HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pally@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca (Pally Hoffstein)
Subject: Re: on the job
Organization: mikejag (mike) is a private system in Vancouver, BC, Canada
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 08:40:34 GMT
Keywords: pretty co-worker dammit!

In article <269@cnmhnet.UUCP> keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.015420.23999@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca> pally@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca (Pally Hoffstein) writes:
>>Hi everyone. I have a question.
>>Anyone out there have any thoughts or experiences relating to asking out
>>co-workers? Any advice would be appreciated.
>>Vancouver, Canada
>
>Hey Pally!  Since you are in Canada, I don't know what they
>feel about sexual harrassment up there, but in the USA, you 
>risk being charged with it if the girl reacts in a negative way.
>No, although even a year ago, it would have been OK to ask the
>girl out, since the Anita Hill controversy, and with public
>opinion seemingly believing any accusers of sexual harrasment
>whether proven or not, you would be better off just ignoring the
>girl, unless you see her in a public place.  Find out where
>she hangs out, and happen to run into her there.  Then I think
>you might be safe from any potential liability problems with
>sexual harrassment.
>--Keith

Good heavens! Has the world really become so paranoid? Asking someout is not
harassment. If I continue to ask her out after she states that she's not
interested then it becomes harassment.
I don't think it would be a problem, not in this society in whick I live. If
that's how it is in the USA that's one more reason I'm glad I don't live
there.
I work as a computer instructor and she works in the
English-as-a-second-language department. It's not like I'd be hitting on a
receptionist or someone new there. She's officially my senior, though in a
different department.

Casual flirtation is pretty common at the school where I work; I'm not
worried about harrassment accusations.

I'm more concerned about office gossip, office politics and over-exposure to
someone new in my life if something positive should happen.

Most e-mail I've recieved on the topic are along the lines of "GO FOR IT!" but
"GO SLOW!". I'll go for it but I'll use my head.

Hafta wait for January though.

Pally
Vancouver, Canada
-- 
Television permits many millions     |   I threw bitter tears at the ocean, 
of people to share a joke and to     |   But all that came back was the tide.
still be lonely. - T.S. Eliot        | 		- Sarah McLachlan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.men,soc.women
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: SF ISO S*M
Date: 28 Dec 92 02:20:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In article <75958@apple.apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>
>>paul  who is going home with the fatted goose and no one has
>>      offered to tie him up. Sigh
>
>But Paul, you never asked. Tied up with a fatted goose? Shouldn't this be
>in the Fetishes thread?

Me, durnit. I thought if I asked I was being too agressive and you or
Pooh wouldn't be interested. If there are still takers there's about a
pint of goose fat in the freezer (yum). Someone has, however, already
put in for the femur, just as soon as I find out what a femur is and
if a goose has one.

paul  who will say nothing about small monkey-like creatures in
From: jis@panix.com (Jack Szwergold)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: SF ISO S*M
Date: 3 Jan 93 05:25:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Panix, NYC

In <1993Jan3.044438.4666@panix.com> sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:

>Are you sure that wasn't a banana?

Summer Squash.....  A nice big hunk of Summer Squash......

Or a Pumpkin....


--
Jack
jis@panix.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: mel@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Meloney D Cregor)
Subject: criteria
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 19:50:12 GMT

In article <-dtr5sq@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>
>>Why is it any more of a close-minded criterium then any other criteria like
>>intelligence, humor, physical characteristc, geographic location, level
>>of education, lifestyle compatibility, sexual preference, etc?
>
>This argument, and others like it, smack close to hypocracy- 

Please be so kind as to point out where exactly this smacks of hypocracy?

I specifically, and quite intentionally did not state anything about MY
criteria or whether I had any at all,   Since this would make it 
impossible for me to clash my own beleifs in my argument, how then, 
could this be hypocritical?

>Anybody remember the close-minded criterium of Mr. Wright? Your
>arguments for religious restrictions in dating like that are identical
>to Ed's arguments for his criterium.

So?
Since I did not and have not entered into a discussion of the rightness
or wrongness of anyone holding criteria for dating or mate selection, I
hardly see where I could be called a hypocrite.
 
>Substitute that one lady's griping of dating material with 'educated' for
>'jewish' and 'surrounded by health-nuts' for 'surrounded by christians'
>and the two arguments would be identical.
>
>And the argument against that is the same-
>if you restrict yourself to a limited selection of dating material, then you
>have no right to bitch that there is a lack of dating material that meets
>your dating criterium.

Why not?

Just because I may limit my selection to men who absolutely adore me, who
have unusually high sexual drives, a sense of humor to entertain me
endlessly, an intelligence to keep me alert and a physique that drives
me wild with lust, doesn't mean I can't bemoan the lack thereof.

And do.  bitch, bitch, bitch....


--
      I'm in a phone booth at the corner of Walk and Don't Walk.
                                    -- Unknown
From: mine@iowegia.uucp (shelley kitsis)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 12:09:50 CST
Distribution: world
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

masterov@cstr.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael Masterov) writes:

> [Most of Midwestern Jewish Lament deleted]
> >...raised and still observe in the conservative branch 
> >of Judaism. There just aren't any Jewish eligible men here in 
> >D.M., or close by! I'm about ready to give up! Any suggestions from
> >anyone out there??!!
> [More deleted]
> >                            Shelley
> >
> >	Well, call me crazy Shelley, but did you ever consider dating someone
> >	who, (GASP), wasn't Jewish?
> >
> >	If you haven't, grow up and start living in the twentith century, 
> >	before it becomes the twenty first!
> >
> >	If you have and still insist on your archaic basis for mating, try
> >	Isreal. [sic]
> >
> >						Tim the Lemur
> 
> Tim, stuff it.  Didn't you read what she wrote?  Her religion forbids it.
> You can call religion an archaic basis for mating, but the majority of
> the world happens not to agree with you.  
> 
Michael,
Thank You! Kevin obviously isn't Jewish, otherwise I know that he would
not have written what he did! With the world , as crazy as it is today,
I, personally feel that it _may_ be a little bit easier to live in and 
raise a family (one that will last, that is) if the couple
has a solid foundation, and have similar beliefs when it comes to religion.
I've seen it happen one too many times, with an interfaith marriage, where
the innocent children are the ones that end up getting the brunt 
of it (that is, interfaith marriages that don't work out, and they 
end up getting bounced back and forth like ping pong balls!)
Shelley
From: pooh@Apple.COM (Pooh)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: SF ISO S*M
Date: 22 Dec 92 12:53:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Internet Refugee Camp

In the referenced article, keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:
>Yes Wong, I agree with you whoeheartedly.  If you
>get a woman in her 30's who has been living on her own
>for a while, and who is independent, then you might
>as well forget her.  She is used to doing what she wants
>when she wants, and she won't be interested in a man tying
>her down. 

So, like, Keith, what's the alternative?  Are you looking
for a woman who lets you tell her what to do and when to
do it, and wants to let you direct all her activities for
the rest of her life?

There was an article in the International Herald Tribune
recently (which originated in the New York Times, I think)
about how increasing numbers of divorced women don't want
to remarry, because they feel the single life is much
better than the married life they left.  They appreciate
finally having the freedom to do what they want, and have
plenty of friends to make up for not having a live-in
relationship, whereas divorced men pine for the days when
their wives would run their household for them and do
their laundry.

If a man doesn't want to give up his independence, he's
just "being a man," whereas if a woman does it, she's
seen as selfish.  Well, if marriage means by definition
that I have to give up my mind and my will, then count
me out!

Pooh
	pooh@apple.com
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: SF ISO S*M
Date: 26 Dec 92 18:56:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:

>paul  who is going home with the fatted goose and no one has
>      offered to tie him up. Sigh

But Paul, you never asked. Tied up with a fatted goose? Shouldn't this be
in the Fetishes thread?
-- 
Stef                Just as there are laws of Conservation of Matter and
stef@apple.com      Energy, so there are in fact Laws of Conservation of 
                    Pain and Joy. Neither can ever be created or destroyed.
                         But one can be converted into the other. 
                                                         --Spider Robinson
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Females have it easy!
Date: 29 Dec 1992 01:26:49 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <JMD.92Dec28111514@lion.bear.com> jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond) writes:
>Right.  Christy Brinkley looks like a piece of plastic.  So perfect as
>to be boring.  Same holds for Cindy Crawford.

Cindy Crawford looks like Brooke Shields, who in turn looks like Mike
Dukakis.
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: How Strong Should a Man Be?
Date: 1 Jan 93 20:52:26 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

aep@world.std.com (Andrew E Page) writes:

>Strong enough to keep two hearts from breaking.

Strong enough to tie me at arm-wrestling.

--
Stef           I have a discussion topic I'd like to throw on the floor.
stef@apple.com                           --Mixed idiom hall of fame
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:53:57 EST
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Women: would you go out with a man dum
 <1992Dec17.201312.2999@exu.ericsson.se>
 <92353.015428SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <1992Dec21.210128.28201@cbnews.cb.att.com>

In article <1992Dec21.210128.28201@cbnews.cb.att.com>, eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com
(Piglet) says:
>In article <92353.015428SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon
><SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>In article <1992Dec17.201312.2999@exu.ericsson.se>, exudtn@exu.ericsson.se
>>(Derek Nelson) says:
>>>>>In article <1992Dec16.172504.29957@cbnews.cb.att.com>
>>>eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans) writes:
>>>>>   I have to.
>>>>In article 92Dec16200914@hatteras.cs.unc.edu, martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu
>>>(Charles R. Martin) >writes:
>>>>No you don't.
>>>Yes, she does if and only if, she is smarter than every man on the planet.
>h
>>>Whic
>>>may or may not be the case depending on your point of view. :-)
>>>Derek
>>
>>If Piglet is up in the cerebral wattage zone where it gets damned
>>hard to quantify, she may be making an assertion about her ability
>>to get along with male type people of the same general wattage.  Or,
>>to be sure, their ability to cope with her.
>>
>>It doesn't neccesarily mean she thinks she's got a brain the size of a
>>planet.
>
>And you want me to open the door?!?
>
>Piglet, contemplating the quantification of her cerebral wattage zone....

So I was being an odd kind of snide... The 'A-ha! there is a poor, hapless,
and easily misinterperable humourous comment I can brutally misinterpret,
started repeated flamefests, angst, and a sudden upswing in my self
esteem' sort of stuff starts to grate after awhile.

I would be theorizing in advance of the data to regard you as
adorable, anyway, and possibly taking grave health risks in the
process...

Pains down your left side, though - those I might be able to help with.

Graydon
From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Females have it easy!
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:51:23 GMT
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: tps@jptcs.COM's message of 28 Dec 92 20:09:10 GMT


In article <135@jptcs.COM> tps@jptcs.COM (Tim Sailer) writes:

   Mark (markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu) wrote:
   : I think it's time to let you in on a few secrets.  Men don't consider Christie
   : Brinkley attractive.  One, she's married (last I heard).  Two, she looks too
			   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   WHOAWHOAWHOAWHOAWHOA!!!!! She's not attractive to men because she's MARRIED???
   What kind of crap is that? Since when do women become unattractive as soon
   as they say 'I do'??

And also, "attractive" != "desired as a sexual partner"...

Spidey!!!

--
You don't hunt ducks with a turnip! 

 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                                          jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \                                              Do whatever it takes.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Giving up good girls, looking for "bad" ones
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 23:08:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.212906.15685@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.193401.1838@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.163243.8420@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>>>
>>>	Is a woman _really_ gonna' run from a man whom she sees as
>>>	having SO potential?  (this is assuming no troublesome
>>>	entanglements on the part of either party :-))
>>
>>Sure, happens all the time.  Indeed, it's a fairly common reaction, both
>>among men and women who don't want a serious relationship and flee from
>>anything that threatens to become one and men and women who find SO
>>potential to be frightening, uncomfortable, unattractive, and/or boring.

>Okay Trygve,
>Maybe I should have used the disclaimer:
>
>	Assuming that both parties _want_ a serious relationship.
>
>Geesh!

Wouldn't have mattered--after all, the second half of my answer was 
about people who _want_ a serious relationship but are repulsed by
the characteristics and situations that would add up to such a 
possibility.  A few days ago I even posted a message about friends
of mine who currently or in the past have wanted a serious relationship
but would only consider those who were unable or unwilling to participate
in such a relationship with them--and when these people who did want
serious relationships were faced with people appropriate for this
purpose, they did flee.

Trygve
--
"Will you love me always?
 Certainly--which way would you like to try first?"
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Subject: Re: Giving up good girls, looking for "bad" ones
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:29:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.193401.1838@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.163243.8420@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>>
>>	Is a woman _really_ gonna' run from a man whom she sees as
>>	having SO potential?  (this is assuming no troublesome
>>	entanglements on the part of either party :-))
>
>Sure, happens all the time.  Indeed, it's a fairly common reaction, both
>among men and women who don't want a serious relationship and flee from
>anything that threatens to become one and men and women who find SO
>potential to be frightening, uncomfortable, unattractive, and/or boring.
>
>Trygve
>--
Okay Trygve,
Maybe I should have used the disclaimer:

	Assuming that both parties _want_ a serious relationship.

Geesh!

Keith R
>_Pilgrim's Progress_  (horror)  Pursued by demons and temptation, young
>Pilgrim must make his way to goodness and virtue.  Directed by Clive Barker.


Xref: sparky soc.singles:34776 soc.men:21802 soc.women:21910 alt.flame:17420
From: kev@dsbc.icl.co.uk (Kevin Walsh)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.men,soc.women,alt.flame
Subject: Leave me out
Date: 24 Dec 92 11:11:41 GMT
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: Cursor Software Limited, London, England

In article <1992Dec21.223408.1@fnala.fnal.gov> dallagata@fnala.fnal.gov (Michele Dall'Agata) writes:
> In article <1992Dec21.235942.13722@cfctech.cfc.com>, kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> 
> > That may be their _intent_, but I suspect that the current laws are 
> > encouraging the production of illegitimate children
> > 		  ^^^^^^^^^^
> *PRODUCTION* of children?!?!? Such a lovable word! Have you been producted, 
> kevin? No wonder that you have the same name of Kevin Walsh...
> 
Leave it out!  I don't want to get draged into this bullshit thread.
At least you managed to use a capital "K" at the start of my name.

Good lord, being compared to that Darcy character, the shame of it.

-- 
   _/   _/  _/_/_/_/  _/    _/  _/_/_/  _/    _/
  _/_/_/   _/_/      _/    _/    _/    _/_/  _/     Professor Kevin Walsh
 _/ _/    _/          _/ _/     _/    _/  _/_/      kevin@cursor.demon.co.uk
_/   _/  _/_/_/_/      _/    _/_/_/  _/    _/       kev@dsbc.icl.co.uk
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ron@turing.toronto.edu (Ron Wessels)
Subject: Re: Looking for that special woman.
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Date: 24 Dec 92 02:59:23 GMT

jps8@po.CWRU.Edu (James P. Schwonek) writes:
>Hello:
>My name is Jim.

Dammit, Jim, I canna take it no more!

-- 
Ron Wessels		University of Toronto		ron@turing.toronto.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (Piglet)
Subject: Re: SF ISO S*M
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:39:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.065802.17473@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.221422.194@cbnews.cb.att.com> eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (Piglet) writes:
>>
>>No, no, no.  _Everyone_ knows you can't have a clue and a life at the
>>same time.  Where's Aahz when we need him?
>
>Excuse me?  I don't *think* I look like Laura.....

Urk!  <seize, twitch, spin round 5 1/2 times> *sklorch* <machine-grinding
noises> *wheeze* *totter* *CRASH*

Ooo, my left side.  All those diodes!  I feel pain, and anger.  Anger!
And pain...

Um, so, Aahz, what's the correct quote and/or source?


Piglet, blushing _even_ pinker....  (Laura Creighton?  and is it in
your .sig file?  so I won't be even more embarrassed than I already am?)
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Women, Cats, & Chocolate
Date: 23 Dec 92 06:46:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:

>aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:

>>Look, you dumb broad, this is soc.singles, the biggest flamefest outside
>>of r.a.s not devoted strictly to flaming.  If you don't want to get with
>>the program, then stay the fuck out of here.

>I'm really startin to like Aahz since he's come out of his shell.

Let a guy borrow your Uzi for five minutes, and look what happens...
-- 
Stef                Just as there are laws of Conservation of Matter and
stef@apple.com      Energy, so there are in fact Laws of Conservation of 
                    Pain and Joy. Neither can ever be created or destroyed.
                         But one can be converted into the other. 
                                                         --Spider Robinson
From: keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: SWF 24 Looking for PenPals
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:30:24 GMT
Organization: California-Nevada Methodist Homes

In article <5120@equinox.unr.edu> eaken@unssun.nevada.edu (Marsha Eaken) writes:
>My name is Marsha. I am a single white female looking for single white
>males as penpals.  

Oh Marsha, where were you when I needed a young 24 year old
white female in Reno Nevada?  Good luck though in your search.
I don't think you will have any problems finding any penpals
although, I do think you will have a problem keeping all of them
straight as to identity!  Good Luck!
--Keith

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: daniel@clsi.COM (Daniel S. Barclay)
Subject: Re: on the job
Organization: CAD Language Systems Inc.
	<1992Dec22.084034.4639@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca>
Date: 22 Dec 92 12:14:42

From: pally@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca (Pally Hoffstein)
> > ...
> Good heavens! Has the world really become so paranoid? Asking someout is not
> harassment. If I continue to ask her out after she states that she's not
> interested then it becomes harassment.
> I don't think it would be a problem, not in this society in whick I live. If
> that's how it is in the USA that's one more reason I'm glad I don't live
> there.
> ...

IMNSHO, the problem here is that things are taken to hypersensitive and/or
stupid extremes.

Thomas may have harrassed or did harrass Hill, so now you have to worry about
the "PC police" getting you for harrassment for just asking someone out.  

I just got half-flamed (jokingly (I think), I should admit) for starting a 
mock business letter with "Dear Sirs:".  (See "Re: SF ISO S*M".)  

Outside the men's room here where I work there is a sign: "Nearest accessible
restroom is located on the third floor."  Gee, what's wrong wrong with this 
restroom?  It sure seems accessible to me.  Oh, they mean accessible to 
someone in a wheelchair.  Then why don't they say that, maybe with "wheel-
chair-accessible restroom" or "handicapped-accessible restroom"?  Either 
because the sign maker didn't realize how stupid the sign looks without the 
extra modifier, or more likely, because there's no acceptable synonym for 
"wheelchair-bound" or "handicapped" that won't offend people.  But if certain 
restrooms are designed (wider stalls, handrails) specifically to accommodate
wheelchairs, what the hell is so taboo about saying "wheelchair-accessible"?

EXCUSE ME, I RANT.  I have seen much more eloquent pleas for reasonableness 
than mine.  I wish had noted where so I could refer everyone to them.

Anyway, not that my posts will show it, but I'm usually pretty sensitive to
this kind of thing, but with all the hypersensitivity and stupidity I feel
pretty misogynistic and mis-whatever-else sometimes.  To re-misquote Rodney
King, can't we all just be reasonable?

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel S. Barclay                    --who's still searching for a good 
CAD Language Systems, Inc.           signature, not liking any of his recent
Suite 101, 5457 Twin Knolls Rd.      feeble attempts to improve on the whiny:
Columbia, MD  21045  USA             Why can't _I_ think of a good signature?

Newsgroups: soc.singles