HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein)
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:49:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.005929.11543@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> rnjx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:

**(stuff deleted here and there)**

>The question is this.  Is it ever morally and/or ethically O.K. to actively
>try to woo one member of an existing relationship from that relationship so
>that you may start one with her/him?  Under what circumstances?  How about
>pursuing someone who's engaged?  Where do you all draw the line?  If it isn't
>O.K., would you still do it anyway?
>
>I thank you from the depths of my heart for any forthcoming replies.
>
>Jeff
>-- 
>##############################################################
>#  RNJX@vax5.cit.cornell.edu                                 #             
>#  Jeff Wilson                                               #
>#  Cornell University                                        #
>#  Department of Chemistry                                   #
>#  --SF author in the making--                               #
>##############################################################


Whether enticing a participant in another relationship to persue one
with you is moral or immoral, in my opinion, is strictly a matter
of personal choice.  Of course, knowning the self righteous and
opinionated attitudes displayed in this newsgroup by some (and the rest
of society), I'm sure you are going to hear from many who think you 
to be a low life slime if you did.  Others will cheer you on, and
yet others will condemn the person already involved in the other 
relationship labeling them as sluts, unworthy, etc......Of course,
all of these firm and factual "opinions" of what's right and what's
wrong have the potential of changing 180 degrees if these people were
ever on the other side of the fence.  But in the meantime, they will
claim that their way is the right way.  

My advice to you...........do what you feel is right.  If the person
already involved (whether they be engaged, married, dating,....) is 
interested in accepting your flirtations, they obviously are for
one reason or another.  Could be because they are not really happy
with their current situation, or maybe they just like the extra
attention.  Whether they want this to interfere with their situation,
that's their choice.  If it causes their current situation to end,
that the chance the chose to take.  If you are willing to put up with
being juggled with someone else, you decide if it's worth it.


If I say light red,
You say pink,
Who's right?					Steve
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
From: bicker@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Reply-To: Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Organization: The Internet
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 13:17:01 GMT
Followup-To: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples


In article <1992Apr7.005929.11543@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> rnjx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>>The question is this.  Is it ever morally and/or ethically O.K. to actively
>>try to woo one member of an existing relationship from that relationship so
>>that you may start one with her/him?

I responded:
->I speak from experience...from being on the outside and initiating the
->break-up.  I was unequivocally immoral in that case, and this is barely
->mitigated by my claims of immaturity.  (In the immortal words of John Astin:
->"I'm feeling much better now, thank you.")  I've learned my lesson...I
->hope that someone else can learn from it instead of having to repeat my
->error and experience the situation themself.

In article <ku32idINNqj9@girtab.usc.edu> jodar@girtab.usc.edu (Nicholas Jodar) writes:
>For myself, I refuse to become romantically involved with a
>person who is already in a relationship...If a person cannot be trusted
>in a minor affair, how can they be trusted in a more serious
>matter?

Yes Yes Yes!  This is precisely what happened, and I'm glad you
mentioned it.  After realizing that "she" would forsake "him" for "me"
with no so much as a thought, I could not trust her.
Relationship: kaput! 

(Of course I coudln't trust myself for a while either.  It took several
months of soul-searching and morality reinforcement for me to even
consider seeking a new RP.)

-- 
Brian Charles Kohn             AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center
ISO Certified Lead Assessor    E-MAIL: att!hoqax!bicker  (bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM)
    'Hope, not fear, is the most positive advocate of action.' - S.R. Lawhead
                   Stamp Out "SO": "RP" = "Romantic Partner"
Xref: sparky alt.romance:6827 soc.singles:10791 soc.couples:1993
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:51:41 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Apr8.203913.3320@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.173620.19757@ultra.com> stcroix@ultra.com (Bill St. Croix) writes:
>>Excuse me???  Excuse me...if you ask someone out, who is in a relationship
>>and they say yes, you are responsible for breaking them up.  Odds may be

>EXcuse me doofuss, 

Good word choice there, by the way.

>		    if you ask someone out, who is in a relationship
>and they say yes, their ex is responsible for not providing a fulfilling
>relationship. 

I don't agree.  I think that the bulk of the responsibility is hers for
saying yes.

By the way, people, as long as we're sitting here laying "responsibility"
and "blame", I contend that such concept are irrelevent unless there is
some "punishment" (or other Bad Thing) which happens as a result of the
actions we're discussing.  So, what sort of bad events do people have in
mind that happen which someone must take "responsibility" for?

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

No optimistic outlook survives contact with the human race.
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: venki@ece.scarolina.edu (Venki M. S. Iyer)
Subject: Re: a question
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:57:05 GMT

afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison) writes:

>In article <6APR199211413025@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov>, afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison) writes...


>(...and don't think I didn't already consider *and* reject the Jack-In-The-Box 
> joke.  It was too tasteless even for *me*... oops.)


And the man asked, in all puzzlement, "what is this Jack-In-The-Box joke?".


>-- Stephen 

-vee villie wenki

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
venki@ece.scarolina.edu	          Venki M. S. Iyer  (803)777-8230
Opinion? I'm just a warm body         DoDder #0429
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
From: kapa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.a.perkins)
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:53:01 GMT
Followup-To: soc.couples
Summary: why not date both?

In article <1971@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, kim@i5160e.nrl.navy.mil (Elisabeth Kim) writes:
> my first reaction was: NO! wooing someone away from someone else is totally
> wrong.
> after reflection, i noticed that that is utter b.s.  forgive my language.
> That to-be-wooed-person is a person.  Not a thing. S/he is a person with
> her/his own capacity to make his/her own decisions.  S/he does not "belong"
> to her/his currently SO.

Rah rah!  A voice of reason!

> I have an easier time thinking/talking about an issue,if i actually make up a
> situation, so here is my situation:
> sandra = woman to be wooed away from peter.  and kurt is the one who wants
> to woo sandra.
> okay. terminology straight now.  
> 
> here is what kurt does:
> he really likes sandra.
< description of friendly gestures on Kurt's part that eventually
come to him asking Sandra out a/o declaring his affection for her.>


> this is where sandra comes in:
> at that point she will tell him that she either loves him, too or that she
> just likes him as a friend.
> If Sandra likes Kurt, the ethical thing
> for her to do is to tell him that she is still in this relationship with
> peter and that she will have to break up with peter first, before they can
> do anything.

Why?  Why does she have to break up with Peter first?  Why is it
assumed that they have an agreement to be monogamous?  And if they
do, why does she have to break up with him?  Why not just tell him
that she wants to go out with this other person and then let him
decide if he wants to leave her over it?  Kurt didn't ask her to
marry him, or to live with him, or to cleave only to him and forsake
all others.  He probably asked her if she'd like to go to a movie or
for dinner or something like that.  Kurt or Sandra might have such
a crummy time that they never see each other again.

Maybe I'm missing something about contemporary dating, or else there's
something implied by the term "relationship" that I don't know about.
I don't understand the notion that a person can only "have a 
relationship" with one partner at a time.  As far as I can tell,
these people aren't necessarily married to each other, so why is
it a de facto law that they can only date one person at a time?
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: rfelix@netcom.com (Robbie Felix)
Subject: Re: A Progression of Sorts
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 02:58:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Apr11.135035.19619@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> karleen sue davis <ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:

>want to play at it.  But I am.  We are.  (That's what "mini-marriage" means;
>we're together, we're exclusive, and we have barely any friends but each
>other because we're attached at the hip.)  I want this focused exclusivity
>to come LATER, after college, after I "grow up" (which may be never).  So how
>do I change the way *I* see relationships and the progression from the first
>shy glance to marriage, and how do I change the relationship I'm in?  (In case


If you aren't happy with what you are doing, you must first decide
what you want, in measurable terms. In this day and age we are all
free to have relationships the way we want them, assuming our partner
agrees.

You must be able to describe what you want. For example, you wish to
develop new friends and spend more time with them and *NOT* with your
partner. First you must create a plan for making new friends and then
establish the ground rules for the amount of time you spend with them.
It is not fair to blame "the relationship" if you want friends and are
not out there making them. It really is up to you.

If you want more time for yourself, you must determine how much time
you need and create a plan for getting that time. Again, It is your
responsibility to determine how much more time you need and how to get
it. You are responsible for getting what you need for yourself.

The real challenge is having the assertiveness to stick to a plan you
create for yourself. If what you currently are doing isn't making you
happy , sit down, determine what you want, make a plan for getting it
and stick to your guns when it gets difficult.

Also, read a book called "When I say "no" I feel guilty". It will help
in the implementation of your plan.

Good Luck.
rf


Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.couples,soc.singles
Subject: Re: lying to oneself (was Re: Sanctity of relationships)
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:02:13 GMT
Distribution: world,soc
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Apr9.174548.10849@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcregor@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Meloney Cregor) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.101644.5254@hemlock.cray.com> robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
>
>>I agree with you that people "lie to themselves all the time", but I
>>don't think they are very successful at believing it.  Though it
>>doesn't stop 'em from trying.
>
>*snort*
>Son, do I have some people *You* need to meet.
>
>There are, indeed, people who can lie to themselves and everyone they meet
>and completely convince themselves they are honest and don't practice
>deception.

Well, I hope you don't "have" them anymore. I can't imagine robd really
believes that - surely he's met at least a *couple* of computer 
salesmen during his tenure at CRI. As we used to say when *I* worked there:

	What's the difference between a Cray salesman and a used car
	salesman?

	The used car salesman *KNOWS* when he's lying.

QED.


Steve
Xref: sparky alt.romance:7039 soc.singles:11171 soc.couples:2097
From: rmelvil@hughes.hacgate.UUCP (Richard Melville)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:40:28 GMT
	<75nG027bc0Nq00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
	<1992Apr7.214508.28116@csi.uottawa.ca> <92098.220232SEK@psuvm.psu.edu>
Distribution: world,soc
Organization: Hughes Aircraft of Canada Limited, Calgary, AB
In-reply-to: SEK@psuvm.psu.edu's message of 8 Apr 92 02:02:32 GMT

In article <92098.220232SEK@psuvm.psu.edu> SEK@psuvm.psu.edu (Sonja Kueppers) writes:

> I think everyone should remember that not everyone who is married
> *objects* to being wooed.  Indeed, not everyone who is married has a
> spouse who objects to them being wooed.

That sounds like me and my RP.  Woo away, I have no objections
whatsoever.

> -Sonja

Sonja, want to do a movie ?
--
----------------
Richard Melville
Hughes Spatial Data Systems Division
"Get a job you love and you'll never work another day in your life." - me
From: s892024@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. Muirden [GA])
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: Some things never die!
Date: 4 Apr 92 03:51:10 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre, Melbourne Australia.

aatresa@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Teresa Kline) writes:


>>>The good ones always are };>

>>Ain't it the truth. (I *don't* think I averted my emasculation with this 
>>compli/ement, but I *may* have put it off an hour or so.) :-)

>Not even by an hour, as *I* recall the day!  :)

Very true :)


>>Yeah ... unfortunately.  Teresa hasn't asked me out YET!!! :( :( :(
>--
>>Ed Carp     erc@apple.com, erc@khijol.UUCP, erc@pogo.Corp.Sun.COM

>Ok, Ed...so I'm asking.  *NOW* what are you going to do?

>-- Teresa

>		Life -- just for the FUN of it!!!!

*laughs and falls off chair*

I love it...

is this going to be a net.saga for all the alt.romance peoples?

I hope so... I wanna hear more...

So Ed.. the ball is in your court!!

(hurry before I ask Teresa out!) *laughs*

-richard

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Muirden,                       | Also final year Computer Science
Systems Administrator (unpaid - gasp!) | Student, RMIT. Shostakovich Fanatic!!
Wesley College, Prahran Campus,        | Star Trek fanatic on the side.
Melbourne, Australia.                  | mail: s892024@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU
mail: ram@lionet.wesley.OZ.AU  IRC: GA | phone: +61 3 820 1429 (home)     
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     My opinions are my own, not even Spock could work them out!!
From: 06zonker@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: Sanctity Twist
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:42:59 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Apr14.211308.10223@javelin.sim.es.com>, pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com (Pete Ashdown) writes:
> 
> Ok, so everyone seems to be pretty indignant at the thought of one person
> interfearing with an existing releationship.  However, they seem to think that
> the situation is completely black and white.  No grey areas.  Try this one on
> for size.
> 
> A girl introduces herself to you and you think the introduction goes bad.  So
> you don't bother to go out with her.  Then you meet again a few months later
> and have a good chat, so you reverse your decision.  You go out, have a great
> time, and are told that it was a great "date" when you drop the girl off at
> her door.  Things progress over time and you find yourself falling deeper than
> ever before.  You are both amazed.  Then one weekend she needs to take a trip
> to see "someone".  You eventually come to find out that she has been making
> weekly trips to see a boyfriend who she met in the interval between your first
> introduction and your first date.  He lives a distance away.  You find
> yourself torn between honor and love.  You choose love and things continue in
> the same fashion.  Wonderfully romantic evenings, fantastically interesting
> days.  But still the weekly visits take place.  She tells you how much she is
> stressed by the situation and you decide to neither run away nor make demands.
> 
> So, I ask the Cyranos and Elizabeths "out there".  Is this an easy decision?
> Can you just walk away from it and not feel you aren't making the biggest
> mistake of your life?  Can you not feel that it isn't your responsibility to
> press for a decision, but since the girl in question got herself into the
> situation, she's got to get herself out?  It is obvious that someone will get
> hurt sometime.  But what else is there to do but wait and see?
> 
> And yes, this isn't fiction.
> -- 
>  "Yeah, me and Saddam, we just signed a mutual reelection pact"  - Foetus Bush
> 
> DISCLAIMER: My writings have NOTHING to do with my employer.  Keep it that way.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



 Oh get a life!  The bottom line is that the girl is "cheating" on both of you.
If u really want the rewards (ie, to see her), put up and shut up.  if not,
dump her.  I certainly would not go out w/ anybody that feckless..sheesh...


Sorry for the caustic tone, I do wish u good luck

I.






> Pete Ashdown  pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com  ...uunet!javelin.sim.es.com!pashdown
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: hoff@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Wildfire)
Subject: Re: Ed and Teresa (Carp ????)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:38:47 GMT

afdenis@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison) writes:

>Well, that's 5 `for' and 2 `against'... all votes in ?? :-)

Make that 6 for....And to the people who say to take it to a.r.c.....
You don't have to read it, do you?   Just stick it in a killfile if
you're really that much against it....nobody is forcing you to read anything.
			-Wildfire-
I apologize for any nastiness in this post.  It's been a long day and its just
going downhill.....

 And the seeds of love were sown   <>                   -Wildfire-
 And nurtured with desire          <>             hoff@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
 And when they started to grow     <>           lmh44500@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
 They grew like WILDFIRE!          <> Disclaimer:  Who ME?!?!?! (innocent look)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
From: ken@batman.austin.ibm.com (Ken Goach)
Subject: Re: Do You Remember - early '60s edition
Reply-To: ken@batman.austin.ibm.com (Ken Goach)
Organization: IBM Austin, TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 19:46:24 GMT

joni@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (joni.dunlap) posts:

#Space sticks - Some sweet chewy stick loaded with vitamins that the 
#               astronauts ate in space.


Man, I had a craving for these the other day! Those and a big
glass of Tang. Mmmm-mmm!


How about these:

Major Mat Mason - those astronaut dolls made of rubber and wire like
                  Gumby but with Ken-doll looking heads. They had a
                  bunch of neat battery-powered vehicles that towed a
                  rolling bubble-chair, etc.

Toggles - They put Legos to shame! Multi-colored cubes with holes and
          pegs, girders, motors, air bladders, and funny animal heads.
          (everybody looks at me like I'm insane when I mentione these!)
          Did anyone else have these?

Sizzlers - Hot Wheels with motors in them! Fat black tracks with high
           banking turns, car chargers that held two D batteries (and
           made your thumb sore from holding the charge button down).


The 12" tall GI Joe dolls! And all their neat stuff! Vehicles, bases,
uniforms, guns, a first aid kit that really had stuff in it! Helicopters,
boats, rafts, etc etc etc.

8" action figures - Action Jackson, superheroes, planet of the apes,
                    SWAT, Star Trek, etc.

Big Jim - with real flexing muscles strong enough to break a "steel"
          band. Lumberjack-looking dudes in denim (makes you wonder
          who designed these!).

Evil Kineval doll! Complete with motorcycle that really went!
Another "Gumby Variation."



THIS POSTING DOES NOT REPRESENT THE OPINIONS OF MY EMPLOYERS.
-------------------------------------------------------------
	"We're just a Bob Seger cover band."
		-Les Claypool, PRIMUS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: kerryg@stat.rice.edu (Kerry Go)
Subject: Re: Is "I'm involved with someone" an optimal rejection?
Organization: Dept. of Statistics, Rice University
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:15:41 GMT

In article <92093.111106ANNE@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> ANNE@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>In article <92093.122339PAISLEY@auvm.american.edu>, PAISLEY@auvm.american.edu
>says:
>>
>>In article <92092.1937203ASPIGG@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>,
>><3ASPIGG@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> says:
>>>
>>>Ok,  to anyone (men) who say they're involved with someone but if they
>>>weren't they'd go out with you...........
>>>
>>>THAT IS  T H E   W O R S T   T H I N G    Y O U   C O U L D   D O !!!!!
>>>
>>>Just be man enough to ****tactfully*****say thanks but no thanks!!!!!!
>
>Are you saying that they really aren't going out with someone else, and
>are lying so they don't have to go out with you?
>
>Actually, I would take it as a compliment if someone said if they weren't
>involved with someone, they would go out with me.  It would make me
>feel desireable.  Why is that the worst thing they could do?  In my mind,
>his first loyalty is to his girlfriend, and I wouldn't want him to
>break up with her just to go out with me.

I would agree with you here, if the statement is *sincere*.  Many times,
however, I doubt the sincerity of the statement.  Sometimes I do, though,
and hope she would still be a friend.

On the other hand, I have made a similar statement,  (The original statement
requires that I have a SO, and I don't.) e.g., "If you lived in the same
country as I..." "If you were five years older/younger..." and sincerely
meant it.  So I try not to be *too* suspicious :-)



Newsgroups: alt.romance