From: afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison)
Subject: Re: net.hugs?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Ancient Souls Inc.
Date: 23 Nov 1992 15:43 EST  

In article <lgqh1lINNil7@news.bbn.com>, dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes...
>In article <64z158_@rpi.edu>, petitc@nuge111.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit) writes:
> 
>>   Yes, there is a difference.  However, to some of us, when we get dumped by
>> someone we care for, it HURTS.  Apparently, this is not true for you---since
>> this is for romantics (people who care deeply for others), it really hurts to
>> get dumped---moreso than for non-romantics.
> 
>Sigh.  When I got dumped, it hurt a whole lot, and I was really scared because
>I hadn't dated since I was nineteen.  So I looked around the net looking
>for friends and I saw a group of people who were very funny and insightful
>and intelligent and I saw another group of people who whined a lot.  Now,
>the people who read ARC don't think they're whiney -- they think they're
>sensitive.  And we who read soc.singles don't think we're insensitive -- 
>we think we have at least half a brain each.  

Sounds about right since *this* is alt.romance, not ARC as you indicate 
above and I *don't* see any reference to ARC in the header ...

>So you get the kind of support
>you want and I got the kind of support I wanted.  There are two groups
>because there are two different types of people.  The problem, if there is  
>any, comes when someone crossposts.  It doesn't bother me personally
>because it's fun to see you folks get all hot and bothered about the
>silliest things.
> 

Almost as much fun as watching the `lonely brigade' in s.s look for groups 
they can feel superior to. Note, this is not a slam on your group... only 
on those who deflect their own needs by making the denigration of another 
group their `surrogate relationship'. 

>>   As for Reality, if it's what I see on TV, I can see why we have 
>>   such problems.
> 
>I can see why you might be having a problem.  TV is not reality.  Turn off
>Sesame Street and come back later.
> 

Yeah, after you have seen at least 50% of the Star Trek episodes. :-)

>>   No, but you ARE saying that other people mean very little to you, since you
>> can't be hurt by them.  Psychological invunerability is only possible if 
>> nobody means anything to you, which seems to be the case here, if you insist
>> that you can't get hurt.
> 
>Surely you must know that you're just being silly, don't you?  

Don't call me Shirley ! :-)

>Do you measure the quality of your relationships by how badly they hurt you?
> 

Often, it's the size of the hole one leaves in your life upon vacating that 
wakes you up to their importance to you. Valid point and not the *least* 
bit silly, Dawn. 

>>   Well, as I said before, there are SOME TIMES when we all need hugs.  And,
>> apparently, your dates/SO mean nothing to you, so you can't be hurt by them.
> 
>Why do you think of "dates/SO's" as a source of pain?  What's so romantic 
>about hurting?

A thing is granted *equal* power to lift you up *or* destroy you when it 
enters your life. If it doesn't hurt much when it leaves, it didn't *help* 
much while it was there. No great leap of logic in *that* assertion, is 
there ? You only have *one* door to your heart ... it can't be opened 
*fully* for pleasure and *partially* for pain. You either open it a crack, 
thus limiting *both* the cost and the reward, or you *fling* it open and 
risk all to *perhaps* gain all. 

Pain is *one* measure of love, albeit love lost. No one said it was the 
*only* measure. 

-- Stephen

	Growing up is easier than you think ... one day, you just wake
	up an adult ... and mourn your loss. 

Newsgroups: alt.romance