HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Originator: lnds@zeus.biochem.ualberta.ca
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 08:13:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.214508.28116@csi.uottawa.ca> tcl@csi.UOttawa.CA (Tim Lethbridge) writes:

> OK, let's take this one step further. Is one morally bound
> to *ask* a potential SO whether they are available, or is the
> onus on him/her to tell you if he/she is *not* available?
>
> Personally, I think the latter.

   So do I.

> Which then begs a further question: Say you are 'wooing' someone and 
> suddenly find out that she/he is involved. Do you just drop him/her 
> like a hot potato for moral reasons?

   Yes.

> Such behavior seems hurtful to me.

   NOT dropping her like a hot potato will encourage her to treat other
men similarly in the future.  That's MORE hurtful (IMHO).

> In my opinion the main things that should stop someone from 'wooing'
> someone else are 1) the potential SO has said *no*, or 2) the potential
> SO is *married*. Just being in a relationship is not enough.

   What does "married" mean to you?  To me, it's just a legal term.

> Does that make me a jerk?

   No.  But it *does* make you a person who wants to play by different 
rules than (by my estimate) 9 out of 10 women want to play by.  (My 
estimate derives from a poll I conducted in soc.singles in 1987.)  I just
hope you're upfront about it.  If you are -- no problem.

> This is the way the real world works, and has worked since time 
> immemorial.

   This bugs me since you are implying that I don't know what the real
world is like. :-)  I presume you have some data; could you elaborate?

> I will admit that my actions speak differently, I never date anyone
> until I am *really* sure they are not involved, and have dropped women
> when I found out they were involved. But this is not for moral
> reasons. I am a chicken! (a.k.a nice-guy-attempting-to-reform)

   Why do you want to cross the road?

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
From: em501@panix.com (Edward Maldonado)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Question For the Females only
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:27:18 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


 	This may seem stupid but, I need serious HELP in the romance department
so, If you busy ladies have the time... I need help, please.


							Ed
From: erc@pogo.Corp.Sun.COM (Ed Carp)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: Ed and Teresa  (Carp ????)
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:59:17 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogo.corp.sun.com

In article <16APR199213085985@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> aatresa@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Teresa Kline) writes:

>Well, since you're working so hard for me and Ed, maybe we'll start looking 
>out for *your* best interests.  Besides, it's not like Ed and I have a done 
>deal.  (I imagine Stephen is looking and feeling hunted right about now.)  

Um, would you mind faxing me his picture?  Better yet, drop one in the mail.
Get him to sign it "With love, Stephen"...

>>Well, if it *pays* good ... :-)

Bend over...:)

>It's *not* that kind of work!  :)

Oh?  Tell us about it, Teresa! :)
--
Ed Carp                                      415/336-0797 (work)

++ UNIX  SysAdmin, Systems  Programming  Services,  Utilities ++
++ and Programmer Productivity Tools                          ++
Xref: sparky alt.romance:7224 soc.singles:11452 soc.couples:2163
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:27:09 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:

}Yes, but why is such respect important?  Why is it necessary to respect
}a relationship?  Explanations, please.

Why is it necessary to respect your fellow man and not punch him in the
face if you feel like it?

Look, I think it goes without saying that everyone makes their own choices.
This thread was started by someon asking for individual opinions.  If you
don't think relationships deserve respect, if your conscience doesn't
bother you at the thought of actively trying to break up an existing
relationship, if you are will to accept the consequences of so doing,
then go for it. 

--James Preston
From: carlton@helps.cactus.org (5129)
Subject: Love Notes
Organization: Howard Electronic Laboratories Products & Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 00:36:19 GMT

I am looking for short sayings on love to use
in love note.  Something along the lines of the
following:

Love is a slow kiss goodnight.
    It's anticipation.

Love is a back rub that starts
above the hairline and ends around
the insloes.
    It's exploration.

Love is wakingup to find the subject
of the dream you were having asleep
on your shoulder.
    It's where fantasy meets reality.

If you have anything like the above please
send them to me.



-- 

Carlton Anderson   carlton@helps.cactus.org  or  cs.utexas.edu!helps!carlton

Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: jpalmer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John D Palmer)
Subject: Re: What is love really about
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:23:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.003432.10310@csl.sri.com> mlb@cisco.com (Marcia Bednarcyk) writes:
>This is why love may not be the most important thing in a lasting relationship;
>commitment and trust and a desire to share a life together are really what
>keeps things going long term. Love is the frosting on the cake: it's lovely
>and it tastes good and keeps the cake from drying out, but it's not the cake
>itself.
>Marcia Bednarcyk                                        ADDRESS: mlb@cisco.com

       Hmmm.  I guess I disagree, and I could even say, disagree STRONGLY, with
that idea. . . but maybe my definitions are different.

 
      Love is when the happiness of one person is important to the happiness
of another.  And specifically, the happiness of the one tends to bring about
the happiness of the other.  This is 'real love', IMHO, not the infatuation
that tends to make people possessive.

      Of course, you gotta define happiness properly. . . a stupid definition
of happiness and you gotta stupid definition of love.

     But make that definition of happiness a kind of good, long term well
being, and you have a good definition of love. . . one that, IMHO,
subsumes commitment, trust, and desire to share a life together.
(That's because, since you both 'love' each other (My definition) you
both are looking out of the long term happiness of each other, and this
requires and inspires trust and commitment. . . and since your happiness
makes them happy, and their happiness makes YOU happy, of COURSE you want
to spend a life together.)


      Oh, I agree that the intoxicating swooning OHMYGODIMINLOVE
feeling is not the most important thing in a relationship. . . but
TO ME (and maybe not to you) that is something that comes about as a 
result of love. . .(He's happy, so she's happy, but since she's happy,
he's happier, which makes her happier. . . ever hear of resonance?)
and NOT love itself.
 
      Your mileage will vary depending on how YOU define love. . . but
I haven't found a better one than this one that I"ve had for several
years now. . .  
 
                                           John

-- 
"Love is cool; I mean, like, really cool.  Like, the coolest thing in
the universe, where, like, people open up inside and show the world how
they feel, and they ain't afraid someone's gonna laugh because they, like,
love themselves already!"  --Personality 42, a generic 60's philosopher 
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: haywire@wpi.WPI.EDU (Haywire)
Subject: RE: a question
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 19:31:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.220822.1@pomona.claremont.edu> greg@pomona.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
>In article <92094.093606RJD118@psuvm.psu.edu>, RJD118@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>> LOVE sucks---unless you're in it.
>> No matter what you say....when you're really, truly in LOVE,
>> you can't say how much it sucks...cause it doesn't.

unless you are in the position that even though you are in love
the situation around you makes the love that harder to cope with
and you feel that life would be alot easier if you werent.

this is both my ast experience and alot of my friends

>
>You're absolutely right.  But which is "real"?  The way you feel when
>you're in love?  Or they way you feel after you lose it?  I would tend
>to say that both are "real", and that the final measure is the balance
>of the two.  In my experience, the pain outweighs the pleasure.  Others'
>experience may well differ.
>
this depends like i said above the situation around you might make you want
top be closer whereas if there is no situation you might not notice it till
its gone because you were used to it being there so much that you forget its
there

my two cents worth
haywire




Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.couples,soc.singles
From: fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter)
Subject: lying to oneself (was Re: Sanctity of relationships)
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Distribution: world,soc
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:07:01 GMT

robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
>	remember, you can lie to me, to her, to him, to everyone,
>	but you can't lie to yourself.

Not true. People lie to themselves all the time. And they believe their lies.

	fred
-- 
Disclaimer: everything I post is my *personal* opinion and does not represent
or reflect the opinion of the company which employs me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. R. (Fred) Walter, Mortice Kern Systems Inc.,	Internet: fredw@mks.com
From: erc@pogo.Corp.Sun.COM (Ed Carp)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: Help for Ed
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:33:23 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogo.corp.sun.com

In article <10APR199211250388@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> aatresa@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Teresa Kline) writes:

>Ok, Ed...so I'm asking.  *NOW* what are you going to do?

OK.  I accept!  Pick me up at 8? :)
--
Ed Carp                                      415/336-0797 (work)

++ UNIX  SysAdmin, Systems  Programming  Services,  Utilities ++
++ and Programmer Productivity Tools                          ++
From: schumann@beaner.cs.wisc.edu (Christopher Schumann)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: *smile*
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:34:50 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.

Arielle asks for:
>	What love songs, poems, quotes, stories, faerie tales, etc.
>do you think best epitomize real love?  As in forever-love?  I like
>REM's "You Are the Everything."
<munch>
>							@}-`,-----
>							  Arielle 

I wish I could remember who said, shortly before his death,
"I've gotten all I ever wanted: True love, and
 a change in the weather."

chris
schumann@cs.wisc.edu
From: grs01153@runt.appstate.edu
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: Is this a common thing?
Date: 14 Apr 92 04:02:32 GMT
Organization: Appalachian State University

In the back of my mind, if I am 'late,' is always the question "What will he
think, what will he do....what am _I_ going to do?" So far I have been lucky
enough not to have to answer those questions, but no matter how much you love
someone, it is hard to predict how he will react when faced with a lifelong
committment he has not planned, and probably is not ready for. Giving up a baby
for adoption, it seems to me, would have to be the second most difficult thing
a woman could do; abortion being the most difficult. After my boyfriend and I
made love the first couple of times, we talked about what would happen if I
were to get pregnant; the confidence and lack of hesitance in his answer set my
mind at ease, and now I am sure that no matter what happens, he would support
me, to the best of his ability, financially, emotionally, and physically. When
a child is created out of love, it should be born into love. Like that
commercial says, some of the best things in life aren't planned. And at the
risk of turning this into an abortion debate, which I seriously do NOT want to
happen, just let me say that I am pro-choice, but my choice would be life for
my child. But what is right for me may not be right or feasible for someone
else.-- 
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'  
`'Shannon Frady                                     |                         `'
`'GRS01153@appstate.edu                             |        touch me         `'
`'Appalachian State University                      |            turn me on   `'
`'Boone, NC                                         |       burn me down      `'
`'Doo woppa good times                              |                    -ms  `'
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
From: erc@pogo.Corp.Sun.COM (Ed Carp)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: Ed and Teresa (Carp ????)
Keywords: Let's mind our own business
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:41:08 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogo.corp.sun.com

In article <15APR199208022961@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> aatresa@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Teresa Kline) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.024027.10332@usho93.hou281.chevron.com>, hrtcu@usho52.hou281.chevron.com (R.T.Cutler) writes...
>>For GOD's sake, consumate this.  DO IT!!!!  And then maybe all of
>>us can get some sleep.

>Oh....are we keeping you up?  :)

Probably all the noise we're making <evil grin> :)
--
Ed Carp                                      415/336-0797 (work)

++ UNIX  SysAdmin, Systems  Programming  Services,  Utilities ++
++ and Programmer Productivity Tools                          ++
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.couples,soc.singles
From: robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Distribution: usa
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:51:17 CDT

Bill says:
: Personally, I wouldn't want someone to persue my SO.

Yeah, it ain't easy.  John Stewart wrote:

	Some kind of love is like gold
	And that is the hardest to hold
	It catches the eye of each thief passing by
	Some kind of love is like gold

It just goes to show that it is a complicated world, and you
just got to do the best you can.  And try not to hurt others.

rob
Xref: sparky alt.romance:6793 soc.singles:10712 soc.couples:1974
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:39:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr8.173620.19757@ultra.com> stcroix@ultra.com (Bill St. Croix) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.183212.349@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein) writes:
>
>Excuse me???  Excuse me...if you ask someone out, who is in a relationship
>and they say yes, you are responsible for breaking them up.  Odds may be
 
EXcuse me doofuss, if you ask someone out, who is in a relationship
and they say yes, their ex is responsible for not providing a fulfilling
relationship. Although he'll blame you for being at fault as he often
does with her.
 
>that they would have broken up anyway, but that still doesn't excuse you
>just because you gave him/her an easy way out.  It's like speeding and telling
>the officer, "Well sir, they make cars that go faster than the speed limit,
>so I'm not at fault."  You were the one in the driver's seat and you made
>the choice (to drive fast or to ask him/her out).  May not be the best
>analogy, but it gets to the point of the matter.
 
It's amazing how people pull these analogy's that have absolutely no   
correlation to the subject at hand out of their ass.
 
>
>I think you are missing the point here.  If you have alterior motives
>when you are giving this *advice*, I think that is about as low as you
>can go.  I this case, words do matter.  One is a matter of opinion (you are
>making a mistake) and the other is a matter of manipulation (I'm better
>for you than he is).
 
Yea, you would'nt want to tell a girl that her boyfriend is just a
low life, always unemployed, screws around all the time jerk, just because
you care about her.
 
>>
>>I totally disagree with you.  The fact that I approach someone with
>>hopes of having a relationship with them doesn't make me anything except
>>someone who tries to go after what I think is right for me.  Labeling
>>me "scum" for doing so makes you dangerous.
>
>I'd rather have this "dangerous" person as a friend than you Steve.  So,
>what you are saying is that, as long as it is right for me, who I step
>on along the way to get what I want doesn't matter.  As far as I'm concerned,
>YOU and others like you are FAR more dangerous  than what this gentleman
>is.  Sounds like you'd be an advocate of anarchy, Steve?
>
>	Bill


Bill, learn to be satisfied with yourself (and a little about life)
and you won't care if someone does not want to be in a relationship
with you.
Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: chu@hanauma.jpl.nasa.gov (Eugene Chu)
Subject: Re: *smile*
Organization: Image Analysis Systems Group, JPL
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 06:19:44 GMT

In article <9204071548@gandalf.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> u31b3hs@messua.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Michael Haardt) writes:
>From article <1992Apr6.215813.12313@athena.mit.edu>, by gandalf! (Arielle):
>> Hello, dears. ;)
>Welcome to alt.romance :-)
>
>> 	I'm rather new at this and have just been reading through
>> the previous zillion posts.  This is a wonderful idea, and a great
>> support group.  A huge, warm hug to each and every one of you.
>
>> 	What love songs, poems, quotes, stories, faerie tales, etc.
>> do you think best epitomize real love?  As in forever-love?  I like
>> REM's "You Are the Everything."
.
>I recently send a letter on a tape to my SO :)  I can highly recommend
>that, it is much work, but worth the efforts.  I mixed the letter with
>some of my favourite music to create a harmonic mixture.  The melody
>"Morgenstimmung" (German, "mood of a morning" in English?) by Edvard
>Grieg is wonderful.  I also like harp music from Andreas Vollenweider.
>
>> For those of you who are afraid you're nerds doomed to being single forever,
>> please take my word for it.. there's no such thing as a nerd in real life.
>> Not really.  That's a stereotype.  If you are a man, if you are a woman,
>> you are completely capable of giving and receiving love.  And soon enough,
>> some one will be lucky enough to realize it.  It's only a matter of reaching
>> out and letting go a little of your fears.  Just a little.  There's a whole
>> world of people out there who want to love you just as much as you want to
>> love them.  You're not alone.. never alone.. we're with you.
>
>You are right.  It may take some time, but in the end you will find
>someone.  I nearly lost hope and now it is only 5 days until I meet my
>net.love and we will spend a month together. *happy smile*
>
>Michael

	"Rudy thought
	 that all good things
	 comes to those
	 who wait
	 But recently
	 he could see
	 that it may come,
	 but too late..."	- Rudy, Crime of the Century, Supertramp

eyc
Xref: sparky alt.romance:7067 soc.singles:11233 soc.couples:2114
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles,soc.couples
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:00:41 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:

}jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:

}>[...]         The point is that a person ACTIVELY trying to mess up an
}>existing relationship is showing a lack of respect for the relationship
}>and for BOTH of the people in that relationship.  Asking someone out
}>when you don't know they are involved is quite all right.  Asking someone
}>out when you know that they are involved is disrespectful.  [...]
}>
}>One last time:  It's a question of respect from the third party, not of 
}>ownership by either of the relationship parties.

}Respect is a big part of the bottom line, but I don't see what is so
}disrespectful by testing the waters.  

Well, this is an example of what you were saying in another posting about
each person having their own idea of where the lines are.  I feel that,
given that you KNOW that two people are in an exclusive, romantic relation-
ship, even testing the waters is disrespectful.  Ask yourself this:  If
the couple in question is married, is it ok to "test the waters"?  As I
said before, I personally don't see that much difference between two
people agreeing to be committed to each other and two people getting that
agreement blessed by the church or the state.  What matters is what those
two people have chosen, and it is that choice that deserves respect.

}Of the couple times I've done it, my
}level of respect for the other guy had a lot to do with how far I pushed
}things.  If I had a decent amount of respect for the guy, then I'd be
}fairly conservative.  In one instance it went beyond disrespect; I actively
}despised the guy, and I gauged how much was too much by how it affected the
}woman, and really didn't take him into much consideration at all.

Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, but it sounds like you are agreeing
with me.  You're not arguing that it is NOT disrespectful to woo someone
who is in a relationship, you're only saying that YOU get to decide how much 
respect you want to accord that relationship.  I agree completely that you 
get to decide that (how could it be otherwise?).  

}There is a default level of respect I accord all people, but the level of
}respect (or disrespect) beyond that is earned.  

Sure.  But my default level of respect when it comes to an existing
relationship is "hands off", period.  And someone who violates what I 
consider proper respect has earned my disrespect.  So I call him scum.
We each get to draw our own lines, and have to live with the consequences.

--James Preston

Newsgroups: alt.romance
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 15:11:23 GMT

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel) writes:

] intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
] 
] >Oh but dear boys, what about free will here?  You *can't* take 
] >anyone away from somebody else.  Impossible.  This isn't the dark 
] >ages, you know.  I am with who I am with purely from free choice.  
] >There is no way anyone could "woo me away" because I know what I 
] >want and I have it.
] 
]    That last statement does not apply to everyone.  Some people know 
] they want the ability to be wooed away and have *that*.

I've got to agree with Angelwing here...

I don't see any problem with any person letting another person
know that they are interested.  If you didn't - half the time
you'd be passing up an opportunity to get INTO a relationship.
(no - don't hold me to a source on "half the time" - that's a
figure of speech).

The way I see it - then the person approached has the
opportunity to answer what they want:

1) Sure - I'm interested also...

2) No - I'm not interested in you.

3) No - I'm not interested because I already HAVE someone I am
   currently sharing root-access password(s) with {The love-token
   of the computer age, y'know}

4) And if they are so inclined - Sure - let me introduce you to
   the other people that I am involved with {for those who
   believe in a menage-a-trois or more}

If the answer is "Sure - I'm interested also", then any 
"relationship" that the person was in was not strong enough to
hold their interest.

Now - for my PERSONAL code of honor - I do not make advances, or
return the advances, of any man that any of my friends are
interested in.  Not because I think the man is unable to make up
his own mind as to whom he would like a relationship with - but
that for me, the friendships are MORE sacred, and usually MUCH
less transitory...

Diana