HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: Prove That Kids are Precious Gifts From God. (Was: Re: ra-ising c-hildren)
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 14:11:46 GMT

Folks - you're not reading what is being written.

There is no denying that a wanted child, one whom
you have waited for eagerly for 9 months, especially
if there have been difficulties along the way,
is a precious and wonderful thing.  

I know my parents tried VERY hard to have children,
so when I and my brother were born, we were both
considered precious and wonderful.

I know my sister-in-law suffered through 3 or 4
miscarriages before she was able to carry to term
my two nephews - so I know that THEY are considered
both precious and wonderful.

But NEITHER of these families believe in god, so
they do not consider them "precious gifts of God",
rather that they were the happy result of a LOT
of hard work.

And for those of us who neither believe in god,
nor want children, you can believe that any children
we may find ourselves with would not be considered
a precious gift from ANYone.  

Right now there are only four children in the world
that I would consider as anything LESS than a 
terrible burden - my two nephews and my PYM's
two children.  Any of those four would be welcomed
by me - any other children would be considered a
REAL nuisance.

So - for those of you arguing against David, 
remember, not EVERYone considers children to be a
"precious gift" - from ANYbody, let alone a "god".

Diana
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: net.hugs?
Keywords: Handy-Wipe, please?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:33:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.210352.17644@orphan.nashvil.ingr.com> puter@orphan.nashvil.ingr.com (PuterDude) writes:
> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) lays a wet one...
>
>>Actually I'm not an ARC regular. As long as you keep crossposting
>>here's a big wet slimy green toothed puck it up french kiss, just for you
>>pooperdude. =:-)
>
>Golly, gee, thanx! Kinda surprised me that your gay, tho...
 
Only for you macho man.
 
>
>And a big bear hug while I wear my spiked leathers back atchya! 8=]
 
I prefer your leapord thong.
 
>
>Since you're cross-postin' right back, is your readin' disability
>confusin' you into believin' that ARC and alt.romance are the same?
 
They are the same. Exactly the same.
Your using a different smilie dictionary. But I think I'm getting the
jist.
 

 
================================================================================
 Ipsissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes 
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jsmt@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Julia Smith)
Subject: Re: looks
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 02:42:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.120258.1@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> phys224@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
>hello everyone,i'd like to hear peoples opinions on several things...
<stuff deleted>
>what do the rest of you think? do you males really think high-heels,
>painted faces etc are important with respect to how you like someone?
>and do many of you females like macho men,with fancy hairstyles and
>designer clothes? and why?what does that tell you about their intellect,etc?
>one other thing,why do so many females shave themselves so much?it seems
>so irrelevent,yet i only know 1 or 2 women who don't shave their arms,etc.
>we are mammels,are'nt we?why only females in our culture,why not males as well

I don't know about men, but I definately think it is critically important for
the man in my life to wear clothing which accentuates every feature of his
masculine form, enhancing those striking features with the most vivid colors.
Guys, stuck for a dynamic new make-up idea?  Try plaid over the eye-lids
and around the cheekbones - women are into dynamic and bold color statements...
They just say "macho studling" like no other statement.
that really is the only thing that women care about - how you look and
the ways you fill out those tight-fitting clothes.  Spandex is good, but
for that really alluring approach you really need the double-tight
stretch that only nylon will give you.  Or better yet, forget the clothes
and try body paints.  It will *definately* get you noticed.
>
Newsgroups: soc.singles,talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.non.sequitur
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: DearOldDougie Comes OUT of the CLoset
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:54:53 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:


So pleased to see that you are again willing to
put your name out there.....

now, why not share with everyone the advantages of
a full size rifle cartridge v. the wimpy wimpy 
sub caliber munnitions, and why REAL MEN are
not lead astray by all the SeXularHumanistPropoganda
that the 5.56mm is an adequate round, and clearly
the reason that the USA lost the War in VietNam....


Not to Mention that you can also go into long graphic
details about the ADVANTAGES of the Large Caliber Round
as it produces Better KILLINGS than wimpy Rounds.....

You can ask Frau Forgach for the Text on the Advantages
of the various fire arms and the wounds they inflict....

ciao
drieux


ps: Can You also PLEASE post your SAT scores to show
us that you are SOOOOOOOO BRILLLIANT.


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Little Miss Muffett, sat on a ToughtIt,
Eating her Kurds and Weighs, Along came a Spider,
and she drove off with the Neat Guy with a HOT CAR!
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: net.hugs?
Keywords: Handy-Wipe, please?
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:48:58 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Nov23.192735.9804@orphan.nashvil.ingr.com> puter@orphan.nashvil.ingr.com (PuterDude) writes:
>In article <y-qq9x-@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>> puter@orphan.nashvil.ingr.com (PuterDude) writes:
>
>>>Since you're cross-postin' right back, is your readin' disability
>>>confusin' you into believin' that ARC and alt.romance are the same?
>>
>>Alt.romance.chat was created a number of months back for the sole purpose of
>>moving a running thread with 'cowpatty' and somebody else out of alt.romance
>>so they (the alt.romance people) could talk about more important things,
>>like White Knights and crap like that.
>>Alt.romance and alt.romance.chat are damn near identical.
>
>I'm probably wrong, but I don't see them as "damn near identical". After
>readin' a.r and ARC (along with soc.singles and soc.couples), I view a.r
>as a more "mechanical" side of romance, where ARC has the banter. a.r IMHO
>has more to do with (ie) what color of the rose denotes what emotion, 
 
Just write the greeting card company, they'll tell ya that.
 
>engagement present ideas, lists of romantic songs, romantic first date
>ideas, etc., where ARC contains the banter (running threads).
 
Just like I said same groups.
 
>	I don't view a.r as a "syrupy sweet" group. It mostly contains
>references for romantic ideas, such as the ones I listed above.
 
I guess my reading disability just kicked in cause the definition
of syrupy sweet is romantic songs, romantic first dates etc.
 
>	ARC _is_ "syrupy sweet", and can be very annoyin'. But, so can
>a month-long thread on "seesters".   :)
 
Got any? pooperdudettes that is?

 
================================================================================
 Ipsissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes 
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder)
Subject: Re: What is attractive to women?
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 20:43:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.235810.21085@rs6000.bham.ac.uk> pickerig@eee.bham.ac.uk (Mr. G. Pickering) writes:
>Sandra Loosemore (loosemore-sandra@cs.yale.edu) wrote:
>: xanadu@t-bone.cs.unlv.edu (Thomas Wilson) writes:
>: 
>: Hanging out in bookstores or libraries is a good sign!  :-)  I also
>: tend to look for absence of bad signs such as wedding rings,
>: cigarettes, alcohol, slobby appearance.  It's not 100% infallible, but
>: I also consider wearing a suit and/or tie to be a bad sign (conformity).
>                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Oh so that's why I am single then. Now I see the light. I will throw
>out my wardrobe, and keep you informed....

Try wearing your "Cure" t-shirt to work some time with the
worn-through-at-the-knees blue jeans and see how long you stay at your
RealWorld job, assuming that they hire you in the first place.
Sometimes you have to play by the rules during the day for appearances,
also if you wish to command any kind of respect from your older
co-workers who are busy talking about the state of property taxes and
prime lending rates.  Being a young professional that works with older
folks means that you can't do just whatever you want to do all of the
time.  Wearing a tie dosen't necessarily make you a ... oh MY
GOD!..."conformist"!


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Schroeder  		|  
schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov         |        It's a pomaceous life. 
Brookhaven National Laboratory  |
From: mattb@ssc-vax (Matt Baney)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: >Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Summary: What does it mean??
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:47:40 GMT
Reply-To: mattb@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Matt Baney)
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics

In article <1992Nov16.125356.2348@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>
>Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
>
Sorry for stupid question, this is probably a faq, but I have seen
this several times would someone please let me know what it means??
thanks
matt





-- 
|  Matt Baney         | Boeing Defense and Space Division    |
|  -----------------  |   Knowledge Systems Group            |
| "I can't tolerate   | UUCP:        ..!bcstec!ssc-vax!mattb |        
| intolerant people!" | Internet:   mattb@ssc-vax.boeing.com |
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik)
Subject: Re: why can't men dance together and just be f
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 02:22:53 GMT

In article 646@ka2qhd.de.com, bill@ka2qhd.de.com (Bill Luzenko) writes:
>a
>
>woman can go out and dance together and have a good time. Why is it that
>when men dance together we are called homo's or queers?
>I can sesome social pressure but I'm trying to figure it out. 
>Where did this come from? How did it evolve? Why are the constraints still
>existant? Who benefits from the lack of social freedom? Why can't we break
>out of the stigma? 


Interesting...It could develop into a swordfight if done without clothes(!) :+Q

dreas
From: daviss@vax.sonoma.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Top 9 things...
Date: 23 Nov 92 22:33:54 GMT
Organization: Sonoma State University

In article <1992Nov23.083427.748@netcom.com>, rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
> In article <Nov.17.13.40.03.1992.27111@romulus.rutgers.edu> nehs@romulus.rutgers.edu (-Killer Klondike-) writes:
>>Top 9 things a man doesn't want to hear from a woman he's interested in...
>>Compiled from several different sources, my thanks to each and every one of
>>them.
>> 
> -3.  I am a virgin and I will only lose my virginity to a man who loves me.
> 
> -- 
>                                        +-------------------------------------+
>   +---------------------------------+ /    Keep Abortion Legal and Safe.    /
>  /   //  W. David Rohwer   // Amiga ++-------------------------------------+
> |  \X/       Go A's!     \X/  3000     Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM      /
> +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Keep dreaming.
From: dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Money and the Single World (was: Education and the Single World
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:18:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.lgiabkINN2vp
Reply-To: dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <5733@jptcs.COM> tps@jptcs.com writes:
>
>If you go into it taking precautions against 'if or when' it breaks up,
>it's a planned failure from the start! 

But what about the money arguements you had *during* the marriage?  Wouldn't
it have made you feel better to have some money socked away that she wasn't
going to spend on frivolities?  Wouldn't it have helped to have spelled
out how much she had to pay towards expenses, or how much you were going
to put into her account if she didn't work?  And if she kept breaking 
agreements or kept going after your part, then wouldn't you have wanted
to *know* that?  Seems like it would still work when the relationship
worked and might help reduce some potential stress.  I think it's the only
way to work things out if there's difference in incomes or spending
styles.  Otherwise, the outgo partner is going to feel penned in and the
income partner is going to feel used.  Wish I'd done it before.  

Dawn

Joseph Campbell gave me hope and now I have been saved.
"Folk Song" by Bongwater
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans)
Subject: Re: What is attractive to women?
Organization: we don't need no steenking.....
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:49:16 GMT

In article <lgi7ajINN22n@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>Next semester, I cut my hair, wore makeup, shaved my legs and wore (shudder)
>panty hose and suits.

Shaved your legs!!  Gross!!  The idea makes me shudder....


Piglet
From: loosemore-sandra@cs.yale.edu (Sandra Loosemore)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is attractive to women?
Date: 16 Nov 1992 18:50:32 -0500
Organization: staff hacker @ Yale Haskell project
	<JMD.92Nov13135433@lion.bear.com>,<74344@apple.apple.COM>
	<htjq-2_@lynx.unm.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: functor.systemsz.cs.yale.edu
In-reply-to: hays@TECHNET.NM.ORG's message of Mon, 16 Nov 92 21:08:57 GMT

Gee, I really managed to stir up a lot of flames with my offhand mention
of tie-wearing!  As I said, I don't consider wearing a tie to be a 100%
reliable bozo indicator, but it does tend to set off alarm bells.

Me, I wouldn't work in a place where I was expected to get dressed up
unless I was *really* desperate, which I'm not.  Heck, I don't even own
a dress, and I wouldn't be caught dead in high heels either.

-Sandra the cynic
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Answer: How to increase the male sex drive ?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 22:23:40 GMT


Many People have been concerned about
how to solve the above stated problem.


The Korrekt Answer is:

Rebuild the transmission.


ciao
drieux


ObPeeve: That the younger Generation is SOOOOO Confused
about these things....



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Little Miss Muffett, sat on a ToughtIt,
Eating her Kurds and Weighs, Along came a Spider,
and she drove off with the Neat Guy with a HOT CAR!
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Being Alone?
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:27:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.104802.14403@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
eda735a@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (P.E. Mazur) writes:

>> In article <oneil.721868088@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>> >
>> >I honestly believe -- and have been told I'm unusual for this belief -- that 
>> >in a relationship, friendship should come before romance.  Personally, I've
>> >*never* fallen head over heels in love with someone unless I was friends 
>> >first.  Maybe it *is* a little cynical, but I just don't believe in love at
>> >first sight, for myself anyway.

>A quick personal observation from experience... When you meet someone, make
>sure you place them into one of two areas: friend or boyfriend/girlfriend.
>Nothing lies in between.

My experience differs.  I've had several relationships that are both
friendly and sexual; I tend to prefer them to relationships that are
only sexual.

>  I met this girl who confused me... wasn't sure if
>I should ask her out or not.  On the one hand we were great friends, on the
>other I found her attractive and wanted to go out with her.  I wish I had
>made up my mind one way or the other right from the start.  Take my 
>friendly advice all... it's either one way or the other.  Don't mix the two.
>This is not to say that your girlfriend/boyfriend shouldn't be your friend!
>But if your confused as I was... that's trouble.  Just my view of life :*)

No need to get confused.  Go for both.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: nehs@romulus.rutgers.edu (-Killer Klondike-)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Top 9 things...
Date: 20 Nov 92 05:41:56 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Graydon) writes:

>"Not even with blood tests."

>"Not even double dipped in latex."

>"But I couldn't be seen with a geek."

>You? .. proceeds to fold up in midle and roll on floor laughing, with,
>oh, 50 witnesses present.  (Happened to me in Grade 13, unlike the
>first three).

>Graydon

Thanks!  a compendium to be posted in, say, a week or so...

-Benjamin
Newsgroups: soc.singles,talk.abortion
From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer)
Subject: Re: nkill
Followup-To:  soc.singles,talk.abortion
Organization: Netcom - San Jose, CA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 07:16:42 GMT

In article <MARTINC.92Nov19201910@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.063630.20728@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>>Charles writes:
>>>Let's try this by analogy, in short simple sentences.  What is your
>>>feeling about
>>>
>>>	nkill -poison proabortionists@usa
>>>
>>>Is that more or less morally offensive?
>>>--
>>
>>       If you compare it against:  nkill -poison anti-abortionists@usa,
>>  I believe that it is less morally offensive because anti-abortionists
>>  interfere in another person's life while pro-abortionists live their
>>  life and not interfere in another's life.  My line of reasoning is
>>  predicated on when one considers a human a person.  I happen to
>>  believe that a human is a person that has been born.  Some of the
>>  anti-abortionists believe that human is a person at conception.
>
>And as a result, you're willing to (metaphorically) kill an already-born
>person for holding a different opinion than you.

     If we are in a battle to the death, then I will make sure that they
die.  If we are not in a battle to the death, then, because I believe in 
free speech they should be able to say whatever they want, I will attempt
to make sure that their ideas die and the pro-choice ideas prevail.  I am
already making an attempt by supporting the pro-choice movement with
money and time.


>  (Or somehow you're
>under the impression that "anti-abortionist" *only* means Operation
>Rescue.)  If Randall Terry had nkill, would *you* be safe?
>
>	(And I can't resist the observation that *some* of these people
>	have not only been born, they've been born *twice*!)
>
>So long as someone feels it is morally justifiable to kill (or even
>nkill) someone for differing opinions, then none of us are safe.  
>--

     Just like the Christians and the Republicans are trying to do right
now in trying to outlaw the gay lifestyle.

-- 
       +----------------------------------------------------------------+
      /  Keep Abortion Legal and Safe.  Reduce the Deficit.            /
  +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 /   //  W. David Rohwer   // Amiga       UUCP: apple!netcom.com!rohwerwd |
|  \X/       Go A's!     \X/ 3000UX   Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM      /
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Being Alone?
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:57:33 GMT

In article <oneil.721868088@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
[...]
>I honestly believe -- and have been told I'm unusual for this belief -- that 
>in a relationship, friendship should come before romance.  Personally, I've
>*never* fallen head over heels in love with someone unless I was friends 
>first.  Maybe it *is* a little cynical, but I just don't believe in love at
>first sight, for myself anyway.

This is rather unusual in my experience.  Most of the women I've talked to
about this (relationship counselors and the like included) have said that
they couldn't even consider dating someone who was already a good friend,
because they would tend to think of such a person as a sibling.  The
relationship counselors that I've talked to have said that this generally
applies.  Dating a sibling feels wrong to most people...

>Sharon 
>oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu


-- 
Kevin Brown					kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
	    This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
			Any questions?
From: jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOSEPH ALOYSIUS MCVEIGH)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Something that's NOT attractive. . . .
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:43:47 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <By6p4o.InB@news.cso.uiuc.edu>,
jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:
>I know the ONE thing that completly turns me away from a woman is
>smoking.I can't help it, it just drives up the wall. Anyone else
>have things that are definate no-no's in a potential romance?

1. Smoking.
2. Owns cats.
3. Likes cats.
4. Politically liberal.
5. Feigned ignorance.
6. More intelligent than I.
7. Better pool player than I.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Aloysius McVeigh |"The world is full of articulate people who may not
   jm0i@.Lehigh.edu     | know too much, but are nonetheless perfectly willing
      "N.I.N.A."        | to make policy."                 - Philip R. Lochner
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: mliau@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Alvin K Liau)
Subject: Geek calling...
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:12:05 GMT

Hi!

	I am a certified nerd, getting my
masters in Nuke Eng. WHat could be worse...

	Anyways, I am new to Columbus, OH
and would like to get to know ppl!

	Hmm, guess I gotta put this here...

6', 160lbs in the winter, 155lbs in the summer,
7lbs in 1970.

	Soccer, cycling, cooking...NOT!,
movies, hmm, anything actually. Except cooking
of course... hated that, miss dorm food...gosh
can't believe I said I miss dorm food, well
later...


--------------------<<<<<>>>>>--------------------
          mliau@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
    "if you don't play soccer, you don't exist"
--------------------<<<<<>>>>>--------------------
Newsgroups: soc.singles,ba.singles