HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lana@magenta.corp.sgi.com (Lana Mountford)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,alt.romance.chat
Subject: Re: The Shadowette....
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:01:18 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Aug27.203242.1@sscl.uwo.ca>, carl@sscl.uwo.ca (Carl Kaufmann) writes:
|> The Shadowette has challenged me to prove that cats are indeed more romantic
|> than dogs.  To that end I would appreciate any help you and our fellow 
|> net.felines could muster.  TIA
|> 

Why, what could possibly be more romantic than a soft purr in your lap? 
What is more romantic than the feel of *soft* fur against your cheek, or
the sight of a sleek animal stretching languidly in a pool of sunlight?
What about a soft nuzzle under the chin, with a corresponding "chirp" to
let you know that you are indeed appreciated?  What more proof is needed?
:-)

-- 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|    /)                      | Lana Mountford    
|   / /  __    ___    __     | Silicon Graphics  
|__(_/__(__)\__/  )__(__)\__ | Mountain View, CA 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: alt.romance,alt.romance.chat
From: bicker@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Subject: Re: what she wants
Reply-To: Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Organization: The Internet
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:09:23 GMT
Followup-To: alt.romance,alt.romance.chat

In article <Bu1x9F.CFr@tik.vtt.fi> pekka@tmt.tele.fi (Pekka Ahonen) writes:
>Don't you get IT(tm), when men are after someone, of course they (us)

Speaketh for thyself, friend!

>want to win the interest of the woman they are courting by bying her
>flowers and presents and other "cutsie-shit", but when marriage-life
>starts they don't feel obligated anymore to do so as they think that
>in marriage-life they are equal with their wife (meaning 'I will not
>buy her anything if she will not buy something for me')

I am equal with my RP now, and we're not even married.  *She* does feel
obligated to buy stuff for me when I buy stuff for her, even though I
can afford it and she cannot.  But I don't expect anything from her
ever (and I suspect that she would never become resentful if I stopped
gifting her--don't be so skeptical--you don't know Robbie.)  I feel
this is *the* way to deal with this aspect of relationships.

>But methinx it is a part of dating for man to buy "cutsies" to a woman
>and women should accept them, because otherwise dating may end quite
>soon, since men are used to "take care" of women while dating and if a
>woman don't accept "cutsies" man will either get scared thinking of
>her as a feminist or get hurt and think that she don't care about him.

Oy veh iz mir.  PLEASE don't speaketh for me!!!  Feminism is a
requisite feature of any prospective RP for me, not a turn-off!  I
don't get my jollies from taking care of women, indeed, I like to be
taken care of sometimes...it's a mutual thing.

>HOHOHO!

To save my sanity, I'll assume this meant that everything you wrote was
a joke.  :>

-- 
Brian Charles Kohn               using !bicker's account
Poet-Magician of "Quality"       E-MAIL: bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM
    'Hope, not fear, is the most positive advocate of action.' - S.R. Lawhead
                   Stamp Out "SO": "RP" = "Romantic Partner"
From: tdbear@tandon.com (Tom Barrett)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: Love
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:33:37 GMT
Organization: Tandon Corporation, Moorpark, CA

In article <1992Aug26.002811.2535@jetsun.weitek.COM> weaver@jetsun.weitek.COM (Michael Gordon Weaver) writes:
>Now, whether romance exists outside our fantasies, that is another
>question.

Oh, I'm sure it does... often though, my lovers simply don't
live up to ALL of my expectations.  They might satisfy my
intellectual needs, my social needs, my cuddling needs, my
sexual needs, etc., but maybe not ALL of those in one person.
The "trick" (or better, luck) is to find all of those
satisfaction in one person... right?  (Or is that too much to
ask for?)


-- 
Tom Barrett (TDBear)    tdbear@tandon.com          voice: 805-378-6207
Tandon Corporation      609 Science Drive          Moorpark, CA  93021 
Sr. HW Design Engineer  "War is Peace, No is Yes, And We're All Free!" 
-=>NOTE:  The feed to tdbear@tandon.com may be interrupted in Sept.<=-
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: thom@cac.washington.edu (Thom Roholt)
Subject: Re: Religion (was Re: Together and other dating services)
Organization: UW Networks and Distributed Computing
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:54:51 GMT

In article <12660@ecs.soton.ac.uk> lm89@ecs.soton.ac.uk (McIlhoney L) writes:
>In <1992Aug24.103231.23103@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> ccaajmf@ucl.ac.uk (John Franks) writes:
>
>>In article <geZxpOW00WB684NHNy@andrew.cmu.edu> dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu (David O Hunt) writes:
>>>The few dates that I received were nice, but among other things I am an
>>>atheist, and without fail the woman they matched me with was more than a
>>>little religious.
>
>>Religion: is it really that much of an obstacle? Isn't it possible to agree
>>to differ? Almost against my wishes, I'm getting very atheistic recently; but
>>my values aren't much changed. I'm interested because a friend of mine, who
>>is much as I am, has had a pretty long & close relationship with someone who
>>is very religious; but it did take them a long time to get off the ground.
>
>Some Christians tend not to seek deep relationships with people of
>opposing faiths (and this includes atheism - the belief that there
>is no God) because they don't want their own faith to be whittled
>down - it is precious to them.
>
>Having said that, my closest friend (a girl called Jennie) is pretty
>much an agnostic while I am a devoted Christian and I would trust
>her with my life.  But then again, we're not planning on a deep romantic
>relationship, and so we can agree to disagree, as our lives are not
>fully shared.
>
>>John Franks, ccaajmf@ucl.ac.uk or jmf14@phx.cam.ac.uk to readers in Cambridge.
>>     "And a thousand slimy things
>>      Lived on; and so did I."
>
>Tell me, do you know John Huber?  If so, can you show him how to
>get an account on Phoenix.  He's a third year engineer where you
>are.
>-- 
>Lawrence McIlhoney, Department of Electronics & Computer Science,
>University of Southampton, United Kingdom.  Email lm89@uk.ac.soton.ecs
>"Live fast, die young, leave a good-looking corpse -
>preferably someone else's."
From: weaver@jetsun.weitek.COM (Michael Gordon Weaver)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: A Piece of Advice
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:57:15 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <chil.715511346@sfu.ca> chil@fraser.sfu.ca (Keith Lim) writes:

(context intentionally taken out)

>What I don't understand is the idea that saying "I love you" is something
>that is likely to destroy a good friendship. Worst case scenario I can
>envision is a LJBF reply, which means only that the relationship should
>continue on as it had previously, and not develop into something deeper.
>If there was a misinterpretation of intent involved, there is always time
>for explanations, and, if necessary, apologies. A "good friendship"
>should be able to stand up to a misunderstanding without being harmed.
>
I hate to be negative, but I have to disagree here. If you said perfect
friendship, I guess I would have to agree. First, LJBF is not the worst
that can happen. A person can be comfortable being friends, but still 
too threatened by the idea that you would like to be lovers to continue
being friends. If they are feel threatened enough, they will withdraw
or even be hostile.

Second, I would be surprised if a friendship really continued as it was
after a LJBF. Saying "I love you" is not like saying "let's play golf",
if you really feel love you are going to feel strongly about how your
friend feels about it, and your friend is going to know that you feel
strongly about it. If it is then LJBF, there is going to be tension
between the two of you for a while. If your friendship survives, it
will be stronger, but it may not survive.

>I do not know what the "dilemma" referred to in the second-last line (of
>the quoted text) refers to. It might mean--I don't know if it is
>supposed to--having to decide if the relationship is one of "friends"
>or "lovers". This may be a false dichotomy, indeed, I consider it so.
>Can not a person be both? And by saying "I love you", could not a person
>be saying, in effect, that he/she wants to be both to the other? 
>
I would say it is best to be friends if you are going to be lovers. I
wouldn't want it any other way. But I think there is a sizable
minority who don't see lovers as friends. They see a lover as a
emotional relationship, and a friendship as a rational one, and can't
see how the two can be mixed successfully.

Michael.
From: frank@rniwi.rni.sub.org (Frank Mogaddedi)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: fantasies
Date: 26 Aug 92 08:17:48 GMT
Organization: Frank's Wild Unix

erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) writes:

>Rebel Contrabassoonist (hoesly@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu) wrote:

>: In article <1992Aug20.175204.19974@unislc.uucp> erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) wrote:
>: >Dawn Bott (ae498@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
>: >: I have to agree that being in the wild outdoors is possibly
>: >: the most exciting place to make love....
>: >: but instead of the thunder and lightning....
>: >: I kinda like the idea of a being out in a snow storm...
>: >
>: >Brrrrr.....!
>: 
>: Whatsa matter, Ed?  Don't like snow?
>: It doesn't necessarily have to be all that
>: cold to snow, and when there are two people
>: doing all they can to keep the other warm...
>: 
>: Need I say more?  ;)

>Well, it's the thought of my warm body hitting that cooooold snow before
>she can distract me enough for it not to matter... :)

Ed, I guess you just have to be distracted enough _before_ you hit the
snow.  I'm quite certain that this can be accomplished quite easily :-)

Cheers
	Frank
P.S.: No rude comments about snowballs, ok? :^)
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| e-mail: frank@rniwi.rni.sub.org | Disclaimer: "Read my lips" (George Bush)  |
|	  Beauty is only skin-deep, but ugliness goes clean to the bone	      |
|	     What luck for women, that men can see better than think	      |
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: gryphon@wpi.WPI.EDU (The Emotional Yo Yo)
Subject: Re: A Piece of Advice
Keywords: and a warning
Organization: Recursive Gravity Testing Ltd.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:17:57 GMT

In article <BtyJ1q.3IL@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> cadesjar@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Curtis Desjardins) writes:
>In article <Btw0AK.D4u@wpi.WPI.EDU> gryphon@wpi.WPI.EDU (The Emotional Yo Yo) writes:
>>I have discovered, through practical and painful experience, that, should you
>>wish to destroy a relationship utterly, there is no better way to do it than
>>with three little words:
>>
>>I love you.
>
>No. Wrong. 

Yes.  Right.  Weren't you paying attention to the above section?  IT HAPPENED
TO ME.

>
>Granted, those three words can change the outlook two people can have on
>their relationship, and yes, SOMETIMES people are not emotionally ready
>for that kind of change, but more often than not the relationship grows
>into something special, whether that be as best friends or as lovers.

Or maybe not.  (Guess I'm just a special case.)

>
>Take me, for instance. I'm not one to take those 3 words lightly. When
>I say them I mean them. In my life, I've said 'I love you' to a total of
>three women. Two resulted in the 2 best friends that I have today, and the
>third is the love of my life (without whom I don't know what I'd do).

Lucky happy you.  I've said it to _two_.  One was my mother, and I think
everyone here can understand what _that_ one meant and why it doesn't fit
this discussion.  (Oedipal complex comments to /dev/null.)  The second...
well...that's where my original article came from.
 
>
>Sure, saying 'I love you' can lead to the type of relationship you don't
>want (ie. LJBF), but you can't let that kind of fear rule your life, or
>you'll NEVER find anyone. BELIEVE ME, I lived this way for a long time!

Ooh--you mean some people are lucky enough to get LJBF as a response?  Wow!
That must be quite a difference from the nuclear winter I got.  I haven't 
heard silence that loud since the time I went on the extended tour of Mammoth
Cave in Kentucky, or felt a chill as profound since the winter of '89.

>========================= Fluffy the Wonder Bunny ============================

God, but it's hard to take a flame from someone who calls themself 'Fluffy
the Wonder Bunny'...

--G.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Natural Progressions to be Found in the English Language #247-11A:
          cat.......................................catapult
INTERNET: gryphon@world.std.com               BELLNET: (508)755-4675
SNAILNET: Benjamin D. Hutchins, 14 Dover St. #2B, Worcester, MA  01609
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: A Piece of Advice
From: dayrton@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:53:42 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <Btw0AK.D4u@wpi.WPI.EDU>, gryphon@wpi.WPI.EDU 
(The Emotional Yo Yo) writes:

> I have discovered, through practical and painful experience, that, should you
> wish to destroy a relationship utterly, there is no better way to do it than
> with three little words:
> 
> I love you.

I would have said it was "Let's get married" but then again I don't know if the
contraction counts as one or two words.  In either case, I suspect that the
fault lies not with the words themselves but in how, when and to whom we say
them.  People are notorious for picking the worst persons to get
involved with.
From: bicker@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Subject: Re: what she wants
Reply-To: Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Organization: The Internet
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:56:35 GMT
Followup-To: alt.romance

In article <1992Sep2.215750.26614@news.nd.edu> (Angie) writes:
>All women are not the same.  Some ladies prefer all the cute things that
>men do when dating.  While others prefer to bypass all that "cutsie-shit"
>and just get on with the relationship.  For myself  - and a majority of the
>women I know - I prefer all the "cutsie-shit" that a man will hand out!  As
>long as he's willing to spend money and time on you, then take it!  Why? 
>Well, simply because later on in the relationship, it just will not happen.

Angie, you must learn patience like good Grasshopper.  You're only
looking at limited data.  I can tell you stories of how women I know
(and a certain woman I love <grin>) ensures continual cutsie-sh*t by
only accepting a little at a time.  It is so infuriating that I can't
really make her day as much as I want to that I'll keep trying...I
can't speak from experience about forever, but I know that this has
been going on for 2 1/2 years now and shows no sign of letting up.  And
that's even with me realizing that things work this way!

-- 
Brian Charles Kohn               using !bicker's account
Poet-Magician of "Quality"       E-MAIL: bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM
    'Hope, not fear, is the most positive advocate of action.' - S.R. Lawhead
                   Stamp Out "SO": "RP" = "Romantic Partner"
Newsgroups: alt.romance,alt.romance.chat
From: rip@sequent.com (Paul T Taylor)
Subject: Re: Part Two of "Dryads' Dailiness"
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 02:22:44 GMT

In article <BtM7Ev.534@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> coates@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Tony Coates) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.151616.16987@pony.Ingres.COM>, jlane@Ingres.COM (Judi Lane) writes:
>[very impressive part 2 deleted]
>|>      Judi
>|>      (stillthinkin'ona.sigfile) 8^)
>
>Oh yes, this is great.  I loved the image of the woman carrying off her
>chosen toy-boy.  After all, why *should* men be so often called upon to
>be the "movers and shakers", so to speak?  Or is it that we just think
>we are, and that the ladies have been secretly manipulating us since
>the dawn of time?  Anyway, I look forward to part 3 ......
>
>How about 'Official Nymph of the RFA' ?????

Would that be 'Nymphette', or 'Nympho'?

Dirty minds want to know....

rip
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: kklai@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Betty Boop)
Subject: Re: A Piece of Advice
Keywords: and a warning
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:30:52 GMT

In article <Btw0AK.D4u@wpi.WPI.EDU> gryphon@wpi.WPI.EDU (The Emotional Yo Yo) writes:
>I have discovered, through practical and painful experience, that, should you
>wish to destroy a relationship utterly, there is no better way to do it than
>with three little words:
>
>I love you.
>

Yes but it is also the best way to create a long lasting relationship. Though
sometimes it may destroy a relationship in most cases it will lead you to the
relationship that you have been searching for...

They are indeed very powerful words but don't be afraid to use them...you
will be closing many doors of opportunity and happiness...

Betty Boop


Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison)
Subject: Re: Carol's Wow...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Ancient Souls Inc.
Date: 28 Aug 1992 10:36 EST  

In article <15136.9208271946@nags2.nag.co.uk>, simon@num-alg-grp.co.uk (Simon Earthrowl) writes...
>Carol excites:
>>Don't you lust me anymore?  I haven't gotten any e-mail.               
>>  
>>Carol "do you think I'm sexy" Farquhar          
> 
>Is this private or can anyone join in ?? 8-)

I *suspect* it might be directed at one person, otherwise she would have 
signed it ...

>>Carol "do you think I'm a multi-processor" Farquhar          

:-)

> 
>-SimonE

-- Stephen

	"Some people live their dreams, some people close their eyes.
	 Some people's destiny... passes by"

					"I'll Be Over You"   -- Toto

Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: enigma@halcyon.com (Matt Luders)
Subject: Re: What is LOVE ?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 18:07:08 GMT

 "What is love?  'tis not hereafter;
  Present mirth hath present laughter.
  What's to come is still unsure:
  In delay there lies no plenty;
  Then come and kiss me, sweet and twenty,
  Youth's a stuff will not endure."

    -- Wm. Shakespeare, Twelfth-Night, Act II Scene 3.

Omnia vincit Amor
Matt

Newsgroups: alt.romance,alt.romance.chat
From: coates@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Tony Coates)
Subject: Re: Part Two of "Dryads' Dailiness"
Organization: Physics Dept. The University of Queensland
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:47:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.151616.16987@pony.Ingres.COM>, jlane@Ingres.COM (Judi Lane) writes:
[very impressive part 2 deleted]
|>      Judi
|>      (stillthinkin'ona.sigfile) 8^)

Oh yes, this is great.  I loved the image of the woman carrying off her
chosen toy-boy.  After all, why *should* men be so often called upon to
be the "movers and shakers", so to speak?  Or is it that we just think
we are, and that the ladies have been secretly manipulating us since
the dawn of time?  Anyway, I look forward to part 3 ......

How about 'Official Nymph of the RFA' ?????

							Tony.
Xref: sparky alt.romance:11130 alt.romance.chat:18007
From: epperson@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Mary Epperson)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,alt.romance.chat
Subject: Re: Part Two of "Dryads' Dailiness"
Keywords: Nymphette
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:48:24 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department


>>  Oh, yeah??  Well, there's still a *BIG* difference between "nymph"
>>  and "nympho" there, Brad.  Although it's true that rip has absolutely
>>  no success in distinguishing between the two (for obvious reasons),
>
>'obvious reasons'?  I *told* you not to listen to Mary!
>
>>  "Died of natural causes and lost their souls."  Oh... you mean they
>>  were once Christmas trees from rip's office.  Well, that explains it.
>
>Again I say, "Excuse Me?!"  I wish you would explain what that
>explains... (Mary!  I'm gonna *get* you for this!!)  Besides, I
>prefer they be called Chanukah bushes, not Christmas trees...
>ripomaniac


Methinks the ChatSex'y may need a bodyguard before long...any
volunteers?  Please?  Don't let the ripomaniac hurt li'l me....

Mary
CaliChat/TygerBoink Sex'y

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|  ,____                                 |   Mary Epperson
| /     )                                |   epperson@pop.stat.purdue.edu
|(   ____    ____   __      __   (\___   |   Purdue University
|(   \   )  (____) (  \)  (/  )  (    \) |   a.k.a. GEMR/Maiden Mary
| \_____/)_/(______/    \/    )__/       |   Official RFA Sexretary
|                                        |       to the Chat Hosts    
|"I know I have faults...being wrong is *not* one of them!"
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
From: lm89@ecs.soton.ac.uk (McIlhoney L)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: Religion (was Re: Together and other dating services)
Date: 26 Aug 92 10:59:07 GMT

In <1992Aug24.103231.23103@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> ccaajmf@ucl.ac.uk (John Franks) writes:

>In article <geZxpOW00WB684NHNy@andrew.cmu.edu> dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu (David O Hunt) writes:
>>The few dates that I received were nice, but among other things I am an
>>atheist, and without fail the woman they matched me with was more than a
>>little religious.

>Religion: is it really that much of an obstacle? Isn't it possible to agree
>to differ? Almost against my wishes, I'm getting very atheistic recently; but
>my values aren't much changed. I'm interested because a friend of mine, who
>is much as I am, has had a pretty long & close relationship with someone who
>is very religious; but it did take them a long time to get off the ground.

Some Christians tend not to seek deep relationships with people of
opposing faiths (and this includes atheism - the belief that there
is no God) because they don't want their own faith to be whittled
down - it is precious to them.

Having said that, my closest friend (a girl called Jennie) is pretty
much an agnostic while I am a devoted Christian and I would trust
her with my life.  But then again, we're not planning on a deep romantic
relationship, and so we can agree to disagree, as our lives are not
fully shared.

>John Franks, ccaajmf@ucl.ac.uk or jmf14@phx.cam.ac.uk to readers in Cambridge.
>     "And a thousand slimy things
>      Lived on; and so did I."

Tell me, do you know John Huber?  If so, can you show him how to
get an account on Phoenix.  He's a third year engineer where you
are.
-- 
Lawrence McIlhoney, Department of Electronics & Computer Science,
University of Southampton, United Kingdom.  Email lm89@uk.ac.soton.ecs
"Live fast, die young, leave a good-looking corpse -
preferably someone else's."
Newsgroups: alt.romance