HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Am I banished?
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:47:25 GMT
	<OLSON.92Dec16235256@husc8.harvard.edu>
	<1992Dec18.153021.6604@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com's message of 18 Dec 92 15:30:21 GMT


In article <1992Dec18.153021.6604@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:

   In article <OLSON.92Dec16235256@husc8.harvard.edu> olson@husc8.harvard.edu (Chip Olson@somewhere.out.there) writes:
   >Well, while we're trading wedding stories, I'll tell you about my friend Guy's
   >wedding.  Guy is an odd sort; he's into SF and the SCA, hang-glides, sky-dives,
   >does technical climbing, and he's terrified of heights. Also a devout Catholic.
   >stroke. I think the reception had already been paid for at that point, though.

   This lovely yet tragic story brings up a regurgitated mammary of my own
					    ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^

YUCK!

I didn't realize that the net had such an ugly effect!



Spidey!!!


--
You don't hunt ducks with a turnip! 

 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                                          jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \                                              Do whatever it takes.
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.men,soc.women,alt.flame
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract )
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:07:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.035615.17969@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.234120.50837@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In <1992Dec18.085047.23945@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
>>>
>>>     I would rather die than fuck you.  I saw you at the party and
>>>although you are physically pretty, I think that, overall, you are an
>>>extraordinarily ugly bitch.
>>[...]
>>>     Maybe you will get suckers to play your sex games.  And maybe
>>>one of those times, you will become pregnant and he will leave
>>>you cold and wet.
>>[...]
>>>     And you lost, bitch.
>>
>>Please report to james dutton for sensitivity training.
>>--
>
>     Just responding in kind after two or three ad hom attack articles by
>her.
>
>     If you can get a lot of other people to report to James Dutton
>for sensitivity training, then I may, too.

Well due to the volume demand for my self improvement course I have an
opening for a sexy young 'female' grad student. Yes the job does entail
late hours.
If it wouldn't be too much problem could we please use james dutton, I'm
kinda sensitive about that.
 
P.S. I'll supply the riding crop.
 
================================================================================
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
                                 doh#0000000005
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Subject: Re: Giving up good girls, looking for "bad" ones
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:32:43 GMT

In article <168CCF836.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.213509.26642@CERIS.Purdue.EDU>
>dheisler@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Dave Heisler) writes:
> 
>>after fairly dismal luck in meeting good women and
>>converting them to SO's, i'm considering chasing
>>"bad" ones.                              ^^^^^^^
> 
>Dave dave dave dave dave! BAD girls don't RUN! If they ran, they'd
>be good girls (if I'm going too fast for you, let me know.... :) )
> 
>Diane
> 
Diane,
I know that you meant this in jest, but I'm gonna' quibble anyway.
You see, I have a problem with this whole good-girl/bad-girl concept.

	If a woman runs _from_ one man, and _to_ another, is she
	good or bad?

	Is a woman _really_ gonna' run from a man whom she sees as
	having SO potential?  (this is assuming no troublesome
	entanglements on the part of either party :-))


Keith R
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:39:51 EST
From: <JET3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Do you have a good pickup line?

In article <Dec30.003237.35917@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>,
cs151kx@lamar.ColoState.EDU () says:
>
>        I would like to make a composite of all the pick up lines that you
>        have heard in your life and how they have come across.
>                LADIES, THIS MEANS YOU TOOO! LETS HEAR 'EM
>
>                WHAT IS THE CRAZIEST LINE YOU HAVE EVER HEARD?
>                DID IT WORK?
>                or ads.

Wow-wee Ba-bee!  Wanna be bad? Or do you want to sit and make love to
bar stool all night? (Well this one got the cold shoulder)
Wanna dance? (They usually ask you this without regard to the tune
being played, and they want you to get up and dance to someone's
request for Gary Puckett and the Union Gap Band, and of course I
have to say "No") But I'll dance to a better tune later.

Jean
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ron@turing.toronto.edu (Ron Wessels)
Subject: Re: Females have it easy!
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:51:05 GMT

gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly) writes:
>It appears that you're waiting for a magazine model to jump out of the
>page and into your arms while you hunt for subtle continuity errors in
>your videotape collection of old Star Treks.

You say that as if it's a bad thing ...

-- 
Ron Wessels		University of Toronto		ron@turing.toronto.edu
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:27:43 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

mine@iowegia.uucp (shelley kitsis) writes:

>blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:

>> if you restrict yourself to a limited selection of dating material, then you
>> have no right to bitch that there is a lack of dating material that meets
>> your dating criterium.

>It seems to me that you are a very insecure individual who always 
>has his "defenses" up! If you bothered to read my posts, really 
>_read_ them without any bias opinions, closed mind or whatever, I 
>believe you would see the ignorance in your response. 

I think you're the one who is out of line here, Shelley. On the net,
you cannot expect everyone to read your posts with the same attention that
you might take to write them. There are just too many posts to read.

The way it looks to me, rON attacked an idea of yours. Granted he used
strong language, but I did not see him attacking you as a person.

You, on the other hand, in addition to pointing out that he misunderstood 
you (which is fine), attacked him personally, making a lot of unwarranted 
guesses about what kind of person he is. 

Personally I prefer it when people disagree about ideas and avoid turning 
discussions into name-calling matches. 

>really should possibly consider getting some help of some 
>kind....to me, you seem to have a lot of pent up anger, and I just 
>happened to be at the right place/time to vent your steam!
>Really, _grow up_, if that's possible!! I _almost_ feel sorry for 
>you, Mr. "r!" Are you really happy inside that safe, little, not
>to mention, lonesome cocoon" that you've created for yourself?!

The biggest problem with making a personal attack on the net is that it often
seems to describe the person who is writing it more than the person to whom it
is directed.

--
Stef            I didn't understand this at first, but YOUR CONVINCING 
stef@apple.com  USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS HAS MADE IT ALL CLEAR TO ME. - J. Nairn
Newsgroups: soc.singles,talk.bizarre
From: jcarroll@ferris.cray.com (Jeff Carroll)
Subject: Re: More Answers to Dating Questions
Originator: jcarroll@ferris
Organization: Beautiful Bellevue Association
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:32:14 CST


In article <1hlrrkINNhc0@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey) writes:
> In article <1992Dec28.022139.18171@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> >1. IF the person you are planning to date is NOT
> >cleared to the level of your current and potential
> >clearance level, then there exists a CLEAR possibility
> >that you may be engaging in a Breach of National Security,
> >as it is possible that you may utter something which is not
> >for dissemination at their level of clearance.
> 
> This is true enough, but clearance is not enough.  What if the person whom
> you are planning to date doesn't have need to know?

well, rather than deal with that eventuality, it might be quicker and easier
for you to shoot yourself now.

Although I'm sure you can come up with some far more creative method.

jkc (who often lacks "want to know")
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: Females have it easy!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:39:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.205242.27619@cbnews.cb.att.com> eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (Piglet) writes:
>In article <lj3ugnINNi6u@news.bbn.com> dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>>....  But cheer up -- on the whole, we're every
>>bit as miserable as you are.
>
>Except for me.
>
>
>
>Piglet--oh, yeah, and Jimmy...
 
Well thats not really fair because we belong in alt.romance

 
================================================================================
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
                                 doh#0000000005
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: mel@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Meloney D Cregor)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Attraction -> Acquiantance or vice versa?
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:53:20 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Dec22.183315.30901@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOSEPH ALOYSIUS MCVEIGH) writes:
>mel@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Meloney D Cregor) writes:
>
>>The REAL test is can they write their name in the snow?
>>The beauty of the test is that it shows not only manhood, but
>>literacy and dexterity, as well.
>
>And if he has to stand on something to clear the snow level, then you've
>really got a prize.

Wouldn't I, indeed.   All that lovely snow!
And just in time for Christmas.....

--
 Stuffed deer heads on walls are bad enough, but it's worse when they
are wearing dark glasses and have streamers and ornaments in their
antlers because then you know they were enjoying themsleves at a party 
when they were shot.                   --  Ellen DeGeneris
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Subject: Re: Women, Cats, & Chocolate
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:23:10 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In article <75890@apple.apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>>aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>>>Look, you dumb broad, this is soc.singles, the biggest flamefest outside
>>>of r.a.s not devoted strictly to flaming.  If you don't want to get with
>>>the program, then stay the fuck out of here.
>
>>I'm really startin to like Aahz since he's come out of his shell.
>
>Let a guy borrow your Uzi for five minutes, and look what happens...

Five minutes? That's not what it sez in his sig ;-)

paul

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: dmartin@pico.engr.mun.ca (Dan Martin)
Subject: Re: How Strong Should a Man Be?
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 22:11:49 GMT

stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:

>aep@world.std.com (Andrew E Page) writes:

>>Strong enough to keep two hearts from breaking.

>Strong enough to tie me at arm-wrestling.

Strong enough for vertical sex positions. 
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.men,soc.women,alt.flame
From: daniel@clsi.COM (Daniel S. Barclay)
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract )
Organization: CAD Language Systems Inc.
	<1992Dec20.140247.22947@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
	<1992Dec21.235942.13722@cfctech.cfc.com>
	<1992Dec21.223408.1@fnala.fnal.gov>
Date: 23 Dec 92 13:50:46

> > That may be their _intent_, but I suspect that the current laws are 
> > encouraging the production of illegitimate children
> > 		  ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> *PRODUCTION* of children?!?!? Such a lovable word! Have you been producted, 
> kevin? No wonder that you have the same name of Kevin Walsh...
> 
> I don't use to read a lot what you post, but if you call the creation of a 
> new life "production", you have problems. Big problems.

Maybe _you_ have a problem--with English.  Haven't you ever heard of a marriage
(or relationship, affair, sex act, or artificial insemination, etc.) 
_producing_ children?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel S. Barclay                    --who's still searching for a good 
CAD Language Systems, Inc.           signature, not liking any of his recent
Suite 101, 5457 Twin Knolls Rd.      feeble attempts to improve on the whiny:
Columbia, MD  21045  USA             Why can't _I_ think of a good signature?

Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance
From: liz@vfl.paramax.com (Liz Loquacious)
Subject: Re: Why there might be a need for a (Pre-Sex Contract)
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: Paramax Systems
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:10:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.212948.27768@netcom.com>, tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker) writes:
|> 
|> The girl's monthly expenses were found to be in the neighborhood of $9,000 per
|> month. Meaning that this girl *spends* what most of us average joes *earn* a
|> month. And yes, that's what she's accustomed to, and all that, and that's 
|> *dandy*, but it has always been my understanding that child-support was to
|> attend to a child's *needs* (in textbooks only these days, possibly, but that
|> was always *my* understanding) What child *needs* a Porsche, or for that matter,
|> needs a free and clear income of $180,000 a year? Merciful heavens....

About needs...no I don't think divorce is supposed to cause a child to drop
down from luxury lifestyle to subsistence level when the parents both can
obviously afford to give her the lavish life regardless of how nauseating
it may be.

Liz Loquacious

Have a nice holiday!  

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jennings@tran.fishkill.ibm.com ()
Subject: Re: Females have it easy!
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 13:55:25 GMT
Reply-To: jennings@tran.fishkill.ibm.com ()
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Dec23.224040.26847@microsoft.com>, jenk@microsoft.com
(Jen Kilmer) writes:
> In article <1992Dec18.151557.24143@rchland.ibm.com>
bill@tran.fishkill.ibm.com () writes:
> >In article <1grgmiINNq52@agate.berkeley.edu>,
> >monaghn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Mara Monaghan) writes:
> >> Your generalizations are inaccurate for
> >> the "average woman.  This is, of course,
> >> my humble opinion and is based on my own 
> >> past experience and that of my friends.
> >> (re: weekly offers) 
> >
> >Time out, here. Mara, your observations are based on your experiences,
> >as Steve's are on his. Maybe the dating situation (and general social
> >protocal ?) are vastly different where each of you live. Where I live
> >here, most of my female friends are approached at LEAST once or twice a
> >week. A friend of mine lives in Wisconsin, and she hasen't been asked
> >out or apporached in months. Don't bash the guy until you understand his
> >local dating climate.
> 
> WHAT???  Where the hell do you LIVE???

the scenic and historic mid-hudson valley, where girl/guy ratios are WAY
far from even. a good woman (uh, oh, i can feel the flames tickling my
fanny now, what the hell is a 'good woman'???) can do VERY well here...

> Females approached at LEAST
> once or twice a week????
> 
> Of course, daily environment (which for me is mostly work) counts
> too. I was "approached" by 4 ex-coworkers the month after I got my
> new job ... but that still only puts me at about 7 approaches for
> the year.  
> 
> I've also been the "approacher" 4 times.
> 
> >> (BTW, what do you mean by "approaching",
> >> "luck out", and "offers"? Just curious)
> 
> I'm using "introduce & ask for my phone number" (people I don't know)
> and "asking out" (people I already know) in counting "approaches" -
> each approacher counts once.
> 
> -jen
>  (microsoft corp, redmond, washington (state), usa)

bill the cat....(here all week)                           wrj@vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine)
Subject: Re: SF ISO S*M
Organization: Don't blame me, I voted for Bill 'n' Opus
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:58:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.221422.194@cbnews.cb.att.com> eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (Piglet) writes:
>
>No, no, no.  _Everyone_ knows you can't have a clue and a life at the
>same time.  Where's Aahz when we need him?

Excuse me?  I don't *think* I look like Laura.....
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

Virtual anniversary: 10 days and counting
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.abortion.inequity
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Maternity/paternity insurance
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 03:45:34 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1i50iqINNjvu@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>Hey, that's what we need: paternity/maternity insurance!  Then we wouldn't 
>>have to argue about forcing abortion, or withholding child support from 
>>children, or insulting with contracts.  Why hasn't someone thought of this yet?
>
>This is rich!  Would we require all men to carry such insurance?

How about all women?  I think that's at least as an appropriate requirement.

>Seriously though.  Driving is a priviledge that is granted (and can be
>revoked) by the state.  Fertility is not.  
>What about reproductive freedom?

Yes, Michal, what about it?

I know your definition (from your postings on the net) only applies
reproductive freedom after the zipper falls to women, but some of us
disagree and believe it should be applied to both sexes.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Females have it easy!
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 21:20:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.193834.20166@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> cjp8b@dayhoff.med.Virginia.EDU (Chris Penington) writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.180737.10994@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>
>>Trygve   (Drat!  So far nobody's mentioned a fetish for really large
>>          Nordic weightlifter types with oral fixations.)
>
>Oh, sorry! I just love big blond nordic weightlifter types with oral
>fixations.....as long as they're female.

Aha!  That explains my problem--I just have characteristics that are
desirable in females instead of males.  Oh, well; I think it's too 
late now.

Trygve   (Actually, I know someone who used to have a friend who sorta
          met that description--though I think she was only 6'2" or 6'3".
          As I understand it, she eventually gave up on the idea of sex
          with just one man at a time, because everybody she tried wore
          out too soon, and settled on around four as the optimum number.)

--
ForkBreeding Made Simple, by Evangeline Underwood.  Ever wonder where the
fabulous diversity of forks came from?  In her simultaneously informative
and entertaining book, Underwood explains the history of all major fork breeds
and how to go about breeding them.  Whether you're a professional fork
breeder or would just like to know more about the forks you've got around
your house, this is the book for you.           Pub. at $18.95 / only $4.99

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (Piglet)
Subject: Re: Females have it easy!
Organization: I have none, silly....
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:52:42 GMT

In article <lj3ugnINNi6u@news.bbn.com> dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>....  But cheer up -- on the whole, we're every
>bit as miserable as you are.

Except for me.



Piglet--oh, yeah, and Jimmy...
From: gbelli@opal.tufts.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: My SO and I have nothing in common
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:09:51 GMT
Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA

In article <1992Dec18.054531.19444@src4src.linet.org>, ckunz@src4src.linet.org (Charles Kunz) writes:
> Recently, I discovered that my girlfriend and I have nothing in common, I still
> can't figure out what in heaven's name we see in each other.  Has anyone
> been in or know of someone in a similar situation?  I'm not quite sure what to
> do about it, at this point.  Any useful info would help right now.  Thanks
> in advance.
> 
> Chuck
> -- 
> E-mail: ckunz@src4src.linet.org, aq084@cleveland.freenet.edu
> It's amazing what you can do with a Commodore 64, isn't it?
> Man cannot live by bread alone... once in a while he needs a bagel.
> "I love you.  Do you love me?  Please please!  (I wanna hold you)" - Dan Baird

Chuck,
     Don't take this as the kiss of death or anything, but having nothing
in common was one of the reasons that my ex and I divorced.  We made the 
mistake of marrying before we realized that we were completely uncompatable.
I'm not saying that you should dump your girlfriend--just don't do anything
irrevocable if you have any doubts about the relationship.  
gret
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: helie@bach.udel.edu (Ray Helie)
Subject: Re: We /all/ have it easier than we think
Keywords: Life, Dating
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:32:55 GMT

In article <BzrpKy.FKw@cs.dal.ca> earhard@ug.cs.dal.ca (Mark Earhard) writes:
 
" ... most of your ideas come from an ideal situation
  where people live full and happy lives without relationships.  I think
  this is possible, but not on a grand scale.  ... "
  
Does it need to be on a grand scale (even though it /would/ be nice)?  
I mean, if you or I were able to live a full and happy life (with or
without a woman in our lives), then we wouldn't feel very bothered 
by other people's "bad habbits"(?).  It would be nice if other people 
lived that way as well, but as long as /you/ are, then /your/ situation 
improves, along with anyone who comes in contact with you.  

Creating positive energy in the world is a /great/ feeling -- it's
too easy to be negative.  Not that I'm telling you anything you 
don't already know.  8-)  Glad you responded, Mark.  8-)


Ray  

*  Ray Helie         8-)                   University Of Delaware   *
*  [helie@bach.udel.edu]                   Newark, DE               *
Newsgroups: soc.singles