HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pierre@cs.UAlberta.CA (Pierre Honeyman)
Subject: Re: blind date
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:27:57 GMT

eda537esys@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au writes:

>on the other hand i may as well go for it like it can do know harm
>and this person is pretty good judge of peoples character and personalitys so
>maybe it will go ok and something could develop...

You've answered your own question!  Go for it.  What's the worst that can
happen?  You won't like each other, big deal.  It's not like you ever have
to see her again.  But if it turns out you do like each other, you have 
gained something and risked very little (a date from hell perhaps, but
if you can't handle that, you need some help :).

	Pierre

>Any suggestions or hints...

>Tim
>eda537esys@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au or (preferably)
>ricochet@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au



Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: HJ46@lafibm.lafayette.edu (Baboo (Holton, Jeffrey))
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: RE: Pre-breakup vibes
Date: 26 Jul 92 17:58:46 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University
Originator: news@lafcol

In article <1992Jul22.190013.4065@julian.uwo.ca> oliva@julian.uwo.ca (Chris Oliva) writes:
>
>
>   Hi everyone, I'd like some input on a little problem I have.
>
>   I was having a great relationship with a girl in Toronto, I live about
>   a 2 hour drive West in London, when all of a sudden things went to hell!
>

[excess verbiage deleted]

If it's okay, can one emotional guy give a nice fraternal hug of
support to another without being accused of strange political
leanings?  *HUG*

Dude, I've been there.  I can't say what to do.  I can say that it
worked out okay for me, but that doesn't mean it works in all cases.
I also can tell you I was a bit of an emotional mess when she was
putting me through that.

Hang in there.  Let her know, honestly and seriously, how you feel, but
respect her individuality.  If it's over. it's over; move on.  If it's
not, more power to you!  =)

The decision is ultimately hers, but that doesn't mean you can't do all
the begging and convincing you're capable of.  ;)

--Jeffrey
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp)
Subject: Re: Pursuit & Honesty (was: Re: LJBF problems)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:51:28 GMT

lana@magenta.corp.sgi.com (Lana Mountford) writes:

: project for a charitable organization.  Now, had someone asked me out
: during this period (about 6 weeks in all), I would have had to say "no,"
: no matter who it was.  But I would also have explained the situation, and

I was going to when you were at Apple, but I was too shy... :(

: if it had been someone I wanted to go out with, I would have said so,
: directly.  I would also have let him know when my schedule might permit
: me to go out.  In other words, I would have given him as much information
: as I could.  Under those circumstances, I might be surprised if he didn't
: call back, but I also might have suggested that *I* call *him*.

"Don't call us, we'll call you..." :)

: Which is precisely why I'll tell a guy right up front that I'm not
: interested in dating him, if that's the case.  In other words, when I
: say "no," you'll know the reason why:  either I'm not interested, or I'm
: too busy.  Not much room for misinterpretation, I hope!  :-)

Glad to hear.  Direct, tactful honesty is always appreciated, at least on
my side of the fence. :)
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG     erc@apple.com                801/269-8125
"This is the final task I will ever give you, and it  goes  on  forever.   Act
happy, feel happy, be happy, without a reason in the world. Then you can love,
and do what you will."           -- Dan Millman, "Way Of The Peaceful Warrior"
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: weaver@jetsun.weitek.COM (Michael Weaver)
Subject: Re: asking out a stranger
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 18:39:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.195406.24809@zooid.guild.org> marcelg@zooid.guild.org (Michel Goudeseune) writes:
>....
>I've been swimming at a local pool on a regular basis for about 2.5
>months now.  There's one lifeguard there who is usually around when
>I'm there, and who I find attractive.  I did OK introducing myself,
>especially considering that there are a bunch of "regulars" there, most
>of whose names I don't know.
>....
(Michel goes on to tell about telling the lifeguard he'd like to
get to know her, and getting told she doesn't date patrons of the
pool).

Sound like you inadvertently got ahead of yourself. If you can
get to know her better at the pool, by all means do. It can only
help your chances of getting her to go out with you. I don't know
exactly what you don't like about all age swims, but if it is just
minor annoyance, I would consider it a trade of doing something
you don't want (all-age) versus something you do (getting to
know her better).

I don't want to sound insensitive, but I will say that usually the
reasons a person gives for not going out with someone are usually not
the 'real' reasons. They are good reasons, but not the deciding ones.
Someone said that there are two reasons for each thing we do -- the
real reason and the one we tell ourselves. Fibs and white lies are easy
to spot, but in this case it sounds like you are getting the reason she
would tell herself, and not the real one. The most important reason may
be that she doesn't know you well enough, which you can work on.

If you can get past her reservations about you, she may decide her
rules about dating patrons aren't as important as doing what she wants
to do. She knows you are interested in her, which is usually a big
plus, but she needs to change her view of you, which will take time.
Of course, if you could figure out a way to run into her regularly
somewhere else...that would be very convenient. But I wouldn't give
up yet.

Good Luck,
Michael.
----
The world is turning
on gliding fireworks,
you and I,
Revolution Earth. (B52s)
From: thomas@mvac23.UUCP (Thomas Lapp)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: confused by physical contact, need advice
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 15:27:38 EDT
Organization: MultiVac23, Newark, DE, U.S.A.

me@my.school.edu wrote:
> She's new grad student in our department. I saw her in the computer lab
> and decided to see her amused face by sending an anonymous mail to her.
> But I forgot to pull out my name, and looked like a fool. She mailed back
> saying why don't you just come up and say hi. That was about a week ago.

> 
> Then we went to movie, holding hands all the time. After that we went back
> to school, and I kissed her--also my first time, after being asked whether
> I was sure. Then we had some intimate contacts during the following hours.
> 
>
 
> be my girlfriend. But I like her, and if we could build an exclusive 
> relationship in the future I wouldn't care about her past behavior. I

Wrong.  Although history of stocks cannot predict future, often people
can be.  If she had a history you don't like, future may well be the
same.

Sounds like the hormones took control here.  Give them a chance to
cool off and see what the brain has to say.  I'll bet it suggests
that this was not a usual thing and you probably aren't more than
just friends (albiet ones who know each other physically pretty well)
                         - tom
--
internet     : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu  or  thomas%mvac23@udel.edu (home)
             : 4398613@mcimail.com (work)
OSI          : C=US/A=MCI/S=LAPP/D=ID=4398613
uucp         : {ucbvax,mcvax,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas
Location     : Newark, DE, USA
From: me@my.school.edu
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Update (was Re: confused by physical contact, need advice)
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:02:44 GMT

First a heartfelt thank you to all who responded.

Things have taken a quite dramatic turn. She's agreed to be my girlfriend
as what it commonly means. I'm very happy about this. Of course there's
chance things won't work out, but I think it's not higher than that of with
anyone else.

I think the reason for this change was the long hours of talk (and other
things). I did find out what she wanted was much closer to what I did than
it appeared (thanks Amy ;). And she was convinced it's worth a try.

Best wishes to all,

Me
Newsgroups: alt.romance,alt.romance.chat
From: code@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu ()
Subject: AIDS
Summary: there was an empty post on new AIDS findings
Organization: base-one, mars
Distribution: world,australia
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 06:10:49 GMT

what I heard on the radio I think, a few days ago is that the retrovirus
(self-mutating) now also exists in a version that does NOT show up in AIDS tests
From: ghosty@terapin.com (Noah Hanna)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: for julie
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:51:43 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <amymw.711385146@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu>, amymw@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu
(Amy Wisotsky) writes:
>Sarek@world.std.com (Garrett Fitzgerald) writes:
>
>>In article <BrFtsC.Lp6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ssalter@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
(
>-=[SLS]=-) writes:
>>>I Do It For You
>>>(Music and Lyrics by Bryan Adams)
>>>(We're two of a heart, baby)
>
>>Oh, so that's what it was... I thought it sounded more like "Listen to
>>your heart, babe"....
>
>I thought so too...
>
>>>Walk the wild for you
>
>>Donna thinks it's "wire"--myself, I could never figure out _what_ the
>>heck he said there. :-)
>
>Personally, I thought it was "walk the _world_"  Anybody have sheet
>music to this?  That would have the definite answer.
>
>                                                       -Amy-
>                                                        :)
>----                                      
>Amy M. Wisotsky -- amymw@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu 
>"Once upon a time, in your wildest dreams...." 
>                               -Moody Blues   
>                                         ----
Hmm, possibly it was "Walk the mile for you"?...

Just my 2 (non)cents...

uh-oh, new sig-file prepare to hit n!...
                                                                              
*=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=*
+          //  \                               ==     +
|          //    \                              |=====//==Mail========|     |
+         // /\  /                     +--------|====/\/===To=========|     +
| //\    // / / /                      |\      /|===//================|     |
+ \\/    \\  \\/ //\                   | \____/ |==//====Ghosty@======|     +
|     //\ \\ /  // /                   |/      \|======Terapin.coM====|     |
+    // / / /  // /  //\               +--------==     +
|    \\ \/ /  // /  //  \                       //            \  \          |
+     \\  /  // /  // /\ \                     //              \  \         +
|      \\/  // /  // / \\ \                   //                \  \        |
+          // /  // /  // /                  //                  \  \       +
|          \\/  // / /\ \/                  //                    \  \      |
+              // / \\ \                    \\                     \  \     +
|              \\ \ // /    "Women, can't live with 'em  ___________________|
+               \\ \/ /         pass the beer-nuts"     / __     .  .      /\
|                \\  /             -Norm petersoon     / /_-host (/\)riter/ /
+                 \\/                                 /__________________/ /+
*=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=\__________________\/=*
Hmm, I gotta fix that...
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: jcr@mbunix.mitre.org (Rogers)
Subject: Discretion: sex-linked?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:07:12 GMT

Ed Carp (erc@unislc.uucp) writes:
> jlewis@astro.as.arizona.edu (Jeff Lewis) writes:
> 
> > I had to start dealing
> > with questions from my friends about my sex life...
> 
> So what?  Tell them it's none of their business.
> "A man never asks, and a gentleman never answers."

This raises an interesting question. I, probably like a lot of the
guys on this group, have always considered discretion a virtue and
have tried to practice it, but have often felt a little old-fashioned
because of it. Yet I can't shake it. Even today, women still have
"reputations" -- it's a lot easier for a woman to be branded a
slut than for a man to be, and I suspect it hurts them more.
But anyway....

I haven't felt old-fashioned about being discreet just because other
men don't seem to be, but because, near as I can tell, most women
don't seem too concerned about it either. It seems that most of the
women I've been intimate with haven't had many compunctions about
talking to their friends about it. This doesn't really bother me,
but initially it surprised me. Well, it did bother me once: a few
days after a fairly wild night with a friend, I went to a party at
her place, only to find her roomate giving me slow appraising looks
throughout the night. Of course, my friend had told her all about our
night together, to a fair level of detail. This kind of bugged me --
what I do in the bedroom I don't necessarily want shared with just
anyone. But then they *were* close friends.

But why *shouldn't* bedroom activities be talked about? Is this concern
with discretion just a vestige of our North American puritan heritage?

And are women really less discreet today than men? If so, is it just
because chastity is so extremely unfashionable these days?

Obviously a guy w/o enough work to do,
                                       -- Jeff R.
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: weaver@jetsun.weitek.COM (Michael Weaver)
Subject: Re: romance = sex ?
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 01:47:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.161218.2597@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> jlewis@astro.as.arizona.edu (Jeff Lewis) writes about a budding romance:
>We talked and saw each other almost every day for a couple of
>weeks...and I only fell more and more in love..
>Thats when things went horribly wrong...I had to start dealing
>with questions from my friends about my sex life...and I had
>to start dealing with it myself...I maintain that romance does
>not imply sex...and it seems most people I know think just
>the opposite...arguments ensued..
>
Don't try to argue with your friends -- it is your life, not 
theirs. People have one set of expectations for their friends
and another for themselves, and even though they may critize
your behavior, it doesn't mean they wouldn't act the same
way in a similar situation.

>I talked to my new would be girlfriend about how I felt..and now
>I am wondering if she thinks I don't find her physically attractive.
>Which is about the furthest thing from the truth as you can get.
>
It sounds like you haven't talked to her about why you aren't 
pressing for sex. Of course, it is probably too early for that,
but you can start hinting about your views on the subject. And
if you thinks she is attractive, TELL HER...most people can tell
when you are sincere, and enjoy flattery when it is sincere.

>I guess what I am getting at is ... why am I getting all this input
>from people about how I should WANT to jump into bed this woman and
>there is probably something fundamentally worng with the relationship
>if I don't...and she will give me the 'Lets just be Friends` if I
>don't make a move toward the bedroom...
>
I think it is the same old tired macho BS. Your friends are daring
you to be more adventurous, even though it is not what you want. Just
like if they were telling you that you are a dolt for not driving
your new car 100MPH, because obviously it was designed to go that 
fast.

There are all sorts of people out there, but I imagine if you took 
a poll, most people would say that they would be willing to wait
on sex if the romance was there. You appearantly don't know what
she thinks about this yet. Also, you need to balance your desire
to keep this woman with your desire to have the sort of relationship
you want.

When your friends ask, I suggest giving them a mysterious half
smile, and changing the subject. A little confidence goes a long
way in convincing others you know better than they do. You know something
they don't -- what you want and how to get it. Also, if your friends
don't have girlfriends, you might subtlely suggest they don't know
what they are talking about -- most guys are insecure about this.


Sounds like things are going great for you...keep up the good work.

Peace,
Michael.
----
Then we know we're alive
If we weren't sure before.
I reach for you by my side and soar...
Revolution Earth. (B52s)

----
From: nev@stl.stc.co.uk (Neil Vince)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: AIDS: What the Government Isn't Telling You
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:14:30 GMT
Organization: STC Technology Ltd., London Road, Harlow, UK.

In article <24935@dog.ee.lbl.gov> Eric T. Jue <etjue@lbl.gov> writes:
Path: stl!bnrgate!corpgate!news.utdallas.edu!wupost!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!nuntius
   From: Eric T. Jue <etjue@lbl.gov>
   Newsgroups: alt.romance
   Date: 27 Jul 1992 18:58:58 GMT
   Organization: LBL
   Lines: 13
   Distribution: world
   NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.243.64.95
   X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1

   I heard an interesting talk show this morning concerning a new book
   titled "What the Government Isn't Telling You About AIDS."  The author of
   the book, Dr. Lorraine Day of UC San Francisco, offered her findings on
   the air and fielded questions from listeners.  According to her, research
   has shown that the AIDS virus is not a fragile virus and that it may
   survive up to 7 days in a dry environment and up to 14 days in a moist
   one.  It follows from this that AIDS may be transmitted through all types
   of bodily fluids and not just through blood.  She mentions other
   interesting findings on AIDS which she says the government is
   intentionally hiding from the public.  Her findings are all based on
   clinincal documentation done around the world.  Her book may be ordered
   by phone at (800) 537-2437.  I hope people who have heard anything about
   Dr. Day or her book will post their thoughts to this newsgroup.



You've got to be carefull what you believe because you can become
paranoid. Believe me, I know.
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: Not enough time for LOVE
From: cwes1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Clare West)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 04:17:49 GMT
Organization: Dept of CompSci, U of Auckland
Keywords: TRUE LOVE :) :) :)

markway1112@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>
>p.s.  How can I become an RFA or an ARC member? :)

ARC: Simple, read alt.romance.chat and post, post, post...
RFA: Post a Romantic FireSide Story to ARC, select a title...

Hope to see you over in ARC soon!

clare

-- 
Oh, why didn't I listen when they said "Never do a   |  cwes1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz 
 masters and try to have a life at the same time"?   |  clare west
                 BigSis to Chris, Eric and Kristiina
                    Official Welcomer of the RFA
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: jcr@mbunix.mitre.org (Rogers)
Subject: Re: Why ? Was:I don't know why I am posting this...
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:25:51 GMT

Clare West (cwes1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz) writes:

>>>>> women have the freedom to ask too, and they should take it.
>>>> But if they do they appear less attractive in the eyes of most men.
>>> Well, I would find it releaving if more females would take the initiative.
>> Hear, hear.
>
> It's nice to see that at least some men fit my gut feeling that there
> are men out there who don't mind women taking the initiative, thank
> you for restoring my faith in human nature (1/2 :-) )

Count me in w/ the latter 2 guys above -- I'm flattered by a woman taking
the initiative. Of course, anyone of either sex can be put off by someone
who's *TOO* pushy or seems desperate.

But net-women, tell me, if you're of the impression that some men *DON'T*
like women taking the initiative, how'd you come to form that impression?

Ciao,
      Jeff R.
Xref: sparky alt.romance:10302 talk.bizarre:23269 misc.test:8927
From: afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,talk.bizarre,misc.test
Subject: Re: oh, puh-leeze...(was: ed is lord)
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:48:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.romance, talk.bizarre, misc.test
Organization: Ancient Souls Inc.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

".... here's a story... 'bout a man named Brady ... who was busy raising 
three boys of his own..."

In article <1992Jul24.090352.29380@walter.cray.com>, nelson@eastrg1.cray.com (Christine Nelson) writes...
>In article <1992Jul23.173339.13125@unislc.uucp>, erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) writes:
>|> nelson@eastrg1.cray.com (Christine Nelson) writes:
>|> 
>|> : oh...okay, i get it now.  it's okay for ed to flame people, and
>|> : call them names, but beware anyone else that does it.  
>|> : 
>|> : i guess this means that ed is alt.r's official net god, and those
>|> : people wishing to express opinions other than those of ed 
>|> : (aka. almighty master of the USENET) should please check with 
>|> : him first.
>|> :
>|> Um ... it's been just about 28 days since Christine's latest rant, right?
>|> 
>|> At least we know Christine's period is regular...or at least her PMS.

Could you *pullleeease* take this to alt.midol ... :-) :-)

> 
>i don't know about all the other women of the world, but i for one
>am sick and tired of men assuming that whenever a woman gets upset, she
>must have PMS.  

It's the *timing*, Chris... the *timing* ... are we to believe it was a 
coincidence ? 

:-)

>men are allowed to act like witless bastards at will,
>because they're MEN, and they're not responsible...

.. and don't you *forget* it, *babe* ! :-)

>it's the testosterone.  

Naw, it's the *shoes* (sorry, Nike)...

>but women?  

"... and the men that love them ... *next* on Geraldo !"

>nope...they're supposed to remain like mrs. brady, or mrs. cleaver, 
>or mrs. cunningham (now aren't they realistic role models?  chee-yah, right).  
> 

You don't have to be brainless to be civil, Christine. ... look at me !

>well, ed, the reality of it is that women DO simply get annoyed at men
>who walk around with their heads up their a**es.  

..*and* people of *any* gender that don't agree with them ... sometimes. 

C'mon, explain *this* one ! :-)

>yes...that's it.  it's not PMS, it's not "being on the rag" (but that's 
>a wonderful phrase which women around the world love), it was just my 
>reaction to your disturbing superiority complex, 

.. nothing complex about it... we're superior. :-)

>and your need to be condescending to every single person who fails to 
>fall to the ground and kiss your ashy feet. 

Well, thank you for the stellar example of how not to be condescending.

> 
>have a USENET day

In other words, Ed...



IT'S NOT REAL !!! IT'S USENET .... DON'T TAKE ANYTHING HERE SERIOUSLY !!!!

Especially *me* ! :-)

G'day 


-- Stephen

	The smallest light offered in total darkness is a blinding
	beacon of hope.
Newsgroups: alt.romance