HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Romance
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:46:14 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  <1992Aug17.133353.24503@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>  nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>
> Yesterday my best bud and I had a talk about the amount of romance
> in our relationship.  Usually when I mention that "R" word he looks
> at me as though I've asked him to sodomize my cat,

Enquiring minds want to know - just what sort of look *is* that?

(I suppose the obvious answer would be cat-ass-trophic.)

Warning for the humor-impaired - it's just a joke.  Do not try this at
home!  Sodomizing a cat is illegal.  (In some states, it's a feliny.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: cordelkj@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Kevin John Cordell)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: single men
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:40:29 GMT
Organization: University of Cincinnati

In article <4010@moscom.UUCP> wjb@moscom.UUCP (Bill de Beaubien) writes:
>Joni Jarvenkyla (jjj@mits.mdata.fi) wrote:
>: And if you go to a club with your male friend both dressed up for a good
>: evening, o-o-oo! Stinking faggots!
>
>Well, don't wear so much cologne next time.
>
REALLY...... I have walked passed guys that have had on so much
cologne I though I was going to gag.

kevin

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin J. Cordell
Cordelkj@ucunix.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly)
Subject: Re: Major problems
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:03:33 GMT
Summary: Almost.

In article <tj0ms8n@lynx.unm.edu>, blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
> >		I cannot hold a job.
> >		I am obsessive (calling her alot, showing up to meet her)
> >		Fiscally irresponsible.
> >		Lie quite abit.
 
> Find a good psychatrist. Seriously...

Right, and dig up $150/session 3 times a week for 8 years.  What you
need to find is a good therapist, hopefully as far away from the
psychoanalytic persuasion as possible.  Someone you can feel
comfortable talking with.  But God, a Freudian would have a field day
with those symptoms, that's for sure.  You zee, ven you vere, ach,
4 years old, you accidentally schtumbled across your muzher und
fazher having *sex*, vich you naturally interpreted az ze physical
assault, und zo you've been tryink to get back at your fazher ever
zince!  (No charge.)

               *** ***
Ken Perlow   ***** *****
18 Aug 92   ****** ******   1 Fructidor An CC
            *****   *****   gadfly@ihlpa.ATT.COM
             ** ** ** **
...L'AUDACE!   *** ***   TOUJOURS DE L'AUDACE!  ENCORE DE L'AUDACE!
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: walter (Walter Lego)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Followup-To: soc.singles
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Twisted Pair Inc.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 12:50:10 GMT

In article <9208120123.AA05443@regal.cisco.com> mlb@CISCO.COM (Marcia Bednarcyk) writes:
>
>Why is ambiguity bad? Long ago, a part of courting behavior was flirting, where
>ambiguity and nuance was the name of the game. A person wasn't presented to you
>like an open book, but you discovered each other and how you both felt, one
>step at a time, like unwrapping a gift (or peeling an onion, if you like).

I am not sure what era you are referring to. But consider the fact that in most
"long ago"s the flirting was very often monogamous, that a physical relationship
during the time was, in general, not an option, that flirting usually had the 
unambiguous goal of leading to a marriage if things went fine and there was
an implicit understanding of the same in both, etc. But that was long ago.

>Am I the only one who delights in the slow unfolding of a relationship, of 
>the maybes and possibles that characterize the start of one? If everything
>is right there, nothing withheld, where are the surprises of getting to know
>the object of one's affections?

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. I am sure thousands of
men that have wasted zillions of flowers picking one petal at a time could
tell you how your preferred approach can be perverted into self-gratifying,
ego boosting games that make such approaches very suspect.

If you are only interested in discovering the object of your affections,
then why make the affections ambiguous?

						Walter

What disclaimer?
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: cooking newsgroups??
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:27:19 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  <1992Aug12.182639.22124@macc.wisc.edu>  oconnell@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Kevin Patrick O'Connell) writes:
> Would some kind soul direct me to those newsgroups that deal with
> cooking, recipes, and good drink??

rec.food.cooking, rec.food.veg, rec.food.recipes, rec.food.drink

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 12:15:35 GMT

pjb4288@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Pete Boulay) writes:
 
>My brother has a saying that is perfect here...
 
>"When you're actively searching for romance, it'll elude you. Its when you're
>not searching that it'll come up and kick you in the ass, turn you around,
>and give you the best hug of your life."
 
People who perpetuate vacuous platitudes like this should be 
sold as slaves to a whorehouse in Tunis, where their lives will be 
short and painful.
 
-- 
Kiran Wagle                             <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
P.O.Box 2083 Bloomington IN 47402-2083      (812) 336-7478 [8p-1a EST]
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Something to do w doing the nasty.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:09:04 GMT

In article <Bsvv7E.BFA@acsu.buffalo.edu> swann@acsu.buffalo.edu (Stephen Swann) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.125711.6343@walter.bellcore.com> nobody writes:
>>In article <BsuK9o.FqJ@acsu.buffalo.edu> swann@acsu.buffalo.edu (Stephen Swann) writes:
>>>My female friends say the following about it:
>  [...]
>>>It eases the problem of "how do I know he's not a psycho?".  If he has
>>>friends, some of whom are women, that's not much of a worry.
>>
>>As long as they can judge the women that are his friends. But even then,
>>a very large number of killers and rapists that you read about have had 
>>live-in girlfriends when they were caught. Some endorsement.
>
>Maybe you're right.  But I wasn't writing this as advice to women on
>how to avoid weirdos.  I was just saying that some of my [female]
>friends find that a man having women as friends is somewhat
>reassuring, and therefore attractive.  I suspect the fact that you
>don't think this is much of an indicator, isn't going to affect
>-their- response very significantly.

 For god sake can we stop the bickering. Your both right.
Sitting at a table full of girls you know, makes it much easier to
pick up surrounding girls and yet John Wayne Gacy was married.
 
 Dawn from a research point of view, you seem to have overlooked
putting your friends phone # in your surrogate post.
 
 Larry dump the -----. Your too mellow dude.
 
================================================================================
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
From: bart@muppet.bt.co.uk (Tim)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Boink Blues
Date: 12 Aug 92 11:48:23 GMT
Reply-To: bart@muppet.bt.co.uk
Organization: British Telecom

>
>Allisson - [I still don't have a job and don't know where I'm living -
>	    suggestions welcome]
>--
>| H.  Allisson Roome - haroome@rodan.acs.syr.edu 

Wellll now.

Save up all your money and buy a ticket cross the Pond to the UK. In 
particular why not make it 'happening' Ipswich in the heart of
Constable country (orientation for all those art lovers :-)

We'd be happy to have you  :-)

---
The harvest of life, the harvest of death	<-- bart@muppet.bt.co.uk -->
Resumes it's course each day			<--     Tim Fulcher      -->
It comes as if by schedule			<--  tel : 0473 648220   -->	
The harvester lives, with arms that are bent	
And toes that cross, and knees that jerk	<-- British Telecom Labs -->
And necks like swans that seem to turn
As if inclined to gasp for breath...	- Quicklime Girl - , BOC
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: charlesa@niwot.scd.ucar.edu (Charles Albrecht)
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Keywords: commitment,marriage,reluctance,bicycles
Organization: Scientific Computing Divison/NCAR Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:56:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.131429.23776@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>
>Maybe the women's magazines true, but most feminist literature *I've*
>run across contains things like "if it has tires or testicles you're
>going to have trouble with it" or "imagine a world without men - no
>wars and lots of fat, happy women" or "a woman without a bicycle is
>like a man without a fish" (or something like that.)  :-)
>

Hmmm..., I wonder if that's _this_ bicycle?  ;->

                                |
                                |
                               \|/
                                v
>--
>Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
>att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
>                            (_) \(_)                           


Charles

"Captain, something approaching fast off the port bow."  "What is it?"
"Uncertain yet, sir, but 90% likely to be a mid-week crisis."  "Quick,
evasive maneuvers."  "Maneuvers are having no effect... Estimated time
to impact thirty seconds."  "Raise shields, prepare for impact... How long
will it take us to recover from the mid-week crisis?"  "It could be as long
as two, maybe three days."  "Drat, and we'll be useless until..."  
**CRASH**			Yet another Wednesday arrives.


<ahem>  And here I am drawing arrows with a text editor.  Is it time for
coffee yet?

Those were ramblings, this is my .sig:
---
Charles Albrecht                "Nonsense, they only say you can't survive
charlesa@ncar.ucar.edu           The Fire Swamp because no one ever has."
                                   - Westley, The Dread Pirate Roberts

The opinions you are about to have read are fictitious...
          ...any similarity to opinions living or dead is purely coincidental.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jdavidso@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Jeff Davidson)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Married Men and Single Women
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:53:19 GMT
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug11.012002.21675@linus.mitre.org> wtr@mitre.org (Bill  
Ralston) writes:
*In article <1992Aug10.172931.23159@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>
*gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly) writes:
*>In article <1992Aug9.145344.24107@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>
*>jfb200@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes:
*>>> A  wedding  ring  on  a  man's  finger is a seal of
*>>> approval, indicating that he must have SOMETHING going for him.
*>
*>You know, they don't make you show your marriage license to buy one.
*>So you could get yourself a nice ring and do a controlled study.
*>Enquiring minds, &c...  Sure, a quality gold band can be expensive,
*>but if that's all it *really* takes, well, don't tell the folks at
*>Porsche. 
*
*I've got a slightly used wedding band for sale, if you're interested.
*
*Bill
*---------------
*wtr@mitre.org
*** Opinions are mine only, and not my employer's **

Hell, I'll GIVE you mine, if I haven't already thrown it away.
--
************************************************************************
 the Lost Cause                       jdavidso@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
(hardwaire guy extraordinaire)       MACTech,NeXTtech; NeXTmail accepted
                      "Everything is relative."
************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:06:47 GMT

In article <71435@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>
>Are you equating "not contributing income to the household" to "living off
>another person"? Why?

Yes, I am.  If someone other than yourself provides a roof over your
head and your other sustinence, what would you call it?

>Do you really think that only activities which earn 
>money are worthwhile? Or that activities which don't earn money are always
>less strenuous than those which do?

Let's define these activities, OK?  It seems like everyone so far disputing
this thread calls the non-moneymaking stuff "other activities."  Such as?
Laundry?  Raising kids?  Keeping house??  That it?  In an earlier
post I said I believed those kind of "other activities" should be shared
by both units of the couple, and I still feel that way.

I don't care what agreements couples make among themselves, if Mommy
wants to go out and make money and Daddy stays home with the children
and keeps house, fine.  It's just that if Mommy later decides that
hardbodied fox in the mailroom does more for her libido than hubby and
kids and jumps ship on the marriage OR if hubby turns out to be a lazy
drooling slob and she throws him out, she better know that she's going to
be liable for helping hubby get on his feet financially AND for supporting
those kids.

However, if both units of the couple are contributing income, her risk
is less.  Financial support will most likely be limited to child support.

I, for one, would NOT want to marry someone with no inkling to provide
income to supplement mine.  I don't understand why a male person would feel
differently, but to each their own.  If you want to risk being the sole
breadwinner, know the risks.  That's my point.
>
>But if two (or more) people get together and *decide* that it's in their 
>best interest for one (or more) of them to engage primarily or exclusively 
>in activities that don't make money, I don't see why this is lazy, selfish,
>or immature.

Again, can you elaborate on just what these activities ARE?

-Nance
-- 
Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
                            (_) \(_)
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: deformities and perve
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:23:04 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

mike.mcaulay@spacebbs.com (Mike Mcaulay) writes:

>You usually hear: "men fall in love with the
>women they find attractive, and women find attractive the men they fall
>in love with."  

And some women also find attractive men who look like the men they fall 
in love with.

--
Stef                 Where am I going, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
stef@apple.com
From: gswst@gl.pitt.edu (Gary S. Wachs)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:06:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: blue.4976
Organization: University of Pittsburgh, Electrical Engineering

In article <kiran.714122823@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) paraphrases her friend:
>>She said that the typical never-had-any-kind-of-relationship guy doesn't
>>have anything wrong with him -- it's not that he's rude or ugly or has
>>some major flaw that makes women run away.  They're usually perfectly
>>nice men who just have put all of their energies into something other than
>
>Easy to say.  I assert: they _must_ have something wrong with them,
>since many of them do not put all of their energies into other things,
>and furthermore, many people who _have_ done this still have found
>partners.  Try and prove me wrong.  :-)  (Sorry, just feeling
>argumentative.  This is glib advice from someone who has (presumably)
>never been in the position she is describing.)

If you are saying that the mere fact that a guy has never dated at all means
something is wrong, you are clearly overgeneralizing.  I know a great many
men and women in their 20's, 30's, and even some in their 40's who haven't
dated once and still appear to me to be, in all the common areas, quite 
normal.  

>>people.  They've been in grad school, or they've been starting a business,
>>or whatever it is that they thought was important, and they've never really
>>talked much to people.  

Well these people of whom I speak do talk to people (not talking to people
at all is very abnormal, isn't it?) but they don't become attached to them.
The word "reserved" is a good word for this type of behavior.

>What about the ones who have talked a lot to a lot of people?  What
>about the ones who think that relationships and friendships are the
>most important things in life?

Gosh, I dunno, what about them?  Maybe they are right.  Those things would
probably be on most people's top-10 list of Life's Important Things,
right?  Are you sure the number of people who think that great sex 
is the most important thing wouldn't outnumber 'em?  I wonder...

Gary
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Email of the Week
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:11:56 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <p4xmrp#.tyger@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
>In article <1992Aug6.185645.14702@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Marissa Kay Hannah) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug4.142558.20636@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:

>>And why didn't you post your own letter?  Maybe the other person was only
>>responding in kind, for all we know.  It's hard to assess the situation, like
>>you're asking us to do, if you're going to conceal half the truth.  A lie by
>>omission is still a lie.

>There is almost nothing she could have said that would either warrant or
>justify such a response. I have no reason to believe, presense of e-evidence
>on this current flap aside, that Nancy did anything even remotely
>deserving of such an attack.

Well, to start with, she did suggest that his brains be blown out.

Secondly, seems to me that if her note to this guy was in a similar vein
to his response then she can hardly complain.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert John Butera)
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 04:12:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.004013.15958@ultb.isc.rit.edu> pjb4288@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Pete - Toonatic - Boulay) writes:
>My brother has a saying that is perfect here...
>
>"When you're actively searching for romance, it'll elude you. Its when you're
>not searching that it'll come up and kick you in the ass, turn you around,
>and give you the best hug of your life."

Hmm - that goes pretty good with a quote from _Herman's_Head_ (the TV
show)  "Falling in love is easy.  It's the climbing out that's a
bitch."

>-- 
>Peter J. Boulay --17 Split Rock Road-Pittsford, NY 14534-The ToonAddict!
>Email should be sent only to PJB4288@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
>Disclaimer: You don't like what I'm writing? Oh well.
>"Well shut my mouth wide open!"- Tiny Toons HISMV


-- 
Rob Butera - ECE grad student   Rice University, Houston, TX   rbutera@rice.edu

"Drugs have taught an entire generation of American kids the metric system."
                                -- P.J. O'Rourke
From: taina@cs.Helsinki.FI (Juha Taina)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: 14 Aug 92 13:14:23 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki, Finland

In <1992Aug13.193255.29765@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:

>>What else could be expected from people who have to say Kylla when
>>they mean yes and Ei when they mean no. :)

>Yep, it's gotta be the language--must make it especially tough to date
>a Scot.

I don't know, I've never dated a Scot.  But even dating a Finn becomes
complex if I have to use words like "kirjoitustaidoton" or
"omenapiirakkaresepti". :)

Juha
-- 
Juha Taina | taina@cs.helsinki.fi | Phone: +358-0-708-4247
From: aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Psychobabble
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:12:02 GMT
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez

In article <1992Aug18.152606.12545@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <ewillims.714130876@unix1.tcd.ie>  ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>> In <thurlow.714098464@convex.convex.com> thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) wri
>>
>>> Like my belief that my cat likes some music.
>>
>>      Well if she purrs when you play it on the stereo and kneads her
>> claws into your thighs in a suckling motion and licks your hand then I think
>> you've proved it to my satisfaction.
>
>Why?  When my girlfriend reacts this way, it's not in response to the music.
>:-)

Yeah, but how do you *know* that?
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

"I 'got a life'.  Now what?"
Newsgroups: soc.singles