From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (dreas)
Subject: Re: SM ISO MAIL
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 02:16:05 GMT

In article 16585@auspex-gw.auspex.com, johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:

>First of all, I don't condone posting personal ads in soc.singles.  That
>said:

I believe I found an erogenous zone.

>In article <1993Jan22.040131.21412@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA writes:
>>In article 10561@ringer.cs.utsa.edu, sgokhale@lonestar.utsa.edu (Shashank S. Gokhale) writes:
>|
>|>hey you yes you. why do you make fun of people like this?
>|
>|I will attempt to answer your question because you are the only one in
>|history to reply to one of these very volatile flames. Man, do you have
>|guts! 
>
>Volitile flames?  Hardly. I'll elaborate in a minute. 

I love being loved.

>|Essentially, soc.singles is a discussion group where regulars go around
>|exchanging ideas about any topic that comes to mind. I would have blasted you
>|no matter what you wrote because what you wrote was a PERSONAL AD!!!!
>|
>|I am giving you a clue: soc.singles regulars like myself get extremely
>|PISSED OFF when they see personal ads.
>
>I'm not sure that you should be speaking for soc.singles regulars when you
>make the claim that they get extremely PISSED OFF by the mere appearance  

Golden showers? I didn't know you had that among your kinks.
I thank you for sharing that with me.
  
>First of all,  with the emergence of the anonymous posting service personal
>ads are finding their way onto soc.singles with great frequency.  As a
>result, a neophyte reader is going to see them and might figure that they
>are acceptable here. Your initial "flame" did little to discourage any
>future personal ads.  In fact, it served no purpose whatsoever.  To another
>new reader of the group it merely looks like some asshole making fun of

Doggie style? That's lots of fun, John!

>Second, the personal ad was basically pretty innocous.  He sounded sincere,
>didn't do a lot of chest pounding,  and it certainly didn't warrent the
>kind of abuse that you felt was necessary.  You might notice the also
>posted to the alt.personals groups and soc.penpals.  The mere inclusion of
>soc.singles in the newsgroups line is hardly a cause for great alarm.  Your
>response looked more like an ego boost to show that I know more about the
>net than you do.

Oh lord! It's hard to be humble!!!!

>| If you go into a pub and scream out
>|"HEY! ALL YOU GIRLS OVER THERE! I'M LOOKING FOR WOMEN! I WANT TO TALK TO YOU!!!"
>|What do you think their reaction would be?
> 
>I've used a similar arguement (except that it involved a cocktail party and
>a walking billboard) in an attempt to convince someone that personal ads
>were not an effective way to meet someone in this forum.  How you expected
>Shashank to derive this message from your original flame, I don't know.
>Again, the flame had no socially.singles redeaming value.

Well, I wasn't exactly trying to be sociable. Wanna dance?
   
>So you translated his posting using a impersonation of the grammer and
>accent of an Indian person that was just learning the English language.  
>That didn't make him look stupid.  It just made you look insensitive to
>a persons feeling and culture.

Whatever you say, Darling.
 
dreas (blows a kiss)