HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: karen@brahms.amd.com (Karen Black)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,sci.med,misc.consumers,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Business cards
Date: 14 Apr 92 09:14:28 GMT
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices; Sunnyvale, CA

Gary Ansok writes:
>Bob Forsythe writes:
>>     Locally, Von's Supermarkets does a program each year where they
>>contribute so much toward a computer for a school for each cashier's ticket
>>the school collects.  It gets them publicity and people are aware that
>>shopping at Von's helps schools.  May be the same thing with the pop-tops. 
>>There's more to these charity gimics than the intrinsic value of the item
>>being collected.
>
>Yes, but in this case they are only accepting Von's receipts...
>
>For aluminum can pull-tabs, though, none of these seem to apply. 

The "collect intrinsicly worthless things for charity" idea has been
around for a long time.  Peter and Amanda (?) Opie wrote about it in
their book documenting the tribal culture of British schoolchildren,
circa 1955.  With such a lineage, it's no wonder that the rumor won't die.

Karen Black
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kscummi@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Kimberly S. Cummings)
Subject: Re: lying to oneself (was Re: Sanctity of relationships)
Reply-To: kscummi@aplcen (Kimberly S. Cummings)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Distribution: world,soc
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 19:51:04 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.174548.10849@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcregor@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Meloney Cregor) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.101644.5254@hemlock.cray.com> robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
>
>>I agree with you that people "lie to themselves all the time", but I
>>don't think they are very successful at believing it.  Though it
>>doesn't stop 'em from trying.
>
>*snort*
>Son, do I have some people *You* need to meet.
>
>There are, indeed, people who can lie to themselves and everyone they meet
>and completely convince themselves they are honest and don't practice
>deception.

Me too!  Like the guy I was seeing who told me, in response to a 
direct question, that no, he was not involved with someone else.  When
I found out later that they might as well be married & confronted him,
he said that he considers that to be "nothing".

This is the same guy who considers himself to be very considerate,
understanding, and who says that all he really wants to do in life is
help others.

I could go on with all kinds of other things he has said..but suffice it
to say that this is one boy who is truly deceiving himself.  He really
believes the things he says.  Or he's really good at lying to others,
but I really think it's the former.

Kay Cee
From: pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Love: It is a precious thing?
Date: 11 Apr 92 15:53:30 GMT
Organization: Medieval England, Iowa

In article <1992Apr11.153145.9124@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcregor@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Meloney Cregor) writes:
>In article <1992Apr11.115114.12128@midway.uchicago.edu> pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) writes:
>
>>If you have two people in a relationship, and one is deeply in love
>>and happy, and the other one feels less and isn't happy, who has
>>"won"?
>
>The one who feels less and isn't happy.
>
>They're outta there and the one who loves deeply and was happy has the
>misfortune to be stomped on, on the way out the door and the happiness
>roles are then reversed.

So tell me, Mel -- would you rather not have had the relationship
to begin with?  All relationships end one way or another, so if
you don't want to end up hurting or being hurt, what's the alternative?
Would you rather not have any relationships?   What's the REAL point
of a relationship: to kill or be killed, or to experience, however
briefly, the feelings of love and companionship?

Pooh
        pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu
From: thacher@renbourn.unx.sas.com (Clarke Thacher)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Discussion Of Romantic Songs
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:18:56 GMT
    <1992Apr10.104928.23696@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <65237@apple.Apple.COM>
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
X-Bytes: 876

How about Kate & Anna McGarrigle's "Love Is":

	Love is a shiny car
	Love is a steel guitar
	Love is a battle scar
	Love is the morning star

	Love is a twelve bar blues
	Love is your blue suede shoes
	Love is a heart abused
	Love is a mind confused

	(refrain)
	Love is the pleasures untold
	And for some love is still a band of gold
	My love has no reason has no rhyme
	My love has crossed the double line
	
	Love is a minor chord
	Love is a mental ward
	Love is a drawn sword
	Love is its own reward
	
	(refrain)
	Love is the pleasure's untold
	And for some love is still a band of gold
	My love has no reason has no rhyme
	My love has crossed the double line
	

Nice and cheerful...
-- 
Clarke Thacher        OSRD/HIP Software Developer          SAS Institute, Inc.
thacher@unx.sas.com         (919) 677-8000    SAS Campus Drive, Cary, NC 27513
			Entropy is your friend.
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: A Brilliant Idea....
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:58:44 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Apr9.044821.20244@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> ted5@po.CWRU.Edu (Thomas E. Davidson) writes:
>	Stand up, turn off your computer, and slowly walk away from it.
>Uh-huh. Go call an old friend of the opposite sex and ask him/her if
>s/he'd be interested in going out for dinner and a movie. Don't come back
>home until three in the morning. Don't log back until until nine that night--
>and just do that to check your mail.

This would be a good trick, seeing as all my old friends who are female live
hundreds, and often thousands, of miles away from me.

>P.S.: You're still here. I told you to log off.

I work here.

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

No optimistic outlook survives contact with the human race.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: Avoiding dating married people
Originator: lnds@zeus.biochem.ualberta.ca
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 09:13:55 GMT

In article <IdtPJyK00WBNM2yUtx@andrew.cmu.edu>, ps3p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Peter A. Simon) writes:

> Am I married?  ASK ME.  Am I in a significant primary relationship?  
> ASK ME.  What do I want of you, if what I have already told you is not
> clear?  ASK ME.  But, having asked, check up on me?  You're history.

   Peter, please send your historical women on to me.  I don't mind if 
they check up on me.  I have nothing to hide.

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Avoiding dating married people
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:10:11 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <s3tjr4n.aahz@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>In article <4dtCPcC00iV1I7=5tO@andrew.cmu.edu> "Peter A. Simon" <ps3p+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>
>>I have a second line going into my study.  I keep the ringer on the
>>phone disabled and it is hooked up to an answering machine.  When a
>>woman I am dating asks for my number, this is the one she gets.
>>
>>So Michele, your paranoia is wasted.
>
>Not really.  Wouldn't *you* get suspicious if you called someone when
>you *knew* they were home, and you always got the answering machine?

If you screen calls, you should tell people that when you give out
your phone number. Not only is it common courtesy, but if you do,
you will receive more calls. Sometimes I call a friend to see if 
they want to do something that evening, or because I have something
specific on my mind; and if their machine kicks on I assume they're out
and hang up.

Stef                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
stef@apple.com       It is the time you have wasted for your rose
                     that makes your rose so important.       Saint-Exupery
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kscumm2@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Kimberly S. Cummings)
Subject: Re: Avoiding dating married people
Reply-To: kscumm2@aplcen (Kimberly S. Cummings)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 23:08:18 GMT

In article <IdtPJyK00WBNM2yUtx@andrew.cmu.edu> "Peter A. Simon" <ps3p+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
> <stuff deleted>


>Am I married?  ASK ME.  Am I in a significant primary relationship?  ASK
>ME.  What do I want of you, if what I have already told you is not
>clear?  ASK ME.  But, having asked, check up on me?  You're history.
>
>Peter
>

Let me just say first of all - I don't know that I think the idea of
calling to check up on someone is a good idea, however, it is a bit
naive just to ask, and believe the answer immediately.  Personally, I
do trust people until they give me reason not to, but I also think you
have to keep your eyes open to the possibility that the person might not
be completely honest with you.  I recently posted about a guy who did
lie to me when I asked him directly, and it went on for a while because
I was naive enough to believe what he told me instead of what my eyes
and my own common sense told me.

All in all, if a person has had time to develop a past history of
trustworthiness, then by all means that person should be trusted.  But
how can you fault a little healthy scepticism, on either side, when
two people have just met?


Ah well, this is just too damn serious for a Friday night!  Have a 
good weekend everyone!   :)

Kay Cee


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: Another gem!  (on changing and being authentic)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 12:53:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.193658.10041@gvl.unisys.com> liz@gvlf9-j.gvl.unisys.com (Liz Loquacious [Bradley]) writes:
>In article <1992Apr09.194550.21021@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>
>>Attaining world peace, or filling the hole?
>
>You'd twist anything around to get something perverted out of it!
>
>>> Back to getting loquacious about my dating mis-adventures!
>>
>>Am I in trouble?
>
>Now if I hadn't called off the challenge I might have had some
>good material but alas.....you were a nice guy!  (Is that the
>kiss of death or what!)
>
>>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
>
>Liz Loquacious

 
Bwoop, Bwoop, Larry is a nice guy alert, Larry is a nice guy alert.
Please remain in your homes until the all clear. Lock your doors,
bolt your windows, lift that bale, pull that barge. That last ones
for you Lar.
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: date characteristics
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:36:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Apr8.185139.10309@morrow.stanford.edu> FA.TJM@forsythe.stanford.edu (thom mckean) writes:
 
|Much safer to ask "Would you like to go see Chick Corea Friday night
|at Slim's?"  If the woman is interested, she'll say yes.  If she's
|not interested, she'll say, no, thanks, I'm busy/gotta pluck my
|eyebrows/watch the hockey game/train for the Olympics.

Maybe she just doesn't like jazz.  Of course, for some people that might be 
reason enough not to go out with her anyway.   By the way, if this really
happens I'd be glad to take the Corea tickets off your hands...
 
-- 
+=============================================================================+
| John Fereira                Al Bundy for President          
| johnf@auspex.com         "He's as good as the next guy"                     |
+=============================================================================+
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 17:49:05 GMT

In article <3ynjh5c@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.213658.12947@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>>In article <s4mjv9f@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>>>Calling a non-monogamous relationship 'open' is simply a candy coating for
>>>the fact that you can't trust your partner (or yourself) enough in a
>>>trusting relationship to remain faithful. IM(Never)HO.
>>I know a number of people who get claustrophobic when committed to one
>>partner, others who don't want someone to be committed to them exclusively,
>
>I still say that a lot of this has to do with trust, and fear.
>Fear that you're not good enough for your partner, or vice-versa.
>Most of the 'open' relationships I've ever seen, or been in, involved
>one partner who 'didn't want to be tied down to one person', and another
>who was so desperate to hold on to their partner that they 'let' their
>partner 'roam'. 'Oh, he/she needs his/her space', or some such crap.

I think we can generalize this even further and say that a lot of
relationships, both open and exclusive, are to a greater or lesser
extent based on fear.  Fear that you're not good enough for your
partner (who might leave if given the opportunity), etc., etc., etc.

I don't know whether open relationships are based on fear more or less
often or more or less significantly than exclusive relationships; our
fears do influence our lives and tend to become a big influence on our
relationships, perhaps more than in any other aspect of our lives.  I
think it's entirely possible to have a healthy relationship or a
pathological one whether it's open or monogamous--and as long as all
parties involved agree upon the nature of the relationship, I don't
see anything wrong with either approach.

>Besides, like I said last time, in today's oozing sexual environment,
>momogamy is better than death.

"Momogamy"?  (Hmmmmm...I'll hope that that's a typo.)

Certainly I prefer monogamy to death--indeed, I strongly prefer monogamy
to open relationships (they happen to suit my needs and fears better),
but I do know a goodly number of people who prefer open relationships,
some who have been in them for years, and none of them are dead.

Trygve
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: The "first" "move" (was Re: A R C )
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:01:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: apple.65164
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

Kiran Wagle writes:

>This is the issue. Women's options would increase, and their
>relationships would be, on average, better, if they picked the
>people they want to date, and not just wait to be picked. 

Maybe. But then maybe the men would start playing hard to get,
and we would have to get them drunk on truffles in order to have
our way with them.

--
Stef                 Where am I going, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
stef@apple.com     
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com (Software Dude)
Subject: Re: Newspaper personals (history...) - update
Organization: WHAT?
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:26:21 GMT

 epg@nature.berkeley.edu (little 'e') coos with:
> (Time to put CP to bed perhaps?) :-)
>
>CP: Ohoo....
>
>little 'e': As you see, I've left him speechless. :-)  Goodnight.
>
Yes, it's so impolite to talk with your mouth full! :)
Want a piece of chocolate, little girl?
--
Puter		puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com		Go UofL Cardinals!
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
Subject:      Makeup and be Friends
To: soc.singles.usenet
Reply-To: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
Organization: DEC Palo Alto
Date:         Wed, 08 Apr 92 12:45:50 MST


        small 'e' admits to not using makeup.

        GOOD. I *always* thought my girlfriend looked better without it.
        Waste of time. Misleading. Bad for your skin. Carcinogens.
        And will give you a *very* bad reputation ( if you're lucky ;) ).
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: want-sex(women) < want-sex(men)
Originator: lnds@zeus.biochem.ualberta.ca
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 01:50:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.184422.10973@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:

> You know, I've been in a fairly lusty mood lately myself--I may just go
> get a few more data points myself.

   Yes, date appoints are a good whey to get data points.

> Trygve    (How come, among the women I meet, counterexamples outnumber
>           the examples twenty-to-one?) 

(1) How old are the women you meet?  Do they even remember their first
    sexual experience?

(2) Do you think your own built-in sex drive is about average for men,
    stronger than average, or weaker than average?  Why do you think so?

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Originator: lnds@zeus.biochem.ualberta.ca
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 08:47:29 GMT

In article <x_qjzkq.barry@netcom.com>, barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:

> Ever hear the saying, "all's fair in love and war"? That's the
> traditional wisdom on this question. The tradition in our culture is 
> that a person is fair game right up to the moment they marry, and off 
> limits thereafter. Oh, there was a slight quandary if it were your best
> friend's girl you were after, perhaps, and a serious practical problem 
> if her current sweetie were mean and jealous and a lot bigger than you 
> :-). But mostly it was OK to chase someone who was already seeing 
> someone else.                                              ^^^^^^

   By "seeing", I presume you mean "going steady with"?  But "going
steady" didn't (officially) exist in (for example) upper-class Victorian
England:  if you weren't engaged to be married, you were completely
unattached.  So it's not surprising that there were no rules to cover
an unheard-of situation.

   And weren't engaged women considered to be (at least slightly) off
bounds?  If not, what was the purpose of engagement rings?  In Sir
Arthur Conan Doyle's story "The New Catacomb", yes, part of the problem
was that the displaced fiance was jealous, but Sir Arthur also seems
to imply that he had some degree of right on his side.

> you could tell a story about two close friends trying to sabotage one 
> another, chasing after the same woman (e.g., HOLIDAY INN) and no moral 
> quandary is ever suggested - it's a "light romantic comedy".

   I haven't seen the film.  Is it clear that the woman is "going steady"
with one of the men?

> Why the change? I believe it's a side effect of the changes in our
> culture's sexual morality. Back when movies like those I describe were
> made, the official assumption was always that a couple who weren't
> married, weren't having sex. Today the default assumption is that such a
> couple does have sex, and that's the difference.

   Well, marriage meant a lot in those days.  Now that marriage is 
largely a *legal* term, why treat married couples differently from 
unmarried ones?

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: The "first" "move" (was Re: A R C )
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:16:50 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Apr7.212354.25236@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>
>The "first move" has to involve initiating a conversation
>with a complete stranger, and following it up with a request for a
>date if the chat goes well. 
>
>"The truffle is not an outright aphrodisiac, but it may in certain
> circumstances make women more affectionate and men more amiable."
>                                                ...Brillat-Savarin

Does offering a complete stranger a truffle wrapped in this quote count
as a first move?

What if one person initiates the conversation and the other person
asks for the date? Who has made the first move? AAAUUUUUGGGGHHHH!
What if NOBODY can claim responsibility for the first move? What?
We might have to consider the possibility of MUTUAL INTEREST? But
who would get the "aggressive" notch on their belt?

--
Stef                 Where am I going, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
stef@apple.com
From: tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Spring Fever or what?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: world,soc
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 17:44:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.215228.8676@u.washington.edu> intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>Okay, it finally happened.  I just went over the edge.  I made a
>puppet of my hand like that crazy old guy on Ed Sullivan used to do.
>She's got lovely and I mean *lovely* turquoise eyes and long black
>eyelashes and a sweet pink mouth.  Shall I name her?  Or just wash
>her off?  I mean I have *work* to do this afternoon!
>
>Angelwing - I seem to be possessed.


Let's see, how about "Demonica"?  She could represent and speak for
your, ah, less angelic side.

Trygve    (Just think of her as one of those little demons who sit on
           people's shoulder's on TV and egg them on to do naughty
           things.)
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: The Second Move
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:36:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Apr17.174443.3890@morrow.stanford.edu> FA.TJM@forsythe.stanford.edu (Thom McKean) writes:
|>It's a "Squeegee" board - found only at finer erotic/intimate
|accessory boutiques.  It's not a board game, it's more of
|a...playing field, shall we say?  Its primary use is...oh, never
|mind.

You can improvise with a "Twister" board and wesson oil (or whipped cream
if you prefer).

-- 
+=============================================================================+
| John Fereira                Al Bundy for President          
| johnf@auspex.com         "He's as good as the next guy"                     |
+=============================================================================+