HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Lubosh <Lubosh.Hanuska@anu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.romance,alt.sex,alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: 13 Nov 1992 02:34:12 GMT
Organization: ANU Canberra
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.49.16
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d11
X-XXDate: Fri, 13 Nov 92 21:34:19 GMT

In article <BxK3E2.Gv1@access.digex.com> Corun MacAnndra,
corun@access.digex.com writes:
>I'd be interested to see an experiment conducted, where two groups of
>children, both male and female, are raised in households, one of all
>men, and one of all women. A fair mix would include gays as well as
>straights on the parent side, in order to give the children as well
>rounded a set of experiences as possible.
Okay, but I think little kids are too precious gifts of God to be used
for experiments.
Lubosh
From: dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Money and the Single World (was: Education and the Single World
Date: 12 Nov 1992 19:07:50 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <1du5ucINNq4d@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> jdavidso@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.022122.5197@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>  
>
>Well, if that is the case, how can she afford a new $500 TV, a new stereo  
>system, and a new cordless phone? And still complain about being broke  
>all of the time??????? How many of you have seen this in action; and will  
>she ever break out of this pattern of behavior? I, for one, hope so, if  
>not for her sake, for the children's sake. 

Often.  From the inside.  Sounds like simple depression.  If she either
gains or loses a noticeable amount of weight, then that makes it all the
more likely.

Or alternately, my ex used to spend most of the disposable income on
musical equipment.  So when I realized that I could decide where that
extra $xxx was going a month, I went hog wild at Spiegels and the bookstore.
I went overboard.  It was great.  There wasn't anybody to say, "but I wanted
a 23 channel modulating equalizing midi-compatible board to slave to the
hardware sequencer, and it only costs $600 and you already own a sweater."  
So when I was depressed, I overspent, and when I was "making a healthy 
adjustment", I overspent.  I got over it.  (Even though those who saw me 
buy the baby a $100 velvet Christmas dress may disagree.)

Dawn
"Hello death, goodbye Avenue A.  I'm getting tired of waiting, tired of
being afraid.  Joseph Campbell gave me hope and now I have been saved.
So I sing hello death, goodbye Avenue A."  "Folk Song" by Bongwater.

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: dbj@cs.washington.edu (Dave Johnson)
Subject: Re: PRES DEBATE
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 20:09:02 GMT

In article <BxKuFC.2q0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>
>Yes.  One of George Bush's two good ideas (I forget the other one) was
>to let YOU decide to spend a little bit of your tax money now to
>reduce the principal on the national debt.  The press has pilloried
>him for suggesting such a trivially simple idea.  If it's good, it has
>to be complicated.  Well hey, unless somebody passes a law, that debt
>burden will never be reduced.  The pigs feeding at the trough aren't
>willing to cut the debt of their own free will, merely because it
>would be good for the country.

I'm a little confused about how this scheme was supposed to work.
Let's see: I check that I want x% of my income tax money to go
toward reducing the principal on the national debt, so they use
my tax money to pay off 1-zillionth of the outstanding Treasury
notes; then they don't change the budget any, so now they have
to go out and borrow an extra 1-zillionth to meet expenses.

What exactly did I accomplish here?
-- 
  Dave Johnson

"You're not too smart, are you?  I like that in a man."
    --Kathleen Turner in Body Heat 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine)
Subject: Re: Money and the Single World (was: Education and the Single World
Organization: Don't blame me, I voted for Bill 'n' Opus
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:25:21 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? 
>  
>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?
>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?

I find that it doesn't make much of a difference in a short-term
relationship.  I don't yet have enough experience to say whether it
makes a difference over the long haul.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which the only
specification is that it should run noiselessly.
From: keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: That wacky electoral college
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:12:49 GMT
Organization: California-Nevada Methodist Homes

In article <96094@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>OK, this bugs me in every presidential election.  Why do we still have the
>electoral college?  

It has happened only once, where the Presidential Candidate who
got the most popular votes was not elected, because he did 
not get enough electoral votes.  Usually, as in this year, the 
person who gets the most popular votes, also gets the most
electoral votes.  This makes the electoral college vote a mere
formality.  However, the purpose of the electoral college is
quite a noble one, and indeed, is quite ingenius of the 
founding fathers to have thought of it.  The number of electors
from each state is based on the total number of representatives
that state has in congress [House of Representatives & Senate
combined]  The number of representatives a state has is based on
population in that state, and each state gets two senators.  The
number of representatives is fixed for the House of Reps, so if 
one state gains in population count, and another state loses, then
it affects both states representation in the House, by the fact
that one state may lose a number of Reps, and the other state
will gain.  However, in the senate, since each state has two
senators, this makes the tiniest state [Rhode Island?] have 
an equal voice with the largest in population, California.  
Now, suppose the most populous states have a huge percentage of
voters turnout and vote.  The small states have a small percentage.
The huge population states would always determine the winner
of the presidency, without benefit of the electoral college. 
If three people voted in the recent election in California, 
and two of them voted for Bush and 1 for Clinton, then Bush
would have taken ALL of the electoral votes for CA, even though
a majority of Californians favored Clinton, but didn't vote.
Likewise, the population of a state like NC could muster up
enough votes and solidly back a certain candidate, and grouped
with other smaller populated states, can elect a president
even though the candidate may not have gotten a majority of
the national vote.  In this manner, since most of the states
wanted a candidate, they are able to get him, even though
the popular vote may in fact be closer.  This eliminates
the controversy of a recount, in a country involving millions
of people.  In the recent Election, the popular vote was
relatively close, with Clinton 43%, Bush 39%, and Perot 
with 18%.  Yet, because most of the people in most of
the states voted for Clinton, he camne away with a 
virtual Landslide in the electoral college.  I hope this
clears up you question about the electoral college.
--Keith		[Now, I'm confused!]

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack)
Subject: Re: Education and the Single World
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:14:34 GMT

In article <1dtphuINN253@FUNCTOR.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU> loosemore-sandra@cs.yale.edu (Sandra Loosemore) writes:
>malak@grebyn.com (Michael Malak) writes:
>
>   I have an M.S.  I've never in my life met an unattached woman with a
>   PhD, so I can't even imagine the scenario.
>
>Well, there's at least one out here.  :-)  Start imagining!
>
>-Dr. Sandra

Well, last night I met this woman (blonde hair, blue eyes,
great cheek bones, nice figure, born in Europe, lives 10
minutes from me) who is a neurosurgeon.  I do believe she has
more degrees than me.  At least it will be fun finding out.

Have fun,
Rich Soyack
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Subject: Re: Nightline and Presidential Cantidates
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 16:57:08 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Nov4.231756.16769@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:

>According to every version of the Internal Revenue Code I've ever
>read, foreign corporations are taxed (on their US income) exactly the
>same as domestic corporations.

Nobody I ever heard or read commenting on the election campaign called
Clinton on his claim that foreign corporations were taxed more favorably.
Why is that?  I don't find the press I read/hear to be uniform enough
for "press bias" to cover it.

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com
"I get so tickled debunking bad personal philosophy." - Milquetoast
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: WHAT DO AMERICAN MEN THINK ABOUT AMERI
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:41:36 GMT

In article <riaedwards.2.721312688@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au>, riaedwards@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (AUDREY EDWARDS) writes:
> In article <MARTINC.92Nov7000511@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
> >From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
> >Subject: Re: WHAT DO AMERICAN MEN THINK ABOUT AMERI
> >Date: 7 Nov 92 05:05:11 GMT
> 
> >In article <720972616.23481@minster.york.ac.uk> aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
> 
> 2. Spoke funny, compered to whom? Are you an American, by chance? Surely (in 
> grammatical terms *only*), you mean "spoke in a funny manner". In any event, 
> the English speak beautiful English (and I should know, for I am one! :-) )
> 

But they speak terrible American.

> 
> 
> Audrey.


Larry Billings
Most of us are sad, No one lets it show,
I've been shadows of myself,How was I to know?         Eagles
*******************************************************************************



Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Matt Valentine
Subject: Re: Hints
Reply-To: valentin@next3.corp.mot.com
Organization: MOTOROLA 
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:17:59 GMT

Kiran Wagle writes
> >Eventually (after the romance stage) the real feelings  
> >should be more important than sex.  
> 
> What a silly dichotomy.  Why not have the "romance stage" forever?
> -- 

I dont really believe that those super-intense feelings that are present  
in the first year or so of the relationship are ever as strong again.   
Yes, there still can be romance, but the people should start accepting  
each other as imperfect. Idealistic visions need to be stepped back to  
reality otherwise one or both will end up disappointed.

Matt Valentine
valentin@next3.corp.mot.com
From: jsmt@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Julia Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Ridding the Third Wheel
Date: 8 Nov 92 23:47:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <1992Nov8.062204.16977@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>In article <73972@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>>rll1@kepler.unh.edu (Robert L Lamothe) writes:
>>
*story deleted for brevity*
>>
>>Her ex won't get out of her life until she tells him in no uncertain terms
>>to leave her alone. IMO, he will not recover or get over her until she does
>>this. However, it may be difficult for her to realize this and to break her 
>>emotional attachment to him.
>>
>>Are you willing to put up with this process for however long it takes? 
>>Is your emotional support allowing her to continue trying to help her ex?
>>
>
>     I agree with Stef's advice.  I would like to add some more.  If I
>was in a relationship with this lady, I would suggest that she change
>her phone number and possibly move without telling her ex.  That way
>he would be out of her and my life for good.
>
And, adding to that, if she is NOT willing to cut herself off from him,
be ready to ask yourself why.  "Over" sometimes takes a long time to be
over - are you getting what *you* need from this relationship?  Who is
taking care of you? <- i.e., are you taking care of what you need, or
is this relationship all about her?
  
Good luck!  You are in a very difficult situation!!
  
--j
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.fan.lemurs
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: marital counciling
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 04:01:56 GMT

julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:

>>stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes about a communication exercise:
>>>You're supposed to spend an entire day together in one room
>>>with no TV, books, &c, just talking to each other.

>kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Me) writes:
>>No telephone either.  No distractions at all.  
(And you have to talk about yourselves, your relationship, and each other.
 Politics is right out.)

>I guess your relationship WOULD be in trouble if you didn't consider 
>your sweetie a distraction.  ;)

You have a point.  MY sweety is _quite_ distracting.

>>either, since my sweetie and I don't seem to lack communication.)
>Does that mean _she_ knows how to pronounce your name?  :)

If _you_ would like to know, you can always ask....

>>Kiran Wagle                           <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>

>I kinda miss the Tapir.  I've been forgetting all my geography lately...

Mmm hmm.  I wonder what my sweetie would say if I offered 
to give geography lessons to some woman I met on the net.

Hmm: well, I know lorises aren't lemurs, and, contrariwise, lemurs
aren't lorises, but maybe this will help you get better:

"The Lemur is one worse than the Monkey.  He is often mistaken for a
 squirrel, a rabbit, an Agouti, or anything but a Lemur.  He has been
 described as a state of mind or ectoplasm.  The Lemur is a primate
 because people say so.  The Lemur sleeps all day and nobody tells him
 that he is a tramp.  When disturbed he sort of squeaks.  Most Lemurs
 live in Madagascar, but they are never quite warm enough. ...
 Lemurs comb their hair with their lower front teeth. They mature
 almost instantaneously.  In a way we came from lemurs because they
 are also descended from an extinct Tree Shrew something like a large
 Rat.  From the Tree Shrew to the Dogfish is but a step, which
 practically brings us to the amoeba.  So perhaps the lemur is to blame
 for it all.".......Will Cuppy, _How To Tell Your Friends from the Apes_

There.  Maybe that will help to keep you warm through those 
cold and lonely city nights...

-- 
"Geographer, n. A chap who can tell you offhand 
 the difference between the outside of the world and the inside."
 .......................Ambrose Beirce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
-- 

Kiran Wagle                           <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: Hints (Was Re: What is attractive)
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:46:33 GMT

In article <96274@netnews.upenn.edu>, crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
> In article <1992Nov4.182033.9837@b8.b8.ingr.com> larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings) writes:
> 
> >the child.  After attempting all routes I could think of to avoid the 
> >question, I had to answer and answer truthfully.  My answer consisted of
> >You know I love the baby very much, but the first year or two together is
> >always the hardest, because the people have to get to know each other, and
> >having a child can only complicate things.
> 
> I'm confused here.  She had a child, and you broke up because you thought
> the child would complicate things?  Or -- she had a child, and you broke
> up because you wanted her to get rid of the child?  

The breakup happened quite some time after this and had nothing to do with
the child, She just got very upset after pressing me for an answer to a 
hypothetical question, "would things be better/easier if the child was not
there?", I had already demonstrated my LOVE for the child.  I cared very
deeply for the child and had no qualms about it not being mine.  I had 
(at least I thought) I had proven that beyond doubt, after her divorce I
had taken care of her and the baby, I gave her a car to drive, car seat for
the baby, took the baby to the doctor, bought it's medication, and unless it
was too bad of weather to have the baby out we always took it with us.  It
was spoiled rotten from all the toys and things I bought it, how can you say
no to something so cute???  I realize material things does not prove love
by it's self but I can not and will not write all the "mushy" stuff on the
net.  I had told her how much I loved them both, despite how difficult that
sort of thing is for me.  I was not raised to express emotions, I take after 
my dad, and beleive words are cheap.  I don't tell my mom and dad "I love you"
they know it from my actions, but the one thing I have learned about women
is they like to hear it said, so if I feel it I say it.

> 
> Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu


Larry Billings
Most of us are sad, No one lets it show,
I've been shadows of myself,How was I to know?         Eagles
*******************************************************************************



Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kevin@clsi.COM (Kevin Cameron)
Subject: Re: How the cold war was won. (was: Nightline and Presidential Cantida
Originator: kevin@dubhe
Reply-To: kevin@clsi.com
Organization: CAD Language Systems Inc.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 16:14:20 GMT


In article <721392335.18765@minster.york.ac.uk>, aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
> : The reason we "won" the cold war is that their economy collapsed before ours
> : did. The arms race destroyed both our economies, we just outlasted them.
> 

Who has actually won ? Isn't it likely that the Russians will be able to
rebuild their economy faster than the USA can fix its own ? 

Kev. :-7
-- 
Kevin Cameron          CLSI, Suite 100, 5457 Twin Knolls Rd., MD 21045, USA
kevin@clsi.com         Tel: (USA) (410) 992 5700 (- 5709) X224
uunet!clsi.com!kevin   Fax:       (410) 992 3536
----------------------------------------------------------- Reality Is virtual
From: morrison@boi.hp.com (Glen Morrison)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: **FIRST*DATE*IDEAS**
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:11:27 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Ok, so I met this lady about two weeks ago and I'm very interested in her.
She showed quite a bit of interest in me also.  We've only had one
long conversation and some short phone chats, but I'm pretty sure she'll
go out with me. 
So I need some attractive, interesting first date ideas.  I want to impress
her, but not overly impress.  Also, while we're on the subject, how about
some DOs and DON'Ts on first dates. More DOs than DON'Ts please. 
Oh yea, I forgot to mention we're both in our mid-twenties.

gdm
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Hints (Was Re: What is attractive)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:56:33 GMT

In article <lfj00nINNcmn@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>(Seriously, I repeat that I don't think "send the kid to its father" is
>at all a *bad* thing to say if that's an option, just that I wouldn't date 
>anyone who said it to me.)

It's certainly kinder than what a lion does in such a situation.  He kills
and eats the cubs sired by his rival, bringing the lionesses into reproductive
state sooner.

-- Herb Huston
Newsgroups: soc.singles,ba.singles
From: daniel@clsi.COM (Daniel Barclay)
Subject: Re: Where to meet women?
Organization: CAD Language Systems Inc.
	<Nov.9.17.04.55.1992.23794@net.bio.net>
	<1992Nov10.202448.21558@novell.com>
Date: 11 Nov 92 11:43:55

> Here am I sitting in a tin can...

High above the world.
Planet earth is blue
And there's nothing I can do.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel S. Barclay			CAD Language Systems, Inc.
					Suite 101, 5457 Twin Knolls Rd.
Why can't _I_ think of a signature?	Columbia, MD  21045  USA
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: elections
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:22:32 GMT

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

>I say Gore-Braun in '00.

Why not go all the way, run Jeremy Rifkin and Helen Caldecott?

Or, if you prefer a more moderate ticket, 
Paul Ehrlich and Catharine MacKinnon?

>Yes, that's what I say.  :-)

>"It'll be better than before.  Yesterday's gone.  Yesterday's gone!"

Wishful thinking.  But maybe it won't be worse.

-- 
"Politics, n.  A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of
 principles.  The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
 .........................Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
-- 

Kiran Wagle                           <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.peeves
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Oh I get it
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:31:42 GMT

allisson@turing.toronto.edu (H. Allisson Roome) writes:

] In article <1992Nov11.092653.5320@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] 
] >Jennifer Flowers is Ted Kennedy's Dead Girl Friend?
] >
] >ps: I know some folks are hard up for a date,
] >but that is a BIT stiff.....
] >
] 
] There has to be a catch here, one of the few linear posts in the body
] of Drieux's work- what mort remains to be seen


Well I had originally been of the opinion
the Jello Biafra was fronting the band....

But things I guess have changed with this
new Flowers Child.


ciao
drieux


ps: please read slowly....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Hi Diddle, Diddle, the Cat and the Fiddle,
The Cow Blew Up on the Launching Pad
From: nehs@romulus.rutgers.edu (-Killer Klondike-)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Top 5 resason...
Date: 12 Nov 92 02:17:06 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey Jean Lin) writes:

>In <Nov.10.16.45.19.1992.18015@romulus.rutgers.edu> nehs@romulus.rutgers.edu (-Killer Klondike-) writes:

>>Top 5 things a man doesn't want to hear from a woman he's interested in...

>>5. Why?
>>4. No.
>>3. I don't know.
>>2. You are such a nice guy.
>>1. I just want to be friends.

>>-the Perpetual Bachelor-

>	***SMILE*** I think you forgot to add in another line. 8-)

>	OH HIM! He's ONLY a friend... (AAARRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!)


>	Boy, I'm glad I'm no longer single. 8-)

>						    Mikeey
>					mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu

Point to you!  Next week...  "Top SIX reasons a man..."
Newsgroups: soc.singles