HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: What we find attractive
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 06:37:32 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Sep28.125547.3934@umr.edu> bolsen@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Brian Olsen) writes:
>I took 5 years of piano lessons and then continued myself.

	So I guess you play continuo?

	Sorry, Baroque joke.

						Kayembee
From: parks_typ@med.wcc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Bar/Club Scene
Date: 29 Sep 1992 21:37:04 GMT
Organization: Wellington City Council, Wgtn, NZ
Reply-To: parks_typ@med.wcc.govt.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: blade.wcc.govt.nz

In article <1992Sep28.053216.10909@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, jderagon@nyx.cs.du.edu (John Deragon) writes:
>for something or another, when I glance over and see a group of girls/
>women [insert politically correct statement] staring at me.  Now let
>me define what I mean by staring...

>me, and when I glanced at them, they would look away.  This happened
>about 4 or 5 times, when I would look away, and they would look at me,
>I would look back, they would look away..
>
>	The bottom line is 4 out of the 5 were staring at me,
>(maybe because I was the soberest male in the place), and I am there
>trying to figure out the best way to approach this.  What does one
>do in a situation like this?  Do I just walk up to this circle-o-defense
>and say "Hi... blah..blah...blah".
>
>
>	Thats the bottom line, if you see someone making eye contact 
>with you in a bar/club scene what do you say, how do approach this
>situation?   

I can't resist ....  (snigger)



First make sure you haven't got something stuck to your face which could be
causing the interest.   :-)

Is your toupee straight?

Is there food in your facial hair?

Do you have a peanut shell stuck to your front teeth?

IS YOUR FLY UNDONE???

Do you have a wet mark on the front of your trousers?  (wait for the shake
boy!)

Has someone tied your shoelaces together?

Is there a hunk standing just behind you and they're not really looking at you?




If all is well then it's safe to assume they're interested in meeting you. 
Proceed as stated.

;->



(sorry!  the temptation was too much!)


Rachel                     "Supergoof"
                               - -
                               O O
                                >
                               \_/
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik)
Subject: Re: relationship gone to pot?
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 04:42:43 GMT

In article 22235@asuvax.eas.asu.edu, ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra) writes:
>dl@cockatoo.bellcore.com (Daniel Liebster) writes:
>> As a mere technicality, pot is not addictive.
>
>     Not for most people, but it can be for some
>(psychologically, of course, not physically).
>I've seen it happen and it isn't pretty.  The
>people I've seen involved don't steal or
>anything, but they make themselves and everyone
>around them miserable until they find more pot.
>
>     Fortunately, most people who smoke pot seem
>to be able to take it or leave it.
>
 What about cocaine? Not physically addictive, but there are incredible
emotional chains that keep the coker going.

Andy.

PLEASE EXCUSE MY OBVIOUS IGNORANCE.

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: hays@TECHNET.NM.ORG (Larry 'Purple' Hays)
Subject: Re: Adventure on the docks
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 15:41:40 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Technet   Albuquerque, NM
Reply-To: hays@TECHNET.NM.ORG

In article <#t9n0#q.tyger@netcom.com>, tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
>stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>>mel@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Meloney D Cregor) writes:
>>
>>>Sheesh.  Ya go away for a while and come back and Larry and Aahz are
>>>down on the floor together.
>>>What has this group come to......
>>
>>That's OK. They're down here giving me a...um, a backrub.
>
>So that's why noone pays any attention to me! Stef and Bathsheba (sp?) are
>hogging all the men! :)

Join us!  Join us!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry 'Purple' Hays                                        hays@technet.nm.org

                         Why, are you falling apart?
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward "Buzz" Horne")
Subject:      Love Crazed Strafer ( One Thumb Up! )
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 13:10:55 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA12969; Sat, 26 Sep 92 12:16:58 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA12278; Sat, 26 Sep 92 12:16:54 -0700
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 7542; Sat, 26 Sep 92 13:16:07 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 8895; Sat, 26 Sep 92 13:16:06 MST
X-To: soc.singles.usenet



        A witness of the Love Bombing remarked that, just before Mock-ingbird
    penetrated her domicile, Mock calmly flicked a cigarette out the window.

        "BUZZZZZZZZZZZZ"
        <Flick>
         "BOOM!"

     YEAH!  All right, Mr. Nice Guy.  Way to go!

     Mysti'll be all over this guy.

     Probably the victim of a woman who used advice from the Net, on how
     to dump a nice guy gracefully.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: More on guys who aren't dating Ed Wright
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:45:24 GMT

In article <1ade3uINN688@golem.wcc.govt.nz> parks_typ@med.wcc.govt.nz writes:

>To totally change the subject, why is it people can't handle the fact that
>someone isn't attracted to them?

Some of us can.

>  I've had trouble in the past with a guy I
>really like as a friend, i.e. we get on really well and enjoy each other's
>company, but I'm simply not physically attracted to him.  He can't understand
>that, and my attempted explanations obviously haven't convinced him.  I'd hate
>to lose his friendship, but I'm sick of every time he's around, him hassling me
>to go out with him as more than a friend.

And some of us can't.

>Maybe it's true that male/female friendships can never *truly* be 'just
>friends'.

No, men and women truly can be "just friends" (if by that you mean
"friends and not lovers or trying to be lovers").  There are a number
of women who are my friends; they can be women I don't find
attractive, women who don't find me attractive, ex-lovers, women who
are seriously committed to someone else, women who I find attractive
but realize that us being lovers would never work, and even a woman
who I find very attractive but who I'm not crazy enough to sleep with.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: malak@grebyn.com (Michael Malak)
Subject: Re: Dating an older woman
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:53:13 GMT

In article <hoyle.718309423@sfu.ca> hoyle@beaufort.sfu.ca (Michelle Hoyle) writes:
>wall@hel4.brl.mil (Jeff Wall) writes:
>
>As a female, I just thought that I would drop my $0.50 into the conversation.
>I'm not a man, but I did have a common-law marriage with a man who was 8
>years older than myself.  We did not dissolve our relationship because of
>the difference in ages.  In fact, unless other people commented upon it,
>we did not notice.  I think that the age difference actually benefitted us
>both in a lot of ways.
> [stuff deleted]
>
>Is 8 years too much?  No, not for me.  Is 23 years too much?  Well, I have
>to stop and contemplate.  How about for you?

In my opinion, it is necessary to distinguish between the man being
older and the woman being older, for the reasons of safe fertility.  For
the woman, it is until 36-40.  For the man, it is until he dies (we
should account for the positive economic and pyschological impact of
having a living father, so we should take 65 (retirement) - 22 (kid's
college graduation) = 43.  That's 3 to 7 years that the man is allowed
to be older under the constraints of intending to raise mutually-
conceived children, *assuming* that you wish to maximize the number of
care-free years you have without children.  (I do, which is why I assume
it; I did say this was my opinion).

This puts me, personally, at a severe disadvantage.  At 24, I seem to be
getting along only with women 31 - 35.  I don't want to be forced to
have children in the next 3 - 5 years!  I'm not ready!  I wish this safe
fertility thing didn't exist.  That is why I'm passing up many lovely,
older women.  The people my own age that I respect are few and far
between, but I haven't given up yet.
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: The Engaged Psychobitch from Hell Syndrome
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:38:39 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Emma Williams (ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie) wrote:
: >I've seen it.  I don't know "how", but it is, therefore it is
: >possible.
: 
: 	I still reserve judgement till I've really seen it work
: myself...I've seen it attempted and end in total unmitigated
: disaster!
: 


	I've seen it attempted as well ('open' relationships) and it
	is extremely confusing when it 'breaks up'. The two concerned
	still slept together after breaking up, only now they were
	supposed to be friends rather than lovers although I was confused
	as to what the difference between what was happening at that point
	and what had gone before actually was (!!???!!).

	In the end she found someone else with which to have a monogamous
	relationship (he dumping his live-in girlfriend of three years
	in the same week her mother died) leaving the man rather confused
	with lots of other people saying that he shouldn't be upset because
	the relationship had been over for ages although he had been getting
	conflicting messages.

	My advice: don't try it kids.

	
			Aaron Turner

: 
: 	
: 
:
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Open letter to Edward V. Wright
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:04:11 GMT
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu's message of 30 Sep 92 18:13:32 GMT

In article <1acqocINNm9c@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:

   In article <1992Sep30.170701.1568@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
   >I'm not going to try to argue your concepts of the value (or lack
   >thereof) of physical fitness or of your claims of the odds against your
   >ever finding a suitable mate; I'm sure that no matter what I said, you
   >could come up with some grammatical foible, some out-of-context quote,
   >some assertion unrelated to anything I'd ever said, that you could focus
   >on and defeat in your own mind, convincing yourself once again through
   >volume and repetition that you are 100% right, reassuringly blinded from
   >any alternate viewpoints or evidence that doesn't fit your set-in-stone
   >absolute and unchanging view of the world.

   Yes!  I don't believe it!  You actually did it.

   We've just witnessed the very first 100 word sentence in the history of
   computer networking.

   This is truly incredible.  Folks, I though I'd never see the day the 100
   barrier would be broken.  What stamina this must require!

He cheated: that's two sentences spliced with a semicolon.
--
Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu/(ne crm@cs.duke.edu) 
O/Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
H/3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am he who walks the States with a barb'd tongue, questioning every
one I meet,/Who are you that wanted only to be told what you knew
before?/ Who are you that wanted only a book to join you in your
nonsense?"  _Leaves of Grass_ xxiii.4.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: relationship gone to pot?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:43:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.160242.7933@ac.dal.ca> brentaa@ac.dal.ca (brent, eh?) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.223647.16308@netcom.com>, greg@netcom.com (Greg Bullough) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct2.160621.7921@ac.dal.ca> brentaa@ac.dal.ca (brent, eh?) writes:
>>>
>>>P.S.    If you do dump him, I'm available, and I love to talk...... ;-)
>>  
>> Get back to the Nice Guys [tm] thread where you belong.
>>  
>> Greg
>
>sorry Greg, Nice Guys[tm] are everywhere nowadays, there's nowhere you can
>escape us.........HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
>				-brontosaur the Nice Guy?    who knows....
>
 
 Nice Guys[tm] always tickle themselves pink. It is good they enjoy
their own company.

 
================================================================================
 Ipisissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes - IIOSF XOX Dawn
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
From: bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Asking advice
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:49:09 GMT
	<90937@netnews.upenn.edu> <14848@auspex-gw.auspex.com>
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK

>>>>> On 29 Sep 92 22:57:12 GMT, johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) said:

> In article <90937@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:

> |Yay!  A sane response!

> I must be slipping.  Is there somethin' goin' round?

No, we're all normal here.

--
Bruce
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Karaoke
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:18:11 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <108@cnmhnet.UUCP> keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:
>>
>Probably not is right.  You have to watch out while complimenting
>Nancy Colucci.  I've never seen a female who was so sensitive and who
>is apt to take things the wrong way at the drop of a hat.  I too, like
>some of her posts, although others of her posts scream of schizophrenic
>paranoia.

Well, yes and no.

>I will say this about Nancy, though, she *is* interesting to read.
>I still prefer Angelwing's posts, but Nancy always seems to have
>an interesting angle on things.  

All right suck-head, and just what the *hell* do you mean by THAT??

-Nance, both of me.
-- 
Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
                            (_) \(_)
From: smith@wesson.Eng.Sun.COM (Nina S. Smith - SunSoft Product Marketing)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Asking advice
Date: 2 Oct 1992 05:21:54 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: smith@wesson.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: wesson

In article 119@cnmhnet.UUCP, keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:
>In article <72785@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>>keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:
>>Wrong-o. Refusing to touch your partner in public is saying, psychologically, 
>>that you don't respect her and are secretly looking for someone else to
>>boink. And as we know, not being happy with your monogamous relationship
>>indicates insecurity of the highest order.
>
>Oh Stef, of Apple, let us get to the core of the discussion.  Excessive
>touching of one's partner in public signifies an attempt to remind
>everyone that the partner "belongs" to you, in a possessive manner.

Keith, that's got to be the most bogus reasoning I've heard for being
against public displays of affection.  What could possibly be negative,
or possesive for that matter, about letting someone you're with know you 
like them, enjoy being with them or feel affection towards them?  

>Of course, this is wrong, because no one belongs to anyone else.  This
>also states that the partner being constantly touched is somehow
>inferior, and must be led around due to lack of direction [handholding].

Spoken like a true graduate of the Ostrich School of Reality!!! 
  
>In this modern society, when equality is supposed to be practiced,
>the man & the woman walk together down the street.  They may be 
>side-by-side, or one in front of the other, but they are still two
>independent people who should be accorded their space as human beings.

It's not about equality, or domination, or insecurity, or space, or which 
side of the street one should be on, or how many steps ahead of the other 
one should be . . . it's about enjoying each other's company and making it 
known to the other party. 

  
>--Keith

-- Nina



Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Subject: Re: Help, What Is Wrong With ME?(I'M NEW)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:09:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.214943.3332@cam.compserv.utas.edu.au> rthoff@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au (Rudolph van't Hoff) writes:
>Hi All,
>
>I've been observing this news group for the past month, and I was just wanting
>to know if anyone out there could explain why I am 19, single and have been
>for the past three to four years....?

(Someone probably beat me to this, but ...)

Rudolph, I think I know what the problem is.  If you've been 19 for three
or four years, you need to have someone reanimate you (read Dean R. Koontz's
"Hideaway") or you will not be attractive to anyone but the severest of
necrophiliacs.

You see, sir ... you are dead.

-Nance

-- 
Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
                            (_) \(_)                           
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Asking advice
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 17:03:05 GMT

In article <119@cnmhnet.UUCP> keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:
>In article <72785@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>>Wrong-o. Refusing to touch your partner in public is saying, psychologically, 
>>that you don't respect her and are secretly looking for someone else to
>>boink.

(Actually, my experiences and those of my friends would tend to confirm
Stef's analysis--usually it does indicate that one doesn't want other
potential boink partners (hmmmm...Potential Boink Objects/PBAs?) to
think that one is unavailable.) 

>Oh Stef, of Apple, let us get to the core of the discussion.  Excessive
>touching of one's partner in public signifies an attempt to remind
>everyone that the partner "belongs" to you, in a possessive manner.

Yes, it's very nice too--I really like having a romantic partner who
wants the world to know I'm hers. 

>Of course, this is wrong, because no one belongs to anyone else.  This
>also states that the partner being constantly touched is somehow
>inferior, and must be led around due to lack of direction [handholding].

Let's see...we have a couple holding hands; therefore, each one of
them is inferior to the other?  (This sort of thing is so confusing;
it's enough to make one completely abandon trying to analyze the
sociobiological implications of hand-holding and just be satisfied
with doing it....) 

>In this modern society, when equality is supposed to be practiced, 
>the man & the woman walk together down the street.  They may be 
>side-by-side, or one in front of the other, but they are still two
>independent people who should be accorded their space as human beings.

Or free to let the ones they care about into their space....

Trygve 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans)
Subject: Re: relationship gone to pot?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:28:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.023659.22226@cheshire.oxy.edu> ac@cheshire.oxy.edu (Aileen Cho) writes:
>
>   Okay bear with me, I've just barely joined this group. I would like to
>know how people have dealt with relationships (or attempts at) with others
>who are potheads. I got the distinct feeling in my last crash-and-burn affair
>that I lost out to the weed. I suppose it was more reliable.  My friend also
>had a thing going that lasted a little longer than mine, but in the end that
>also burned out as pot took over.
>   Don't get me wrong, I'm not against pot per se (it's certainly no wore
>worse than cigarettes), it's just that when somebody you wanted to be with
>gets stoned every day (once things get a little difficult with the relation-
>ship), you get rather frustrated.
>   Any advice? (Besides not getting involved again with someone addicted to
>pot).
>                                      --ac
>


Yeah--watch Annie Hall.

Piglet
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)
Subject: Re: Asking advice
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:44:49 GMT

In <117@cnmhnet.UUCP> keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:

>however, it is a generally accepted Psychological Theory, that 
>Public Displays of Affection [PDA] are a symptom of insecurity
>on the part of one or both of the parties involved.

Which means it should be given about the same amount of credibility as 
most other generally accepted Psychological Theories, i.e., none.

-- 
ben                                     fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

"A tight bunch of bastards who want to win while loving each other"
- Dave Hasbrook, about the Indiana Ultimate team
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:14:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.042541.29304@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA writes:
>In article 16959@cbnewsd.cb.att.com, nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>>He might not have the same philosophies as some other people, but from
>>what I see he usually backs his arguments up with a certain amount of
>>personal theory.  I see nothing wrong with that.
>Neither do I, and I loved it when he got all offended. What I do see
>wrong in his arguments is that he built them on things that we supposedly
>wrote, and he kept misunderstanding at least everything I wrote. When I
>had a real point he just ignored it, and picked away at details that were
>not the core of my argument. 

If you're not already, you're gonna *love* marriage.  :-)
>>--
>Better pump up those flat tires, Nance, it must be a rough ride!

and speaking of picking at details that are not the core of an argument ...

-Nance
-- 
Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
                            (_) \(_)                           
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: If you please?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:49:32 GMT


Ballon Boink update if you please?
Details, details.
 
================================================================================
 Ipisissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes - IIOSF XOX Dawn
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: gtagle@hounix.org (Gerry Tagle)
Subject: net_sex
Organization:  Houston, TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 00:12:26 GMT

I have had some stimulating vollies of steaming e-mail with those of the femail gender.  I find this to  a great escape from the normal flesh to flesh contact,talthough nowhere near being a substitute for.  Anyone out there have a fantasy
to share with me?  Males or *other* need not apply.!

Daks