HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brentaa@ac.dal.ca (brent, eh?)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Help! 200 Mile Relationship! And I'm lost on the road!
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:56:36 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Oct8.174303.113705@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, aaf0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Andrew Aaron Feigin) writes:
> I have a girlfriend that is 200 miles away and i can't see her for a while,
> atleast till christmas.  I really love her, but seeing each other once at
> christmas and then spring break and all next summer really hurts.  I want to
> make it work, but i'm afraid that it is hopeless, what should i do?
> andy

> 
Well, the way I see it you have a couple of options.....
If your SO is a very understanding and liberal sort of person, you can agree
to "separate" for the periods of time when she is away, and see other people.
If she is not, she will, of course, consider this as a sign that you don't 
really love her, and just suggesting it will fuck things up for you.
You could cheat on her while she is away, but for about ten million reasons, 
this is probably not a good idea.
My suggestion would be to find yourself something else that would occupy
your time and keep you from getting frustrated.
anything from joining a social group (I would suggest community theatre if 
you enjoy that sort of thing) to a hobby that requires some degree of
concentration and effort and is time consuming.  (as well as, of course
personally rewarding)

That's my 2 cents worth (although it's only Canadian money, so it's not
worth that much anywhere else...:-)

					-Brontosaur who's been there before

(Hey, that rhymes!.....cool   :-)

Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance,alt.romance.chat,talk.bizarre
From: jon@zeus.med.utah.edu (Jonathan Byrd)
Subject: Re: How long has it been?
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:18:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Followup-To: soc.singles,alt.romance,alt.romance.chat,talk.bizarre
Organization: University of Utah

In article <1992Oct6.134605.16183@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mneeley@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark Neeley) writes:


   How long has it been since you were kissed by a member of
   the opposite sex?

about six inches.

--
jonathan byrd
jon@apollo.med.utah.edu
From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Candidates who tried it (was: pot)
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:57:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com's message of 12 Oct 92 13:31:46 GMT


In article <1992Oct12.133146.16572@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:

   One thought I had.  As the years pass, I think the American public
   ought to get used to Presidential candidates who smoked or at least tried
   pot when they were younger.  If not, there will be slim pickins for
   people to hold office and some really decent capable leaders are going
   to be passed by.

Would you rather vote for a president who was a goody-two-shoes all
their life, or for someone who really experienced their youth --
someone who took risks -- and learned about real people's lives.

I'd take the latter, thank you.

Spidey!!!


--
 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                                          jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \                                              Do whatever it takes.
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: I need advice on girlfriends fantasies.
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:57:35 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Oct12.045114.23499@cam.compserv.utas.edu.au> rhoge1@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au ([Robert James Hoge]) writes:
>
>Just someone tell me what's going on.  Thanks.
>

You have a vivid imagination.  Your welcome.


-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira     | Auspex Systems | "Auspex does not share my opinions.  |
| johnf@auspex.com | Santa Clara CA |  So Why am I still working here?"    |
+==========================================================================+
From: infante@acpub.duke.edu (Andrew  Infante)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Qui est le plus MUSHY?
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:05:26 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Oct13.183715.9533@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA writes:
>
>
>   A recent experience has compelled me to post this.
>
>I was wondering what your thoughts were on sentimentality as a function
>of gender. I don't care if you use sweeping generalizations, or you get
>down dirty and specific.
>
>My biased view is that despite Victorian myths, Men are generally more
>prone to sentimentality than women. This is not to say that some women 
>cannot be more mushy than some men.
>
>What do you think/believe?
>
>Andreas. 

Yes I think/believe you are correct.

Which gets us back to the Nice Guy [tm] syndrome.

Since women have been around the Nice Guys for some time (I'm assuming that
most women have "been" as in dated a Nice Guy at one time or another),
they get tired of this mushy sentimentality (as I or probably any guy
would if there were such thing as a Nice Gal [tm] who did it all the time)
and start dating Nasty Guys [tm] who treat them like shit but generally 
don't get mushy as a rule.

OR

Women who have only dated Nasty Guys [tm] have friends who are Nice Guys
and _feel_ that these friends are kinda "losers" because they cry, whine, and
moan all the time about why gals won't go out with them even tho' they're
such _nice guys_.

These are the guys who don't know of the Nice Guy syndrome and who will
eventually learn of it and thus bitch and moan because they can't or
_don't want to_ be a Nasty Guy.  So, it's a catch-22 because I think, 
being Nasty Guy who fakes being a Nice Guy myself, it's impossible
to change like that.

Comments?

later.

andy
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Ipisissimus
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:36:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.202428.26419@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
allisson@turing.toronto.edu (H. Allisson Roome) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.002213.14345@linus.mitre.org> wtr@mitre.org 
>(Bill Ralston) writes:
>>I hate to do it, but I've had to take over as the treasurer, since the 
>>IIOSF lost (or will soon, anyway) all his money playing poker at a Boink.  
>>If you have two seesters, send one to me and one to the IIOSF.  If you 
>>only have one seester, send it to the IIOSF and send me a check for your 
>>bank balance.  If you don't have any seesters, borrow some.
>
>Hmm, sounds like a high stakes game to me - will it occur at the
>Philly Boink by chance?  Especially since I know the entertaining and
>elusive James will be in attendance.

That's the general idea.

>So what are the stakes and can anyone join in

Well, the men are playing for money, the women for clothing.  (It
wasn't my idea, but I'm not objecting, either :-)

> -- or is it one of
>those male-bonding type activities?

Sorry, wrong newsfroup :-)

>Sorry, I don't have any seesters (at least that I know of) but I'm
>willing to open with 3 pounds of bananas (and not to be outdone by Mel
>- I'll scrounge up the fondue pot and make chocolate fondue, dip the
>banana, remove the chocolate in one elegant motion (exerting me
>"freedom of expression" again), and then  eat the banana in a fashion
>not suited for viewing by smalldren.  Will that do?

Hmmm...  An interesting ante.  I think I'll raise you one massage.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: mel@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Meloney D Cregor)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: How long has it been?
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:35:10 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1aukolINNe69@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
>else in order to get away from himself that he can't stand to be a year
>without a his obligatory female kissthing to provide that needed distraction
>from his fundamental emptiness inside.

Well.  Isn't that special.

>And the irony of this is that a lot of the so-called "ladies' men" will agree
>with this.

I'm neither a lady, nor a man, so I couldn't say.

>I see nothing wrong with being away from romantic involvement or sex for a
>few years at a time.

Then me thinks you need new glasses.

While I might agree that being away from a romantic involvment for a time
might be a good thing, because right now the idea of a romantic involvemnt
sends me into a cold sweat.  However, being away from affection and simple
physical contact of some sort would make me very sad. A hug, a kiss, a loving
caress from friends or loved ones of any sort is something I would not
trade for all the money in the world.

--
 Life is exactly what you make of it, always has been, always will be.
                                          
                                          --  Grandma Moses
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: How Important Is Being IN-LOVE?
Keywords: Love,Romance, Relationships
Organization: snobs 'R' us
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 09:11:30 GMT

rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com (Ray Fink) writes:
>For me, the euphoria/glow-that-haloes etc. is usually a danger sign
[...]
>Dangerous because it can't last (maybe a couple years at most), 

I have some friends who have been married for nearly 20 years.  One
night I went over to visit and their daughter said  "They're not here;
they're out making googly eyes at each other at the Waffle House."  I
ran into them later that evening and sure enough, they were making
googly eyes at each other.  It can last. 

>But sooner or later, the reality of who these two people *actually* are 
>will surface; maybe the relationship can survive that, maybe not. 

And maybe it is that very reality that inspires those feelings of
passion.  Maybe the relationship thrives on that reality, on the
(shared) knowledge of who those people actually are.

A healthy romantic love is founded in visibility.  It requires that both
parties be seen by each other and feel visible to the other.  After all, 
you can't respect and admire someone you don't know or understand. 

To be seen and to be understood and to be valued for what is important
to _you_ is the foundation of romantic love.  There's nothing
"blind" or "unconditional" about it at all.  It's the love of two
souls who perceive each other clearly, and value what they see. 

A relationship where you're visible and understood is exhilarating, it
is refreshing, it is magical.  It's full of excitement and passion and
romance and you'll feel like the luckiest two people on earth.  

Try it sometime. 

(Read Nathaniel Branden if you don't believe me.)

-- 
"The world is empty if one thinks only of mountains, rivers, and cities;
 but to know someone here and there who thinks and feels with us,
 and who, thought distant, is close to us in spirit,
 this makes the earth for us an inhabited garden."...............Goethe
-- 

Kiran Wagle                           <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: Philly Boink Announcement
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:09:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.232531.28626@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bathsheba.Grossman@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bathsheba Grossman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.134054.21972@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.051701.18804@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bathsheba.Grossman@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bathsheba Grossman) writes:
>>>Yes you can play poker and everything at my place.  What about an exchange
>>>rate of one article of clothing per, say, $10?
>> Sounds good. Here's a hundred, get busy.
>
>Everyone has hir price.  In advance and nonrefundable of course.
>
>>================================================================================
>> Ipisissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes - IIOSF XOX Dawn
>> Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
>>================================================================================
>
>James, fond as I am of you and the kung-fu kiddies, it would be a comfort
>to me in my declining years (conjugating also) if you would remove the
>second i from this sig.
>
>-Sheba
>--
>   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
>     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
>        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
>           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
 
Heh. Embarassing. I've been so busy training my 10 and under terrorist
hit squad I never noticed.

 
================================================================================
 Ipsissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes - IIOSF XOX Dawn
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: Define "Single"
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:04:10 GMT

nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>>nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (Nance Colucci) writes:
>>>I know this has been discussed before, but does the "single" in
>>>soc.singles mean NOT MARRIED or NOT IN A RELATIONSHIP?

>>I expect it means 'not married' since many if not all of the people
>>here seem to have relationships. [...] (I define 'single' as 'not
>>involved with someone who is being considered as a long-term prospect.'))

>Well which is it?  There are two definitions of "single" up there.
Nope.  There are three.  But I have no idea which one the singles in
soc.singles means since I have never read the group's charter. :-)

>>>Does participation in soc.singles imply that you are looking for
>>>someone to have a relationship with

>>Well, if you are in fact single and participate, it probably means you
>>are looking for a relationship.  

>Well I'm single and I participate and I'm NOT looking for a relationship
>and I'm beginning to feel out of place.

I would feel a bit out of place myself if I were hanging around a
newsgroup which seems to often discuss issues related to looking for
or finding or keeping a relationship, and I weren't even looking.

>>> and want to do so by having them send you email?

Are you getting too much email or not enough?  :-)
-- 

Kiran Wagle                           <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik)
Subject: Re: Female geeks
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 92 01:33:26 GMT

In article 719270542@convex.convex.com, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1992Oct15.234459.26561@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik) writes:
>
>>>or her dancing chimp, Jimmy Dutton.
>
>>Namecalling Eddie? What happened to your sparkling eloquence?
>
>Yes, you're right.  I am ashamed of myself.  I should not have
>done that.  I hereby by apology, publicly and profusely, to all
>chimps, everywhere, who may have been offended by my comparison.
>
I find it safe to speak for all of your cousins of the primate persuasion
not necessarily belonging to your species:

We would have been more than happy to pass the cup around while you were grinding.

Unfortunately, we have this thing about superior beings violating our 
inalienable rights using prejudice and racism to make a point.

Your contrition is admirable: glad you crouched to our level albeit temporarily.

Wanna dance?

Andreas.
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Clare DOES IT AGAIN!!!!
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:53:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

clare@nynexst.com (Clare Chu) writes: 

>  My husband can bench-press 300 lbs.
So watch it on the playground jimmyboy.

>  Ah... Big Bad Clare beat you up, wah wah wah.
Behold: a woman who believes in non-violence. Except when provoked. I guess
she decided jimmy was right after all.

--
Stef                  I'll take Fucking Clues for $200.   --Mark
stef@apple.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: malak@grebyn.com (Michael Malak)
Subject: Re: Female geeks
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 22:52:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.195202.7613@infonode.ingr.com> greg@cherokee.b23b.ingr.com (Greg Moritz) writes:
>
>What about the following for identification of female geeks?:
>
>    (1)  Wears frilly 'girl-type' things or t-shirts & sneakers?
>    (2)  Lots of makeup of absence of makeup?
>    (3)  Shaves pits?
>    (4)  Shaves legs?

An E-Mail reply to my original post has convinced me that appearance is
not a good indication.  In my opinion the cause for geekiness is high
intelligence combined with one or both of:

   1) Old, geeky, or foreign-born parents
   2) Something which prevents making friends at a critical stage

Improving one's personal appearance can be learned, and geeks are good
at learning.

I'm convinced I've been overlooking a lot of female geeks.
From: rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com (Ray Fink)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: How Important Is Being IN-LOVE?
Keywords: Love,Romance, Relationships
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 23:13:00 MDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Wild Rose Refugee Camp

allisson@turing.toronto.edu (H. Allisson Roome) writes:
>       How important is "BEING IN-LOVE" with someone you're involved
>       with for the duration and course of the relationship?
> 
> By 'in love' I mean all the warm, squishy romantic feelings; the euphoria;
> the glow that haloes the love object/romantic partner; etc. I'm sure most
> of you have an idea of what it is that I'm talking about.  I'm talking
> about the ROMANCE in the relationship - the way your heart may go 'pitter-pat
> when you think of the person you're 'in-love' with.
> 
> I will say this, I do believe that there is a distinction between "BEING
> IN-LOVE WITH" and "LOVING" someone.  What I wonder about is the relative valu
> is for each (i.e., how important one is vs. the other) and whether others see
> the distinction as well or not.

For me, the euphoria/glow-that-haloes etc. is usually a danger sign
that I'm setting myself up for a fall, taking an unrealistic view
of this other person.  Dangerous because it can't last (maybe a couple
years at most), dangerous because the other person may not be similarly
infatuated.  Romance certainly happens, and it's *fun* and feels good, 
but I see an important distinction between "in-love-with" and "loving".

From the other side of the coin, I don't like being put on a pedestal
as the "most wonderful man that ever lived" (even if I am :-) .  I'm
only human, and would rather have my own shortcomings accepted
instead of blindly ignored. 

When I was working through my divorce, I read Scott Peck's _The Road
Less Traveled_. He talks a lot about this distinction and has some
very definite opinions; I found a lot that I agreed with, and a lot
that explained what my life had been all about.  He takes a dim view of 
romance, and strongly favors loving (unconditionally, as Spidey might say).

It may be more important to find someone who places the same relative
values on each; I'm not willing to say that one's right and one's wrong.
But sooner or later, the reality of who these two people *actually* are 
will surface; maybe the relationship can survive that, maybe not.  In my 
experience, if it's grounded in loving rather than in-love the long
term chances are better and the endings aren't nearly as ugly. That's
my preference; your mileage may vary. :-) 

-- Ray

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik)
Subject: Re: Define "Single"
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 22:34:39 GMT

In article 9570@cbnewsd.cb.att.com, nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>
>I know this has been discussed before, but does the "single" in
>soc.singles mean NOT MARRIED or NOT IN A RELATIONSHIP?
>
>Is there an assumption that all single people want to be not
>single?
>
>Does participation in soc.singles imply that you are looking for
>someone to have a relationship with and want to do so by having
>them send you email?

I guess we're all here for our own reasons. I look at it as my local pub.
This is a good place to fan the breeze, joke around, and be every aspect of
yourself that you are. 

Andreas.
From: mike.mcaulay@spacebbs.com (Mike Mcaulay) 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Aggression in boys
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:03:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: mike.mcaulay@spacebbs.com (Mike Mcaulay) 


James J. Dutton gave vent to:

-> Actually the first thing I taught my son and daughter is not to
-> interrupt and mind their own business. Fundamental manners. You might
-> want to review these with your parents. If I met you on a playground
-> on my time I assure you I wouldn't waste my time with you. Your
-> totally fabricated attacks on feminism and finger pointing indicate a
-> severe inferiorty neurosis. I suggest counseling. If nothing else for
-> the sake of your poor children which by the way have my condolences.

God DAMN!  Who brought the marshmallows?

M.
From: aaf0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Andrew Aaron Feigin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: New Orleans vs. Fox TV
Date: 8 Oct 92 03:53:21 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct5.221654.17205@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, smith@comm.mot.com (Jef
f Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.153911.26937@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>, nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com
 (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>
>|> I heard on Chicago's WLS radio this morning that the Fox Network
>|> has issued an apology to the City of New Orleans after hearing
>|> of the city's outrage over a portion of the most recently-aired
>|> episode of the Simpsons.
>|>
>|> It's the episode where Marge gets a part in the parody of "A Streetcar
>|> Named Desire".  In the play, there is a musical number in which a
>|> chorus line sings a song about New Orleans.  The lyrics are VERY hard
>|> to understand but if you listen closely they go something like this:
>|>
>|> "New Or-lee-uns!  Home of pirates, drunks, and whores
>|> New Or-lee-uns!  Tacky overpriced souvenir stores New Or-lee-uns!"
>|>
>|> And then there is something like:
>|>
>|> If you wanna go to hell you'll get there quick by the bile of
>|> the Mississip, etc., but I haven't played my videotape yet to listen
>|> closely.  Were any of you able to understand the lyrics?  The commentators
>|> on the radio played the song and their consensus was, "Yeah?  So? It's
>|> TRUE!!"
>|>
>|> Sure.  Anyone else have an opinion??
>
>Yeah...SO WHAT?! Do these people really have nothing better to do than
>get all upset because someone pokes fun at their city?! It's comedy, guys...
>relax!
>
>jds
>
>***************************************************************************
>                               * Health and knowledge and wealth and power,
>Jeff Smith                     * Passion and poems and sex
>smith@fl08-g.comm.mot.com      * I wear a smile like a leather glove,
>                               * I won't shut my mouth for less.
>                                                - shriekback
>***************************************************************************
>
-------------------
Ya know what it sounds like???
Ever meet someone who asks the question...

    HOW CAN THE ROAD-RUNNER LIVE AFTER FALLING OFF SO MANY CLIFFS?

Who really cares about anything like that, a cartoon is a cartoon!

andy

"Moslem or Christian Mullah or Pope
Preacher or poet who was it wrote
Give any one species too much rope
And they'll fuck it up"
-Roger Waters  "Amused To Death"
-- 
Newsgroups: soc.singles