HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: How to not look smart (was Re: Various ramblings...
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:35:36 GMT
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez

In article <1992Aug19.225611.24489@mks.com> fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter) writes:
>
>People can not get smarter. (Not much anyways).

Mebbe.  But you can certainly increase your intelligence as perceived by
others.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

"I 'got a life'.  Now what?"
From: swann@acsu.buffalo.edu (Stephen Swann)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: GET A LIFE ALL OF YOU!!!!
Date: 13 Aug 92 13:34:45 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <92225.235234U15479@uicvm.uic.edu> U15479@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>
> Then all of you geeks with your little cliques have to talk to each other in
>this group (and others) instead of writing to each other and leaving the rest
>of us alone!!!!!!

[ blah blah blah ]

>                                   Get a life!!!!!!!
>
>                 Go ahead and flame me, big deal!!!!!!!!!!!

You're not worth a really good flame.  I save those for grownups.

>CHRIS GRUMBOSKI                      GRUMBY STRIKES AGAIN!

Yeah, whatever.

-- 
Steve Swann                 |    Speak to me in many voices; make
swann@acsu.buffalo.edu      |      them all sound like one...  -BOC
From: jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOSEPH ALOYSIUS MCVEIGH)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: "Congratulations" and/or "Best Wishes"
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:47:05 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>>] }> ] dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
>>] }> ] >And Amy, congratulations on getting married. Or, as my
>>] }> ] >girlfriend keeps reminding me to say to women, best wishes.
>>]
>>] }> dave@silver.sni.ca (Dave Till) writes:
>>] }> ] I've always wondered  Years ago, I was told to say "best wishes"
>>] }> ] to women, and "congratulations" to men. My question: is this
>>] }> ] still correct etiquette?
>>]
>>] } diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:}>
>>] }> No no NO!!
>>] }> The Proper wording for BOTH men AND women is, of course,
>>] }> "CONDOLENCES"...
>>] }> (Okay - after almost 9 years of separation, my divorce
>>] }> is final in 5 days - so I HAD to say this...)
>>]
>>] So.  Is the correct phrase on *this* occasion "Congratulations"?
>>
>>Yeyeas!!
>>
>>Diana
>
>
>Or perhaps "Hallelujah" ?
>+---------------+------------------------------+-----------------------+
>| Jim Meyer     | If I express an opinion, you | purp@wixer.cactus.org |
>| Austin, Tejas | can bet no one else agrees.  | aka jimpurp@pro-lep   |
>+---------------+------------------------------+-----------------------+

I always liked "Mazel Tov."
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Aloysius McVeigh | "...a contradictory, agonized, elusive, defiant,
jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu  |  childishly egotistical, sometimes plain silly,
       --------         |  sometimes repellent and sometimes dazzling and
      "N.I.N.A."        |               admirable figure...."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 22:12:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <kiran.714226649@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller) writes:
>
>>That's why I keep suggesting that people concentrate on becoming datable
> 
>So-- how does one become dateable?  
> 
>What should Mr Brown change that would make him more dateable?
>
First of all, Kiran, thanks for the previous funny rebuttals.  My afternoon
has been going to the dogs - your postings helped.

Anyway, the method I used to become more dateable is one that I should
think could work for anyone.

I simply watched what worked, and over time, refined myself.  For example,
when my hair has been long, men have made a fuss over me.  When it's 
short, they don't.  If I want to be more dateable, I grow my hair out.

Obviously, Mr. Brown will not become more dateable by becoming more like
me, because those who find me attractive are probably looking for women.
However, the types of things I worked on were:

clothing - sweaters, jeans, lace, the color red
conversation - cars, hobbies, travel, pets
appearance - no makeup, long hair, no hair products, simple jewelry

Other things that seemed to be important were the ability to match
another's conversation, the ability to make up my mind what I wanted,
being able to help another person relax, and to walk away when necessary. 

Each list is different, because each person is different.  In Kevin's
case, based on how he posts to the net, my first concern would be 
whether or not he talks people "to death".  I mean, if I say "good
morning" to someone, the last thing I want is a complete and correct
analysis of the statement.  Even Commander Data doesn't do that.
With Kevin, I feel like everything has to be completely talked to
it's absolute limits, and I think that's useless and (sorry Kevin)
boring.

It doesn't require dates to do this.  If I'm interested in a particular
person, I will tailor my approach to that person.  Not to the point of
not being me!!  But, say, if there are a dozen different things I can
talk about (including sports cars), but I know that Ray likes sports 
cars, I will talk sports cars.  Or, if I notice that he looks at me
more when I wear black, I will wear black (assuming I like black).

I figure that, if attracting a particular person involves doing things
I'm not comfortable with, it must be that that person is wrong for me.
So, I don't worry about that, just let it go, and try someone who seems
more compatible.


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ksloan@crchh791.BNR.CA (Kerry Sloan)
Subject: Re: Attack of the Amazon Girls!
Reply-To: ksloan@crchh791.BNR.CA (Kerry Sloan)
Organization: "Bell Northern Research - Richardson, TX"
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:18:58 GMT

Sounds like every guys fantasy, huh?

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: single men
Originator: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: too funky
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 18:03:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.133101.26893@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>When we are little wee bearn, our first bond is with a woman.  We
>grow in her body, we are born through her vagina, and we nurse at
>her nipple.

Except, of course, for those individuals born of premature births, who
are given up for adoption.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Ugly hands
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 11:26:39 GMT

In article <thurlow.714023809@convex.convex.com> thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
>In <1992Aug16.191149.8058@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>
>>In an earlier posting, which I've lost, Dawn Hardin mentioned "ugly hands."
>>What characteristics make hands ugly?  Part of my interest stems from the
>>fact that the palm of my right hand is mildly atavistic.
>
>Cool!  Hair or scales?  :-)

Neither.  Not even bonobos have hairy palms.  It's in the flexure lines
that people called palm readers use to divine your character and fortune
after you've placed some cash into *their* palms.  (I said it was only
mildly atavistic).  Instead of distinct heart and head lines, I've got a
simian crease, one line running straight across from the radial to the ulnar
edges.

-- Herb Huston
From: rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com (Ray Fink)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 23:11:38 MDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Wild Rose Refugee Camp

nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:

> In article <LyBsPB3w165w@wildrose.infoserv.com> rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com (Ra
> >
> >Seriously, I'm glad to see some women achieving economic power, and the
> >financial status where they now face some of the same commitment risks 
> >that men traditionally have had to face. 
> 
> Really.  Up until they let us females out from under our typewriters
> and sewing machines, getting married was totally risk-free for us.  We had
> everything to gain!  Especially those women in cushy Catholic-family
... <description of stereotypical traditional abusive marriage>
> >Some of those risks really suck.
> 
> Oh please.  Tell us more.

[Sounds a little like I might have accidentally hit a nerve.  If so, 
sorry, that wasn't my intent]

It may not have been clear from my original post...I think the
traditional stereotyped roles are a horrible deal for both men and
women (and I'd say worse for women).  

IMLE it's still uncommon to hear a woman speak of *her* financial
risks of marriage... sorta the flip side of the women who tell
me "you're different, you're <a divorced father> involved with your
kids"

That either situation seems unusual suggests that we're still a long 
way from the equitable sharing of risks and rewards that I'd rather see.

-- Ray

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Subject: Re: single men
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:02:09 GMT

In article <1c8mc7f.greg@netcom.com> greg@netcom.com (Greg Bullough) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.133101.26893@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>>
>>When we are little wee bearn.
>Thass "bairn," lass. 

Oh.  No.  I was referring to teddy bearn.

Actually, when that scottie doggy on "Lady and the Tramp" says it,
he doesn't spell it.  And I've only seen that cartoon 1,204,657 times
now ...

-Nance, also a mom.

-- 
Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
                            (_) \(_)                           
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Flying lust attacks (was: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...)
Keywords: Lime pie 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 19:37:31 GMT

In article <ewillims.713617651@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>
>	What was that you said Trygve about a "flying lust attack"?
>(*laughter*) This is a 24 hour virus..? :>

Nope, it's actually a convenient form of healthy exercise--you just locate
your victim, sneak up close but not so close that you don't have enough
space to build up adequate momentum, and then--without warning--attack!
From: jah0532@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Julia Henry)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:15:10 GMT
Organization: BCS, Seattle

In article <40BuPB5w165w@wildrose.infoserv.com> rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com (Ray Fink) writes:
>nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>
>> In article <LyBsPB3w165w@wildrose.infoserv.com> rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com (Ra
>> >
>> >Seriously, I'm glad to see some women achieving economic power, and the
>> >financial status where they now face some of the same commitment risks 
>> >that men traditionally have had to face. 
>> 
>
>IMLE it's still uncommon to hear a woman speak of *her* financial
>risks of marriage... sorta the flip side of the women who tell
>me "you're different, you're <a divorced father> involved with your
>kids"
>
>That either situation seems unusual suggests that we're still a long 
>way from the equitable sharing of risks and rewards that I'd rather see.
>

Yes, it is still unusual but it DOES happen.  My ex-husband and I both
worked and made similar amounts of money during the marriage.  I paid the
down payment for our house from my savings after we got married.  We
contributed equally to household expenses.   He spent all of his
disposable income on who knows what for himself while I invested and
saved my disposable income.

When we separated after 7 years of marriage, he quit his job, sued me
for temporary maintenance, and moved into his parent's house.  I stayed
in the house and paid the mortgage, utilities, bills, etc.  Since Washington
is a community property state, he was entitled to half of my investments,
savings, vested retirement funds, the house, etc.  He ended up with thousands
of dollars in the divorce.  He had contributed nothing financially except
half of the mortgage payments on the house.

As many of you have experienced, this was all legal.  Not ethical on his part,
but legal.  I certainly gained tremendous insight into what men go through
when they are divorced.  I wouldn't marry again without a prenuptial
agreement.  The risks are too great.

-- 
Julia Henry
jah0532@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 10:18:35 GMT

>>kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) claims:
>>>I don't notice anything except through strictly conscious channels.
>>>It has *always* been that way, from birth.

>kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Me) writes:
>>You notice lots of things thru non-conscious channels.  
>>Or perhaps you don't experience emotions?  

kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>I experience emotions.  These emotions arise as a result of the things that
>I consciously notice.

If what you mean is that you don't notice anything when you are
unconscious (a reasonable claim) then you are correct.  However...

>My emotions aren't magic or anything.  They get the same inputs that my
>conscious mind gets, and no more (that I've been able to detect.  

That's true.  Both your conscious and subconscious get their input
from the evidence of the senses.  However, your subconscious
processes that input independently from your conscious mind.  You
don't think before you feel, you just feel.

You seem to say the above as if your emotions are under your conscious 
control.  They are not, they arise automatically as a reaction to the
sensory data.  In this sense, when you feel, you are noticing
something (f'r'instance, when you notice that you really like someone)
but you are not using your conscious mind to notice it--you are
noticing it thru a non-conscious mechanism.  You don't _conclude_ that
you like someone (that would be conscious reasoning) you rather _feel_
that you like them.  

>I've never *not* known why I was feeling an emotion).

I'm glad you are well-integrated.  But knowing why you are feeling an
emotion (what value underlies it) and consciously "deriving" a feeling
are two very different things.

-- 
Kiran Wagle                             <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
P.O.Box 2083 Bloomington IN 47402-2083                  (812) 335-0420
From: greg@netcom.com (Greg Bullough)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: 'E' Tickets
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:40:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <14208@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>
>I know a guy that released an instrumental guitar album (ala Steve {Morse,
>Satriani,Vai}) called "EE" Ticket.  The album begins with the sounds of
>people getting on a roller coaster ("If you are not this tall, have back
>or heart trouble you should take this ride") and then proceeds to rock-n-roll.

Sounds like the recording that they play at the entrance to "Space Mountain."
 
(Fun ride, but it's mostly the darkness that's a factor. It'd be pretty
tame otherwise. Of course, you get used to it after the sixth or seventh
time in one day.)
 
Greg
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 23:09:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.205408.9768@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>
>Trygve, you're independently wealthy?
>
>This explains a *great* deal.

Like what? 

>Q:  How would you go about separating your success with women from your
>    wealth?  That is, how do you figure out just how much your wealth has
>    to do with your success with women?  (Looking for an objective answer
>    to this one.  "Of course, how wealthy I am has *absolutely nothing* to
>    do with my success with women" is an answer I would find very hard to
>    believe without an explanation for *why* that were the case  :-).

How would I separate my success (?) with women from my wealth?  Well,
fortunately this isn't particularly difficult, since it wasn't more than
a couple years ago that, after doing everything to keep my companies
going, I had something on the order of $4,000 per year left for me;
that meant no car, a wardrobe several years old, and what possessions
I had other than what I needed for my work, I got from garage sales
and (often) repaired. 

Escaping from pauperdom and trading in the old pair of tennis shoes
I'd bought in high school for the Porsche made a difference in my
romantic life--for starters, the number of women I meet who are 
interested in a long-term relationship (as opposed to a brief, no-strings
fling) has gone down quite a bit.  (Offers of brief, no-strings flings
are still up where they were when I was poor, though.)

On the other hand, I've found that having things that require money
is great fun for flirting purposes (though lots of things that don't
require significant funds--a reasonably cool motorcycle, for instance,
or any artistic or physical talent--are at least as effective in this
regard).  I don't flirt more, or necessarilly better, than I used to,
but the hint of money seems to be an effective means to ensure that 
your flirt object will not be offended by your flirtation.

>That you've obviously succeeded quite well is an excellent explanation
>of your current self-confidence level.  This probably has a lot more
>to do with your success with women than your wealth does.

Probably--especially considering that I was this obnoxious to begin
with (after all, it helps to have a certain amount of confidence to
leap into the business world before hitting twenty).

Trygve
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: cooking newsgroups??
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:36:12 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug13.162719.40384@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug12.182639.22124@macc.wisc.edu>  oconnell@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Kevin Patrick O'Connell) writes:
>> Would some kind soul direct me to those newsgroups that deal with
>> cooking, recipes, and good drink??
>
>rec.food.cooking, rec.food.veg, rec.food.recipes, rec.food.drink
 
alt.beer

I've got a t-shirt that I bought at Maggie Mae's in Austin that says
"Beer.  It's not just for breakfast anymore".  Maggie Mae's is a bar that
has so many varieties of beer that they have a beer menu.

-- 
+============================================================================++
| John Fereira            "Is that all you ever think about?"                |
| johnf@auspex.com                                                           |
+============================================================================++
From: jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOSEPH ALOYSIUS MCVEIGH)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:34:28 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:

>Since it seems that USENET is an environment where some of the women prefer
>intelligent men, perhaps we can conclude that a man's chances of meeting a
>woman by posting *intelligent* things to USENET are greater than 0%.

I guess this is still purely hypothetical, though.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Aloysius McVeigh | "...a contradictory, agonized, elusive, defiant,
jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu  |  childishly egotistical, sometimes plain silly,
       --------         |  sometimes repellent and sometimes dazzling and
      "N.I.N.A."        |               admirable figure...."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:08:37 GMT
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: The boink with no name
Keywords: scoop, poop, low down, juice
Reply-To: blarson@usc.edu
From: blarson@blars.UUCP

In article <56@cnmhnet.UUCP> keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.001740.27770@leland.Stanford.EDU> richwing@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rich Wingerter) writes:
>>At least you were in New York, where you won't be arrested for having a bare
>>chest.   :-)

>	I know I'm not the only one who has heard about the supposed
>new law in New York that states that one can supposedly go topless.  

Actually, it's a not very old law that was ruled unconsitutional.  (Sex
discrimination.)

>Is this really true?  Can one go topless anywhere at any time?  

Women can go top-free when and where men can, with the possible
exception of doing it to be lewd or for commercial purpouses.

>Does
>this mean that I could walk down the street in Manhatan and see bare
>breasted women walking down the street?

Not everything that is legal is common.

For details, see the discussion on rec.nude about a month ago.

-- 
blarson@usc.edu			usc!blarson			blarson@zog
		C news and rn for os9/68k!
I think I hear a scream.  A great many dramatic situations begin with a scream.
							-- Barbarella
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjj@mits.mdata.fi (Joni Jarvenkyla)
Subject: Re: FINNS - They all look alike
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:22:52 GMT

In article <l92e0nINNasg@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>Wait a minute -- why do you say that's abnormal?  Is there something I
>haven't been told?  (Why are you looking at me that way?)

Getting a true musky aroma is usually permitted for males only, unless
it's the case of single parent household, where parents are adviced to
block their babies' noses as prevention for raising up children who
belong to sexual minorities (this does not definately apply in SF).

-- 
jjj@mits.mdata.fi     Thanks, Life; thanks, Death    And the other me:
jjj@niksula.hut.fi    for freeing me from self       Jenny L{rv{joki
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.couples,soc.men,soc.women,soc.motss
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: BOINK! BOINK! BALLOONBOINK IN ALBUQUERQUE!
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 13:01:45 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <92@bbx.basis.com> scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker) writes:
>Absolutely.  In 13 years I've only *once* went down to the balloon
>field during the mass ascension.  Other than some unique photo ops
>I find that observing from other parts of the city within a couple
>miles every bit as breath taking.  Hell, I've been known to stay
>up on the west mesa (where I live) and watch from there.

Personally, I wouldn't go down to the field for the mass ascension
unless I had some direct reason to be there.

I had the "honor" of playing for the mass ascension one day (the
various high school marching bands play each day.)  It was rather
boring, crowded, and cold.  It was too early in the morning (in order
to ensure we could make it to our appointed spot without having to
wander through crowds, we had to be there right at setup) and I still
had to go to school when we were done.

I was much more impressed seeing them from a distance (you could
actually see all of the balloons going up) and when one flew over the
marching band as we practiced.

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
Newsgroups: soc.singles