HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What do you Am men think about having sex?
Date: 20 Nov 92 01:13:10 GMT
	<1992Nov13.220212.2779@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<1992Nov14.002940.21755@tandem.com>
	<wtr-161192190156@wralston.mitre.org>
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: wtr@mitre.org's message of 16 Nov 92 23:58:36 GMT


Not getting enough sex was one of my ex's complaints.  She never did
quite grasp that her insistence on having sex on Sunday afternoon
between two and four so long as the chores were done, we did it on a
towel, and that she come slightly before I did, but not so long before
that she got tired of continuing, may have put me off my stride on this.

Personally, I think that it's more like rule 1 of selling things: if you
aren't getting sales, the Sales Department will always tell you it's
because the product is (a) too large (b) too small (c) built upside down
or (d) should be painted blue.  The one impossibility is that it is the
Sales Department's fault.
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re:      Do you remember 1970 to 1980?
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:52:50 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Nov14.210816.29846@eagercon.com> eager@eagercon.com writes:
>In article AA06353@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com, GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu () writes:
>>
>>      As part of an impromptu research project, I'd like to know what
>>  YOU think the single most important ( dramatic, traumatic ) event of`
>>  1970 to 1980 was.
>>
>
>At first I couldn't think of anything from 1970-80.  I must have been dozing.
 
Neither could I.  'Cept my excuse is that I was a teenager in the 60's.

Ironically, I remember more dramatic and traumatic events in the 60's.

-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira        | Auspex Systems | "Ask me about my vow of silence." |
| johnf@auspex.com    | Santa Clara CA |                                   |
+==========================================================================+
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: What is attractive to women?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 07:42:49 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

The baby-bust, generation X people are laughing at you, Kenn:
In article <1992Nov16.233917.29267@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>	"Older folks"? GMAFB. Us boomers were the ones who brought faded
>denim out of the farms and factories, and into fashion.

'Us boomers'? Is this the same fashion 'class' that brought us Dockers and
Pastels? I've got one word for you uptight boomers: Polyester. Remember it?
You ought to, you brought >that< crap into style. :)
r.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: earhard@ug.cs.dal.ca (Mark Earhard)
Subject: Re: **FIRST*DATE*IDEAS**
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:33:02 GMT


Oh, I'm sure it's bad forum to follow up like this, but that's never stopped
anyone else...

In article <1992Nov13.205448.23226@exu.ericsson.se> exudtn@exu.ericsson.se writes:
>In article 6zI@mail.boi.hp.com, morrison@boi.hp.com (Glen Morrison) writes:
>>Ok, so I met this lady about two weeks ago and I'm very interested in her.

I must admit that I like to do something *VERY* nutral on a first date,
unless I know the person a bit beforehand (in a group/class have talked
to them a few times).  Dinner and a movie (or a movie and desert (I love
sand :)) is *real* nutral.

> 1) Go to type of muesum that interests her. If your not 

This is KOOL!  But You gotta know 'em a bit beforehand.  If ya know what
they like, or are willing to take a chance, this could be really neat.

> 2) Go on a picnic and feed the ducks/birds if they are there.

A little too...  romantic? for me, YMMV, but I'd save this one till 3 or 4.
Not that I'm not romantic, but I usualy want to get to know the person before
something like this comes up.

> 3) Go to a the zoo/aquarium.  
See Muesum.
> 4) Go to a sporting event. (IF she wants to)
A trez cool first date.

> 5) Does she golf or play another sport?  Go play it.
>     (Warning: if you/she is competetive avoid it for now)

This could be really good, but make sure you keep the score even.  Win
1/3, or 2/3, but always keep the score within 2.  Later on in the
relationship you can grind the other person into the ground, but for now
keep it even.  (this may require a lot of attention)

> 6) Go *gasp* Window Shopping.  Make sure the mall has a pet store
>      with cute little pets to be. You can learn her tastes in clothes,
>      furniture, books and stuff in general.  

Good for a 2nd-4th date, IMHO, but a good idea none the less!

>DOs:  - Do look her in the eyes and if you like 'em compliment them.
>            Don't stare into them as this might be too intense.  Just enough
>            so that she knows she has your attention.

This is why I'm following up (not just to nitpick the above)!  People have
*NO* idea how far a *LITTLE* compliment will get them!  (Follow it up with
a blush :)  One or two well placed, small compliments can change "He/she's
a nice person, but..."  into "I had a really great time!"

But *DONT* over do it.  Too much of a good thing...

>         - Do listen to her.  Ask questions that show youv'e been listening.
>         - Do tell her she looks nice/great.  Compliment her.

All of this is terrific!

>                my wife always KNOWS when I'm a lookin' no matter how 
>                descrete I think I've been.)

This is really irritating.  Anyone know a quick fix?

Marcos.
-- 
__
Mark Earhard -      earhard@ug.cs.dal.ca -       05marcus@ac.dal.ca
Reclaimer:  GIVE ME THAT BACK THIS INSTANT!      BRING THE NOISE!
From: tarra@skat.usc.edu (Tom)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What do you Am men think about Am wome
Date: 16 Nov 1992 13:25:42 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: skat.usc.edu

In article <thurlow.721724974@convex.convex.com> thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:

>
>Hey Tom, hasn't anybody told you yet that we spread that myth that young
>men have better sex drives for the sole reason that we want to keep you
>dumb little shits from offing yourselves before you reach voting age?
>
>Rob T
>--
>Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com

Wow thanks man, I was really worried for a minute there.  I didn't know if
I was gonna kill myself or hold out and see if maybe they could develop some
sort of pill that could keep my drive from shriveling up and dying like you
older guys.  

Oh by the way Rob, take it easy I hear it happens to lots of guys.  

Love ya babe,
Tom



-- 
"Chicks dig me because I rarely wear underwear"  
					Bill Murray
From: kgorman@star-trek.bbn.com (Karen Gorman)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: High heels (was Re: What is attractive to women?)
Date: 20 Nov 1992 14:50:51 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Reply-To: kgorman@BBN.COM (Karen Gorman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: archive.bbn.com

tps@jptcs.COM (Tim Sailer) writes:

|>   I like to see
|>   women all dressed up, WITH high heels.... IT'S JUST A PEFERENCE!!!
|>   As far as them being uncomfortable, I guess that depends on the woman
|>   wearing them. I dated a girl who would wear heels as opposed to flats
|>   because she said they were more comfortable!

loosemore-sandra@cs.yale.edu (Sandra Loosemore) writes:

|>Well, what about if the woman were suffering permanent foot damage from
|>wearing high heels?  

That is from her own stupidity/vanity if she has incurred that kind of 
damage.

|>Would you still want her to wear them?  

Be serious.  No rational human being would expect this if she was in pain or
suffering.  And even if he did want her to wear them that doesn't mean she 
has to, and if she did wear them she is even more clueless than he is.

|>This is not
|>entirely a hypothetical situation -- my mother's feet got badly deformed
|>from years of being squished into shoes with high heels and narrow, pointy
|>toes.  (This was before it became popular for women to wear sneakers with
|>their dress clothes, and simply *carry* their fancy high-heeled shoes in a
|>tote bag.)  She's had surgery three times to try to straighten out her
|>toes again.

I say that is your mother's fault and not society's fault.  Flat, corrective
shoes have been around for decades.

|>As for myself, I simply find most dress shoes -- even low-heeled pumps --
|>far too painful to wear.

So don't wear them, but there is nothing wrong with the women who like to 
wear them, or the men who like looking at them...it's just a preference.
I myself NEVER wear high heels to work, I usually wear sneakers or flat shoes.
I do wear high heels when I go out at night if I'm somewhat gussied up.
However, I won't wear them at night if I'm planning on walking any substantial
distance, or if the weather is bad (I don't want to ruin my
shoes :-) ).

|>Does *anybody* really have feet shaped like
|>that?

Well I don't know about that, but I like to wear high heels on occasion and
haven't ruined my feet in the process.  As a matter of fact I've gotten several
compliments on having pretty tootsies.

Karen
kg@bbn.com

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: What is attractive to women?
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:46:00 GMT

In article <74344@apple.apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond) writes:
>
>>   Sandra Loosemore (loosemore-sandra@cs.yale.edu) wrote:
>>   : I also consider wearing a suit and/or tie to be a bad sign (conformity).
>
>>Ugh.  That stereotype again.
>>The fact is that at least in the business I'm in (I write software for
>>an investment bank) either you wear the uniform of a suit and tie or
>>you don't work there.  <justification deleted>
>
>Sure sounds like conformity to me (conformity is doing what everyone
>else does because you feel you must to be accepted). However, just because 
>someone conforms in one area of his life doesn't mean that he conforms in 
>other areas. 

I also conform by sleeping at night, arriving at work in the morning,
and staying throughout the day.  In return for that sort of stuff (not
to mention my tremendous native abilities, training, and knowledge),
they pay me lots of money.  It certainly seems like a fair tradeoff.

As to how I dress when I get to choose, come to the boink this weekend
and find out.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: High heels (was Re: What is attractive to women?)
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:18:04 GMT
Reply-To: dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <1eiplqINNkcd@FUNCTOR.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU> loosemore-sandra@cs.yale.edu (Sandra Loosemore) writes:
>
>As for myself, I simply find most dress shoes -- even low-heeled pumps --
>far too painful to wear.  Does *anybody* really have feet shaped like
>that?

Check out ballet slippers.  Or (drat, can't remember the name.  Skimmers?)
shoes that look like ballet slippers but have a solid sole.  Very 
comfortable, very pretty.  I haven't worn a shoe with a heel since I was 
in high school, since I think I look silly tottering around unable to walk 
right.  But luckily they make attractive comfortable shoes now.

Dawn

Joseph Campbell gave me hope and now I have been saved.
"Folk Song" by Bongwater
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are you a Young Transplant?
Date: 21 Nov 92 18:56:29 GMT
	<1992Nov17.205924.11582@b8.b8.ingr.com> <lgipf2INN78a@news.bbn.com>
	<MARTINC.92Nov18123935@hatteras.cs.unc.edu>
	<92324.030132SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <MARTINC.92Nov19194633@h
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA's message of 20 Nov 92 22:01:11 GMT

In article <92325.170111SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Graydon) writes:


   So they take threats seriously, whereas someone who looks like Bluto
   ought not to need to make the threat in the first place, so they must
   be joking.

   Graydon


Let me guess -- you're British, aren't you?
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Blood types
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:03:22 GMT

In article <lgfg3aINN603@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>In article <lg8potINNhhj@news.bbn.com> ahsiung@labs-n.bbn.com (Anita Hsiung) writes:
>>
>>	Type	Personality
>>
>>	 A	Love a person forever, wait for someone forever
>
>Nope, my ex was type A.  
>
>>	 O	Warm, logical
>
>Well, that describes me perfectly, so maybe there's something to be said
>for it.  :-)
>
>Are you willing to settle for a couple of counterexamples or do you want
>it logically shot down?  It seems to me that the fact that type O blood
>is the majority, but very few people are warm and logical would shoot this
>in the foot right away.  Sounds more like it's trying to flatter the majority
>of the listeners (AB is only 2% of the population, so few listeners are going 
>to be called fickle.)

If this blood/personality stuff is folk wisdom, it can hardly be old folk
wisdom, as Karl Landsteiner only discovered these blood groups in 1900.
Blood transfusions were quite a gamble before then.

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
Xref: sparky soc.singles:30930 ba.market.housing:3939
From: kapa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.a.perkins)
Subject: Re: Money and the Single World (was: Education and the Single World
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 06:38:24 GMT
Summary: your mileage may vary

In article <1992Nov17.154927.3208@b8.b8.ingr.com>, larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings) writes:
> In article <1992Nov15.144424.13521@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
> > 
> > Personally, I prefer the approach of having a small joint
> > account funded by both parties for paying expenses like housing, food,
> > utilities, and the like with the remainder of each person's income 
> > being kept separate--that way neither person has to feel guilty about
> 
> Question:  How much money do you have to put into three seperate accounts or
> six if you include savings?  Most banks today require $500+ for free checking
> so that ties up 1500 dollars or you pay monthly penalties.  Savings accounts
> often will pay higher percentages for large depositers. Seperateration of funds
> could cost you money.  Save the marriage or save the money, interesting 
> question.

Stupid question.  If you have to ask whether free checking is worth more
than your marriage, the answer is pretty obvious.  Some banks let you
tie your checking account to a savings account, and if you have $X in
the savings account, then checking is free or pays interest.  So, all you
would need is $3X, not a hard problem.

> 
> > his or her personal spending decisions, neither one has to get 
> > approval from the other, and one can freely give gifts to one's partner
> 
> I think that will still cause problems, I knew a couple who did that, and when
> they first told me about it I thought it was a good idea.  They did have 
> problems with "he/she is not putting his/her fair share into the general fund.

Here's a radical idea.  Couples find a system that works for them, be
it everything joint, everything separate, or some mixture, and stop
acting like it should work for everyone else.  My sweetie and I have
been pooling our money or portions thereof for about 10 years, and
guess what, our system has changed over the years, depending on our
relative incomes and obligations, plus our definition of "what is a
joint expense".  The important thing about how folks divide up their
money and bills is how each person involved feels about it and that
someone is actually paying the bills.

Kate Perkins
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: Call for Artwork and Art Papers
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 17:58:58 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: na

In article <1992Nov23.154129.7299@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>                   Why all men are peegs.
>                                                      By Sylvia Duuton.

Absolutely brilliant. A definate round o' applause for this one.
Good job, Syl^H^H^HJames...
r.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Money and the Single World (was: Education and the Single World
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:32:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.022122.5197@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
jsmt@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Julia Smith) writes:

>How important is money to you in considering an SO?  Particularly
>if you are considering significant financial differences? 

It matters in life, but it wouldn't affect my decision on the
desirability of any individual.
  
>Scenerio 1:  You find out the person you are interested in makes
>    *quite* a bit more than you do.  Does it make a difference to you?

Sure.  I'd expect her to pay more often.

>Scenerio 2:  You find out the person you are interested in makes
>    *quite* a bit less than you do.  Does it make a difference to you?

A difference compared to what?  (I don't think I've ever dated anyone
who makes more than 25% of what I do.)

>Have you had someone break up with you over money issues?

No, personality issues are good enough for that :-(

>  Do you think
>that those of the opposite gender care more or less about money than
>your own affiliation?

Some care more, some less; they're just like people, you know :-)
  
Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer)
Subject: Re: nkill
Organization: Netcom - San Jose, CA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:08:11 GMT

In article <1689CB999.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.070916.11329@netcom.com>
>rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>>
>>     Affirmative Action is simply reverse discrimination.  Minorities
>>here in California receive extra points on their exams for state jobs
>>just because they are a minority.  Here is a hypothetical example:
>>A person receives 5 extra points if that person is a minority.
>>Person W, a non-minority, earns a 95 score on the exam.  Person M,
>>a minority, earns a 91 score on the exam and gets 5 extra points which
>>gives her a total of 96.  Person M will be hired, although she is less
>>qualified than person W, because she is a minority.  That is clearly wrong.
> 
>And if the Person M is a member of a minority *and* a veteran, she will
>get an extra 10 points for a grand total of 101% (does that make her
>overqualified?). Veterans are usually given at least 5 points.
>Considering that over 90% of all veterans are male, that would seem
>to make it an exercise in affirmative action, wouldn't it? Do we 'owe'
>veterans who volunteered for service any special consideration in
>the job market? I want to stress *volunteered*.
> 

     The short answer to giving veterans special consideration in the 
job market is no.

-- 
       +----------------------------------------------------------------+
      /  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      /
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky soc.singles:30953 ba.singles:2200
From: souchay@CAM.ORG (Francois Souchay)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,ba.singles
Subject: Re: YKYBRNTLW.... (Re: Where to meet women?)
Date: 17 Nov 92 05:42:17 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Communications Accessibles Montreal, Quebec Canada

In article <1992Nov15.160054.7299@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>In article <BxqE3D.Kus@CAM.ORG> souchay@CAM.ORG (Francois Souchay) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov12.041104.8421@wetware.com> diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:
>>>We ProblemOlderWomen can only get the title
>>>when we want sex MORE than our ProblemYoungerMen...
>>Hmmm.... Haven't dated many French Men , have we?  >:->
>I don't think you've met a *real* ProblemOlderWoman yet, have you?
>
No, why? Got some phone numbers? Heh heh heh.

Francois.
From: smith@wesson.Eng.Sun.COM (Nina S. Smith - SunSoft Product Marketing)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is attractive to women?
Date: 20 Nov 1992 00:55:38 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: smith@wesson.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: wesson

In article 74475@apple.apple.COM, pooh@Apple.COM (Pooh) writes:

>Then again, I wore a tie for as long as four months (can you
>say "South African school uniform?" I knew you could), and
>never twisted my ankle while doing so.
>
>Pooh
>	pooh@apple.com
>
>

Only 4 months???  I had to endure it all through grade school 
AND high school -- white shirt, blue pinafore, school tie, school 
badge -- the whole kit and caboodle . . . 

Strangely enough, one of my favorite work outfits is a short navy
blue mini skirt, white shirt, red and blue striped tie and a double-
breasted navy blazer.  Conformist, no . . . just unconventional.

-- Nina



Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: don@island.COM (Don Hermes)
Subject: Cheap Sunglasses (was Re: **FIRST*DATE*IDEAS**)
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:43:00 GMT

In article <BxtKr2.56F@cs.dal.ca> earhard@ug.cs.dal.ca (Mark Earhard) writes:
>
>
>>                my wife always KNOWS when I'm a lookin' no matter how 
>>                descrete I think I've been.)
>
>This is really irritating.  Anyone know a quick fix?

Cheap black plastic sunglasses.
Sorry if I screwed up the attributions. I'm a professional.

Don
don@island.com
From: dennisp@kpc.com (Dennis Preston)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: How to explain?
Date: 16 Nov 92 01:37:50 GMT
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Inc, Santa Clara, CA

In article <1992Nov14.235511.2900@csi.uottawa.ca> misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>   When I cross the Canada-U.S. border, and a U.S. immigration official
>asks me the purpose of my visit, how can I explain that I'm going to a
>Boink in a manner that will minimize the number of followup questions?

Just tell them that you're going to visit friends. Have you been across the
border lately? It's not very difficult.
Newsgroups: soc.singles