HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,sci.med,misc.consumers,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Business cards
Date: 11 Apr 92 13:16:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: crash.1992Apr11.131603.5421
Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA

larry@elvis.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Larry Pollack) writes:
>
>Recently, the soda can top story circulated around our office. I couldn't (and
>still can't) see how soda can tops can be traded for such an expensive
>treatment. It seems to me that the only worth is the aluminum itself and if
>that's what they want, why not take the whole can? After much ridicule, the
>perpetrator of the office story checked it out with a relative who works at a
>hospital. The response was, general, "We get thousands of theses things and
>don't know what to do with them. Please don't bring them here."
>

     There are companies that enter into agreements about such things as a way
to give to charity.  The pop-top one does sound vaguely familiar.

>If there truly is a company doing this, I would be very interested in knowing
>who they are and how this plan works. I find it rather odd that you, Dave, have
>turned in "several thousand of these tops" and don't know the name of the
>company.
>


     Locally, Von's Supermarkets does a program each year where they
contribute so much toward a computer for a school for each cashier's ticket
the school collects.  It gets them publicity and people are aware that
shopping at Von's helps schools.  May be the same thing with the pop-tops. 
There's more to these charity gimics than the intrinsic value of the item
being collected.

Bob c/o The OTH Gang
rcf@pnet01.cts.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: fear of rejection
Originator: lnds@medievil.biochem.ualberta.ca
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 07:48:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.053844.8426@unixg.ubc.ca>, ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes:

> Unfortunately, the prospect of having to ask someone out again is not
> the only painful thing about "rejection" (a.k.a. "someone declining an
> invitation of yours", a less loaded phrase). What I find much more
> terrifying is the possibility of embarrassing future encounters with
> the woman who's said "no", or said "I'm busy" the threshold number of
> times.

   I find that annoying, but not terrifying.

> One way of trying to avoid this is to initiate things only with MOTAS
> who one is not likely to encounter again, and who aren't particularly
> good friends, but this has problems too.

   I find it much easier to ask out women I meet at conferences than
women I know I'll see again anyway.

   Why?  Because with the women I know I'll see again, I keep wondering
if, before I ask them out, there isn't something I can do to make them
more favourably disposed to me.  This wondering allows me to procrastinate
for ever.

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: walter (Walter Lego)
Subject: Re: Avoiding dating married people
Followup-To: soc.singles
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Twisted Pair Inc.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 16:57:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.152507.5084@dgbt.doc.ca> michele@dgbt.doc.ca (Michele Guillet) writes:
>>
>That's one thing I insist to have with the men I date, their home numbers
>and I make sure to tell them that I will call and I do call without
>giving a specific time.
>
>That's a relatively easy way to find out if someone is involved
>in a live-in relationship or is married. The other thing I do is ask
>up front, a number of people who wouldn't tell you, will not deny
>it when directly asked.
>
>Since I don't want to get involved with someone who is seriously
>involved with someone, these two things are useful.

Hmmm.. that explains why at the start of some dating relationships in the
past, I would get frequent "silent" phone calls (where the caller hangs up 
after you answer). Maybe CallerId has some merits.

						Walter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I am posting under a pseudonym for personal reasons. There is 
enough info in the headers to determine my posting site and possibly even 
determine my login name which is all the information you get from other
postings except that in this case you KNOW for sure that the name in the
headers is a pseudonym. If you don't like the idea put me in your kill file.
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:40:09 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <g#vjx3g.aahz@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>>
>>Let me put it this way: if you and I are dating, and you have 
>>another romantic relationship that matters more to you than your 
>>relationship with me, then we are not SOs.
>
>OK, what if I have another romantic relationship that matters exactly
>the same, or perhaps slightly less?  Would it make any difference what
>her perception of her status with respect to me was?  What if,
>relatively speaking, I care a lot less for her, but still consider her
>to be an SO, in addition to you?
>
My definition of SO allows for only one such person at a time. If 
we're dating and you consider someone else besides me an SO, then 
I consider you a good friend, not an SO. Maybe a potential SO.

In my definition, SO means "romantic partner who matters to me
more than other people and vice versa." what this means in practice 
depends on the people involved. partly it is determined by behavior,
partly by declaration.

However, I 'low as there might be other definitions and some people
might consider more than one person at a time an 'SO'.

--
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: au138@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John S. Kennedy)
Subject: Re: Newspaper personals phenomena
Reply-To: au138@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John S. Kennedy)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 19:43:41 GMT


In a previous article, czim@hume.cns.caltech.edu (Chris Ziomkowski) says:

>Found out that the average response to an add made by a male in his early to
>mid 20's is about 4 for a 5 week run.

Several years ago, the Cincinnati Enquirer was using their own voice mail
system to handle their personals section.  I think the ad was about $25 for
a week run, but you could check you message for free and people could reply
for free.  Well over 100 people called to at least listen to the message
from my ad.  About 14 of these were intact enough that I could make out a
phone number to call them.  Two of them I stayed in touch with.  One I had
an 18 month relationship with.  I've lost touch with all of them now.

I placed two ads since the start of the 1-900 system, resulting in
absolutely nothing.  I think I got about 5 responces for each ad -- none of
whom were really worth keeping in touch with.  Of these 10 I think I
bothered to meet one in person.  But, hey ... maybe the next one will work
... the first one was 14 intact reponses to 1 relationship, so maybe one of
the next four intact responses will net a relationship.  The next major
question is: what is the ratio of relationships to SUCESSFUL relationships?

Well ... maybe when I turn 30 I can start placing ads in "Cincinnati
Magazine" or something and I'll have more luck <<Grin>>

But, it's definitely the case that the women get more replies.  I've
responded to quite a few ads.  The last one I responded to said that she
got over 100 replies and that there were 35 that she planned on calling
back.  I was the first that she called back, but I turned out to be a
little too forward for her, I think.  She was nice and all ... but I've
come to the conclusion a LONG time ago that any woman who can get along
with me for any apprecable length of time will almost HAVE to have a sense
of humor as raunchy as mine.

I guess it's just that, in this society, the male is the persuer and is
trained to take the more active role in persuing relationships.  We have to
do something to correct this!

            John
-- 
John S. Kennedy (513) 541-3078 |  It is better to be hated
axinar@tso.uc.edu              |  for what you are, than loved
au138@cleveland.freenet.edu    |  for what you are not.
72217.416@compuserve.com       |     -- Andre Gide
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius)
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 04:18:10 GMT
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez

In article <1992Apr12.232431.21380@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcregor@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Meloney Cregor) writes:
>In article <j#vj=7g.aahz@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>>Mel wrote this, too:
>>>Fascinating.  I never found them so hard to manage that I needed to take 
>>>a class.  They're quite well behaved.  Most of the time, they just sit
>>>there and don't do anything.
>>
>>Really?  Well, even if they're not too hard for you to manage, I'd be
>>glad to take the job over for you.....
>
>Ah, Aahz, always looking for that superior hands-on experience.

I've got plenty of experience; what I'm looking for now is a job.

<sigh>  O! to join the Real World as a manager of women's breasts.
How.......degrading..........
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

Mothers are inventors by necessity
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: Newspaper personals phenomena
Originator: lnds@zeus.biochem.ualberta.ca
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 09:06:19 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.194341.14690@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, au138@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John S. Kennedy) writes:

> I guess it's just that, in this society, the male is the pursuer and is
> trained to take the more active role in pursuing relationships.  We have
> to do something to correct this!

   We can't.  Angelwing likes things as they are.

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: How to meet girls?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:27:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.181401.13648@wam.umd.edu> asp@wam.umd.edu (??) writes:
>I'm 18 and this is my first year here at school.  I haven't met many girls and
>the I just don't seem to appeal to the ones I have.  I think I seem like a 
>decent guy.  I think I care alot and listen well.  What is a good way to meet
>girls and get this point across to them.  
>
>Todd
 
Bwoop. Bwoop. Nice guy alert, nice guy alert. Don't bother to hide the
women.
 


Xref: sparky soc.singles:11406 soc.couples:2148
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:30:53 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr16.015329.12157@spool.cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>In <1992Apr14.194953.27080@ultra.com> stcroix@ultra.com (Bill St. Croix) writes:
>>And what exactly do extra-maritial affairs have to do with ROMANCE?  There
>>is nothing romantic about extra-maritial affairs, whether or not it is
>>an "agreement" between the parties 'involved'.
>
>Is it just me, or does anyone *else* feel that a nontrivial fraction
>of the population of alt.romance peddles a very limited and unrealistic
>view of romance and relationships?
>
>Maybe it's just me.
>
>-- 
>Michael Rawdon

 It's not just you. I took the liberty of removing alt.dweeb from the
heading because I don't want to be deluged w e-mail from the newsgroup.
 I don't want to waste my time reading about romance from virgin's.
ex:
 My girlfriend screwed the football team last night and made me hold her
panties, some day she's really gonna make me question our relationship.
What should I do?
answ:
 She obviously loves you very much and is seeking your approval. Why
don't you buy her a wedding ring and the next time it happens surprise
her with it. Make sure you wait until she's/finished elset you might
come across as rude. I hope this help's. I have to go run toy trucks
up and down my naked mother now, but keep me posted.
From: maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Big brother at three.
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:15:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: unix.34143
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, California

In article <1992Apr01.190233.945812@locus.com> judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes:
>
 (About what she did to prevent sibling rivalry, and then she
says...)

>We had no sibling rivalry until Erin could crawl.  And then, of course, it was
>because she was into his things.  Now, Mitchell "hates Airna" and tells us this
>regularly.  But he plays with her and the two of them sometimes get into these
>games where the giggling and squeeling fills the house with the most joyous
>noise.  Of course, this stops as soon as he sees we notice it.  

Geez, guys what do you think sibling rivalry is, if not just this?
And it usually takes a while to build up before the older child feels
displaced.

Lots of siblings have fussing and feuding, few actually kill each
other.

In my experience, it is definitely a good thing to avoid good-bad
comparisions, and to give each child some special time,
but even without all the fuss and books and neuroses that seem to
be the yuppie trend these days, most kids I knew grew up
with at least as much giggling and playing as fighting.

I have some friends who have to read "Siblings Without Rivalry"
before they say a single word to their kids. They were so proud that
their older daughter had "no jealousy of her sister whatever" because
they were following the book. That was of course before the day that
older daughter, age 3, picked up a hairbrush and whacked younger
sister aged 7 months across the head with it. Also before older
daughter decided to get attention by climbing on the kitchen stove
while the spaghetti was cooking because mommy was holding the baby....

So much for lack of sibling rivalry.

>So my advice is to include the sibling as much as possible.  At 3 he'll have
>a fun time with things like checking the baby's diaper to see if it's soiled,
>putting lotion on the baby after the bath, giving the baby her bottle, etc.
>And he'll feel so proud when he alone gets the baby to stop crying.  

Sensible advice. But  you can get too much involvement, too. These
same folks had had older daughter "help" with baby. One day she
decided to "help" baby by giving her a shampoo. In her crib.
With Desitin.

>Good luck, and don't worry.  

Yep. Common sense and a sense of humor help a lot.

Valerie Maslak
(who now needs a sense of humor because her 20-year-old is
back living at home....)
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Chocolate fantasies
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:09:50 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <scjfkINN5ck@agate.berkeley.edu>  epg@nature.berkeley.edu () writes:
> Puter tries to tempt me with:
> >Yes, it's so impolite to talk with your mouth full! :)
> >Want a piece of chocolate, little girl?
>
> You <know> I want it/need it/can't resist it/gotta have it.  Are
> you sure you want to give it to me?

Does it melt in your mouth, not in your hand?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: richh@tigger.jvnc.net (RICHH)
Subject: THE ELEMENTS OF SEDUCTION
Originator: richh@tigger.jvnc.net
Organization: JvNCnet, Princeton University, NJ
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:48:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.213826.18712@u.washington.edu> intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
<some stuff, mostly quoting others, until...>

>How's this for communication:  Oh. Just. Bite. Me.


>What's so hard?  I really don't get it.  Say, for example, you're at a
>party.  You see a woman across the room, catch her eye.  She smiles at
>you, you smile back.  Then later, you see her again, she smiles, you
>approach her and start talking...about anything - the host, the food,
>whatever.  Now, if she stands there and after a while crosses her arms
>over her chest and casts her eyes about the room, are you going to ask her
>out?  But, if she chats with you eagerly, doesn't let the conversation
>die, makes lots of eye contact ... what then?  
>
>Angelwing - It is all so obvious.

Indeed it is.  Here's a tip.  When engaging this person in conversation,
try to keep 'sex' not so much the topic of conversation but rather one
step removed.  The real trick is in making the other person feel 
smarter, funnier, sexier, etc. than she or he actually is, to make them feel
like they are your "partner in crime".

For example, by the snack table:

He:  What is that you're wearing?  Opium?
She:  Yes, it is Opium.
He:  Sensuous, yet not too far from innocence.
She:  No.  That's Windsong.
He:  Whatever.  For some reason it just stays on my mind.
She:  Hee.
He:  I've got a drawer full of colognes I've gotten as gifts.
She:  What do you wear?  I have a cold.  I can't tell.
He:  Well, I like Pierre Cardin.  It's not as fuck-me as Drakkar or 
     Obsession For Men, not as ubiquitous as Polo, not as slutty as Halston,
     and not as tenth-grade as Old Spice.  
She:  Ugh, they're playing Dan Fogelberg.  Let's get the fuck outta here!
He:  Oh, but Peter Cetera's coming up...<exeunt immediately>

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: Under-the-table manners
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 21:00:21 GMT

beth diane garfinkel <bgarfink@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:

>but I find myself woefully ignorant of the rules of
>ettiquette involved in playing footsie and related pursuits.

Does _Mayflower Manners_ cover this topic?

>Second, if one is in doubt as to WHO it is doing that, is there any
>polite or non-obtrusive way to find out?

*chuckle*
Well, one way of finding out who it might be would be to ask each of
the possibilities to a romantic dinner, and see when/if it occurs. 

-- 
"The truffle is not an outright aphrodisiac, but it may in certain
 circumstances make women more affectionate and men more amiable."
                                                ...Brillat-Savarin
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:46:00 GMT
	<1992Apr3.175010.21219@mo\rgan.ucs.mun.ca>
	<9204032025.AA24290@apple.com>
Organization: /theta/theta5/unc/martinc/.organization
In-reply-to: anonymous@APPLE.COM's message of 3 Apr 92 20:25:16 GMT

In article <9204032025.AA24290@apple.com> anonymous@APPLE.COM writes:
   *WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY???*

   Why ask why?

   Try Bud Dry.


Or as a friend of mine paraphrases it:

Don't think.  Just drink.
--
Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu/(ne crm@cs.duke.edu) 
O/Department of Computer Science/Sitterson Hall/UNC/Chapel Hill, NC 27599
H/3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
The universe is full of magical things patiently waiting for our wits to
grow sharper.  -- Eden Phillpot, I'm told.  Anyone have a better reference?
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter)
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:10:47 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter) writes:
>> you can bet that in the majority of the cases the husband is going to feel
>> the way you seem to have difficulty imagining he might
>
>If you're saying that the majority of husbands would be upset if their
>wife had an affair, I would agree with you.  If you're saying that
>the majority of husbands *whose wife tells her lover that the husband
>knows about and approves of the affair* would be upset about the affair,
>then I'd tend to disagree.

I think I'm saying what I think you think I'm not saying. Typically a cheating
spouse doesn't tell the person they're having an affair with that they are
married.

	fred
-- 
Disclaimer: everything I post is my *personal* opinion and does not represent
or reflect the opinion of the company which employs me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. R. (Fred) Walter, Mortice Kern Systems Inc.,	Internet: fredw@mks.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: michele@dgbt.doc.ca (Michele Guillet)
Subject: Re: Silent phone calls (was Re: Avoiding dating married people)
Organization: The Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 22:54:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.202814.17113@mdd.comm.mot.com> rudoff@mdd.comm.mot.com (Doug Rudoff) writes:
>
>I was just talking about that yesterday with a friend. In my case, the
>"silent" phone calls occur before a woman I met a few months previous
>calls me up to ask me out. This has happened twice to me. I never
>asked the women if they made "silent" calls, but I always assumed it
>was them. I have the impression that they weren't checking me out,
>they just had the jitters in asking me out, and it took a few tries to
>actually go through with it.
>
>Does anyone out there do this?
>-- 
Not me. I called but I talked, I will even leave a message on an answering
machine. 




-- 
Michele Guillet 			The Communications Research Centre 
3701 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA, K2H 8S2	tel:613-998-2384
Internet: michele@dgbt.doc.ca	
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: Do You Remember - early '60s edition
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 06:12:04 GMT

In article <ku66f3INN46k@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>What about those candy cigarettes with the red tips?  Can you believe
>that our mothers let us eat them?
>
>Dawn

Hmmmm...I REMEMBER!  Didn't they kinda melt, dissovle in your mouth?
-- 
        ********     John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	********	
 "Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."
										- Henry David Thoreau

Xref: sparky soc.singles:10594 sci.med:8410 misc.consumers:10168 misc.kids:12488