HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Hints (Was Re: What is attractive)
Date: 13 Nov 92 17:20:44 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

fred@walter.UUCP (Fred Walter) writes:

>valentin@next3.corp.mot.com writes:
>>The response to the 'hints' thread has been great.  I summarized the  
>>various opinions I have been gathering:
>>
>[text deleted, basically saying that guys need to do alot of extra work]
>[text deleted, basically saying that girls should be patient with guys
> when they don't manage to do all that of extra work]

>Hmmm. So, I'm supposed to do my damnest to make her feel special. No mention
>here of my feelings or desires. 

Gee, how strange that a thread discussing how to figure out what *women*
want should focus on what women want and not on what men want. 

You want to make a relationship model out of it? Let me help you out. It's
easy if you just take the results and think about where else they might be
applied.

In a relationship, both the girls and the guys need to do a lot of extra
work to figure out what each other wants. Guys' needs and wants are not
necessarily any more apparent than women's; guys are not necessarily any
better communicators than women.

In a relationship, both the girls and the guys should be patient with each
other when they don't manage to do all of that extra work.

>(Why is it that older women are more reasonable about these things ?)

We're not, believe me. <wicked grin>

--
Stef               "Excuse me. This life isn't working. I want to exchange it."
stef@apple.com     "Have you tried plugging it in?"
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:30:38 EDT
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: PRES DEBATE
 <lg0hdnINN1ge@news.bbn.com> <##cqfzk@lynx.unm.edu>
 <BxJvs2.KE9@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <92316.215155SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <JULIE.92Nov12182406@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu>

Julie, I realize that you could probably quite happily regard the
rest of your life, even if it contained no maple syrup.  The point
is that the production of maple syrup depends on trees, which are
a)dying b)not healthy enough to produce a lot of sap over a wide
area.  This is generally blamed on acid rain; alternative sugguestions
viewed with interest.  (But is has to affect the entire Great Lakes
-St. Lawrence deciduous forest.)

Graydon
Xref: sparky soc.singles:30134 soc.men:18937 soc.women:19151
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Strong women in film (was Re: What do you Am men think about Am women?)
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:11:43 GMT
	<1992Nov4.224057.20119@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<1992Nov8.105051.13498@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
	<1992Nov9.050437.20319@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU's message of 9 Nov 92 05:04:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.050437.20319@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
   In article <1992Nov8.105051.13498@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> markr@mcil.comm.mot.com writes:
   >
   >Actually, last night I saw 'Basic Instinct' and thought it was an excellent
   >film with very strong female characters.  I consider it one of the top ten
   >for the year. (My SO enjoyed it just as much, and then I got to enjoy again
   >when we got home :-)

   Just a coincidence that nearly all the lesbian and bisexual women are
   killers?

Was there *anyone* in the film who wasn't a killer?  Except for the
corpses, of course.
--
		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
From: loosemore-sandra@cs.yale.edu (Sandra Loosemore)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Argh! Total, Complete misery.
Date: 6 Nov 1992 09:16:46 -0500
Organization: staff hacker @ Yale Haskell project
	<oneil.720774124@cwis> <1992Nov5.220941.15558@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
	<BxAAy1.DH4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: functor.systemsz.cs.yale.edu
In-reply-to: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu's message of Fri, 6 Nov 1992 07:46:49 GMT

kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:

   It's perfectly possible to be miserable and still have high
   self-esteem.  If you're miserable because some goal of yours is
   eluding you, you can still feel confident about other things, and,
   more importantly, -worthy- of happiness, even of the goal that's
   eluding you.

   And even if you're miserable, you can still meet someone, and it
   can still work out--if the miserableness is caused by the "right"
   reasons.  After all, if you're miserable because you don't have any
   prospects for a happy relationship, finding a prospect can cheer
   you up.

Well, maybe so.  But it's definitely harder to find a prospect when
you're feeling miserable, simply because most people don't find being 
miserable an attractive quality in a potential SO.  And sometimes you
can get so wrapped up in feeling miserable that you don't notice when
a prospect does show up.

Also, I think it's important to distinguish between "healthy"
miserable feelings such as you describe, and depression.  When you're
seriously depressed, it's hard to keep your feelings so conveniently
compartmentalized.  Depressed people typically do think of themselves
as being unworthy of happiness, and find that their unhappiness spreads
into other parts of their lives beyond whatever frustrated goal that's
the immediate problem.

-Sandra
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: nkill
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:25:58 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T


Make that the fall of 76. Not 78. I'm so confused.
 
================================================================================
 Ipsissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes 
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: PRES DEBATE
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:49:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: grover.MARTINC.92Nov10164925
	<1992Nov5.212607.13694@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<MARTINC.92Nov7000954@hatteras.cs.unc.edu>
	<1992Nov10.170435.9740@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: rridge@nyx.cs.du.edu's message of 10 Nov 92 17:04:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.170435.9740@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rridge@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ross Ridge) writes:

   martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
   >Disagree with the Republicans if you want -- but to demonize them the
   >way you do requires real ignorance.

   rridge@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ross Ridge) writes:
   >And you think your posting was any better? 

   martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
   >Ross, you silly twit, if I'm arguing that the Republicans aren't the
   >*only* ones who use dirty tricks or are sometimes less than ethical,
   >what do you expect?

   To not to resort to dirty tricks yourself.  Can't you make your case
   by just using the half decent facts you had, rather than mostly
   unsubstantiable rumor?  The only thing you demonstrated is that you'ld
   make a fine politician.

Ross, if you can find a single thing in that post that hasn't been
reported in reputable press sources, I will apologise abjectly.

   >Should I use hypothetical dirty tricks?

   Didn't you? 

See above.

   >Should I change the names to protect the guilty?

   Guilty?  No one, except Richard Nixon was guilty (if pardoned), or
   do you think the principle of being innnocent until proven guilty doesn't
   apply to people you don't like?

Oddly, many of the things I mentioned were illegal, have been
substantiated, but were never brought to trial while Democrats were in
power.  I wouldn't dare try to explain this.
--
		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
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: a question in search of an answer!!!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:16:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.211600.1315@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein) writes:
>>   In article <MARTINC.92Nov8152512@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>
>>		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
>
>Now remember......you have a dissertaion to write.  
>

Charles I hate to say this(not really) butt, if your dissertation depends
on the output(technical no) produced by you on the afternoon of Nov 21st
you my freend are in big trouble. Crack open that damn wallet and get ye
to the boink.
Most of the guys will be busy Lambada'ing while the women folk will stand in
a circle clapping and swaying their pilgrim skirts too and fro. Talk
about a hoot. (course I'll be busy counting what was once Bill's money).
 
================================================================================
 Ipsissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes - I set'r free.Nyuk
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
From: Michelle.Walters@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: SWF iso S*M to be SO
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov  5 1992
Date: 09 Nov 92  22:32:36

Newsgroups: alt.personals,alt.personals.ads
Subject: SWF iso S*M to be SO
Distribution: usa

        I'm 35, 5'4", usually < 100lbs.  I have long blond hair,
green eyes and (IMHO) am very attractive, but you be the judge of
that.  I think I have a very good sense of humor and that's one of
the first things I look for in a guy.  I can laugh at myself and I
try never to take myself too seriously.

        I've always been very interested in science and would like
my SO to be as well although that shouldn't be the main topic of
conversation on a date.

        As far as work, I've been a certified electronic technician
for over 10 years but am presently looking for work.  I have my own
computer consulting/installation/repair/programming business called
Tesseract Technologies.  But much of the work I do is for friends,
at cost so it doesn't pay well.

        I'm enjoy cycling, swimming and skiing and am in very good
shape I ride a 12 speed about 46-63 miles every day but am not
particularly athletic, I just enjoy riding to the beach.  I can
tolerate watching baseball or basketball but only if someone I'm
with is interested in it.
        
I like a guy to take care of all the details of a date and
I'm sensitive to his needs as well.  I don't have expensive tastes
but I really like to try new things.

        I have a wide ranging taste in music, from Bach to Siouxsie
and the Banshees, REM, Crowded House, Enya, Peter Gabriel...  If
your in the S.  Calif.  area then the fact that I listen to KROQ and
KPFK should have some significance.  About the only TV I watch is
STTNG (I used to watch Dr.  Who but I'm burnt out on it.), Melrose
Place, LA Law and anything on PBS that has anything to do with
science.

        I like animals and used to have a mostly arabian mare and at
one time I had a 15' python and numerous other odd pets.  Now I just
have two cats and that's enough.

        I'm presently in the city of tustin in S.  Calif.  but hope
to move to the SF bay area eventually (I'm sick of being one of the
only progressive liberals in orange county.) So if your in ether of
those general areas send me some email so we can get together some
time.

        Send all email to one of the following addresses:
_   _          ___________________________                         
|\ /|ichelle -# The beam becomes my dream #-------------------------*
|-X-| Rachel -#  my dream is on a screen  # Deborah Harry (Blondie) |
|/ \|alters --#  fade away and radiate... #-------------------------*
~   ~         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                   //    |
|Internet: michelle@conexch.uucp                           \\// Only|
|          Michelle.Walters%ofa123.fidonet.org@ucivax       \/ Amiga|
|          michelle_walters@republik.fidonet.org (preferred)        |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


--- Maximus 2.00
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,ba.singles
Subject: Re: What is attractive
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:36:43 GMT
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: ux5.lbl.gov

In article <1992Nov8.042305.10150@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>     10. Chemistry between she and I.
>     11. Good communicator.

Obviously good grammar is not important.

-- 
"In nature there are no rewards or punishments, only consequences"

Asya Kamsky	      e-mail: asya@ux5.lbl.gov                   Go Red Sox
"In order to command you must first learn to submit" - chinese fortune cookie
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: Hints (Was Re: What is attractive)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 08:21:16 GMT

Matt Valentine <valentin@next3.corp.mot.com> summarizes advice:

>He should spend time with her because he wants to;  even if it is
>inconvenient, even if he won't get laid that day. 

Naw, find someone who likes sex every day.

>Eventually (after the romance stage) the real feelings  
>should be more important than sex.  

What a silly dichotomy.  Why not have the "romance stage" forever?
-- 

Kiran Wagle                           <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
From: ecayce@aludra.usc.edu (Edgar Cayce)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Nightline and Presidential Cantidates
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:02:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: aludra.1df4jjINNim8
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

Hey how do I post a message that is NOT a follow-up to a previous post?
--Confused
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: dbarber@crash.cts.com (David C. Barber)
Subject: Why isn't the a s.s FAQ?
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Date: 6 Nov 92 07:48:32 GMT
Keywords: FAQ

Why isn't there a soc.singles FAQ?

(If there already is, please send me a copy.  Thanks.)


Without change,                         *David Barber*
   nothing can ever get better.            @}-->----

UUCP: ucsd!crash!dbarber
INET: dbarber@crash.cts.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: PRES DEBATE
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 12:33:55 GMT

In article <15346@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct30.190013.36641@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOSEPH ALOYSIUS MCVEIGH) writes:
>|>"I am going to vote for Bush."
>|
>I heard something interesting on the radio this morning.  Bill Clinton
>had fewer popular votes than Dukakis did in his landslide loss. 

Dukakis didn't have Ross Perot.

In this century five sitting Presidents have been repudiated by the voters.

1912   Taft by 75% of the voters (one of his opponents was a popular ex-Pres.)
1932   Hoover by 60% of the voters
1976   Ford by 51% of the voters
1980   Carter by 58% of the voters
1992   Bush by 62% of the voters

-- Herb Huston
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: I didn't do it
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:07:24 GMT
Distribution: soc
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science



In article <1992Nov5.180142.26353@cbnews.cb.att.com>
eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans) writes:

>Houseguests of mine were _extremely_ thoughtful.  They left behind
>just such thick, soft cotton ropes tied to the feet of my (guest) 
>double bed.  Now, wasn't that sweet??
>
>
>Piglet, who rather supposes they were left as an apology for
>        keeping me awake all night.....talking

We didn't keep you awake all night talking.  One of us was fairly
quiet; while the other one was loud, "talking" normally requires some
degree of coherence.

_I_ think it was the two boyfriends you had visiting who kept you
awake.

<Anonymous>

--
		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
From: tourf00@DMI.USherb.CA (Francis Tourillon <Tourfman>)
Subject: Re: SWF iso S*M to be SO
Organization: U de Sherbrooke -- LIIT adicts - ANS - Ascot Boyz - 
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:44:47 GMT

Michelle.Walters@ofa123.fidonet.org pretend que ==>
>
>        I'm 35, 5'4", usually < 100lbs.  I have long blond hair,
>green eyes and (IMHO) am very attractive, but you be the judge of
>that.  I think I have a very good sense of humor and that's one of
>the first things I look for in a guy.  I can laugh at myself and I
>try never to take myself too seriously.

	If you're so attractive, why take the time to post here?  You never
have enough, ok!  And "usually" < 100 lbs... now it's 200?

	I hope it's true you like to laugh at yourself...

>        I'm enjoy cycling, swimming and skiing and am in very good
>shape I ride a 12 speed about 46-63 miles every day but am not
>particularly athletic, I just enjoy riding to the beach.

Yeah! The beach is far from your place.  You don't ride so much so you swim
50 miles when you get to the beach!

>I like a guy to take care of all the details of a date and
>I'm sensitive to his needs as well.  I don't have expensive tastes
>but I really like to try new things.

Ok, you want new things.  We have snow right now, here in Quebec...

Well, I'm still waiting for the demonstration of your sense of humor!




-- 
Tourfman
========
	Vie:    Excellente source de angst
	Angst:  Excellente source d'inspiration
From: jsmt@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Julia Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: girl/lady/female  boy/guy/male
Date: 10 Nov 92 04:33:52 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <BxH37C.n4H@news.udel.edu> todd@chester.cms.udel.edu writes:
*story deleted*
>
>So I ask this group, which has a large % of female participants,  is gender neutral terminology to be expected?
>
Todd, the main difference for me is between personal and professional.
When I am talking to someone on a personal level, I feel no offense
regardless of the language used - including vulgarity - because it
is between individuals.  But professionally, I will not tolerate being
referred to as a "girl," nor am I comfortable with male gender pronouns
used to refer to groups which include women (such as "the student....he"
when a female student could very easily be the referent).  For me,
the defensiveness comes from the very real concern of being dismissed
professionally because of my gender (school administration is a very
old-boy network).
 
those are my guidelines anyway.  I'll be interested to hear what others
have to say.
  
--j
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: PRES DEBATE
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:22:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: hatteras.MARTINC.92Nov13102205
	<1992Nov9.010922.11400@netcom.com>
	<1992Nov11.062227.8133@oracle.us.oracle.com>
	<BxKu13.20q@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
	<MARTINC.92Nov12104327@hatteras.cs.unc.edu>
	<BxMrtv.Az2@usenet.u
Distribution: usa
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu's message of 13 Nov 92 01:22:42 GMT

In article <BxMrtv.Az2@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:

   martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

   >I'm no friend of Robertson or Buchanan, but to be fair the Democrats
   >haven't thrown out Wellstone or ... oh hell, that guy Jane Fonda used to
   >be married to.

   Ah yes, Tom Hayden,

Yeah, that's him.

   >They both *swear* they're not starting a new party, just trying to get
   >their respective parties to move toward the "socially liberal, fiscally
   >conservative" position.  (I'm not sure that *is* the "center".)

   Well, it may not be the center, but it's certainly a place I'd like to
   see a political party.  

Me too.

   If they think they can get a party filled with
   the likes of Buchanan and Robertson, or Jackson and Dellums, to move
   toward that particular center, they're certifiably loony.

Well, that's the question.  Oddly, Barry Goldwater is pretty near that
"center", so I don't think hope is lost.  And that's not -too- far from
Clintion's campaign position; the question is whether Clinton is (a) a
stealth liberal, or (b) strong enough that the overt liberals will go
with him for a while.
--
		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: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 05:11:45 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Fueling the Canadian Ire
 <1992Nov6.210910.6033@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

In article <1992Nov6.210910.6033@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, rridge@nyx.cs.du.edu
(Ross Ridge) says:
>>What is ironic is that the things that most Canadians decry
>>as cornerstones of what makes them Canadian (i.e., Socialized
>>Healthcare, CBC, and certain social policies) are intrinsically tied
>>to the government, the same government that Canadians effectively gave
>>a no-confidence vote to on the 26th of October.
>
>No, it wasn't the same goverment as the the one that introduced
>socialized health insurance, or created the CBC.  This goverment
>introduced the Good and Services Tax and the US-Canada Free Trade
>Agreement, things that most(*) Canadians think are what's wrong with
>this country.
>
>>Allisson  (I'm not Canadian; I only post from an acount there)
>
>I'm Canadian; I just don't post from an account here.
>(*) but not me.
  ^
  | that's because you don't live here:)
Newsgroups: soc.singles