HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 12:20:08 GMT

>>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.  
 
>pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
 
>>(Btw, isn't this the same ex-ex-PYM you
>>sorta dumped a few times before, or is this time different?)
 
eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans) writes:
 
>Yes, actually it is.  I think he's really dumped now, but I'm, of
>course, not entirely sure.
 
I could *laugh* but I shall refrain.

-- 
"Althought this old tale [about heads in the sand] teaches us nothing
 about the Ostrich, it does shed light on the mental processes of Pliny
 the Elder. Shows what he would have done if he had been an Ostrich."
-- 
Kiran Wagle                             <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
P.O.Box 2083 Bloomington IN 47402-2083      (812) 336-7478 [8p-1a EST]
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:40:36 GMT
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...

In article <kiran.714129102@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>
>>Yes.  Now, the big catch to this is the "interesting people" bit.  What I
>>find interesting is not at all what most women find interesting (rather
>>the opposite).  
>
>Then  you had best look in some other subset of people.  

Huh?  Some other subset of people?  You mean like men instead of women?
No thanks.  :-)

>Or find
>interests that more women are interested in.  Get out of your culture
>and into another.  (Yes, you will probably have to change to become
>more interesting to women.)

Okay.  The culture I select is...

whatever culture Trygve is in!  They seem to be a laid back, easy-going
crowd of people.

And yes, I'll have to change.  I suspect this will take some cash, which
Trygve will, of course, generously supply for such a noble purpose, right
Trygve?  :-) :-) :-)

>>It's not at all clear what you do with someone who *might*
>>be interesting but with whom you can barely relate because they don't find
>>anything you like to be interesting (and vice-versa).  
>
>How the hell could they be interesting if you can barely relate???

By being bizarre, different.  By having a unique (but somehow sensible)
perspective on things.

>>think most women are going to actually pay for their dates when they
>>know they don't have to, do you?
>
>If I said that the kind of women you would be willing to date are not
>able to mooch off others, they (and you) might be insulted...

Well, that depends on *why* that kind of women are unable to mooch off
others.  So: why would that kind of women (that I would be willing to
date) be unable to mooch off others?

>Kiran Wagle                             <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
>P.O.Box 2083 Bloomington IN 47402-2083      (812) 336-7478 [8p-1a EST]


-- 
				Kevin Brown

			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: BOINK! BOINK! BALLOONBOINK IN ALBUQUERQUE!
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:20:46 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug17.220556.26837@asuvax.eas.asu.edu> ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra) writes:
>I must say that either of the two sunsets 
>beats the piss out of California's.
 
Yea, but we've got a better view of the ocean.

-- 
+============================================================================++
| John Fereira            "Is that all you ever think about?"                |
| johnf@auspex.com                                                           |
+============================================================================++
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Mr. Happy
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:43:13 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug19.161026.17729@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
|In  <l94hsnINN1qa@news.bbn.com>  kgorman@star-trek.bbn.com (Karen Gorman) writes:
|> In article <14127@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
|> >You'd throw up too if someone grabbed you by the neck and tried to jerk
|> >your head off.  There, there now Mr. Happy, no reason to get upset.
|> >
|> >Oh no, he's getting mad again.  His face is turning red.
|>
|> But he is so cute when he is mad. :-)
|
|You just like him because he stands up for you.  :-)

And he likes her because she sucks up to him. :-)

-- 
+============================================================================++
| John Fereira            "Is that all you ever think about?"                |
| johnf@auspex.com                                                           |
+============================================================================++
From: lairdpg@lub001.lamar.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: FIND THIS GUY A SQEEZE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Date: 13 Aug 1992 01:06:31 GMT
Organization: Lamar University - Beaumont

In article <92225.213523NU104043@NDSUVM1.BITNET>, <NU104043@NDSUVM1.BITNET> writes:
> Hi, there, ladies and gentlemen ...
> 
> I'm a single guy, and I'm trying to find that special lady to share the ups
> and downs of life with me. Problem is, I live in a barely populated state,
> ND to be precise, and the singles publication that floats around here does
> not help much. I'd apreciate it if you who live in larger cities in the
> Midwest would mail me (I'll certainly pay for it) your local singles rag.

Oh my gosh!  You must live up there where they have to pump daylight in, too!
I'll bet you are getting tired of reading those old Penthouses, huh?  They
say there is a female behind every tree, only problem is, there is no trees,
huh?  I'd like to find a female to also "share the ups and downs" of life, as
well!!! <<<<<EVIL GRIN>>>>>

Good luck !  Give 'em hades, guy!

> 
> My address is:
> Michael Skokin
> 1634  10 Street North
> Fargo,  ND  58102
> 
> Please E-mail before you send anything. Please provide me with your local
> address so I can reinburse you for the expense.
> 
>                                                 Thanks
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst)
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:25:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.134331.25777@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.174715.25011@sfu.ca> probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug19.134728.25390@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>>>Nobody but a really insecure individual with lots
>>>of problems would chose to live off another person and expect the situation
>>>to work out well.
>>>
>>if two people come to some arrangement where one earns most of the money, and 
>>the other does 'everything else', is this a case of someone choosing to "live
>>off another person"?
>
>You care to give an example scenario here?  Are you per chance talking about
>the man who goes out and earns money and the woman who raises the kids and
>keeps house?
>
not necessarily, i was taking from the previous (implicit) example).
j
>>besides the fact that it seems difficult to live off even
>>one good income these days in such situations, is the person who is "not
>>working" such a parasite as you seem to be saying?
>
>Depends on how they spend their day.  BIG question there.

what do you mean?
>
>>i'm uncomfortable with the implication that the person who
>>stops working for a wage, perhaps leaves a career, and undertakes all these
>>much-less-recignised responsibilities is somehow taking the easy way out.
>
>Again.  Could you elaborate on these "much-less-recognized responsibilities"
>and why some households can run efficinetly with only one person doing
>all of them *plus* the breadwinning *plus* the childraising?  Hmmmm?
>
well, your comment about "depends on how they spend their day..." seems
to place value only on money-earning. i would really like to avoid making
blanket assertions about people from just few examples. a lot of households
do run with one person doing all. is it always, or usually, or ever easy?
it may be preferable to what went before - in the case of one friend,
beatings, attempted murder, and years of neglect - but perhaps not ideal.
because people - usually women - can manage this sort of life, does this make 
it the standard by which all are measured.

i'm sorry if what i write isa little cryptic, i'm trying to be brief.
-- 
Scott Probst: Brain and Behaviour Laboratory, Psychology dept, SFU
              Graduate Issues Officer, Simon Fraser Student Society.
e-mail: probst@fraser.sfu.ca - ph: (604) 291 3354/3181 - fax: (604) 291 5843
              "yes, well, and here we go again..." - Dr H. S. Thompson
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: liz@prc.unisys.com (Liz Loquacious)
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: Paramax Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:45:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.134331.25777@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>, nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug19.174715.25011@sfu.ca> probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst) writes:
|> >if two people come to some arrangement where one earns most of the money, and 
|> >the other does 'everything else', is this a case of someone choosing to "live
|> >off another person"?
|> 
|> You care to give an example scenario here?  Are you per chance talking about
|> the man who goes out and earns money and the woman who raises the kids and
|> keeps house?
|> 
|> I think both of those "chores" (if you would) should be shared responsibilities
|> by both members of the couple.

I really have to agree with Scott.  I wouldn't feel too comfortable judging 
and I certainly don't see why someone would be insecure (something Nance said 
but I trimmed) because they weren't paid by corporate America.  The responsibility
can be shared regardless of how the actual work of running the home vs. earning 
cash are distributed. 

|> I'd like to hear your definition of "everything else" please?

Well I'll leave that for Scott but some of "everything else" was enough
for me to pay ~200/wk for at home child care, ~125/mo for cleaning, can I
include cutting the grass or should hubby have done that? :-)

I was home for the first six months after my son was born and I found it
much easier to be at the office again once I returned but I saw women who
really seemed to enjoy being home and were great with their kids and the
same for my colleague's husband who stayed home with their boys so they
could pursue an overseas opportunity.  

|> Again.  Could you elaborate on these "much-less-recognized responsibilities"
|> and why some households can run efficinetly with only one person doing
|> all of them *plus* the breadwinning *plus* the childraising?  Hmmmm?

One person working and doing all the childcare?  Must have a pretty
understanding employer. :-)  Granted I don't like the idea of tax systems
for example favoring one family style over another but I have no problem
with people making different choices.  And lets consider the quality of life, 
if someone's happier with one parent (the example you used, couple with kids) 
at home good for them.  I don't think one has to suffer or appear to be
the "best" or the most "efficient" to make their lifestyle choice have value.
I think it's okay to enjoy it.

Liz Loquacious (well not so loquacious lately, on the net anyway!)


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Psychobabble
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:30:07 GMT

In article <k#9m16p.aahz@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.075031.3442@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:

[case of "Stepford wife" that passes all my tests of self-awareness and
humannness and which I don't know is not human]

>>In short, I can only go by what I see.
>
>Yes, but what if you *knew* that she wasn't human, yet you couldn't
>*prove* it because she passed every test you could devise?  Wouldn't you
>go crazy? ;-)

Ah, but you see, I don't have that problem, because I don't *know* anything
that I can't prove.  :-)

Now, I *would* go crazy if I had lots of sources of conflicting information,
all of which I trusted equally.  :-)


>                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
>                             @netcom.com 


-- 
				Kevin Brown

			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:41:35 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  <hk0ms3-@lynx.unm.edu>  blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
> (I) hate to think that my casual 'Hi' is going to be interpeted as
> "I'm an evil demon from Hell, have 13 Unnamed Diseases and want to
> drool on your breasts".

Really?  That sounds like a good pick-up line.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: kgorman@star-trek.bbn.com (Karen Gorman)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Various ramblings...
Date: 19 Aug 1992 13:07:35 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Reply-To: kgorman@BBN.COM (Karen Gorman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: archive.bbn.com



In article <14127@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.193424.40831@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>|> >> [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.  :-)
 
>You'd throw up too if someone grabbed you by the neck and tried to jerk 
>your head off.  There, there now Mr. Happy, no reason to get upset.  
>
>Oh no, he's getting mad again.  His face is turning red.




But he is so cute when he is mad. :-)




Karen


Kg@bbn.com
From: ccspjs@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Pete J Suters)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: single men
Date: 13 Aug 92 08:58:24 GMT
Organization: Bath University Computing Services, UK

In article <2218@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com> luzenko@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com (Bill Luzenko) writes:
>
>Two women dance on a dance floor what are they? ( two close friends )!
>
>Two men dance and what are they ( two queers )! 
>
>W H Y !!!

  I think this is another one of those cultural difference things.
Over here in Britain, that assumption is not made.  You don't have
to ask a girl to dance (as they're usually out there anyway) and
guys can dance together - well, not quite together-together but
at-the-same-time -- and it's not considered 'queer'.  Having talked
to American friends, it seems that nightclubs are more geared towards
men asking women to dance, rather than going to a club just to stay
out late, have a few drinks, and a bit of fun.  True to say that
a great number of British clubs are just pick-up-joints or meat-markets,
but there are a lot of clubs where you can just go and have a good
time, dance with your mates and not worry about the assumptions that
people are going to make about you.


pete j suters ---- bath university ---- email: p.j.suters@uk.ac.swurcc 
 ___  ___    /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|___)   |   /  "I've got this new girlfriend.  She's like a fine wine.
|       |  / She's covered in dust and lives in a cellar" -- A.Sayle 
     (_/  /=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Originator: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: too funky
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 19:27:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.044036.5045@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>In article <kiran.714129102@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>>kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>>>Yes.  Now, the big catch to this is the "interesting people" bit.  What I
>>>find interesting is not at all what most women find interesting (rather
>>>the opposite).  
>>Then  you had best look in some other subset of people.  

I disagree.  After all, ratios don't matter, right?  If he's doing
interesting things (things that interest *him*, at least), if a woman
who finds him attractive (and vice versa) starts doing those things as
well, maybe they'll be able to get together.  After all, that was the
point of the other thread, right?

>Okay.  The culture I select is...
>whatever culture Trygve is in!  They seem to be a laid back, easy-going
>crowd of people.

I think you should not change "cultures" unless you are interested in
doing the things that are done in that "culture".  If you aren't
interested in faires, cons, etc., it won't matter if you are getting
"subtle" sexual offers, or the like, because you'll be bored and
wishing you were back in your other "culture".

If the only thing you aren't happy about with your "culture" is that
there aren't more women involved, you might consider trying to
interest women in it.

--gregbo
From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Date: 16 Aug 92 21:19:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: network.16mgp0INNl9v
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
: 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."
: 
: Well, I've stopped looking (have done so for 6 months), and nothing's happened.
: Nothing happened the last time I stopped looking, too, which lasted for about
: a year and a half.
: 
: I think that whether or not the "solve the problem by ignoring it" approach
: will work depends on who you are.  If you're the sort of person I am, then
: you're forced to make everything good happen to you (i.e., good things don't
: just magically happen to you, you have to *force* them to happen).

Perhaps the dichotomy is more subtle...

1) It's not possible to intentionally 'get a girlfriend' everywhere you go,

but

2) If you even want a chance, you have to work assiduously at being
generally social nonetheless.


If you're a man you have to Don't Let Anyone Know You're Trying #1 but
Do # 2 All The Time.

: 				Kevin Brown

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: BOINK! BOINK! BALLOONBOINK IN ALBUQUERQUE!
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:32:15 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug18.173542.5801@asuvax.eas.asu.edu> ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra) writes:
|johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
|> ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra) writes:
|> >I must say that either of the two sunsets 
|> >beats the piss out of California's.
|>  
|> Yea, but we've got a better view of the ocean.
|
|     For now.  Hehheh.
|
Yea, but I'm on the right side of the fault (actually it's the left side)
so when "the big one" hits I'll be off on an island.  Last election
California voters mandated splitting up California into different states.
I don't think this is what they had in mind.

-- 
+============================================================================++
| John Fereira            "Is that all you ever think about?"                |
| johnf@auspex.com                                                           |
+============================================================================++
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 17:55:58 GMT

In article <kiran.714124765@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>
>mlb@CISCO.COM (Marcia Bednarcyk) writes:
>
>>and one in which people spend a lot of time. It seems to me that you have a
>>choice: you can either spend all that time wishing you were in your "ideal"
>>state and feeling miserable because you are not, or you can be "bloom
>>where you are planted" and spend the time being happy.
>
>If your emotions are so easily tractable, perhaps you should explain
>your sectret, since so many people seem to have little choice about
>what makes them feel happy and unhappy.  ...They just seem to have so
>little control over those pesky emotions.

Or rather, they have accepted the popular misconception that they have
so little control over those pesky emotions.  Actually, it's my experience
that most people have pretty much about what they want--this isn't
enough to make them happy in many cases, because what they want (as well
as what they've internalized that they're supposed to want) is in
contradiction with other things that they want.

A lot of unhappy people would become happy if they just realized that
their life already corersponds to what they really want and they've
just been socialized to believe they want something else; with other
people it's tougher, since they're dealing with things like a 
simultaneous desire for a successful relationship and fear of same
and the wonderful goal-achieving device that the human psyche is
attempts to cope with these contradictory goals by doing things like
sabotaging relationships or running away from them.

What's the "secret" to gaining control of your emotions?  First, you
have to accept them; second, you root around your psyche until you
figure out what their bases are (usually a long-term and ongoing
process); third, you accept those parts of you and decide whether
or not you wish to change them.

Trygve 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Marcia needs some johnson love, huh?
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:08:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.235308.1446@lub001.lamar.edu>
lairdpg@lub001.lamar.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.011759.18394@fid.morgan.com>, sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:

[marginally clever stuff that I wrote that pokes fun at lairdpg
deleted, because (unlike some people, who won't be mentioned a second
time in this sentence) I'm capable of following up a posting without
quoting the whole damn thing.]

>Can't a guy post something in rec.soc.singles without some other guy getting
>all upset?

I wouldn't know; I've never seen any newsgroup called rec.soc.singles;
I guess we don't get it here.

>  I would hope so, anyway.  But I guess not.

Who got upset?  I just can't pass up certain straight lines.  One of
my many character flaws.

>  Even though I am happy,
>I just don't think I will stop posting.

It's your decision.  You can't claim that you don't know what you're
letting yourself in for, though.

>  Oh yea, I *NEVER* wanted to do
>anything with Marcia.  Just a figure of speech.

Aesop has a fable about that.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles