HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: lying to oneself (was Re: Sanctity of relationships)
Distribution: world,soc
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:27:53 CDT

Well, Hi Steve G.
: 
: Well, I hope you don't "have" them anymore. I can't imagine robd really
: believes that - surely he's met at least a *couple* of computer 
: salesmen during his tenure at CRI. As we used to say when *I* worked there:
: 
: 	What's the difference between a Cray salesman and a used car
: 	salesman?
: 
: 	The used car salesman *KNOWS* when he's lying.

I think all salesmen know when they are lying, which is most of the time, which
is why I would rather shovel cow flop for the rest of my life that be a
salesmen, and why I place salesmen just above lawyers in the food chain (and
lawyers are the lowest form of life in the Universe!  -- and I wish I felt that
this was a joke).

However, someone once asked me how I thought that certain really succesful
people got that way, and I said that they wrapped their morality and
conscience up in a rationalization and then threw it out with the rest
of their self respect.  And then they hire someone else to do their 
dirty work, _because_ to do it themselves would be to face their self-
deception head on, and we all know how hard it is for us to face the
truth, especially when it comes to hurting other people.  So they lie
to themselves.  But I still don't believe that they really believe the
lie.  They just learn to live with it.

It's like this.  I think if I had to kill for the meat I eat, I might
become a vegetarian.  But I eat meat from the store, and I live the
lie.  But I don't believe it.  Tis' a paradox, indeed.

rob derrick
Xref: sparky alt.romance:6771 soc.singles:10702 soc.couples:1964
From: susan@solace.me.uiuc.edu (Susan Wrightson)
Subject: Re: Love Sucks.....
Organization: U of I Dept. of Mech. and Ind. Engr., Urbana, Ill.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:30:53 GMT

In article <17APR199208220313@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> aatresa@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Teresa Kline) writes:
>In article <1992Apr17.031504.22099@news.iastate.edu>, twmn3@isuvax.iastate.edu writes...
>>One things which I found out through out the years is that love sucks....
>>I mean you can have any girl you want if you have alot of money to dump
>>but no girl will stick to you if you have only pennies to spend. In this
>>money craze world.... Money rules over love.
>>				Taken from "Lovers are suckers."
>> 
>>Tell me what you people think of this passage.
>>						Tommy.
>
>How do you type "raspberries"?  PHTTTTTT!!!!!
>

My reaction, too -- PPPPPPPPPPPPHHHHTTTTTTTTTTTT!


I've dated guys who had lots of money who treated me like shit -- they
thought all they had to do was buy me things to make me happy.  WRONG.

Some of my fondest memories with old boyfriends have nothing to do with
what they spent on me -- the memories include emotional/social interaction,
fun things we did -- playing in sports and working out together, going
on walks, to parties, to lectures, bicycling, cheap campus movies, things
we did for (and to) each other, and just talking!

In my current relationship, one of the things I like to do best is 
walking him and his dog (takes TWO leashes :-).  Or rollerblading with 
the dog. We go dancing a lot.  We laugh a lot.  We sit around and talk.
He's sweet and considerate and treats me with a lot of respect.

I think those things are MUCH more important to a lot of women than
a guy who can shell out the bucks. 

I've known some guys who think they can get away with treating women
poorly, just because they spend money on them.  Money means power to
some guys, and they try to use that on women.  They then take the attitude
that a women OWES them something, because they've shelled it out.


Well, Tommy, I'm sorry you feel this way about women -- maybe you should
try a better attitude.  Then you just might meet one of these women
that aren't concerned about your wallet.


+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Susan Wrightson                         "And there you are, Fast  |
| Academic Advisor                         Eddie, with lust in your |
| Mech. and Ind. Engineering               soul when I want you     |
| susan@solace.me.uiuc.edu                 thinking pool!"          |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: susan@solace.me.uiuc.edu (Susan Wrightson)
Subject: Re: Reading Signs (was Re: The Wall)
Keywords: Signs
Organization: U of I Dept. of Mech. and Ind. Engr., Urbana, Ill.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 20:57:20 GMT

In article <kuj7vhINNk29@girtab.usc.edu> jodar@girtab.usc.edu (Nicholas Jodar) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.045446.7704@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> robinsonm@clvax1.cl.msu.edu writes:
>
>>>Doesen't ther come a time when one gets tired of beating his/her head against
>>>The Wall, and the search just doesn't seem worth it anymore?
>
>>Yes there does come such a time.  After two years of banging my 
>>head against yon wall I have temporarily given up on searching 
>>for that "perfect" relationship.  
>

Gee.... my experience is that when I'm looking, nothing happens.

Something comes along when I'm not looking, OR WHEN I LEAST EXPECT IT.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Susan Wrightson                         "And there you are, Fast  |
| Academic Advisor                         Eddie, with lust in your |
| Mech. and Ind. Engineering               soul when I want you     |
| susan@solace.me.uiuc.edu                 thinking pool!"          |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
Xref: sparky alt.romance:7049 soc.singles:11184
From: aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 14 Apr 92 05:54:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.!sxjmdm.aahz
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez

In article <1992Apr8.204517.16189@rice.edu> kerryg@stat.rice.edu (Kerry Go) writes:
>
>Don't tell me someone has morals on this net!  I was under the impression
>that people here are looking out only for themselves.

I'm not a Nice Guy, I don't even play one on the Net, but I'd say that
those who don't have *some* kind of moral and ethical system end up
literally with only themselves to look after.  That's fine if you want
to be a hermit.  (Hi Mel!)
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

Why is this newsgroup different from all other newsgroups?
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: greg@pomona.claremont.edu (Tigger)
Subject: Re: LOVE sucks. No question about it.
Organization: Pomona College
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:14:16 PDT

In article <1992Apr3.003812.54152@cc.usu.edu>, slsg6@cc.usu.edu writes:
> OK so LOVE sucks...
> NO-LOVE sucks even more...
> so what do you do?

I know a fast road to Hell.  Care to join me?

|  Greg Orman                             gorman@pomona.claremont.edu  |
|                      Live to ride, Ride to live                      |
|     Is it just me, or is Bill Clinton really just plywood veneer?    |
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
From: hjanssen@cbnewse.cb.att.com (hank janssen)
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:08:26 GMT

From article <1992Apr12.063451.9244@ultra.com>, by stcroix@ultra.com (Bill St. Croix):
> In article <1992Apr9.173110.24380@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein) writes:
>>Hank Janssen writes
>>>This is getting fun.
>>>I guess you also don't hold Hitler responsible for  the  second  world
>>>war. Just imagine him saying, I am not responsible for anybody's elses
>>>actions. Only my own.
>>
>>Again, your analogy does not make any sense.  Hitler was and is 
>>directly responsible for the slaughter of millions of people.  He
>>was the one "incharge" and the one originating the orders.  He was
>>the ruler.
> 
> Oh...so Hitler killed all those people??  Hitler was responsible for giving
> the orders for the killings and the ones that did the transporting/killing
> were all just as guilty.  I think the analogy (by the way Steve, look up
> the word in the dictionary) is valid for what the discussion is about.  Your
> saying that it is the woman's choice to leave the man...whether or not there
> is another man in the scene.  But, just as Hilter (for lack of a better word)
> *influenced* the others to kill all the people they did, you *influenced* the
> woman by being there with her.  You may not have told her, "Hey, you have to
> leave him."  But I don't think Hitler handed a gun to each and EVERY one
> of his subbordants and told them to kill the people the way they did.
> 
> Any way you cut it, the influence is still there!


A LOT OF STUFF DELETED, I MEAN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF STUFF.!!!

Anyway, 

Bill, i want to thank you, i think you put it much better than i did.
I escpecially the glass window part.
And i was starting to thin i was one of the very few in this.

Again Bill thanx.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------+------------------
The full moon shines bright. I gaze long at its beauty,	   |    Hank Janssen
I am overwhelmed. "Isn't it lovely," you say -		   | 	    (CPU)
         I'd forgotten you were there.			   |att!ihlpb!hjanssen
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: hevern@cac.washington.edu (M. Hevern)
Subject: Re: It's Whine Time Again...
Organization: U.W. Information Systems
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 05:42:34 GMT

In article <7APR199208064900@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>, aatresa@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Teresa Kline) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.221435.9276@u.washington.edu>, hevern@u.washington.edu (M. Hevern) writes...
> >> I've been waiting for *this* one.  Simply because *I* think that we are mis
> >> -using the term "nerd".  According to Mr. Webster a nerd *is* a jerk!  
> >                   ^^^^
> >How about "Geek"? Or as my dad likes to introduce me to his friends "My son the Computer Dweeb".
> > 
> >Does Mr. Webster have anything to say about that? (I'm to lazy to look(: )
> 
> Sure does, Michael!
> 
> Geek - a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually 
> includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake
> 
> Do you qualify???
> 
> No dweeb in my dictionary.  Interesting, huh?

Why, no. I preffer to use a knife and fork. But, thanks for thinking of me.

In my carnival we use blue smoke and mirrors to create ever more powerfull forms of VaporWare(TM). I suppose that makes it a fun house.

I could go for the easy out; There are other definitions for the word geek, none particularly favorable. So, how about the elusive "Dweeb"? Maybe everyone could send a letter to Webster's defining the dweeb to fit the term they were hoping to substitute. Then there would be a word that all could use with impunity.

If you think I'm serious, think again (:.

-- 	MH
       *--------------------------------*------------------------------*
       | Michael Hevern			| Voice: (206) 685-3229        |
       | University Of Washington	| * "I can't dance...          |
       | Information Systems		|    I can't talk...           |
       | 4545 15th Ave. NE		|    The only funny thing about|
       | Seattle, WA 98105		|    me is the way I walk."    |
       | Mail Stop: JE-41               |       -- Genesis             |
       *--------------------------------*------------------------------*
	Disclaimer: If I said it I probably meant it.  My employer isn't
		responsible for my opinions.
Xref: sparky alt.romance:6963 soc.singles:11018 soc.couples:2060
From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Do You Remember - early '60s edition
Date: 12 Apr 92 00:34:27 GMT
Followup-To: alt.romance
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Apr10.183910.14094@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
+
+Water Rockets - made of red and blue plastic, you'd fill them with
+             water and launch them and I don't know what else they
+             did because we could never get them to work.
+

It's been one of my 'secret wishes' along with a pocket pen
protector for years. I never got one when they were popular, my
mother was an 'anti-war toys' type and in one case made me give a
toy cap gun back that was given to me for my birthday. In the 50's a
boy not having a cap gun was, well, just un-masculine. I made up for
it by constructing a rubber band gun out of a length of wood and a
close pin, and a number of rubber bands. Where as the other boy's
guns only made noise, mine could launch bent wire projectiles.


-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
From: tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
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: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 18:08:51 GMT

In article <kuj8e2INN9hg@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.225421.5765@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>
>>(I won't
>>go into detail about the guy, but suffice it to say that he not only
>>read every Gor book as soon as it came out, he also went so far as to
>>highlight the sections he thought were most important.)
>
>This description is screamingly funny.  I know you said you wouldn't
>go into detail, but I just have to know - did he also subscribe to
>Soldier of Fortune? 

That I don't know--though I recall that his concept of a date invariably
consisted of his date making him dinner while he watched a XXX film and
a slasher flic back-to-back.  For all I know, though, he might well have
been a subscriber.

>(Of course, admitting that I thought this was funny also means admitting
>that I know enough about the Gor books to know *why* this is so funny. Oops)

Well, knowing about them is probably OK--but if you start reading and
highlighting them, I may start to worry about you.

Trygve
From: maineman@connection.EBay.Sun.COM (mike maine)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Before I leave HAPPY-
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:07:22 GMT
Reply-To: maineman@connection.EBay.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: connection.ebay.sun.com





                  _        
                 / \        
                / _ \          
               | / \ |          
               ||   || _______
               ||   || |\     \          
               ||   || ||\     \         
               ||   || || \    |         
               ||   || ||  \__/      HAPPY EASTER     
               ||   || ||   ||          FROM 
                \\_/ \_/ \_//         -MICHAEL-
               /   _     _   \    
              /               \ 
              |    O     O    |
              |   \  ___  /   |          
             /     \ \_/ /     \
            /  -----  |  --\    \
            |     \__/|\__/ \   |
            \       |_|_|       /
             \_____       _____/     ^^^    ^^^
                   \     /           \_/    \_/
                   |     |           \|/    \|/
	== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
Xref: sparky alt.romance:7072 soc.singles:11259 soc.couples:2119
From: eleanor@ait.com (Eleanor Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 13 Apr 92 13:09:21 GMT
Organization: Artificial Intelligence Technologies, Inc.

>      Morals doen't really enter into it because the basic rule  of 
>relationships is "Until solid, lasting promises are made, love continues
>while it continues, and goes when it goes"  Without promises (IMHO, wedding
>vows or better) love is 'only' a gift, NEVER a 'right'.

Love is always a gift, never a right.  Solid, lasting promises do not
ensure that love will always continue--it continues while it continues,
and goes when it goes.  I can only hope that mine lasts as long as my
parents' did.

Piglet  :-).

P.S.  Randy Travis, Forever and ever, Amen.--most romantic....
From: erc@pogo.Corp.Sun.COM (Ed Carp)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: It's Whine Time Again...
Keywords: When
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:12:32 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogo.corp.sun.com

In article <1992Apr8.021101.6327@cs.tulane.edu> jordan@cs.tulane.edu (Misti Jordan) writes:

>I am not quite 37 as of yet... only 20, but I had never had a date, or
>even a second glance until halfway through my 18th year! Of course, then,
>guys started beating down my door... <NOT!!!!!>... :-}

I don't see why -- after all, Misti IS a very pretty name!

>Seriously, don't feel bad about being alone. At least you know you'll be
>in good company! ;-P

'Tis better to be alone than in bad company.  Thus speaketh one who's been
there.

Why so much worry about how long one has been dateless/SO-less?  Smacks of the
old "I want somebody - anybody, just so I don't have to be alone, or be
teased about it by others, or so they can bolster my own self-esteem."  Society teaches
that you are absolutely worthless unless you "have someone".  Thank goodness, THAT
myth is starting to be seen for the Madison Ave. marketing hype it truly is...
--
Ed Carp                                      415/336-0797 (work)

++ UNIX  SysAdmin, Systems  Programming  Services,  Utilities ++
++ and Programmer Productivity Tools                          ++
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison)
Subject: Re: Ed and Teresa (Carp ????)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Let's mind our own business
Organization: Ancient Souls Inc.
Date: 15 Apr 1992 12:44 EST  

In article <15APR199208022961@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>, aatresa@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Teresa Kline) writes...
>In article <1992Apr14.024027.10332@usho93.hou281.chevron.com>, hrtcu@usho52.hou281.chevron.com (R.T.Cutler) writes...
>>For GOD's sake, consumate this.  DO IT!!!!  And then maybe all of
>>us can get some sleep.
> 
>Oh....are we keeping you up?  :)

*Yeah* !!!!! ...


.. and I'm havin' trouble sleeping too ! :-)

-- Stephen 

(The only two valid e-mail addresses from now on are ...)
afdenis@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov,  afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov
.. boring .sig follows, press n to skip it.

	Never regret a *choice*.  Rather, save your regrets for the
	choices you *didn't* make.

Xref: sparky alt.romance:6845 soc.singles:10825 soc.couples:2003
From: ronan@codon1 (Karen Ronan;161 GPBB;x2-0884)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 9 Apr 1992 19:48:36 GMT
Organization: University of California
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: codon1.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Apr9.153217.14011@cbnewse.cb.att.com> hjanssen@cbnewse.cb.att.com (hank janssen) writes:
>
>This is getting fun.
>I guess you also don't hold Hitler responsible for  the  second  world
>war. Just imagine him saying, I am not responsible for anybody's elses
>actions. Only my own.

Dear Hank,
I do not mean this as a flame, just my opinion.
I really don't think Hitler has anything
whatsoever to do with this.  People always bring up Hitler to
prove their point, when it rarely, if ever, proves anything.
It's just an emotional firebrand that gets people upset.

>So  you  also  don't  have  any  problem  if  i  would  take away your
>girlfriend/wife or whatever. You would not think anything off it.

Believe it or not, there are people who accept what happens
in their lives, even having their lover abandon them for someone
else.  There are people who are aware of what the problems were
in the relationship that caused it to become fragile or unstable.
There are people who don't blame other people for their problems
or their heartaches.  They might not blame their lover, and they
might not blame the "other party." They just know that it happened
and they deal with it as best they can.

This thread has a lot of "blame" in it.  There is no blame.
Things happen. We don't control anything. If someone breaks up
our relationship, all we can do is look at our part in the drama.

-Karen

"Ubi caritas et amor				Karen Ronan
Deus ibi est."					ronan@codon2.berkeley.edu
(Where there is compassion and love,
God is.)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: chu@hanauma.jpl.nasa.gov (Eugene Chu)
Subject: Re: Romantic music list
Organization: SAR Systems Development & Processing, JPL
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 07:10:39 GMT

In article <sean.casey.12@EMCB.CC.UTAH.EDU> sean.casey@EMCB.CC.UTAH.EDU (SEAN THOMAS CASEY) writes:
>	Okay, folks, here's a new concept for this net.  I've read a lot of 
>complaints about how this has turned into a "bitch.net" about how men are 
>assholes and women are bitches and nobody can get along with anyone and no 
>one can get anyone else to be interested in them . . . . and this is 
>supposed to be a net about romance.

"Romance is Hell"	- Matt Groening (just kidding)
>
>ASSORTED ARTISTS:
>Pachelbel Canon in D Major -- Johann Pachelbel
	Try the version by Jean Fracois Palliard chamber orchestra.

>This Night -- Billy Joel
	Music By Ludwig von Beethovan (Pathetique Sonata, I think)

A Thousand Conversations - Bruce Welch/Hank Marvin

You are Always on My Mind (as sung by Elvis the King)

Love Me Tender ("")

I Can't Help Falling in Love With You ("")

Unchained Melody - Righteous Brothers

Oops, nap attack...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

eyc
Newsgroups: alt.romance
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 07:52:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.160433.12237@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, garvey@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Heather Garvey) writes:

> So catching people mid-relationship is *always* a bad move,
> even if one had no qualms about playing with other peoples' emotions
> and relationships. Someone either too messed-up about their own feelings
> to either finish or fix a current relationship or someone willing to 
> betray a trust is not a good partner.

   Heather has my vote.

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
Xref: sparky alt.romance:6687 soc.singles:10525 soc.couples:1910
From: rnjx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
Subject: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:59:29 EST
Distribution: world,soc
Organization: Cornell University

I put aside my usual role of nitpicker and general pain-in-the-ass to
solicit the opinion of anyone interested enough to reply.  Email is fine, or
a regular net-posting, as I think this topic bears enough of an ethical 
character to be germane to most readers' lives. 

The question is this.  Is it ever morally and/or ethically O.K. to actively
try to woo one member of an existing relationship from that relationship so
that you may start one with her/him?  Under what circumstances?  How about
pursuing someone who's engaged?  Where do you all draw the line?  If it isn't
O.K., would you still do it anyway?

I wouldn't say that I'm trying to get advice, because my mind is made up on 
this issue already.  Yes, this does bear directly on my own life, sadly.  One
of my undergraduate roommates had a motto:  "Boyfriends are a minor
inconvenience."  I wish to God I could believe (reconcile myself to) that.

I thank you from the depths of my heart for any forthcoming replies.

Jeff
-- 
##############################################################
#                                                            #
#  RNJX@vax5.cit.cornell.edu                                 #             
#  Jeff Wilson                                               #
#  Cornell University                                        #
#  Department of Chemistry                                   #
#  --SF author in the making--                               #
#                                                            #
#  Is what you're living for worth dying for?                #
#                                                            #
##############################################################
Xref: sparky alt.romance:6689 soc.singles:10536 soc.couples:1912