HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Originator: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: in your face!
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 01:44:05 GMT

In article <15916@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.192027.25721@cs.ucla.edu> gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:
>|I thought this was the 90's, and we were in the process of throwing
>|out old antiquated notions, like traditional dating.
>Old antiquated notion that it is, some people still enjoy it.

% unlurk

Well, they have a right to do whatever they want, I suppose.  However,
I have a right to express my opinion.  If someone claims that I have
no class because I don't offer to pay on a date (and as I have stated,
I do offer to pay on dates quite often), I have the right to claim
that they are not being considerate of my feelings if they do not
offer to pay for a part of the date.

>|When I ask someone out, I expect to pay, but I appreciate it when they
>|offer to pay part or all of their way, or leave the tip.
>Do fill out a Pre-Dinner contract to negotiate percentages before
>ordering? 

I do not see what contracts have to do with a simple act of
consideration.

>|To me, it shows they have some consideration for my feelings.  I am
>|a lot less likely to go on a second date with someone who does not
>|offer to pay a little, or offer to pay next time, etc.
>Go on many second dates, Greg?

Not with people who I don't believe have any consideration for my
feelings.

>|When someone asks me out, I at least offer to pay the tip, or pay for
>|dessert.  It's a sign of consideration for the other person's feelings.
>There's a phrase that I use: "It's my treat", which means this entire 
>pleasurable (hopefully) experience is on me.  This is my treat to you.
>No Pre-Dinner contract necessary.

As I said before, it has nothing to do with contracts; it has to do
with consideration for the other person's feelings, which I believe
was one of the reasons Lauren stated *for* offering to pay on a date.
It's the difference between blithely letting someone spend money on
you, and acknowledging that they're spending money on you, and saying
"hey, I understand, let me share a little of the burden."

--gregbo

% lurk
From: rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com (Ray Fink)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is gold-digging?
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 23:06:11 -0700
Reply-To: wildrose!rkf@infoserv.com
Organization: Wild Rose Refugee Camp

jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:
>crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:

>}So, would any guys out there in net.land consider any of this 
>}"gold-digging"?  I'm honestly not very familiar with the term.

>I agree with other posters that gold-digging is far too strong to apply
>to just letting (or wanting) the man to pay for the date.  True gold-
>digging is being deliberately out for the man's money; having the ultimate
>goal of the man not only simply supporting you but supporting you in a
>lavish style.

Agreed.  There is a world of difference between acting on the basis of 
cultural norms and expectations (e.g. the man always pays) versus the 
deliberate intent of a real gold-digger (man or woman).


-- 
-- Ray
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Originator: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: in your face!
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 23:23:46 GMT

In article <15965@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>If you get a Christmas present from someone this year will you offer to
>contribute to the cost of the present?  No, of course you won't.  That's
>because it's a gift.  Think about it.

I'll answer this.  No, I won't offer to contribute to the cost of the
present.  However, I don't expect that because it is Christmas, I
should get a present.  This is the attitude that I am objecting to
here, that someone is entitled to a certain type of treatment because
of their gender, or mine, or because of tradition.  It also has been
my unfortunate experience that women who were unwilling to contribute
to the cost of a date also felt entitled to be spent money on because
they were female, I was male, and tradition said that was what should
be done.  I admit that it was wrong for me to generalize that someone
who would not chip in on a date has no consideration for my feelings.

--gregbo
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: carl@sscl.uwo.ca (Carl Kaufmann)
Subject: Re: never fight???
Organization: Soc.Sci.Comp.Lab., U.West.Ont.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:59:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.195543.3842@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>  
>  dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes
>  
> ] My mutant sweetie and I are coming up on our half year anniversary on the
> ] Winter Solstice.  When we were talking about this, we noticed that we've
> ] never had a single fight.  We had a disagreement over e-mail once, and
> ] a couple of times I've tried to gently suggest that perhaps SOAP and HOT
> ] water would be in order when he washes the dishes, but that is it in terms
> ] of fighting.
> ]
> ] It's beginning to bug me.  You see, when I went to a counselor after
> ] my divorce I said that one of the reasons the divorce surprised so much
> ] was that my ex and I never fought and the counselor said, "That's a very
> ] bad sign -- all healthy couples fight.  If you don't fight it means
> ] that one of you is suppressing something."
> ]
> ] So what do you think?  Is six months just too soon to have started with
> ] fights?  Is he going to undergo a major personality change when he moves
> ] in this winter?  Should I go home and pick a fight over something?  Or
> ] will we just have a lot more to fight about after he moves in?
>  
> What do I think?  Actually, I think that counselors often have the
> failing that they assume all people fit into one particular mold
> (indeed, before they entered their profession, many counselors used to
> post questions like "why is it that all men/women do thus-and-such?").

In the one instance where my (ex)partner and I had a counsellor, we
both came the the conclusion that he was full of shit.  The common
viewpoint did wonders for the relationhip. :-)

^ ^
CatGuy-----
||  ||
*****************************************************************************
* See how the heart reaches *  Carl Kaufmann   * No one has to do anything, *
* out instinctively, for no * Soc.Sci.Comp.Lab * except bear consequences.  *
* reason but to touch.      *    U.West.Ont    *                            *
*       -Kate Bush          * carl@sscl.uwo.ca *       -Me                  *
*****************************************************************************

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: krb@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Kevin Barnes)
Subject: Re: on the job
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 03:17:20 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard NARC Atlanta
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1.3 PL5


Go for it, really what is the worst that can happen!

don't worry; be happy!

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: lkahn@mitre.org (Larry Kahn)
Subject: Women: would you go out with a man dumber than you?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:00:28 GMT

   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.
   And don't bother asking me if I mind going out with a woman who's 
smarter than I am.  (Insert huge numbers of smileys here)  I never have.

   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   | Larry Kahn                       |                                  |
   | The MITRE Corporation            |   BE REASONABLE. DO IT MY WAY.   |
   | lkahn@mitre.org                  |                                  |
   |---------------------------------------------------------------------|
   |  These opinions may not coincide with my employer's (not that they  |
   |  pay any attention to an insignificant lackey like me, anyhow).     |
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.romance,alt.sex,alt.polyamory,talk.religion.misc
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Truth
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:40:43 GMT

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>Yes, this is nice. The greatest beauty therefore is the greatest truth.
>That is God, the Absolute Truth, Who is absolute beauty.

How do I know that?

Matt I. -asking and never answered, by any religion
From: souchay@CAM.ORG (Francois Souchay)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Women at work (Enquiring minds want to know)
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:11:40 GMT
Organization: Communications Accessibles Montreal, Quebec Canada

In article <MARTINC.92Dec14121541@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>In article <Bz8141.28G@CAM.ORG> souchay@CAM.ORG (Francois Souchay) writes:
>
>   Best damn C coder I *ever* worked with wore a skirt.
>
>Female, Scot, or transvestite?

Let's figure it out:

Transvestite : What do you mean, C? Look, the only program I see is Donahue.
I keep hoping he'll cross-dress again.  

Nope.

Scot : Ochhh laddie, so ye want me to prrrogrrrram in C do ye? Whhen I was
a lad, we scrrrratched on the verrrrry chips the codes we'd carrrre to rrun.
I'll have none of yerrrrr nonsense. Now hand me that sheep stomach, ah want
to be makin a set of pipes. Or some hhhhhhhaggis.

Nope.

Female : Why are all your variable named after Star Trek characters? Nerd.

YES!!!! We have a match!

Francois.

(and my vars aren't actually named after ST)
(it's BlackAdder)
From: kevinc@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (kevin.j.coulter)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: New Relationships...
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:02:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <oneil.724227891@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>
>Now, here's a question I've wanted to ask.  I mean, I realize that both men
>and women like sex a lot, but it seems to me that there are a lot of guys
>out there who just want sex.  I once dated a guy who dumped me when he 
>figured out that I wasn't about to jump into bed with him.  (I just don't
>immediately want to sleep with everyone I date.  And it usually takes me a 
>while to get comfortable with someone.  That doesn't mean I don't like 
>sex.  I really do.  But it's not the most important part of a relationship
>for me.  
>
>How important /is/ sex to a relationship?

It depends on the individual. And I don't really think gender has much
to do with it. I feel that if someone is truly in love with someone, and 
either person doesn't want sex, the other person should understand and
respect that. If they don't, then the relationship really doesn't exist.
If someone is going out with someone because their main goal is getting
lucky, thats not a relationship (IMHO).  

Now we all know people of both sexes who's primary goal in a
"relationship" is jumping in the sack as quickly as possible. If two
people of such mind should happen to hook up with each other (I know,
bad pun, but I couldn't resist), then they should go for it....  

However, I maintain that anyone worth having would respect someone's
opinion of not wanting sex or wanting to wait until they were sure they
were in love with this person. Without BOTH people wanting sex, it
shouldn't happen. And people shouldn't let their partners put guilt
trips on them if they don't have sex with them......  

So in answer to your question, Sharon, the guy who dumped you wasn't
worth having, and sex shouldn't be a major thing in a REAL relationship
as far as I'm concerned.....


				Kevin


------
 Kevin Coulter			"If it don't have wheels, it ain't a sport!!!"
 AT&T Network Systems
 Naperville, IL
 {att}!ihlpl!kevinc  OR  kevinc@ihlpl.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 07:22:38 GMT
Distribution: na
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 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 <1992Dec10.205710.19778@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>
>So if I don't bitch about inconveniant birth control
>and don't push tube tieing I can walk around swingin them babys from side
>to side. Cool.

Cool indeed.  No reason to get your nuts in an uproar over it...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Abortion
Date: 18 Dec 92 00:34:59 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <249@cnmhnet.UUCP> keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:
>In article <MARTINC.92Dec15080814@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
|>Don't be a cretin, Keith.  And try news.announce.newusers as well.
|
|I humbled myself, and then Charles, who is a fellow North Carolinian,
|flames me once again.  I think that Charles must not be a native
|North Carolinian, because we don't do that.  By the way, although
|I consider myself farily educated, 

Did you go to school abroad?

-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira        | Auspex Systems | "Ask me about my vow of silence." |
| johnf@auspex.com    | Santa Clara CA |                                   |
+==========================================================================+
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein)
Subject: Re: Surrogate companion
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:55:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.174336.12046@cheshire.oxy.edu> ac@cheshire.oxy.edu (Aileen Cho) writes:
>
>  After reading various threads, I wuz inspired to throw out some stuff:
>--Anybody else suffer from the "understudy for the part" syndrome? I have
>at least three good male friends who throughout the years go through
>various relationships -- and in between, guess who fills in? No, not 
>sexually, but during that interrim period I'm the never-fail alternative
>female companion. Guy gets girlfriend, calls me up once in a while to talk
>about it, breaks up, calls me more often and we go out to eat or see a 
>movie, etc. and talk about our respective lack of love lives. Then guy starts
>liking another woman, asks me for advice (like I'm an expert! :-(. ) Gets her,
>                                       Cheers,
>                                            --ac

I can relate, totally.  Although, I don't mind since I don't expect
more from those friendships.  There are quite a few of my friends who
are female.  The same exact series of events occur which you described.
Here from them a lot when they are not involved, and much less when
they are involved.  Same with me.  When I'm involved, they here less
from me.  

Some of you might disagree (go ahead, I can take it), but my 
philosophy of friends goes like this (and many of my female friends
have disagreed with this initially, but suddenly agreed when their
situation changed):

A friend is someone who is there to do and share things with when
there is not a SO present in their life.  Once a SO appears, the
need to socialize with the friend is decreased significantly.  Our
primary goal (or should I say mine, and I assume most others) is to
find a SO to spend, hopefully, the rest of our lives with.  We do
not hope, wish and/or pray for this to happen with someone of a 
friend status. 

                 Steve Stein  (609) 639-2264
    *******************************************************
    *  Just my opinion, though it could change tomorrow   *
    *******************************************************
From: taina@cs.Helsinki.FI (Juha Taina)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Calendars
Date: 18 Dec 1992 19:08:47 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki, Department of Computer Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: paros.helsinki.fi

In <Dec.17.10.14.49.1992.8307@net.bio.net> charleen@net.bio.net (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
>I look at a Chippendale's calendar, and those guys don't
>turn me on, they look *weird*, like something from the Planet Steroid.

Hmm, I wonder if women actually want to have the steroid-male
calendars, or is it just that the male calendar publishers think that
women want such calendars.

Juha Taina  taina@cs.helsinki.fi  Phone: +358-0-708-4247
Newsgroups: soc.singles,ba.singles
From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster)
Subject: Re: TygerBoink Results
Organization: The Tickle Palace - Moonyvale, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:05:31 GMT

In article <15791@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>In article <1992Dec6.114351.26486@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
> 
>|     Second, the following is my recollections about what occured at the
>|Boink.  I am sure that others will be able to add a lot more information.
>
>Thanks for the report but you seem to have left out all the good parts.  What
>were all these "incidents" about?

     On Friday night, because Tyger and Libby decided that I was a prime
tickle specimen, they teamed up and tickle attacked me.  I was lucky
because I defended myself pretty well against them and then tried a
counter tickle attack which succeeded.  On Saturday night, Libby and
I got into a tickle fight.  She defended herself pretty well because
she has strong arms.

>end of the day I was totally exhausted.  I had planned on attending the
>party, I really did.  Next time.
>

     Congratulations on your Dart success.

-- 
                                         +---------------------------------+
  +-----------------------------------+ /      Not a net.personality      /
 /   // Mr. Tickle Monster   // Amiga ++---------------------------------+
|  \X/   W. David Rohwer   \X/  3000  /  Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM  /
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Kissing Frogs
Date: 12 Dec 92 21:14:27 GMT
	<1992Dec12.004306.23870@netcom.com> <7894@news.duke.edu>
	<92347.125341SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Distribution: na
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA's message of 12 Dec 92 17:53:41 GMT

In article <92347.125341SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Graydon) writes:

   In article <7894@news.duke.edu>, diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) says:
   >
   >This reminds me of something one of my friends (one of my MALE friends,
   >mind you) says about men.
   >
   >"All men are either clueless or assholes.  If you meet one who seems
   > to be neither, he's probably an asshole."

   Oh, drat.  Yet another data point that sugguests I really *am*
   an alien.

Maybe you're just clueless.
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men,ba.singles,misc.legal
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 05:44:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.224106.933@erg.sri.com> rat@erg.sri.com (Ray Trent) writes:
>In the referenced article, whedon@netcom.com (Bill Whedon) writes:
>>any one of them as _my_ father.  Bunch of priggish anal-retentive gits.
>                                           ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
>Why do I get the feeling that you just heard these three words
>somewhere and decided they sounded like good insults?

	Ray, you're probably right but, dammit, it really _is_ a good
insult; can you blame him?

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: pdsmith@bbn.com (Peter D. Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Unlurking Alert
Date: 11 Dec 1992 18:23:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com
Keywords: Danger, danger %>

You mean that *none* of your net.friends has ever asked you out?
Shame on all of us!


					Peter
					"Likes fried lunch meat"
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Over 40 and single....Anyone that "OLD"?
Date: 20 Dec 1992 02:59:31 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1992Dec17.192523.7970@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
}In article <1gpnecINNqe7@mirror.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
}>In article <3b+rr8q@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
}>}r. (a 28 year old generation X baby-buster child, and proud of it :)
}>
}>Let's see:  1992 - 28 = 1964, which was the final year of the baby boom.
}
}Depends who you talk to.  I've seen it placed anywhere from '60 to '65.

My source is the Census Bureau.  Their range is 1946 through 1964.

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.romance,alt.sex,alt.polyamory,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Truth
Date: 16 Dec 1992 07:27:27 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, vedder@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (vedder julie ann) says:

>>Facts can be known, at least within the framework of science that most
>>of us share.  (although, being a skeptic, I doubt even that).
>
>>Truth, on the otherhand, is wholly subjective, and inherently
>>unprovable.  You may reach a consensus, as when the majority of people
>>in the US believe in monogamy, and hence bigamy is unconstitutional
>>(see, I'm not completely off-topic yet!), but you can never prove a
>>'truth'.  
>
>Truth and fact are the same thing.  Your definition of truth fits under
>"belief" not truth.
>
While I agree that truth and belief are not equal.  I also believe that
truth and fact are not equal.  I'm not sure what truth is.  However, as a
scientist I find it hard to believe that facts are immutable.  Our view of
what is a "fact" changes with time.  THerefore they cannot represent some
immutable "truth".  It maybe that facts are a subset of "truth" but it is
not equivelant.



-- 
All propositions are true in some sense, false in some sense and
meaningless in some sense.  
                               --Hagbard Celine H.M. S.H.
<this is a signature virus, to spread it, just copy into your sig-file>
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Attraction -> Acquiantance or vice versa?
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:34:00 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Dec10.205842.36736@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOSEPH ALOYSIUS MCVEIGH) writes:

>>I initially actively disliked the man who is now my fiance.  We eventually
>>became friends.  About a year and a half later, I realized I was in love
>>with him and he suddenly became the hottest babe on the planet.

>Maybe, just maybe, in a few weeks, this could be considered by SOC.SINGLES
>historians as the first shot in the resumption of the "Assault Of The Nice-
>Guys-Who-Hang-Around-Women-Hoping-That-Eventually-They'll-Fall-In-Love-With-
>Them."

Uh-oh.  What've I done?  That's pretty much exactly how it happened ... 




-- 
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