HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: The OTHER Dan <GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu>
Subject:      Sexual Harassment. Dan style
To: soc.singles.usenet
Reply-To: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
Organization: DEC Palo Alto
Date:         Tue, 07 Apr 92 07:57:48 MST


       Well, Dan, I tried out the "non-threatening note" idea a couple
       of weeks ago. I inter-office-mailed a woman I work off-shift
       from, stated *politely* that if she might want to do something
       sometime, here's my number.

       The results, to say the *least*, were

                                                    SPECTACULAR!

       Truly worthy of DanMosconyNess.

       A couple of days later I got back a WARNING OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT.

       I felt, like, I had finally ARRIVED. At one with The Dan.

       Don't worry, chums. I'll give everyone within ground-zero
       plenty of notice if I join a dating service.

       This incredible response got me to thinking, and a lot of stuff
       finally came together. I've boiled it down into 3 theories:

         1) I'm fated by God to ONLY meet psycho-bitches.
            ( I like this one. No *personal* responsibility. :) )

         2) I'm *only* attracted to psycho-bitches.
            ( I don't like this one so good. It means Fred is right,
              and I DO  have to start dating women I don't like :)  )

         3) The percentage of psycho-bitches is pretty damn high nowadays.
            ( obviously this is *really* bad news :)  )

       Ahh, it so much CLEARER Dan.

      What can I say?  Like so MANY things,
                            it seemed like a good idea at the time.

      Is Dan liable? Can I make some money here?
From: rmelvil@hughes.hacgate.UUCP (Richard Melville)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: How to meet girls?
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:06:25 GMT
	<1992Apr16.015057.21757@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>
	<1992Apr16.175233.9755@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<1992Apr16.181401.13648@wam.umd.edu>
Organization: Hughes Aircraft of Canada Limited, Calgary AB
In-reply-to: asp@wam.umd.edu's message of 16 Apr 92 18:14:01 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.181401.13648@wam.umd.edu> asp@wam.umd.edu (??) writes:

> decent guy.  I think I care alot and listen well.  What is a good way to meet
> girls and get this point across to them.  

>  Todd

Join the ballroom dance club - probably one at your edu - nice girls
there...


--
----------------                        "I want to spend more money on bikes.
Richard Melville			 I think I need to see a psychiatrist."
Hughes Spatial Data Systems Division     Dave Bridges
Newsgroups: alt.sex,soc.singles
From: sl298025@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Lawrence Livermore)
Subject: Time for Therapy?
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington IN.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:53:37 -0500

I've been perusing the self-help section in the bookstore.  Reading a lot 
about co-dependence.   

I also feel that the definition I have picked up is way too broad.  It makes
every relationship I have every seen a pathology.

So, my question is: how does one know when one is in a situation that requires
professional help?

When is it truly an addiction that has to be treated?

Are there some undeniable signs?

I don't trust home-brew psychology.  I also do not intend to heal myself.  
The mechanics of the brain are not such that they easily avail themselves to
sure fixes.

Denial.  That is what makes me sure I could never truly fix something that
was killing me.

So, out there, anyone know for sure how do I tell?

And if I got the disease, what course of treatment is best? I seem to recall
that group therapy is best with behavior disorders.  Most bang for the buck.

I want this fixed fast and cheap if it is something that requires professional
attention.

If anyone has such a checklist, please forward it to me.

Thanks.

Confused in Indiana
From: grs01150@stat.appstate.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: sheep
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:28:55 EDT
Organization: Appalachian State University

> |> So if I make an active effort to get Dan's goat I'm being an asshole, but
> |> if the goat leaves for greener pastures on its own, then should we meet,
> |> it's beautiful?
> |>
> |> I guess I feel a bit sheepish...
> |
> |	And well you should; this was a sheep shot if I've ever
> | seen one.
> 
> Kenn, that was really baaaaaaaaad.  I'd think that Ewe wooled be
> ashamed of yourself.

Shearly, this is a blatant attempt at sheep humor.  At least it hasn't
turned black...

Kevin
From: solarski@vaxb.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Could use a boost
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:03:21 GMT
Organization: LLNL_LIS

I could use a little insight, helpful hints. I've been dating this wonderful
gal for some time. I had been hurt badly before in a serious relationship and
did not want to fall in love again. It happened. I told her how I felt and she
became probably the coldest woman in the world. She's tearing me apart. I told
her what she was doing to me. She said she was sorry, she has strong feelings
for me as well and doesn't want to hurt me. This made me feel great until the
next day when she started up her mind games again. I love her, but I don't know
how long I can hurt before I can't take it. Is there anyone who has been
through this, giving or receiving, could you pass me on some words-o-wisdom. I
could really use it.

J.A.W.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 05:53:11 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Apr7.225215.855@spool.cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>This is obviously not an easy question to answer (I'm not sure I can come
>up with a very clear answer for myself), but what DO you want to get out
>of a relationship?

I think it comes down to one issue- can you get everything you want out of a
relationship out of a single person?
If so, then a monogamous relationship is 'good'.
If not, then an open relationship is 'good'.

Personally, I think I can (or should be able to) find everything, or close 
enough to everything I 'expect' out of a relationship from one person. But
thats just me, and ghod knows I'm not everybody ';-)
r.
From: michele@dgbt.doc.ca (Michele Guillet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: 6'3" SWM seeks S*F
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:32:02 GMT
Organization: The Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr15.061354.189@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.020914.18149@dgbt.doc.ca>, michele@dgbt.doc.ca (Michele Guillet) writes:
>
>> Most of the men I met had something that may make it hard for them to 
>> find women to date: some were working shifts, some were shy, some were 
>> from visible minorities, almost all of them were shorter than average, 
>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>   Merci pour le tuyau, Michele!  In future, when placing or answering
>personal ads, I'll mention my height, so that I stand out from the crowd.

I have no trouble dating short men but then I am only 5'2''.

-- 
Michele Guillet 			The Communications Research Centre 
3701 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA, K2H 8S2	tel:613-998-2384
Internet: michele@dgbt.doc.ca	
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jhf@dbrus.Unify.Com (Jeff Fields)
Subject: Re: Two things....
Organization: Unify Corporation
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 01:10:16 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.162638.9925@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> ted5@po.CWRU.Edu (Thomas E. Davidson) writes:
>
>	First off, speaking as a biologist, the lemmings thing is not a myth.
>They really ARE driven to commit mass suicide. I seriously doubt Disney killed
>thousands of them for its own nefarious end. If not through this method, how
>else would you explain the sudden disappearance of almost the entire three-year-
>old lemming population?

I was listening to NPR (All Things Considered) in the middle of some nasty
traffic on the freeway and I heard someone debunking the Disney version of
lemming behavior. I can't remember the name of the scientist that was speaking,
or what his official title was because of the distractions, but I distinctly
remember the interviewer, Noah Adams, telling the scientist that he had a
deeply ingrained image from watching the Disney footage as a child. The
scientist said that Disney had faked the footage. He said that there exists
no valid proof that lemmings, or any other creature for that matter, commit
mass suicide. He did say that there is evidence that adult lemmings will kill
the offspring of other lemmings to ensure that their own progeny will propagate.

>	Secondly, I would NEVER interfere with another relationship. They
>ARE santified, and I simply won't allow anyone to break up with their boyfriend
>for me unless they have a much better reason. Sorry....
>

Right on! Me too.


-Jeff Fields
		jhf@dbrus.intel.com
From: 6500ursa@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Disco Junkie)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: personals
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:28:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.152713.1@psycha.upenn.edu> horwitz@psycha.upenn.edu writes:
>I was wondering if anyone out there on soc.singles has posted a
>personals ad, or answered one. What are your experiences with this mode of 
>finding dates?

>Stan Horwitz

I answered some personal ads, and went on a few dates with the women that
responded.  I thought they would be somewhat undesirable, but when I met
them, my opinion quickly changed.  I went on a couple of dates with a 
attractive, intelligent and outgoing woman. (My sister really liked her.) 
It seems that the kind of people that use personals are ordinary, everyday 
people sick and tired of the bar scene, and yet too busy to meet people 
through work/activities/etc.  I would give it a try.  You have nothing to 
lose except a few $$.  

Also, just by dating around a lot, you will gain experience with social 
skills, and will be more at ease and confident with women. That will affect 
your chances of meeting others since they will notice how confident and at 
ease you are.  I'm gonna put an ad in this summer, and I might post it as a 
kind of diary, in order to show how sucessful the personal ads are.

Disco Junkie

p.s:  How does this sound for an ad?  :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
SDLM(Single Disco-Loving Male) seeks SDLF.  Does the beat of "Stayin'
Alive" or "Le Freak" bring a smile to your face?  Do you remember
shows like "Dance Fever" during your childhood/teenage years?  Did you
secretly hide and listen to your disco singles when all of your friends
were chanting, "Disco Sucks!"?   Do you still have that Village People
poster still hidden in your room?  Does Diana Ross' "Love Hangover" bring
tears of joy to your eyes?  If so, let's ease on down the road/boogie oogie
oogie to the nearest Disco Inferno.  We ARE family, right?  (Now if I could 
only have the coordination to learn how to actually dance...) 

I can see the flames coming from the disco haters right now...  ;-)
From: pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Love: Is it a power thing?
Date: 11 Apr 92 11:51:14 GMT
Organization: Medieval England, Iowa


Who "wins" in a relationship depends largely on how you're racking
up the points.

There are some people who feel that the ability to love, and love
passionately, is a great gift.

If you have two people in a relationship, and one is deeply in love
and happy, and the other one feels less and isn't happy, who has
"won"?

Pooh
      pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: mcregor@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Meloney Cregor)
Subject: Love: It is a precious thing?
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 15:31:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.115114.12128@midway.uchicago.edu> pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) writes:

>If you have two people in a relationship, and one is deeply in love
>and happy, and the other one feels less and isn't happy, who has
>"won"?

The one who feels less and isn't happy.

They're outta there and the one who loves deeply and was happy has the
misfortune to be stomped on, on the way out the door and the happiness
roles are then reversed.

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 08:04:06 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  <ptpj77h@lynx.unm.edu>  blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
> In article <1992Apr5.160718.10837@midway.uchicago.edu> pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu
>
> >I strongly disagree, rON.  It takes a LOT of trust to tell your
> >partner, "I trust your judgment and trust you to sleep with anyone
> >you want.  I also trust you to stay with me."
>
> There's still something wrong with this...

In your opinion.

> what's wrong with asking for monogamy >as it is<.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a monogamous relationship, if
that's what both people want.  There's also nothing wrong with an
open relationship if that's what everyone involved wants.  Saying that
an open relationship is OK is *not* saying there's anything wrong with
one that isn't.

> Saying 'Oh, I trust you to do what you want' is
> simply asking them to remain monogamous, but your just 'preparing'
> yourself because you really don't trust your partner, and you want to
> be ready with the 'Oh, I guess I couldn't trust him/her after all' when
> they play with your trust- or the 'I'll give her/him *one more chance*,
> but thats all' beating.

It can be - if you're immature.  But note that what you said isn't
what Pooh said.  It could be, if you added to it:
   I trust you to do what you want, and I trust that you wouldn't
   want to do anything that hurt me.

> >Besides, how is an "open relationship" different from the stage
> >where you're just starting to date someone and he's dating one or
> >two other women at the same time?  Do you insist from the first date
> >on that your object of desire *never* date anyone else?  At such time
> >before you decide to become exclusive, isn't that like an open relationship?
>
> Hell- you gotta make some sort of a commitment to your partner at some
> point in a relationship, ya know.....

But you don't have to commit to exclusivity.

> But, like I said, there has to be some point in a relationship where some
> sort of commitment to each-other has to be made. I'm not talking about
> marriage vows or anything- but a point where you gotta say 'OK, I've spent
> lots of time/energy/life/whatever on this here person, they are my SO'.

Or you say "Wanna do this on a regular basis?"  :-)

> Otherwise, whats the point of >having< an SO?

What's the point of having anything if you don't get exclusive use of it?
Is that what you're asking?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Yoo, hoo, Angelllllllwingggggggg.......
Keywords: Incompatible technologies, of course!
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:51:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Apr10.195105.27227
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Apr10.181036.17443@csc.ti.com> pnichols@ra.csc.ti.com writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.152156.27532@u.washington.edu>
>intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>>
>>Paul, would you *pretty* please learn to use your editor and quit running
>>the lines off the screen!  Huh?  Please?  
>
>  (1)  I'm using>a Macintosh (that's right, CS/EE junkies!  
> I'm a mac slinger.  
>(2) The program I'm using is a VERY nice, EXCRUCIATINGLY convenient news reader
>called 'TheNews'.  
> So I'll learn to write
>shorter sentences-hope this works.
>
>	(Hidden meaning: I have a more advanced editorrrrrrrr, nyah, nyah, 
>	 neenyah nyah!  Meant in the best of attitudes, of course. No offense..)

None taken.  See your stuff is *so* fucking *interesting* that it was
driving me out of my peanut-sized brain to not be able to read it all.

>>Angelwing - How's that?  And no profanity this time, either.
>
>	Civil, yes, but lacking in color or charisma.  C'mon, insult me.  :)

Oh ...okay.  I think you're a weinie.  How's that?

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Angelwing       |"Two things are wanted by a true man, danger and*
* U. of Washington| play - therefore, he seeks woman as the most   *
*                 | dangerous toy."       Friedrich Nietzsche      *
*------------------------------------------------------------------*

>	  And what are the two things
>wanted by a true woman?  (oooooo, can't wait for the answers!!!!!!)

Oh jeepers, Paul.  You want me to answer 'cause you think I'm a true
woman?  Oh I don't know ... I could get trouble for this - speaking as
generic woman.  I think Pooh and MaX and Piglet should answer this.  The
way I'm feeling today I don't think you'd get much of a true answer. 
Like I'd say something like oh ...flowers and chocolate.  Or a big dick
and a *really* stupid (but rich) man.  See ... I'm just too flip today. 
Ask some *serious* woman like ...oh how about that Loosemore person?  I
think Pooh and Max and Piglet might be into silly answers too, being as
it's Friday and all.  *shrug*  I don't know.

>-Paul "Dadgumit, hoping for a better reply than 'check yer editor'" Nichols

Yeah .. well....

Angelwing - Going to lunch.

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Angelwing       |"Two things are wanted by a true man, danger and*
* U. of Washington| play - therefore, he seeks woman as the most   *
*                 | dangerous toy."       Friedrich Nietzsche      *
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: engagement rings
Originator: lnds@zeus.biochem.ualberta.ca
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 06:56:43 GMT

In article <3=xj=c=.barry@netcom.com>, barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:

> Unless I misremember, engagement rings are a 20th century phenomenon, 
> brought to us courtesy of a long-term ad campaign by the diamond 
> industry.

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, article "Ring":

   The giving of a ring to mark a betrothal was an old Roman
   custom.  The ring was probably a mere pledge, _pignus_,
   that the contract would be fulfilled.  In Pliny's time
   conservative custom still required a plain ring of iron,
   but the gold ring was introduced in the course of the 2nd
   century.  This use of the ring, which was thus of purely
   secular origin, received ecclesiastical sanction, and 
   formulae of benediction of the ring exist from the 11th
   century.  The exact stages by which the wedding ring
   developed from the betrothal ring can no longer be traced.

I suspect that the introduction of the gold ring in the 2nd century was 
due to a long-term ad campaign by merchants who realised that iron rings 
didn't cost two months' salary!

> I agree "going steady" is pretty much an invention of 1950s
> America. But courting is a old custom, and we are really saying the
> same thing: that a person who was being courted by another was not
> considered off limits, until rather recently. [...]  I do recall that 
> Bing Crosby had historical precedence (i.e., had been chasing her 
> longer).

But how was she responding to his chasing?  There's nothing you can
unilaterally do that gives you a claim on another person.  Is there?

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:53:29 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  <7+xj3+#.barry@netcom.com>  barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>
>      And so forth. What I'm trying to find in your position is a moral
> spectrum, instead of the Old Testament, sheep-and-goats morality.

So if I make an active effort to get Dan's goat I'm being an asshole, but
if the goat leaves for greener pastures on its own, then should we meet,
it's beautiful?

I guess I feel a bit sheepish...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.men,soc.women
From: browns@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Stuart Brown)
Subject: Re: Discussion Of Romantic Songs
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 19:05:01 GMT

In article <12456@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>I forgot one that belongs on the soc.singles.soundtrack.
>
>It's a song called "Sensitive Newage Guys".  I forget who does this but
>the song is hilarious.
>
This is by Christine Lavin- I agree that it is great, one of those songs that
goues right into your unconsious memory. I quote it all of the time and many
people don't know what I'm talking about.

I heard her sing this at Ben & Jerry's Folk Fest in Newport RI about 3 (4?)
years ago.  She claimed to have written it that morning in a folk song 
writers workshop - and perfomed it with about 15 guys who were in the writing
workshop (doing a kind of doo whop chorus).

		-Stu

-- 
Stuart M. Brown                               Postdocs rush in where wise men
U. of Manitoba, Dept. Plant Science, Canada       Fear to tread. 
browns@ccu.umanitoba.ca        
				Disclaimer?? Sure: "That Disc is Mine!"
Xref: sparky soc.singles:10479 talk.bizarre:10200
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: helpful Hints on "elements of seduction"
Date: 6 Apr 92 07:00:19 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr6.053600.11085@wetware.com>  drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
> Do not try to use isotopes.

Really, drieux - we learned that ions ago.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius)
Subject: Re: Avoiding dating married people
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 18:21:48 GMT
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez

In article <65360@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>
>If you screen calls, you should tell people that when you give out
>your phone number. Not only is it common courtesy, but if you do,
>you will receive more calls. Sometimes I call a friend to see if 
>they want to do something that evening, or because I have something
>specific on my mind; and if their machine kicks on I assume they're out
>and hang up.

I don't even get that far, usually: I memorize how many rings it takes
for each person's answering machine to come on line, and hang up on the
ring before it.....

Unfortunately, there are some sadistic people who keep changing the
number of rings, so my little trick doesn't work too well.  I tend to
call them less than other people.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

Why is this newsgroup different from all other newsgroups?