HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Soc.singles.deity.funny
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:10:43 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In article <70432@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>swann@acsu.buffalo.edu (Stephen Swann) writes:
>>In article <70366@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>>>But maybe we should go a round in the ring for the title of
>>>soc.singles.deity.funny, just for the heck of it.
>>What, you want me to prostitute my work?  Turn the delicate art of humor
>>into a mud-wrestling spectacle for the masses?!
>
>>OK.
>
>Uzi - check   
>Marshmallows  - check 
>Syllogism detector - check
>Lime jello - check
>
>Name your weapon.

Yo, Stef, you forgot the Velcro!

paul
From: fred@walter.UUCP (Fred Walter)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: long hair
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 20:45:27 GMT
Organization: GRW Enterprises

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca writes:
>stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>>> But if your chest *satisfies* Fred's requirement, would you reject him
>>> for *having* the requirement?
>>
>>No, but I would reject him if that were his *main* requirement, or if
>>that were the major reason why he liked me.
>
>   Suppose he really liked your personality, but he didn't even consider
>the personalities of flat-chested women?  Does a requirement's *rigidity*
>suffice to make it "main" or "major"?

Depends on what you're requiring to be rigid... :-)

It feels weird seeing people who don't know me writing about something that
boils down to "Fred likes tits" and "Stef wouldn't like Fred if the only
thing Fred liked about Stef was that she had tits" and "Mark wouldn't like
Stef if she had short hair but wouldn't care if she didn't have tits" and
"Do the women in Mark's vicinity cut their hair when they find out his
preference for long hair ?".

Opps. Cheap shot. Sorry :-)

Like, really. If Mark is serious about not wanting to be involved with
a woman that has short hair, the more power to him. Though he may end up
being a 41-year old virgin in 10 years because of it. Like, what
self-respecting woman would want to have a sexual relationship with a guy
that is saying, in effect, that he'd dump her if she cut her hair short ?

I've had relationships with women like that. Low self-esteem. Bad self-image.
Desperate. One is better off remaining celibate :-/

My question for Mark is : would you be friends with a woman that had short
hair ? Would you go out with her (as friends) on a regular basis to dinner
and the occassional movie ? Or would you dump her because the presence of
a female friend that you go out with might scare off any long haired women ?

	fred
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: ReReReRe So ... What????
Keywords: so
Date: 30 Jul 92 12:26:56 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org> writes:
] jiang@cs.arizona.edu (Howard) writes:
] >what is the significance of this newsgroup?

[ trivial interlude deleted to maintain conscious concern for the lives
of BabyBandWidths that are Slaughtered Every Year, Frivilously, To Bring
folks their Net Feeds... ]

] No, what happens here is that someone posts something and some people
] agree and a some people disagree.  This is what goes on in any newsgroup.
] It may be suprising, but everyone on Usenet doesn't share one hive mind,
] we don't all agree with each other and we don't all get along. 


I'm sorry Ross, but I totally Disagree with You,
and I think that essentially you missed all of 
the salient issues that howard was attemtpting to address.

Perhaps had you thought a little more intensely
you would have seen it all as a Fruedian Slip,
that would have made his Address move freely,
presuming, of course, that he Used ClingFree
to Protect him With StaticGuard.

ciao
drieux


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: A short metaphor for love
Date: 29 Jul 92 07:17:40 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

>I asked the baby for a kiss and she whapped me in the face with a block.

>Dawn
>"If he attempts to kiss her on the lips she should turn her head slightly so
>that the kiss falls harmlessly on her cheek instead.  If he attempts to kiss
>her anyplace else she should quickly pull the gown back in place, spring from
>the bed, and announce that nature calls her to the toilet.  This will generally
>dampen his desire to kiss in the forbidden territory."
>"Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride" by Ruth Smythers (1894)

Maybe somebody had been reading Ruth Smythers to her.

--
Stef               "Excuse me. This life isn't working. I want to exchange it."
stef@apple.com     "Have you tried plugging it in?"
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjj@mits.mdata.fi (Joni Jarvenkyla)
Subject: Re: Female Olympians
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 19:50:14 GMT

In article <13843@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>If you get down on the floor you can look up the short so the medal winners
>when they get up on the platform to receive their honors.

This must be the thing I've been missing: the heroes! Kneel down, you
mortal worm!

So, never keep your tv set on the floor like I do.

Fear of Athletes is the beginning of wisdom. Or was it God? Or
gullibility?

-- 
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
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Yo SusieCreamPuff
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:37:17 GMT

tarra@skat.usc.edu (Frat Boy) writes:
] Well if you or that annoyance of a little geek Seth would ever read one of 
] my posts without the attitude that "because you are both little nerds that
] never were socially successful in life, that you must be smarter than someone
] that goes to a good school known for its attractive women and wild parties"

Sugar snookems,

some of us got our way through college the old Fashion way,
called GI Beni's... and we did that with wives and kids,
and we were there to get an education, not to get laid.

The latter we had mastered well enough growing up.

As for your intellectually interesting concerns about calling
folks 'twerps' - Gee Wow... Got My YaHoHOHoHo all scared...

Ever Go One on one with a Seal? 

Ever stop and ask yourself: "if that tank blows we're dog shit..."
and still try to get the driver out anyway????

Ever sit around Happier than a Clam as your contact got
out of a Warsaw Pact StateSecurityFacility ALIVE....

So What is Your Point?

You made it to some Frat LifeStyle. You have this mistaken
belief that some how life will be like those neato 'R' 
rated college summer fun flicks...

So?

while we're tripping down memory lane....

Ever Lay in your rack with 105+ degree temp while your
mate plays love songs and scales on a sitar....

ciao
drieux


-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: asking for reactions to posting
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:30:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.193319.11404@u.washington.edu>
intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (the lovely and luscious Angelwing)
writes:
>In article <2160@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com> luzenko@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com (Bill Luzenko) writes:
>>
>>Give me some reactions to the following, and lets be practical!
>
>Hey!  Would somebody our in New Jersey slap this guy?  Please?
>
>Angelwing - Where the *hell* do these people come from?

I though you already answered that.

New Jersey, of course.

If they grow up we let them out.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com

If they don't they get sent to USC.
From: palou@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Ignasi Palou-Rivera)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Would you Shag a 14 year old ??
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:45:16 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk's message of 22 Jul 92 11:05:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.110524.8580@cs.hw.ac.uk> neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:

>   Given the opportunity if you came across a seriously gorgeously horny
>   girl who was very repsonsive and willing to get to bed with you, but
>   you knew she was only 14 years old.
>
>   Would you ??
>
>   a/	Without a second thought
>   b/	Only if you knew you would not be caught
>   c/	?
>
>	   Neil

Easy question. NO. Why? Well, it's not that I think 14-year olds
shouldn't be sexually active, but I think it's better for them to
stick to their own age group. I believe that the usual distinction
between older and younger that eighteen is valid. Not that a 17-year
old and a 19 should not mix, but it isn't good for people well above
(I mean three years, that is 21) to have a sexual relationship with
people under-18.

Ignasi.

--
Ignasi Palou-Rivera		palou@osnome.che.wisc.edu
Dept. of Chemical Engineering, U. of Wisconsin, Madison.

"He said, 'I been a lot of places
And I seen a lot of things
But, sonny, Iseen one thing beats'em all
I was flyin' back from Lubbock
I saw Jesus on the plane
... or maybe it was Elvis
You know, they kinda look the same."
Don Henley et al.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Morality- Alarming results
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:50:35 GMT

In article <s2km-cn.aahz@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>Not as long as the speed limit is 55 and people regularly drive at 75.
>This may sound like a nit-picky point, but I think it points to the
>problems in our society much more accurately than a survey about rape.

gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:
>This is another example of how the laws changed and something that was
>a perfectly fine activity somehow became illegal.  Before the 70's
>energy crisis and the "55 saves lives" campaign, it was perfectly
>reasonable to drive 75 on highways that supported driving at that
>speed.

But it wasn't a perfectly fine activity, people were dying.  It may be
suprising but 55 *does* save lives.  If you don't believe me come to
Canada were the speed limit is 100km/h (60 mph), 110km/h in some areas,
and the police (in Ontario) won't pull you over for speeding unless your
doing over 120km/h.  As a result we have some of highest accident rates
in the world.  

>It is the same principle with having sex with 14 year olds;
>there was a time when not only was it legal it was a commonly accepted
>practice when they consented.

Once a apon time 14 year old could marry and then support his family
working in the fields.  Nowadays no 14 year could support his family
and would be great burden on society.  So, it seems to me to be very
reasonable for modern society to discourage 14 years old from having
sex, just like I think it's reasonable for an goverment to impose speed
limits that save lives.

							Ross Ridge

-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross						     db	 //
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: mcregor@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Meloney Cregor)
Subject: Re: long hair
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:09:07 GMT

In article <g150NB1w162w@micor.ocunix.on.ca> graydon@micor.ocunix.on.ca (Graydon) writes:

>Maybe I'm just desperate to talk to, but even the two strong
>physical requirements I've got (doesn't smoke, and lives in herself)
>are self image and phycological just as much as physical.

I'm sorry, Graydon, I just couldn't let this pass.  I tried, really, I'm
trying to cut down, but it just came over me and I had to...

Ok, if one plays the "do I fit this profile" game, it becomes hard when 
one doesn't quite know the parameters, so....

The first one is cool, I have been smoke free for over a year now.  (yeah!!!!!)
{not to get off on other tangents, but I am..  I had tried several times
to quit and it just didn't happen.  This time ended up as a no-sweat
situation.  It just wasn't a problem and I didn't have any cravings and I 
didn't attack the refrigerator.  I think it was just time.}

Now, the second is a head scratcher, though.  Lives in herself?
Knowing you possess a clever wit, I am sure this is a slight facetious-ism.

Does this mean you prefer women who don't do out-of-body experiences?


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: Men with Long hair
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 03:23:42 GMT

cherokee@gators.b30.ingr.com (Lori) writes:
] 
] Curt.Shehow@p33.f75.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Curt Shehow) writes:
] >
] > Speaking(?) of long hair, I was wondering how women feel about long
] >hair on a man. Just a wonder since, mine is getting there (6-7 inches
] >below shoulders).
] 
] 	The longer, the better.   :)
] 
] Lori

Ditto, seconded, Amen - take your pick!

I don't even mind that my PYM's hair is curlier
than mine is - well, I don't mind TOO much...  :)

Diana
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Subject: Re: Don't try this at home!!
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 04:21:18 GMT
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 <13726@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:

>I put on Dvorak's 9th for the drive through
>Yosemite.  It was quite appropriate for the grandeur of Yosemite.

I'll say!  Good choice.  I'll have to get out there to see it someday
(hopefully with an extra Minolta body loaded with B&W film, so I can
pay proper homage to Ansel Adams :-)

>I think my Henry is more of a baritone and if I pulled a conducting stunt
>on him he'd just give me his "don't be stupid" look.

Rings a bell, yup, though Duchess is a little cross-eyed, so sometimes
there's a drift between that and her "I'm _really_ confused" look.

>Mundane, yes, but if you were conducting these can you imagine how 
>entertaining it might be (to a cat, anyway)?  Did you ever see the old
>Monty Python sketch about the "conductors club"?

"New trend - air baton."  I can see it now.  The cats would love it,
no question ("Look, here he comes!  Has he still got that little
stick?" :-)

>Good thing you never got to Carmina Burana or Wagner's "the ring".

I have neither so far, though I know the former relatively well.
I have little Wagner; that's going to take so much work, I'll 
likely have to be completely jaded on popular music before I try
much more than stuff at the "greatest hits" level (sigh).

>That *must* be corrected.  [Mahler's 1st] is a masterpiece

Point taken.  I'll add it to The List :-)

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com
Heaven knows / No frontiers
And I've seen heaven in your eyes			- Jimmy McCarthy
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: long hair
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:27:15 GMT

In article <l6oar8INN9qp@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com
(Dawn Hardin) writes:

>(Or am I just weird?)

No, Dawn, you are not just weird.

You're lots of other things, too.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
This doesn't count as a suckup unless I specify what some of those
other things are.
From: tegarr01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: RE: Female Olympians
Date: 31 Jul 92 12:20:52 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

Hey what about SUMMER SANDERS, USA SWIMMER?

TEG
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: topless
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:41:37 GMT
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: aahz@netcom.com's message of 22 Jul 92 01:58:06 GMT

In article <k-fmntp.aahz@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:

   In article <1992Jul21.152632.25118@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
   >In  <1992Jul20.181750.4849@zooid.guild.org>  Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org> writes:
   >>
   >> Considering that it's apparently now legal for women to go topless in
   >> New York State, it would seem to be more fun to hold a Boink in New York,
   >> topless-wise at least.
   >
   >What a coincidence - we just happen to be having a Boink in New York -
   >the weekend of Aug. 1.

   Thank you for making a clean breast of it.

Another thread of puns?  I bet we can return you tit for tat.
--

Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu/(ne crm@cs.duke.edu) 
O/Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
H/3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens. -- Schiller
Ergo bibamus! -- Goethe
From: casbah.acns.nwu.edu!drmax@overmind.mind.org
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: HOW CAN I TELL?
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:07:00 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
X-mailer: Stadel 3.4a-227
X-Spam-content: irrelevant

In article <92203.182722U15479@uicvm.uic.edu> <U15479@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>   I need the net's help again on a problem I am having.  I was dating a 
girl
>last year and really liked her but she wouldn't commit because she went back
 to
>her ex-boyfriend.  

[rest of the description deleted]

This "girl" is in a holding pattern waiting for "Mr. Right", you aren't it
but you are nice enough not to pressure her so you fill the time/social gap
while she waits. 

Surely you didn't need me to tell you this?
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max)
Subject: Re: topless
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 15:59:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.133502.1723@newstand.syr.edu> haroome@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allisson Roome) writes:
>In article <70368@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>>
>>Personally, I think it should be illegal for men to take off their shirts*.
>>It's quite distracting for some of us.
>>
>>
>>*except at Boinks, of course
>
>Stef -
>
>THANK YOU!!!  I think I have another activity for the NYC Boink - A
>Topless Male contest 

Is this open only to truncated males? 


(I'm sure we have some women willing to
>'volunteer' their services as judges) - I, personally, like the idea.
>Although, for the more modest, we could have a wet male tee-shirt
>contest. 

Hmmmmmm wet males, the mind boggles

So, Women of the Boink, what do you think?
>
I'm gonna be at Oshkosh instead.
From: intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Killing all Idiots!
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:50:15 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <2176@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com> luzenko@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com (Bill Luzenko) writes:
>But Angelwing I'd be dead too!!

No shit.  
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max)
Subject: Re: Those looooong and hard love sessions
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:29:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.161511.29001@walter.bellcore.com> nobody writes:
>In article <BruL32.Ivw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mcregor@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Meloney Cregor) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul22.185909.1412@walter.bellcore.com> nobody writes:
>>
>>>Another man wrote:
>>>>An ex-SO and I spent a four day weekend in bed... of course there were trips
>>>>to the bathroom (some things just can't be ignored) and the kitchen (ever seen
>>>>"9 1/2 weeks"? :).
>>>
>>>If there was ever such a thing as an ExclusiveMaleThread, this would be it.
>>
>>Walter!  You little sexist piglet.
>
>Thank you dearie.
>
>>I do vehemently beg to differ.   Having been the participant of a couple 
>>of those four day weekends  (weekdays?) in bed, I must remind you it does
>>take two for nude twister ( well, at least two).
>
>The phrase "ExclusiveMale" referred to the tendency to sustain the thread
>not the act. Need another clue?
>

See Mel, its like fisherman - The ones that haven't caught many tend to be
the ones that talk about the few they've caught (and somehow those fish
just keep getting bigger). 

Seems like women don't have quit as much "need" to talk about their
sexual exploites in the same terms that some men do. It's not that both
genders don't make love for days, more that somehow the ability to make love
for days is a source of pride for some men and probably not that big a deal
to women. 

I mean who cares, hours, days, weeks, whatever. What's important is whether
you and your partner enjoyed each other, not how long it took.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max)
Subject: Re: seeking higher ground
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:07:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.190241.1603@walter.bellcore.com> nobody writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.154022.20609@u.washington.edu> intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>>
>>Angelwing - How do I get my testosterone level checked?
>>
>
>Buy a ruler and don't shave.
>
This is a true story, a famous scientist was doing field research on a
remote island. Being the methodical type as well as bored out of his mind,
he weighed the whiskers that came out of his electric razor everyday after
he shaved. (yeah yeah, I know, weird) Anyway he noticed that for the 3 or 4
days before his girlfriend made the monthly trip out to visit him on his
island, his beard growth rate was heavier. He attributed it to an increase
in testosterone levels due to anticipation....

Start saving and weighing that leg hair Angelwing. (Well it might work)
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Pickup Lines
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:22:07 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Jul21.191921.13491@cs.ucla.edu> gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:
|>Do people find SOs at bars?
|
|I met my last SO in a bar.  Our relationship didn't last but I
|wouldn't say it was because we met in a bar.

As a long time defender of "bars" I'll add my data point.  My last three
SO's I met in a bar.  The first two of them lasted 4+ years.  One of them
I married.  I've been recently seeing the second one a little more.  Wev'e 
gone out several times in the last couple of weeks. You can meet people 
anywhere.  If you limit your opportunities by excluding bars you just might
miss the person that you'll be in love with for the rest of your life.  

|>If I were looking for a meaningful relationship, should I frequent
|>bars?

Not necessarily.  I'm not guarenteeing that you (generic you) will find a 
meaningful relationship (what's that mean anyhow) in a bar but it's a
pretty easy way to brush up on your social skills for when you do meet the
person of your dreams.
>
>If you like going to bars, you should frequent the ones you like.

Good point. Go to a place where you feel comfortable. You'll be more at
ease and as a result have more confidence when meeting other people.

-- 
+============================================================================++
| John Fereira            "Is that all you ever think about?"                |
| johnf@auspex.com                                                           |
+============================================================================++
Newsgroups: soc.singles