HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: purp@wixer.cactus.org (Jim Meyer)
Subject: Re: GET A LIFE ALL OF YOU!!!!
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 06:39:12 GMT

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

See below.

>                 Go ahead and flame me, big deal!!!!!!!!!!!
>CHRIS GRUMBOSKI                      GRUMBY STRIKES AGAIN!

No flame, just an observation. I'm a relatively new poster here (less
than two weeks ago I got my first USENET account); in the times that I
have joined in the conversation/discussion/melee, I've been responded
to, both in EMail and in 'public', and even been quoted (once by
Allisson the Fairly OK, even! ;) ).

Perhaps it has to do with the tone of your articles, if this one is any
guide. Chill. Relax. Trash the threads you aren't interested in reading,
and read the rest. That's what I do.

--Purp, lacking malice.


-- 
+---------------+------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Jim Meyer     | If I express an opinion, you | purp@wixer.cactus.org |
| Austin, Tejas | can bet no one else agrees.  | aka jimpurp@pro-lep   |
+---------------+------------------------------+-----------------------+
Xref: sparky soc.singles:22510 talk.bizarre:25901
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Echo, Echo, Echo?????
Date: 14 Aug 92 06:17:05 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Aug10.205430.7491@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>
>What?  Are you suggesting that the person who sent me STEF.GIF was lying
>about it being you?  
>
>Trygve   (Sheesh!  Oh, well; even if it's not you, it's still the best
>          GIF I've got involving a studded leather bikini and a tub of
>          Cool Whip.) 

Ah, but those who know me realize that I prefer black lace and strawberries.

--
                   The older woman flirts with a self-controlled awareness 
Stef               which can make her assaults much more deadly than the
stef@apple.com     blind rushes of the young  -- Iris Murdoch
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Psychobabble
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 18:49:17 GMT

In article <thurlow.713979722@convex.convex.com> thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
>In <1992Aug14.075031.3442@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:

>>>and it's that ghost that feels love, and
>>>is loved by other ghosts. 
>
>>Again, prove it.  Bet you can't.
>
>Why should he?  Why don't you prove him wrong instead?

Because it's not possible to, even in principle.  Attempting to disprove
the unobservable is like attempting to disprove the existence of God.
You can't, due to the nature of "disproof": you can only disprove something
through some sort of mutual exclusion principle.

>You do realize that there are many, many things that one comes to
>believe in one's life that one may not be able to prove?  

Like what?

And, of course, this can become a semantic quibble: what exactly is
meant by "believe"?

>If you
>see the proof and accept it, why is it necessary for you to learn
>how to prove it to another?  Not everyone can spend the time to
>get a PhD in every topic they wish to talk about.

Now *this* I agree with.  See below.

>There are also things one comes to believe that are unprovable.

Like what?  The existence of a "god"?

Just because others may be inclined to believe the unprovable doesn't
mean that I am.

>Are such things never to be discussed?

Well, believe it or not, I'm not in any position to dictate what is and
is not to be discussed (nor would I want to).  :-)

My intentions have obviously been severely misinterpreted here.

When *I* say "prove it", I mean "I cannot accept this without some form
of evidence.  Please provide the evidence".

Ken refers to a "ghost in the machine" (referring to humans, in this
case).  I cannot accept the existence of such a thing without evidence
in support of such a thing.

>Rob T


-- 
				Kevin Brown

			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 00:15:28 GMT

In article <X26uPB1w162w@micor.ocunix.on.ca>
graydon@micor.ocunix.on.ca (Graydon) writes:

>I've had someone come up to me, smear chocolate sauce on my neck,
>and proceed to lick it off.  I had been introduced to both of them
>before, but I would have had difficulty remembering their names
>if asked suddenly.
>
>It *can* happen, really it can.  Please don't ask me *why* it
>happens; I am quite sure by now that they answer does not fit in
>my head.

I don't care *why* it happens.  I just want to know *how* to make it
(more likely to) happen.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Various ramblings...
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:34:24 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <l92ht3INNc7u@news.bbn.com>  kgorman@star-trek.bbn.com (Karen Gorman) writes:
>
> In article <1992Aug16.185828.14804@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
> >In  <Bt33pt.80p@acsu.buffalo.edu>  swann@acsu.buffalo.edu (Stephen Swann) write
> >>
> >> [And yeah, a couple of drinks does cushion the blow a bit
> >
> >That's why alcohol and sex don't mix!  :-)
>
>
> Did Mr. Happy tell you that?
>
> And you said he doesn't talk :-/.  You really need to make him scream
> once in a while ;-) to keep him really happy!

I tried, but he just throws up.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: zagar@chester.cms.udel.edu (Randy Zagar)
Subject: Re: Various ramblings...
Reply-To: zagar@chester.cms.udel.edu
Organization: Marine Studies, University of Delaware
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:47:36 GMT

In article 38757@watson.ibm.com, Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> () writes:
>
> On the other hand, taking something apart to determine how it works runs
> the risk of breaking it.  If you enjoy something, you have to balance your
> desire to dissect it against the risk of losing it by doing so.
>

This is very good Larry.

I've heard similar things from a couple of different sources.

Samuel Clemens (a.k.a Mark Twain) wrote once about his experiences as a Mississippi
River Boat pilot.  He said that when he was younger, the Mississippi river was something that awed him and left him with a sense of wonder.  But that once he understood it, understood all its' twists and turns, he was no longer awed by it
anymore.  He said that (paraphrased) "We understand things in new ways at the
expense of the older ways."  His technical understanding of the Mississippi 
essentially 'killed' his aesthetic understanding of the Mississippi river.

Robert Pirsig (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) described the scientific
method as an intellectual scalpel.  He seemed to feel that to understand something
'scientifically', you first had to use your intellectual 'knife' and cut the thing
up into its' requisite parts.  And that if you cut up something that had a 'life'
of its' own, you ended up killing it.

-Randy

---
 _____________________________________________________________________________
/                                                                             \
| Randy Zagar                            Get your priorities straight.        |
| Internet: zagar@Chester.CMS.UDel.Edu   No one on their death bed ever said  |
| Bell-net: 302/831-1139                 "Gee, if I'd only spent more time    |
|                                        at the office..."                    |
\_____________________________________________________________________________/

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:28:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.184813.36920@watson.ibm.com>
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:

>And in fact, by eschewing friendly relationships with women, you could
>actually be hurting your chances.  Both because a female friend is the
>best qualified to give you the woman's point of view (e.g., in asking
>for advice in changing what you wear in order to increase your
>attractiveness quotient), and because they *might* introduce you
>to their girlfriends ("at first he seems like a geek, but he's really
>a great guy once you get to know him").  Plus, increasing the number
>of friends you have (regardless of gender) increases the number of social
>events you get invited to, which in turn increases your chances of meeting
>potential partners.

Plus, as we just discussed here, other women will feel more
comfortable with you if they see you with a woman.  You could try
using one or more of you "just friends" as "bait".

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Ugly hands
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 19:11:49 GMT

In an earlier posting, which I've lost, Dawn Hardin mentioned "ugly hands."
What characteristics make hands ugly?  Part of my interest stems from the
fact that the palm of my right hand is mildly atavistic.

-- Herb Huston
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:28:25 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug16.205408.9768@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>
|That you've obviously succeeded quite well is an excellent explanation
|of your current self-confidence level.  This probably has a lot more
|to do with your success with women than your wealth does.

Bingo.  I live in a town called Los Gatos, a town in which there are many
that are genuinely rich and others that like to give the impression that
they are rich.  The genuinely rich didn't need to "display their wealth" but 
had an air about them such that you could just tell.  It's that self-
confidence thang.  The best thing is you don't need to be rich to exhibit
the S-C thang.  
-- 
+============================================================================++
| John Fereira            "Is that all you ever think about?"                |
| johnf@auspex.com                                                           |
+============================================================================++
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: cooking newsgroups??
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:32:36 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <14088@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:

>   I don't recall exactly how many they had but I remember that they had 8
>   different "stouts" on tap.  They had 6 or 7 different Pilsners from 
>   Czechoslovakia.  Not just Pilsner-Urquell.  They had Duvel from Bulgaria.

Ah, Pilsner-Urquell.  I toured the brewery in Pilsen (or Plzen as they call
it) when I was 12 and first enjoyed the smooth this-MUST-be-imported taste
when I was 30.  Now THAT'S beer.

Prague is a very romantic city and easily accessible now that they are
free.  Next time any of you romantics are touring Europe with your CM
(Cuddle-Muffin), detour yourselves to Prague and take a Cedok tour.  When
you get off the bus, go directly to the Intercontinental Hotel and head
for the Sherwood Foresty-type bar (the Chech Sumava is part of the Baden
range) on the main floor.

Order yourself a couple Pilsners and settle in that little dark booth
in the back.  Ah, it is to love ...

-Nance
"Jak se mas^ ??"

-- 
Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
                            (_) \(_)                           
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Various ramblings...
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:43:28 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug20.130845.27948@cbfsb.cb.att.com>  jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
> Larry? so on and so on.....

Heh heh.  My girlfriend has no net access, and no interest in it.  She would
*definitely* not describe herself as a "soc.singler-ette".

> Mrs Margolis,

And leave my mother out of it...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 22:31:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.175818.28310@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.233624.8543@cbnews.cb.att.com> eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans) writes:
>
>>By the way, my PYM is now pretty much an ex-PYM!  I kind of dumped him
>>two weeks ago, and it's turning into a not-so-kind-of.  And kudos to
>>Paul, for identifying him publicly at the Boink, and thoroughly
>>embarrassing me!!
>
>No applause please. It just seemed like a public service. Of course
>if El Piglet doesn't want to be embarassed I can just take him aside
>and identify him privately. (Btw, isn't this the same ex-ex-PYM you
>sorta dumped a few times before, or is this time different?)
>
>paul     wondering why El has suddenly decided to tell the good stuff
>         from the Boink that the rest of us had promised to keep secret


Yes, actually it is.  I think he's really dumped now, but I'm, of course,
not entirely sure.

What do you mean, tell the good stuff?  I haven't even mentioned the
smooch Jeff got in the kitchen.  Or the unmentionable (and unidentifiable
at this point--I took care of the evidence) substances ground into
the blankets on the grass.  Or the...oops...I just told, didn't I?
<Hang head in shame, peer furtively over shoulder to see if anyone
was listening--whew!  got away with it!!>

Piglet
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Subject: Re: deformities and perversions
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:48:53 GMT
Keywords: selectivity, sociobiology, complexity

In article <kiran.714123385@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>>him home with me to find out.  And then somewhere along the line I started
>>to really like everything that I thought was ugly before and a little 
>
>Hmm, this seems to confirm what a friend said recently: that women
>find men they like physically attractive.  Well, I guess there are two
>such women.

Provided he doesn't have worms crawling outof his teeth or open
sores, make that three.

-Nance
-- 
Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
                            (_) \(_)
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Trygve Trolling
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:14:04 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <ewillims.714396995@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
|In <1992Aug20.135045.2475@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> allisson@turing.toronto.edu (H. Allisson Roome) writes:
|
|	Excuse my ignorance Alisson, but what is "trolling"????

The female equivelent of "sucking up"?

-- 
+============================================================================++
| John Fereira            "Is that all you ever think about?"                |
| johnf@auspex.com                                                           |
+============================================================================++
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: REQUEST:  TOP 20 WAYS TO ASK A FRESHMAN GIRL OUT
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 09:08:46 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque


Uh, you wanna go out?
Nice Tits.
I have a car.
I have money.
Are you in a sorority?
Me football team.
Hi, I'm in fraternity <insert here>. Lets Fuck.

Hrm.. all I can think of at the moment.
r.
From: mlb@CISCO.COM (Marcia Bednarcyk)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: 13 Aug 92 01:25:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.125010.6170@walter.bellcore.com>, walter (Walter Lego) writes:
|> What you suggest is fine as long as *both* involved want it that way and
|> realize that the other likes it that way too. It is not the ambiguity of the
|> direction of the relationship itself so much as the ambiguity of whether
|> one is, indeed, in that game that bothers people.

And aahz@netcom.com writes:
|>I guess I kinda agree with this.  Problem is, while it's fun to see and
|>feel the growth of the relationship, and learn about the other person,
|>you usually want to know as quickly as possible if you *are* in a
|>relationship or not.

And gds@cs.ucla.edu writes:

|>Also, you usually want to know as quickly as possible if things will
|>work out, ie. you want to know if your needs will be met, if you'll
|>still be able to give the attention you need to other areas of your
|>life, etc.

This is exactly what I am protesting: the "are we or aren't we and if we're
not I'm leaving" or "cut to the chase" mentality. People want to have it all
spelled out in front of them, in black or white, so they can go on to the
next decision, finish up with this and go on. Sure it may be efficient, but
it's also very cold, and not much fun.

It also doesn't give you an out, or any hope whatsoever of saving face. You
either are accepted or rejected. One of the nice things about ambiguity is that
is can be taken multiple ways, and leaves many ways for people to extract
themselves gracefully from situations, hopefully leaving the other's feelings
intact. The direct method doesn't do that. As time goes on, the ambiguity 
is cleared, first from one side, then the other, so when the mist is finally
cleared both parties should have a really good idea where the other one 
stands. If they don't like where that place is, they can retreat with dignity 
and grace.

Walter goes on to say:
|> If you are only interested in discovering the object of your affections,
|> then why make the affections ambiguous?

I guess most people are, they just want to *be* in a relationship rather than
*form* one. Me, I find the process of getting there half the fun.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Bednarcyk                                        ADDRESS: mlb@cisco.com
"Sweaty Snugglebunnies."
"... the meaning of life is to be happy, try not to hurt people, and hope
you fall in love."
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: deformities and perversions
Date: 20 Aug 92 02:33:26 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Aug19.173816.25214@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> smith@mot.com (Jeff Smith) writes:
>eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans) writes:
>> Of course, I find attractive almost anything on 2 legs with 
>> a sense of humour and a huge dollop of intelligence.  Or, wait, didn't
>> that just define what I like?  Hm....
>Hey, does that mean those of us still on all fours are out of the running?
>Damn, this discrimination sucks...

Dunno- I believe there are a number of women around here who would love to 
have you down on all fours :)
r.
('My own leash? Goody! A new toy!')
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (longer then a midwest freight train)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:12:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.175808.19182@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug17.124410.26700@cbfsb.cb.att.com>  jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug16.212441.29735@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
>> >
>> >Funny - I asked my girlfriend what Kevin should do, and she said,
>> >   Get off the fucking computer and go out and get a life!
>>
>>  Does she have a sister?
>
>As a matter of fact, three of them.  Two are married, but the youngest one
>is not, and is Hot Stuff.  She just turned 21.

 SOLD.
 
================================================================================
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: zagar@chester.cms.udel.edu (Randy Zagar)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"..
Reply-To: zagar@chester.cms.udel.edu
Organization: Marine Studies, University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:47:45 GMT

In article 23225@mdd.comm.mot.com, rudoff@mdd.comm.mot.com (Doug Rudoff) writes:
>In article <BsxoEM.6Gp@news.udel.edu> zagar@chester.cms.udel.edu writes:
>>My neighbor told me once that he tried to get one of his female friends to
>>go out on a date.  She said
>>
>>	"Oh, I don't think I could date a friend who was really close."
>>
>>His response,
>>
>>	"Okay, I'm self-centered, rude, and I hate your guts.  Now will
>>	you go out with me ?"
>
>Well? Did he get a date?

To be honest, he didn't tell me.  But my guess is he didn't get it. 

--
 _____________________________________________________________________________
/                                                                             \
| Randy Zagar                            Get your priorities straight.        |
| Internet: zagar@Chester.CMS.UDel.Edu   No one on their death bed ever said  |
| Bell-net: 302/831-1139                 "Gee, if I'd only spent more time    |
|                                        at the office..."                    |
\_____________________________________________________________________________/
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Romance
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:26:01 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug19.122245.13600@cs.hw.ac.uk> neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:
>
>A lot of women take offence at gifts, as if you were trying to buy them.

It depends on the circumstances of the gift.  And maybe you think "a lot
of women" apply to your theory, but I disagree.  This person views gift-getting
a little differently.  I picture the gift-givee going to a store or stand
or craft shop, seeing something that brings me to mind, and actually taking
the time to buy it for me.

This is warm fuzzy at it's finest.

And OK, if it has gold or diamonds; a hot-fuzzy.  :-)

>Flowers 'n' chocs yes, portable CD player (unless you know the person well
>and know they won't take offence) looks like a down-payment on some nookie.

I think you've got that reversed.  I think very much that you've got
that reversed.  Especially in a relationship that's three-years long and
stuff like "nookie" doesn't need to be bought.

And with *this* guy?  Oh please.  (haha ha ha ha ha ha!!!)


-Nance
-- 
Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
                            (_) \(_)
From: SXW103@psuvm.psu.edu (S. Wukovitz)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: BOINK in Rochester, NY???
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:17:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: psuvm.92227.131724SXW103
 <1992Aug11.153030.24822@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>
 <1992Aug12.132111.26642@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com>
 <1992Aug13.222646.7213@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Aug13.222646.7213@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, pjb4288@ultb.isc.rit.edu
(Pete - Toonatic - Boulay) says:
>
>Would anyone be interested in a Rochester, NY boink????
Yes, possibly, if I could get a ride from Ithaca, NY, maybe...

-Stephanie Wukovitz
steph@math.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles