HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams)
Subject: Re: Desperation (was Re: Commitment--The C-word?)
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 09:57:58 GMT

In <14423@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:

>that way.  I'd add one interesting note though.  As soon as you feel that
>you can be a whole person without being in a relationship you might find
>yourself in a relationship.  When you're desparately seeking a relationship
>it becomes harder to find.
	
	Absolutely!  Yet another facet of the "the minute you've got an
SO, you get more passes from other girls/guys than you've ever had before
in your life" syndrome.  To coin a popular phrase, it's "strange but true".
Personally, I think it is because you are glowing with happiness and 
that warmth surrounding you attracts others too.  A friend of mine insists
that it is because you are releasing more pheronomes (sp?) [sexual hormones
that are smelt subliminally by others].  It could be a combination of both.

Another friend of mine insists that it is all due to the sneaky 
machinations of "someone up there" [pointing skyward] and so therefore she
never shaves her legs before going to a party.  She claims that a guy will
always make a pass at her when she is least prepared for it.  If she does
shave her legs then nothing happens....if she doesn't then it will.
She claims it always works for her!
	Mind you, I would have thought that by deciding not to shave them,
she is, in fact, 'preparing' for it to happen so that would screw up her
theory.  When I suggested this to her she said "don't mess with something
that works....the powers that be obviously haven't copped onto this yet!"
Anyone else out there experienced the same? (*GRIN*)
 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: dsaraned@eos.ncsu.edu (DORIAN SERGIO ARANEDA)
Subject: Re: chemistry / love at first sight : fact or fiction?
Originator: dsaraned@c00028-118dan.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: dsaraned@eos.ncsu.edu (DORIAN SERGIO ARANEDA)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:23:22 GMT


In article <1992Sep2.182348.14407@CERIS.Purdue.EDU>,
dheisler@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Dave Heisler) writes:
|> Path:
|>
taco!gatech!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!
!npirs!dheisler
|> From: dheisler@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Dave Heisler)
|> Newsgroups: soc.singles
|> Subject: chemistry / love at first sight : fact or fiction?
|> Message-ID: <1992Sep2.182348.14407@CERIS.Purdue.EDU>
|> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 14:23:48 GMT+5:00
|> References: <tvkn3!c@lynx.unm.edu>
|> Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information
|> Systems, Purdue University
|> Lines: 13
|> 
|> 
|>      I think there is a definite "chemistry" or "click"
|>      between two special people that can be sensed, sort of
|>      a confident, easy going type of feeling. (when your one
|>      of them)
|> 
|>      so i have  a question to all those who have had/has SO's.
|>      Was there a "chemistry" when you first met? 
|> 
|>      anyone else believe in love at first sight?
|> 
|> comments/flames ?
|> dave
|> 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
  Well, I believe in in Attraction at first sight and Love at first
conversation
  

You can always tell an interesting lady by her personality.  An
attractive woman can be an absolute bitch with no charisma.

                           dorian S. Araneda (dsaraned@eos.ncsu.edu)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: buick@belay (Patrick D. Buick)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Organization: Belay Enterprises Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:19:07 GMT

In article <zrfnqm_.aahz@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>In article <kiran.715077327@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>>Someone unattributed at oregon.uoregon.edu writes:
>>>>>Didn't know that one needed a dark side to date. 
>>
>>buick@belay (Patrick D. Buick) writes:
>>>Hmm... this *must* be a requirement... us Nice Guys (tm) just don't
>>>seem exciting enough or something... :-)
>>
>>Well you could always cultivate a dark side.  I'm working on it. 
>
>Then there's always the dork side.
>-- 

Been there, Done that, No Go.  Not enough physical challenge.
Patrick
-- 
==========================================================
Patrick D. Buick EMT, EET  | Internet: buick%belay@uunet.uu.net
Belay Enterprises Inc.     | Internet: buickp@cuug.ab.ca
Calgary, Alberta, Canada   | UUCP:...!calgary!pixel!belay!buick
From: wjb@moscom.UUCP (Bill de Beaubien)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: California Here I Come, Again (San Diego, to be exact)
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:13:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford, NY
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

John Fereira (johnf@Auspex.COM) wrote:
: In article <17cpdoINN24b@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
: |But most everybody I've seen there had normal beach attire save the
: |regular band of middle aged gay men playing horseshoes.
: 
: At last, we find a useful purpose for the "hard-on at the beach".  Must be
: real painful when someone gets a ringer.
: 

Could be worse.  Could be hand grenades.
-- 
"Bless me, Father; I ate a lizard."
"Was it an abstinence day, and was it artificially prepared?"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill de Beaubien / wjb@moscom.com 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: Desperation (was Re: Commitment--The C-word?)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:51:11 GMT

mlb@CISCO.COM (Marcia Bednarcyk) writes:

>I've had this happen to me, too. The root of it seemed to be "This person
>likes *me*, and I *know* I'm a horrible person. Therefore, there is something
>wrong with them for liking me, so I don't want to be with them."

It seems to me that in order to start changing this, you can begin by
chaning your behavior.  I think that changing behavior is much easier
than trying to change, by brute force, the underlying values and/or
emotions.  You don't have to like it to do it.

>Sure, it looks silly when it's written down like that, but I know a lot of

And I think writing it down like that is a good first step to changing
it.  Noticing that something is silly might be a good way to make it
less powerful. 

-- 
"(3) A correspondent inquires 'If Wart Hogs thought beautiful thoughts
 all the time, would it help?' No."
 ..................Will Cuppy, footnote in _How to Attract The Wombat_


-- 
Kiran Wagle     <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>     (812) 335-0420
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: rudoff@mdd.comm.mot.com (Doug Rudoff)
Subject: Independence (was Re: Commitment--The C-word?)
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:10:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.154006.23144@walter.bellcore.com> nobody writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.151319.13394@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>>In article <Q4D6TST@netmbx.netmbx.de> rickk@netmbx.netmbx.de (Rick Kuhlbars) writes:
>>>Seems that every woman you meet opens up along the lines of "mold me the way
>>>you like."
>>
>>Maybe a good deal of women YOU meet get that way - but considering that the
>>only common denominator in each encounter is YOU, could it somehow
>>be possible that their reaction to you is because of some action on
>>YOUR part?  Do you perchance give these women the impression that they
>>just aren't perfect enough?  Just asking.
>
>Given that a common denominator with Nancy and Lana who have similar views
>of independence is their prior bad experience with a relationship, is it
>possible that women that haven't gone through that same experience may still
>wish to compromise more than they should? Is it possible that there is more
>such women than women like Nancy and Lana? Is it even remotely conceivable
>that one has a greater chance of meeting such women than Nancy or Lana? Just
>asking.
>
>>Don't blame all women, Rich.  Blame your choices and start making smarter
>>ones.

Twice in the last year and half I have met women who are very
independent and it appeared to me that they were so independent mainly
because they had bad relationships in the past and under no
circumstances wanted to dependent on a man again.

Both of the women I came very close to being intimate with and both
after some hesitating LJBFed me. And me being poorly skilled in the
ways of wooing women had no chance in convincing them that the main
reason I was attracted to them was because of their independent nature
and I had no desire to alter their independence.

It seems I need to make better choices in the women I pursue. It's not
like independence is a shallow criteria to be attracted to someone.
But clearly in my experience the fiercely independent and the
romantically incompetent don't mix well.

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Doug Rudoff          Motorola, Seattle    INTERNET:rudoff@mdd.comm.mot.com
                                            USENET:uunet!mdisea!rudoff   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.sex.bondage
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Subject: Re: Rocker, Tell that to My ProblemOlderWoman
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 11:48:03 GMT

] dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
] 
] >Haven't you learned that a FORCED ORGASM EQUATES WITH SLAVERY??
[ a post with the potential for drieuxishness thinned... ]
 
cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
] Uh, Holtsinger, although it IS amusing to watch you froth at the
] mouth (as well as vie for the Stupidest Rewording of an Opponent's
] Argument Award with that Nyikos character), I doubt seriously that
] you could force an orgasm on an unwilling person.  Orgasm is not
] anything like conception, nor anything like pregnancy.  You just
] look stupid here.

In article <1992Sep2.130328.3186@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>3. Also would You PLEASE esplain to my problem older woman that
>merely as she has not had 'sex' in a week is NO excuse for her
>to Flaunt Herself at me in her Vain Efforts to Force an Orgasm on me.

Orgasm probably can't be forced, but ejaculation certainly can.  When you
think about it, the latter is all a woman really needs from a man anyway.
Yes, it's male slavery.  Bwaaa haa haa haa!!

Resistance is futile, drieux.  There's no way to disengage yourself from
the tight lock she has on you unless or until she decides to disengage it
herself.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter)
Subject: Re: Various ramblings...
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:27:09 GMT

dy@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Dr. Yes) writes:
>diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:
>> I think that what Fred is saying is ... you also don't want to cram your
>> knowlege down others throats.

Yes. Thank you Diana.

	fred
-- 
Disclaimer: everything I write is my *personal* opinion and does not represent
or reflect the opinion of the company which employs me.
From: dy@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Dr. Yes)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Various ramblings...
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:33:13 GMT

fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter) writes:

> dy@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Dr. Yes) writes:
> >I may be wrong on this but my take is that visible intelligence
> >has become socially acceptable.
> 
> Yes, but ... the context behind what I said was Kevin Brown wanting
> to be in a relationship. And him saying something to the effect that
> he didn't want to come across as a smart alec. Visible intelligence
> may be socially acceptable *if* you don't rub the other guys nose in it.
> Many of the guys I know that are noticably above average intelligence tend
> to do that (sort of like "I'm better than you because I'm smarter").
> Sometimes they don't even have to do anything to rub the other guys nose
> in it, they can let the other guys insecurities do it for them.

But that _was_ my point, that the intelligent person didn't need
to actually _do_ anything, just obviously _being_ intelligent was
enough to affront some people.

Then I went on to make the further point that as America gets
poorer and opportunity constricts -- it used to be possible for a
quite mediocre person to do quite well financially in America,
whether as a blue collar worker or a white collar manager --
intelligence has greater survival value and becomes for that
reason a sexual attractiveness plus.  The friends you describe as
having an old-fashioned resentment for someone whom they suspect
may be more intelligent than they are are probably working in
fields where there is a relative labor shortage so minimal skills
are still comfortably rewarded.

--
Still Using Waffle 1.64!    | Wafffle, QEdit and Webster's
                            | NewWorld -- one great menage a
                            | trois!
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius)
Subject: Re: Lurkers...
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 18:27:20 GMT
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez

In article <1992Aug25.154359.17510@news.acns.nwu.edu> drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.113916.15376@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> ron@turing.toronto.edu (Ron Wessels) writes:
>>    I saw your posting on  fear of e-mail ,
>>and I just had to complement you on such a concise and well-thought out 
>>article.  I also feel as you do in this matter.  In fact, since we seem
>>to have so much in common, perhaps we could get together for lunch some
>>time?  If you send me your home phone number by return email, I will
>>call and arrange it.
>
>Either this guy has a female friend who shares her email, posts under a
>female name sometimes, or is the source of all those "please write back to
>me, I'm a nice guy" email messages that I get cause he's got the tone down
>perfectly. 

Maybe he *gets* mail like that from females.  Usually not a blatant
come-on, but I've gotten similar ones.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

So much Astroglide.  So little time.
From: dy@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Dr. Yes)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Various ramblings...
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:27:50 GMT

diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:

> dy@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Dr. Yes) writes:
> 
> ] fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter) writes:
> ] 
> ] > kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
> ] > >Yes, clearly.  So the question is: how do you do things intelligently
> ] > >without appearing to be intelligent?
> ] > 
> ] > Be quiet about it. Don't be showy about it. Don't talk about how hard
> ] > something was - people who know about it will know how hard it was, and
> ] > people who don't know about it will just think you're bragging.
> ] > 
> ] > Don't talk about technical stuff around people you know are *not* technic
> ] > A lot of them would feel stupid and think you were a show off.
> ] 
> ] I may be wrong on this but my take is that visible intelligence
> ] has become socially acceptable.  If you look at movies and sitcoms
> ] from the 50s it was apparently necessary for intelligent males to
> ] look like one of the guys.  Intelligent females were supposed to
> ] hide their brains.  {rest deleted}
> 
> I think that what Fred is saying is essentially what you are
> also saying here - the difference is that what Fred is saying
> is that while you don't want to act stupid about things now
> (Gee - poor little me could NEVER understand what goes on 
> under that Great, Big Hood - it takes a MAN to do things like
> THAT...gack) - you also don't want to cram your knowlege
> down others throats.

No, no, no.  I wasn't talking about obvious showoffs.  What I was
referring to is a phenomenon of American life that was endemic
even before Toqueville deconstructed Jacksonian democracy in the
1830s, a kind of _resentiment_ that social critics often attribute
to American democracy with its lack of an established aristocracy
to contest values with, but which I think was probably even more
the product of America's incredible prosperity -- even mediocre
people -- _lazy_ mediocre people who don't even put much effort
into it -- have been able to do quite well in America, and hence
didn't really _need_ much in the brain department.

--
Still Using Waffle 1.64!    | Wafffle, QEdit and Webster's
                            | NewWorld -- one great menage a
                            | trois!
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:12:22 GMT

In article <14281@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.212738.15278@odin.corp.sgi.com> lana@magenta.corp.sgi.com (Lana Mountford) writes:
>>the way I (and, it appears, Nancy) feel are ...
>>*and* have some mileage on them. :-)
> 
>James,
>
>   Just in case you had any ideas you should forget about Nance and Lana.
>Once the mileage builds up they start blowing gaskets,  leaking oil, and
>are generally unreliable.  In your weakened state due to being due on the
>rebound I wouldn't want you to make any rash decisions.
>

 Thanks John. When the women have rung us for all we're worth
it's good to know the guys will always be there to pick up
the shell that used to be a thriving productive member of
society (hypothetically speaking of course).
 Lets go get stinking drunk on tequila. I'll get in a fight. Then
go home with the homeliest.. err .... I meant tea, a debate and
perhaps run into a sympathetic young lady.
 
================================================================================
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Desperation (was Re: Commitment--The C-word?)
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:48:25 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

rudoff@mdd.comm.mot.com (Doug Rudoff) writes:

>I was supposed to ask her if their was chemistry between us? It takes
>two willing people for there to be chemistry, and I know I didn't feel
>it.

No, you weren't supposed to ask her. I only disagreed with your assessment 
that she was desperate. It simply looked to me (based on your previous
post) as if she liked you. 

After reading your previous post, it occurred to me that if other people 
equate simple interest (wanting physical contact, phone calls) with
desperation, and run for it when they encounter what they think is
desperation, then it is no wonder so many people get LJBF'd -- perhaps they 
lose interest in MOTAS who are interested in them, because they equate it with
desperation, and only pursue those who are standoffish.

I know that's not what you did in this instance. But it makes me wonder. If
that's what's happening, it's a shame...

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Stef                  It is Maya! Dost thou not know her?
stef@apple.com        Illusion -- dreams -- phantoms.
                      But, to the wise, Maya is more.     Holst, "Savitri"
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams)
Subject: Re: Powerful forces of nature conspire
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 11:18:35 GMT

In <1992Aug29.115935.15558@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:

>In article <4053@moscom.UUCP> wjb@moscom.UUCP (Bill de Beaubien) writes:
>>Mark (markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu) wrote:
>>: 
>>: If I were single and had plenty of free time, I probably would have been
>>: laid. :)  However, I'm involved with a special woman at this time.
>>
>>The arresting officer was female? :-)

>You mean, as in handcuffs, strip searches, detention, interrogation and
>supplication to a figure of higher authority??

	Don't forget having to spread your legs too. :>
 

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: Lurkers...
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 06:06:08 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Aug26.220818.3650@cs.ucla.edu> gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:
>In article <14306@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>>The thing is we were all once soc.singles.neophytes.
>If you were a net.singles regular, chances are you were never a
>soc.singles neophyte.

Speaking of, net.singles persons, how did >you< get involved around here?
I fondly remember tossing my opinion out into what became a massive flame-
fest on net.singles and net.women about Affirmative Action...gee, that got
hairy. I was caught, then. Just kept posting :)
r.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: pizza and chocolate and cheese - oh my!
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:37:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <71690@apple.Apple.COM>  stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
> hymowitz@whatever.cs.jhu.edu (Hymie!) writes:
> >   can anyone suggest an aphrodisiac other than the 'big three' for those
> >   of us unable to enjoy the finer (i.e. dairy) things in life?
>
> Oysters, raw eggs, and a copy of _Tampopo_.

This is a myth.  I had a dozen raw oysters last night, and three of them
did *nothing*.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: wkaufman@us.oracle.com (William Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Cruel to be Kind (was Re: Cooling things off... Finale)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 03:06:29 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug27.180341.15190@mdd.comm.mot.com> rudoff@mdd.comm.mot.com (Doug Rudoff) writes:
] 
] There's something here that really bugs me. You want him to know that
] you don't want anything to do with him. You decided that you'll do it
] by not responding to his E-mail. In a few days or weeks he'll get the
] picture. If you told him bluntly, he'd get the picture in about thirty
] seconds.

    I think you missed the original post.  She gave the impression that
Seth is either homicidal or suicidal (I'm vague on which).  Given that
possibility, I'd say she did just fine: that is, they're both still
walking.

    Even if she (and we?) were wrong, well, maybe it's better to risk
being thought of as a [...]tease than risk becoming a stain, no?  (OK,
maybe not.)

    However, for regular folks, I agree with you: I'd *much* prefer
getting a straight-forward rejection.  Preferably, with some kind of
explanation, if only to save the next woman some trouble.  (Hey, wasn't
this hashed out about six months back?  What's the periodicity in the
group, anyway?)

    And, relevant of nothing:

] As the quote from
] the song goes, "Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind."

    Am I the only one here who gets *incredible* satisfaction from the
idea that maybe, just maybe, Nick Lowe is more popular than
Shakespeare?!?

                                           -- Bill K.

Bill Kaufman,          | "Hush my darling / Be still my darling /
Corporate Lackey       |  The lion's on the phone,..."
wkaufman@us.oracle.com |              -- "The Guitar", They Might Be Giants
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Subject: The Chocolate Urgies (was: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long))
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:29:06 GMT

In article <ewillims.714843551@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>	Weird as it sounds, chocolate sauce on meat is an original use
>for chocolate. The Aztecs used to use it as a sauce and regarded it as
> delicacy. That's what I call chocoholism.....my kind of people! (*GRIN*)

There must be something hormonal about women and chocolate.
Newsgroups: soc.singles