationships, but it seems
> strange that it should be more common one way than the other.


It is probabily true and the main reason for it may be the large number of
white males in the military being stationed overseas (ie asian countries).
Several friends of mine in the military (Americans not just white) found 
their wifes while stationed in asia.  Another reason might be the old myths
about asian women being more devoted to their husbands.
I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS TRUE, but the perception presists, so the conclusion
could be 1. Some White men want the "subservant" asian woman, and 2. Asian
men might be leary of an Outspoken White female.

Larry Billings
This is just my opinion, so don't take me seriously, I don't.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: What do you Am men think about Am wome
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:29:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.075224.5106@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>In article <d+hqdlg@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>>Personally, I believe that sexual duration is a valuable asset. :)
>
>Sometimes--though a lot of women can find it intimidating or even deleterious
>to their egos (the reasoning being, as far as I can tell, "if he doesn't get
>off right away, there must be something wrong with me."  Of course this could
>be a result of past partners telling them that the reason they went off after
>twenty seconds was because they were so appealing).  (Of course this observation
>is coming from someone who has traditionally had the opposite problem, so it
>may be a bit skewed.)

Here are some numbers.  The average duration of human copulation is about
four minutes.  This compares quite favorably to our close cousins, the
chimpanzee and gorilla, who clock in at about one minute.  However, our
more distant cousin, the orangutan, manages about twenty minutes on average.
(Orangs also prefer to copulate in the trees rather than on the ground.)
Among mammals, though, the record-holder is some rodent at twelve hours!

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Seriousness.
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 12:54:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.020712.25404@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA writes:
>
>My definition of seriousness in a relationship is that things
>are getting serious when both partners agree to move in together.
>
>What is your definition?

Going out on a second date.

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Being Alone?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 07:55:53 GMT

In article <oneil.721868088@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>
>I honestly believe -- and have been told I'm unusual for this belief -- that 
>in a relationship, friendship should come before romance.  Personally, I've
>*never* fallen head over heels in love with someone unless I was friends 
>first.  Maybe it *is* a little cynical, but I just don't believe in love at
>first sight, for myself anyway.

I think you are unusual, though not unique, in this respect--it's been
my experience that for most people, once they perceive you as a friend,
they will no longer ever be able to perceive you as a potential romantic
possibility.  Personally, I think your way is more reasonable, but it's
still very much the less popular tactic.

Trygve
From: mcramm@dct.ac.uk (McRamm)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: net.hugs?
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:53:01 GMT
Organization: Dundee Institute of Technology

In article <31517@hydra.Helsinki.FI>, taina@cs.Helsinki.FI (Juha Taina) writes:
> In <13NOV92.21925419.0026@lafibm.lafayette.edu> CE42@lafibm.lafayette.edu (CE42000) writes:
>>>I too am new to this news group so hi, y'all.  I was ungraciously dumped
>>Hi! *hug* and welcome to ARC!
> 
> I'd like to ask why people share *hugs* and *kisses* on the net.  What
> is the value of them?  Would you also hug and kiss a stranger in real
> life?

Depends on the situation and the person involved. 
Hugs, almost certainly, kisses maybe.

Let's face it, *nothing* makes you feel quite as good as a friendly hug does
it?

> 
> -- 
> Juha Taina  taina@cs.helsinki.fi  Phone: +358-0-708-4247
-- 
 Angus M. Marshall, MCRAMM@UK.AC.DCT,amarshal@uk.ac.dund.mcs, (+44 382) 308600
Then I was gone, and in my place - a cat with green eyes.

    )     <-- Cheshire Smiley?
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Subject: Re: Why do women
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:38:41 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <By3rI8.D6C@unix.portal.com> mzank@shell.portal.com (matthew c zank) writes:

>Why do women just go for men with big muscle and lots of hair,
>and for any man who does not have any of this "too bad"?

Because they're sick of the whining of the hairless wimps?

>for that matter why do women have such narrow minds when
>it comes to views on men.

This is truly rich.  We should have this sentence bronzed.

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com
"I get so tickled debunking bad personal philosophy." - Milquetoast
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik)
Subject: Re: What Fits Heree
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 03:26:11 GMT



>I admit to there being tacit rules:

Not always tacit in my humble experience, especially when I broke them.
I appreciated the comments and criticism. 

>1) we don't need no steenkin' moderator - we can moderate  
>   ourselves, thank you [besides, who'd want to read all those 
>   posts for "appropriateness" to the group - Bleech!!! I'll
>   leave censorship of thought to soc.religion christianity
>   {see, I can say that here - I may get flamed but I can
>   say it}];

Sure you can say it. I even agree with what you say.

>2) personal adds do not belong here - except as amusement
>   for some of the more acerbic posters;

That's-a-right.

>3) Ad-hominem(sic) attacks - those against a person rather  
>   than their words or arguments are generally discouraged 
>   unless, of course, the topic of discussion is the person   
>   (ala, Ed Wright);

As I learned the hard way.

>4) James gets all the seesters - unless someone has 4 Aces
>   and a wild card;

What if I have four aces in my hand, a wild card and 
five more aces up my sleeve? Do I get to keep me seester?

He may have her anyway, the slut! :+)

>5) Puns and wordplay are good things - warning, spell check
>   for typos etc... they're fair game ...;

Dats why I write t'ings lyke [koowell(sic. on porpoise of curse)]

>6) The use of a reasonable editor is suggested (I'm not
>   about to suggest either emacs or vi - I try to stay out
>   of religious wars) so that articles and e-mail fits on the
>   reader(s) screens;

Oh pooh, I was about to launch a crusade for Wicca rituals!

>7)  Check your facts - if not, there are thousands of others 
>    that will do it for you - and attribute them when possible,
>    that way if your facts are bad we can flame your source
>    not you;

Git out yer acetylene torch and light my lucky! :+Q

>8)  <fill in for yourself ... they get made up as we go>;

Can I write my own rules? [MWOOAAAAA-HAAAA-HAAA! (craftily rubbing hands together)]

>9)  Most importantly, THINK.  Use your mind when you write 
>    or read for that matter.  Engage brain before engaging  
>    fingers.

What dat? Shift mind to NEUTRAL instead so's we can flame you! 
*CLICK!*...*WHOOSH!!* (sound of Zippo lighter applied to MOLOTOV cocktail.)
 
>Back to what is apropriate, I know I had some doubt with
>regard to that article I posted about the situation in Canada
>a week or so ago but, s.s is one of my forums of discourse -
>so why not?  After all, this is similar to a cocktail party, you
>discuss politics at parties ...
 
HEH, Don't you know it's cold up here? We needed more flames from the
likes of EDDIE WRT our politics. The heat generated in my mind was enough
to 'eat de 'ouse for a fortnight.

>Enough of my being Emily Post ....

Thought you were Allisson, the POSTER GIRL! :+Q

dreas
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Top 9 things...
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 16:38:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.055049.7672@cheshire.oxy.edu> ac@cheshire.oxy.edu (Aileen Cho) writes:
>  Another one, which really pissed me off when he said this to me...
>   "Believe it or not, I'm not like most other guys...I think sex should
> go with love..."
>   This, after the deed had already been done without the love.
>   Hmph.

Looked at positively, him saying that is at least indicative of his
desire to build up the "love" portion of the relationship, which is
always a good thing. But, I ask you, wasn't the sex rather good anyhow?
If so, why are you complaining? Pure hypocricy?
-- 
Michael MY Hui  ~{~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: Being Alone?
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 15:07:37 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Nov15.142817.13083@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>>Why, if that's when she's ready.  Maybe at that point she'll be older
>>and wiser and truely ready for a complete relationship - one that has
>>more to do with friendship, acceptance, and reality than the fiction
>>called romance which is not how things are but how we want them to be.
>Gosh, that sounds even more cynical than I am--is this allowed on 
>soc.singles?  Personally, I wouldn't call romance a fiction at all--

Real romance isn't fiction, I think allison was talking about the generic
'romance' (pablum) that one can find in alt.romance and its playground
companion alt.romance.giggles, er, chat.
>that< is fiction.
r.
Xref: sparky soc.singles:31549 talk.abortion:49167
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: nkill
Date: 23 Nov 92 02:11:39 GMT
	<MARTINC.92Nov19201910@hatteras.cs.unc.edu>
	<1992Nov22.071642.19541@netcom.com>
Followup-To: soc.singles,talk.abortion
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: rohwerwd@netcom.com's message of 22 Nov 92 07:16:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.071642.19541@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
   >  (Or somehow you're
   >under the impression that "anti-abortionist" *only* means Operation
   >Rescue.)  If Randall Terry had nkill, would *you* be safe?
   >
   >	(And I can't resist the observation that *some* of these people
   >	have not only been born, they've been born *twice*!)
   >
   >So long as someone feels it is morally justifiable to kill (or even
   >nkill) someone for differing opinions, then none of us are safe.  
   >--

	Just like the Christians and the Republicans are trying to do right
   now in trying to outlaw the gay lifestyle.

This is one of those things that probably should go direct to
alt.peeves, but I've grown really tired of this particular rhetorical
trope.  That is, to "respond" to a point by trying to change the
subject.  

In this paricular case, I think the point you are trying in your cute
little way to make is that the Christians and the Republicans feel it's
morally justifiable to kill or nkill someone for being gay.  However,
that ignores Republicans like Barry Goldwater (Sr.!) and Armistead
Maupin -- or for that matter, me -- who believe that gays are just
people like the rest of us and entitled to equal protection and respect,
or the tremendous number of Christians who are members of churches who
have fought for the inclusion of gays.  So you stereotype people who
agree with you as being members or the Evil Bad Guys.

But the *point* was that you advocated nkilling people who disagreed
with you about abortion.  Now from your later posts I'm convinced you
only meant that you wanted to kill the ones who got in your face;
however, as I said before, I suspect you of talking the talk but not
even thinking what it would mean to walk the walk.  Pay your money, join
NARAL and all that sort of thing.

But before you get all threatening with your nkills, think about what it
means to kill a living breathing person.  And remember that many
anti-abortionists hold the moral conviction that this is what's being
done to a fetus.
--
		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
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:37:27 EST
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Top 9 things...
 <92324.214223TWA101@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Nov22.055049.7672@cheshire.oxy.edu>
 <1992Nov22.163712.13349@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>

The best one of these I have ever heard of is still, I think,
'I can't go out with you, my cat doesn't like you.'

Not that I'm against using cats as personality litmus paper, but
this is *not* what someone wants to hear!

Graydon
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:17:14 EST
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: raising children
 <1992 <1992Nov16.135637.11334@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

Quick, Doc - which aspect of your argument is logically equivalent
to asserting that because some identifiable fraction of the male
population is scum, the *entire* male population is scum?

I don't like much of the various Christian myth sets; doesn't
prevent me from recognizing that there are Christians I think
are good people.

Graydon
From: bs42408@yorick.umd.edu (Bryan Lee)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: OFWM / OMWF survey
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:56:45 GMT


                         SURVEY
Maybe it's just my imagination or maybe it's real but it seems
like there are many more Oriental (meaning East-Asian) Female-
White Male couples than there are Oriental Male-White Female
couples.  Has anyone else noticed this trend?  Anyone have any
idea what might be causing such a disparity?  I myself am
completely supportive of interracial relationships, but it seems
strange that it should be more common one way than the other.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: wtr@mitre.org (Bill Ralston)
Subject: Re: What do you Am men think about Am wome
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:58:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.002940.21755@tandem.com>, leo@cpd.Tandem.COM (Leo
Hejza) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Nov13.220212.2779@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov8.013105.14917@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA writes:
> >>
> >>Good topic! This thread hits on the fundamental psychological difference 
> >>between the sexes, IMVHO:
> >>
> >>Women look for love and find sex while men look for sex and find love!
> >
> >So how come most of the women I know complain frequently about not
>                                                                 ----
> >getting enough sex? 
> ---------------------
> 
> A year ago I would have laughed like crazy at this statement. But after the
> demise of a 17 year marriage, I re-entered the dating scene. At my age, 39,
> most of the women I meet are also divorced. I was astounded at how often they
> gave lack of sexual interest on their husbands part, as a reason for the
> breakup of their marriages. (I was mostly astounded because I was accused
> of being too interested in it.)
> 
> If only one or two women had brought this up, I'd dismiss it as the exception.
> But the truth is, the majority of women, (that I've dated at least), have
> complained about this problem.
> 
> So guys, whats the problem? I'd love to hear from the "long time involved"
> (i.e married or not), on this issue. 
> 
> Leo. 

-- Bill wtr@mitre.org
* If my employer knew what I was posting, I'd probaby be unemployed *
From: miller@quiver.enet.dec.com (Brian A. Miller)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Do you remember 1970 to 1980?
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:20:04 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <kellym.030c@wowee.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca>, kellym@wowee.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Kelly Martin) writes...
>In article <9211112207.AA06353@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
>>
>>       As part of an impromptu research project, I'd like to know what
>>   YOU think the single most important ( dramatic, traumatic ) event of`
>>   1970 to 1980 was.


Personal:  I was born after 1970.  Many of my friends were born after 1970...
           Senator, you're no 1970.  (Sorry, got carried away there).

Public:    1980, Ronald Reagan elected ( *TRAUMATIC* / *UNFORTUNATE* ... )


--Brian Miller
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward " 1562 Days " Horne")
Subject:      Re: Question: How to restrain hand?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 14:20:01 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA04495; Tue, 17 Nov 92 13:19:20 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA09365; Tue, 17 Nov 92 13:19:16 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 5112; Tue, 17 Nov 92 14:22:01 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id
 8430; Tue, 17 Nov 92 14:21:59 MST
X-To: soc.singles.usenet

Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.sex
From: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Question: How to increase the male sex drive ?
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:58:47 GMT
Followup-To: soc.singles

>On a serious note, I have a couple of questions to pose to the net about what
>can affect a male's sex drive.  Basically, I am about 29 (male), have been

       This doesn't really belong in soc.singles.

       heh heh.

>SO-less for the last 4 years (by choice), and have recently met an incredible
>woman (about 31) with, to put it lightly, a very high sex drive.  My sex drive
>has reduced markedly over the past 4 years, and I would like to do what I can
>to increase it.  Question, is there any particular diet that is recommended ?
>Is exercise particularly recommended ?  Anything else ?

       A chastity belt.
From: nehs@romulus.rutgers.edu (-Killer Klondike-)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Top 9 things...
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:40:03 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Top 9 things a man doesn't want to hear from a woman he's interested in...
Compiled from several different sources, my thanks to each and every one of
them.

9. Sorry, I only like to date guys who like to beat the sh*t out of me and
     treat me like dirt.

8. Sorry, I already have a boyfriend.

7. Oh, he's just like a brother to me.

6. Oh, HIM, he's just a friend.

5. Why?

4. No.

3. I don't know.

2. You are such a nice guyt.

1. I just want to be friends.



More things are always welcome.  E-mail is fine too.

Ladies, comments?

-Benjamin
Newsgroups: soc.singles