HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: summers%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jim Summers)
Subject: High School Students looking for Same
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:44:34 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept


I'm asking the following for Central High School in Wartburg,
Tennessee (my alma mater).  They are looking for other High School
students to send e-mail to, and talk about classes and, well, "stuff".
Any 9-12 graders out there interested?  They are good students who just
got internet access, and are very interested in meeting others.

Please drop me a line, and I'll get you in touch with them!
(they don't have newsfeed and their mail gets funny sometime, so
I'm setting up the initial link.  After that you're on your own.)

thanks, and I hope to hear from you soon!

LostBoy
jim




Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: The Engaged Psychobitch from Hell Syndrome
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:03:16 GMT

In article <ewillims.717611115@unix1.tcd.ie>, ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
> to gainsay it for you, but all I feel is that if I am "serious"
> about a lover then I could not in all conscience have affairs
> outside of that relationship because I would feel that I wasn't
> devoting all my love, attention and time to the person I made
> the commitment to in the first place.  I would feel that it wouldn't be 
> at all fair to them; if they are deserving of my deep love then they
> deserve the best I can give them.  I couldn't give them the best of
> myself if I was having to divide myself between others too.
> Are Trygve and I the only ones who are firmly of that opinion 
> regarding our own relationships?
>  
> 	
> 

No, you are not the only ones to have that opinion, I have been in both
kinds of relationships, and prefer "mono on mono".  When I dated more than 
one woman, I was honest and up front about it (mostly, I avoided some questions
to keep from hurting feelings) but I really wasn't committed to one of the
relationships.  I liked the lady a lot, and didn't want her to leave, but
if the other one had worked out, I would have taken it (ie the M word).
I was also in a relationship where she slept around, she at least told me
about it (I'm not sure how much was honesty and how much was braging), and
I stuck around for several months hoping she would decide I was all she
needed.  It never happened, and she never told me any reasons for wanting
several guys.

Larry Billings
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:34:14 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <thurlow.717569206@convex.convex.com> thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:

>The first one I can testify to myself.  When we had our first dancing
>match here (it may actually have been in alt.romance), I thought I
>should try to get to know the person I was arguing with.  I started to
>try to greet you in the hallways when we passed, for a start.  I got
>nothing, nada, back.  You were never willing/able/etc.  to do anything
>to make me think that that was something other than evil.  

I'm sorry you felt I was being curt or nasty, Rob, but I'm afraid
I have to disabuse you of one idea.  The reason why I may have
seemed perfunctory towards you in the hallway is not nearly so
sinister as you believe.  You are, I'm afraid, not really world 
famous and, despite a few comments you've made about your appearance
on the net, I have no idea what you look like.  It's quite possible,
indeed likely, that we have met but, since my memory for names and faces 
is truly imfamous (a trait which seems to run in the family -- both my 
parents once failed to recognize me at the airport), I am constantly running 
into people who know me by name who I cannot for the life of me 
identify.  It is possible, indeed likely, that we have met, but unless 
you stop to introduce yourself, I'm afraid the most you can usually hope 
for is some quasi-intelligible response while I'm frantically searching my 
memory banks trying to figure out who you might be and what is an appropriate
responce.  

>Sometimes I wonder if
>part of the appeal of athletes you resent so much is to do with the
>fact that they actually take showers.

Perhaps, but in my case it has more to do with a medical matter that
I really don't care to discuss with anyone but my doctor.  And won't.

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: greg@netcom.com (Greg Bullough)
Subject: Re: To all Christian girls
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 05:16:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.001115.6187@newshost.anu.edu.au> just me writes:
> I am getting closer to my thirties, and being a genuinly trying Christian man
>I constantly have a problem to see where there are all those young sporty
>Christian girls ...
 
What does "sporty" mean? I mean, in a car, it means you can take their
tops down...
 
Greg
From: parks_typ@med.wcc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Humans as Physical Creatures.
Date: 29 Sep 1992 23:12:48 GMT
Organization: Wellington City Council, Wgtn, NZ
Reply-To: parks_typ@med.wcc.govt.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: blade.wcc.govt.nz

In article <1992Sep29.200706.6260@linus.mitre.org>, lkahn@mitre.org (Larry Kahn) writes:

>My friend John belongs to a computer dating service and every month or
>so has a date with a woman who "requests" him (he's no longer active in
>the service but he's on file to be "picked from").  A few times ago I asked
>him how a date went and he said he wasn't interested in dating her again 
>because
>she was "fat."

I would have thought that, if it mattered that much to him, he would have
included that in his 'criteria' for suitable dates.


>that they could always adapt each other's interests but he felt that if he
>were to ask her to become more athletic, he'd be offending her.
>
>Of course, if she asked him to become more literate she might offend HIM.

<chuckle>


>I saw his point, somewhat.  If I were looking for a mate (which I'm not)
>I'd certainly be interested in someone with whom I have a lot in common
>activity-wise.  Since this would be someone who enjoyed the outdoors and
>recreational sports, a morbidly obese person would probably not catch my 
>eye.

I agree - I'm NOT athletic and don't intend to become so, therefore I'm not
interested in athletic men because I *know* we'd drive each other crazy.


>Maybe that's shallow and nose-in-the-air, but in that way "looks" are
>important to me.

I don't think that attitude is shallow.  It seems pretty sensible to me.


>I don't see anything wrong with using physical appearance as a screening 
>out process.  I have my own ideas of what I like physically, and in some 
>cases I wouldn't choose to go out with someone no matter how good 
>everything else was.

Fortunately different looks appeal to different people.  It would be *so*
boring if were all looked alike.



>happy (and don't bother anyone else).  However, I, along with everyone 
>else, have certain preferences for potential relationship partners and 
>there isn't anything wrong with that.  You should be free to set your own standards.

hear, hear.





Rachel                     "Supergoof"
                               - -
                               O O
                                >
                               \_/
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tmyers@unlinfo.unl.edu (tim myers)
Subject: Re: Dating an older woman
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:36:44 GMT

I was in an interestingsituation a year and a half ago. I was dating a girl
11 years younger than me while MY younger brother was dating HER **MOTHER**!!
Neither relationship worked out but the idea of my little brother being my
father-in-law was kind of different to say the least.


--
Toli the Curious, Shire of Mag Mor, Kingdom of Calontir
Tim Myers, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska
tmyers@unlinfo.unl.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik)
Subject: Ignorance
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 06:17:24 GMT


Define:            - Boink
                   - BTW
                   - SWF
                   - SWM
                   - Sesquipedalians (sic?)
                   - WOWY KAZOWY
                   - Eddie
                   - S&M
                   - IGNORANCE
                   - Misquote

Think I got about ten...Now for that pint of lager!

Andy.

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Bathsheba.Grossman@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bathsheba Grossman)
Subject: Re: The Engaged Psychobitch from Hell Syndrome
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 05:15:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.194930.29784@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>I'm glad I live in an age and society where I can determine BEFORE I
>marry someone if living and sleeping with him is something I want to
>do for the rest of my life.

Cool!  How do you tell, is it like DNA matching?
Here I've been doing it the old-fashioned way, by living and sleeping with
'em.  It takes just about forever, and by the time you know for sure, you're
too old to care and he's probably dead.

-Sheba


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: vchow@diana.cair.du.edu (VICTOR CHOW)
Subject: Re: In need of advice...
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 22:44:02 GMT


PORRA CACETE, ?#!@

Whenever i come to this newsgroup to see what's happening, ( i mean
in the singles scene ), there is a pile of "Re:    " without context.

How can i understand the original issue, if evrybody only argue about.

This is the most discouraging group for a new user. I don't have time to check this newsgroup everyday like most of you.

Can somebody explain what are you guys arguing againgst each other?
w
-- 
Victor Chow
vchow@diana.cair.du.edu
NCR Graphics chip design engineer - U. of Denver MBA
Any Brazilians out there?
From: mattb@ssc-vax (Matt Baney)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: E.W. - It's my birthday today!: )
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:08:00 GMT
Reply-To: mattb@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Matt Baney)
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics

In article <19s86tINN8a6@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
>In article <ewillims.717332447@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>>	It's my birthday today!:)  [or should that be 
>>a depressed smiley?? (*grin*)]
>>
>>aaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!
>Nearing 30 even.
>>At least I got loads of cool birthday presents!:)
>And a birthday kiss.
>(*KISS*)
>(and a most entertaining birthday card)

This is all really wonderfull???  But at the risk of major flame-age
and being classified as a jerk, WHY is it on soc.singles??
 Or should this group be re-named soc.chit-chat??

IMHO


-- 
|  Matt Baney         | Boeing Defense and Space Division    |
|  -----------------  |   Knowledge Systems Group
| "I can't tolerate   | UUCP:     ..!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!mattb |        
| intolerant people!" | Internet:   mattb@ssc-vax.boeing.com |
From: rcf@netlink.cts.com (Bob Forsythe)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:41:42 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:

> 
> 
> *laugh*  Then perhaps we should try a different approach.  Let's just
> ignore him, folks.  Let him post whatever he wants, but don't respond
> except to correct errors of fact, of which there seem to be many.  Let
> him opine as he sees fit.  Just say 'n'.


     I always find it interesting that people involved in flame wars 
attempt to get others to join them in vilifying the other person.  You're 
welcome to play these sniping games with each other (as you've been doing 
for an interminable amount of time already), but please leave the 
recruiting to the military.  I have no desire to get involved in your 
war.

Bob c/o The OTH Gang

--                    
INTERNET:  rcf@netlink.cts.com (Bob Forsythe)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!rcf
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
From: brentaa@ac.dal.ca (brent, eh?)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Nice guys getting flamed (was Re:Relations
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:25:45 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Oct6.064331.24644@sol.UVic.CA>, atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik) writes:
>   Hey, Bronto Breath! Guess you don't understand what a NICE GUY [TM]
> is. He is the despicable whining creature that begs girls to go out 
> with him, and can't accept the fact that the girls don't want to go
> out with despicable whining creatures.
> 
>   I used to be one years ago, but gave up. Since then I'm more successful.
> 
> Andy.

Well, having only recently started reading this group, I guess I missed that 
subtlety in the definition on the Nice Guy[tm].  I certainly don't do too 
much whining or begging(unless I have a good reason), so maybe I don't
live up to you're standards of Nice Guy[tm]ness.
I guess matbe I'm just a nice guy after all......
but who really knows.........;-)
> 
> IGNORANCE disclaimer applies.
for me too....
				-Brontosaur is a little less ignorant now

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: hays@TECHNET.NM.ORG (Larry 'Purple' Hays)
Subject: Re: relationship gone to pot?
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 00:24:22 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Technet   Albuquerque, NM
Reply-To: hays@TECHNET.NM.ORG

In article <1992Oct1.073826.3819@netcom.com>, shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller) writes:
>What a difficult situation, Aileen.  I've seen someone actually win a
>spouse away from an addition, but it took years and it was no joke.

Well, I tried to win a lover away from addition and it DIDN'T take.  Didn't
work at all, and it was also no joke.  The basic bottom line is that it's
all up to the individual, and if they're not ready, there's nothing anyone
can do, and eventually you have to bail out and save yourself.  It's very
hard to do, especially when you know the other person is headed to hell on an
express train, and you wonder if it'll kill them or not.

I remember just before the end, waiting up, wondering where she was and how
bad it was THIS time.  Was she 'just' adding small integers, or had she begun
to add real numbers, large negative and positive numbers, or even complex and
imaginary numbers?  And what was happening to her while she was in her
mathematic haze?  I told her over and over "Honey, look, you don't HAVE to add
- they have machines for that now.  It's not like you have to add and it gets
away from you - you can quit cold turkey.  I believe in you and you CAN do it."

But alas, she couldn't, because she didn't completely want to.  When I last
saw her, she was back with her old ways and was surviving by dealing in
inequalities.  Anyway, the relationship disintegrated.  What's the difference,
anyway?  We're all heading to our own personal limits, and even if we multiply
along the way, we are all going to vanish ultimately, anyway.  I guess the
human race is differentiating into two subsets, and one group seems to be
headed to ruin on a steep slope.  In Summation, it's all up to the other
person, who is dealing with their own set of variables, and sonner or later
you have to protect yourself.

>Good luck.

Yeah, good luck.  Watch out for those typos, too.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry 'Purple' Hays                                       hays@technet.nm.org

Teri - you make a great straight man, and I do love going off on tangents...

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: The Engaged Psychobitch from Hell Syndrome
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 10:47:32 GMT

In article <ewillims.717611115@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>In <Bv5FqL.8Iw@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> schock@flip.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Craig-Richard Schock) writes:
>
>>Wow!!  This is a good thread... I can't miss out on this one!
>
>>> >In article <ewillims.717330108@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma  
>>Williams) writes:
>>> >>I still maintain that "seriously committed" in my book can only mean
>>> >>an exclusively momogamous relationship!!
>>> >>Emma (still holding her position!)
>
>>I don't think anyone can say that monogamy is "right" or "wrong", in general.   
>>However, it may be right or wrong for a particular person.  Currently, I'm in  
>>a serious relationship and we're not monogamous.  This system works for us,  
>>but I would not for a minute assume that it would work for everybody.  Our  
>>relationships with other people do not focus on sex.  They are more geared  
>>towards friendship and the freedom to express the deepest inner-most part of  
>>your being to that person.  I can meet a woman and be free to show her my true  
>>inner-self, and not just the part reserved for "non-fiancee women".
>
>
>	Alright, maybe that works for you and if so, well who am I
>to gainsay it for you, but all I feel is that if I am "serious"
                                ^                 ^
>about a lover then I could not in all conscience have affairs
                    ^
>outside of that relationship because I would feel that I wasn't
                                      ^                 ^
>devoting all my love, attention and time to the person I made
              ^^                                        ^
>the commitment to in the first place.  I would feel that it wouldn't be 
                                        ^
>at all fair to them; if they are deserving of my deep love then they
                                               ^^
>deserve the best I can give them.  I couldn't give them the best of
                  ^                 ^
>myself if I was having to divide myself between others too.
 ^^^^^^    ^                      ^^^^^^

As I said in another posting, you are the world's foremost expert on your
own preferences (at least the ones you're aware of).

>Are Trygve and I the only ones who are firmly of that opinion 
>regarding our own relationships?

Probably not.  However, opinions are cheap.  Between 5% and 30% of
British and American babies are adulterously conceived, so the incidence
of EMS, despite what anyone may opine, is higher.  Would you argue that
none of these folks can possibly be "seriously committed" to their marital
partner?

-- Herb Huston
From: jws@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (John Schmidt)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:57:42 GMT
Subject: Re: relationship gone to pot?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: soc.singles

In soc.singles, shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller) writes:
> 
> My suggestion would be to try to find a way to weed out people who are
> addicted to something.  I don't have a concrete way to describe how to
> do that.  I think that you will be much happier, though, if your
> relationships work or fail on their own merits, and not due to some
> outside influence more powerful than your partner.
> 

Teri's advice is excellent. It's best to avoid relationships with people
who have addictive personalities. Unfortunately, it may take some time for
you to realize that the person you have fallen for is addicted to alcohol,
drugs, or some other self-destructive habit. If you have tendencies toward
being a "rescuer", ending such a relationship will be painful, but probably
better for you in the long run. Addictions can be cured, or at least held
in check, but whether you want to involve yourself in the process (making
the assumption that you are not already married/committed) is an extremely
difficult decision. Good luck.

John Schmidt
jws@fc.hp.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: hymowitz@whatever.cs.jhu.edu (Hymie!)
Subject: Re: BARBIE DOES IT AGAIN!!!!
Organization: Creative Sensualities dept, Jacquie's House of Underwear
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:48:38 GMT

and lo, there was much rejoicing among the people, as
shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller) writes:
>You know, Supergoof, I have seen you post some really inane stuff, but
>I think this takes the cake.  Do you think these up all by yourself?

of course not.  ther's a major dirstributor of bad jokes and puns,
inane comments, pointless and possibly-true 'facts' and general weird
stuff.  most of us here are lifetime subscribers.

and a select few are contributors.

--hymie
hymowitz@cs.jhu.edu                                         hymie@jhuvms.bitnet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am the village idiot.  I don't have anything to do with this pathetic
little opera.  I just felt like passing through!                --P. D. Q. Bach
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: knute@waffle.sns.com (Thomas Knutson)
Subject: Understanding
Organization: Systems'n'Software, Fremont, CA  94539-6669
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 15:50:44 PDT

I understand how woeman tick...
For example the other day I overheard this:
He said: Honey I am really in the mood for sex.
She said: That is all you MEN think about is sex...
......... you don't care what we think !!
MORAL:  Get to know what is on her mind, before you state what is on your 
mind.

I've tried it and it works, it also clears up a LOT of confusion !!

----
knute@waffle.sns.com  (Thomas Knutson)
Systems'n'Software Free Public Access BBS --- (510)623-8652
From: infante@acpub.duke.edu (Andrew  Infante)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: relationship gone to pot?
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:30:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.5814
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Oct2.044243.255@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA writes:
>In article 22235@asuvax.eas.asu.edu, ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra) writes:
> What about cocaine? Not physically addictive, but there are incredible
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

uh, yeah it is.

just look at someone in withdrawel...not a pretty sight...certainly not
just mental/psychological.


>Andy.
>
>PLEASE EXCUSE MY OBVIOUS IGNORANCE.


andy, too.

later.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: Humans as Physical Creatures.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:32:14 GMT

In article <x+-pn_b@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>
>Excuse me? What did humans evolve from, Newts?
>Your blatent ignorance in simple biology negates any claim you might have
>made concerning the biological functions/activities of animals, humans
>included.
>You tell me your source for such statements, and I might take you seriously
>once again. If your source is the judeo-christian bible, I'll point out now

 I was gonna post a story about napping and waking up to answer the
door to discover Edward soliciting for jehova - but I lost interest.
 
It's an amazing case. Could keep the doctors busy for years.
They'd all hafta receive depression/suicide counseling on ongoing basis.
 
================================================================================
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles