HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Bathsheba.Grossman@launchpad.unc.edu (Bathsheba Grossman)
Subject: Re: girl/lady/female boy/guy/male
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:27:50 GMT

>In article <1992Nov10.184253.20942@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith) writes:
>   In article <1992Nov10.060932.28448@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Bathsheba.Grossman@launchpad.unc.edu (Bathsheba Grossman) writes:
>   |> In this vein, let it be known that any person who refers to me as a
>   |> "sculptress" will receive a swift boot to the head.  This is a term whose
>   |> excess specifity is not valuable in any context.  IMO.
>
>Well...there is one. Say, for the sake of argument, I were dating a
>sculptperson. And say that I mentioned to my friends that I were dating
>a sculpter. It just doesn't sound quite as...non-controversial...as 
>scultptress!

It's gone down the bit bucket now, but I did say that some people would
find the despecification of formerly masculine nouns disconcerting, and
this is exactly the sort of annoyance I was referring to.  I'd rather see
you try a few brain-flexibility katas than see the language butchered. 
This isn't the world's biggest problem, it doesn't even make my
personal top 50, but it's out there, and you're not part of the
solution.

(Note that this guy can't spell and has to be reformatted out of the
80-column club too.  Phew, I don't date nitwits anyway.)

-Sheba
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: girl/lady/female boy/guy/male
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:29:16 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

todd@chester.cms.udel.edu (Todd Sanders) writes:

>This summer I dated a very nice person. ...
>To her, a most degrading statement was to reply to her as a girl,  She was 
>a woman.  She was offended when the 
>term   MANkind was used, PERSON kind was more appropiate.

>I have been talking with a collegue, whom is female, and find that when 
>ever I use gender-neutral terms, she tries to comfort me and explain that 
>she does not need for me to maintain my neutrality when we talk.  ...
>The only difference between the two women I discuss is that the 
>second person is in my opinion, much more confident in her self, as a person.

Sounds like your colleague may be older than your date, or from a different
part of the country, or differently educated. All those things can affect
how one views gender-neutral terminology. 

I like gender-neutral terminology, because I consider it an interesting game 
to try to write that way. (Like all games, it can get ridiculous, like when
you substitute hubeingkind for humankind.) 

I don't usually correct people when they speak or write to me, but I do
notice the language that they use. I'm not usually offended when they use
gender-specific terminology, unless they use it as bait.  Like when
a guy is complaining about women and he uses 'girl' or 'chick' on purpose
to try to bait the women present. Or college professors who trumpet 'MEN' 
and 'MANkind' and then look around daring someone to complain so they can rant 
about how feminism has destroyed the english language. (As a former editor
at a university press, I ran into a few of those.)

As for whether to use it or not, my advice would be to default to the more 
common gender neutral terms, like Ms., he or she, humankind instead of 
mankind, woman instead of girl, man instead of boy. If someone then 
indicates that they want something different, try to use the terms they 
want when you talk to them. 

--
Stef                 In the force if Yoda's so strong, construct a 
stef@apple.com       sentence with words in the proper order then 
                     why can't he?                         /fortune
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Matt Valentine
Subject: Re: Hints (Was Re: What is attractive)
Reply-To: valentin@next3.corp.mot.com
Organization: MOTOROLA 
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:20:21 GMT

The response to the 'hints' thread has been great.  I summarized the  
various opinions I have been gathering:

GUYS:

- You'll never understand women.  You'll never get all the hints. (learned  
helplessness)

- If you  _really_  care and you  _really_  want to keep her:  many hints   
_will_  become obvious, you will always actively look for clues and act on  
them ahead of time to make up for the inevitable times that you will need  
to be slapped upside the head.  If it is a good relationship, she will  
understand and assert herself.

- If you  _really_  care and you have been getting some hints, but not all  
of them and she is not understanding enough to forgive you, you might  
wonder if  _she_  is expecting too much and setting you up for failure.   
Is it worth the effort?  You might turn into a Nice Guy (tm) trying to  
please her, then she really wont want you!

- If she says you don't treat her as special and important, ask yourself   
_honestly_  if you have been trying hard enough or if you really want to  
try any harder.  Perhaps you don't really care.  Perhaps she is too  
demanding.  Perhaps someone else would be better.  If it happens over and  
over, perhaps you need to learn something.


GALS:

- A guy should go a few extra yards to  _show_  how he feels occasionally  
(ie  _unexpected_  gifts and cards).  He should spend time with her  
because he wants to;  even if it is inconvenient, even if he won't get  
laid that day. Eventually (after the romance stage) the real feelings  
should be more important than sex.  If he doesn't do these things, no  
matter what he  _says_ , he probably doesn't care enough.

- No guy is perfect, assert yourself when he is clueless to get what you  
want.  Don't just give him an option and set him up to fail.  If it falls  
apart, it wont be because you didnt try.


BOTH:

Dont spend so much time analyzing relationships.  Go have some good ones  
and bad ones, get your feelings messed up, learn from your mistakes and  
have fun!

Matt Valentine
valentin@next3.corp.mot.com
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: WHAT DO AMERICAN MEN THINK ABOUT AMERI
Date: 7 Nov 92 05:05:11 GMT
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk's message of 5 Nov 92 14:10:19 GMT

In article <720972616.23481@minster.york.ac.uk> aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:

   Larry Billings (larry@b8.b8.ingr.com) wrote:
   : People living in the country are more likely to be friendly to people 
   : they do not know.  

     There speaks the wisdom of a man who has never been to North Wales

Funny ... there I was, lost in the middle of a herd of cattle in the
middle of a field in the middle of North Wales (just outside Ruthin.)
The lady driving the cattle comes up to the window of the car, and
starts talking to my (now ex-)wife and me.  Twenty minutes later we're
practically promising to name our children after one another.

I'd have to say this doesn't match my experience.  Maybe it's the
accent?  I've noticed English people talk funny.
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Xref: sparky soc.singles:30509 ba.singles:2153
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Newsgroups: soc.singles,ba.singles
Subject: On becoming a ProblemYounger<gender>
Date: 13 Nov 92 03:42:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher

larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings) writes:
] 
] Diana,
] 
] Just how young do you have to be in order to be consedered a PYM???

Anywhere from 20 seconds to 20,000 years younger than
the ProblemOlder<gender> of your choice!

Diana
From: dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Teasing and other Games of Romance
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:40:24 GMT
Reply-To: dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <DANIEL.92Nov9164353@algol.clsi.COM> daniel@clsi.COM (Daniel Barclay) writes:
>> it off, but to be blunt, that's why the Goddess gave us hands and an
>I missed my mythology clue.  Who's the "Goddess"?  (From this and previous
>articles.)

Not really a mythology clue.  Just "the Goddess", like you say "God" and
only smartasses and me (redundant, I know) say which one?

Some recent threads have been crossposted from alt.pagan, which is why
some previous articles mentioned the goddess.  As for which goddess I'm 
talking about, which ones do you like?  I'm not picky.

Dawn
"Hello death, goodbye Avenue A.  I'm getting tired of waiting, tired of
being afraid.  Joseph Campbell gave me hope and now I have been saved.
So I sing hello death, goodbye Avenue A."  "Folk Song" by Bongwater.
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: PRES DEBATE
Date: 13 Nov 92 06:11:16 GMT
	<##cqfzk@lynx.unm.edu> <MARTINC.92Nov11181606@hatteras.cs.unc.edu>
	<92316.220655SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA's message of 12 Nov 92 02:06:55 GMT

In article <92316.220655SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Graydon) writes:

   Charlie, how is industrial waste in the atmosphere possibly a good thing?

You mean like CO2?  Well, pardon me for breathing.

   How long do you expect that your descendants will want a habitable
   planet?

Send out for a logic text, eh?  I'm disputing whether current knowledge
suggests that CO2 emissions are actually changing the climate
measurably.  

   (non-poluting industry is more valuable than the polluting kind -
   surely someone can make money producing the re-tooling stuff?)

But can the retooling be done without causing more CO2 emissions?  In
fact, given (for argument's sake) that the climate is *not* being
changed by current levels of CO2 proiduction, and also given that most
ways of generating power lead to CO2 production, isn't there a risk that
trying to build down CO2 will lead to more CO2 production?

Without being too silly about it, *IF* there is a real problem, I agree
we should worry about it.  But I think it makes a lot more sense to
spend money at first on finding out if there is a problem, or if it's
just the decade's Club of Rome farce.
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: What do you Am men think about Am wome
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:49:55 GMT

In article <5674@jptcs.COM> tps@jptcs.com writes:
>Julie Wright (julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu) wrote:
>: 
>: >Yes, but have you found it???
>: 
>: I'm getting very close, but I still haven't been beaten at Scrabble by someone
>: I've loved (romantically).  We all have our little fantasies...
>
>Hmmm... I've been beaten WITH Scrabble by someone I've loved. Does that
>count at all? :)
>
>: 
>: *sigh dreamily*
>
><stroking her hair> There, there... someday.....
>
>-- 
>Tim Sailer

    1.7
 
================================================================================
 Ipsissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes - I set'r free.Nyuk
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: xanadu@t-bone.cs.unlv.edu (Thomas Wilson)
Subject: What is attractive to women?
Organization: UNLV
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 22:06:47 GMT

Okay, I've heard enough about what men find attractive in women 
(although I found Bob's Cleveland reference interesting).  Now let's 
hear the other side's point of view.  Now, (women only), same question:  
What do you find attractive in MOTMS when:

1. You first meet them?


2. Once you've known them awhile?


3. Before you meet them, when you first lay eyes on them?
From: dreier@lhasa.berkeley.edu (Roland Dreier)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: That wacky electoral college
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:26:24
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
	<1992Nov4.075427.26557@sol.UVic.CA> <96094@netnews.upenn.edu>
	<1992Nov5.174602.21218@b8.b8.ingr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lhasa.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com's message of Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:46:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.174602.21218@b8.b8.ingr.com> larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings) writes:
   In article <96094@netnews.upenn.edu>, crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
   > 
   > OK, this bugs me in every presidential election.  Why do we still have the
   > electoral college?  


   I think it has to do with the fact that you need to hit congressional lawmakers
   with a stick to get their attention.  Doing away with it has been proposed
   for as long as I can remember (of course that is last week, my mind sorta
   self destructed when Clinton won :( ) 
   I think that should be a NON-partician (sp?) goal for the next 2 to 4 years
   along with the following.

   1. Do away with the electoral college!

Sadly, there's this thing called Arrow's Theorem.  It states that if
you ever have more than two candidates for an election, there is no
"fair" (where "fair" is defined in a precise mathematical way that
essentailly embodies the properties you would want a voting system to
have) way of putting everyone's preferences together to pick a winner.
So no matter what you replace the electoral college with, your new
system will also have problems.

   2. Set term limits!  

All this does is make legislators not accountable to the voters in
their final term.
--
Roland Dreier                                        dreier@math.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: KILLING a Poster rather than a Post
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:52:39 GMT

{very funny post deleted - all hail Bandwith!}

Rob - that is a CLASSIC.

When are you going to write a management policy
debugger?

Diana
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Teasing and other Games of Romance
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:59:45 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine

In article <1992Nov5.234058.19042@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> allisson@turing.toronto.edu (H. Allisson Roome) writes:
>
>Well, I stuck my $0.02 in, I told her to be a tease.  Even more
>specifically, I told her to be a cock-tease (give a nickel, then
>promise a dollar and deliver ten cents)....
>
>I know it sounds cold and calculated but I could think of no
>other alternate advice.  Besides, it seems to be working for her

I'm confused.  You feel guilty for teaching her to be cold, calculating,
manipulative and dishonest?  Why?  It's just old-fashioned sexist
hypocrisy, that's all.  Nothing serious.

If it helps you to feel better, the guy in question probably has a
buddy behind the scenes teaching him to be aloof, arrogant and
bullying.

		-ed falk, sun microsystems
		 sun!falk, falk@sun.com
To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags 
-- that is a loyalty of unreason, it is pure animal (Mark Twain).
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein)
Subject: Re: Presidential Poll- Some comments from you.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:21:30 GMT

In article <MARTINC.92Nov7202559@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.171005.19762@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein) writes:
>
>   In article <MARTINC.92Nov6104855@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>   >   In article <1992Nov3.160329.2383@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein) writes:
>   >
>   >   Again, Quite unfortunate, but studies show that "negative"
>   >   campaigning is the single MOST effective plan.  The study I read said
>   >   they based the findings on time investment, cost, and surveys taken.

>   >		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
>
>
>   If that be the case, I don't understand why people find the bickering
>   so stimulating.  
>
>I think I'm having an extremity pulled here.

Not by me.  I wouldn't think of doing such a thing.
(But, which extremity were you referring to, exactly?)

>   Let's stick to the issues.  Just the facts.  (I'm sure YOU agree)
>
>I'm pretty *sure* I'm having an extremity pulled here.

(Now, which extremity was that?)

>   ps
>   Coming to the boink?  
>
>Not unless I rear back, pass a miracle, and have a dissertation draft
>done by then.

Does that mean "no"?  

>   Before Allisson and I went to sleep the other
>   night, I did get her to agree to be in the cage with us. ;-)
>
>Won't work.  I never go anywhere unarmed.

(Does this have anything to do with that "extremity" you were talking
about?)
I would agree to leave my weapon at the front door.

>		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu

				StEvE
From: pickerig@eee.bham.ac.uk (Mr. G. Pickering)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is attractive to women?
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:58:10 GMT
Organization: The University of Birmingham, England
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Sandra Loosemore (loosemore-sandra@cs.yale.edu) wrote:
: xanadu@t-bone.cs.unlv.edu (Thomas Wilson) writes:
: 
: Hanging out in bookstores or libraries is a good sign!  :-)  I also
: tend to look for absence of bad signs such as wedding rings,
: cigarettes, alcohol, slobby appearance.  It's not 100% infallible, but
: I also consider wearing a suit and/or tie to be a bad sign (conformity).
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh so that's why I am single then. Now I see the light. I will throw
out my wardrobe, and keep you informed....

Guy.

--
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Guy Pickering                  | School of Electronic & Electrical Eng,  |
| E-MAIL: G.PICKERING@uk.ac.bham | University of Birmingham,               |
| Tel: (021) 414 4340            | Edgbaston, Birmingham. B15 2TT.         |
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| "I have ten pairs of trainers...One for each day of the week" - Sam Fox  |
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Dating women with children....
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:04:15 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <lfgan9INNhub@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings) writes:
>>But, THE question
>>had to be asked, whether I thought WE would be better off with or without
>>the child.  After attempting all routes I could think of to avoid the 
>>question, I had to answer and answer truthfully.  My answer consisted of
>>You know I love the baby very much, but the first year or two together is
>>always the hardest, because the people have to get to know each other, and
>>having a child can only complicate things.
>That said, I don't think honesty was the problem here.  You were absolutely
>correct to be honest here, because think of the problems you'd have had
>if you lied about something as important as that, and went into a permanent
>relationship with ambiguous feelings about acting as a stepfather without
>having had time alone with the mother first.  It would have really sucked
>for all three of you.  But you can't blame this on being truthful.  

What sucks is when you do fall in love with both the mother and child. You
certainly can't ignore the child- no matter what you may want to think, a
child is indeed an extension of the parent. This isn't a bad thing if you're
planning on a long term relationship, but relationships certainly don't 
always end up being long term, for one reason or another. Its hard enough
breaking up with one person, but two at once is really hard. 
Not only that, dating is much more difficult- I didn't mind taking her >and<
the kids out for a picnic or something, but I wasn't dating her kids- and I
wanted some time that I could spend alone with her- no kids, and that was
hard to arrange, at best. The chance to 'get intimate' was hard, especially
when there was always the chance that one of the kids might come wandering
in, not being able to get to sleep. (that happened once...). But still, when
that little girl (she was about 5) looked up at me as I was helping her mom
put her to bed, with those big blue eyes and said 'Ron, can I be your little
girl, too?'.
Just rip my heart outta my chest and jump up and down on it a few times.
Of course it didn't help my mood any that her mother and I broke up a couple
of weeks later...
r.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: shankha@clsi.COM (Shankha Mitra)
Subject: Re: Education and the Single World
Originator: shankha@clsi
Organization: CAD Language Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 15:20:16 GMT


In article <1992Nov10.212218.3329@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> allisson@turing.toronto.edu (H. Allisson Roome) writes:
>I have a question for you all -- how important is formal education
>versus native intelligence and self-education in those that you are
>romantically interested in?

Forget about education; does s/he have MONEY?

Flames, anyone?
Shankha

"You've got the money honey, I've got the time." -- country song.
-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shankha S. Mitra                                               shankha@clsi.com
CAD Language Systems, Inc.				 uunet!clsi.com!shankha
Xref: sparky soc.singles:30398 ba.singles:2129
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,ba.singles
Subject: Re: YKYBRNTLW.... (Re: Where to meet women?)
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:41:37 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Indiana University

aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>gerg@netcom.com (Greg Andrews) writes:

>>Spots before the eyes.....need more sex.
>Uh, Gerg, you *do* know what a ProblemOlderWoman is, right?

One who doesn't like sex every day?
-- 

Kiran Wagle                           <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Re: Where to meet women?
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 11:28:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.200641.15429@netcom.com> marv@netcom.com (Marvin Raab) writes:
>In article <dfcqx8=@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>>
>>Its good to know that marvin is still around :)
>>Now if we can only find Dan again....
>
>
>   I haven't really read soc.singles in atleast a year and have even
>stopped searching for my name in the group. Same subjects over and
>over and over and over, too many college kids, nothing really exciting, etc.

I also stopped reading for about 2 years, (because of a lack of net access)
but have started again recently because after wading through the repeats and
the college-age stuff, I sometimes come across some gems.

Mark