HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: soc.singles

In soc.singles, drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max) writes:
 > I don't happen to do this because I think the whole commodity market
 > approach to dating and sex and relationships sucks. I don't want a
 > commodity, I want a person I can share my life with, the sooner I find out
 > about this unknown person who has caught my attention, the sooner I will
 > know if this is something I want with him. If I find I don't well he knows
 > it too and we can choose whether to continue the interaction on a different
 > basis.  

VERY WELL SAID !!!!!    :-)   

Bill 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: czim@hume.cns.caltech.edu (Chris Ziomkowski)
Subject: Re: Newspaper personals (history in the making)
Organization: caltech
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:18:41 GMT

Yeah, I actually tried this once. After being somewhat disappointed with the
results, I accidentally ran into one of the people who works at the paper.
Found out that the average response to an add made by a male in his early to
mid 20's is about 4 for a 5 week run. The average response to a female add in
the same age group is well over 90 in the first week. Anyone know if this is
a strictly local phenomenon?

Chris.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------__-----------------------
 Chris Ziomkowski                                 /  |
 Software Consultant                              |  |           _______
                                              |___|  |____/-|   /  |
 czim@cns.caltech.edu - ---- ---- ---- ---- - *|__|  |____----  \_/
                                              |   |  |    \-|
 "Flying is more fun anyway"                      |  |          --------
                                                  \__|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: A R C
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:07:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Apr7.160017.3028@u.washington.edu> intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>
>You know, at the risk of coming across at *totally* sexist, I'm going to
>have to say that it always seems to be at least the women's *idea* to be
>in the relationship.  No matter how obviously aggressive she is, if a
>women has her eye on a man you can bet that sooner or later he's going to
>figure it out.  I mean, she doesn't have to actually call him up and say
>"Hey, you with the blinders on!  Let's go out!"  Just being available,
>just being around, just smiling at the right time or arranging to be at
>the same restaurant at lunch ...a zillion things.  Not necessarily
>aggressive, but definitely aware.  Keep your eyes open, boys.
>
>Angelwing - It's all in the way you look at it.
>
Lovely, just lovely.  It's this attitude that really bugs me.

Look, women are just as capable of opening their mouths and 
expressing interest as men are.  Encouraging men to look at 
signs that may (and often) mean NOTHING doesn't help anyone.
I mean, next thing you know, Dave Eisen will tell us that he
has, after all this time, found out that it *does* mean a
woman's interested when she scratches her nose.  Great!  What
about all us hayfever sufferers?

Repeat after me: there is no algorithm, there is no algorithm....

Guys, if you happen to see some woman looking at you, then
she just happens to turn up at the same restaurant you do
for lunch, that doesn't necessarily mean that she's interested.
Coincidences do happen, you know!  Further, if she were the
type that watched your movements and passively hung around
waiting for you to "take the hint", is she *really* the type
of woman you want around?  Some of us actually *ask*, take
the time to communicate, and are willing to take risks, rather
than just batting our sweet little eyelashes and waiting for
the man to do all the work.

Teri - no Rosetta stone required
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: haroome@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allisson Roome aka Allie)
Subject: Re: Silent phone calls (was Re: Avoiding dating married people)
Organization: Do I really need to have any at Syracuse University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 17:42:24 EDT

In<1992Apr9.202814.17113@mdd.comm.mot.com> Doug Rudoff) writes:
>
>I was just talking about that yesterday with a friend. In my case, the
>"silent" phone calls occur before a woman I met a few months previous
>calls me up to ask me out. This has happened twice to me. I never
>asked the women if they made "silent" calls, but I always assumed it
>was them. I have the impression that they weren't checking me out,
>they just had the jitters in asking me out, and it took a few tries to
>actually go through with it.
>
>Does anyone out there do this?

   I'm normally a *rather* assertive and outgoing individual; however, I
have one great big fear - that is picking up the phone and calling
someone I've never talked to before.  My palms sweat and my pulse
accelerates, I run opening sentences through my head, and it takes me
forever to complete dialing the call (It took me just over 45 minutes
to make the first call to someone who is *very* dear to me - now his
number is second nature and we can and even do talk all night -
distance is a bitch).  I can't count the times that I've hung up on
the first ring because I've lost my nerve or panicked when I heard
their voice.  It even effects me on odd occasions professionally as
well as romantically (vendors are an exception).  I know about it  ..
to the best of my knowledge, I've been afraid since I could talk on
the phone (I used to be afraid of just talking on the phone not
calling new people). 
   Also, my parents are rather traditional people, so growing up I got
quite a bit of the "women don't make the first move" and " 'nice'
girls don't call boys" dogma that used to tell me to think of myself
as less than ideal for straying from that philosphy (oh, do I stray
<wicked grin>). Hence, a part of the fear's basis in a romantic
context.

--
| H.  Allisson Roome - haroome@rodan.acs.syr.edu 
 Random Thought: America is a nation that can choke on a gnat and swallow
                 tigers whole
				Adlai Stevenson
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 8 Apr 92 05:03:50 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

I prefer not to "interfere" with others' relationships by introducing myself
as an "alternative" for the woman.  Not particularly out of ethical reasons
(admittedly, I wouldn't like to have such a thing happen to me, but also
admittedly, if she legitimately prefers someone to me, there's not a whole
lot that I can do about that), but because my life is complex enough without
introducing that bit of three-way emotional stress.

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

Somebody saved me from a fate worse than heaven,
'Cos if I blew it for a single moment I'd blow it forever.
				- Pete Townshend, "Somebody Saved Me"
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:16:28 GMT

In <7sqj2ff@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>Yes, but saying 'I trust you enough to not sleep with other people' (your
>attribution) is the *same* *thing* as a monogamous relationship, only
>by having to come out and >express< your trust, it weakens that trust.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I certainly don't agree with that bit above.  My ex and I said just that
when we started dating, and I felt that it *strengthened* the sense of trust
between us.  Because we were cleaerly stating one of the "ground rules" for
the relationship, and making sure that we each agreed with it.  (We did.)
I felt a LOT more secure and, well, trusting in having said it explicitly.

>If the bonds are strong enough, the 'trust' should be implicit in the
>relationship, and not have to be expressed. Expressing that trust like
>that, to me, is saying 'I don't totally trust you, so I'll say that I
>do, so you'll keep honest.'

I disagree.  I think that saying so can help strengthen the trust, and can
also be a perk for the person who's being told that they are trusted.  I
think that you're taking a rather narrow and paranoid view of the matter,
frankly.

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

Somebody saved me from a fate worse than heaven,
'Cos if I blew it for a single moment I'd blow it forever.
				- Pete Townshend, "Somebody Saved Me"
From: intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: The Second Move
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:38:26 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Apr15.184218.7839@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu writes:
>
>>Angelwing says " a man will notice a woman's signals, that is
>>if his head isn't in the clouds ".
>>THERE'S the whole DAMN problem, wrapped up neatly. Women ASSUME.  
>>Men don't. :) :) :) 
>
>No, the problem is that women like Angelwing ask or expect _men_ to
>assume.

Women like Angelwing don't have any trouble getting dates.

>>No wonder there's so many problems. 
>Yes, there would be fewer problems if women tried to achieve real
>communication and not this vague read my signals stuff. Communication
>that included words.

How's this for communication:  Oh. Just. Bite. Me.

No matter how much you whine about this, it's NOT GOING TO CHANGE!!  Not
in your lifetime it isn't.  Sure, they are women out there who ask guys
out - lots of them.  But if they don't ask you out, what are you going to
do about it?  Lose weight?  Get a personality?  Learn how to smile?  Learn
how to communicate?  Learn how to read body language?

Teri Miller has been good enough to at least respond to this and say that
giving guys signals and expecting them to react is bullshit.  That's okay
- I mean, in a way it *is* a chicken way to run things.  But that's the
way things are, mostly.  Sure, things are changing, but very slowly.  So
it seems that your choice is to wait until a woman approaches you and hope
she's the type you would care to date, or learn to read body language. 
What's so hard?  I really don't get it.  Say, for example, you're at a
party.  You see a woman across the room, catch her eye.  She smiles at
you, you smile back.  Then later, you see her again, she smiles, you
approach her and start talking...about anything - the host, the food,
whatever.  Now, if she stands there and after a while crosses her arms
over her chest and casts her eyes about the room, are you going to ask her
out?  But, if she chats with you eagerly, doesn't let the conversation
die, makes lots of eye contact ... what then?  

Angelwing - It is all so obvious.

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Angelwing       |"Two things are wanted by a true man, danger and*
* U. of Washington| play - therefore, he seeks woman as the most   *
*                 | dangerous toy."       Friedrich Nietzsche      *
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: richh@tigger.jvnc.net (RICHH)
Subject: Re: Discussion Of Romantic Songs
Originator: richh@tigger.jvnc.net
Organization: JvNCnet
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:47:32 GMT

johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:

>No soc.single soundtrack would be complete without:

>"Why Don't We Get Drunk And Screw" by Jimmie Buffet.

which leads us nicely into "Too Drunk to Fuck" by the Dead Kennedys.

RICHH
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: FA.TJM@forsythe.stanford.edu (thom mckean)
Subject: lemmings myth
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:29:25 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.144159.25352@cbnewse.cb.att.com>,
hjanssen@cbnewse.cb.att.com (hank janssen) writes:
>
>Why would you want to reconcile yourself to that.
>What do you want to be, a lemming.   :-)
>

I apologize beforehand, as this post has little to do with singles.
The postings about the postcards to the kid with cancer and urban
myths, though, got me thinking.
However, what I am about to post seriously altered my view of the
world when I first heard of it myself; you may want to sit if you
are standing, or lie on the floor if you are sitting...

LEMMINGS DO NOT COMMIT MASS SUICIDE, nor do they even singly commit
suicide.  They do not leap of cliffs, either in hordes or
individually.

This amazing fact was reported about three weeks ago on NPR's "All
Things Considered."  Noah Adams interviewed a biologist about this
topic - how the legend started is quite interesting, and also quite
sick.

Apparently, the myth of lemmings committing mass suicide has
been around for a long time, much like the myth that ostriches put
their heads in the sand when faced with danger.

"What about the film?"  I can hear you screaming.  "I've seen film
of lemmings flowing over a cliff!"

This is the sick part.  According to NPR (and the biologist they
interviewed), in 1954, Walt Disney sent a documentary team to the
Arctic to film the supposed lemming suicide.  Upon their arrival,
the people of the area informed the team that it was only a myth.
They called Disney and relayed the information; Disney proceeded to
tell them not to come back if they didn't get the footage.

The documentary team then rounded up a mess of lemmings and herded
them over a cliff to their deaths, and got their footage.

To this day, Disney Corp. says "no comment" when asked about the
film.

Sorry about the diversion from the usual singles comments...
Please follow up to alt.folklore.urban.

Thom

I hate quotations.  Tell me what you know.
   -R. W. Emerson
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Hooters
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:07:57 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <12419@auspex-gw.auspex.com>  johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
> It's not really a class.  It was a BOF (Birds of a Feather), sort of a
> Special Interest Group.  Tremendous Hooters need to be managed when they
> get out of hand.

If they're really tremendous, it seems that they wouldn't *fit* in a hand
to begin with, no?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: FA.TJM@forsythe.stanford.edu (thom mckean)
Subject: Re: The 'first' 'move' (was Re: A R C )
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:34:09 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.110512.24282@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>,
kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>
>>In my experience, asking someone to go out with me for the first time
>>is one of the smaller risks.
>And what are some of the larger risks?
>
Oh, I don't know... perhaps opening my heart and soul
and up to someone at the risk of her crushing them like so many
peanut shells?

Kinda makes asking someone out trivial.  And easy!

Sleeping with Axl Rose (or anyone who's slept with him) also comes
to mind as a pretty big risk...

Thom

If frogs couldn't hop, I'd be gone with the Schwinn.
  -Kermit
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Subject: Re: More helpful Hints
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:56:34 GMT
Distribution: soc
Organization: (Ha!)

In article <1992Apr15.141701.11740@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> swt@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>Usually, if you didn't accept the free cucumber with grace, we'd hide a
>few pounds in the trunk of your car, but nothing more exotic than that.

Is this where somebody could find them easily, or tucked underneath
something but nice'n close to that warm exhaust pipe. (You'll notice
I carefully avoiding the question "a few pounds of what")

>(G-rated farm stand, y'know.) 

Kee-ripes, you mean the Moral Majority has gotten even to the bucolic
birds and the bees? Whatever happened to "Some people lead a barnyard
life because they find monogamy dull and arid" ? (and free crystallized
ginger to the first person who sez where that came from)

paul
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Avoiding dating married people
Date: 12 Apr 92 03:58:43 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <4dtCPcC00iV1I7=5tO@andrew.cmu.edu> ps3p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Peter A. Simon) writes:
>I have a second line going into my study.  I keep the ringer on the
>phone disabled and it is hooked up to an answering machine.  When a
>woman I am dating asks for my number, this is the one she gets.

>So Michele, your paranoia is wasted.

Gee, I hope there aren't many *women* like you around.  I never, ever leave
a message on any answering machine unless it's an emergency.  (I hate the
blasted things; an idiosyncracy of mine.  I prefer to call back later.)  I'd
never be able to get in touch with them.

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

Somebody saved me from a fate worse than heaven,
'Cos if I blew it for a single moment I'd blow it forever.
				- Pete Townshend, "Somebody Saved Me"
From: dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: 9 Apr 1992 19:22:29 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Reply-To: dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <v_sjz8p.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>
>	What game is she playing, Fred? She sounds like a victim to me.
>She was lied to and seduced, and when she discovers this she takes
>revenge. You've given me more reason to believe she was hurt and angry
>than that she's playing a game. Why do you feel it was a game?

Maybe I'm completely missing your point here, Kenn.  She's no longer
a victim because she took her revenge on the WRONG person.  The guy's
wife didn't lie to her, seduce her, or do anything except exist.
So this poor wife gets lied to and cheated on by her husband (I don't
think it's too much of a stretch to assume that the husband who lied
to his lover was lying to his wife too) and then gets kicked in the
face out of the blue by some person that she doesn't even know exists.
It was a rotten thing to do.

Now if she had any good, useful, DIRECT revenge ideas then I hope Fred
e-mails them to me.  But this isn't revenge, it's just cruelty.

I think Kenn was trying to make some point about Fred not being consistent,
but if so, then please try again because I didn't get it.  Or maybe the story
just distracted me.

(Off the subject, when someone made this same kind of phone call to a 
certain female relative of mine, my relative yawned and said, "You're
kidding, the old goat is at it again?  I think you're the third girlfriend
he has going right now," and then the *girlfriend* had a nervous
breakdown.  And then my relative sold her husband's golf clubs for twenty
bucks at a flea market.  She's the one I got the laxatives in the coffee
idea from.)

Dawn
From: dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: The "first" "move" (was Re: A R C )
Date: 13 Apr 1992 18:21:19 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Reply-To: dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <1992Apr13.174732.8836@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>
>Now all I've got to do is figure out how to get around the Wicca part,
>since, much as I like intelligent, aggressive women who are relatively
>unconstrained by convention, the ones I meet keep turning out to be
>serious, practicing pagans with a serious religious observance scheduled
>every seven to eight minutes--not that there's anything inherently wrong
>with pagans, but it doesn't seem to leave much room in their lives for
>anyone who isn't a pagan.
>
>Trygve    (What's a atheist to do?)  


Silly boy, I'm surprised I have to tell you this.  You offer to help them
celebrate May Day, of course.  You *do* already have a cool helmet, don't
you?  

And May Day is even coming up.  (Wish I knew a guy with a helmet to help
*me* celebrate.)

Dawn
Xref: sparky soc.singles:10776 soc.men:8224 soc.women:8790
From: michaili@blondie.cs.wisc.edu (Afroditi Michailidi)
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:56:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.170420.5029@ccu.umanitoba.ca> browns@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Stuart Brown) writes:
>
>This brings up a major problem I've been struggling with. 
>
>I read this post and I think, gee that sounds wonderful.  I bet it would be 
>great to fantastic to do that wild thang with Pooh.. I mean, yeah its better
>with someone you love, and have a serious commitment with, but it could also
>be a blast to do it with someone who you hardly know, but who is *good* at sex.
>In fact, there are just bunches of excellent women out there that I could have
>a great time making love with, and who could teach me lots of new tricks too.
>
>So how can I think like that, and maintain one solid, exclusive relationship?
>My current SO and I have agreed that it will only work between us if we are both
>completely honest and faithful to each other.   Damn.
>
>So how about y'all?  Where is the solution to this dilemma?

   Well, I'm all for open relationships (as you may have guessed from my other
posts <laughter>) However, there's a catch. That is *both* parties must
agree on this. If you feel you want to date other people (to borrow a cliche)
and your partner wants exclusivity, tough. If you *do* date other people, your
partner *is* going to get hurt and *is* going to feel cheated upon regardless
of whether you feel s/he has no reason or right to feel so.

   There's no easy solution. You can try to change their opinions but keep in
mind that they are entitled to them. And chances are, your partner might well
try to change _your_ opinions and you'll get hooked onto monogamy before you
know it <laughter again> Just another of these relationship things you have
to sort out _beforehand_.

 
>	-Stu
 

                             Afroditi
(of course, first I write this and then I find the subject has mutated to
 Trygve-Pooh love exchanges)

*****************************************************
Warning: Graduate student -- overworked and underpaid
*****************************************************
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Spring Fever or what?
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:25:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Apr15.162508.1419
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Apr14.233925.28504@u.washington.edu> intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>In article <3840059@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM> wjb@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Buse) writes:
>>In soc.singles, intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>> > Okay, it finally happened.  I just went over the edge.  I made a
>> > puppet of my hand like that crazy old guy on Ed Sullivan used to do.
>>You're giving your age away by admitting to watching Ed Sullivan.  **GIGGLE**
>Don't you *dare* giggle at me you dweeb!  Ever heard of retrospectives? 
>HUH?  Or re-runs?!?!  Sheesh.

	Uh-huh.  Right.


  Good lord ...a grown man on *purpose*
>typing "*GIGGLE*"  To borrow a phrase ....  It is to hurl.

	Besides which, m'dear, we all know that Angelwing is ageless and
timeless....


-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles