HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: The Second Move
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 01:04:44 GMT

intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:

>Oh please.  I should be doomed to have only jerks because I am not
>aggressive in the way YOU think I should be?

Because you are not taking charge of the chioces in your life, you
should suffer some random selection of men.

>But Kiran, I don't care.  I don't WANT things to change.  
Fine with me. I'm glad you are satisfied with the way men and women
are today.

>But *of course*!!!  I only date men I WANT to date.  I choose, see?  I
No, you only date men you want to date who have already decided they
want to date you. 

>I make myself available to the types I want and who want me.  Why, in
And who have chosen you. There might be men in the world who would not
ask you out, yet whom you might be happy with. But unless you are
willing to ask them out, you will not date these people.

>heaven's name, would I date men that I didn't choose to date?  
You might be stuck having to choose from among some class of men
who would choose you first. These men might not be your first choices
as partners.

>Hey .... so I'm not saying the plan is fool-proof.  Only that it works.
Sometimes.
-- 
"The truffle is not an outright aphrodisiac, but it may in certain
 circumstances make women more affectionate and men more amiable."
                                                ...Brillat-Savarin

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: The Second Move
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 18:42:18 GMT

GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu writes:

>Angelwing says " a man will notice a woman's signals, that is
>if his head isn't in the clouds ".
>THERE'S the whole DAMN problem, wrapped up neatly. Women ASSUME.  
>Men don't. :) :) :) 

No, the problem is that women like Angelwing ask or expect _men_ to
assume. They are friendly, the man assumes they are showing interest
and asks them out, then they are brutally rejected because they didn't
read the "signals" or the minds correctly. 

>No wonder there's so many problems. 
Yes, there would be fewer problems if women tried to achieve real
communication and not this vague read my signals stuff. Communication
that included words.
-- 
"The truffle is not an outright aphrodisiac, but it may in certain
 circumstances make women more affectionate and men more amiable."
                                                ...Brillat-Savarin

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: liz@gvlf9-j.gvl.unisys.com (Liz Loquacious [Bradley])
Subject: Re: Another gem!  (on changing and being authentic)
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: Unisys Defense Systems, Great Valley Labs, Paoli, Pa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:36:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr09.194550.21021@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Apr9.154734.25684@gvl.unisys.com>  liz@gvlf9-j.gvl.unisys.com (Liz Loquacious [Bradley]) writes:
>>
>> True, I've got that wild side too you know....and that's so much fun!
>
>Really?  You're the one that called off the challenge...  :-)

That just means that you and Referee Joe haven't had first hand
experience that's all!

>
>> Course not, that I charge for. :-)
>
>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
liz@gvl.unisys.com
From: rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Spring Fever or what?
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:16:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: crash.1992Apr15.131630.19388
Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA

intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>
>Don't you *dare* giggle at me you dweeb!  Ever heard of retrospectives? 
>HUH?  Or re-runs?!?!  Sheesh.  Good lord ...a grown man on *purpose*
>typing "*GIGGLE*"  To borrow a phrase ....  It is to hurl.
>
>


     Yeah.  God forbid we should manage to destroy any of your stereotypes
about what a "real man" is.

Bob c/o The OTH Gang
rcf@pnet01.cts.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment. Dan style
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:46:08 GMT

GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu writes:
>       A couple of days later I got back a WARNING OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT.

Ouch. I hope you kept a copy of the note, and it was an innocent request...
(Or is the mere presence of a note just asking for her company enough to
 get a guy in trouble with the Politikally Korrect employers ?)
 
>         2) I'm *only* attracted to psycho-bitches.
>            ( I don't like this one so good. It means Fred is right,
>              and I DO  have to start dating women I don't like :)  )

Since I'm right all the time :-) it must be this one.

Seriously though, whilst I said date women you don't like, what I meant was
start dating women you aren't attracted to; there is a difference.
Of course, you can't get around the fact that you won't become attracted if
they aren't PB's, and you will become attracted if they are PB's, which is
a problem I have. (Next time you are attracted to a woman, sit down with
her and chat with her about things. Eventually she'll talk about her other
current boyfriends, and you'll hear about how she treats them. Then realize
that she will treat you just as meanly, pettily and nastily as she treats
all her other lovers. And then back off. This last step is really hard,
because you'll think you've found the perfect woman... it also confuses 
the hell out of my brand of PB; she used to guys putting up with heaps of
shit to get close to her.)

BTW that there are several brands of PB; here you found an example
of one that's obvious and up front about it. Then there are the more
insideous types ...

Or you could change yourself so you find nice women attractive and PS's
unattractive. This is very hard to do, and most people would rather moan
and bitch and complain incessantly (see a certain Ed W.'s postings)
then even consider changing themselves.

>         3) The percentage of psycho-bitches is pretty damn high nowadays.
>            ( obviously this is *really* bad news :)  )

God, I hope not.

	fred
-- 
Disclaimer: everything I post is my *personal* opinion and does not represent
or reflect the opinion of the company which employs me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. R. (Fred) Walter, Mortice Kern Systems Inc.,	Internet: fredw@mks.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: walter (Walter Lego)
Subject: Re: THE ELEMENTS OF SEDUCTION was(Re: A R C)
Followup-To: soc.singles
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Twisted Pair Inc.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 11:23:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.003843.14059@tigger.jvnc.net> richh@tigger.jvnc.net (RICHH) writes:
>>>"Hey, you with the blinders on!  Let's go out!"  Just being available,
>>>just being around, just smiling at the right time or arranging to be at
>>>the same restaurant at lunch ...a zillion things.  Not necessarily
>>>aggressive, but definitely aware.  Keep your eyes open, boys.
>
>>Yeah, right! Men have been keeping their eyes open for too long and seen
>>just too many gals to be desensitized to anything but a baseball bat on the
>>head. You get only boys that way.
>
>??Huh??

And boys don't understand why that happens either.

>
>
>>It is women who show interest only by "being around, by being available, by
>>smiling....." that have completely destroyed any hopes of meaningful
>>communication. 
>
>Oh please.  It is the women like Angelwing(who know the game, the rules,
>the whole nine yards) and the men like um, well, Richard III(who never
>wanted to be Alan Fucking Alda) who still manage to hook up and enjoy the
>hell out of each other.  "destroyed any hopes of meaningful 
>communication" ??  I don't think you'd know communication if you were
>interrogating her and she uncrossed her legs and offered up a 
>revelation.  

On the contrary, I understand exactly the game Angelwing plays on the net
(rules? what rules?). If she played that game in real life with boys
that thought they were Richard III, their heads would roll faster than
anything a bowling pin has seen. 

I doubt you would notice a woman's existence unless she uncrossed her legs.

>
>>It is not just tough for men. The women who don't want to
>>be romantic partners can't do any of those things without a shitload of
>>crap (redundancy? what is that?) descending on them. Hell, a woman can't
>>even compliment someone's posting on the net without the boy interpreting that
>>as possible romantic interest in him.

>Well, I'd suggest you not lose sleep over *that* happening.
>

And I suggest you wake up once in a while and perhaps you will see that 
happening.

						Walter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I am posting under a pseudonym for personal reasons. There is 
enough info in the headers to determine my posting site and possibly even 
determine my login name which is all the information you get from other
postings except that in this case you KNOW for sure that the name in the
headers is a pseudonym. If you don't like the idea put me in your kill file. 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: Discussion Of Romantic Songs
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:06:52 GMT

In article <12456@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>I forgot one that belongs on the soc.singles.soundtrack.
>
>It's a song called "Sensitive Newage Guys".  I forget who does this but
>the song is hilarious.
>
>-- 
>+=============================================================================+
>| John Fereira                Al Bundy for President          

OK, last night MTV. The band called something like "Old Smoky Joe" or
"Old Country Joe" The song is "Everything about you". Goes something like
- I hate everything about you, I hate your mother, I hate your father.
Some people say I have a bad attitude, but you don't see no frown on this
face. Anybody know the name of this band or heard it? That was a romantic
song.
 

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing)
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:41:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.025018.4511@midway.uchicago.edu> pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.005319.19993@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>
>I nominate Angelwing for the Soc.Singles.Fantasy.Goddess for
>the male contingent.  Why, whenever she posts I can hear men
>for thousands of miles around breaking into a sweat. :-)

Ah!  So *that's* what that noise is!  Thanks Pooh.  I just *couldn't*
figure it out.  The sound of men breaking into a sweat ...how sweet it is.
 Maybe I didn't hear it because that zipper sound is so deafening.

Angelwing - Pass me the ear plugs, darling.

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Angelwing       |"Two things are wanted by a true man, danger and*
* U. of Washington| play - therefore, he seeks woman as the most   *
*                 | dangerous toy."       Friedrich Nietzsche      *
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:57:16 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <dtqjxwj@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
|...there I was, lying naked in a bowl of Jello. Cherry Jello. I was bound 
|hand and foot with duct tape, and a large Black woman named Monique was
|standing over me, beating me with a wire brush, and making me call her
|'Mama'.....

Wow.  I had the same dream last night except the woman was the "Sharp,
we mean business" lady and she was beating me with cellular phone.  Oh,
and it was lime jello.
-- 
+=============================================================================+
| John Fereira                Al Bundy for President          
| johnf@auspex.com         "He's as good as the next guy"                     |
+=============================================================================+
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com (Software Dude)
Subject: Why? Bud Dry?
Organization: WHAT?
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:11:27 GMT

 GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu shouts uncontrollably:
>        You win DAN! WIN WIN WIN.

Say it ain't so!!!! I was hoping that DAVE would win the decathalon.
:-)
--
Puter		puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com		Go UofL Cardinals!
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing)
Subject: Re: THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: world,soc
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:30:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.023346.11951@tigger.jvnc.net> richh@tigger.jvnc.net (RICHH) writes:
>intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>
>>Nice of you to drop in Monica.  *Always* a pleasure to hear from you.
>>I took the liberty of reading your mind and used her for *just* the purpose
>>you had in mind.  And know what?  RICHH was right!  It *is* almost like
>>somebody else!
>
>Yeah, but *who*??

Oh, you need to ask?!?  Why the LiteraryLion of the Net, of course!

Angelwing - Spouting poetry, too.

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Angelwing       |"Two things are wanted by a true man, danger and*
* U. of Washington| play - therefore, he seeks woman as the most   *
*                 | dangerous toy."       Friedrich Nietzsche      *
*------------------------------------------------------------------*


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jtice@fester.UVic.CA (Jason W. Tice)
Subject: Re: sheep
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 20:47:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.180851.10548@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
=In article <8kxjdlp.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
=|In article <1992Apr13.205329.26063@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
=
=|> So if I make an active effort to get Dan's goat I'm being an asshole, but
=|> if the goat leaves for greener pastures on its own, then should we meet,
=|> it's beautiful?
=|>
=|> I guess I feel a bit sheepish...
=|
=|     And well you should; this was a sheep shot if I've ever
=| seen one.
=
=No, I feel sheepish because I'm a LAM.  Guess I pulled the woll over your eyes.
=(Are we playing mutton Jeff now?)
=
	I suppose that your being a LAM is somewhat fleece-itious, then...




-- 
I am not who you seem to think I'm claiming you think I am.
							jtice@nero.uvic.ca
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen)
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Organization: Medieval England, Iowa
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 16:07:18 GMT

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 strongly disagree, rON.  It takes a LOT of trust to tell your
partner, "I trust your judgment and trust you to sleep with anyone
you want.  I also trust you to stay with me."

Besides, how is an "open relationship" different from the stage
where you're just starting to date someone and he's dating one or
two other women at the same time?  Do you insist from the first date
on that your object of desire *never* date anyone else?  At such time
before you decide to become exclusive, isn't that like an open relationship?

The only difference is that an open relationship continues past the
point where you're boinking regularly and expect to continue doing so.
If you trusted your partner the first time you went to bed, why shouldn't
you continue trusting him/her?

Pooh
       pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Sleeping Around While Dating (was Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH)
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:49:41 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <1992Apr14.153450.2069@u.washington.edu> intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>In article <GRUND.92Apr14040356@pyrite.som.cwru.edu> grund@pyrite.SOM.CWRU.edu (Victor Grund) writes:
>>
>>I'd have a hard time maintaining a romantic relationship (physical or
>>otherwise) with a women who I knew was activity bonking some other man
>                                                 ^^^^^^^

>The term you are looking for is *boinking*, Vic.  BOINKING!  Bonking is
>being hit over the head .....and I really can't see what the hang up would
>be if your object of affection was hitting some other guy other the head.

As Cliff might say, "Au contraire, mon frere", or even "ma soeur"! :>
The verb to 'boink' is almost unheard of in Europe, instead, we use
to 'bonk'.
In fact, the only time *I* have heard the word, 'boinking' was during an
episode of 'Moonlighting', where DA was annoying MH by saying, "Listen,
can't you hear it?  Out there, millions of people boinking every day!"
(Or at least something like it, actually, I'd love to get the exact quote,
so if anyone out there in the bizarre world of netland has it, please e-mail.

>>  Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.

>Oh and now you want to talk about *strokes*!?!?  Jeepers!  What a wild man!

>Angelwing - Some in 'n out and a little round and round, please.

The mind reels back with a low, horrified moan at the mental images conjured
by the last sentence!!!!
Or at least, in Freudian terms, the Super-ego does all the reeling-back, 
while the id just stands by and leers and cheers with beers!

--
As usual, JIMHO.
	  Gavin...                  Plus qu'il n'en faut.           
	  willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie                                      
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: comptec91065@camins.camosun.bc.ca
Subject: ex
Organization: Camosun College
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 07:09:47 GMT

I have had the great good fortune of being in a mutually supportive and 
growing relationship for 11 years.
She made a human being out of me and for that I am eternally grateful,
however, I am still as much of a dog as the next man and can't stop
wanting to screw almost everything that moves.

Solution: sublimate and allow flirtations to develop with women who like 
          to flirt but who won't be offended by an abscence of follow-up.

What really keeps me honest is not just that I promised her that I wouldn't
cheat but that I am actually afraid of losing my own self-respect. I haven't 
kept that many promises in 38 years and I'm hoping to keep at least this one.

Having said all that, 
I would like to invite email from women who like to flirt!

	cheers!
	
      -	Allan C.

P.S. I read once that only 8% of women have orgasms while having 
     intercourse with men. I also read that there are no frigid women...
     only clumsy men. { that first statistic seems wildly low to me, comments? }
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: ROMANTIC SONGS
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:19:17 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <1992Apr14.154107.19073@tigger.jvnc.net> richh@tigger.jvnc.net (RICHH) writes:

> 
> 
>I hope you got fat
>'Cause if you got really fat
>You just might want to see me come back
>I don't care how heavy or how skinny
>Just gimme something to love
>A little extra weight
>Would never look no nicer on nobody else but you
>And I could always use a little bit more to hold on to
>And If I get a fright in the middle of the night
>I'll cling to you
> 
>RICHH

If you're with someone and they put on weight, don't look at it as getting
fat, rather as interest on an invesment.  You've got more now than you 
started with!  :>

--
         ______________________________________________________________
	|  A.G. Williams          |        Plus qu'il n'en faut.       |    
	|  willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie  |                                    |
	|_________________________|____________________________________|
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
Subject:      The Second Move
To: soc.singles.usenet
Reply-To: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
Organization: DEC Palo Alto
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 92 10:32:29 MST


       Angelwing says " a man will notice a woman's signals, that is
       if his head isn't in the clouds ".

       THERE'S the whole DAMN problem, wrapped up neatly. Women

       ASSUME.  Men don't. :) :) :)

       No wonder there's so many problems. Y'all babes better start
       questioning your assumptions. I mean, look, apparently
       Angelwing's mad at me.

       *I* sure didn't see any smoke signals from her steaming head. :)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ted5@po.CWRU.Edu (Thomas E. Davidson)
Subject: A Brilliant Idea....
Reply-To: ted5@po.CWRU.Edu (Thomas E. Davidson)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 04:48:21 GMT


	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.
	THAT, my friends, is how to stop being single.


						Tom

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

-- 
"I know I'm going nowhere,			Tom Davidson, CWRU '95
"and anywhere's a better place to be."		IRCnick: Cupid	
		--Harry Chapin			MUSHnick: Nicodemus
Xref: sparky soc.singles:10523 soc.women:8660
From: pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women
Subject: Re: Request : Dating advice from women
Date: 5 Apr 92 23:23:11 GMT
Organization: Medieval England, Iowa

In article <1992Apr4.045739.17088@access.digex.com> deja-q@access.digex.com (Lin Yon Q) writes:
>My dating advice:  don't date feminists.  Everyone knows they're bad
>in bed.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ...

Hon, just because they found YOU inadequate and boring doesn't
mean they're not good in bed; it just means they have GOOD TASTE.

*schwingggg*,
Pooh
      pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles