HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bgpierce@magellan.uwaterloo.ca (B.G. Pierce)
Subject: Re: New Relationships...
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:41:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.030143.25182@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA writes:
>
>Now you are being a bit too much of a zealous NiceGuy[TM].
>I've said it before, but it appears that I have to say it again:
>
>STOP LOOKING!!!!
>
>Stop being so NauseatinglyNice[TM].
>Expect nothing. 
>Be genuine.
>Be yourself.
>Don't ask women out.
>Masturbate frequently.
...
>
>Remember: La Donna E Mobile!!!!
>
>dreas              Language is a virus from outer space.      -Laurie Anderson 

  A while ago I was reading Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching.  Your statement
sounds like so much Taoism to me.  Do nothing.  Expect nothing.  Take
pride in nothing.  (Of course the bit about masturbating seems contrary
to the stance of "need nothing" :)

  Heterosexual males feel a *need*, or better yet a compulsion to be
close to women.  I'm single, but some good friends of mine are in pretty
serious relationships right now, and joy/pleasure/gratification(tm)
aside, their S.O.'s are ruining their lives.  So I guess I agree with
you, but I don't see the alternative.

  Taoists say "Wipe clean the dark mirror of the mind" ie. transcend
earthly needs through Tao.  I never could do that.  Guess I'll just have
to take my chances at a broken heart, or at getting completely sucked
out of the normal world by an all encompassing relationship (of course,
I don't see meditating yourself into a coma as an alternative).

  Social politics have an unusual tendency to arrange any situation so
that you either can't be happy, or at least can't be happy without
guilt (unless of course you are strong enough to do without society
altogether).  It makes me tired the way anyone that's happy is subjected
to external pressures that always tend to destroy that happiness (sort
of like entropy of human relations?)  There are some *nice* people out
there who support others and have a "more power to you" attitude; I
think there aren't enough of them.  I want more *nice*(tm) people, not
fewer.  Maybe they're more brave than me?

    Looks like I've set myself up for a quick-fry-your-ass-flame-storm(tm)
again!  Shit!   Well...maybe the news poster will eat this letter?!?

                                                     b
From: diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Kissing Frogs
Date: 14 Dec 92 04:10:54 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <Bz7zns.12x@CAM.ORG> souchay@CAM.ORG (Francois Souchay) writes:
>In article <7913@news.duke.edu> diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) writes:
>Well. From over here the comment followed another similar potshot,
>and it looked like the sort of gratuitous male-bashing that tries to
>pass off as genuine feminism. May I ask what the reaction would be if
>I followed up a post that stated: "Women are walletsuckers or ballbusters"
>with the statement "All women are either coldfish heartbreakers or
>out of control neurotics" ? I'd be flamed, and quite rightly so.
>Granted, my example is exaggerated, but only to make the point that 
>respect knows no gender. If you want men to be sensitized to the 
>implicatons of what we say, please apply the same courtesy in your 
>statements. I for one refuse to apologize for my Y chromosome any more.

Sigh.  I suppose I should take this as just an example of Murphy's Law
of the Net: *anything* will push *somebody's* hot button.  I didn't state that
men are clueless or assholes, I quoted a MALE friend saying it!  Does this put
it outside the realm of gratuitous feminist male-bashing?

Anyway, look, I'm sorry this offended you, and I don't want to let this 
degenerate the way the use-my-REAL-nickname-damnit argument did, to the
point where I found myself defending a position far more extreme than
that which I had intended.  I don't want you to apologize for your
Y chromosome, I didn't intend this as a feminist remark of any sort,
and I don't really believe that all men are clueless or assholes, although
I *do* think that the remark does capture a certain truth about 
relationships: that it's hard to know how fast to go, and whatever choice
you pick may backfire.  Graydon's right, though; the third alternative
isn't really mindreading, it's taking little steps with sensitivity to
feedback.

			--Diamond
 

diamond@acpub.duke.edu| We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn
Elizabeth S. Abrams   | them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress 
		      | but the memory of the smell of smoke, and the  
                      | presumption that once our eyes watered. -Tom Stoppard
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Women, Cats, & Chocolate
Date: 20 Dec 92 18:54:19 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 <19DEC199217020049@acad3.alaska.edu> ftlao@acad3.alaska.edu (OSSANDER LINDA A) writes:

>In article <thurlow.724803305@convex.convex.com>, thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes...

>>By all means don't let the door hit you on the ass as you leave.

>Hi I am new to this group. ;-)  Just wanted to say: "Rob" You are the kind of
>man I stay away from.  Grin..I was married to one that sounds like you for
>nearly 20 years.  I would prefur to be alone.  Have a nice day!

I will not post a spelling flame today.
I will not post a spelling flame today.
I will not post a spelling flame today.
...

So "Linda", you posted it as well as mailing it.  How quaint.  Just
to make the story complete, here's my response again:

The reason I invited the woman to leave in the manner I did was that I
do not like a newcomer to soc.singles to post about how poor the group
is.  I enjoy it, and have put in the time to get to know the people and
the rules, and I think if someone does not like it, they should simply
go away and not make a rude comment.

Relating this to your mail, you haven't put the time into the group or
into talking to me to know who I am at all, not my good points, bad points
or why I might make such a comment.  I do not mind someone thinking I'm
a jerk, because in some cases I am, but I do like people to try to make
sure they're correct.  I have earned many good friends on the net because
of who I am and the way I post; I am inclined to trust that over your
opinion.

As a final comment, if you wish to dislike and insult me, I'd very much
prefer you to simply do so without bothering with the smiley face, the
grin and the "Have a nice day!" admonition.  That seems quite insincere.

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com
"Sometimes it feels like the sun just comes up out of habit,
 And goes down as quick as it can,
 These days, you just have to grab it as it goes by."
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp)
Subject: Re: Over 40 and single....Anyone that "OLD"?
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:32:30 GMT

Louise Billi (aa752@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:

: Over 40 (just a tad) women have a terrible time of it.
: Men in that age group are all looking for the young "Tenderoni"
: to make him feel like a kid again.  Can't men realize that 
: most younger women see them as either a "Father Figure" or
: a "Sugar Daddy"?  Is that what they really want in a mate?

Nonsense.  The most fun date I ever had was 16 years my senior (I'm 35).
We dated for almost a year - we had so much in common it wasn't even funny.

I have found personally that most women under 30 are too interested into
partying, "being seen", and spending $$$ to be of much interest to me.
There *have* been notable exceptions, but for the most part, that's what I've
seen.
-- 
Ed Carp			erc@apple.com, erc@saturn.upl.com	801/538-0177

Who and what would you be if you went beyond your deepest fears?
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men,misc.legal
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Woman's *Consent* Necessary for Male Choice?!  NOT!
X-To: LARRY MARGOLIS
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:56:00 GMT

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes...
LM> In <1fc0j9INNq1t@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
LM> tes:
LM> >Resolving the dispute between father and mother
LM> >can then proceed in due course.  This is obviously much
LM> >fairer than relying on the taxpayer (i.e. me) to support the child
LM> >in the interim.

LM> Fairer to the taxpayer, but grossly unfair to the father.  Attaching the
LM> income and assets of the party that agreed to provide for the child is
LM> equally fair to the taxpayer, and much fairer to the one who indicated in
LM> advance (with the woman's agreement) that no support would be forthcoming.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I agreed with just about everything that you said in your messagem except for
this particular point.  It seems as though you believe that a man should only
be divested of parental rights and responsibilities during pregnancy, if the
woman *agrees* to it.  Why?  Is notification of intention not sufficient?

BTW, notice that I *do* support notification *also* in cases of Male Choice,
since I feel that it would hardly be fair for the woman to continue along
in her pregnancy, only to find out much later that the man had been unwilling
to involve himself with the child.  As I have always said - a choice which is
not fully informed, is not a real choice.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * It's over there, beyond the Roddenberry bush
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: The trouble with subtlety/vague/obtuse/lost, after all...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:20:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.011658.18330@amd.com> jmw@angelo.amd.com (John Wincn) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.190259.6733@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>If after reading this it still isn't clear to you, try dialing:  
>>> 	384-3333 
>>
>>What area code?
>
>(For you, and others who have asked)
>
>When properly arranged, the corresponding letters spell:
>
>			DUH-EEEE

How appropo.
 
================================================================================
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
                                 doh#0000000005
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Subject: Re: People who give too much in a relationship (was Re: Attraction...)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:41:19 GMT

In article <Bz432y.8tK@mail.boi.hp.com> morrison@boi.hp.com (Glen Morrison) writes:
>This definately fits my ex-SO. I went to school full time and she stayed
>home and helped her mom clean the house and waited for me to pick her up
>after class.  I tried serveral times to convince her to do something like
>get a part time job or take a class, but she got real pissed if I even 
>mentioned it.  She therefore wanted to be with me during all my spare time
>leaving me no time with my friends and study.  When we broke up, because I
>didn't spend enough time with her, she did get a job and loved it. By then
>it was too late.  How can you time share with friends and mate without being
>'whipped' and without hurting your SO?
>
>-gdm-

Hi Glen,
I had one like that too.  I had to leave her because:

	a) she wouldn't do anything to advance herself
	   (if she went to school, she would drop out because her knee hurt,
	    if she got a job, she would quit because her back hurt,
	    she claimed to be allergic to most everything on the planet,
	    she was _at least_ 60lbs overweight, 5'2" and 200+ lbs 
	    [which _had_ to be aggravating her knee/back problems if
	     they were, in fact, real] and yet, refused to train/diet
	     to get herself to a healthier weight)
	b) she would plan out _my_ free time for days in advance
	c) she had "one tantrum too many" in my apartment
	   (I mean the screaming, stomping, door-slamming,
		falling-down-on-the-floor type fits :-(  )

The bottom line Glen, in answer to your question, is that your SO has
to realize/accept that you have a life too.

Keith R
From: eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (Piglet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Date: 18 Dec 92 03:33:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: just me...

In article <1992Dec17.004855.27002@news.acns.nwu.edu> drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.212122.17026@cbnews.cb.att.com> eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (Piglet) writes:
>
>>
>>Even on a formal date, I will offer to split the check, but I won't be 
>>offended either way...  There are exceptions.  If I had a lousy time, 
>>and I NEVER want to see the other person again, I'll stick 'em with
>>the check (but only if they did the asking).  I've also grabbed for the 
>>check, when I had a really great time...  
>
>Heh! Funny, I do just the opposite. If I want to see them again, I feel
>comfortable letting them pay for the first date because I know that when I
>ask them for that second date I'll pick up the cost. Guys I don't
>necessarily want to see again are the ones I don't want to feel any
>obligation towards so the books are balanced immediately. 

Oh, but when I said "sticking them with the check", I meant it.
The check comes, it sits between our hands, and I just smile
across the table and ignore it, with an air of being able to
sit there all day, as if I have no idea why we're even sitting
here...  Really shakes them.  I've only done this to 2 guys,
and neither of them managed a way of getting out of it, even
though I could tell they _really_ wanted to.  They were dying
to ask me to split the check, but just couldn't figure out
how.

This is why I was so shocked that keith r liked my posting.
Hey, keith, did you miss this part the first time around?

In all fairness, these two really were _dates from hell_.
Details furnished on request...


Piglet
From: diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Size 8? (Re: What is NOT attractive to "SINGLE" men)
Date: 13 Dec 92 17:51:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <MARTINC.92Dec12215711@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

>So *that's* what's going on?  Gee what'd I do to make you want to
>torture me?

I have no idea, but I'm sure I can think of something.  Er.... neglected 
to invite me over to sit on your ribcage for a few hours?  (This is pretty
circular, I realize, but I'm in the middle of doing a neurobiology take-
home final and don't have CPU time to spare for logic.)

				--Diamond

diamond@acpub.duke.edu| We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn
Elizabeth S. Abrams   | them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress 
		      | but the memory of the smell of smoke, and the  
                      | presumption that once our eyes watered. -Tom Stoppard
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: liz@vfl.paramax.com (Liz Loquacious)
Subject: Re: PhillyBoink Report and Thanks
Followup-To: soc.singles
Keywords: PhillyBoink Liz Sheba Thrashing_Robots Lox
Organization: Paramax Systems
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:20:39 GMT

In article <liho1iINN94l@news.bbn.com>, pdsmith@bbn.com (Peter D. Smith) writes:
|> 
|> Kudos to Liz and Sheba for an amazingly enjoyable time.  It was a real treat

You're welcome, it was a treat to meet you too!

|> 					Peter D. Smith
|> 					or just "Peter"

Now you tell me....I thought I had to call you "Peter D. Smith" just to
make sure I didn't forget that "D" in your login!  Hope you enjoyed your
post-boink trip to Jersey.  Peter was the one who came to the boink and
didn't go home!  Glad you made it!  

Liz Loquacious

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: Alt.romance- the >nice< people
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:50:51 GMT

In article <JMD.92Dec11131701@lion.bear.com> jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond) writes:
>
>
>It was not my intention to imply that anyone should be allowed to tell
>anyone else who or what to find attractive.  Everyone has to live
>their own life, and come to their own decisions about to whom they are
>attracted.  Just don't come trying to _convince_ me that there is some
>fairer or god-blessed gender, race, creed, or hair color.  I do not,
>and will not buy it.
>
 
Except blondes.
 
>
>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: krb@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Kevin Barnes)
Subject: Re: What would you do if...
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 03:15:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard NARC Atlanta
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1.3 PL5


Until you agree to Marry one of them, GO FOR THE GUSTO!. May the best man win


Have fun
Why worry?
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: What is gold-digging?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 22:26:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.164724.6585@gvl.unisys.com> liz@vfl.paramax.com (Liz Loquacious) writes:
>
>Hmmm, aren't there any other women out there that will open the car door
>for a guy?  I've done that and for other passengers of either gender when 
>it's my car.  It just seems like polite behaviour to me.  Perhaps it was a
>gender related behaviour only in the past but I think it's nice and I like
>doing it sometimes.

Well, I've certainly had the oor opened for me a time or six, though it's
usually been more in the atmosphere of silliness that slightly exaggerated
formality helps create.  As a rampant generalization, the women I've known
who would open car doors for me have tended to be the type that I would
not feel uncomfortable with driving them around in a shopping cart at high
speeds in a grocery store at 3:00 AM.

Trygve   (They did not, however, necessarilly all own cats.) 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Woman: will you go out with shorter man?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 06:18:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.013133.17687@netcom.com> cocoa@netcom.com writes:
>In article <75570@apple.apple.COM> pooh@Apple.COM (Pooh) writes:
>>In the referenced article, margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>
>>>I've found that in bed, height differences don't generally matter...
>>
>>I beg to differ!  In certain positions, differing thigh lengths
>>can make a frustrating difference ...
>
>Much to my occasional dismay, this also holds true for torso lenghts.
>Makes it harder to reach several things at the same time.  The answer?
>Yoga probably.

Actually, I've had a fair amount of success both with keeping the stomach
muscles strong and with making use of those cushions designed for sitting
up in bed and watching TV.  (Do be warned, though, that the latter are often
made of corduroy and have become quite infamous for people accidentally
falling asleep after sex and trying to use them as regular pillows--incidents
of this sort have been making headlines all over the country.)

Trygve   (Well, I don't watch TV a lot--I had to think of something to 
          do with them.)
From: skent@Beethoven.next.com (Steve Kent)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Woman: will you go out with shorter man?
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:55:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.025043.13325@netcom.com> marcia@netcom.com (Marcia)  
writes:
> In article <BywKu3.6Dw@DMI.USherb.CA> tourf00@DMI.USherb.CA (Francis  
Tourillon <Tourfman>) writes:
> >I would like to know for you, girls, will you go out with a smaller
> >man than you?
> 
> Well, I'm not a girl (I'm a bit old for that :-), but for awhile there I 
> dated a number of men who were all 5'5.5". (I'm 5'4.5", 5'5" on a good  
day.)
> After the first one, though, I gave up trying to be shorter than they  
were 
> at all times (do you know how hard it is to find flat formal shoes?),  
and
> decided that if they couldn't handle how tall I was in moderate heels,  
we
> didn't have much of a future together.
> -- 
Marcia,

5'4" is fairly normal.  Why should you worry about being taller.  If the  
guy is uncomfortable at 5'5" let him get lifts for his shoes.

Sheeeesh.

Steve
Xref: sparky soc.singles:34423 alt.abortion.inequity:6050
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Choice as a Reason for not having a relationship(was: Pre-Sex Contract)
Date: 20 Dec 1992 01:39:51 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1gpcbcINNbtg@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>If more people would communicate honestly these sorts of ideas before
>>(or instead of) sex, the world would be a much happier (although perhaps
>>hornier) place.

>So you approve of a verbal contract, but not a written one? Is that it?

I don't "approve" of either a verbal or a written contract.  Nor do I 
think either would be enforceable in the current legal environment.
(Consider the mess over surrogate motherhood!)

The point I was trying to make is that if people would talk more than 
perhaps we'd have fewer "accidents", and perhaps when "accidents" did
occur people wouldn't be quite so nasty.

===================================================================

This reminds me of an old Jewish joke:
A man comes consult with the rabbi about why he has too many children.
After he's spent considerable time telling the rabbi all his woes
("every year another child, every year another mouth to feed!"), he 
asks the rabbi what he can do to prevent continued misfortune.
"Why, that's easy," replies the wise rabbi. "All you need to do is
drink a glass of water."
The man, simply overjoyed that the solution is so simple, has but
one simple question, "Tell me, Rabbi, do I drink the water before
or after?"
The Rabbi's answer: "Instead!"

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (dreas)
Subject: Real News
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 19:46:39 GMT

Mr. Tickle Monster IS a net.personality [TM]

dreas

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: eleanor@ironman.att.com (Piglet)
Subject: Re: Thanks for 7 inches
Organization: The House, of course
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:26:26 GMT

In article <15928@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>In article <BzC13o.DIv@CAM.ORG> souchay@CAM.ORG (Francois Souchay) writes:
>|
>|The mountain doesn't care if you do the run, or avoid it entirely.
>
>Yes it does.  I skied everyday for three weeks with someone on a ski patrol


He didn't say the _ski patrol_ doesn't care, he said the _mountain_
doesn't care.  Geez, John, where's your glasses?  Or is it that you
just washed your brain, and you can't do a thing with it??


Piglet <we have met the stupid, and we are they....>
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.men,soc.women,ba.singles,misc.legal