HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Subject: Re: Humans as Physical Creatures.
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:08:52 GMT

In article <9209301640.AA16261@la.tis.com> gds@LA.TIS.COM (Greg Skinner) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.175452.17220@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> Nancy Colucci writes:
>>My friend John belongs to a computer dating service and every month or
>>so has a date with a woman who "requests" him (he's no longer active in
>>the service but he's on file to be "picked from").  A few times ago I asked
>>him how a date went and he said he wasn't interested in dating her
>>again because she was "fat."
>Hmmm.  I would think that someone would get to know someone first, and
>find out if they're interested in athletics, rather than just writing
>them off if they don't look like they're interested in athletics.

From what John said, he *did* spend several hours with her, talking and
getting to know her, and he said that his initial impression was that
she was attractive and VERY nice, but wasn't interested in the things
he liked.  His saying she was "fat" was a sort of crude way of summarizing
that he felt they had nothing in common.

-Nance
-- 
Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
                            (_) \(_)
From: ivan@spider.co.uk (Ivan Reid)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: More on guys who aren't dating Ed Wright
Date: 6 Oct 92 11:13:06 GMT
Distribution: soc
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK

At last! After joining this thread late, I've figured out who Ed
Wright is. It's also just dawned on me that there's an innocent
explanation for the Subject title ">guys< ... dating Ed ..." - for a
while I was really confused, thinking this should be on soc.motss!
It's just your strange language I suppose :-)

After the net-dissection of Ed's personality, there must be loads of
readers who now know the "real-Ed", and will forego first impressions!
You're in with a chance Ed!

I haven't time to follow more of this thread, please forgive me if
I've misinterpreted things, but Ed, I'm sure that you're getting lots
of well-meant advice, the most fundamental and sound of which must be:
You have to learn to be happy and content with yourself, before you
can expect anyone else to feel the same about you. Otherwise, forget
it. Simple as that. I also agree with what Diana was saying about
projecting the image to attract the desired mate, though personally, I
would find it too scheming - in the end, they'll discover that you're
not really a Biker<tm> or whatever, if you're not! Anyway, good luck
Ed, and all the best from the Other Side of the Pond!

By the way, someone could start up "alt.ed-wright", which could grow
through the years into mythological status, with people eventually
forgetting who or what the original reason for the group was - a bit
like having a street named after you. Go for it Ed!

-- 
Ivan Hans Mark Reid                      Management Information Systems Analyst
"Information is Power ..."                                   Spider Systems Ltd
vox: (+44 31) 554 9424                                 Spider Park, Stanwell St
fax: (+44 31) 554 0649                              Edinburgh EH6 5NG, SCOTLAND
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Organization: Gagging Sloth Records
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:24:08 GMT

In article <ewright.717440628@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
|> In <1992Sep24.222511.4984@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith) writes:
|> 
|> >You have a net.persona which appears to me to view itself as unattractive.
|> 
|> That is true, at least if you qualify "unattractive" to mean "physically 
|> unattractive."  "Unattractive," however, does not mean "ugly", it
|> means "not attractive."  If a woman was attracted to my physique,
|> I would say that she considered my physically attractive/ I was
|> physically attractive to her.  However, I have never known a woman 
|> who was attracted to my physique.  In other words, I have never known
|> a woman who found me physically attractive.  If my physique does not
|> attract women, who can I possibly say that I am physically attractive?
|> 
|> 
|> >Since I have only your net.persona by which to judge you, I am forced to
|> >assume that there is some correlation between it and how you act in person.
|> 
|> Forced?  Really?  By whom?  Does someone have a gun pointed to your
|> head?  You couldn't simply ask me something, instead of assuming?
|> The way Charlie Martin assumed that I "bike long distances?"  
|> 
|> Of course, "assuming" has an advantage over "asking." You can
|> assume anything you want, which ensures that you will always
|> have the ammunition you need to make your arguments come out
|> the way you want.

OK, Ed...you obviously don't want a meaningful discussion (surprise, surprise)
you'd much rather debate semantics. Fine. But you'll have to do so with someone
else. Have fun.

jds

***************************************************************************
                               * Health and knowledge and wealth and power,
Jeff Smith                     * Passion and poems and sex
smith@fl08-g.comm.mot.com      * I wear a smile like a leather glove,
                               * I won't shut my mouth for less.
                                                - shriekback
***************************************************************************
From: bolsen@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Brian Olsen)
Subject: Re: What we find attractive
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:55:47 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1992Sep28.101825.2248@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.234044.27503@umr.edu> bolsen@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Brian Olsen) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep27.181250.26579@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>>>Here are some results from various psychological studies expressed as
>>>correlation coefficients:
>>>
[deleted stuff]
>>
>>By the way, how do you measure your finger?  From the middle of the
>>knuckle?
>
>Good question!  Since my hands are still covered by muscle and skin, I
>measured from the flexure line at the base of the finger.
>
>>If so I should have women falling all over me on that alone
>>(12.4 cm left, 12.5 cm right).  Any takers?
>
>Well, those studies indicate that women with long fingers should be attracted
>to your long fingers and you to theirs, not that everyone is going to find
>long fingers attractive.  Perhaps more pertinently, did you take lessons
>on the piano, harp, or guitar?
>
>-- Herb Huston

Hmmmm....yes, I took 5 years of piano lessons and then continued
myself.  I also play a couple of renaissance instruments:  viol da
gamba (both bass and treble), and I occasionally recorder (but my first
love is to sing, beyond the math/EE thing, that is...).  I do notice,
however, that one of my requirements for being physically attracted to
someone I see involves the general shape of their hands...in fact, it
can be one of the major disqualifiers in my book (makes me sound
superficial, huh?)

Brian

".sig" No such file or directory
From: fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:32:34 GMT
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>>Whereas I see Ed as potentially one of those Nice Guys but more like one
>>of those fellows you see around who wear all black clothes, [deleted]
>>but then the whole world is shit anyway, and there is no hope of changing
>>things so we might as well all kill ourselves now.
>>They usually don't bathe enough either.
>
>Now just a goldanged minute here: *I* wear black and have a
>realistic worldview, and *I* have a gf.

Ya, but you bath reasonably often.

	fred "At least I've never been able to smell you" walter
-- 
Disclaimer: everything I write is my *personal* opinion and does not represent
or reflect the opinion of the company which employs me.
Xref: sparky soc.singles:26857 misc.kids:24825
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,misc.kids
Subject: Re: BARBIE DOES IT AGAIN!!!!
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:12:22 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep30.180924.17599@cbfsb.cb.att.com> joni@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (joni.dunlap) writes:
>
>     According to the Wall Street Journal this morning, Mattel is selling
>     a product called "Teen Talk Barbie" which says 4 phrases.  One of the 
>     phrases is "Math class is hard".  I can't imagine a product better
>     designed to program math avoidance into little girls.  We've all heard
>     many times how math avoidance limits women's educational opportunities
>     and career choices.  Mattel justifies this product by saying something
>     like they aren't saying the other classes are easy, and that they have
>     a doll availble that says "I want to be a doctor".  I'm sure we all
>     wish Barbie good luck on achieving her goal of becoming a doctor
>     without any math skills.  If you have views on this subject that
>     you would like to share with the Mattel company, you can call
>     1-800-421-2887 or write to Mattel at 330 Continental Blvd.,
>     El Secundo, Ca. 90245.

Just because Barbie thinks math is hard doesn't mean she doesn't
have any math skills, nor does it mean she shouldn't aspire to
be a doctor.  If her phrase was "math class is easy", what self-image
would that instill in a child who found math hard?  LOTS of kids
think math is hard.  I thought math was hard; in fact I had to repeat
high school algebra.  I'm sure glad I didn't have a plastic-headed dummy
telling me *she* thought it was easy.  

I think that Mattel designed the product to meet the demands of
the market.  There are three little girls in my life ranging in age
from 10-12 and ALL of them are Barbie freaks.  The only way I've seen
any of them actually emulating Barbie is in the colorful clothing they
chose to wear.  So what?  

I don't know what other phrases this toy says and I too might be appalled
at some of them, but I personally don't have a problem with "math class
is hard."  I might, however, suggest something like "That shower felt
good after soccer practice!"  or "Midge, I'll call you back when I'm done
with my homework" or "I love helping Mom change spark plugs!", etc.  I
read one suggestion that she say "Quantum physics gives me goose bumps!"
but since the market for Barbie products is children, particularly female
children between 6 and 12, I'd like to see her steer these kids into
the direction of self-esteem and good hygene and no gender restrictions -
at *their* level.

If we could get heavy metal artists to talk about quantum physics and
career goals, that would hit the mark.  :-)

-Nance, mother of one and aunt of many.
-- 
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: Re: Ipisissimus
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:16:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.150358.22636@beaver.cs.washington.edu> dbj@cs.washington.edu (Dave Johnson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.123956.11914@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>> Ipisissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes - IIOSF XOX Dawn
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>  Where does he get those wonderful words?
>
>  Just a minor quibble here, Rev. Jimmy--shouldn't this title
>  belong to your beloved Eddie?
>-- 
>  Dave Johnson

Well that particular one was sent to me as a little present. From an old
friend. OK. From someone a little more then a friend. OK. From an intimate
acquintance. OK. From a hot toe tapping goddess of love. OK. From the
sexual as well as intellectual be all of end all's. OK. From the very being
of my pores, the essence of all thats pure and good, the whammer of
my jammer and I ain't talking Hammer.
 
Actually Dawn sent it to me. I've never met her.
 
What is mine is Eddie's. We don't need no contract.
 
================================================================================
 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: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:07:45 GMT

In article <lcen5hINN6j9@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.190952.28341@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>
>>It's
>>superior morally because you are going to be alive and well and contributing
>>to the lives of people who love you instead of having an attitude like
>>"eh, so I die, who cares" or, in the case of pregnancy, you're going to
>>give the developing person inside you the best possible chance for a
>>healthy life.
>Watch out Nance, now he's going to say that you accused him of being
>pregnant.  

Well, let him!  There are far worse things I could accuse him of being
than a pregnant woman.  Being pregnant might be just what he needs.  :-)

-Nance
-- 
Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
                            (_) \(_)
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Asking advice
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:59:49 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

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

And some people just like touching the person they like. 

-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira     | Auspex Systems | "Auspex does not share my opinions.  |
| johnf@auspex.com | Santa Clara CA |  So Why am I still working here?"    |
+==========================================================================+
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine)
Subject: Re: What we find attractive
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 22:41:38 GMT
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez

In article <1992Sep27.181250.26579@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>One of the
>highest, though, was length of the middle finger (+0.61), which seems to
>be more important than either intelligence or hair color.

By George!  I think he's on to something!
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which the only
specification is that it should run noiselessly.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Subject: Re: Love crazed pilot and probably a Nice Guy too.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 03:09:28 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Hey, thanks Marianna, I was almost ready to call my ex-SO and sister
and ask if it was someone they knew :-)  Of course, I still might.

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, Networking Technical Leader
Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, TX
(214) 497-4405
From: diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:00:12 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <MARTINC.92Sep27144011@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.184716.1921@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>
>   (and why he no longer uses peanut butter
>   when using this technique); 
>
>Beth, I'll make an exception in your case.
>--
>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'm touched, really.... but are you sure that by the time you're done
with the lawyer and the journalist and both the nurses and the multi-
degree'd woman that you're going to have the energy?  Peanut butter is
pretty sticky, after all, and it might be the wrong choice for a man
who has to save his strength.  Perhaps we'd better go with chocolate
sauce.

				--Diamond (I really like chocolate sauce
					   better anyway.  Besides, I'd
					   never be able to eat my peanut-
					   butter-and-jam sandwiches for
					   lunch with a straight face 
					   again.)

diamond@acpub.duke.edu |  "*Think* before you ask these questions, Mitch."
Elizabeth S. Abrams    |                       --Chris Knight
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Subject: Re: The Engaged Psychobitch from Hell Syndrome
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 02:37:59 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <lc6tfeINNj56@news.bbn.com> dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:

>Again, I agree with you.  I mentioned that they were married only because
>that's a symptom of committment.
          ^^^^^^^
Interesting.  What's the etiology?  What's the cure?  :-)

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, Networking Technical Leader
Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, TX
(214) 497-4405
From: schico@PICA.ARMY.MIL (Stephen Chico (CCAC) <schico>)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Ken Dolls
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:02:14 GMT
Followup-To: BARBI
Organization: U.S. ARDEC

Have you heard about the new talking Ken doll.  It says: 

"Yo Barb! get me a beer."  
"Wanna ride my Harley"
(other phrases more appropriate for alt.sex)

It comes packed with a blond, brunette, and a redhead.  Some guys
get all the dolls. 


SteveTheEverVaticEngineer
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith)
Subject: Re: The Engaged Psychobitch from Hell Syndrome
Organization: Gagging Sloth Records
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:19:31 GMT

In article <90413@netnews.upenn.edu>, crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
|> I'm brand new to the group.  After reading a bit of this thread, I thought
|> I'd ask:
|> 
|> Anyone else out there planning on waiting until marriage before they
|> have sex, and then sleeping only with their spouse thereafter?  Or
|> am I too hopeless an anachronism for this group?

My guess would be that there are more people who feel that way than will
publicly (at least here) admit it.

Here's an interesting question:  with regard to the first part of your question
(the part about waiting) would you insist on only dating someone who felt the
same? Or is this simply something you feel that you, personally, should do?

jds

***************************************************************************
                               * Health and knowledge and wealth and power,
Jeff Smith                     * Passion and poems and sex
smith@fl08-g.comm.mot.com      * I wear a smile like a leather glove,
                               * I won't shut my mouth for less.
                                                - shriekback
***************************************************************************
From: ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: The Engaged Psychobitch from Hell Syndrome
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:11:45 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <1992Oct5.194437.230849@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOSEPH ALOYSIUS MCVEIGH) writes:

>ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>>>      Oh I see!  So, there's no point in making a "serious commitment"
>>>in any average relationship because the person in question has only a one
>>>in 5 billion chance of being perfect for you so therefore it's not
>>>worth bothering?

>markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
>>Actually the probabiliy of someone being a perfect match is more like 1/1000
>>or so.  Probably even a lot more, like 1/100.
>>
>>Really, I'd say 1/1000, because then the probability of finding two perfect
>>matches at once would be like 1/1000000, which makes the event about as common
>>as observation suggests. :)

>It appears that both of you are assuming the existence of a "perfect match". I
>would qualify this by saying that there's a "best match" which may or may not
>be perfect. As a cynic, I'm not a big believer in perfection.

	Well, not really actually.  My point was that "perfection" per se
	is so totally impossible a concept that you should devote 
	yourself to  the relationship in hand as commitment to that one 
	may well bring its own rewards....or something like that....:)

	(Sometimes I lose track of my own threads, let alone other
	people's!! Our news server and my memory are both a bit 
	dodgy at times.!!! (*GRIN*)
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Asking advice
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:17:24 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <14828@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>In article <117@cnmhnet.UUCP> keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:
>|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.
>
>And some people just like touching the person they like. 
>


Yay!  A sane response!



-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Organization: Gagging Sloth Records
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:21:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.140102.16959@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>, nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:

|> He [Ed Wright] 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 nominate this as understatement of the year.

jds

***************************************************************************
                               * Health and knowledge and wealth and power,
Jeff Smith                     * Passion and poems and sex
smith@fl08-g.comm.mot.com      * I wear a smile like a leather glove,
                               * I won't shut my mouth for less.
                                                - shriekback
***************************************************************************
Xref: sparky soc.singles:27092 alt.romance:12298 alt.romance.chat:19151
From: dennisp@kpc.com (Dennis Preston)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance,alt.romance.chat
Subject: Re: How long has it been?
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:17:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: kpc.1992Oct6.191759.4135
Distribution: na
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Inc, Santa Clara, CA

In article <1992Oct6.174335.23415@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.134605.16183@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
>mneeley@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark Neeley) writes:
>>How long has it been since you were kissed by a member of
>>the opposite sex?
>>
>>	Mark (almost a year)
>
>5.5 hours.
>
>Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
>
>(And I'm sure there'll be somebody posting from home while they're
>kissing, just to annoy you.)
>
about 10 seconds. see above;->