HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stevek@netcom.com (Steve Kile)
Subject: Ankle bracelets
Organization: Netcom Communications - San Jose, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:23:12 GMT

I'd like to ask the ladies of the net (tm) to answer a question for me.  I
frequent a couple of restaurants where the waitresses wear ankle bracelets
(is that the correct terminology?)  These girls are mostly high school or
college age.  I don't recall this type of jewelery being worn during my high
school or college days.  Is this a new fad?  What is the significance of
wearing it on the right versus left ankle?  Thanks.

Steve
----
stevek@netcom.com

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: Fri, 25 Dec 92 18:07:37 GMT

In article <oneil.725199192@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>
>>In article <oneil.725163466@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>>>
>>>Hey!  These girls were chasing after guys all over the place.  They'd ask
>>>classmates to come over and study with them.  They'd ask guys to come to 
>>>dinner in the dorms with them.  I think they made themselves quite available
>>>for dating.  Unfortunately, most of them suffered from Nice Girl (TM) s
>>>syndrome, ending up as the "sis" to talk to.
>
>>One of the important things to know when flirting shamelessly (in person
>>anyway) is that, when you're not serious and just doing it for fun, to
>>put in subtle cues that show your lack of intent (this also makes the
>>flirting much less threatening if your flirt object would also not be
>>willing to let things go beyond recreational flirting).  These cues can be
>>very subtle and still completely effective.
>
>Nah.  I think that the guys that they were inviting over were jerks because
>they wouldn't have considered these girls for various reasons, including
>the fact that they weren't fashion model lookalikes.  They weren't 
>unattractive, but they weren't Christie Brinkley either.

[...] 

>>How to determine if this could have anything to do with your friends' 
>>problems or how this might be addressed, I don't know.  Obviously we 
>>need some sort of class on the subject to teach us how to recognise
>>these behaviors and learn to control them.
>
>No.  I think tha these guys should have given more of a chance to these
>girls.

Sounds like those guys wouldn't have been very well suited for your
friends even if they had been interested in them and that your friends
had gotten in the habit of asking out only those who wouldn't be
interested in them.  (After all, judging from the posts here, there
doesn't seem to be any shortage of males who aren't looking for fashion
model types--at least among net.users.)

It's been my experience that most people, male or female, aren't even
most strongly attracted to model-types of either sex and what one 
person finds incredibly attractive (pudgy shoulders, braces, etc.)
will be of no particular interest to another--so, you just need to ask
out people whose fetishes match up with your conformation....

Trygve   (Drat!  So far nobody's mentioned a fetish for really large
          Nordic weightlifter types with oral fixations.)

--
The Roadkill Gourmet by Aggie Verbotham.  TV's most economical cook reveals
his least-reviled recipes in this profusely illustrated volume.  Great for
those on a budget or on strict diets.         Pub at $18.70  /  Only $6.25
From: cocoa@netcom.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Fetishes?
Date: 23 Dec 92 02:35:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: none at all!

In article <253@cnmhnet.UUCP> keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.020043.21531@netcom.com> cocoa@netcom.com writes:
>>round, plump shoulders.  Does anyone else find this extremely attractive?
>>Or am I just too weird?
>>Just me,
>>little 'e'
>
>Well, I wouldn't call you weird.  I have to say that this is 
>the first time I've heard of a shoulder fetish.  I'm so into
>small women's feet, that I don't think any fetish is weird
>anymore.  Give me a size 5-6 female foot, with nicely shaped
>toes, polished of course, and well-pedicured, and I am just as
>happy as I can be.  No, you're not weird, little "e".
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh yeah?  Prove it!  I dare ya! :)

As Bugs Bunny would say, "he don't know me vewy well, dood he?"

Just me,

little 'e'

- -
"I know Speedy, he goes out with my seester."
"Yeah, so, Speedy goes out with *everybody's* seester."

-- 
*  *  *    Chocolatier at Arms, and Castle Wetware Liason            *  *  *
*  *  *    e-mail: cocoa@netcom.com   -    voicemail: 415-337-4940   *  *  *
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Opening doors (was Re: What is gold-digging?)
Date: 20 Dec 92 06:52:06 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec12.214451.24521@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>In article <oneil.724176019@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>>rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com (Ray Fink) writes:
>>
>>>Oh yeah, I probably do have no class whatsoever, I don't even open
>>>car doors for women.  Another useful sorting criterion, I've found ;-)
>>
>>You and I should talk.  I'll usually let a guy open the car door, if he
>>insists, but it really, really, really ANNOYS the hell out of me. 
>
>Personally, I figure whether one opens the car door or not depends on
>the circumstances--if it makes someone feel good and special, I'm happy
>to do it, otherwise I probably wouldn't 

I operate on the assumption that if we're both walking to my car, I 
unlock the passenger door first, then mine.  If my passenger is carrying
something, I offer to hold it while they get settled and/or hold & close
the door. 

I also operate on the assumption that if I get to a door first, I hold it
for my companion(s). 

Both of these behaviours surprise men more often than women. Particularily
at work (computer software company, most people I know are male).

-jen
 (a woman)
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:44:17 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Dec30.134100.28409@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
 
|I may have to bring along *that* girl in Jan. We had a recent bout of Jealousy
|as opposed to Jeapardy.

James is dating Marlo Thomas?  Somehow she doesn't seem like she'd be his type.

-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira        | Auspex Systems | "Ask me about my vow of silence." |
| johnf@auspex.com    | Santa Clara CA |                                   |
+==========================================================================+
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance,alt.romance.chat,soc.penpals
From: rossi@mtu.edu (Rossi)
Subject: Re: Do you have a good pickup line?
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 17:53:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.020606.1379@samba.oit.unc.edu> Catherine.Collingwood@launchpad.unc.edu (Catherine Collingwood) writes:
>In article <1hvedlINNk7i@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
>...one that's never been used on me but would probably work...
>
>"Know any good pickup lines?"
>
>--the one and only Lady Firebird


Howabout:

   Mind if I land on your branch before my wings fall off?

   *chirp!*

   songbird

(a pyro!!!!!!???? :) :) :) 

  PS.  Lady Firebird I do hope you can find another of your kind.
       I'd hate to think that the firebirds are going extinct.
       Initiation of a captive breeding program may be necessary. ;)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: masterov@cstr.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael Masterov)
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:24:17 GMT

[Most of Midwestern Jewish Lament deleted]
>...raised and still observe in the conservative branch 
>of Judaism. There just aren't any Jewish eligible men here in 
>D.M., or close by! I'm about ready to give up! Any suggestions from
>anyone out there??!!
[More deleted]
>                            Shelley
>
>	Well, call me crazy Shelley, but did you ever consider dating someone
>	who, (GASP), wasn't Jewish?
>
>	If you haven't, grow up and start living in the twentith century, 
>	before it becomes the twenty first!
>
>	If you have and still insist on your archaic basis for mating, try
>	Isreal. [sic]
>
>						Tim the Lemur

Tim, stuff it.  Didn't you read what she wrote?  Her religion forbids it.
You can call religion an archaic basis for mating, but the majority of
the world happens not to agree with you.  

Michael
From: mine@iowegia.uucp (shelley kitsis)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 18:28:37 CST
Distribution: world
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

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

> 
> >Why is it any more of a close-minded criterium then any other criteria like
> >intelligence, humor, physical characteristc, geographic location, level
> >of education, lifestyle compatibility, sexual preference, etc?
> 
> This argument, and others like it, smack close to hypocracy- 
> Anybody remember the close-minded criterium of Mr. Wright? Your
> arguments for religious restrictions in dating like that are identical
> to Ed's arguments for his criterium.
> 
> Substitute that one lady's griping of dating material with 'educated' for
> 'jewish' and 'surrounded by health-nuts' for 'surrounded by christians'
> and the two arguments would be identical.
> 
> And the argument against that is the same-
> 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.
> r.

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 don't 
recall, even once "bitching" about anything! I merely what to post 
a message in this conference (By the way, to all who suggested 
alt. personals was the appropriate place....I don't have access to 
it here, but thanks anyway!) that to me, was very important, and 
simply looking for some "feedback!" I have to admit, I received a
lot of it, almost all positive (I want to thank all of you out 
there who responded to my post...you seem like a great bunch! You 
did help me in several ways..and for those I'm very thankful and 
appreciative!)
You, on the other hand, whoever you are, (you're so insecure 
and/or embarrassed, that you can't even leave your real name!) 
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?!
            Shelley
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Is anyone out there like me?
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:09:48 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec25.063411.3130@mtu.edu> rossi@mtu.edu (Rossi) writes:
>In article <Bzquzr.M4t@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> sjb@einstein.canterbury.ac.nz (Sutekh) writes:
>
>>i personally am cold,
>
>   Please report to jeem for sensitivity training...  (and jeem do I
>get a reeferal bonus on this one?

Only if he's got seesters.  Ahh, cold women.  The feel of necrophilia, without
having to worry about digging up a date for Friday night.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Is anyone out there like me? 
From: sjb@einstein.canterbury.ac.nz (Sutekh)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:28:39 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

hello everyone,i read this group with interest,and it seems to
me many assume stereotypes of how males and females are,yet i have seldom
meet people to fit into those rolemodels some insist on believing in.
my question is,just how much importance do you all put on emotions?
i personally am cold,with very little desire to experience tenderness or
intimacy and certainly no desire to have children,with all the emotions that
are associated(watching parents with children makes me feel ill!)
is anyone else out there like me?especially females,i would be interested to
know.(i am a male).has anyone ever had a relationship with a emotionally
cold person,and enjoyed the experience?and has anyone out there who is           
  like me,had
a relationship with a warm person and liked it?
i'd like to know,its hard to find out from people in regular life,they seem
to think i come from another planet.
please send me some replys,i'd like to get past all the media imagary
of what people are like(all the kissing and stuff) and see how many people are
really different than all that,without being axe murderers or something.


bye.
 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: rossi@mtu.edu (Rossi)
Subject: Re: Intel gents - not Intelligence
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:22:48 GMT

In article <1h7mdsINNa9m@chnews.intel.com> tbeatty@sedona.intel.com (Tim Beatty~) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec21.201848.635@mtu.edu>, rossi@mtu.edu (Rossi) writes:
>> Sorry definitions need to be suitably muddied here:
>> 
>>    Intelligence - Intel gents - guy people that work for Intel [tm] and
>>                                 wear suits.
>> 
>>    songbird
>
>Now wait.  The only people that wear suits around here are the legal guys and
>Marketing (on show and tell days).  Some people wear "bunny suits".

  Do send peecturs!  (of the show and tell days)

>BTW, the above sound like synonyms to me :).
>
>Tim

   Synonymns, singin hymns, cinnamon, licorice  It's all rock-n-roll candy to
me.

   songbird - a major share holder  ;) ;)  (heheheheheheheheheheheheh :)
              bunny suits!   How rich!  How grand!  Ho, ho, ho!  Be careful 
              you don't wanna give away tirade sucrets!

   No actually aren't the bunny suits the lint-free white suits?  That would
be neato!  I could have some fun peeling a few...  errr...  later...  ;)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men,ba.singles
From: oleg@netcom.com (Oleg Kiselev)
Subject: Re: Walk away, run away, was Re: Pre-Sex Contract 
Followup-To: ba.singles 
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:01:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.021844.9653@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
>>*Her* child?  If you have fathered it, it's your child as well.
>     If she and I make an agreement in advance and she unilaterally
>breaks the agreement by keeping the child, then she should live with 
>the consequences of her decision and raise the child by herself without
>my support.  

It's her child and yours if you had fathered it.  Period.  If she decides
that she will keep the little monster alive rather than abort it, then it's
not the child's fault that she changed her mind.  By having had intercourse
with the woman you have implicitly commited yourself to taking financial
responsibility for the possible result of your indulgence.

Regardless of what you think of this woman or how you feel about broken
promices, regardless of your tantrums and principles, there is a little
bundle of joy screaming its heart out and demanding for you to finance
the future of your bloodline.  For the forseeable future the legal
system of this country will take the side  of the child's needs over
your peculiar set of worldviews.

>If she and I agree to alter our agreement, so that I have
>visitation rights and pay child support, after she becomes pregnant,
>then I would pay child support.

You are in no position to make conditional offers.  You have agreed to pay
child support as soon as you decided to have sex with her.

>     See my first paragraph.  My parental responsibility does disapear
>if the woman unilaterally breaks our agreement.

Your parental responsibility is to the *child*, not the mother.  Because
you have not entered any contracts with the child and the child is an
unwilling victim of your actions, you have a financial obligation to
do provide your share for the child's welfare.  The woman will also pay the
price -- most of her time and most of her money over the next 18-21 years 
will be spent on feeding, dressing and comforting your offspring.

>The legal system will
>have a different opinion and will make me pay child support.  I will
>pay child support if and only if the court decides that I am the parent
>and gives me an order to pay.

If you keep up with this contract business, you are most unlikely to get
to the courtroom.  Or the bedroom.
-- 
Oleg Kiselev at home			...use the header to find the path
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: mel@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Meloney D Cregor)
Subject: Re: Financial first-date negotiations
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:47:00 GMT

In article <102845@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>in their late 20s, early 30s; I suspect some of the folks who've responded
>to this thread are a bit younger and possibly still in school).

Lauren, you'll not make a good detective, you're suspects are all wrong.

I know for a fact, Teri and I are the same age and Ray is in the same
category and I'm pretty sure Pooh is in the over 30 range and I don't 
think any of us are still in any formal schooling.


--
 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.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jwall@nyx.cs.du.edu (Jeff Wall)
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 13:43:52 GMT

In article <102594@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.203306.13633@cs.ucla.edu> gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:
>
>>However I won't say that this is cheesy and classless (because after
>>all, what is chessy and classless is dependent on point of view
>>regarding etiquette, etc.).  I think as we move forward in time and
>>turn our backs on antiquated notions about dating, women can (and
>>should) expect to pay for themselves on a date.
>
>My, this is getting interesting.
>
>OK, here's a scenario.  This happened about a month ago to a friend of
>mine.  Let's call her Jane.  She hadn't dated anyone in a long time.  A man
>she didn't know well but who seemed nice asked her out to dinner and a
>symphony orchestra concert.  Let's call him Sam.  She said yes.  They'd
>never been out together before.
>
>The big evening arrives.  He asks her to drive to the restaurant and meet
>him there (she lives quite far away).  Fine.  They meet at the restaurant,
>and she discovers that another couple will be joining them.  She knows the
>man in the other couple pretty well (call him Joe), and they're friends, so
>she's a bit surprised but thinks it's fine.  They eat dinner.  The check
>comes.  Joe pays for himself and his date.  Sam, however, only pays his
>half of the bill, leaving Jane to pay her half.  
>
>They get to the concert.  "By the way," says Sam, "the ticket is $40." 
>(Joe, meanwhile, has paid for his date.)  So Jane pays that, too.
>
>POP QUIZ:  
>1) When Sam asked Jane out again a couple of weeks later, what do
>you think her response was?  
>
>2) Do you think Jane thought to herself:
>	
>	a. "That Sam, what a prince of a guy!"
>  
>	b. "Sure hope he asks me out again!"
>
>	c. "I feel like a total scumwad and intend to join a convent.
>	    But first I hope he gets incurable hives."
>
>
> 
>-- 
>The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
>if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Females have it easy!
Date: 29 Dec 1992 01:50:16 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

>Mark (markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu) wrote:
>: I think it's time to let you in on a few secrets.  Men don't consider Christie
>: Brinkley attractive.  One, she's married (last I heard)...

In article <135@jptcs.COM> tps@jptcs.COM (Tim Sailer) writes:
>What kind of crap is that?

The kind of crap that comes out so smooth that you don't even need to wipe
afterwards.

>Since when do women become unattractive as soon as they say 'I do'??

For over 3 millenia, since Moses authored the 10 commandments, especially the
one concerned with finding another's spouse attractive.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: taylor@ccrs.emr.ca (Trevor Taylor)
Subject: Re: Women: would you go out with a man dumber than you?
Organization: Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Ottawa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:25:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.083541.1@opal.tufts.edu> gbelli@opal.tufts.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.230028.3150@linus.mitre.org>, lkahn@mitre.org (Larry Kahn) writes:
>> 
>>    In keeping with the spirit of a current thread, I'll pose this question 
>> for (semi)serious responses.  When does an "intelligence" difference start 
>> to matter?  This includes level of education difference as well as someone 
>> who's book smart but has zero common sense.
>> 
>
>The last man I dated was dumber than I was.  He had more formal education
>than I, but he just wasn't the brightest bulb in the marquee.  The fact
>that I often had to define words that I used in conversation was one of the
>factors in my deciding that I didn't want to see him anymore.  It was sooo
>frustrating.
>
>And on a general note...I think that men prefer for women to at least 
>pretend that they are less intelligent than the man.  Sorry. No.
>
>Gretchen
>GBELLI@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU

	Is an inability for someone to understand your vocabulary 
necessarily an indication of lack of intelligence (I assume that dumb
and unintelligent are being equated ) ?

	It sounds like a lack of a common context for communicating
is at fault between you and your last date. I'm not suggesting
that this is a reason for not dumping the guy  (after all, this
guy was irritating) but I am suggesting that perhaps lack of 
intelligence was not the major problem. 

	Or , in other words, you and this guy simply were not 
talking on compatible wavelengths.\

Trevor
taylor@ccrs.emr.ca
 


Newsgroups: soc.singles