HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Subject: Re: "want" vs "need"
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 02:00:40 GMT

misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>   Suppose you had a *choice* between finding a cure for cancer and 
>having a family.  Which would you choose?  If you knew for sure that you
>*could* find a cure for cancer, wouldn't choosing not to find it make 
>you unhappy?

In article <1992Sep9.152937.16055@clsi.COM> kevin@clsi.COM (Kevin Cameron) writes:
>I'd go for the family. Nobody lives forever, they will always die from something,
>so why worry about it. If you go for the family you could achieve some level of
>genetic immortality - unless your family is prone to childhood cancer :-)

In article <1992Sep10.125122.11386@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>If you have siblings, each of them has 50% of your genes on average.  Your
>offspring would have exactly 50% while your nephews and nieces would have
>25%.  Therefore, a niece and nephew are statistically equivalent to one
>kid of your own, but someone else has the aggravation of rearing them.

Wrong.  You have way, way more than 99% of my genes.  A chimpanzee has 98% of
your genes.  A *MOUSE* has 80% of your genes.

>However, if you find a cure for cancer, you'll be bombarded by groupies
>wanting you to help them "maximize their fitness."  And we all know that
>biology babes are the best.  (Right, Max?)

You're absolutely correct.  Nothing like those Researcher groupies!  Imagine
what it must be like being Jonas Salk (sp?) having twice saves our collective
ass from a revisit of the Plague (first with Polio, and soon with AIDS).
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: weird@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (john.t.erhardt)
Subject: Re: leg shaving
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:01:34 GMT

In article <BuBIJv.8F9@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> andrew@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Andrew Walker) writes:
>liz@prc.unisys.com (Liz Loquacious) writes:
>
>[text deleted].
>
>>I hear my ex is shaving his again and he's got a babe, ugly one, but
>>that serves him right. :-)  (Well, I've seen worse but it's fun to say;
>>gotta get these agressions out somewhere and what better place than
>>soc.singles!)
>
>So, does one follow from the other. Does men shaving their legs imply
>that their success with the AS will improve? :-) Anyway, all ex's deserve
>what's coming to them (smile).
>
>>BTW, for cycling.  Not for speed but for hygiene in case he falls off
>>the damn thing and gets a road rash.
>
>Which must happen often enough for him to worry about!!?? 
>
Hi,  I usually just read some of the soc.singles articles from time to
time.  But I thought I do something out of the ordinary and reply.
I race.  I shave my legs.  That's really all there is too it.
I've crashed twice this year.  In addition to skin being removed quite
forcefully from my leg and hip, the hair goes with it.
Many guys who race (as most women already shave their legs) give
a number of reasons.  Easier to get a massage, road rash, more aerodynamic,
etc.  THe aero one is false, it's been tested.  The only thing one has to 
worry about with scabs is removing tape from the skin.  THe massage one
is true enough.  My muscles are usually sore from training, so I massage
my legs every few days.

But the real reason is vanity.  It's the same for body builders.  They shave
their whole bodies to show off all those veins and muscles.  We do the
same but just for our legs.

If there's any other reason I would have to say it's identity.  You can tell
which guys are into racing so much that they're willing to shave their
legs for it.  I suppose it started as an aerodynamic thing.  Now it's 
an identity thing.

Few people will admit to this but they know it's true.  Ask your ex
what the real reason is.  He might say the same thing as me.

This brings up another thing.  I while back I remember a discussion about hairy
and unhairy men.  Some women seem to like men with hairy chests.  Others,
maybe the same women, don't like men with hairy backs or butts.  I suppose
there are some women who do/don't like hairy legs, arms, etc.  Why?
And to the men, if you don't like a particular part of you body hair, why
not shave it?  We shape the hair on our head the way we like it, why not
hair in other places?

John
From: dennist@sw.stratus.com (Dennis Tetreault)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: A lurker goes to California
Keywords: Good luck !!
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:06:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

Actually, the IRS took over the Ranch because of tax problems. In fact, they
also brought in a business expert who is running it (at a profit) to repay
the taxes due. So the Fed Gov't is running a bordello.

I was a lurker, now I'm a poster. Have been reading letters for a while
and want to say hello to Tyger and Liz Loquacious, who are among my favorite
posters.
Forgive any errors in posting, I am still learning.

<Reality is fleeting>
The Dentist

dennist@sw.stratus.com
These are My opinions. MINE MINE MINE MINE. If my employer had the same opinions
as me, I would urge them to re-examine their position.
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Lurkers...
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:59:10 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep5.110214.21605@dg-rtp.dg.com> morton@cali.rtp.dg.com writes:
|[names deleted, but you get the concept right, plus you know who it is]
|>>Well, in my case, I try my best but sometimes I get 10 or more messages
|>>a day.  
|
|	Some people are just blessed with the ability to "draw" others
|	into their presence.

And some people work on their ability to "draw" other people into their
presence.  

> Now you take me for example, I probably
>	couldn't say anything that would draw 10 people a year,
 
I guess that means you wouldn't make it as a cartoonist.  I know what you
mean though.  It took me a week to draw that little dog on the matchbook
cover.

>	I think a popularity contest is in order here   ... !
>
>	And I vote for.......[drum roll] ........... Pam Mathews!

Who?

-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira     | Auspex Systems | "Auspex does not share my opinions.  |
| johnf@auspex.com | Santa Clara CA |  So Why am I still working here?"    |
+==========================================================================+
From: taina@cs.Helsinki.FI (Juha Taina)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: chemistry / love at first sight : fact or fiction?
Date: 10 Sep 92 08:53:59 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki, Finland

In <5203@news.duke.edu> infante@acpub.duke.edu (Andrew  Infante) writes:

><stuff about attraction deleted>

>If a woman is attracted to me such that (after going out/dating/being together
>etc) she feels she needs to be with me all the time, it reaffirms my
>sense of well-being.

IMO, such a feeling will cause a crashing course for the relationship. 
Even if both are feeling that way right now it doesn't mean that they
would feel the way in the future.  Once one of them wants more space the
relationship isn't equal and stable any longer.  Of course, want
more/less can happen to a "normal" relationship too.

This reminds me of an old joke:

Son: Dad, is it true that marriages that are started on Mondays will be
unhappy?
Dad: Of course it's true.  Why would Monday be an exception?

Bad joke, I know.  Anyway...

QA certain level of SO need is allright, as has been pointed earlier.  But
there should be a lot more in our lives than relationships.  I want to
be happy by myself.  If I'm happier with a SO that's fine.  But I don't
need her to be happy.

...

>I mean, really, if two people are attracted to each other, start going out
>with each other, _feel_ something about each other (yeah, what's love got
>to do with it (blatant ripoff from Tina Turner :)) blah, blah, blah, then 
>why not have a mutual devotion? 

"What's love but a second hand emotion?"  I hope that I quoted it right.
What is love anyway?  If I want to be with someone so much that I don't
see anything but her, is it love? If she feels the same way about me,
are we in love?  There is mutual devotion then but is it a healthy
relationship?  I think not.

>If the devotion is one-sided, obviously the one that is not devoted is
>going to feel pressured.

Perhaps I'm too cynical about this, but I think that such a devotion
can't last.

>But, that pressure was his/her own fault.

Yes, if the devotion was one-sided in the first place.  But I'm talking
about situations where the devotion fades.  Whose fault is it then?

>my opinion.

Same here.  Nothing personal, just a disagreement.

>later.

>andy

Juha

-- 
Juha Taina | taina@cs.helsinki.fi | Phone: +358-0-708-4247
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: A lurker goes to California
From: wall@hel4.brl.mil (Jeff Wall)
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:09:21 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: U.S. Army Human Engineering Lab  Aberdeen, MD

In article <w7tngp+.tyger@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
writes:
>In article <14525@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
writes:
>>In article <ntsnctq.tyger@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
writes:
>>|In article <BuB1sn.FpE@acsu.buffalo.edu> v105l4lg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (c
pierre) writes:
>>|>
>>|>	Greetings there good buddy !!
>>|Put the CB *down*, C!
>> 
>>There's an old CB joke that goes...
>>
>>Q: What is a good buddy?
>>A: A good buddy is a guy that goes out, gets two blow jobs, and comes back
>>   and gives you one.
>
>*groan* John, that was terrible! :P
>
>>|>	If you can, try and rent a car and buy a map in the process, because	
>>|>that place is quite treacherous. Yes, in the blink of an eye you would be
>>|>naked and broke around those folks. Party animals you see !!
>>|That's a flaming lie! We only want his money! :)
>>|
>>There may also be some ProblemOlderWomen around that would prefer that
>>he was naked as well.
>
>I suppose so, but as a net.toddler, I've no interest in that sort of stuff.
>;)
>
>>|>	 I again suspect that you would be looking for an eyeopener too, so
>>|>drive to Navada and look for the M. Ranch. 
>>|Now if only it hadn't been shut down by the IRS for tax infractions...
>>                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^
>>Are you sure this is spelled correctly? 
>
>I am pretty sure it's spelled right, but it *could* be the wrong word, I
>suppose. The IRS was involved in the demise of the aforementioned Ranch, 
>but I didn't think the issue was tax *evasion*. I might be wrong, but I
>hardly ever am...;)

Well, it's nice to know somebody in this group can be labeled net.genious, and
knows everything.  Have you considered starting your own column??  Dear Kitty??
 Or  maybe The Soc.singles Advisor??
 
Boy it sure is comforting to know if I have a question nobody else can answer,
you will be able to. Gives me a profound sense of well being.

Jeff Wall
wall@hel4.brl.mil
From: smith@wesson.Eng.Sun.COM (Nina S. Smith - SunSoft Product Marketing)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Singles Bars
Date: 13 Sep 1992 01:02:00 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: smith@wesson.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: wesson

In article 13717@cs.ucla.edu, gds@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:
>Josh Diamond writes:
>>> I think my problem with the concept is the fact that there is
>>> absolutely no purpose for these places other than bringing bodies
>>> together.  I would much rather meet people through common activities
>>> than through the fact that we both happened to be drinking mediocre
>>> beer in an overcrowded bar.

Why do you drink mediocre beer when there are good to superior beers that 
you can choose from?  

>Drinking is a common activity.  In Europe, people get together and go
>to the neighborhood tavern.  This aspect of social drinking seems to
>be lost on the US, where bars are advertised as places to get drunk
>and pick someone up.

I totally agree with Greg.  Where I come from, as is the case anywhere
in the world, there are decent bars where the "locals" congregate for
a beer (or two or three!), chat and have a great time together *and*
there's your sleazy meat market-type bar/club where people go specifi-
cally to check out the "local talent".  

Yes, I go to bars with my girlfriends; but our decision to go to a 
particular one is usually because of the non-meat market atmosphere or 
because there's a particular band performing there that we really want
to see.  On the same note, we go to dance clubs on our own and choose
ones where the crowd hangs out for one singular reason -- to dance!  

It's a matter of choice, basically . . . yours.

Cheers -- Nina
From: wjb@moscom.UUCP (Bill de Beaubien)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Mea Non Culpa
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:19:08 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford, NY
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Stef Jones (stef@Apple.COM) wrote:
: No thanks. Counselor Troi's towers may be awesome but I prefer my victims
: to be seasoned with intelligence.
Funny, I thought you prefered salt :-)
-- 
"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: probst@selkirk.sfu.ca (Scott Probst)
Subject: Re: The Engaged Psychobitch from Hell Syndrome
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 02:21:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.005935.25638@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>Has this ever happened to you???
>
>You meet this new girl.  A quick finger-scan for rings gives you an all-clear
>signal.  You ask her out.  A real nice date or two.  Then right before
>things get too serious, she tells you she's engaged.
>
>Can "you all out there in netland" explain to me what would cause a woman
>to do this?  And how can I avoid such sillyness in the future?
>
how about asking? you know, like if they are engaged or something?

spot
From: epg@nature.Berkeley.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: General topic to break the monotony
Date: 10 Sep 92 03:45:55 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: none
NNTP-Posting-Host: nature.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep9.125526.7398@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>
>Thank you soc.singles. I'll always remember this a more innocent time.
>Glory, glory hallelulah.
>Decaf is for weanies.
>Ham is for eggs.

Mr. Dutton, please take care not to utter the words "ham" and "eggs" in the
same sentence.  Elswise, the reciting demon inside me will be compelled to
cite Dr. Seuss at length.  

My sincere thanks,

little 'e'

"Would you? Could you? In a box?"
From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: "We're all normal here"
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:08:11 GMT
	<1992Sep15.042006.4392@csi.uottawa.ca> <dlzn=zp.aahz@netcom.com>
	<1992Sep15.144814.8944@cs.yale.edu>
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: loosemore-sandra@CS.YALE.EDU's message of 15 Sep 92 10:48:07 GMT


In article <1992Sep15.144814.8944@cs.yale.edu>
loosemore-sandra@CS.YALE.EDU (Sandra Loosemore) writes:

   aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:

      >> Welcome to soc.singles. We're all normal here. 
      >   Yeah.  Problem is, we want to be tangent.
      I'm sorry, Mark, I think that was a little too obtuse.

   Some of us have more acute sensibilities.  Do I detect sines of
   another pun war?  It's enough to make my hair curl.

Or we could indulge in hyperboli...



--
 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                              		   jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \          Beauty is the purgation of superfluities. -- Michelangelo
From: lewocz@acsu.buffalo.edu (John S. Lewocz)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: A lurker goes to California
Keywords: Good luck !!
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:19:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UB

In article <ntsnctq.tyger@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
>In article <BuB1sn.FpE@acsu.buffalo.edu> v105l4lg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (c pierre) writes:
>>In article <BuALv8.A07@acsu.buffalo.edu>, lewocz@acsu.buffalo.edu (John S. Lewocz) writes...
>>	If you can, try and rent a car and buy a map in the process, because	
>>that place is quite treacherous. Yes, in the blink of an eye you would be
>>naked and broke around those folks. Party animals you see !!
>
>That's a flaming lie! We only want his money! :)


You'll be sorely disappointed!!!  :-)

>
>>	 I again suspect that you would be looking for an eyeopener too, so
>>drive to Navada and look for the M. Ranch. Dude, you would leave there with
>>a profound smile on your face, languishing in the after thought. On your way
>>in ask to speak to the young woman in charge then just mention my name. Heck,
>>you would be treated like a king in that place. You would surprise the worth
>>of a couple of quids in that establishment.
>
>Now if only it hadn't been shut down by the IRS for tax infractions...
>
>>				 Good luck with your job interview!
>
>Now that I can agree with...:)

Thanks.

>
>Tyger
>-- 
>      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
>      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
>                            But you can make decisions too
>      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break 
> 
>                       
>        


--John
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: crichard@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (richardson craig s - CS500)
Subject: Re: Desperation (was Re: Commitment--The C-word?)
Organization: Washington State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 21:55:28 GMT

In article <ewillims.715600678@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>In <14423@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>
>If she does
>shave her legs then nothing happens....if she doesn't then it will.
>She claims it always works for her!
>
>Anyone else out there experienced the same? (*GRIN*)

Well, I haven't shaved my legs in a couple of years, but it doesn't work
for me.  I don't know a whole lot of women who are impressed by that sort
of thing...  But maybe I should try to meet some :-).

Life's too short to lurk...

--Craig 

-- 
These remarkable insights were brought to you from the fertile imagination of:
Craig S. Richardson  (crichard@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu)
GM, Pullman Sleepers (Original Bitnet Fantasy Baseball League)
GM, Seattle Rainiers (Internet Federal AL League)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: rickk@netmbx.netmbx.de (Rick Kuhlbars)
Subject: Re: Tallllll women....
Organization: netmbx, Berlin, Germany
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:04:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.135952.3076@gvl.unisys.com> liz@prc.unisys.com (Liz Loquacious) writes:
>In article <Bu7H2I.CKF@tik.vtt.fi>, pekka@tmt.tele.fi (Pekka Ahonen) writes:
>|> 
>|> PS
>|> Someone asked if all the tall men are in US of A.
>|> There are also tall men (and women!) in Finland. I think that I'm
>|> about the average height (or perhaps a bit short) 183 cm.
>|> 
>|> - Brandon
>
>I found there to be a lot of tall women in Holland.  What I liked about
>living there was being able to buy dress pants off the rack which weren't
>already hemmed up above my calves or with the crotch between my knees!
>I didn't mine paying for hemming (~$7); it was worth it to get the selection
>finally!

Having lived in both the US and Europe (German, were I currently reside) 
I've found that in general woman are taller over here.  Meeting a woman that
is 5'10" is no problem.  I myself prefer them around 6'2" ;-)

Cheers,

the ricker
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: "want" vs "need"
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:06:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.020040.23803@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
>misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>>   Suppose you had a *choice* between finding a cure for cancer and 
>>having a family.  Which would you choose?  If you knew for sure that you
>>*could* find a cure for cancer, wouldn't choosing not to find it make 
>>you unhappy?
>
>In article <1992Sep9.152937.16055@clsi.COM> kevin@clsi.COM (Kevin Cameron) writes:
>>I'd go for the family. Nobody lives forever, they will always die from something,
>>so why worry about it. If you go for the family you could achieve some level of
>>genetic immortality - unless your family is prone to childhood cancer :-)
>
>In article <1992Sep10.125122.11386@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>>If you have siblings, each of them has 50% of your genes on average.  Your
     ^^^                                        ^^^^                    ^^^^
>>offspring would have exactly 50% while your nephews and nieces would have
                                         ^^^^
>>25%.  Therefore, a niece and nephew are statistically equivalent to one
>>kid of your own, but someone else has the aggravation of rearing them.
>
>Wrong.  You have way, way more than 99% of my genes.  A chimpanzee has 98% of
>your genes.  A *MOUSE* has 80% of your genes.

The fact that a high percentage of my father's and mother's genes are identical
is irrelevant to a discussion of their relative contributions to my genotype,
which is 50% from each.

Your statements should be "[Some species] and you have [some %age] of genes
in common."

See Chapter 6 of _The Selfish Gene_ by Richard Dawkins for a technical
discussion of genetic relatedness.

>>However, if you find a cure for cancer, you'll be bombarded by groupies
>>wanting you to help them "maximize their fitness."  And we all know that
>>biology babes are the best.  (Right, Max?)
>
>You're absolutely correct.  Nothing like those Researcher groupies!  Imagine
>what it must be like being Jonas Salk (sp?) having twice saves our collective
>ass from a revisit of the Plague (first with Polio, and soon with AIDS).

The last I heard Salk was married to one of Pablo Picasso's ex-wives.

-- Herb Huston

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: hoyle@beaufort.sfu.ca (Michelle Hoyle)
Subject: Re: leg shaving
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:52:15 GMT


I know this is going to sound silly, but since I'm female, it has the 
advantage of at least being passibly practical.  I shave my legs once every
business quarter because if I don't the itching that I endure from my
cotton lycra leotards (I'm allergic to nylon) pushing against the hair
drives me crazy and I attempt self-mutilation (scratching the skin off
of my body) in self-defense.  Therefore, I do not do it because I am
vain; I do not do it because it improves my performance, per se.  I do
it because I have to!

Michelle -- A Quirky Blonde Sysop of a Different Flavour
 @The Human Impact Lab (HIL-Vancouver)
  CA (604) 251-7677

Newsgroups: soc.singles