HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Humans as Physical Creatures.
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:51:44 GMT

In article <MARTINC.92Oct2122534@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.115332.11796@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>
>   I think you might be confusing Cro-Magnons with Neanderthals.  The
>   latter are a human subspecies that has been extinct for about 40,000
>   years.  It was not because their heads were too big.  Their brains
>   were indeed somewhat larger than ours, but they were also stockier.
>   It's still a matter of debate as to why they became extinct.
>
>Or even if.  (I guess the senate races are still on my mind.)

Now, Charlies, I really must protest your libel of the Neanderthals.
It's lucky for you that the dead can't sue.

>Serious, I've read at least a few suggestions that Neanderthals and
>Cromagnons were a single interbreeding and that the Neanderthals didn't
>so much become extinct as be absorbed.  Maybe agriculture was too
>tempting.... 

Well, the two leading theories are that the Neanderthals were either
absorbed or exterminated by the Cro-Magnons.  Given European treatment
of various indigenous peoples, e.g., the Tasmanians, I'm not prepared to
rule out the latter.  However, agriculture can be ruled out.  Our Cro-
Magnon ancestors didn't make that mistake until about 30,000 years after
the Neanderthals were gone.

-- Herb Huston
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ac@cheshire.oxy.edu (Aileen Cho)
Subject: Re: relationship gone to pot?
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:21:46 GMT


   Thanks for the input. Actually, in response to that last post including
presumed dialogue between me and him, well, damned if we even talked _that_
much. And excuse me, but I had no intention of ever wanting him to quit.
Sometimes I smoked it too. But yes, we didn't communicate very well, and 
the harder it was to say anything to each other, the more he would take off
and smoke with other people and talk less and less to me. I don't care that
he smoked it every day, but there obviously had to be a choice for him. NOt
both. I suppose it can affect your libido?
  I'm being a bit sensitive here, but it's because one of the things I try
hardest to do in interaction with others is _not_ to try and change their
lives for them. Maybe be a part of that life, but not force it to change.
   Thanks to all the sympathizers, advisers, etc.
                                                --ac

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: greg@netcom.com (Greg Bullough)
Subject: Re: Nice guys getting flamed (was Re:Relationship gone to pot?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:46:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.162036.7962@ac.dal.ca> brentaa@ac.dal.ca (brent, eh?) writes:
>Of course we enjoy our own company, think we'd want to hang around with
>any other losers...:-)  (of course, being a Nice Guy[tm], I mean that in
>a totaly non-judgemental or prejudicial sort of way)

But if you're a Nice Guy in [tm] sense of the word, you simply have yourself
convinced that you don't WANT to be around those 'other losers,' when the
truth is that they have already rejected you.

>besides, the girls love Nice Guys[tm],I wouldn't want to be anything else
>(I've tried, I know)

Ah, but how have you done with *women*? 
 
If you "became" a "Nice Guy" after being a "Slimebag," you probably are 
nice (meaning decent, not boring) guy, but you probably aren't a Nice Guy[tm].
On the other hand, saying, "since your present boyfriend doesn't treat you
well, try me, I'll be more understanding" is a classic Nice Guy[tm] gambit.
Usually followed by either (on her part) "I like you as a friend, but I'm
not ready for another relationship just now," or "last night <insert ex-
boyfriend's name here> and I got back together."

Ah, futility.

>So what are you???  hmmmm?
 
A reformed Nice Guy[tm].

>				-Brontosaur the reformed Slimebag

You ought to do something about that hump.
 
Greg
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith)
Subject: Re: The Engaged Psychobitch from Hell Syndrome
Organization: Gagging Sloth Records
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:38:17 GMT

In article <90858@netnews.upenn.edu>, crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep28.171931.14509@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith) writes:

|> >Here's an interesting question:  with regard to the first part of your question
|> >(the part about waiting) would you insist on only dating someone who felt the
|> >same? Or is this simply something you feel that you, personally, should do?
|> >
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> If you mean, would I seriously date (as opposed to going out with once or
|> twice) someone who slept with other women or pushed for me to sleep with
|> him, or who planned on sleeping with other women after he was married, no.
|> I wouldn't.  It's extremely important for me to have respect for someone
|> in order to get involved with him; it's just the way I'm made.  And I
|> don't respect that mindset.

Hmmm...the way you paraphrased me sounds nothing like the way I meant the 
question! What I meant was more along the lines of "Would you seriously date
someone who was not a virgin," not "would you seriously date someone who
was sleeping with, or planned on sleeping with other women either now or
while married to you." I was referring to your statement that you wanted 
to wait until marriage, and asking whether you would insist that your partner
also wait until marriage.  See the difference?

jds

***************************************************************************
                               * Health and knowledge and wealth and power,
Jeff Smith                     * Passion and poems and sex
smith@fl08-g.comm.mot.com      * I wear a smile like a leather glove,
                               * I won't shut my mouth for less.
                                                - shriekback
***************************************************************************
From: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What I find attractive ?
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:03:00 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <lindsay.717740234@cs.wisc.edu> lindsay@green.cs.wisc.edu (Joe Lindsay) writes:
>rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>though.  For instance, I am rarely attracted to women who are involved with
>>someone else.

>What's your secret?  >90% of those I have been attracted to in the past have
>been involved w/someone else. 

I guess I just find involvement to be an unattractive characteristic. :-)

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

BASIC silently prevents you from tying your shoelaces together.
Pascal says, "You can't tie your shoelaces together."
C says, "Hmm, this person wants to tie his shoelaces together.  Okay."
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Ipisissimus
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:06:41 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct5.161252.4548@desire.wright.edu> wall@hel4.brl.mil (Jeff Wall) writes:
>
>My Websters 9th doesn't have this word :-(. What does it mean??  The closest I
>have found is:  ipsissima verba - the exact language used by someone quoted
>(the selfsame words)
>
>That makes James sig translate to:  The selfsome words of the Inner Order of
>[those] given to or characterized by the use of long words [something about] a
>rich cake containing nuts, dried or candied fruits and spices.
>Jeff Wall

 You've bought a tear to this old jaded heart. Thank you.
 
 Seeing it in it's pure translated glory really gets me, as well
as clarifying many things. Not to mention I CAN WALK. I CAN WALK.
 
================================================================================
 Ipisissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes - IIOSF XOX Dawn
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Humans as Physical Creatures.
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:53:06 GMT

[]

	I've decided I'm gonna tell a story concerning this jock vs.
intellectual debate. What follows is a true description of a good friend
of mine.

	He's an intellectual. He makes his main living by writing, with
teaching at the college level as a sideline. Among his major interests
are history (has a degree in Asian history) and English (has had various
word-books published, including one thesaurus and another on the way).
He's 46, nearly bald, and wears glasses, and doesn't exactly look like a
jock. He doesn't play basketball, football, baseball, softball or
raquetball, ever.

	On the other hand: he's a mountaineer, and has climbed
Kilimanjaro and Denali, among others; he may get to climb Everest next
year. He runs long-distance, and has _run_ across the Sierra Nevadas
(west to east). He teaches classes in backpacking, rock climbing and
winter mountaineering. And despite his age and lack of bulging muscles,
he's as wiry-fit as anyone I know. But not a "hunk", by any stretch of
the imagination.

	Jock or intellectual? Why can't someone be both?

	Does he discriminate on the basis of one's fitness? Yes and no.
I'm a couch potato, and we've nonetheless been friends for years. Back
when I occasionally backpacked he was my favorite company on such
jaunts, since instead of macho nonsense like setting a killing pace, he
always went slow-and-steady. But he wouldn't consider a sweetie who
wasn't physically active, because having his lady accompany him
backpacking and rock climbing is an essential part of a romantic
relationship, for him; it's too big a part of his life not to be able to
share with that special woman.

	This whole debate seems to me based on a false dichotomy,
courtesy Edward Wright. People aren't jocks or intellectuals, they're
_individuals_, and not neatly categorized. And while Ed seems too
obsessed to see through the game he plays on the net, the rest of us
shouldn't get sucked in. It's just silly.

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:    			barry@netcom.com
From: dtasman@NMSU.edu (Dan Tasman)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Dating an older woman
Date: 3 Oct 92 03:05:19 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University

I've been a lurker so far, so I thought I'd add my two cents.

My ex-girlfriend was three and a half years older than me, and she cited that  
as one of the reasons why we weren't compatible when she broke up with me. (The  
relationship lasted nine months).  She also said that because of her higher  
professional status (she's a lawyer, I'm a city planner) with a higher income,  
it wouldn't work out in the end.  

I hope this is the exception rather than the rule.  Has anyone ever had an  
older woman/younger man or girl-makes-more-money-than-the-guy relationship go  
bad for just that reason?  Is it fairly common?

--
   Dan Tasman                                       dtasman@dante.nmsu.edu
                                                     molson@rever.nmsu.edu
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   "I think that I shall never see a billboard lovely as a tree
    Indeed, unless the billboards fall, I'll never see a tree at all."
                                                                Ogden Nash
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 07:10:30 GMT

smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith) writes about Ed:

>I really do not know what you want to hear...

I'm not sure he wants to hear anything at all that might help.  I think
perhaps it is time for all of us to learn to put names into kill files.
-- 

Kiran Wagle                           <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: BARBIE DOES IT AGAIN!!!!
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:08:06 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct1.072607.3042@netcom.com> shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller) writes:
>>
>>Is is just a coincidence that Barbie is a blonde?
>>
>Of course not, dear.  Everyone knows that being blonde automatically
>makes one an idiot.  

Oh, rilly?  All my, like, best friends tell me I'm *way* smart, and this,
you know, *hair* didn't come out of a, like, *bottle*, awright?  I mean,
*rilly.*






-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What car is best?
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:47:54 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep28.142848.10998@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>
>Not many.  Hondas aren't classics yet, you see, because even the
>earliest ones are still being driven.  When I was in the market for a
>car last year I couldn't help noticing that the oldest cars you see
>next to you in traffic are the Hondas.
 
When is the last time you saw a Honda 600 Sedan?  The 600 Sedan was the
first Honda brought into the country.  At the time my uncle worked in a
Motorcycle shop that sold Honda motorcycles.  He was sent to Los Angeles
to train on servicing the new Honda Car.  He bought one of the service
models.  It was one of the first three Honda cars in the United States.  It's
dead and gone a long time ago.

-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira     | Auspex Systems | "Auspex does not share my opinions.  |
| johnf@auspex.com | Santa Clara CA |  So Why am I still working here?"    |
+==========================================================================+
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: The Engaged Psychobitch from Hell Syndrome
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:49:42 GMT

In article <ewillims.717417667@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>In <1992Sep24.192449.20065@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>	I also have to add that if this sort of relationship is
>fairly commonplace in the states, I have to say that I begin to 
>understand why your divorce rate is so high.  (Not that I disagree
>at all with the necessity for divorce in any civilised society!)

Well, bigamy and murder both carry prison terms here.  Personally I'd
be willing to decriminalize the former in the absence of fraud.

>>Trygve   (Who does, however, have a very strong preference for sexually
>>          exclusive relationships--but that's what fits my emotional
>>          makeup; your milage may vary.) 
>
>	Well, at least we agree on our own preferences!:)

Allow me to concede that each of you is the world's foremost expert on
your own preferences.

-- Herb Huston
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: relationship gone to pot?
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:11:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.023659.22226@cheshire.oxy.edu> ac@cheshire.oxy.edu (Aileen Cho) writes:
>   Okay bear with me, I've just barely joined this group. I would like to
>know how people have dealt with relationships (or attempts at) with others
>who are potheads. I got the distinct feeling in my last crash-and-burn affair
>that I lost out to the weed.

	I couldn't make out from your post what the problem is. In what
way did pot interfere with the relationship? For the potheads I've
known, getting stoned was not something they did _instead_ of
<whatever>, but along with it. Is it that your sweetie ignored you when
stoned? Or that you disapproved of his habit, or disliked him when he
was stoned?

	A little more detail would help.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Originator: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: in your face!
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 16:33:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.185358.2086@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>in <ewright.717452240@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: 
>] But what kind of dates?  As I've said before, looks per se are
>] only part of it.  But the sports/fitness craze is a cultural thing.
>] What do people do when they go out on a date?  They go out running,
>] or biking, or play tennis, or golf, or racketball.  Or maybe they
>] go to a baseball or basketball game.
>All of those are pretty darned atypical--most people I know are more
>into things like dinner, movies, plays, or just hanging out.

Why do you claim these things are atypical, just because most people
*you* know are more into other things?  Could it be that some people
find sports activities more enjoyable, while others find evening
activities more enjoyable.

I had a lot of friends when I lived in the SF bay area who were into
sports.  I wouldn't claim that it was atypical for others to
participate in evening activities, though.

--gregbo
From: mlb@CISCO.COM (Marcia Bednarcyk)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:06:52 GMT

In article <ewright.717696345@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
|> If there is even a remote chance that I can convince just one
|> person on the net that it *isn't* okay to treat someone like scum
|> just because of his or her appearance, and one person suffers less
|> because of it, I consider that worth my efforts.   

It never has been ok. And I have yet to see someone who has treated someone
like scum because of their physical appearance (especially on the net, where
one doesn't know the appearance of one's correspondents unless explicitly
told). Indeed, the net.community, especially the substantial number of net
people I have met in person, is on the whole considerably more accepting of
a large variety of body shapes and styles than society as a whole.

Finally, I cannot agree with the premium that you are placing on body shape
and condition in the dating game. It has been my very strong experience that
attitude is almost everything. I have dated a number of people, and few if 
any fall into that narrow societal ideal; however, they were incredibly 
wonderful people to be around. And I also do not fit the ideal, yet I date.
True, there are some who use fitness as a touchstone when selecting SOs, but
it has been my experience that these are not the majority of folks.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Bednarcyk                                        ADDRESS: mlb@cisco.com
"Sweaty Snugglebunnies."
"... the meaning of life is to be happy, try not to hurt people, and hope
you fall in love."
Hey, is this getting out?
From: wtr@mitre.org (Bill Ralston)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Karaoke
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:01:50 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

in article <1992Sep28.152218.18335@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> 
ron@turing.toronto.edu (Ron Wessels) writes:

>I think he just called you acute person.
>
>[ Wait a sec ... didn't we just have this thread somewhere else? ]

Yes, you sec little boy!  Tan you believe one would tri to derive us down 
that rho'd again!


---------------
Bill
wtr@mitre.org
**Marrou/Lord in '92.  (If you don't know who they are, you are not a 
fully informed voter.  Fulfill your civic responsibility and find out!! **
** Opinions are mine only, and not my employer's **
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Humans as Physical Creatures.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:54:16 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Oct1.171835.5640@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith) writes:

>Humans are not Cro-Magnons, nor are they direct descendants of Cro-Magnon.
>Cro-Magnon was a "branch" that died out, possibly because their heads were
>too big for easy childbirth (well, it's a theory!). They did share many of
>the same evolutional developments that the human forebears had, but they were
>not direct ancestors.

No, Neanderthal Man died out. Cro-Magnon Man shared all the basic
characteristics of modern man and essentially *was* modern man.
Cro-Magnon Man never died out; anthropologists just don't use the
term after a certain date.
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Dominance? (was: The Engagement Ring Question)
Date: 1 Oct 1992 11:56:01 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Oct1.003944.3032@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>Interstingly, in a wedding I attended a couple of weekends ago, that's
>the finger on which the groom placed one wedding ring.  (I don't know
>on which finger the bride placed the other one.)



The kind of wedding ring I'd like doesn't go on the finger. :)
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Nice Guys (noooooooo!)
Date: 26 Sep 1992 10:03:59 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Sep22.235606.21780@javelin.sim.es.com> gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:
>Invite him over to your place, and prepare a FANTASTIC romantic dinner.
>Over coffee afterward, tell him that you want to marry him ASAP and
>have 9 kids in quick succession.  The skid-marks in your driveway
>should smoke for days.  :) :) :) :)

In article <1992Sep23.224834.1408@cs.hw.ac.uk> neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:
>Of him leaving or moving in ??? 

In article <1992Sep25.183937.25566@javelin.sim.es.com> gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:
>Which would you do? :)

"I'd love to marry you, honey!  But no kids.  Ever."

Now let's see who makes the skid marks.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: dbailey@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au (Daniel John Bailey)
Subject: Female Partners
Organization: University of Tasmania at Launceston
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 03:19:17 GMT

Hi all you lovely looking females out there.  Is there any one interested
in the following guy (me!):

I'm six foot half inch of pure bone, have never lifted a weight in my life,
don't have many teeth left, those left are all rotted, my hair is full of 
grease, I haven't showered for a week, I smoke heavely (5 packs a day), I drink
heavely (at least one carton of cans a night), my hands are yellow through
tobaco stains, my breath stinks, and my only other quality is, I'm honest.

Of coarse even a well tuned man like me has his faults:  I know the guy that
wrote the artlicle about how he is not successful with women or some such thing,
thats right, the 19 year old :-)

Dan,

'If it wasn't for disappointment, I wouldn't have any appointments!'
Newsgroups: soc.singles