HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright)
Subject: Re: Book Rec.: _Bodies: Overcoming the Tyranny of Perfection_
Organization: Center for Biomolecular Simulation, Department of Chemistry,
	Columbia University
	<JULIE.92Oct6221409@amazon.chem.columbia.edu>
	<1992Oct8.221142.18021@fid.morgan.com>
	<JULIE.92Oct9110833@amazon.chem.columbia.edu>
	<BvvAw8.3D4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 00:32:25 GMT

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

>*laugh*  When _I_ partakes of ice cream it's usually eaten fresh from
>the churn, and has lots of yummy things but no chunks.  I just found
>some dark cooking maple syrup at the local gourmet shop--feel free to
>come over and partake of ice cream some warm summer night...

Mmmmmm..... But hang on -- I have to wait for next summer??

Ice cream should not be a seasonal thing, you know!  It's a way of life!

---Julie
-- 
% 1. Other nations are *not allowed* to mess around with the internal   %
% affairs of nations in this hemisphere. /  ________________________    %
% 2. But we are.                        /  /The Monroe Doctrine, as \   %
% 3. Ha-ha-ha.                         /  /transcribed by Dave Barry.\  %
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: An editor twitchily fingers her Uzi
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:30:17 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) (unwittingly in the role of the straw that
broke the camel's back) writes: 

>Coincidences? The assassinations of Kennedy and Ghandi had many many

Gandhi! Gandhi! Gandhi! 

Ghu, this unquenchable misspelling makes me want to shoot someone.

--
Stef                            Carpe diem (fish for ten cents)
stef@apple.com                                  --Usenet Oracle
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik)
Subject: Re: BARBIE DOES IT AGAIN!!!!
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 01:03:19 GMT

In article 7084@cbnewsd.cb.att.com, nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:

>You may hear foreign-sounding things come out of your mouth.  Here is
>an example:  "Bobby, if that kid ever comes NEAR you I want you to
>make him so sorry he ever touched you that he wimpers and poops his
>pants.  Do you hear me???? (getting down on your knees, face-to-face with
>your child)  Here.  Make a fist.  See my nose?  This is where it hurts
>most to get hit.  Go ahead.  Try it."

When I was about five, my father did the same thing to me. I just couldn't
hit him. There's something about parental rage that makes children run
away. as an adult I understand the anger he felt. As a child, I ran into
another room and locked the door. This kind of reminds me that it's not
easy being a parent, and despite all the best intentions, Emotions seem
to play a greater role in raising children than Dr. Spock ever did. 

Andreas.



Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: BARBIE DOES IT AGAIN!!!!
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 20:01:38 GMT

In article <1beuj9INNo33@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
>In article <26848@castle.ed.ac.uk> adam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Adam Hamilton) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.011959.20092@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA writes:
>>>Ghandi was assassinated because he peacefully resisted an oppressive government.
>>	Actually, Ghandi was assassinated because he wouldn't oppress Muslims
>>(having been born a Hindu).
>
>Actually, he was assassinated to fulfill historical destiny.  You see, America
>has its dead Kennedies, and India has its dead Ghandis/Gandhis.

Yeah, but I think we got the better deal--have you ever listened to a
Dead Ghandi's album?  They're not very good.

Trygve   (Of course, I could be biased, since I've never been fond of
          thrash/punk sitar music anyway.)

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik)
Subject: Re: BARBIE DOES IT AGAIN!!!!
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 01:19:59 GMT

In article KoL@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca, jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.191931.25643@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA writes:
>>
>>Here are my vues on the current schoolyard violence thread!
>>
>>  Why not think about Ghandi? Why not watch the film?
>>
>>  HE NEVER RESORTED TO VIOLENCE, JUST PEACEFUL RESISTANCE!!
>
>	He was also willing to accept causualties resisting the
>British. 
>
>	Peaceful resistance calls for potential sacrifices many 
>people are unwilling to risk,  especially if it is their offspring
>or dependents who are suffering.
>
>							James Nicoll


If any cause is worth fighting for, sacrifices must be anticipated.
The sooner(within reason) a child learns this, the faster he/she
will mature into a fine, upstanding citizen.

I am not implying that peaceful resistance is the only solution:
There are several ways to solve a problem, consider this:

If anyone doesn't dispute his/her tormentor's views, doesn't
react to taunting, doesn't fight back, then the adversary will
get confused, bewildered and apathetic. I think this would work
very well in a playground scene. Alright, Ghandi was assassinated
because he peacefully resisted an oppressive government. The only
risks that a child would face in a playground would be the risk of
a couple of bruises, and the risk of not being his/her tormentor's
friend. They are probably not friends in the first place.

The parent's risk is an emotional one. But logically, peaceful
resistance is IMHO preferred as whining on the child's part
only encourages further attack, and fighting back also encourages
attacks. Usually the tormentor picks on smaller children, so the
smaller child usually gets beat up more than the tormentor in 
the event of a fight. Peaceful resistance diminishes potential
injuries by my reasoning.

Too bad parental protectiveness does not follow logical patterns.

Andreas.
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: The Engaged Psychobitch from Hell Syndrome
Date: 15 Oct 1992 00:39:05 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Oct12.045336.13667@netcom.com> marcia@netcom.com (Marcia) writes:
>Question: is the higher divorce rate directly caused by the living together 
>or sleeping together, or is it because of other factors, such as a traditional
>religious belief system, that would simultaneously make someone less likely
>to cohabitate/sleep with before marriage and make divorce less of an option?
>In that case, it's the belief system keeping the marriage together, not the 
>fact that they didn't sleeep together previously. Correlation does not imply
>causation.

Higher divorce rates, and all the other social phenomena of today that people
would falsely point to as indications of social and institutional breakdown are,
in reality, quite natural and inevitable consequences of the highly singular
historical change our entire civilization is going through.

They are not "problems", they're not "caused" by anyone, they cannot be
"solved".  They are the inevitable consequences of the nature of our time or
any other similar time of the past or any other similar time yet to be.

It's only a transient occurrence or perhaps a couple generations, nothing
permanent.  So people are just going to have to bear with it.  Divorce rates
will settle back down in due time once the turbulence is past.
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Cool .sigs  was RE: How long has it been?
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:31:29 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Oct13.045545.18319@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.191402.10461@bsu-ucs.uucp> 01ksdavis@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rebel without a clue.) writes:
>>	maybe we can get a new newsgroup alt.sigs?  Opinions?
>
>	Yeah. If it'll keep such stupid and childish waste of bandwidth
>off of real newsgroups, I'm all for it.

Agreed.  Perhaps it should be called. alt.those-that-are-easily-amused

-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira        | Auspex Systems | "Ask me about my vow of silence." |
| johnf@auspex.com    | Santa Clara CA |                                   |
+==========================================================================+
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Book Rec.: _Bodies: Overcoming the Tyranny of Perfection_
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:11:42 GMT

In article <JULIE.92Oct6221409@amazon.chem.columbia.edu>
julie@amazon.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:
>kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>
>>The four food groups are actually Pizza, Chocolate, Ice Cream, & Barbecue.
>
>But... how can a perfect diet (ha!) not contain any maple syrup?

What flavor did you think the ice cream was?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: relationship gone to pot?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 06:55:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.055202.10025@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.052843.8484@netcom.com> shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller) writes:
>>
>>And, yes, while I do like Kenn Barry a lot, and think he is a terrific
>>person, if he asked me over to lunch, then said he was going to polish
>>his car, I'd do the decent thing and leave the two of them alone together.
>
>Of course, if he offered to take you for a spin, you'd jump on it
>immediately.  You women are all alike, fall for the first guy in a fast
>sportscar.  (Or would you do the feminist thing and take him for a spin
>in *your* sportscar?)
>
>Some of you may think I'm making a joke.  I'm not.

One of these days someone really ought to introduce me to one of these
mythical women who fall for guys in fast sportscars....

Trygve   (I don't think there's room to do much falling in my car anyway.)
From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: HI, I am a HOMOSEXUAL! Send me mail
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:47:39 GMT
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: sgiles@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au's message of 9 Oct 92 08:48:48 GMT


In article <1992Oct9.084848.12572@cam.compserv.utas.edu.au> sgiles@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au (Stuart Francis Giles) writes:

   Hi! Please send me mail.  Gays only, fuck me!

Er, it would appear that you forgot to log out before going home...

Spidey!!!


--
 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                                          jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \                                              Do whatever it takes.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Dating an older woman
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 19:06:58 GMT

In article <73222@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>
>>Aristotle recommended that husbands be 19 years older than their wives.
>>Actually he was more specific; he suggested that men marry at the age of
>>37 and women at 18.  He justified the age difference on the grounds that
>>the couple would be entering their sexual decline together.
>
>I thought that the sexual peaks were the other way around - the male's at
>18, and the female's at 35.

Hmmmmm...I've heard that statistic an awful lot, but I wonder how much
validity it has--as far as I can tell, I still haven't 'peaked' yet.  I
vaguely recall, though, reading a discussion on this topic years ago in
which the author was theorizing that, at least in past decades, men tend
to exercise fairly regularly through their teen years and then rather
abruptly stop and that it was the general trend for male fitness to 
decline after 18 or so that was reponsible for the sexual decline.

Of course nowadays, a large percentage of people other than Ed Wright
try to maintain a reasonable level of fitness, so this statistic may no
longer be valid for much of the population.  This theory is also 
supported by the fact that most forms of exercise (with long-duration
aerobic exercises being the exceptions) increase testosterone levels
in both men and women, which tends to increase sex drives.

Trygve   (Who finds that his sex drive is much higher when he is doing
          particularly intense weightlifting regularly.)

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Book Rec.: _Bodies: Overcoming the Tyranny of Perfection_
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 20:11:21 GMT

In article <ewillims.718908770@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>In <1992Oct9.191948.29387@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>
>>Daniel is lucky--garlic will protect him.  You, however, are in much 
>>greater danger--even if you covered yourself in garlic butter, it still
>>wouldn't be sufficient to protect your dainty neck from being nibbled
>>mercilessly....
>
>	Garlic butter? Hmmm....no, I don't think so... if it won't stop
>you biting on my neck anyway, then I think I'd prefer the chocolate
>or icecream please!:)  Garlic is just too difficult to clean off properly!

Well, it sounds like we'll just have to experiment--and, in worst case,
if we try something that is particularly difficult to clean off properly,
we'll just have to work longer and harder at it.

Trygve   (After all, you don't have plans for the next few weeks, do you?)
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Ipisissimus
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:30:11 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Oct12.223520.505@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> allisson@turing.toronto.edu (H. Allisson Roome) writes:
>
>Seesters we doan need no steenkin' seesters - besides the seesters that
>I know areenunse.  I don't think that the 'men' want to play poker eith
>nuns...

Hmmm. For some reason this reminds of the T-shirt the Rosebuds bar in Ft. Bragg,
Ca. used to sell.  They had a card room in the back of the bar.  They sold
a T-shirt which said:

"Liquor in the front, Poker in the rear"

-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira        | Auspex Systems | "Ask me about my vow of silence." |
| johnf@auspex.com    | Santa Clara CA |                                   |
+==========================================================================+
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik)
Subject: Re: HI, I am a HOMOSEXUAL! Send me mail
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 00:38:55 GMT

In article 12572@cam.compserv.utas.edu.au, sgiles@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au (Stuart Francis Giles) writes:
>Hi! Please send me mail.  Gays only, fuck me!
>
>sgiles@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au


Would you settle for good phone from my frustrated gay freinds who want my body
but will never get it?

Andreas.
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Puerto Rican Handshake?
Date: 13 Oct 92 03:18:27 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Any Puerto Ricans (or other folks "in the know") out there who
could answer a question for me?

Today I had a first date with a (rather lovely) Puerto Rican woman.
On Columbus Day, pretty symbolic eh?

Anyways, I was wondering about the handshake.  She shook my hand at
the beginning and the ending of the date.  Is this just a cultural
thing that Puerto Ricans do, or is it a sign that she just wants to
be friends?  I felt like we'd just concluded some sort of business deal,
but I do know that some cultures shake hands more often than we 
dudes from Southern Indiana do.

Thanks for the enlightenment on this "shaky" issue.  Also, any general
advice about dating Puerto Ricans would be appreciated.
From: mlb@CISCO.COM (Marcia Bednarcyk)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Can MOTOS's be friends?
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:53:07 GMT


In article <1992Oct3.220737.6937@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
|> However, there is a small but vocal subset of humanit that tends to feel
|> that any feelings of attraction they may have for another somehow impose
|> an obligation on that other--that if A happens to get turned on thinking
|> about B then B has a 'moral obligation' to see to it that A is 
|> satisfied--and people who hold this particular attitude are unlikely to
|> be very good at being friends with MOTAS they find attractive.

And part of this subset also believes that any attraction that they have
for a member of the opposite sex causes an obligation in themselves to act
upon it. This also makes for a difficult time trying to be friends, when if
your friend happens to catch your eye for a moment, you feel that you have
to do something about it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Bednarcyk                                        ADDRESS: mlb@cisco.com
"Sweaty Snugglebunnies."
"... the meaning of life is to be happy, try not to hurt people, and hope
you fall in love."
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: GREAT GUY IN BROOKLYN
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:03:21 GMT

In article <92283.135550L13BC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <L13BC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>Hi! I'm a great guy! I'm 19, brown hair, blue-green eyes, sensitive, crazy, & f
>un.  Leave E-mail if you wan't more desc.
>
>                                         L8R!

 Its nice to see someone find themself.  
 
================================================================================
 Ipsissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes - IIOSF XOX Dawn
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: I need advice on girlfriends fantasies.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 20:22:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.045114.23499@cam.compserv.utas.edu.au> rhoge1@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au ([Robert James Hoge]) writes:
> now MY girlfriend
>has gotten this fantasy in her head to have a threesome or even a foursome
>with one or two of her friends.  This may all sound quite fine, but I am
>getting confused about my girlfriend and where I stand.
>
>Could my girlfriend have something for other girls or could she just
>have this fantasy for me being shared with her friends?  Also, my
>girlfriend is always bragging (lately anyway) about my "impressive"
>size, which just encourages her friends even more.
>
>Just someone tell me what's going on.  Thanks.

Well, the great majority of women I know are attracted to other women--
certainly a much larger percentage than there are who find men attractive.
Many women, though, are a bit shy and uncomfortable about this (since
society has some strange messages about this sort of thing) and, at least
at first, are only comfortable being sexually involved with another woman
if there's a man at least peripherally involved (indeed, he may only need
to be there to watch, though other women might need him to be involved in
order to be comfortable with it).  

Now, it's impossible for me to divine your girlfriend's feelings from the
limited information that I have, but it's been my experience that if she
truly wants to engage in such an activity (as opposed to merely fantasizing
about it) and her motivation is her attraction to other women, your standing
in the way of her fulfilling these fantasies is likely to make her focus
on them more strongly and not make her any less likely to leave you for
another woman.
From: jdavidso@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Book Rec.: _Bodies: Overcoming the Tyranny of Perfection_
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:38:05 GMT
Reply-To: jdavidso@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
NNTP-Posting-Host: jd-next.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <1992Oct6.182356.26289@beaver.cs.washington.edu>  
dbj@cs.washington.edu (Dave Johnson) writes:
> 
> Now that's a damn fine list, but where does Beer fit in?
> Is it just that Beer is an adjunct to the first and last
> groups (okay, maybe the second too)?  I always thought
> Beer was a complete food group unto itself.
> 
> Yes, of course I capitalized Beer--I'm not a heathen you know.


I have a brother who claims there is the equivilant of 1 pork chop in  
every beer....so every time he has a beer, he thanks the barperson for the  
pork chop.

--
************************************************************************
 the Lost Cause                       jdavidso@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
(hardwaire guy extraordinaire)       MACTech,NeXTtech; NeXTmail accepted
                      "Everything is relative."
************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik)
Subject: Re: BARBIE DOES IT AGAIN!!!!
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 08:31:25 GMT

In article 26848@castle.ed.ac.uk, adam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Adam Hamilton) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.011959.20092@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA writes:
>>Ghandi was assassinated because he peacefully resisted an oppressive government.
>	Actually, Ghandi was assassinated because he wouldn't oppress Muslims
>(having been born a Hindu).


Thank you, Mr. Historiandude! He was killed. Little boys in playgrounds
would not be killed. This was my point.

Andreas.

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: relationship gone to pot?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 19:00:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.194947.12977@clsi.COM> kevin@clsi.com writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct13.200653.28279@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>> 
>> Well, assuming that a relationship is dysfunctional iff one or more of the
>                                                      ^^^
>> Your chances personally, though, are probably much closer to 100% 
>
>Dead give-away of a mathematician Trygve - you can have 100% too for trying to
>apply logic to personal relationships.

Ah, but Kev, mathematicians are fully functional--we're very emotionally
integrated types, easilly able to differentiate our feelings from society's
messages.  

Trygve   (Mathematicians do it iteratively -- and are guaranteed to take
          you to the limit.)

(Proof available upon request.)
From: akcs.phalynn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (phalynn powers)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: break out of your box
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:00:10 CDT
Keywords: box

My boss uses the phrase *break out of your box" does anyone know where
this is from?
he got it from his boss so i can't ask him if he knows where it is
from...
I am looking to find books or games to play  on this and howto get out of
the rut and get a fresh perspective.
my roommate and i are in need of a change and any suggestionsir tips are
welcome
*********************************
in a chicago runt
phalynn
****************************
thats rut silly

Xref: sparky soc.singles:27627 alt.romance:12608 alt.romance.chat:19362 talk.bizarre:33992