HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:02:09 -0500 
From: "Francis J. Yenca" <fy03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Being Alone?
	<74470@apple.apple.COM>

Stef Jones writes:

>kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:

>>oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>>>I honestly believe -- and have been told I'm unusual for this belief
-- that 
>>>in a relationship, friendship should come before romance.  

>>This is rather unusual in my experience.  Most of the women I've talked to
>>about this (relationship counselors and the like included) have said that
>>they couldn't even consider dating someone who was already a good friend,
>>because they would tend to think of such a person as a sibling.  The
>>relationship counselors that I've talked to have said that this generally
>>applies.  Dating a sibling feels wrong to most people...

>I have a 13-year friendship with a fellow and we have been lovers on 
>and off during that time. Once a few years ago, after we had made love, he 
>said to me, "Sometimes it seems weird that we make love, because you seem 
>like a sister to me." He meant that we had a long shared history as friends
>and lovers, and we could talk to each other about stuff we couldn't tell
>anyone else. I knew what he meant. Nevertheless, it never felt strange to 
>me that we should enjoy making love together. Maybe this is because I didn't 
>grow up with siblings? I don't see anything strange about the idea of
>dating someone who is a good friend.

>By the way, Kevin -- congratulations!!!

While I have been involved in relationships with friends and those who were not
friends, the best relationships I have had have been with friends. 
Somehow, these
are the most fulfilling physically as well as emotionally.  I think that
quite a lot of
this is due to the comfort level that you can establish with a friend
that is greater
than with someone you don't know as well.

Frank
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Kiran and his sweetie
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 11:18:26 GMT

In article <lgfoglINN8el@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>To Kiran and his sweetie (you know who you are):
>
>If you don't stop being cute and happy and *gushing* in public (especially
>being cute and happy and gushing and *COY*) , then proper measures will 
>have to be taken.
>
>Proper measures do NOT involve maple syrup in any way.
>
>(I think Kiran will remember one of my first posts when some unfortunate
>soul inflicted us with a long annoying smoochie-face about how perfect and
>wonderful her darling was, and he agreed with me that being held down and
>kicked was an appropriate punishment for such obnoxious behavior.  In fact,
>it was almost unanimous, Trygve being the sole objector if I recall correctly.)

Hey, some of us just happen to enjoy other people's PDAs--a little gushing
in public is so cute, you've got to admit.

Trygve   (OK, I'll settle for their being cute and happy in private, but
          if it involves maple syrup, I want a chance to set up the video
          cameras first.) 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Re: What is attractive to women?
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:10:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.221425.7544@msdhsv.ingr.com> rock@medch.b17b.ingr.com writes:
>|> Sandra Loosemore (loosemore-sandra@cs.yale.edu) wrote:
>|> : Hanging out in bookstores or libraries is a good sign!  :-)  I also
>|> : tend to look for absence of bad signs such as wedding rings,
>|> : cigarettes, alcohol, slobby appearance.  It's not 100% infallible, but
>|> : I also consider wearing a suit and/or tie to be a bad sign (conformity).
>|>                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Hey, it should depend on the reason for wearing the suit.  I personally hate
>suits.  The only one that I own is about 10 years old.  There are,
>unfortunately, instances where it can be necessary to wear one.  I can't
>actually think of one off of the top of my head, other than for a job interview,
>which was the last time I wore one, but I'm sure that there are reasons.

When you die, they often dress you in a suit. (especially for open casket services)

Mark


Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance
From: helie@bach.udel.edu (Ray Helie)
Subject: Re: Being Alone?
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:42:01 GMT

kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) wrote:

" ...
  Most of the women I've talked to
  about this (relationship counselors and the like included) have said that
  they couldn't even consider dating someone who was already a good friend,
  because they would tend to think of such a person as a sibling.  The
  relationship counselors that I've talked to have said that this generally
  applies.  Dating a sibling feels wrong to most people... "
 
I can see that if you have become friends with a woman without thinking
of her as a potential RP for some reason.  Then it *would* feel a little
strange changing it into a romantic relationship.

It usually happens with me that when I start "dating" a woman, the
physical aspect of it is almost non-existant while we get to know
each other (talking a *lot*, and doing a lot of things together).
Eventually, if we're getting along really well, the physical 
attraction develops, and finally we find ourselves in a "relationship".
At that point, though, we've already become good friends.  Nothing
uncomfortable about that!  Hell, I wouldn't want it any other way!
8-)


Ray 8-)

************************************************************************
   Ray Helie         8-)                   University Of Delaware
   [helie@bach.udel.edu]                   Newark, DE
************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (dreas)
Subject: Re: ISO MY PRINCESS
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 03:54:48 GMT

In article Iy8@access.digex.com, huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.002845.20217@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> cjp8b@dayhoff.med.Virginia.EDU (Chris Penington) writes:
>>Are eu therious? Marsupials don't even make it into the placentile
>>rankings. They've adapted to a different set of test conditions and
>>fail marsupially (and monotremously) in competition with many
>>placentals. Theriously!
>
>Virginia oppossums beg to differ with you, sir!  Not only did their South
>American relatives survive the invasion of North American placentals, but they
>successfully invaded the placental stronghold.  (And the crawlspace underneath
>the parental abode in Florida.)
>
>>                        Cats and rats are major problems for
>>Australia's native fauna.
>
>As they are for New Zealand's non-marsupial, native fauna.  Living on an
>island, even one the size of a continent, is not conducive to developing
>effective defense strategies.  But how, sir, did those placentals swim to
>either Australia or New Zealand?

In order to answer this I have to relate back to my studies of Plate Tectonics.
Australia was once connected to the rest of the world by land. Did you ever hear
of Pangea? The pangean continent broke apart and Australia drifted away from the
rest of the world before the evolution of placentals. Placentals evolved in the 
rest of the world while Australia was not connected to it by land.

So you see, Marsupials were in Australia even before Placentals existed!
 
Marsupials were overrun by placentals in the rest of the world because placentals 
were better equipped to compete for food & survival. Cats, rats & rabbits are
doing to Australia's marsupial population today what placentals did to marsupials
in the rest of the world a long time ago.

Geuss my geology degree is good for something after all...

dreas  

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: looks
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 23:28:06 GMT

In article <4-qqd!=@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.120258.1@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> phys224@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
>>what we should all be wearing,etc.
>
>Hot babes in Bikinis. The only way to go.

Sounds good to me--I've always enjoyed wearing hot babes in bikinis.
From: kgorman@star-trek.bbn.com (Karen Gorman)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: YKYBRNTLW.... (Re: Where to meet women?)
Date: 17 Nov 1992 15:10:34 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: kgorman@BBN.COM (Karen Gorman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: archive.bbn.com
Keywords: Home sweet home!


In article <1992Nov16.221033.7864@netcom.com> desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne) writes:
>In article <BxqE3D.Kus@CAM.ORG> souchay@CAM.ORG (Francois Souchay) writes:

>CatWoman sez:
>>>
>>>We ProblemOlderWomen can only get the title
>>>when we want sex MORE than our ProblemYoungerMen...
>
>>Hmmm.... Haven't dated many French Men , have we?  >:->
>
>	Been there; done that.
>
>	Only difference between an anglo younger man and a french
>younger man was attitudinal.  I'll take the anglo anyday.

Ditto.

>A plus tard,
>
>Desiree

Welcome back!!  Nice to know you are around again.

Karen
kg@bbn.co
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.romance,alt.sex,alt.polyamory,talk.religion.misc
From: lort@fraser.sfu.ca (Charles Lort)
Subject: Re: Prove That Kids are Precious Gifts From God. (Was: Re: ra-ising c-hildren)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:38:48 GMT

diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:


>Right now there are only four children in the world
>that I would consider as anything LESS than a 
>terrible burden - my two nephews and my PYM's
>two children.  Any of those four would be welcomed
>by me - any other children would be considered a
>REAL nuisance.

>So - for those of you arguing against David, 
>remember, not EVERYone considers children to be a
>"precious gift" - from ANYbody, let alone a "god".

So!  You were born an adult?  I don't think so! (we don't have to footnote here do we? I certainly hope not :-) )  Or do you think children are such a pain the ass because of the way you acted all your life?  As for David's you prove it you said it routine;  I don't think anyone is saying that he has to believe in God,there are certainly times when I wonder.  Where I picked up this thread it
 appeared that the real argument was over the rights of unborn children.  
Certainly women do have the right to control their own bodies and I do believe
that abortion is sometimes necessary, what I don't understand is the negativity towards children, maybe you know only horrendous brats,(yes Martha they do 
exist).  
Does the unborn child have any rights in this enlightened society of ours?      If so, what are they, who has the right to protect those rights?  You
see the problem is not that one side is right and the other wrong, the problem
is that the argument is being fought by the extreme position takers of each side
This of course rarely results in a constructive settlement.  It is time that
people on both sides got off their holier than thou wagons and began to look at our problems from the point of view of best possible settlement,(religion 
includes David's clinging to the hope that the scientific world will answer all our questions; guess you never figured you'ld be accused of being religious).
So, if you don't like children, well that's just fine, I won't pretend to under-stand it but fine; if you disagree with abortion, well I understand your point 
of view just remember that others have different beliefs and we can't all be 
right or wrong all the time.
 
lort@sfu.ca				IT'S COLOUR NOT COLOR
					IT'S LABOUR NOT LABOR


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik)
Subject: Re: net.hugs?
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 19:12:58 GMT

In article 18840@cbfsb.cb.att.com, jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>In article <lgl06rINNqsi@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov17.194033.20468@informix.com> bradl@neptune.informix.com (Brad Levy) writes:
>>>
>>>Similarly, alt.romance is a place where most people
>>>have agreed to be safe for open expression (kind of like a some church
>>>groups). 
>>
>>In that case, cross-posting to soc.singles is probably a *BIG* mistake.
>>We're not very safe.
>>
>>>I feel I've gotten to know a side of a
>>>number of regular posters here - Dawn, Mysti, Jason, Diana, Stephen, Ed,
>>>Stewart, Michael, Mike, and others, from what they've revealed of themselves
>>>in their posts.
>>
>>I guess there must be a different Dawn posting over there.
>
>Yea right. :-) :-) :-) Bwahhaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
>and in such good company.
> 
*Click!*...*Whoosh!!!* :+) :+) :+)
So There!

dreas
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: nkill
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:52:11 GMT
	<1992Nov17.222507.26632@fid.morgan.com>
	<1992Nov18.015903.10936@adobe.com>
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: mmwang@adobe.com's message of 18 Nov 92 01:59:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.015903.10936@adobe.com> mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:
   But what if A really wants the promotion because of the new and
   interesting challenges that it presents, etc., etc? Suing for monetary
   compensation only would not give her the job that she wants. Without
   the promotion, she may never be able to climb further up the corporate
   ladder. 

Make the award big enough, and she can start her *own* company -- and
the company will have been hit where it hurts, i.e., the balance sheet.

   Also, is it simply enough to use money to redress past
   discrimination considering the fact that it is often very difficult to
   prove?

If it is difficult enough to prove that you don't want to use a monetary
form of redress, isn't it difficult enough to prove that C shouldn't be
damaged because of it?

--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
From: liz@prc.unisys.com (Liz Loquacious)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Argh! Total, Complete misery.
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:07:46 GMT
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: Paramax Systems

In article <DANIEL.92Nov19121924@algol.clsi.COM>, daniel@clsi.COM (Daniel Barclay) writes:
|> > Mine's for sale...and it's a four-posted one.  Of course you'll have to wait
|> > till after the boink!
|> > 
|> > Liz Loquacious
|> 
|> You know, I have this image in my mind of four net.posters standing at the
|> corners of the bed holding a canopy over Allisson.

And I hear your dream came true. 

More details about the Philly Boink later or tomorrow...

Still recovering,

Liz Loquacious
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: daniel@clsi.COM (Daniel Barclay)
Subject: Re: Are you a Young Transplant?
Organization: CAD Language Systems Inc.
	<1992Nov17.194726.15527@clsi.COM>
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:53:26

> >How did you
> >meet, seeing as how you were in a new area where you had no friends?
> 
> In a museum.  My eyes met hers, ..., and the rest is history.   Well, not quite.
> The museum part is true though.  I was there with a friend from work to see a
> movie, met a friend of his who had a friend with her.  (My workplace friend's
> friend's friend is the one I'm interested in.)  All of us went to dinner after
> that; I took another month to get the guts up to ask her out, and then it's
> history.
> 
> Shankha

I work with Shankha and _I_ can't even follow that. :-)   (Maybe because
I wasn't that friend.  (Or that friend's friend.  (Or that friend's friend's
friend.)))
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel S. Barclay			CAD Language Systems, Inc.
					Suite 101, 5457 Twin Knolls Rd.
Why can't _I_ think of a signature?	Columbia, MD  21045  USA
From: tps@jptcs.COM (Tim Sailer)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: How to explain?
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:46:51 GMT
Reply-To: tps@jptcs.com
Organization: JPT Computer Solutions, Port Jeff Station, NY
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Scott Probst (probst@selkirk.sfu.ca) wrote:
: that was getting out of canada. getting out of the u.s. was even more 
: seriously weird. it was midnight [same crossing: Winnipeg/Grand Forks, n.d. - 
: looks like an outhouse 15 miles from the back door], and after the guard
: carefully explained that he was there to "interdict drugs and guns", we
: thought it only fair to explain that we "hadn't been able to find any".
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You got away with that? Hmmm.. everytime I use a witty answer, I get
burnt. I was trying to fill out papers for my security clearance for
DOD/DOE, and after aswering all the questions about my background for
the past 15 years, when the form said 'Current State of Residence',
I answered 'Confused'. Somehow They didn't think htat was funny, and
denied my clearance! :) Had to go through it all over again 2 months later'

: which was true. he sort of glared at us, and muttered "well, good". we left.
-- 
Tim Sailer
JPT Computer Solutions - SCO Sales/Consulting/Administration and Mangling
Port Jefferson Station, NY
(516) 331-9001
From: bwebster@pages.com (Bruce F. Webster)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Do you remember 1970 to 1980?
Date: 19 Nov 92 09:47:31 GMT
Reply-To: bwebster@pages.com
Organization: Banzai Research Institute

In article <9211112207.AA06353@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
>
>       As part of an impromptu research project, I'd like to know what
>   YOU think the single most important ( dramatic, traumatic ) event of`
>   1970 to 1980 was.
 
Well, I left the US for Central America in November of 1972, just as Richard  
Nixon won re-election in a landslide, then returned to the US in late August of  
1974, just a few weeks after Nixon resigned. (No correlation between the dates  
and the events; things just happened to work out that way.) Having missed those  
intervening two years and all that took place in them, I felt out of sync with  
the rest of the country for at least a good 5-10 years afterwards.  ..bruce..
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: lana@magenta.corp.sgi.com (Lana Mountford)
Subject: Re: What do you Am men think about Am wome
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:41:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.002940.21755@tandem.com>, leo@cpd.Tandem.COM (Leo Hejza) writes:
|> At my age, 39,
|> most of the women I meet are also divorced. I was astounded at how often they
|> gave lack of sexual interest on their husbands part, as a reason for the
|> breakup of their marriages.

Well, I can say that it certainly had something to do with the demise
of my 17-yr marriage.  It wasn't the only reason, but it contributed
to my overall unhappiness.

|> 
|> If only one or two women had brought this up, I'd dismiss it as the exception.
|> But the truth is, the majority of women, (that I've dated at least), have
|> complained about this problem.

Interesting.  The subject hasn't come up with my friends, so I didn't
know how widespread this was.

|> 
|> So guys, whats the problem? I'd love to hear from the "long time involved"
|> (i.e married or not), on this issue. 

I'm interested to hear what they have to say, too -- I never could get
what I would consider a reasonable response from my ex (he simply chalked
it up to the normal hormonal differences between men and women, and their
"sexual peak" differences).
-- 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|    /)                      | Lana Mountford    
|   / /  __    ___    __     |   
|__(_/__(__)\__/  )__(__)\__ |  
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is attractive to women?
Date: 22 Nov 92 15:13:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: wetware.1992Nov22.151315.4882
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher

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

] thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
] >I had a boss once, "Bob", who thought all "Robert"s liked to 
] >be called "Bob" the way he liked to be called "Bob", and 
] >he called me "Bob" every time I talked to him through my 
] >summers at the pulp mill.  
] 
] Wow, sounds as bad as being named 'Elizabeth' in a decade in which popular
] consensus has decreed that all Elizabeths be called 'Liz'.  

Arrgh!  yes!  I never had a problem until 10 years ago -
then I started getting called "Princess Di" more often
than not!  I've always ANSWERED to "Di" - but the addition
of the "Princess" part is IRRITATING!

Just last night the guy at the pizza place said something
about "your castle"!  I stared at him for a good 30 seconds
before realizing what he was talking about.  Grrr!

Diana
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: What is attractive to women?
Originator: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: in your face!
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 01:14:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.233917.29267@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.204331.17994@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:
>>Try wearing your "Cure" t-shirt to work some time with the
>>worn-through-at-the-knees blue jeans and see how long you stay at your
>>RealWorld job, assuming that they hire you in the first place.
>	Keep telling yourself that, monkey-boy, and maybe the noose
>around your neck will rankle less. The monkey suits are the uniform
>of the salesdroids and administrators; I think of it as their punishment
>for leading a fundamentally useless existence :-).

What about jobs like performing in a symphony orchestra, where
everyone is expected to dress formally?  Are they sellouts?  Consider
how difficult it is to get a job like that ...

>>Wearing a tie dosen't necessarily make you a ... oh MY
>>GOD!..."conformist"!
>	True. It makes you a Yuppie. The problem with Yups ain't that
>they've sold out; sometimes that's necessary. The problem is that they
>sold out too young, and usually too cheap. Keep your pottage.

Some people I know who are professional musicians in orchestras, etc.
are anything but yuppies (some are quite poor) and it's a serious
hardship for them to buy the formal wear required for concerts.
However, they buy it because it is important to them to be able to
perform with the group (not to mention they get paid, usually not
enough, unless it's a world-class group).  I don't consider this
selling out.

Other examples of jobs requiring "uniform" dress:  airline staff,
hotel staff, restaurant staff (depends on quality of the restaurant),
to name a few.

--gregbo
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: bgray@engr.UVic.CA (dreas)
Subject: Re: Smiths & Joneses
Reply-To: bgray@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Distribution: comp
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 02:42:54 GMT


I'll get my account back...I promise!

In article lgod6oINN778@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM, smith@wesson.Eng.Sun.COM (Nina S. Smith - SunSoft Product Marketing) writes:
>In article 15556@auspex-gw.auspex.com, johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov18.190225.14601@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA writes:
>> 
>
>>|"Smith" and "Jones" appear to be names as common as they are portrayed in 
>>|many stereotypes...These names are also portrayed in such a way as to invoke
>>|images of averageness or dullness.
>> 
>>You haven't met Nina, I guess.
>
>Why John . . . what *are* you trying to say???
>
>>|To all the Smiths and Joneses in my files:
>>|
>>|Thank you for destroying a stereotype and killing some myths about your
>>|last names...At least in my imagination.
>>
>>We'll, maybe you have.
>
>No he hasn't . . . the poor sod!!! :)

Not in person, anyway. :+(

dreas

Newsgroups: soc.singles