HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 16:20:29 GMT

nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>A normal couple in love doesn't always consist of a man holding an
>attractive woman in his arms.

Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>Attractive from the man's perspective or from a third person's?

nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>From anyone other that the couple in love's perspective.  Who
>else matters??

I would've thought that the couple's perspective was the only one
that matters.

							Ross Ridge

-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross						     db	 //
From: dennisp@kpc.com (Dennis Preston)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: FLAME ON, STAND BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Date: 15 Aug 92 21:01:13 GMT
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Inc, Santa Clara, CA

In article <92227.182423U15479@uicvm.uic.edu> <U15479@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>You take this group much too seriously to post an article such as yours.  Seems
>as though I struck a cord......
>CHRIS GRUMBOSKI                      GRUMBY STRIKES AGAIN!
>
>                "WELL..........WE'RE WAITING!!!"
>


u Gotta do better than that!
From: swann@acsu.buffalo.edu (Stephen Swann)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Various ramblings...
Date: 17 Aug 92 01:25:04 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Aug16.185828.14804@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
>That's why alcohol and sex don't mix!  :-)

I thought it was because alcohol was only a catalyst? 

-- 
Steve Swann                 |    Speak to me in many voices; make
swann@acsu.buffalo.edu      |      them all sound like one...  -BOC
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 02:02:41 GMT
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez

In article <1992Aug12.225544.29275@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>In article <71111@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>
>>I don't know about 'normally,' but in my experience, the person who makes a
>>move is the person whose turn it is.
>
>People don't "take turns" in real life.

Oh, yeah?!?!
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

"I 'got a life'.  Now what?"
Xref: sparky soc.singles:22850 soc.couples:3642 soc.men:15143 soc.women:15412 soc.motss:35629
From: rgaudre@triton.unm.edu (Ron Gaudreau)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.couples,soc.men,soc.women,soc.motss
Subject: Re: BOINK! BOINK! BALLOONBOINK IN ALBUQUERQUE!
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:00:44 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

The bet years I've spent at the balloon fiesta was crewing for my friends
from Denver. It si loads of fun and you usually end up with a balloon
flight and, if your a 'virgin', then you go through the initiation.

Loads of fun and you meet some special people. Wouldn't trade it
for anything in the world !!!!!

My 2 cents worth......

-- 
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Ron Gaudreau              | rgaudre@triton.unm.edu  
    University of New Mexico      | 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: She's Ba-a-ack!!
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 20:00:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.035459.5668@cbnews.cb.att.com>
eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans) writes:

>To all you boneheads who missed my party at the Boink with NO Name,
>PLBHBHBHBH!! (with lots of extra spit).  To all those lovely people
>who did show, hehehehehe, let's not tell them the good stuff, ok?

You mean all that neat stuff Allisson told me wasn't even the good
stuff ?!?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com

No way I'm missing the next one!
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jot@teak09.cray.com (Otto Tennant)
Subject: Re: 'E' Tickets
In-reply-to: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu's message of Fri, 21 Aug 1992 07:36:35 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
	<66#nd7c.barry@netcom.com> <a7#n9hf.greg@netcom.com>
	<kiran.714382595@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: 21 Aug 92 08:55:01 CDT

I *think* I have one in a box of unusual souvenirs I keep.  If I
remember aright, it says something like "No Expiration Date."
--
===============================================================================
J.Otto Tennant      Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit.         jot@cray.com
Cray Research, Inc.              Virgil                          (612) 683-5872
665 Lone Oak Drive                                                
Eagan, MN 55121
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Hunk)
Subject: Re: A (new?) twist on LJBF
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:12:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.023732.1524756@zeus.calpoly.edu> jemenake@zeus.calpoly.edu (Joe Emenaker) writes:
>I was trying to convey to my sister the horror that LJBF strikes in the
>hearts of males one day.

This really is true.  The mere mention of LJBF brings back memories of the
Vietnam War, draft dodging, precedents set by excessive governmental spending
and JFK assassination coverups.

My response is an immediate, BCNU.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: zhu@athena.mit.edu (Erin Zhu)
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 04:18:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.021739.674@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul
Wallich) writes:

>In article <1992Aug20.183428.135449@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>
jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOSEPH ALOYSIUS MCVEIGH) writes:

>>stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:

>>>Since it seems that USENET is an environment where some of the women prefer
>>>intelligent men, perhaps we can conclude that a man's chances of meeting a
>>>woman by posting *intelligent* things to USENET are greater than 0%.

>>I guess this is still purely hypothetical, though.

>No, not really.

>Shall we have a show of hands? (yes, even the strange-looking ones)

Hand(s) here.  I personally know of at least two couples who met over
internet...

>paul        depending on your definition of intelligent

Well, yeah, of course.  Intelligence, like beauty, rather depends on the
beholder. (gosh that was deep)

  --Erin

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: The boink with no name
Keywords: scoop, poop, low down, juice
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:31:28 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine

In article <56@cnmhnet.UUCP> keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:

>	I know I'm not the only one who has heard about the supposed
>new law in New York that states that one can supposedly go topless.  
>Is this really true?

More precisely, the law forbidding women from going topless was struck
down.  In detail:  a bunch of women in Rochester (the Topfree Seven)
started going topless to protest the law, and eventually got the law
thrown out.

>Can one go topless anywhere at any time?

Any time a man can.

>Does this mean that I could walk down the street in Manhattan and see bare
>breasted women walking down the street?

Don't count on it.  Just because the law says they *can*, doesn't mean
they *will*.

		-ed falk, sun microsystems
		 sun!falk, falk@sun.com
	"Towards the end, the smell of their air began to change"
From: strake@coos.dartmouth.edu (strake)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Married Men and Single Women
Date: 15 Aug 92 21:52:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In  <1992Aug13.153832.28910@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  strake@coos.dartmouth.edu (strake) writes:
>> By the time I had finished
>> he had slid down the bed and was massaging my feet. He started suckling the
>> toes of my right foot, just the right amount of ticklish and stimulating, and
>>
>> { well this is going take too long, since there are so many details involved,
>>   but I think you get the picture. }

>No.  Finish the story, dammit!
>:-)

I'm sorry, but I can't.  I'm not a woman. I can't talk about those things.
certainly not in front of the whole net.

besides, I was winging it and had no clue where it was going and had just run
out of a train of thought.  ( actually, he had started daydreaming and was
imagining all this, and finding that he couldn't type anymore ran off to the
bathroom -- he was at work -- and did some serious daydreaming. when he
returned, he decided that it wasn't worth finishing now, so he closed it up and
posted. -- strake's invisible observer. )

Of course i would think it certainly has potential for a story. perhaps I'll
mull over it for a bit.  I don't think I could do it justice tho. female
perspective and all that.


--
                    . . . . .                      strake@dartmouth.edu
         .     :    .       .    :     .
   :     :    .  :             :  .    :     :      it seemed a good
   :          :                   :          :      idea at the time
From: kgorman@star-trek.bbn.com (Karen Gorman)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:06:24 GMT
Reply-To: kgorman@BBN.COM (Karen Gorman)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: archive.bbn.com

In article <1992Aug20.185652.5721@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>In article <LyBsPB3w165w@wildrose.infoserv.com> rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com (Ray Fink) writes:
>>
>>Seriously, I'm glad to see some women achieving economic power, and the
>>financial status where they now face some of the same commitment risks 
>>that men traditionally have had to face. 
>
>Really.  Up until they let us females out from under our typewriters
>and sewing machines, getting married was totally risk-free for us.  We had
>everything to gain!  Especially those women in cushy Catholic-family

[a lot of ghastly detail deleted]


Be grateful for the women of the past who had the courage to get out of
a bad situation and live with that social stigma, because they helped
pave the way for the single mothers of today (regardless what Quayle says).

What I think the orginal poster was referring to was women who have a 
greater income than their ex-husbands.  Joan London comes to mind here, seems
she is paying her ex-hubby 18K/month and then some.  If the woman makes the
money in a marriage, it seems only fair she should be treated as the
"breadwinner" (male type) would be treated financially, in
a divorce settlement...IMHO.


Karen
kg@bbn.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius)
Subject: Re: Psychobabble
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 11:21:30 GMT
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez

In article <4009@moscom.UUCP> wjb@moscom.UUCP (Bill de Beaubien) writes:
>Aahzmandius (aahz@netcom.com) wrote:
>: The one I like is: Descartes said, "I think not," and promptly
>: disappeared.
>
>Tsk, (A implies B) doesn't imply that ((not A) implies (not B))...

<shrug>  Logic does not apply to humor.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

"I 'got a life'.  Now what?"
From: drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Oh, no! Statistics! Run!! :-)
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:43:03 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.

In article <71349@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>So which of you statistics-advocates have used statistics to get into what
>you considered a successful relationship? And in what way did you use
>statistics to accomplish this? Did anything other than statistics figure in?
>

This whole statistics arguement has gotten silly, however I would bet a
$100 bucks that Sally Husband Hunter would be more likey to be married within a
year if she moved to Alaska than if she moved to Wash DC and that is based
strictly on a statistical arguement.

Now if SHH is a dog but her sister Judy is real cute and SHH moves to
Alaska and Judy moves to Wash DC all bets are off. Who gets married first
depends on just how much of a dog ole SHH is, how desperate the men in
Alaska are, how cute Judy is relative to all the other women in DC and
probably a whole bunch of other contingencies I haven't thought of.

Get it?

Kevin can improve his chances of getting involved in a romantic
relationship by being around more women, and/or becoming more attractive,
these choices are not mutually exclusive.
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Various ramblings...
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:45:36 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <4a0msqg.catcher@netcom.com> catcher@netcom.com (Paul W. Francisco) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.203713.9545@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
|>The dancing itself was reasonably fun, at least until I found that I
|>couldn't improve anymore (I approached the limits of what my conscious
|>mind could deal with simultaneously).
|
|Ah, there's your problem, you were using your conscious mind!  

That about sums things up for Kevin.

Sometimes I think that Kevin just needs someone to take him to Nevada,
get him completely shitfaced,  and then take him a brothel and get him
laid.  Even after he wakes up with an incredible hangover and a tatoo
on his chest that says "Born to Raise Hell" I think he would benefit from
the experience.  Sometimes you just have to say what the fuck.

-- 
+============================================================================++
| John Fereira            "Is that all you ever think about?"                |
| johnf@auspex.com                                                           |
+============================================================================++
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:57:43 GMT

kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller) writes:
>>That's why I keep suggesting that people concentrate on becoming datable
> 
>So-- how does one become dateable?  
>What should Mr Brown change that would make him more dateable?

He should stop focusing so much on what's wrong with him. He shouldn't
tell people about all his flaws up front; that crap about first impressions
is sadly enough true. I'm not saying he should never tell them about the
flaws, but that he should give them a chance to see his positive aspects
and start to like him first.

	fred
-- 
Disclaimer: everything I write is my *personal* opinion and does not represent
or reflect the opinion of the company which employs me.
Xref: sparky soc.singles:22522 alt.flame:12065
From: neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.flame
Subject: Re: What's your KQ?
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:08:02 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland

In article <2a85b328.crud@crud.mn.org> trashman@crud.mn.org (Barry Schwartz) writes:
>In article <1992Aug6.132208.28116@cs.hw.ac.uk>
>        neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:
>
>]In article <2a7b8869.crud@crud.mn.org> trashman@crud.mn.org (Barry Schwartz) writes:
>]>In any case, knowing who 25% of the people were is not bad for your
>]>average geek who is not exposed to the Big Three, and so Master
>]>Postlethwaite ought to be proud.
>]
>]'Exposed to the Big Three'. What, pray tell, do you mean by the 'Big Three'.
>]Was it todays number on Sesame Street ??
>
>I mean NBC, ABC, and CBS.  Sesame Street is produced by CTS for PBS,
>and therefore is not what I'm talking about.
>

Last time I checked, CBS, NBC or ABC weren't available in the UK.

We get a UK version of Fox with Rupert Murdoch's Sky TV (probably shows the
same shit as Fox in the US !!). Also on the same satellite is MTV (Europe)
and CNN (Europe).

Neil

P.S. Sort of confirms the 'The net really does go out of North America,
     I DIDN'T know' line eh ??!!
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: craig@kralizec.zeta.org.au (Craig Dewick)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Date: 15 Aug 92 08:19:08 GMT
Organization: Kralizec Dialup Unix Sydney: +61-2-837-1183 V.32


Hi Dawn.
 
Your discussion is very interesting reading, so I thought I'd relate to you
something similar that concerns me a great deal.
 
I'm almost 24 years old, and I keep seeing my friends getting into serious
relationships with the opposite sex but, possibly because of my upbringing and
my responses to the way I've seen other people react, I cannot muster up the
courage to approach women that I find attractive.
 
Please don't get me wrong here - I'm always admiring attractive women just like
most men do. I seem to have a sort of 'fear of the unknown' which I am not able
to conquer. All too often I feel as though I'd like to be holding an attractive
woman in my arms and doing all the 'normal' things a couple does when they are
in love, but this apparent 'fear' takes control and I lock up into a passive
state.

Now that I am beginning to see friends talk about marriage, etc. I am starting
to think if I am doing something seriously wrong, or have I just developed this
overbearing self-consciousness that prevents me being able to show my emotions
in the ways that I wish I could?
 
To put it simply, I feel as though I am being left behind in the social skills
department, and I can't seem to break down the barriers.
 
I suppose what I have described is what all people go through at some stage in
life, but for me it seems to be going on too long, and I don't know what to do
about it, or how to cope with the frustration that this situation creates.
 
Can you recommend anything that might help?

C ya later.... Craig.
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Psychobabble
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:49:59 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Aug17.183007.14168@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>In article <k#9m16p.aahz@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug14.075031.3442@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>[case of "Stepford wife" that passes all my tests of self-awareness and
>humannness and which I don't know is not human]
>
>>>In short, I can only go by what I see.
>>
>>Yes, but what if you *knew* that she wasn't human, yet you couldn't
>>*prove* it because she passed every test you could devise?  Wouldn't you
>>go crazy? ;-)
>
>Ah, but you see, I don't have that problem, because I don't *know* anything
>that I can't prove.  :-)

	Think again; can you prove you're self aware to someone else,
and not a Stepford Wife, yourself? Not just "have good evidence", or
"convince them", but _prove_ it?

	When you figure out it can't be done, you may also then
understand why "the ghost in the machine" is both an old and an
apropos name for self awareness.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius)
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 02:09:43 GMT
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez

In article <1992Aug16.212441.29735@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <thurlow.713977621@convex.convex.com>  thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
>>
>> In fact, if you can't get out of the habit of mainly posting huge
>> line-by-line rebuttals, you should save net bandwidth and use your
>> time to go out and try to find a life, because I promise you that
>> fewer people are going to trouble themselves offering you advice.
>
>Funny - I asked my girlfriend what Kevin should do, and she said,
>   Get off the fucking computer and go out and get a life!

1)  Larry, Larry, Larry, haven't you figured out by now that fucking his
computer is the last thing that Kevin wants?

2)  How is getting a life going to solve his problem?  (See below)
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

"I 'got a life'.  Now what?"
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 02:55:23 GMT

In article <kiran.714227528@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) claims:
>
>>I don't notice anything except through strictly conscious channels.
>>It has *always* been that way, from birth.
> 
>*chortle*  Balderdash.  Poppycock.  Fiddlesticks.
> 
>You notice lots of things thru non-conscious channels.  
> 
>Or perhaps you don't experience emotions?  

I experience emotions.  These emotions arise as a result of the things that
I consciously notice.

Simple, no?  :-)

My emotions aren't magic or anything.  They get the same inputs that my
conscious mind gets, and no more (that I've been able to detect.  I've
never *not* known why I was feeling an emotion).

Now, then...you were saying?  :-)

>Kiran Wagle                             <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
>P.O.Box 2083 Bloomington IN 47402-2083      (812) 336-7478 [8p-1a EST]


-- 
				Kevin Brown

			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com
From: dbj@cs.washington.edu (Dave Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Criteria for friends and lovers
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:49:49 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <71213@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>rudoff@mdd.comm.mot.com (Doug Rudoff) writes:
>
>>How do the criteria that women have for friends and lovers differ?
>
>They don't differ for me. What happens when I meet someone I like is that I
>get a crush. Sometimes I wind up with a friend and sometimes with a lover.
>Or sometimes they switch. Or sometimes they are in that in-between place. 
>Although I do have a "list" and can articulate what I like and don't like
>in people, usually all this is determined more by a seat-of-the-pants
>approach: what does it feel like to spend time with this person?

Now is that them feeling the seat-of-your-pants, or
you feeling the seat-of-their-pants?
-- 
  Dave Johnson

"You're not too smart, are you?  I like that in a man."
    --Kathleen Turner in Body Heat 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 17:54:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.155616.2553@cs.ucla.edu> gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.210021.20388@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>>Well, it says that my priorities are a little different than most--
>>namely that I valued my personal freedom enough to put in several
>>years of 14-hour days starting in my teens to create my current
>>situation [wealth].
>
>But you were also fortunate enough to have a market (or create one)
>for whatever you were doing to enable you to become wealthy.  In this
>lousy economy, there are people who work 14 hour days (even in their
>teens) to scrape up enough money to live on.  That makes you
>exceptional.

Actually, the market tumbled about the same time my first product went
to market, I worked for several years making far less than I could have
made at Burger King, and all but one of my competitors went under. 

Trygve 
Newsgroups: soc.singles