HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jpalmer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John D Palmer)
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 04:42:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.224655.4640@news2.cis.umn.edu> esper@cs35b.cs.umn.edu (Dave Sherohman) writes:
>Pay attention to the material you attack, Steve.  Dave V compared breaking a
>window/stealing a car to breaking a relationship, not a person.  Relationships
>are property of a sort, belonging to all who are involved with them, thus you
>have gone after a nonproblem.
>esper@ima.umn.edu


      This is ridiculous. . . if I ask someone out on a date, regardless of 
whether or not hey are involved with someoen, if they do not want to go 
out with me, they say no.
 
      If they are involved, and they say 'yes', then they either have an
open relationship (some dating outside is allowed) or they don't feel
bound by the relationshiop.  The minute I find out about it, I tell them they
have to break up with the other guy, or I just won't date them. . . because
I won't trust them.
 
   What EXACTLY are you thinking about 'wooing' as?  Talk?  Going to a movie?
Sexual overtures?  (Wouldn't it be sexual harrassment if she didn't WANT
you to make these overtures?)  Please explain to me exactly what you mean 
by wooing. . . and if you mean having a cup of coffee together, sharing a long
walk, going back home, talking some more, driving her home. . .and then she
decides she loves me, and THAT'S wrong, forget it.  You guys would be silly.
 
      yes, if I kept on making sexual overtures, that would be bad, but not
because of the relationship (assuming you haven't made specific promises to
each other. . . like "no other dates on the sly" or whatever) but because
of the harrassment issue.
 
                                            Crazyman

-- 
"Love is cool; I mean, like, really cool.  Like, the coolest thing in
the universe, where, like, people open up inside and show the world how
they feel, and they ain't afraid someone's gonna laugh because they, like,
love themselves already!"  --Personality 42, a generic 60's philosopher 
Xref: sparky alt.romance:7222 soc.singles:11450 soc.couples:2161
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:05:41 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:

}jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:

}>Sure.  But my default level of respect when it comes to an existing
}>relationship is "hands off", period.  And someone who violates what I 
}>consider proper respect has earned my disrespect.  So I call him scum.
}>We each get to draw our own lines, and have to live with the consequences.

}Then we agree to disagree, I suppose.

Yup.  And I'm REALLY glad that I don't know you personally.  You are a
person that I wouldn't trust to watch my dog.

--James Preston
From: ybarra@sunset.sedd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: re: Where did the romance go?
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:02:18 PST

I just want to share little romantic story with those of you who think
romance is gone....The romance is not gone..it's the people they are 
to busy romancing that they just don't have time to come back and tell
everyone how wonderful it is to have a special someone to share romance with.

But I want to share my story...I was married at 16 and have been married
now for 18+ years and there is still plenty of hot romance after all these
years and three children......
And it's even better than ever......so there is proof that true love exists
and young love....

Mary Ann
Xref: sparky alt.romance:7279 soc.couples:2171 soc.singles:11494
From: lwhays@cancer.unm.edu (Larry 'Purple' Hays)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.couples,soc.singles
Subject: Re: lying to oneself (was Re: Sanctity of relationships)
Date: 17 Apr 92 19:22:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.9+2j3kr
Reply-To: lwhays@cancer.unm.edu
Distribution: world,soc
Organization: UNM Cancer Center

mcregor@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Meloney Cregor) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.101644.5254@hemlock.cray.com> robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
>
>>I agree with you that people "lie to themselves all the time", but I
>>don't think they are very successful at believing it.  Though it
>>doesn't stop 'em from trying.
>
>*snort*
>Son, do I have some people *You* need to meet.
>
>There are, indeed, people who can lie to themselves and everyone they meet
>and completely convince themselves they are honest and don't practice
>deception.

Beleive her.  She's telling the truth.

Really.

(You'e never LIVED until you've sat and watched somebody's worldview
mutate significantly over the course of a single (long) discussion.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry (Purple) Hays                                   lwhays@cancer.unm.edu

            " Substantial penalty for early withdrawal..."
From: masoodj@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Javed Masood)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Love notes
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:12:03 GMT
Organization: Portland State University, Portland, OR




The most wonderful of all things in life,
I believe, is the discovery of another
human being with whom one's relationship has 
a glowing depth, beauty, and joy as the
years increases.
This inner progressiveness of love 
between two human beings
is a most marvelous thing,
it cannot be found by looking for it or
by passionately wishing for it.
It is a sort of divine accident.

			        Sir Hugh Walpole

The best and most beautiful
things in the world
cannott be seen or even touched.
They must be felt with the heart.

     				Helen Keler
From: RJD118@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: love songs
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:28:47 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

I could go with the logical argument that: "You just tend to notice them
a lot more when you are hurting inside...the radio stations never modify
their song selection from their standard format..."
BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IT!!!!
I theorize that there is a strange effect that broken hearts have on the
physical universe...
The radio stations actually DON'T play all these love songs when you are
hurting inside. In truth, these songs are stored in certain portions of the
molecular structure of just about everything....your car, your room, the
telephone wires, the bird flying by, your radio itself...
When you are hurting, your heart gives off some very unique wave patterns...
these wave patterns in turn release the love songs from their captivity,
and are channeled through the nearest radio!!! The waves from you heart
also interfere with the normal programming being sent by the radio stations..
THis is a localized event....even though you might hear a love song, it can
be taken for granted that someone else is probably listening to Guns & Roses
or Def Leppard or some other, non-romantic song....
This theory is in the process of being proven...Watch late-night t.v. for
updates on the researches... :)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I_________________________I         Redneck!    The Official Lumberjack
I\***********************/I                     and Woodgatherer of the
                                                          RFA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rebecca@boole.seas.ucla.edu (Rebecca Hwa)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: An airport experience
Date: 6 Apr 92 07:46:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles

Before you go on any further, I should warn you that I have never
attempted writing poems before.  Proceed at your own risk. %^)

--Reb
------------------------------------------------------------------

My hand waved; a smile froze on my face.
That's right, that's a good girl!
Smile and be brave.

There You stood, still cool and calm,
Behind that glass, ten feet from me.
Already, the distance grew between us.
In but a few more minutes,
I'll be miles away.

I would like to throw down my bags
And crash through that glass wall
So that I might fall in your arms
And feel your cheeks against mine once more.

But no.  My hand waved mechanically;
My face maintained that rigid pose of a smile.
Walk forward, that's a good girl!
Be strong and say goodbye.

In the plane, I looked out the window.
Boston seemed beautiful in aerial view.
Farewell, then, fair city painted in white,
Silvery landscape by the riverside,
bearing marks of our footprints and snowball fights.

Farewell, starry nights and sandy beaches,
Moss on pebbles and birch trees,
Foolish dreamers and those utopian societies.

When had my smile melted; where did it go?
What hot streams flown down my face;
What salted liquid did I taste?
Tears, I did not wipe them away.
Ignoring the curious glances from the sides,
I indulged myself with the freedom of self-pity.
I did not care; You would never know of this.

"Something to drink, miss?"
"Tea, with lemon and honey, please."
One sip and there You were again,
Making tea, pancakes, chicken with noodles.
 
So many memories were compressed into one week:
Glass flowers and "Say It with Irises,"
Indoor picnic and whip cream with strawberries,
Monet's lilies and Debussey's moonlight,
How ever would I put them away?

Farewell.
Farewell to all the memories;
Farewell to all my joys and sorrows;
Farewell to You too,
--Until next time.
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: kerryg@stat.rice.edu (Kerry Go)
Subject: Re: a question
Organization: Dept. of Statistics, Rice University
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:34:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.134409.1@runt.appstate.edu> grs01153@runt.appstate.edu writes:
>Well perhaps I should ask it again. What exactly constitutes cheating on someone
>with whom you are in a relationship?.....I am asking because I am curious...I
>realize everyone has a different definition, but it will be interesting to see
>the differences and similarities between (among?) parts of the country and
>sex...-- 

In a broad sense, it would be doing something that you agreed not to do which
lessens the trust in your relationship.

Obviously, this is not a very practical definition, but the specifics depend
on the two people.  Personally, I would not like an SO to engage in anything
which has romantic connotations with other people.  Sex would be an example
of such an activity (though it may not be for some people).  On the other
hand, I once had a SO who considered visiting someone else or dancing with
someone else cheating on her.  So it is something that needs to be discussed
between (among?) the people involved.  I suppose the bottom line for me is,
"Is (s)he treating the other person 'better' then (s)he treats me?"

!@#$%^&*()_++|!@#$%^&*()_++|!@#$%^&*()_++|!@#$%^&*()_++|!@#$%^&*()_++|!@#$%^&*(

The person I want to live my life with is the person to whom I can give the
From: bicker@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Reply-To: Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Organization: The Internet
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 13:08:57 GMT
Followup-To: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples

In article <1992Apr7.005929.11543@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> rnjx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>The question is this.  Is it ever morally and/or ethically O.K. to actively
>try to woo one member of an existing relationship from that relationship so
>that you may start one with her/him?  Under what circumstances?  How about
>pursuing someone who's engaged?  Where do you all draw the line?  If it isn't
>O.K., would you still do it anyway?

As you (correctly) characterized it, this is a moral/ethical* question,
so we can expect that people will differ on what is moral/what is ethical.

Having said that, I feel it is just about always immoral to actively
attempt to break up a relationship in order to initiate one with on of
the partners yourself.  (My exceptions deal with cases where the
relationship is clearly "open" or where the relationship is not
publically acknowledged by the partners.)  I feel it is downright evil
to do this if you are currently platonic friends with the person-in-
question, as in that position you are in a greater position of trust
than a stranger, and may not be able to discern what is truly best for
your friend. 

I speak from experience...from being on the outside and initiating the
break-up.  I was unequivocally immoral in that case, and this is barely
mitigated by my claims of immaturity.  (In the immortal words of John Astin:
"I'm feeling much better now, thank you.")  I've learned my lesson...I
hope that someone else can learn from it instead of having to repeat my
error and experience the situation themself.


--------
*  A quick perusal of the dictionary indicated that these words can be
safely used interchangably, though moral is the probably the more
correct word.
-- 
Brian Charles Kohn             AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center
ISO Certified Lead Assessor    E-MAIL: att!hoqax!bicker  (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,soc.singles,soc.couples
From: afdenis@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison)
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Ancient Souls Inc.
Distribution: world,soc
Date:  9 Apr 1992 13:10 EST  

In article <1992Apr9.011827.20498@mks.com>, fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter) writes...
>afdenis@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison) writes:
>>OK, Hank a quick scenerio ... you *think* that she's marrying someone 
>>because *you* two had an argument and she's *showing* you up by jumping 
>>into a marriage that you don't think is right for her. Despite the argument, 
>>*you* feel that you and her belong together ...   What do you do ??
> 
>You stand back and try and be rational about the situation. 

Love ?!?!! Rational ?!?!?!?! :-)

>Any woman that would marry someone else to show you up has major 
>problems. 

I was just trying to set up a scenerio where intervention in an existing 
relationship isn't such a cut and dried issue.  I wasn't really addressing 
the `is it a healthy situation' question.

>And you walk away.

> 
>I've learned to try and avoid getting involved with women with major problems.

Isn't *that* a functional definition of celibacy ? :-)

>It's too painful and you can't help them if they don't want to change.
>You're better off without her. Self-preservation, you know.

You do the best you *can* for you *first*, but IMHO you reach out to others 
along the way or what's the sense ? 

-- Stephen 

(The only two valid e-mail addresses from now on are ...)
afdenis@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov,  afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov
.. boring .sig (#32 in a series) follows, press n to skip it.

	Never regret a *choice*.  Rather, save your regrets for the
	choices you *didn't* make.

Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: mwjones@miavx2.ham.muohio.edu
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: brenda ??
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:59:52 GMT
Organization: Miami University, Hamilton campus

In article <92104.133031SC687405@ysub.ysu.edu>, 
> SC687405@ysub.ysu.edu writes:
> talking about a romance is something that is sometimes best kept quiet.  But
> if you really really love someone you might as well shout it out to the world.
> 
> about eight years ago I fell for a girl that was graduating a year ahead 
of me.
> She left after graduation and went to California.  I lost track of her.  Alot
> of things were left unsaid.  About a month ago I ran into her former best
> friend and she told me that Brenda was now married with children(AL BUNDY #1)
> I was bummed and depressed.  One week ago today I was leaving the lounge   in
> Jones hall and the elevator opened and guess what?????   There she was-unbelie
> vable!!!!!  Well we stopped and talked and talked and talked.
> Problem #1-I still have alot of feelings for her!
> Problem #2-She still has feelings for me
> Problem #3-Her marriage isn't the picture of stability
> Problem #4-My mom is freaking out that I"m even talking to her and is
>            quoting the Bible way to much to me.
> Problem #5-I keep seeing and meeting her-I'm probably screwing up any
>            Chance she and her husband have of making their marriage
>            work.
> So now since no one here can offer any worthwhile advice -I turn to the
> net for some response be it bizarre or not.
> 
> Post or send it doesn't really matter.
> 
> Dave

Go for it but with some amount of caution.  I mean you don't want
to get blamed for their divorce.  (how does appearing in court as a
witness sound?)  
	My theory is that love doesn't knock on the door everyday. 
take your chance while it is here.

Michael JOnes
Miami University, Hamilton
Cincinnati Kid
From: bicker@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:30:38 GMT
Reply-To: Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Followup-To: alt.romance
Organization: The Internet

In article <1514@tymix.Tymnet.COM> michele@sail.tymnet.com (Michele Fabrega) writes:
>YES!  I completely agree.  If the relationship is going to work out, there is
>NOTHING you can do to break it up.

I must disagree.  My RP and I have had some rocky times in the past,
and if a former RP of mine had been a bit more pushy during those hard
times I would have given up on Robbie and I altogether (and would have
regretted it for the rest of my life, for sure.)  Potentially great
relationships, in their infancy, even in their "childhood," are
fragile.  I suppose I would not object to trying to 'woo' a married
person as much.  (j/k)
-- 
Brian Charles Kohn             AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center
ISO Certified Lead Assessor    E-MAIL: att!hoqax!bicker  (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,soc.singles,soc.couples
From: tjg01@thdhub.UUCP (Terry Gardner)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: FANTASIES
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:16:32 GMT
Organization: Glassworks

In article <1863.549.uupcb@matrix.sbs.com> joseph.wilkinson@matrix.sbs.com (Joseph Wilkinson) writes:
>On this subject of fantasizing from afar about 'celebrities' we don't
>know...does anyone besides me go for voices?  I'll confess, I used to
>lust desperately after one of the House of Representatives reading
>clerks, a dark-haired girl; do you know the one I mean?  It was her
>voice.  When she read out the words, "and for other purposes," O, ye
>gods...!
>                               

I have the same feeling about Sandy Garfield on WSB in Atlanta!


-- 
Terry Gardner, terry@thdhub, terry%thdhub@uunet
Senior Network Systems Programmer @ The Home Depot, Inc.
404-433-8211 x 5124 Message Generated with GNU Emacs 18.58...
"A committee is an animal with at least six legs, and no brain" -- Heinlein
From: tjg01@thdhub.UUCP (Terry Gardner)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: Ed and Teresa
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:33:53 GMT
Organization: Snoopy Dancing, Inc.

In article <ku9rcsINNfod@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> erc@pogo.Corp.Sun.COM (Ed Carp) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.022834.25112@leland.Stanford.EDU> rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes:
>
>>Ed and Teresa flirt on the net.  Teresa finally calls Ed's bluff and
>>tells him to ask her out.  Ed wimps out.  Or is there something else
>>going on here?
>
>She did?  When?  Where?
>
>And yes, there IS "something else" going on here...:)

Why, Ed, I'm surprised at you! Teresa said something completely
different!

>--
>Ed Carp                                      415/336-0797 (work)
>
>++ UNIX  SysAdmin, Systems  Programming  Services,  Utilities ++
>++ and Programmer Productivity Tools                          ++


-- 
Terry Gardner, terry@thdhub, terry%thdhub@uunet
Senior Network Systems Programmer @ The Home Depot, Inc.
404-433-8211 x 5124 Message Generated with GNU Emacs 18.58...
"A committee is an animal with at least six legs, and no brain" -- Heinlein
Xref: sparky alt.romance:6927 soc.couples:2045 soc.singles:10946
From: kochmar@sei.cmu.edu (John Kochmar)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.couples,soc.singles
Subject: Re: lying to oneself (was Re: Sanctity of relationships)
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:20:05 GMT
Followup-To: alt.romance
Distribution: world,soc
Organization: The Software Engineering Institute


I was going to stay out of this, I really was...

In article <intrigue.702863510@milton>, intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
|> robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
|> 
|> Melony sez...
|> >: There are, indeed, people who can lie to themselves and everyone they meet
|> >: and completely convince themselves they are honest and don't practice
|> >: deception.
|> 
|> >I need to see examples.
|> 
|> How about you look in the mirror?  Do you tell yourself what a smart guy
|> you are?  Or how good looking you are?  Or that your hair really isn't
|> receding, your forehead is just getting bigger?

OK Angelwing, do you really believe that you know Robert well enough to
know that he is lying to himself?  Do you believe that a human can't be
introspective enough to be honest with themselves?  Are you really so
enlightened as to see the lack of enlightenment in others?

|> >I guess I believe that people are basically good, and when they do bad
|> >things, they will feel the 'bad', however much they tell themselves and
|> >others that they truly believe in what they are doing.  They will feel
|> >the pangs.
|> 
|> Oh man.

You know, there are a lot of Taoists whose beliefs include what Robert
believes (this is a simplification, but a part of the belief.) It is
enlightening for me to find that Angelwing is so wise as to have a
deeper understanding of the way of things, so as to know that they are
all wrong.

To lie to yourself means to believe in something that is not true.  Who
defines these truths, if not self?  Am I not good if someone thinks I
am bad?  Am I not handsome if someone thinks I am ugly?  Am I not smart
if someone thinks I am dumb?

Truth is subjective.  You define them for your world, and your world
defines them for you.  Angelwing thinks Robert is lying to himself, and
Robert thinks he is not.  To me, the truth is that they are both
right.

chocolate john



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kochmar		 | Estimated amount of glucose used by an adult human
kochmar@sei.cmu.edu	 | brain each day, expressed in M&Ms: 250
SEI Computing Facilities |			-Harper's Index, October 1989
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
From: mcg@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: Compatability test request
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:04:45 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

> to her and I wanted to kiss her.  Of course, we did and now she is having 
> seconds thoughts because she have a BAD temper and she is very moody.  She
> is not sure if I can handle her so she says maybe it's best if we don't 
> pursue this further, but on the other hand, she really likes me.  So my


Well pete, if you really like her, then stick with it, one of my bosses really
went off the handle at a little peice of rubbish on the floor (I was working at
an Apiary - bees), I was told by the other workers (being new at the job)...
don't take it personally... it's just his nature to fly at everyone...

So if you think you can do it....don't take the abuse personally (imagine she's 
abusing your ego, not you personally) and stick to her.

On the other hand if you think you can find someone else, then ignore my
advice.

	Martin.
Xref: sparky alt.romance:6783 soc.singles:10708 soc.couples:1971