HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: reb@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com (Richard E. Barrier)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Living alone and liking it
Date: 28 Jan 93 18:56:27 GMT
Organization: Chevron Oil Field Research, La Habra, CA.

In article <77016@apple.apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:

 -- stuff deleted --  and need to find my Anarchist 
>Cookbook to bone up on molotov cocktails before I can blow up any buildings.
>
>I do wield a mean whip. But that's OK, you said you liked psychotic.
>
>Stef                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>stef@apple.com                  Sabina proceeded with her melancholy 
>                                musings: What if she had a man who ordered 
>                                her about? A man who wanted to master her? 
>                                How long would she put up with him? Not 
>                                five minutes! From which it follows that no 
>                                man was right for her. Strong or weak. 
>                                                              --Kundera
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would suggest Nitrogen Tri-Iodide its more explosive and unstable. Don't know
where in AnarchistCookbook NTI is but its there.
*******************************************************************************
Richard Barrier (310) 694-9354 reb@chevron.com
These are my opinions, not Chevron's - so don't ask them. Don't ask my cat he's
not talking... unless maybe you a tasty piece of chicken ???
*******************************************************************************
From: reb@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com (Richard E. Barrier)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: The Classiest Pickup Lines
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:09:31 GMT
Organization: Chevron Oil Field Research, La Habra, CA.

In article <28031@sybase.sybase.com> mysti@sierra.sybase.com (Mysti Rubert) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.143952.10055@ac.dal.ca>, brentaa@ac.dal.ca (brent, eh?) writes:
>========================
Stuff deleted...
>Mysti Rubert, Oaktown, California
>"It's not the men in my life, but the life in my men."  Mae West
Mysti, where is Oaktown ??? Also... good line Mae.
******************************************************************************
Richard Barrier (310) 694-9354 or reb@chevron.com
These are my opinions, not Chevron's - so don't ask Chevron.
*******************************************************************************
From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft)
Subject: Re: Credibility...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 05:40:12 GMT


20th consecutive post by Brent Mason.

Get a life.

RNA
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Credibility and Trueness
Date: 28 Jan 93 10:56:39
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
	<ewright.728158167@convex.convex.com>
	<MARTINC.93Jan27144010@grover.cs.unc.edu>
	<ewright.728178797@convex.convex.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: grover.cs.unc.edu
In-reply-to: ewright@convex.com's message of Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:53:17 GMT

In article <ewright.728178797@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

   In <MARTINC.93Jan27144010@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

   >What a fascinating assertion.  Are you once again speaking ex cathedra
   >from your rectum or do you have some logical, if ignorant, argument for
   >it?

   Psychology denies the existance of free will because its very
   existance is incompatible with the concept.  Once you recognize
   that human beings have free will, you can explain any human
   behavior with one simple explanation: he chose to do it.  All
   the ids, egos, superegos, hobgoblins, and supernatural forces
   that fill psychology books become superfluous.  (And the writers
   of those books lose their source of income.)

As I said, logical, if ignorant.  I'm sure that the schizophrenics,
manic-depressives, phobics, and obsessives will be pleased to know that
all they have to do is pull up their pants and choose to stop being
schizophrenic, manic-depressive etc.

But we're left with the explanation that Ed Wright can't find a soul
mate and become non-single and happy because he chooses not to.  I
wonder why that is?
--
		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
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Honesty, Your word, and Trust -- a crisis?
Date: 22 Jan 93 14:25:33
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: grover.cs.unc.edu
In-reply-to: jmd@bear.com's message of 22 Jan 93 17:37:11 GMT

In article <JMD.93Jan22123711@lion.bear.com> jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond) writes:

   Having read recent posts here, and noticed events going on out there
   in the rest of the world, I have come to the conclusion there we have
   a major crisis on our hands.

   Basically, it seems that as a society, our concepts of honesty and
   trust are all screwed up.

   Most people, when asked whether they consider themselves to be honest
   say yes.  And yet, when it comes down to brass tacks, most people are
   _not_ particularly honest. In fact, they are absolutely lousy at
   keeping their word.


This may be a mere quibble, but what makes you think that this "crisis"
is a new thing?  Seems I recall Marcus Aurelius and Socrates bitching
about the same thing.
--
		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: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: rON bashing
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 08:45:50 GMT

eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (Piglet) writes:

>Sugar-free whipped cream?  Now that _is_ silly!

Yes, whipped cream does need just a _hint_ of sugar.  A bit of
homemade vanilla extract or amaretto is a nice touch.  

>Piglet, thoroughly chuffed at the thought of Piglets-in-a-blanket,
>        with extra whipped cream (_not_ sugar-free)

Hmm, you _are_ a dish...
-- 

Kiran Wagle                           <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright)
Subject: Re: Flirting How To Guide/Backrubs
Organization: Ice Queens
	<1993Jan24.064613.29860@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1993Jan24.220457.12422@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:43:27 GMT

tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:

>rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes:
>>souchay@CAM.ORG (Francois Souchay) writes:

>>>Hear, hear. I gotta say I fully agree with Aahz on this one. The backrub
>>>criterion does help to sort out the folks who want/need massage from those
>>>that don't. Robert prefers to avoid them ( from what I can tell ), so he'd
>>>rather choose someone who feels the same way.

>>Huh?  I don't like spinach much either.  Does this mean I avoid those who do?

>Perhaps it was a little presumptuous to assume that you felt that way, but
>it isn't that unreasonable an assumption, given how often differing feelings
>about physical contact cause friction (or, worse, not enough friction) in a
>relationship.  Like Aahz, I would be unlikely to enjoy a romantic
>relationship with someone who wasn't given to being physically affectionate--
>indeed, I've found through experience that if I'm involved with someone
>who is not physically affectionate (in a generalized sense, not merely a
>sexual sense) that I end up losing both romantic and sexual feelings for
>this person.

Well, Trygve, you make a very valid point here.  After all, it's clear
that those of us who don't like backrubs are physically unaffectionate,
sexually disfunctional, cold-hearted, and generally no fun at all.  The
rest of you should stay well away from us out of fear of our lack of
mental stability and ability to care about others.  Besides, you might
never get laid with someone who didn't get into activities involving
lying still.

Tee hee hee.  

>Trygve   (Who particularly dislikes being supposed to box up his feelings
>  	   and express them only in approved moments and in approved ways.)

---Julie  ("Ew, stop!!  You're messing up my hair!")
-- 
* here you come again/ arms across a broken heart/ you want me to be free/
* i know what you mean/ but i am waiting for/ somebody to pull through 
* for me/ somebody's gonna have to be me              ---- The Roches
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (dreas)
Subject: Excellent Flames Deleted
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 00:18:41 GMT


Somehow, when I want to really blast people in a flame fest and
succeed, the posting capabilities of this News Reader go down. </.(

I post eight or nine excellent comebacks, only to find that some
big hard drive somewhere is going wonky.

I missed a few opportunities because of this, and forgot what I
wrote yesterday. Some things are better left unexpressed...

dreas

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Diane)
Subject: Re: Turning the Matter Around
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 11:55:41 CST

In article <1993Jan20.220105.23268@wetware.com>
drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
 
>diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:
>]
>] I'd like to just point out here that as someone who's
>] ancestry includes skirt-wearers for both sexes - I was
>] NOT the NonMalePerson mentioned above...
>
>
>While We are 'straightening' the record,
>I Look Better in her Teddy than She Does!!!!
>
 
Who *is* Teddy?
From: quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: A hug for illiterate flamers
Date: 29 Jan 93 09:50:01 NZST
Organization: Welligton City Council, Public Access.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:

> So we're giving credit now to people that post good flamebait.  In any case
> I agree about the followup poems.  I gave up the opportunity for a suckup
> rating by sending a "two thumbs up" to Julie via email for her effort.

   Oh sure, John, but *no-one* made any comments about my effort. Just because
Julie's female, intelligent and witty doesn't mean those of us that ain't don't
have feelings either *sniff*.
   However, a suckup in return is probably not necessary... 8-)

-- 
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (Quirke_A@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz)
"Only the free have disposition to be truthful.
 Only the truthful have the interest to be just.
 Only the just possess the willpower to be free." - WH Auden.
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Flame this sucker
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:07:09 GMT
Distribution: soc.singles
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1993Jan25.215044.4010@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
|In article <gopal.727992822@mik.uky.edu> gopal@nx33.mik.uky.edu (P Gopalakrishnan) writes:
|>I am really surprised by the type of flame a asian indian received for posting 
|>a personal ads. I read this group quite regularly and have seen some personals 
|>ads posted but never has anyone been scorched this way by flames to my knowledge.
|
|	Why the plural, "flames"? What annoyed you was the shtick humor
|from dreas, using the accent; one flame. Anyway, you're wrong. Most
|personal ads posted here get flamed; I've done it myself, though I've
|been lazy about it lately. No Personals - It's not just a Good Idea,
|it's the Law.
 
There you go...

Post A Personal. Go to Jail.  That's the Law.

|>Also the tone(with a supposedly asian accent) sucks. For all the racist pigs
|>you think you can live together with such an attitude. This flame is 
|>directed at the person who flamed with a supposedly asian accent. Philistine
|>is the only name I can call you because I am too decent .
|
|	Whatever. Interesting you chose an ethnic label as an insult,
|yourself - I'm offended on behalf of Philistines everywhere :-).
 
I agree.  Some of best friends are Philistino.

-- 
-john
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Mating Genes..(was Credibility)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 06:58:22 GMT

In article <ewright.727854798@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1993Jan23.062733.18294@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>
>>2) it assumes that 
>>enjoying being single precludes enjoying being coupled (which is patently
>>not true, since I quite enjoy both of these states and regions in between);
>
>States in between?  Careful, Trygve, I think you're admitting more
>than you are to.

Oh?  (Indeed, is there anything that an ASCII exhibitionist like myself
wouldn't care to admit to?) 

>Most people who claim they are "happy being single" expend 
>considerable energy ensuring that there are periods when
>they are, at least temporarily, not-single.

Well, I'm not in the habit of expending considerable energy ensuring that
there are periods when I am, at least temporarilly, not-single--but then,
I do freely admit to expending lots of energy enjoying the my periods of
unsingleness.  However, this doesn't imply that I necessarilly won't 
decide to expend a fair amount of directed energy towards unsingling at
any moment--after all, I do enjoy being coupled as well, and you never 
know when I might meet someone who would I'd particularly enjoy being
coupled with. 

If I liked both swimming and dancing, and I told you that I expend a
certain amount of effort in going to swimming pools and dance floors,
would you claim that, because I can't do both simultaneously, my efforts
to go swimming prove that I don't enjoy dancing while my efforts to go
dancing prove that I don't enjoy swimming? 

>However, we can test this.  Since you wimped out on the last
>bet, here's another one.  100 bucks says you can't go one
>year without attempting to do something with a member of the
>opposite sex.  Name your own odds.

Now that sounds like a much more interesting bet--especially if I get 
to pick the something that I won't try to do with a member of the 
opposite sex.  Hmmmm...OK, how about I try to go one year without even
once attempting to climb into a trash compactor with a member of the
opposite sex?  As far as odds, how about I'll put down one penny (I
pick the penny--some of my pennies I want to keep) to your $100? 

>>3) it assumes that people who enjoy being single do not reproduce (not a
>>valid assumption 
>
>Oh.  Okay.  If you can also reproduce withint the same year, I'll doubl
>the bet.

Ed, I'm afraid that it would take a whole lot more than $100 to convince
me to reproduce in the next year....

Trygve   (I'll bet you ten bucks that you won't jump off this cliff to
          your death.)
--
"Sonnets from the Portuguese?
 Is that anything like 'Ode to a Lawn Flamingo'?"
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Any Available Jewish Men Out There??
Date: 22 Jan 1993 12:42:02 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1993Jan11.071303.6558@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
}In <1993Jan11.054414.2710@wam.umd.edu> tedwards@wam.umd.edu (technopagan priest) writes:
}>In article <1993Jan02.174533.19580@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
}>>Children.  No way in hell would any child of mine be raised Christian.
}>
}>There are other options...you could always raise them Baha'i :)
}
}Actually, I'll raise them without the "benefit" of religion.  I mentioned
}Christian because the poster who started this thread jokingly complained
}that she was surrounded by Christians, but the same goes for most religions.
}I *might* consider raising them Jewish if I was marrying someone Jewish and
}she felt strongly about it, but I wouldn prefer to raise them without any.

Be prepared for failure, though.  Recently I've read about an interesting
hypothesis that religious belief and behavior are biological traits of humans.
They're not necessarily adaptive but could be side-effects of our neoteny
and carnivory.

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: mel@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Meloney D Cregor)
Subject: Re: Zen and the art of refrig upkeep (Re: Living alone)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:14:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.132003.20433@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:

>9.6 on the Broad-Band-Come-On scale

Ahwww, come on Aahz!  I'm just getting back into flirting stride.  My 
flirter got broken and it has just been awful getting it fixed. What with
not being able to find a manual and then getting parts and you just can't
imagine the difficulty trying to find someone to fix these things.  It was
just awful, I tell you.  And I still have to work all the 'kinks' out of it.

There.  Do I get extra points for pleading?
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein)
Subject: Re: what is attractive ?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:28:30 GMT

In article <C16EsB.ME7@portal.hq.videocart.com> dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) writes:
>
>  I have a question that i have never been able to get an answer for.
>
>  Does anybody know why they are attracted to certain people ? This includes
>only physical features: gender, eyes, body, hair, etc. etc.
>
>  How much of what we find attractive is conditioned ?
>
>  I've heard the phrase "Gays make the choice". I think not. 
>
>  Does anybody think they can actually say 
>"I know why I find x and y to be attractive" ??
>
>Dave Fuller
>dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com
>


I can't remember reading any studies on this topic......but I would
think most of it is "physiological" and the rest of it "conditioning"
through TV, movies, etc.


                 Steve Stein  (609) 639-2264
    *******************************************************
    *  Just my opinion, though it could change tomorrow   *
    *******************************************************
From: mel@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Meloney D Cregor)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Priorities
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:08:43 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <C1GIDB.8pp@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:

>But... if the right person comes along when a relationship isn't high
>on one's list of priorities, one might miss them entirely.

ONe might, but then again, one might not.

There is a difference between 'not having a relationship' as a high
priority and 'not currently looking real hard to find a relationship'
as a high priority.

I fall in the latter category.  I am not allocating a great deal, well
actually very little, time towards having a romantic relationship
with anyone.  

I do this for several reasons; one is that I greatly enjoy living
by myself ( I would say alone, but the furries would take offense at
not being considered perkind and beings unto themselves with personalities
and whatnot).  Another is that I have shades of Edism and I am beginning
to suspect that I am fairly incompatible with a majority of people.  ONce you
eliminate half the population on gender preference (mine), there are those
that don't match on an intelluctual basis, a humor basis and the fact
that I would be considered unattractive by a great number of men.  Now,
once you establish this subset, there is the matter of what *I* find
attractive and compatible.

I guess I haven't adopted Marvin's philosohy of "It'll NEVER happen",
but that it is unlikely, so in the mean time, I get on with my life
and do those things which I find enjoyable and those things that make
me content (Ok, Ed, I might not be 'happy' with the situation, but I
am content with it and I am content to be content).

Now, were I to find this elusive other half of this mythical 
relationship, my priorities would change.  However, I refuse to
buy into the hogwash that if I am not mated, my life has no meaning.
From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Second Date
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:46:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: lion.JMD.93Jan26144617
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: bmeyer@feds12.prime.com's message of 26 Jan 93 17:39:15 GMT


In article <4621@cvbnetPrime.COM> bmeyer@feds12.prime.com (Bob Meyer) writes:

   In article <1993Jan24.205359.323@fuug.fi>, an3371@anon.penet.fi writes:
   |> How long after a first date do you usually wait before going
   |> for a second date?  A week, a few days?  Guess it depends on
   |> the situation, too.

    Also, If you sleep together on the first date,
    does the next day count as the second date,
    or just the first date, day two?

Very good question!

Answer:  If you sleep together on the first date, I would 
say that the next day is still the first date, day two.

I would call that evening no matter what.  
And probably send flowers...

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.
From: diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Credibility...
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:24:42 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <ewright.728022512@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>There, again, I don't think there's a black-and-white distinction. 
>For me, anyway, romance begins with friendship, so there isn't much
>distinction, in the beginning, between a romantic relationship and
>a nonromantic one.

Oh, okay, I didn't realize you meant the beginning of a relationship.
Yeah, I'd agree with you that there's not much of a distinction. 

>I don't see how an interaction can be "romantic" and "unwanted" at
>the same time.  Presumeably you mean something like "sexual."

I didn't really mean sexual, exactly; I guess I meant that I'd be unwilling
to spend time alone with a man (or woman for that matter) if I thought that 
a) the person in question was likely to assume that the one-on-one interaction
meant that I was interested in a more than friendly way, and b) I *wasn't* 
interested in a more than friendly way.  

				--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