HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Intelligence vs Smart Alec (Was: Various ramblings...)
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:13:17 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <FsPkqB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> dy@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Dr. Yes) writes:
|
|Since the weather is inherently a non-controversial subject a
|person acting the smart-aleck know-it-all about it seems silly.
|How about a genuine opinion expressed about a controversial
|subject, even if it meets you criterion of considerations?
|Consider something like:
|
|"I know you're a longtime Woody Allen fan and ...

Or this:

I had a friend that also had a friend that was constantly trying to
oneup her with his knowledge.  She decided to pick a topic which he might
be so knowledgable.  She decided to learn the capital of all the states in
the US.  After a few days of studying she asked me to test her. "OK", I
said, "Virginia?".  "V", she replied with a grin.

-- 
+==========================================================================+
| 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
Subject: Re: How'd You Get Here?? (Was:Lurkers)
From: estell@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (John K. Estell)
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:03:07 EST

  It's been a long time since I've posted to s.s, but nowadays there's little
time to read it...  Anyways, I started reading s.s about 1986 while I was
twiddling my thumbs during my TA office hours at the Univ. of Illinois. 
I got interested due to some of the other TAs making references to lime jello
and slime sisters, and when I asked what they were talking about.... I wound
up here.

My, wasn't that a thrilling story?  :-)

Well, there is the one about the racing pigs......

John
-- 
==============================================================================
John K. Estell, Computer Science & Engineering Dept., The University of Toledo
estell@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu, estell@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu
   "There's no place like $FC58."
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: Seesters, I want the seesters.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:04:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.224643.27430@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug26.124728.16686@cbfsb.cb.att.com>  jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>>
>>  Might they have any sisters, my good man?
>
>You want seesters?  How about a pair of twins and a third sister, all
>blonde, Irish, built, and over here making money as exotic dancers?

What'll I do for the rest of the evening?
(A legend in my mind).
 
================================================================================
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: morton@rtpnet06.rtp.dg.com (John R. Morton)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 07:52:03 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

>>I'm almost 24 years old, and I keep seeing my friends getting into serious
>>relationships with the opposite sex but, possibly because of my upbringing and
>>my responses to the way I've seen other people react, I cannot muster up the
>>courage to approach women that I find attractive.

	BE GLAD. This is a trait that frustrates you now, but will save you
	later. Your instinct not to approach the physical attraction, is
	a wonderfull nature provided safeguard, and will protect you !
	You are one of the few... be glad, it will feel right someday,
	and you shall be fulfilled !
From: gds@LA.TIS.COM (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Desperation (was Re: Commitment--The C-word?)
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:46:54 GMT
Reply-To: gds@la.TIS.COM
Organization: Trusted Information Systems, Inc., Los Angeles, CA

In article <kiran.715500753@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> Kiran Wagle writes:
>Dawn Hardin writes:
>>Who will you complain about your sweetie to when you've found her? 
>I won't. Only people who date jerks have to complain about them to others.

This is not necessarily true.  Even the best-matched partners don't
get along wonderfully all the time.  There will be times the other(s)
do something you don't like, or don't understand, and you might not be
able to communicate with them about it.  It helps to have someone else
(a neutral person) who you can let some steam off with.

--gregbo
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Subject: Re: Can we can the suck-up bit?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:08:16 GMT
Keywords: encourage friendship?

In article <zvjn#qn.greg@netcom.com> greg@netcom.com (Greg Bullough) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.135102.21012@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>>Men will be leery of agreeing with a woman's point of view here because
>>they don't want someone to accuse them of doing so to win her affectations.
> 
>But Nance, I always thought that the best thing about Mid-Western women was
>that they didn't have any affectations!

Oops.  <blush>.  Um, I mean "affections."

-Nance
-- 
Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
                            (_) \(_)                           
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: enigma@halcyon.com (Matt Luders)
Subject: Mea Non Culpa
Keywords: everybody happy
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:09:50 GMT

I wrote:

>Apparently, I haven't been reading this newsgroup long enough to know
>that you must never, *ever* compliment a member of the opposite sex.
>My humblest apologies.  It won't happen again.


Stef Jones wrote:

>Matt, you needn't give in so easy. We know that what you wrote really
>wasn't a suckup.  I mean, you didn't use the word 'perky' even once.

I haven't really given in, Stef.  I originally thought Aahz and Kiran were
questioning my sincerity with the word "suckup."  I decided the most effective
response would be to go straight for the jugular: guilt. :-)

And apparently it worked.  Your friend Aahz (Dan Bernstein) sent me some
conciliatory e-mail, and explained what "suckup" means in the rarefied world
of soc.singles:
                "a flowery compliment, one which took at
                 least a bit of effort to create."

Perhaps soc.singles needs a FAQ to explain the "soc.single meaning" of words
like "boink" and "suckup"--words that have *very* different meanings to the
outside world.  Or would this remove all challenge?  :-)

At least I have the distinction of starting a thread that at last count had no
fewer than 37 articles in it. :-)


In an earlier post you wrote:

>Gee, thanks! I'm glad you appreciate my posts.

You're welcome, but as I told Dan, I wasn't *really* trying to flatter you.
I was just supplementing Keith Garrard's advice to Vikas Gupta on where to
find the best posts.

Had I *really* been trying to suck up to you, Stef, I would have posted
something like this:

 "Was this the face that launched a thousand ships,
  and burnt the topless towers of Ilium?
  Sweet Stefanie, make me immortal with a kiss.
  Her lips suck forth my soul; see where it flies!"

     -- with apologies to Christopher Marlowe (1604)


Now *that* is sucking up! :-)

Matt

P.S. I liked your Galileo quote*  Here's another:

    "Facts which at first seem improbable will,
     even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them
     and stand forth in naked and simple beauty."

       -- Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences  (1638)


* No, that's not a suckup.
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: afternoon delight -sort of
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:49:47 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep1.182039.29970@CERIS.Purdue.EDU> dheisler@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Dave Heisler) writes:
|
|                         ***
|                     **       **
|                   **           **
|                 **    0    0     **
|                **       /         **
|                **                 **
|                 **   #       #   **
|                   **   # # #   **
|                      **      **      Just 'cause it's Tuesday.      
|                         ****

blrchd. shreechh.

"Dr. Dutton, Dr. Dutton.  Please report to your office immediately.  A
patient from soc.singles is in desparate need of your services."

-- 
+============================================================================++
| John Fereira            "Is that all you ever think about?"                |
| johnf@auspex.com                                                           |
+============================================================================++
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: rickk@netmbx.netmbx.de (Rick Kuhlbars)
Subject: Re: Independence (was Re: Commitment--The C-word?)
Organization: From Below Das Boot
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 08:11:05 GMT

>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.

Two independant people CAN cooexist.  Mabye some of the womem should
be made clear of the fact that some of us are not out to strip them
of their independance.

>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.

Perhaps, the hard thing is to realize that CONSCIOUS choice.  I still
say use attraction as the base to pursue someone. Then find out what
ther're all about.  Is there a different approach?  I need the buzz.

Cheers,
rick
-----
rickk@netmbx.netmbx.de
rick@netmbx.com


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: enigma@halcyon.com (Matt Luders)
Subject: Re: Mea Non Culpa
Keywords: innocent quotes
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:20:18 GMT

Hmmm...this is even trickier than I thought.

stef@apple.com (Stef Jones) writes:

>>enigma@halcyon.com (Matt Luders) writes:
>>Had I *really* been trying to suck up to you, Stef, I would have posted
>>something like this:
>>
>> "Was this the face that *launched a thousand ships*,
>>  and burnt the topless towers of Ilium?
>>  Sweet Stefanie, make me immortal with a kiss.
>>  Her lips suck forth my soul; see where it flies!"
>>
>>     -- with apologies to Christopher Marlowe (1604)
>
>**puzzlement** Like I said, it's getting more and more difficult to tell
>apart suckups and insults around here. It sounds as if you are calling me a
>vampiric volcano. :-)


**explanation*
Stef, you know perfectly *well* that the quote was originally about Helen of
Troy, the most beautiful woman in Greece.  It wasn't easy finding a decent
quote with the word "suck" in it. :-) 

Okay, here's one that can't *possibly* be misinterpreted (talk about tempting
fate, not to mention the devilish minds of soc.singles):

 "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
  Thou art more lovely and more temperate.
  Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
  And summer's lease hath all too short a date..."

     -- William Shakespeare, Sonnet 18

Remember, this is what I *would* have said had I been *trying* to suck up
to you, which I'm *not*, okay?   Whew, this *is* getting confusing... :-)


>>P.S. I liked your Galileo quote*  Here's another:
>>
>>    "Facts which at first seem improbable will,
>>     even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them
>>     and stand forth in naked and simple beauty."
>
>**suspicion** dropping cloaks? nakedness??? is that a quote or a come-on?
>I'm getting so confused. Should I hand you an encyclopedia or take off my
>clothes?  :-)


**elucidation**
I guess I should have known better than to use a trigger word like "naked" in
soc.singles.  It was just a *quote*!  Okay, let's try one more time.  This one
is *completely* innocent:

E pur si muove!

No, I'm not translating it.  I think you know what it means.  :-)


>To let understanding stop at what can be understood is a
>high attainment. Those who cannot do it will be destroyed
>on the lathe of heaven.           Chuang Tse XXIII

"Great wisdom is generous; petty wisdom is contentious.
 Great speech is impassioned, small speech cantankerous."

                                -- same author
:-)
Matt


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams)
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 09:42:39 GMT

In <1992Aug26.043916.8202@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:

>In article <ewillims.714669157@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>>In <1992Aug23.190419.8875@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Aug22.001528.10517@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>>>In article <X26uPB1w162w@micor.ocunix.on.ca>
>>>>graydon@micor.ocunix.on.ca (Graydon) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>I've had someone come up to me, smear chocolate sauce on my neck,
>>>>>and proceed to lick it off.
>>>>
>>>>I don't care *why* it happens.  I just want to know *how* to make it
>>>>(more likely to) happen.
>>
>>>I've found it helps a lot not to be wearing a turtleneck. 
>>
>>	I've found it helps even more not to be wearing anything at all!

>Hmmm...I think we need to conduct careful experiments to determine which
>technique is the most effective.  How's about you show up at my laboratory
>wearing nothing at all and I'll be there without my sweater and we'll see
>what happens?
	
	laboratory???  Isn't that another word for your dungeon??
Don't you chain people up in your dungeon? (*GRIN*)


>Trygve   (I'll provide plenty of chocolate sauce.) 
	
	Hmmmm.....maybe I'll come after all!:>

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: walter (Walter Lego)
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Followup-To: soc.singles
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Twisted Pair Inc.
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 20:01:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.194836.2294@cs.ucla.edu> gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:
>In article <wyanndc.aahz@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>>Well, golly-gee willickers, I guess I've never been alive.  I'm sure the
>>ProblemOlderWoman will be terribly disappointed.
>
>Out of curiosity, why did you respond to Nance in this way?

To meet his daily quota of references to his ProblemOlderWoman?

						Walter

What disclaimer?
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius)
Subject: Boink?
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 18:41:16 GMT
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez
Distribution: na

I'm going to be traveling back East to Detroit and Toronto at the
beginning of October; won't be long enough in Detroit to have a Boink
(though I'd like to meet people), but if there's enough interest maybe
something can be arranged in Toronto.

I'll be in Toronto from Oct. 1 to 4, then in Detroit until the evening 
of the 5th.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

So much Astroglide.  So little time.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: Desperation (was Re: Commitment--The C-word?)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 06:27:58 GMT

diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) writes:

>kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>>You must meet loads of men during your daily activities.  You don't need

>Not really.  There are only two guys in my year; one's married, and I've

How about in shopping, trips to the library and/or bookstore, concerts?

>Yes!  I admit it!  I am insatiably desperately dependent on having another
>person sit across from me during dinner and make small talk.  (A weird
>need, but mine own. :-))  Oh, well, to paraphrase Cher, "Sooner or later
>we all eat alone."

Well, post to alt.personals then.  How did it go: "Poor, desperate
woman without furniture seeks dinner companionship.  Must be willing
to eat on floor."

>>As for the company, I'm sure you're quite charming.  
>Oh, god, I can hear everyone out there warming up their Suck-O-Meters. 

>>And ambience depends on the company, after all... ;)
>Yeah, but it's difficult to make dinner-table conversation with *myself*.

Well invite me to dinner, i'll bring dessert.  Wait, I hate small talk.
And you don't have a dining table.  Guess it would never work out.

-- 
FUZZY PINK NIVEN'S LAW:  Never Waste Calories.  Potato chips, candy,
whipped cream, or hot fudge sundae consumption may involve you, your
dietician, your wardrobe, and other factors.  But Fuzzy Pink's Law
implies: Don't eat soggy potato chips, or cheap candy, or fake whipped
cream, or an inferior hot fudge sundae.
                Larry Niven, NIVEN'S LAWS, N-SPACE
-- 
Kiran Wagle     <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>     (812) 335-0420
From: ANNE@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Intelligence vs Smart Alec (Was: Various ramblings...)
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:04:06 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Sep3.163409.8815@wetware.com>, diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
says:
>
>I think I have found an example of the difference.
>
>The original comment was:
>
>"Since it seems we're going to have an early Fall,
>maybe there will be some draught relief this year".
>
>Possible response #1:
>
>"No, not really. Typically an early wet season leads
>to a short season and then a dry winter".
>
>(this said in a tone of voice of "I know what I'm
>talking about, and I'm never wrong" )
>
>Possible response #2:
>
>"There's also the possibility that it could be an
>early, short season, and a dry winter".
>
>(this could have been the response - but WITHOUT the
>"I'm always right" tone of voice).
>

I just got back from a two week vacation, during which I spent some time
with an old friend of mine.  I don't know whether it's because I haven't
seen her in person for a long time or what, but whenever I made a
comment about anything (some article in the paper, the Republican Convention,
whatever) her response was always something like:

           "Oh PUHLEEZE!  How can you be so naive?  This <drought, etc>
is always blah, blah, blah."

It's not just the "I'm always right" tone, but mostly the "You're always
wrong" implications that irritate me.  Even during conversations where
we are supposedly on the same side, she gives me the impression that
she thinks my ideas are dumb.

Yes, I end up feeling insulted.  But even more than that, it pretty much
kills the conversation.  I mean, what's left for either of you to say?


Lee Anne
From: pbreton@asylum.UUCP (Peter Breton)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Kiran Wagle
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:26:30 GMT
Organization: Epilogue Technology Corp.

In article <1992Aug24.232723.26512@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.035919.6460@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>oldman@coos.dartmouth.edu (Prakash Das) writes:
>>
>> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>>>
>>But that's exactly it! Your posts very often read like a manual
>>written as a law text. If you haven't been everywhere, perhaps
>>you should learn to sound less certain. You can opine on various
>>topics as you want, but please make opinions sound like, well,
>>opinions and not like the gospel. That is irritating to say the least.
>
>If you don't like the way his postings read, perhaps you shouldn't
>read them?

  This is, in my opinion, bullshit.net.political.correctness. No one
disputes Kiran's write to post whatever he wants to (as he, in fact,
does). Don't presume, then, to tell Prakash that he can't post that
Kiran's posts irritate him. It's *just* as legitimate. Or perhaps Mr.
Prakash is being given a hard time because he's not an old crony??

>At least Kiran uses proper grammar.  Perhaps that's what you're
>objecting to?

  This is, quite bluntly, nit-picking. Prakash's posts were perfectly
lucid.

>>
>>The charter also does not give you the moral right to blithely
>>generate postings which sound as if they come from my neighbourhood
>>know-it-all.
>
>> Furthermore, if you
>>can't "try to entertain" (note the quotation marks), you can at 
>>least give your opinions in the same manner as others do (Like
>>you, I won't suck up by mentioning names). Of course, everybody
>>is giving their opinions/experiences here, but they don't sound
>>like you most times do.
>
>>And you might want to ask too: Why the compulsion to sound so
>>informed, so right and post indiscriminately?

  To me, this sounds like most of the advice dispensed across the Net
(you know the saying: with free advice you get what you pay for), and
as such can be either followed or ignored. What's the big deal?

>Furthermore, why should he care?  You complained
>about his postings, he told you how to avoid them.  That's much more
>than he's obliged to do.

  This is exactly the heart of the matter. What all this advice
basically boils down to is: Don't rock the boat. Fiddlesticks, say I.
"If you don't like my stuff, don't read it" ISN'T VALID. That's a
worthy attitude to take with regard to censorship, but this ISN"T
CENSORSHIP, because NO ONE is saying Kiran shouldn't post, it's a
criticism of style! What if Prakash WANTS to read his posts and ALSO
bitch about them publicly? It's his damn right to do so!!!

>If reading this newsgroup upsets you, perhaps you should find another
>hobby.

  (See above comment) 

>>Anyway, I am making criticisms in good faith, and some of your
>>postings are not bad. My purpose is simply to tell you to
>>polish it up.

   Now why in hell did that get everyone so riled? Who out there is
actually liscensed to give out advice, anyway?




















Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith)
Subject: Re: 'E' Tickets
Organization: Gagging Sloth Records
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:51:53 GMT

In article <intrigue.714414077@milton>, intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:

|> Oh for heaven's sake!!  A loooooooong time ago, Disneyland used to sell
|> separate tickets for the rides.  When you entered the park you could buy
|> a ticket book that had tickets in them marked A - E ... A being the "baby
|> rides" and E for the BEST rides.  Of course, there were never enough E
|> tickets and you ended up always with a whole bunch of A,B, and C's and 
|> then you'd have to buy separate E tickets if you wanted more which everybody
|> always did.  Hence the phrase "It's an 'E' ticket ride" ... usually in
|> reference to sex, of course.  
|> 
|> Yeah, so *what* if I remember what an 'E' ticket is for?  Like fine wine,
|> true babes improve with age.  Right, guys?

Hey, thanks everybody for rushing to correct my ignorance :-)  No chance
to respond until now, I was running around in circles and screaming while
Hurricane Andy attempted to beat the shit out of me. If you live in New
Orleans, or Mobile, or any of the other potential targets, please 
do NOT take this thing lightly! Big Andy was something more like a Z ticket
for some people not too far from me.

|> 
|> Angelwing - And I don't mind proving it over and over again.

Oh, yeah? Sounds enticing!  But...(pats pockets frantically)...I don't have
an E ticket!  That means no riding for Jeff, doesn't it? :-(

Hell, I don't have any e-tix either :-(   (this joke copyrighted by Stephen
Swann...I'm no plagiarist!)

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
***************************************************************************