HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ins448c@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Andrew Mills)
Subject: Re: MOOOOOOORE BLONDE JOKES!
Organization: Monash University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:00:48 GMT

greg@netcom.com (Greg Bullough) writes:
: In article <1992Jul24.125353.7791@vax.oxford.ac.uk> annan@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
: >How about: how many Americans does it take to change a light bulb?
: >
: How about a game of "spot the xenophobic twit from Oxford?"
:  
: Greg

Along the same lines;  How about a game of "spot the 'Merkin git who can't
take a joke."

Why not just post a response 'Dumb Pommie Bastard' joke, instead of getting
upset about it.

eg.
	Why did the DPB cross the road ?

	There was a bar of soap on his side.

etc.

No Sig is a Good Sig.

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: arevalo@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: Re: Personality is everything!
Reply-To: arevalo@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 08:13:07 GMT

>
>[Munch...Munch...Uuuuuuummmmmmm......Burp!!!]
>
>
>A woman who obviously spends -too much- time making herself
>look good is a turn off.  If she spends that much time on how she
>looks, she obviously has less time to get involved in other things,
>which gives her less of a personality. 
>
>[Munch...Munch...Uuuuuuummmmmmm......Burp!!!]
>
>I don't find anything wrong with a woman or man trying to make
>themselves look better. I also don't find how that could take
>away from someone's personality. Another thing...What is your
>definition of "Too Much Time", I'd sure like to know. 
>
>just me...billy
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Would you Shag a 14 year old ??
Date: 31 Jul 92 12:28:29 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <45@cnmhnet.UUCP> keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.123512.13436@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>Hey James, you hit it on the head.  Has anyone out there wondered why 
>gymnastics gets such good ratings on TV?  Does anyone really
>believe that all the viewers are into the gymnastic part of the 
>program?  I agree with James, I also like to watch the girls after
>their performance, walking around with their little tight butts.
>No one can tell me that I'm the only one who watches it for that
>reason, either!  --Keith
>
 
Chet Chit Chat(on shock radio) says this morning - "It's a good thing
the US gymnasts didn't win gold because it would make them bow...
their getting so small next year we ought to send holigrams .........
maybe next year they'll send monkeys their teeth are better then the
romanions".
 
Chet said it. I would never be so crass. Nor unsensitive.

 
================================================================================
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
From: intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Best unconventional use of a TV set
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:47:30 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Jul22.084052.23600@news.cs.brandeis.edu> arevalo@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>>
>>Using a TV with external inputs as a keyboard amplifier.
>>Rob T
>
>>> How 'bout having tremdously good sex on a console tv??
>>> just me...billy

Yoo-hoo ..Rob?  I think he likes you.  And weren't you one of those who
said you never got propositioned via the net?  Well here ya go - just when
you least expected it.

Angelwing - Ain't love grand?

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Angelwing       |  "And just where do you think you're going     *
* U. of Washington|   dressed like *that*?                         *
*                 |                            -  My Dad           *
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
From: keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: TOE JOBS
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:36:14 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Cal-Nevada Methodist Homes


 I personally like a girl with a small foot, preferably wearing high
heel shoes.  Anything over a size 7 is too big.  I have seen girls who
are beautiful, until I get down to the feet, and I see these size 9
clonkers!  One of the best thrills in life is to take a girl's size 5 1/2
feet out of her high heels, and slowly caress it and gently kiss the toes
until she is going nuts.  Then, gently insert the toes between my lips 
as I roll my tongue around them.  It drives the women wild, and it is 
pretty good for me, too!  It's really good when they have their toenails
painted bright red.  Oh my gosh, give me strength! :-)  --Keith
From: i900019@redgum.ucnv.edu.au (Tim Knipe)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Oh No!  I'm still a Nice Guy!
Date: 21 Jul 92 09:57:41 GMT
Organization: UCNV, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia

I thought I was cured.  All the good signs were there.  But now, at the
critical moment - IT has returned!  That old fear of rejection thang.
I'd followed all the good advice, such as "go out and try to get
rejected by 5 women" or "clock up 10 rejections in a week" and this
_has_ helped.  I can ask women I don't know out, I can talk to people I
don't know no sweat.  I can do things that, in the past, would have
embarassed me (just about anything in public).  I'm one _hell_ of a
public speaker (or so my assessors keep telling me).  All these things
point to one in control, secure, healthily egoed person.  But I
discovered today a frightening truth.  THERE'S FURTHER TO GO!  When the
crunch came, and I was faced with the opportunity (err.  the 3rd perfect
opportunity so far :-<) of expressing my interest in this particular woman,
I just couldn't do it!  When I tried to rectify the situation later by
giving her a call, I just couldn't!  I know, I know.  No sympathy, just
do it man, etc etc.  I've told it all to me, BUT I DON'T SEEM TO LISTEN!

The problem is that a rejection from a woman I don't know (or not well
anyway) just bounces off.  It doesn't matter.  But if I get to know a
woman well, a rejection _does_ matter (leave aside the question of if
friends can become SOs).  I have really fallen for this woman, and it's
killing me!  I've been on this group (mostly a lurker) for >2 years and
I know all the theory.  Hell, I've even practiced most of it.  But all
the theory in the world doesn't help in the final analysis.  All it has
helped me do, is to transform from a social recluse (geek?) to a Nice
Guy.  The more I look, the worse the signs are.  Lots of friends (male
and female).  People laying their problems on me.  No SO.  Oh god, is it
really _that_ bad?  :-(

Please spare me the infatuation/limerance/crush line, I know it all.
This is probably 70% crush, but the better I get to know this woman
the lower that percentage gets.  She's one of those people who just gets
more attractive the better you get to know her (why am I telling you?
why don't I tell her?)

What can this teach all the NiceGuy-lurkers out there?  The _only_ way
to "get better" is to practice.  Anything that you find difficult,
anything that you find embarassing (within reason of course :-) DO IT!
Next time will be easier.  Practice on people you're not interested in,
but don't think it will help you much when you really are interested.

Oh, and DON'T send yourself insane by reading _anything_ into
_anything_ she says or does.  When you don't know for sure, all you seem
to get are mixed messages which just play on your mind and achieve
nothing.  I should follow my own advice and just do it, but if it was
that easy I wouldn't be writing this.

--
Tim Knipe (A NiceGuy at a turning point)
i900019@redgum.ucnv.edu.au
tjk@ironbark.ucnv.edu.au
From: intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Testosterone is Your Friend
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:02:33 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Jul22.204247.7977@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul22.154022.20609@u.washington.edu> intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>>
>>>Angelwing - How do I get my testosterone level checked?
>
>Actually Ang, I think you need to drop off a semen sample.  I wonder if
>testosterone blood levels increase upon ingestion?  Heh.

Ooooo!  Now *that's* a study I'd participate in.

Angelwing - Come on, baby.  Give it up.

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Angelwing       |  "And just where do you think you're going     *
* U. of Washington|   dressed like *that*?                         *
*                 |                            -  My Dad           *
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: haroome@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allisson Roome)
Subject: Re: Those looooong and hard love sessions (was: Re: She called, I came, she smiled, I slept)
Organization: Me? Nah ... now where did I refile that message?
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 13:13:56 EDT

In article <1992Jul25.141615.6492@crash.cts.com> rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) writes:
>markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
>>
>>Now that we got the pleasure dimension all discussed out, here's a related
>>question this time on the temporal dimension:
>>
>>         What's the longest you've ever spent (or ever wanted to spend)
>>         making love with someone?
>>
>     About 8 hours, with a couple of bathroom and drink breaks.  And, for the
>youngsters out there, I was 36 at the time.
>
Don't be ageist.  Older men tend to last longer - they're more into
enjoying the experience than just getting their rocks off.  One of the
best lovers I've known and I lasted around eight hours and he was 54
and had children older than I was (24 - 2+ years ago).

>Bob c/o The OTH Gang
>rcf@pnet01.cts.com

Allisson
--
| H.  Allisson Roome - haroome@rodan.acs.syr.edu 
 "The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable
  uncertainty; not knowing what comes next" (Ursula Le Guin)
From: athena.mit.edu!mariac@overmind.mind.org
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Would you Shag a 14 year old ??
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:13:00 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
X-mailer: Stadel 3.4a-227
X-Spam-content: irrelevant



Hi,

This is my first post.  I've been reading the newsgroup for a while but 
couldn't keep myself from answering this one.


In article <1992Jul22.110524.8580@cs.hw.ac.uk> neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil 
Postlethwaite) writes:
>
>
>Given the opportunity if you came across a seriously gorgeously horny
>girl who was very repsonsive and willing to get to bed with you, but
>you knew she was only 14 years old.
>
>Would you ??
>
>a/ Without a second thought
>b/ Only if you knew you would not be caught
>c/ ?
>

Sick!!! What would I do?  just walk away....

If it was only a joke, ignore the post...
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: Define "FEMININE" anything goes...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 12:30:47 GMT

In article <13812@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>
>|Feminine is being able to change a tire without ruining your
>|nails.
> 
>I know,  I hate it when that happens.
>
>|Feminine is wearing pink Hanes Her Ways panties (and nothing
>|else) between freshly washed cotton sheets ....
> 
>What a coincidence. *I* like sleeping in pink Hanes Her Way panties (and
>nothing else)...
>
>| John Fereira            "Is that all you ever think about?"                |

 It's a small world after all. It's a small small world.
 Although they do muss my hair and there's no hole for my nose.
 
================================================================================
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: More Scary Social Arrangement Questions
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 12:45:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.121200.13937@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>crisis that from time to time arrises. A friend of
>mine and I were talking about our kids, and then I
>learn that his daughter lived in my state, and that
>she was in her early twenties....
>
>So folks, Would You wish to go out with a person
>in their twenties??????
>
>drieux

Where? And that IS a scary question.
 
================================================================================
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Why are Women *SO* Vain ??
Date: 26 Jul 92 03:41:25 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Jul24.160435.19850@cs.hw.ac.uk> neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:

>Maybe I'm using the wrong word, but I'm meaning why do certain women use
>it. They don't need it. Do they use it because they think they aren't 'good
>looking' enough ?? Dress, make up, perfume etc .. before they head out.

Aren't you assuming there's only one standard of beauty, yours?  Women
have already testified that some men reward them for wearing makeup.
That ought to shoot that idea pretty much to hell.

Now, if you want to count yourself among the men who prefer women
without makeup and remind them that some men prefer naked (or at
least very lightly done up) faces, I'll join you.

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com
Heaven knows / No frontiers
And I've seen heaven in your eyes			- Jimmy McCarthy
From: rson@rhi.hi.is (Reynir Hugason)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Men's Opening Lines: Best and Worst
Date: 24 Jul 92 08:18:08 GMT


You're so beautiful that I could drink your bathwater, is definately the
worst come on line there is .. but it has a certain ring to it.
From: asuvax.eas.asu.edu!ra@overmind.mind.org
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Would you Shag a 14 year old ??
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:24:00 GMT
Organization: soc.singles
X-mailer: Stadel 3.4a-227
X-Spam-content: irrelevant

martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
> I'd have to say certainly not: I'm not sure a 14 year old can really
> consent, and I have hemerrhoids so a term in prison really doesn't
> appeal to me.

     Your answer is completely irrelevant.  One
of the options was "if you were sure you wouldn't
get caught" which is assumed for the sake of
argument to be possible.

     I'm not quite sure what the point of all
this is, but I guess that's irrelevant too.

--Starcap'n Ra       {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
                        {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
                                          ^---------------The Wrong Choice
                             internet: kennedy@asuvax.asu.edu
From: ccspjs@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Pete J Suters)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Female Olympians
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:15:58 GMT
Organization: Bath University Computing Services, UK

How about Sharron Davies, the British swimmer!!!
Now she is a BABE!


pete j suters ---- bath university ---- email: p.j.suters@uk.ac.swurcc 
 ___  ___    /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|___)   |   /  "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you
|       |  /  have heard it in the original Klingon" -- Gorkon (STVI)
     (_/  /=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: E.W. - Net. Impersonation .....again!
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:27:39 GMT

ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>As a very serious and responsible member of this group, I feel 
>I have to point out that I am fairly convinced that a certain
>person under the pseudonym "Mark Hopkins" is, in fact, really
>a woman.

Awww... Emma, why did you have go and ruin it for the rest of us?

							Ross Ridge

-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross						     db	 //
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: Testosterone is Your Friend
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 12:38:03 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Jul22.204247.7977@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>-Nance
>"And I'm hungry like a wolf." -??

Duran Duran.
Gee, and I thought being a DD fan would do me no good in later life :)

r.
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Why are Women *SO* Vain ??
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:43:41 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <711874447snx@walter.UUCP> fred@walter.UUCP (Fred Walter) writes:
|>terra@reed.edu writes:
|> if he can tolerate the way I look dripping wet after
|> a shower, then we're meant for each other.

I find the "dripping wet just after a shower" look to be incredibly sexy.

|I don't think this is a good test ... what if he's nearsighted and doesn't
|have his glasses on ? (When I shower with someone I don't wear my glasses - do
|other people take their glasses off too ?)
 
I don't wear my glasses in the shower either. This give me a great excuse
for when I reach for the towel that she's wearing to dry off my face.



-- 
+============================================================================++
| John Fereira            "Is that all you ever think about?"                |
| johnf@auspex.com                                                           |
+============================================================================++
From: intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: long hair
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:04:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Jul22.230417.5783
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Jul22.222241.8769@spool.cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>In <1992Jul22.102721.2848@memstvx1.memst.edu> mcsweinberg@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>> For those of you who don't read alt.personals
>>don't ask me who I am.
>
>Some of us who *do* read alt.personals still don't know who you are. :-)

And some of us aren't curious at all.

Angelwing - Not *all* cats are the same.

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Angelwing       |  "And just where do you think you're going     *
* U. of Washington|   dressed like *that*?                         *
*                 |                            -  My Dad           *
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
From: sjo2693@tesla.njit.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: She called, I came, she smiled, I slept
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:20:36 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology

In article <1992Jul20.173849.12055@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, ron@turing.toronto.edu (Ron Wessels) writes:
> mcregor@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Meloney Cregor) writes:
>>I think the highest compliment I got in that respect was when he said,
>>" wow, I almost passed out on that one."
> 
> Sure beats the heck out of "I especially liked it when you moved!"
> 
> -- 
> Ron Wessels		University of Toronto		ron@turing.toronto.edu
Know what you mean about passing out..been there...so was she
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Neccesary and sufficient conditions
Date: 23 Jul 92 07:59:56 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>ok, but the Pressing Question is:

>Is an Orgasm a Neccesary or Sufficient Condition to Sex,

Yes, but is sex a necessary or sufficient condition of orgasm?

>ObPeeve: Once upon a time sex was a Lot simpler, and now
>its become such an intellectually stressing matter.

Once upon a time only men had performance anxiety. Now due to the sexual
revolution and women's rights, women can have it too! Yes, women too can
feel inferior if they don't have dozens of ejaculatory orgasms per night...

>ObSex: not tonight, I have to post.

You can't post while you're having sex? You should learn touch typing.

>ObSingle: Not tonight I have to have sex.

So what's wrong with masturbation? Are you one of those non-mono-gamists?

--
Stef					"One of us has to be a pragmatist."
stef@apple.com				"Nonsense!"
From: lairdpg@lub001.lamar.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Would you Shag a 14 year old ??
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:34:15 +1700
Organization: Lamar University - Beaumont

In article <1992Jul22.110524.8580@cs.hw.ac.uk>, neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes: 
> Ok, a new thread just for Charlie. Probably more for the male audience
> than female I think.

> Given the opportunity if you came across a seriously gorgeously horny
> girl who was very repsonsive and willing to get to bed with you, but
> you knew she was only 14 years old.
> 
> Would you ??
> 
> a/	Without a second thought
> b/	Only if you knew you would not be caught
> c/	?
> 
> Personally probably b), but depends on the circumstances I guess.
>  
> Regards,
> 
> 	Neil

I would have to turn and walk away but kinda kinked over as I would probably
still be rather horny myself (Expletives deleted).
From: rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: female correspondence
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:16:33 GMT
Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA

rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>In <thurlow.711638487@convex.convex.com> thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
>>In <20JUL199201401322@bestsd.sdsu.edu> regan1046@bestsd.sdsu.edu (MARCEL SCHWANTS) writes:
>
>>>  Marcel, the Boy Wonder.
>
>>Boy, in case you're wondering, soc.singles is _not_ alt.personals.
>>Please put personal ads there.
>
>Boy, in case you're wondering, not every site *gets* alt.personals.
>


     Not every site gets a lot of conferences.  Does that mean S.S. should
become a clearing house for everyone who wants to toss out a subject that
would normally be more appropriate elsewhere?

Bob c/o The OTH Gang
rcf@pnet01.cts.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Why are Women *SO* Vain ??
From: mborgerding@desire.wright.edu
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:43:01 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Jul18.073606.20144@cs.hw.ac.uk>, neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:
> 
> Why are women just *SO* vain.
> 
> Lip-stick, mascara: generally loads of make-up.
> Lots of hairspray and gallons of perfume.
> Most women don't need it, and IMHO many look an awful lot better
> without it.
> Neil
	You've obviously never seen my old high school Spanish teacher, Ms.
Livest.. er  Aylestock.
From: swann@acsu.buffalo.edu (Stephen Swann)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: obnoxious sig quotes
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:01:45 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <l7inknINNfhu@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>The really bad news is that I'm out of obnoxious quotes to use in sig files,
>and I'll have to do without all that lovely hate mail that I've been so
>looking forward to.

That was artificial anyway.  You should -earn- your hate mail.

-- 
Steve Swann                 |    Speak to me in many voices; make
swann@acsu.buffalo.edu      |      them all sound like one...  -BOC