HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mlw@cisco.com (Monica Waldman)
Subject: Re:  Embarrasment of the Day
Organization: ()
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:28:29 GMT

In article <6417@gemini.cs.nps.navy.mil> me@gemini.cs.nps.navy.mil writes:
>First:  How does one wear a miniskirt that comes down a few inches below
>        ones pantyline not realize that it's caught in the back of ones
>        stockings.  Sounds like a *heap* of BS to me!

It doesn't sound like BS to me, just another inane question from little 'e'.
This time she even got away with sexist statements without being called on them.

I'm reminded of Michele with one 'l'...

>         If you have a nice rear, they wanted to watch; if you have a
>         fat rear, they couldn't watch.  What's wrong with that.  You're
>         the one wearing a short miniskirt in the first place.  If you
>         didn't want men to look at you and perhaps strech their 
>         imaginations, you'd dress a little more conservatively.

Wrong.  There are plenty of men who like women whose butts and the rest of them
are not rail thin.

-- 
standard disclaimer, etc. ad nauseum

"If your opponent picks up a hammer, you need to pick up a meat-ax and
cut off his arm"  -- Bill Clinton, 1981
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: liz@prc.unisys.com (Liz Loquacious)
Subject: Re: Philly Boink Announcement
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: Paramax Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:39:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.023334.12450@fid.morgan.com>, sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct1.150155.3745@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
|> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
|> 
|> > Well I'll be there sat. Tickets bought. Max might play and that makes 5.
|> > 4/5 = poker. Who's bringin chips.
|> 
|> I've got the chips.  You can be the dip.
|> 
|> (I had to get that in first, didn't I?)
|> 
|> > I suggest we start either early or late. For mingeling purposes.
|> > Shebaleba (assuming her bachelorette pad) never gave the go ahead????????
|> 
|> Well?
|> 

Looks like Sheba's unavailable for comment so I'll tell you that poker's
okay chez Sheba.  She said she'll guarantee chairs and kibitzes but you
can organize the game James.  Sounds like this boink will be quite the
mid-November event!

Liz Loquacious
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 04:25:41 GMT

In article 16959@cbnewsd.cb.att.com, nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>In article <BvDrur.K0A@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>>
>>>ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>>
>Actually, Ed Wright has as much right to post here as anyone else and to
>start and contribute to discussions.  If people agree with or do not
>agree wite what he posts, followups are possible by hitting "F".
 
Sure he has, but I suppose we did a good job of collectively kicking him
out. I'm gonna miss him.

>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. 

>-Nance
>--
>Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
>att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
>                            (_) \(_)                           

Better pump up those flat tires, Nance, it must be a rough ride!

Andy.

PLEASE EXCUSE MY OBVIOUS IGNORANCE.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 16:39:10 GMT

In article <1a5ms4INNjl1@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep26.184716.1921@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>(A list of things Diamond missed)
>>Trygve   (Did I skip anything?) 
>
>Your physical dimensions.  Time to heat up the Diamond.

Three spacial, one timelike.  (Unless, of course, you're a superstring
adherent, in which case there are lots more, but they're all twisted.
(Hmmm...actually, that fits too.))

Trygve  
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams)
Subject: Re: The spice of life
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:21:54 GMT

In <1992Sep25.183620.1769@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:



>unapproachable; maybe you need to try looking less intimidating like I
>do (dressed all in black, 6'4", 250#, fangs (no, I'm not kidding about
>the fangs part--kinda silly for a strict vegetarian to have fangs, but
>they actually do come in useful)).
> 
>Trygve

	Aha!  Now I know why you have a dungeon in your castle!:)
Vampires always need them.  Vampires are also extremely sexually
and sensuously attractive!:)  Vampires don't eat meat either.

Mmmmmm.........:)
From: wjb@moscom.com (Bill de Beaubien)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Ignorance
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:03:08 GMT
Reply-To: wjb@moscom.com
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford NY
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.3 beta PL7]

Oh boy, a quiz.   Hmmmmmm.

Andreas  Tovornik (atovorni@engr.UVic.CA) wrote:
 
: Define:            - Boink
A gathering of net.people, where various net-ites wander in and do interesting
things.  Then on Monday everyone wanders in to work, and tells everyone about
the interesting things that didn't happen, and doesn't mention the interesting
things that really happened.  One can often find wombats there.

:                    - BTW
Bite the wombat.  Most often seen on a.s.b.  No, the *other* b.  Will Cuppy
probably wrote something about this.

:                    - SWF
Soft white feathers.  Pick up a bag today, they've got many uses.
Also, stroke wombat firmly.  See BTW.

:                    - SWM
soc.wombat.motas, for the discriminating wombat-eer.

:                    - Sesquipedalians (sic?)
adj. 1.  Long and ponderous;  polysyllabic.  2.  Given to using long words.
n.  A long word.  [< Lat. sesquipedalis, of a foot and a half in length]

So, either brother James is long-winded, or he's going to be inundated by
e-mail from females after they see this post (in spite of the fact that
size isn't important).  Or both, of course.

He might also receive some propositions from interested wombats, especially
those which speak latin.

:                    - WOWY KAZOWY
WOWY - World of wombats yearly, magizine devoted to wombat-eers.
KAZOWY - keep america's zoos outta wombat yards.  The battle cry of the
	KWF (Keep Wombats Free) movement.


:                    - Eddie
Malicious spirit in charge of bringing confusion to the net.  Subordinate
of Murphy.  And he probably doesn't like wombats, either.

:                    - S&M
Sex & Marsupials.  Self explanatory.

:                    - Misquote
Creative rearrangement of other peoples' postings, to make them support your
arguments rather than contradict them.  This is much easier than getting the
people to support your arguments rather than contradict them.  As an example
of a misquote, one might move IGNORANCE to the bottom of this list to make
it easier to define.  Ooops, I wasn't supposed to mention that.  Nevermind.

:                    - IGNORANCE
Not knowing the answers to the above questions.
: 
: Think I got about ten...Now for that pint of lager!
1/4th of a quart.  Wait, what do you mean the quiz is over?

Bill
-- 
Who needs lime jello?  We had lasagna...
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill de Beaubien / wjb@moscom.com
From: julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: More on guys who aren't dating Ed Wright
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:31:07 GMT
	<1992Oct6.111306.28803@spider.co.uk> <1992Oct6.152516.4997@netcom.com>
Distribution: soc
Organization: The Cultural Elite

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

>[...]
><BOOM> <BOOM> <BOOM>  Run!  It's Ed Wrong in a bunny suit!


	IMHO, "Wright" is a bad last name to have.
	It's boring.
	It starts with W, so you have to wait till the end of every
alphabetical list.
	Everyone thinks it begins with an R, even though there is no
such last name, as far as I can tell.
	But the most awful thing about it -- the very WORST -- is that
it lends itself to name jokes.  I hate it when that happens.

---Julie (no relation)
"Your last name is spelt W-R-I-G-H-T?" "That's ri -- uh, correct."...
-- 
**  Fortune favors the lucky.			  **
**			--- Tom Weller, _Minims_  **
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: rock@medch.b17b.ingr.com (Chris Hudson)
Subject: Re: Two's an aphrodisiac
Reply-To: rock@medch.b17b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:33:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.180449.17678@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>, nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
|> 
|> Interesting.  Other than my loved one, my very best male friends are
|> the SO's of female friends of mine.  In one case, though, this proved
|> caustic.  "She" was leery of the friendship between "he" and I because
|> a score of years or so ago when he and I were in college, we had a very
|> brief relationship.  We met many years later and became Friends, which
|> is the point in time I met her.

Hmmmm. One of my best friends in college was female.  We were friends 
through about 6 of her boyfriends.  They never seemed to have a 
problem with our friendship, even when they would walk in the room and see 
us lounging on the couch together, my arm around her and her head on my 
shoulder.  Even when she didn't get up immediately and go greet them.  
Maybe I was non-threatening.

|> 
|> To make a long story very short, his and my friendship caused her so
|> much anxiety that I had to cease knowing both of them lest be falsely
|> accused, which I was.  There was no other way.

Had that happen in another similar relationship.  Husband and wife, both very
good friends.  She and I would run into each other all the time and, it never
failed, we'd see someone from her office. Eventually, he became very jealous,
even though he knew there was nothing going on.  So I had to decrease the amount
of time I spent around them both.

|> 
|> -Nance
|> -- 
|> Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
|> att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
|>                             (_) \(_)                           

Bicycle!  Bicycle!  Bicycle!  I want to ride my bicycle, I want to ride my bike
Want to ride my bicycle, want to ride it where I like...
 
Chris Hudson      
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I did *what*?  Sorry, but I think you've got the wrong guy....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams)
Subject: Re: The Engaged Psychobitch from Hell Syndrome
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 16:25:15 GMT

In <Bv5FqL.8Iw@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> schock@flip.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Craig-Richard Schock) writes:

>Wow!!  This is a good thread... I can't miss out on this one!

>> >In article <ewillims.717330108@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma  
>Williams) writes:
>> >>I still maintain that "seriously committed" in my book can only mean
>> >>an exclusively momogamous relationship!!
>> >>Emma (still holding her position!)

>I don't think anyone can say that monogamy is "right" or "wrong", in general.   
>However, it may be right or wrong for a particular person.  Currently, I'm in  
>a serious relationship and we're not monogamous.  This system works for us,  
>but I would not for a minute assume that it would work for everybody.  Our  
>relationships with other people do not focus on sex.  They are more geared  
>towards friendship and the freedom to express the deepest inner-most part of  
>your being to that person.  I can meet a woman and be free to show her my true  
>inner-self, and not just the part reserved for "non-fiancee women".


	Alright, maybe that works for you and if so, well who am I
to gainsay it for you, but all I feel is that if I am "serious"
about a lover then I could not in all conscience have affairs
outside of that relationship because I would feel that I wasn't
devoting all my love, attention and time to the person I made
the commitment to in the first place.  I would feel that it wouldn't be 
at all fair to them; if they are deserving of my deep love then they
deserve the best I can give them.  I couldn't give them the best of
myself if I was having to divide myself between others too.
Are Trygve and I the only ones who are firmly of that opinion 
regarding our own relationships?
 
	

Newsgroups: soc.singles,misc.kids
From: dl@cockatoo.bellcore.com (Daniel Liebster)
Subject: Re: BARBIE DOES IT AGAIN.. an AP News story
Reply-To: dl@thumper.bellcore.com
Organization: Packet Communications Research Group (Bellcore)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 04:38:41 GMT


I found this perusing the news. Naturally it is reprinted
without the author`s consent. 
(Copyright laws are soooo hard!)


r w AM-BarbieBlooper     10-01 0278
^AM-Barbie Blooper,290<
^Women's Group Protests Talking Barbie's Words<
	   WASHINGTON (AP) _ Girls aren't good at math! That's the message
that Mattel Toys is sending out with its newest Barbie Dolls,
complains a national women's group.
	   The American Association of University Women on Thursday
demanded the immediate recall of all Teen Talk Barbie Dolls,
claiming the dolls' words perpetuate sexist stereotypes.
	   One of the doll's phrases: ``Math class is tough!''
	   ``Barbie has been criticized in the past for presenting girls
with an unobtainable model of female physical perfection,'' said
Sharon Schuster, the association's president.
	   ``By reinforcing the dated stereotype that math is too hard for
girls, Barbie can undermine girls' confidence in their mental
ability to do math,'' Schuster added. ``Why can't Barbie say `I'm
good at math,' or `Math class is fun'?
	   Mattel, based in El Segundo, Calif., never intended to send the
wrong message, said Mattel spokeswoman Donna Gibbs.
	   Gibbs said the dolls also say many positive things like ``Let's
start a business,'' ``I love school, don't you?'' and ``I'm going
to be a veterinarian.''
	   ``Mattel in no way meant to discourage girls from pursuing
education in the math and science fields,'' she said. ``If Barbie
talks in the future, we will take into account these concerns.''
	   Each talking Barbie utters four phrases, randomly selected
during production from a list of 270. The idea said is to make each
Barbie doll unique.
	   The talking Barbie hit the stores in July and contains a
microchip that prompts the doll to speak at the push of a button.
The doll retails for about $25.
	   AP-DS-10-01-92 1832EDT<
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Honesty (was: Re: Sarcasm, ego, arrogance, or reality ?)
Date: 5 Oct 1992 03:13:31 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: soc
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1aeoo6INN319@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
>Give me the beauty and body, and I'll take care of the rest, as she undergoes
>the rigors of training under my control and so achieves a greatness in mind
>to complement her other positive attributes.

In article <1992Oct2.173929.18344@mks.com> fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter) writes:
>You come across in your posts as if you think you are great. Are you really
>being sarcastic or facetious, demonstating arrogance and an unjustified ego,
>or reflecting reality ?

Yes.  I'm being entirely honest, and no, having a lot of virtues is not an
unqualified Good.  It took a long time to figure out how to deal with it,
from being highly secretive about it as a child, to deciding in adulthood
that honesty and candor are the best policy.  Anyway, my Dad told me to
always toot your own horn loudly so the entire world can hear.

Some of these things are dictated by your cultural background.  White
Anglo-Saxon, Germanic Protestant culture tends to adopt the priority of saying
nothing at all.  At the other extreme, in the inner city you'd be damned if
you didn't let everyone know how great you are.  It's practically an obligation
especially when you're sharpening your claws to engage in some verbal sparring.

>	fred "If you're reflecting reality, do you have a seester ?" walter

I don't have any known relatives.
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: To all Christian girls
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:23:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Oct3.062348.24507
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Oct3.051632.17277@netcom.com> greg@netcom.com (Greg Bullough) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.001115.6187@newshost.anu.edu.au> just me writes:
>> I am getting closer to my thirties, and being a genuinly trying Christian man
>>I constantly have a problem to see where there are all those young sporty
>>Christian girls ...
> 
>What does "sporty" mean? I mean, in a car, it means you can take their
>tops down...

	The expression "sporting lady" used to be well-known; perhaps it
has fallen out of fashion? Of course, the only especially Christian
feature of sporting ladies is the need to drop something in the
collection plate :-).

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Book Rec.: _Bodies: Overcoming the Tyranny of Perfection_
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 22:21:03 GMT

In article <ewillims.718044145@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>In <1992Sep30.174714.2900@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>
>>Cooking is a lot of fun, though--it's just another venue where one can
>>explore the range and variety of sensual experience. 
>
>	I guess you've seen Nine and a half weeks too, hmm..? (*GRIN*)

Funny you should mention that.  BTW, are you free for dinner? 

>>>The gallon of chocolate pudding?  Bathe in it!:)  and then......:)
>
>>Fingerpaint?  (Hmmm...now I just have to locate a volunteer for a
>>canvas....) 
>
>	Well, I had been thinking more along the lines of how to
>clean all that warm melted chocolate off again.......:)

Well, the most important part is that you have to be very thorough--
wouldn't want to leave any bits of chocolate left uncleaned-off.

>>Most people wouldn't call that perfect--indeed, most women I meet are
>>quite determined to start having children before too much longer, 
>>which makes me, someone who seems to be entirely bereft of whatever
>>strange psychological mechanism that allows people to put up with
>>their children, much less desirable as a long-term possibility. 
>
>Nonono! You are definitely perfect!  Join the club!:)

So, what are the benefits of this club?  

Trygve   (And how does one pay dues?)
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Keywords: lime pie
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:34:41 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>Why would someone who didn't care about purely physical attraction,
>unconnected to personality and behavior, have any desire to discuss
>a movie stars' physiques, much less speculate on their penis sizes?
>For that matter, if a lot of people didn't value pure physical appearance,
>would people like Tom Cruise even *be* movie stars? 

Please clarify something for me.

I have been assuming that what you want is to find a woman who does not 
care whether her romantic partner looks like a Chippendale.

But the above paragraph implies that what you want is to find a woman who
has no interest in *anyone*'s physical appearance. 

If this is true, then I'm curious to know why you would prefer an SO who
doesn't care at all about physical appearance. (Rather than an SO who might
glance in passing at someone who looks cute to her, but who still loves you
for the qualities that are important to you and not for your physical
appearance.)

--
Stef                 After many years of study, scientists have determined  
stef@apple.com       that dogs bark "just for the hell of it." -- Smithsonian
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
From: wall@hel4.brl.mil (Jeff Wall)
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:21:59 EST
 <1992Sep28.051700.3163@sol.UVic.CA><ewright.717693983@convex.convex.com> <MARTINC.92Sep28210326@grover.cs.unc.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: U.S. Army Human Engineering Lab  Aberdeen, MD

This is the first major flame war I've witnessed first hand, and I have to say
I'm pretty impressed, these things get pretty vicious.

Until recently I used to do most of my posting to rec.scuba which has a fairly
flame free history, they even tout that fact in the FAQ :-).

I've been sitting  here for the past week or so reading these flames as they've
warmed me in my freezing office and I have to say, Eddie (and his faithful
follower James), I can't pick up your angle.  What exactly is it that your
objecting to??  I'm not going to redo what alot of people have already done and
recap the thread.  But it seems to me Ed that when ever anyone happens to say
something that even remotely agrees with what you've said you start flaming
them from some other angle. For example, I've noticed a number of people (I've
lost the references but Elizabeth Abrams (Diamond) comes to mind) agreeing with
you about physical attraction not being important, in addition to the fact that
many of the activities you like to do many people do on a date anyway.  

I'm sorry, maybe I'm being a little dense here but what is your objective??? 
I've lost track and maybe you have to.

Jeff Wall
wall@hel4.brl.mil
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Not sure.
Date: 30 Sep 1992 18:53:27 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Sep30.183058.18803@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>
>Dear Abby,
> I wonder if you can help me with a problem I've been having.
>You see I'm really not into this fitness thing. I don't see what
>people get out of it. I mean health clubs are just full of these
>obnoxious stuck up guys in love with their own bodies. The women are
>just more of the same. They don't care about their minds elst they
>would not waste time in health clubs the'd be at the library.

I have 2 degrees, soon to have a third, taught myself Calculus in a couple
evenings at 16, know several languages, have excellent artistic ability,
am a highly lucid writer, calculate square roots in my head, read
encyclopedias, dictionaries, yearbooks and history books simply for the
enjoyment, constantly browse through the entire (reachible set of) contents of
all the machines located at this node, exhaustively browse through entire
sections of the library on frequent occasions, read machine binaries, and
I'm currently working on 3 software consulting projects, 2 business projects,
2 class programming projects, 1 class paper, and 1 class report.

I love to lift weights, and much of the above first occurred or was greatly
accentuated/accelerated after working out.

So you're going to tell me that the mind atrophies? :)

(smashes that 100 word sentence barrier!)
Newsgroups: soc.singles