HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksloan@crchh791.BNR.CA (Kerry Sloan)
Subject: AHHHHHHHHH... what is a BOINK?
Reply-To: ksloan@crchh791.BNR.CA (Kerry Sloan)
Organization: "Bell Northern Research - Richardson, TX"
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:02:36 GMT

PLEASE help me?!?!?
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: richwing@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rich Wingerter)
Subject: Re: SF Bay Area Boink
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 04:22:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.084235.26212@leland.Stanford.EDU>, richwing@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rich Wingerter) writes:
|> I'm planning a boink in the bay area.  E-mail me if you are going to be in this
|> area on 29 August and want info.

I've attempted to reply to all RSVPs.  If you sent one and didn't get a reply,
it is likely because my e-mail to you bounced.  In particular, I can't reach
the following people:

   hedges@...
   carole@peregrine...
   ten_forward!aland@...
   Nina.Smith@...
   chris@univrs...
   jetsun!broke!weaver@...
   diana@...

If you're on this list, my e-mail to you bounced.  Please just give me a call
on voice at 415-326-2435.



--Rich Wingerter
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: REQUEST from GIRLS:  List of 20 WORST/UNORIGINAL ways to ask a girl
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:28:01 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug19.175406.25269@sfu.ca> probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.204702.7334@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>>In article <9208171956.AA18347@moe.optics.rochester.edu> ng@MOE.OPTICS.ROCHESTER.EDU (Baldwin Ng) writes:
>>>                        WITH FRESHMAN GIRLS, OKAY??
>>
>>What's wrong with freshman girls?
>>
>so when are these guys going to graduate to women?
 
That usually requires a sex change operation.

-- 
+============================================================================++
| John Fereira            "Is that all you ever think about?"                |
| johnf@auspex.com                                                           |
+============================================================================++
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:49:11 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).
>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?

The trick is to find someone who is so complex and has so many
different parts that you can't learn all about that person
immediately.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com

Yes, the obvious example applies.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: cocoa@iat.holonet.net (little 'e')
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never went to Disneyland
Organization: The Chocolate Factory
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 07:30:52 GMT


In article <a7#n9hf.greg@netcom.com> greg@netcom.com (Greg Bullough) writes:
>In article <66#nd7c.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>In article <92232.48427.6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> 6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>>>In article <m70mw6l.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>>>	I wanna be a woman next time around.
>>>
>>>Why wait until next time around?
>>
>>	Still some "E" tickets in this body I wanna use up.
>>
>>						Kayembee
>
>Then again, if you remember, really remember, what an "E" ticket is, 
>you're on the way towards washed-up.

Uh, as Inigo Montoya said, "I don't think that means what you think it means."

Just my huch, but there might be other kinds of "E" tickets.


Just me,

little 'e'

"She's got a ticket to ride." - The Beatles


-- 
Recently re-located, and now permanently residing at _The_Chocolate_Factory_
*  *   e-mail: cocoa@iat.holonet.net    -     voicemail: 415-337-4940   *  *
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: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:54:21 GMT

In article 15972@nuchat.sccsi.com, kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.225021.11560@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:

>
> [stuff deleted...]
>
> For the purposes of starting a romance, friendship by itself is a deadly
> thing, or so it seems.

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 ?"

---
 _____________________________________________________________________________
/                                                                             \
| 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: catcher@netcom.com (Paul W. Francisco)
Subject: Re: Various ramblings part 2: new approaches
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 20:02:42 GMT
Organization: The Vampyre's Lair

In article <1992Aug19.000606.7402@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>Another thing, too, is that I do a great deal consciously.  Someone
>(Larry, I think) said that part of my problem with respect to dancing
>is that I was trying to do it consciously, and that if I didn't do
>that, I would get a lot farther.
>
>If only I could do that.

I was the one who said this.  Here's an idea for you, Kevin.  This
may not work for you (I'm not sure if what you said later on precludes
this from happening) but you did say you sometimes need ideas to give
you a pathway to follow, so here goes.

In many dance clubs you don't have to worry overly much about running
into people.  You've claimed your par tof the floor, or stage, or whatever,
they've claimed theirs, and most movement is not very lateral (in that
most people don't run all over the place).  If people do run all over the
place, it is their responsibility to stay out of others' way.  So you
shouldn't have to spend much effort staying out of the way once you're out
there.  Once you are there, start dancing.  After say, 30 seconds or so,
listen to the music.  By now you have gotten past worrying about others
in the way, and you have started dancing.  Hopefully once your body has
started you can listen to the music and your body will keep going.

When I say listen to the music, I mean concentrate on it.  This way
your dancing will not be overly controlled.  It will probably flow with
the beat better.  After time, it may become natural enough that you
won't have to go through these steps as much, and can just do it.

If there are so many people that even moving at all will probably run 
you into someone, find a less crowded club.

Hopefully this may be something you can try and will work for you.
It may not, but it's worth a shot.

-- 
From the Vampyre's Lair, 	    The thirst from a vampire bite
Paul W. Francisco        	    fills the emptiness inside...
catcher@netcom.com                      - Siouxsie and the Banshees
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jfb200@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (joseph.f.baugher)
Subject: Re: Married Men and Single Women
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:03:04 GMT
Summary: Married versus single men--are married men more attractive?
Keywords: Why are married men more attractive than single men?

In article <1992Aug10.172931.23159@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly) writes:
> 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. 

(Ken's neat signature deleted)

I was discussing this very issue with a  bachelor  friend  of  mine  a
couple  of  years  ago.  He was having difficulty in his relationships
with women, and he asked me what he should do.  "Chuck", I  said,  "go
to  a  jewelry store and buy yourself a wedding ring.  Doesn't have to
be all that fancy or expensive.  Then put it on and start going out to
the  places  were single, unattached women hang out.  You'll be amazed
at the difference that that ring on your finger will  make.   It  will
attract  women  to  you,  which,  in  turn,  will  enhance  your self-
confidence, which will attract even more women".

As for me, I was married for about a year back in the 1970s.  At  that
time  I wore a wedding ring.  I don't know whether it was specifically
the ring  that  was  responsible,  but  I  did  find  that  my  wife's
girlfriends  showed  a  rather prurient interest in me.  I got lots of
passes, some of them perhaps only in  fun,  but  others  perhaps  more
serious.  I found this sort of surprising, since I don't see myself as
anything particularly special insofar as my attractiveness to women is
concerned.   I  remember  one  specific episode in which my wife and I
were at a party and one of  her  girlfriends  who  had  gotten  rather
stoned  suddenly leaped on top of me, screaming "I Want Your Body!!!".
Rather embarrassing for all concerned.

I got divorced in 1977, and my wedding ring now sits in a  drawer.   I
remarried in 1987, but I don't wear a ring.  Perhaps I should drag out
that old wedding ring and put it back on and see for myself  if  there
is any noticeable difference in how women treat me. :-)

Joe Baugher			**************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories		*  "I'm shocked!  Shocked to find    *
2000 North Naperville Road	*  that gambling is going on here!"  *
P. O. Box 3033			**************************************
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033		
(708) 713 4548				
ihlpl!jfb                  Who, me?  Speak for AT&T?  Surely you jest!	
jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst)
Subject: Re: Psychobabble
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:16:39 GMT

In article <4009@moscom.UUCP> wjb@moscom.UUCP (Bill de Beaubien) writes:
>Aahzmandius (aahz@netcom.com) wrote:
>: The one I like is: Descartes said, "I think not," and promptly
>: disappeared.
>
>Tsk, (A implies B) doesn't imply that ((not A) implies (not B))...
>
>Bill
>-- 
>"Bless me, Father; I ate a lizard."
>"Was it an abstinence day, and was it artificially prepared?"
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>Bill de Beaubien / wjb@moscom.com 

actually wasn't it socrates who said: " i drink, therefore i am "?
-- 
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
From: greg@netcom.com (Greg Bullough)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Romance
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:05:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

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.
>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.

Well, Neil, I'm sorry you've had a bad experience or three. I've never
found that a woman I've dated has viewed sentimental or even unexpectedly
generous gifts as a bribe. However, they have indeed been a contributing
factor to nookie from time to time :-)
 
It seems to mee that if the feelings are there, and if the gift is a
reflection of true feelings, that the "bribe" issue goes away.

Greg
From: dennisp@kpc.com (Dennis Preston)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Boink Blues
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:26:00 GMT
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Inc, Santa Clara, CA

I'm new to this group, but I live in Denver and I'd love to do a boink.
Preferably in Winter. dennisp@kpc.com
From: deannab@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Deanna Bergstrom)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:44:47 GMT
Subject: Re: men dancing with men just because they're friends.
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.singles

 zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:

>In article <2219@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com> luzenko@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com (Bill Luzenko) writes:

>>Why men can't dance with men in america without some stigma attached to it .

>becoz the only possible reason for dancing at all is to get together with 
>somebody.  if all u want is a bit of exercise, do sport.

	**NOT!!!**

The reason for dancing is to DANCE!  To feel the music and express what you're
feeling in your body movements.

You don't have to have a partner of the opposite sex or even a partner at
all.

And the stigma is attached to the people who have it, not to the people
to whom it is directed.  If you want to dance with another man, go for 
it....it's the observer's problem if they misinterpret it.  Besides,
you'll probably never see any of them again anyway.

Deanna
deannab@sr.hp.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 13:06:47 GMT

mlb@CISCO.COM (Marcia Bednarcyk) writes:
 
>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.
 
Since "most people" draw a clear line between friendship and
relationship, and build an impenetrable barrier between the two
concepts, this does not seem unreasonable at all.

If it is impossible for "most people" to get past this barrier, 
then it seems that they are justified in wanting to know asap
which side of the wall they are on.

-- 
"(2) 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.".........Will Cuppy, footnote in _How to Attract the Wombat_
-- 
Kiran Wagle                             <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
P.O.Box 2083 Bloomington IN 47402-2083      (812) 336-7478 [8p-1a EST]
From: lairdpg@lub001.lamar.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: "Congratulations" and/or "Best Wishes"
Date: 15 Aug 92 23:57:13 +1700
Organization: Lamar University - Beaumont

In article <1992Aug15.162723.5781@wetware.com>, diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:
> dave@silver.sni.ca (Dave Till) writes:
> 
> ] dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
> ] >And Amy, congratulations on getting married. Or, as my girlfriend
> ] >keeps reminding me to say to women, best wishes.
> ] 
> ] I've always wondered about this.  Years ago, I was told to say "best wishes"
> ] to women, and "congratulations" to men.  My question:  is this still correct
> ] etiquette?
> 
> No no NO!!
> 
> The Proper wording for BOTH men AND women is, of course,
> "CONDOLENCES"...
     ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
HEHEHE-----| that is about right.

> 
> 8-) 
> 
> Diana
> 
> (Okay - after almost 9 years of separation, my divorce
> is final in 5 days - so I HAD to say this...)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"..
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 12:42:12 GMT

zagar@chester.cms.udel.edu (Randy Zagar) writes:

>That sounds like something C.S. Lewis wrote once.  He said (paraphrased) that

>IF you find yourself in a situation where you don't have the feelings
>you think you ought to have.  Then what you should do is behave as if
>you *did* feel that way.  The feelings will naturally follow the actions.
 
Yup. And rain follows the plow, too.

-- 
"The Salmander could not make such a mistake about a fellow creature,
 since his brain is only equiped for ordinary common sense.  To be as
 wrong as that you have to have a cerebral cortex and other refinements
 peculiar to the higher vertebrates. ... In spite of this new light on
 the subject, one still meets people who believe that Salamaders live
 in the fire, and they all want to argue.  That's why I seldom go out
 any more." 
 
-- 
Kiran Wagle                             <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
P.O.Box 2083 Bloomington IN 47402-2083      (812) 336-7478 [8p-1a EST]
From: lairdpg@lub001.lamar.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Was re:FLAME ON now- FLAME off!!!!
Date: 15 Aug 92 02:51:41 GMT
Organization: Lamar University - Beaumont

In article <92227.182423U15479@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U15479@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
> You take this group much too seriously to post an article such as yours.  Seems
> as though I struck a cord......
> CHRIS GRUMBOSKI                      GRUMBY STRIKES AGAIN!
> 
>                 "WELL..........WE'RE WAITING!!!"
> 

Please, please, don't take that personally, Chris.  Looked like you wanted
a flame. It was done in jest.. thats all.  After all you had mentioned nobody
ever replied to you.  I wanted to give you a welcome - a humorous one.  I am
sorry you took it differently.
 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 07:54:00 GMT

walter (Walter Lego) claims:

>Women are not born with the knowledge to determine the
>characteristics that would ensure a long-term relationship (assuming
>they were inclined to do so) anymore than men being born with a
>capacity to assure it. 

Women are not born with much knowledge at all.  But they are born with
the ability to _think_ and thus to determine what characterisitcs might
help to maintain a relationship.  Whether they subsequently find these
characteristics attractive in themselves, or simply want them as free
bonuses when they select a mate based on some other criteria, is still
the open question here.

-- 
Kiran Wagle                             <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
P.O.Box 2083 Bloomington IN 47402-2083      (812) 336-7478 [8p-1a EST]
From: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:45:14 GMT
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: too funky
Originator: gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu

In article <1992Aug18.163725.2377@sfu.ca> probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst) writes:
>well, i can't say i've seen the stats that suggest what you say. also, i have
>some difficulty conceptualising marriage (or any equivalent) as a job. let's
>hear from women out there: do you think it's right to consider that the man
>pays the woman a "salary"?

Well, it's not a salary in a formal sense, but the woman is gaining
access to a higher and more flexible standard of living.

For example, lets take two people, A and B.  A is poor (working 2 jobs
at minimum wage), and needs both jobs in order to afford a place to
live, food, child care, etc.  B is much better off financially.  Most
people would rather be better off financially than poor, so when A and
B marry, they decide to live at B's standard of living.  This enables
A to live in a nice house, get good child care, etc.  If B is quite
well off, it might not even be necessary for A to work outside the
home for pay, so A could go to school, or open a business at home.  In
general, A is gaining access to a way of life not available to A had A
not married.  (There is an exception: some people are "kept" for
certain purposes.)  It wouldn't be possible for A to rise to B's
economic position independently of B (or some other benefactor)
because A is spending too much time trying to scratch a life together
to do anything that would improve his or her ability to provide for
themself and their family.

This is not to say that A doesn't contribute to the well-being of the
household, or anything like that.  In fact, A might improve the
quality of B's life, so everybody benefits.

--gregbo
From: loftis@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Loftis)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:09:55 GMT
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server


	I have male friends that fit two categoris.  One is that they
have never dated women.  Those men seem to fit your "stereotype" of
spending their energies elsewhere.  I am always amazed that they haven't
dated, since most women would consider them a catch.  

	I have another set of friends that had girlfriends in High
School, but now are not dating nor the last 15 or so years.  This group
seems to be putting their energies into other things now.  In High
School they were not the "brightest" people, but now they seem to be
concentrating on careers.

	I have met one woman who I know has never had a serious
relationship.  She is very attractive and every man I know wants to date
her. I have gone out with her once.  She did not speak much.  It was
difficult to hold a conversation with her.  She wants the perfect man,
but I do not see how she could judge after an hour conversation,
one-sided.  She is amazing to me.

	Kirk
From: garrison@kodak.com (Laurie Garrison)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:31:03 GMT
Reply-To: garrison@kodak.com (Laurie Garrison)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Image Processing Algorithms Laboratory, Eastman Kodak Co.


In article <1992Aug20.124644.26008@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
|> In article <3532@eastman.UUCP> garrison@kodak.com (Laurie Garrison) writes:
|> >
|> >of the kids.  hey, can't have your cake and eat it too.  if you don't want
|> >to have to invest the time and emotional support, the least you can do
|> >is provide financial support.
|>  
|>  Tell that to my kids mother.
|> 

i never said women can't be sh*ts, my statement applies to either gender... 
if you aren't the one providing the most time/emotional support, then you 
should provide financial support without complaining IMHO. 


|> >ps.  every woman i know with kids who got divorced lowered her standard of
|> >	living because she has the kids.  a few ended up on social
|> >	services for a time.  i have yet to see an ex-husband go on welfare!
|> >	(because of the divorce)
|>  
|>  You left out the part about when she got married she raised her standard
|> of living . Maybe she should have considered a career when she was staring
|> out the window dreaming about that meal ticket.
|> 

yes, but i think i said before that if they both work, they
are *both* upgrading their standard of living.  and what about the
*other* reasons for marriage, like improving quality of life in
general???  

all women don't get married because they are dreaming of a meal ticket. :) 

i am also NOT arguing for alimony, i am just arguing for child
support.  i don't believe in paying an able bodied adult alimony
if there are no kids involved (in most cases)

laurie (who made more money than her ex and almost had to pay
	alimony because of it!)



------
The more I know, the less I understand
All the things I thought I'd figured out, 	
I have to learn again...
				- Don Henley