HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Truth
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:24:01 GMT
	<1992Dec5.000321.11566@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Dec7.164334.25023@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> <42285@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>
	<92349.100505IDMLH@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: IDMLH@ASUACAD.BITNET's message of 14 Dec 92 17:05:05 GMT

In article <92349.100505IDMLH@ASUACAD.BITNET> IDMLH@ASUACAD.BITNET writes:


   Correct.  Mormons still practicing polygamy did flee into remote
   areas of Arizona and New Mexico.  The Mormon church was
   given an ultimatum back in the 1880's.  Either dispense with
   polygamy or be dissolved.

By whom?  I'd always heard it as "dispense with polygamy or no statehood
for youse."
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: bob@netcom.com (Bob Becker)
Subject: Re: Vasectomies (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:00:52 GMT

In article <255@cnmhnet.UUCP> keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:
>
>Oh Don, how could you or any man even consider getting a vasectomy?
>As a man, I feel that the spermal excrement is at the essence of
>my experience as a man.  Most of the women I used to date really
>enjoyed the excitement of seeing me spray my "love juices" over their
>you won't have to worry about pregnancy and enjoy the feelings
>of being a whole man.

Oh WOW!!!  "Spermal excrement"?????????  
Is it just me or is ba.singles going downhill rapidly.

Look, a vasectomy just stops the little guys with the big heads
and wiggly tails from getting into the fluid.  Your "spermal
excrement" doesn't change.  Your women can still enjoy being
sprayed by your "love juices".
Read a book!  
Learn something!
Get a life!


Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.romance,alt.sex,alt.polyamory,talk.religion.misc
From: nigel@kathunk.phaedrav.on.ca (Nigel M Burnett)
Subject: Re: Truth
Organization: as little as possible
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:18:19 GMT

Lothie (lothie@syrinx.umd.edu) wrote:

cool quote deleted 'cause you should have it memorized!
: 
: 				"Ode on a Grecian Urn"
A: "What's Grecian Urn?"
B: "About 6000 drachmas"
A: "For one urn?"

: **Lothie, going for the Romantic Definition

I've been called a mushy romantic and I've felt complimented.

A:  "What's a romantic?"
B:  "Like a Greek one, but they don't bite as hard"

: "Darling, it's better down where it's wetter, take it from me!"

oooohh!  I luv it!  Mermaids eh?  A tale of fish no doubt.

Nigel (in a rare fey mood) Burnett

-- 
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of
a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.  His own
good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.   John Stuart Mill

Nigel Burnett: 78 Normandy Blvd, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M4L 3K3, 416-690-1834
Send e-mail to nigel@kathunk.phaedrav.on.ca or try uunet.ca!kink!kathunk!nigel
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Monday, 14 Dec 1992 10:05:05 MST
From: <IDMLH@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Truth
 <1992Dec5.000321.11566@midway.uchicago.edu>
 <1992Dec7.164334.25023@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> <42285@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>

Correct.  Mormons still practicing polygamy did flee into remote
areas of Arizona and New Mexico.  The Mormon church was
given an ultimatum back in the 1880's.  Either dispense with
polygamy or be dissolved.  And they chose to dispense with polygamy.
Even in Arizona today, in a place called Colorado City on the border
between Arizona and Utha, polygamy is practiced openly.

BAM-BAM @ ASU
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Calendars
Date: 18 Dec 92 20:23:48 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1gt7jvINNb4g@hydra.Helsinki.FI> taina@cs.Helsinki.FI (Juha Taina) writes:

>>I look at a Chippendale's calendar, and those guys don't
>>turn me on, they look *weird*, like something from the Planet Steroid.

>Hmm, I wonder if women actually want to have the steroid-male
>calendars, or is it just that the male calendar publishers think that
>women want such calendars.

My guess is that gay men are the primary customers for such calendars.  I
don't know any women who truly like them (except as a joke gift), but I
know men who do.



-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.romance,alt.sex,alt.polyamory,talk.religion.misc
From: morton@rtpnet06.rtp.dg.com (John R. Morton)
Subject: Re: Truth
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 08:55:33 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation. RTP, NC.

[stuff about Truth, Facts, Beliefs deleted]

	Definition: Subject.    Assume, that any object that may exist, taken
									together with all possible concepts of, 
									perceptions of, and relations to the object,
									constitute a Subject;

	Definition: Reality.    Further assume, that the set of all subjects,
									taken together with all possible interactions
									between the members of that set constitute
									Reality.

	I claim, that no matter what, the TRUTH exists, whether comprehensible
	or not, by the observer, for any possible scenario. The TRUTH being,
	the pure Reality of any scenario, not in any way interpreted, biased,
	translated, or otherwise processed by any form of perception.

	I further claim, that the human act of assesing the facts pertaining to
	any given scenario, inherently involves interpretation, bias,
	translation and other processing.  

	Thus, any Beliefs we may have , allegedly derived from the facts, 
	are necessarily deviations from actual truth, consisting of
	descriptions of the actual truth, as presented to us by the
	culmination of our socialization.

	Having perfect knowledge of actual truth is not necessary for functioning
	in society. Usually , it is more functional to be within the mean,
	and there is sometimes dysfucntion in knowing too much.

	There is also , a paradox worth mentioning here. Assuming the truth
	of the previous suppositions, the greatest amount of truth can be
	realized by the individuals with the smallest symbol tables.
	These people would necessarily be the same ones with the smallest
	amount of exposure, or socialization. So, a quick poem might 
	read, " the more sophisticated we are, the more we fuck up
	our sensory input.... ",
	Or, the less we know about society, the greater our ability to
	comprehend that which is of no use to us !!!!

	Of course what we hope for , is a consensus of individuals,
	capable of rejecting their God given socialization, and
	ready to seek truth for truth's sake....

	JM


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Woman: will you go out with shorter man?
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 05:18:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <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.

"Several things"?  How many guys are you talking about?  Or is your guy rather
unusually equipped?  :-)
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky soc.singles:34465 soc.women:21722 soc.men:21532 ba.singles:2756
From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men,ba.singles
Subject: Re: Walk away, run away, was Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Date: 21 Dec 92 02:18:44 GMT
Organization: The Tickle Palace - Moonyvale, CA

In article <1992Dec15.130612.28668@netcom.com> oleg@netcom.com (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.065236.12705@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
>>I would have no qualms with turning my back on her and the child.  I do not
>>take too kindly to people who lie to me.  
>
>*Her* child?  If you have fathered it, it's your child as well.

     If she and I make an agreement in advance and she unilaterally
breaks the agreement by keeping the child, then she should live with 
the consequences of her decision and raise the child by herself without
my support.  If she and I agree to alter our agreement, so that I have
visitation rights and pay child support, after she becomes pregnant,
then I would pay child support.

>Your (potential) child did not lie to you.

     True, the (potential) child did not lie to me.

>It did not promise you anything or asked you to make its conception
>and birth possible.  Your parental
>responsibility does not magically disappear just because you, by the
>twist your perverted logic, have voided yourself of all parental
>instincts.
>

     See my first paragraph.  My parental responsibility does disapear
if the woman unilaterally breaks our agreement.  The legal system will
have a different opinion and will make me pay child support.  I will
pay child support if and only if the court decides that I am the parent
and gives me an order to pay.

-- 
"Blind faith in your leaders or anything will get you killed." B. Springsteen
                                         +---------------------------------+
  +-----------------------------------+ /  On Vacation:  12/21 to 12/27   /
 /   // Mr. Tickle Monster   // Amiga ++---------------------------------+
|  \X/   W. David Rohwer   \X/  3000  /  Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM  /
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: cfg@cray.com (Cindy Glass)
Subject: Re: Women: would you go out with a man dumber than you?
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 18 Dec 92 14:18:34 CST


Larry Kahn (lkahn@mitre.org) wrote:
 
>    In keeping with the spirit of a current thread, I'll pose this question 
> for (semi)serious responses.  When does an "intelligence" difference start 
> to matter?  This includes level of education difference as well as someone 
> who's book smart but has zero common sense.
>    And don't bother asking me if I mind going out with a woman who's 
> smarter than I am.  (Insert huge numbers of smileys here)  I never have.

Perhaps, this is because they *ARE* smarter than you are!  

  "(Insert huge numbers of smileys here)" !!!!!!

:-) (one more - just in case......)
From: quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Size 8? (Re: What is NOT attractive to "SINGLE" men)
Date: 16 Dec 92 12:44:37 NZST
Organization: Welligton City Council, Public Access.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

 keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:
> diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) writes:

>>Perhaps a woman could more effectively torture the two of you by
>>*refusing* to sit on your ribcages for a couple of hours?
>
> Oh C'mon Elizabeth Baby, you know you're big enough
> to handle the two of them at the same time!   8-)

   Or, you could always offer to do it, any time, no questions asked...
   As long as they mail the ribcage in question to you.

8-)
Tony Q.
Newsgroups: soc.singles,ba.singles
From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster)
Subject: Competing (Was:Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract ))
Organization: The Tickle Palace - Moonyvale, CA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 04:57:50 GMT


In article <thurlow.724799488@convex.convex.com> thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
>In <1992Dec18.085047.23945@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) sez to Desiree:
>
>> [deleted]
>
>Best news I've heard in some time!  I won't have to compete with you
>for the smart, eloquent women who aren't afraid to speak their minds.
>

     I am not into competing for women because it is a waste of time and
it objectifies women.

     I competed for a woman if 1989 and I won the battle but lost the
war.  She was a co-worker.  Another guy liked her and I competed
against him and won the battle.  However, I lost the war to her
Fundamentalist Christian beliefs and her Christian God.  After we
broke up, I felt a lot of pain and hurt for awhile.  That relationship
was a major cause of me rejecting Christianity.

     I like a woman to speak her mind as long as she is not condescending
and does not make ad hom attacks.

-- 
"Blind faith in your leaders or anything will get you killed." B. Springsteen
                                         +---------------------------------+
  +-----------------------------------+ /  On Vacation:  12/21 to 12/27   /
 /   // Mr. Tickle Monster   // Amiga ++---------------------------------+
|  \X/   W. David Rohwer   \X/  3000  /  Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM  /
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: never fight???
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:43:30 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Carl Kaufmann (carl@sscl.uwo.ca) wrote:
: In the one instance where my (ex)partner and I had a counsellor, we
: both came the the conclusion that he was full of shit.  The common
: viewpoint did wonders for the relationhip. :-)
:

  Yes, perhaps you should fight with your counsellor...

		Aaron		aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Giving and Receiving
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:20:34 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Dec15.183432.8333@dgbt.doc.ca> michele@dgbt.doc.ca (Michele Guillet) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.102722.17472@rs6000.bham.ac.uk>, pickerig@eee.bham.ac.uk (Guy Pickering) writes:
|>> If you give someone little presents, what do you give and what do
|>> you like to receive?
|>
|What I will often give in cases like these are things to be eaten
|or drunk: wine, specialties beer, fancy chocolate, cookies,
|gourmet coffee or tea, ... it depends on what the person like.

Coffee, Tea, or Me.

|Other nice small things are coffee mugs, scarves, calendars, agendas,
|tapes, CD, ... 

Music is always good if you know what the person likes.  Books are good too.

-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira        | Auspex Systems | "Ask me about my vow of silence." |
| johnf@auspex.com    | Santa Clara CA |                                   |
+==========================================================================+
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ashley@oasis.gtefsd.com (Bob Ashley)
Subject: Re: How come we aren't getting it?
Reply-To: ashley@oasis.gtefsd.com
Organization: GTE Federal Systems Division
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:33:10 GMT

In article 002507U60703@uicvm.uic.edu,  <U60703@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
>Hello...

		[ ... narrative omitted for brevity ... ]

>My Ques -> So how come we aren't getting it? Why are we still closing off
>           that part of ourselves that may enable us to learn to under-
>           stand each other so we can mutually get what we desire???
>

Expectations, and the feeling of disappointment you have when the other person
does not meet those expectations.  We are all guilty of it, some of us more
often than others ...

The most important thing, IMHO, is to have an open mind ... the other person
may not have the exact characteristics that you had envisioned or were hoping
for, but then again ... the feeling might just be mutual.  However, if the two
of you enjoy each other's company, share in the same beliefs and ideals, and
are open and honest with each other, then what's holding you back?

I may be missing something, so please feel free to comment ... I'm only human,
'ya know   :-)

		[ ... remainder of article omitted ... ]

>Carole :) (still trying to find time to make that sig!!!!)

No problem ... call Dial-a-Sig, at 1-900-342-5744 ...   ;-)

>


Bob - is it Friday yet?   :-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Ashley                        Internet:  Bob.Ashley@oasis.gtefsd.com

Member, Technical Staff            | Winter Bowling Leagues 1992-1993
   GTE Federal Systems Division    |    GTE FSD Mixed Secretary: Thu 17:45
   15000 Conference Center Drive   |    Thursday Mixups:         Thu 20:30
   Chantilly, VA   22021-3808      |    NFL Mixed Secretary:     Mon 21:00
   (703)-818- voice 4656  FAX 5484 |    Fantasy Bowling League:  Team #1
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Attraction -> Acquiantance or vice versa?
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:41:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:

>stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
<description of men who behaved in a semi-friendly semi-romantic manner>

>That's a new one for me.... the pushme-pullyou relationship :-)
>I would be interested in hearing how you first met these "ambivalent" men.
>Was first contact by means of you approaching them, of them approaching
>you, or by third-party introduction?  I cannot help but think that
>ambivalence on the part of the one is more likely to happen when first
>was initiated by somebody other than the one.  What do you think?

I agree with your theory only in the short term. If you ask someone out 
you will probably not feel ambivalent about them right away, but that's no
guarantee that ambivalence won't develop sooner or later.

I met one of the men at work and the other in my college dorm. There
was no standard courtship ritual in either case, with one person going out
of their way to ask the other person out. Hardly any of my romances have 
started that way. They've all begun with two people getting to know each 
other and trading off making little moves until they're involved. 

--
                  A more intimate theology, and one more consonant with 
Stef              the nature of...love, pictures a demonic force engaged  
stef@apple.com    in continuous creation and participation. - Iris Murdoch
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Size 8? (Re: What is NOT attractive to "SINGLE" men)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 08:01:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16e by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <MARTINC.92Dec12161240@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>In article <7895@news.duke.edu> diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) writes:
>   Thanks, Charlie, you're a sweetheart.   However, I think I'd rather sit on
>   his ribcage for a few hours.
>
>Yeah, that's what you say -- but do you ever offer to sit on *my*
>ribcage for a few hours?

You want her to sit on your *ribcage*?  Face it, Charles...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: New Relationships...
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 23:01:10 GMT

In article <oneil.724227891@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>
>[Deleted: Lengthy thread about how princes tend to turn into frogs and that
>occasionally a frog can turn into a prince, although you do have to kiss a 
>lot of frogs first.]

I don't see what's so terrible about frogs--sometimes those long, nimble
tongues can come in handy. 

>Now, here's a question I've wanted to ask.  I mean, I realize that both men
>and women like sex a lot, but it seems to me that there are a lot of guys
>out there who just want sex.  I once dated a guy who dumped me when he 
>figured out that I wasn't about to jump into bed with him.  (I just don't
>immediately want to sleep with everyone I date.  And it usually takes me a 
>while to get comfortable with someone.  That doesn't mean I don't like 
>sex.  I really do.  But it's not the most important part of a relationship
>for me.  

That depends on both the people involved an the type of relationship; if
it's a sexual relationship, I'd say that it's quite important.  As far as
romantic relationships in general go, I'd still say it's usually very
important--it's been my experience that a romantic relationship that 
doesn't turn sexual quite soon only lasts until my partner next meets 
someone who does turn her on.  (Indeed, judging from my own past 
relationships and those of my friends, romantic partners--male or female--
who have said that they wanted to wait have merely been waiting for
someone else.)

Trygve   (Who doesn't feel the need to leap into bed immediately with
          a romantic partner, but who has found that if it doesn't happen
          right away (without pressure from my end), the relationship
          is probably doomed to a quick death.)
From: Ann Onimous
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:07:56 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri

In article <15904@auspex-gw.auspex.com>
johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
 
>This is different than, say, asking someone to meet
>me after work for a couple of drinks.  Of course in that case this would
>probably take place in a bar and she'd just be a cheap, sleazy, hussy anyway
>and it wouldn't make any difference if I had and class.
 
Cheap? CHEAP??? That's IT, John. I may be just another sleazy hussy to you,
but I am NOT cheap. Next time I'm charging TWENTY dollars and YOU get to
do the arobatics!!!! And another thing- I was FAKING!!
<mumble, mumble, Cheap???, mumble...)
DeeDee
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Book
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:44:21 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Dec14.014037.26694@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA writes:
>Three more chapters makes four! </.)
>
>dreas

Go, dreas!

What's the book about?


-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Woman With Many Legs has Genitals Shoved
Date: 20 Dec 92 17:28:43 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:

>Happy Holidays to all who are celebrating them.  These last few days I
>had the rare time opportunity to do some net.ketchup, and in honor of
>the celebrated birth of the religious icon to whom I subscribe, I give
>you all, in the spirit of Lederer's _Anguished English_, what I read:

>1.  I would like to know for you, girls, will you go out with a
>smaller man than you?

[rest of quotes deleted]

The scary thing is that I *remember* most of those threads.

-- 
--
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
Newsgroups: soc.singles