HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbj@cs.washington.edu (Dave Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Do you remember 1970 to 1980?
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:05:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: beaver.1992Nov12.170541.19274
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <9211112207.AA06353@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu writes:
>
>      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.

I got laid for the first time.  Dramatic AND traumatic....

-- 
  Dave Johnson

"You're not too smart, are you?  I like that in a man."
    --Kathleen Turner in Body Heat
From: tps@jptcs.COM (Tim Sailer)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Hey!
Date: 12 Nov 92 03:02:29 GMT
Reply-To: tps@jptcs.com
Distribution: na
Organization: JPT Computer Solutions, Port Jeff Station, NY
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

H. Allisson Roome (allisson@turing.toronto.edu) wrote:
: In article <1992Nov10.134801.5172@cbfsb.cb.att.com> (james.j.dutton) writes:
: >In article <5671@jptcs.COM> tps@jptcs.com writes:
: >>Julia Smith (jsmt@troi.cc.rochester.edu) wrote:
: [dialog deleted and sent to a.r.c]
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Awwww... and it was SOOOO happy here! :)
: >
: >   2.4
: 
: 
: That high?

Wait! It gets better! :) :)


-- 
Tim Sailer
JPT Computer Solutions - SCO Sales/Consulting/Administration and Mangling
Port Jefferson Station, NY
(516) 331-9001
From: jsmt@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Julia Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Teasing and other Games of Romance
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:00:24 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <1992Nov10.201551.721@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> allisson@turing.toronto.edu (H. Allisson Roome) writes:
<rationalization and explainations deleted>

>
>Now where does all that fit in with teasing?  Simply put, the
>notion of teasing or playing-hard-to-get is a way of having little
>losses or periods where you are missed.  That is when you look at
>it simply through a cause-effect interpretation.  If my
>hypothetical friend were willing to be honest about her fears with
>the man that she is interested in, she might not have to play these
>games.  But still, a little elusiveness never hurt anyone, did
>it?
>
I was with you right up until the end.  "A little elusiveness" if
it means honestly distancing yourself from someone because you need/want
the space - yeah, that is a good idea.  "A little elusiveness" if
it means pretending you are someone you aren't, lying to someone about
what you need, or trying to fake or force someone into a different position...
I can't think of too many relationships which benefit from that kind
of head game.
  
--j
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: carl@sscl.uwo.ca (Carl Kaufmann)
Subject: Re: What do you Am men think about Am wome
Organization: Soc.Sci.Comp.Lab., U.West.Ont.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 01:02:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.013105.14917@sol.UVic.CA>, atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik) writes:
> Good topic! This thread hits on the fundamental psychological difference 
> between the sexes, IMVHO:
> 
> Women look for love and find sex while men look for sex and find love!


I look for both and find neither. :-(

^ ^
CatGuy-----
||  ||
*****************************************************************************
* See how the heart reaches *  Carl Kaufmann   * No one has to do anything, *
* out instinctively, for no * Soc.Sci.Comp.Lab * except bear consequences.  *
* reason but to touch.      *    U.West.Ont    *                            *
*       -Kate Bush          * carl@sscl.uwo.ca *       -Me                  *
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: rridge@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ross Ridge)
Subject: Re: That wacky electoral college
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 22:42:47 GMT

crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>Most people who voted yesterday did not vote for Clinton.  With 44% of the
>vote, Clinton got more votes than each of the other candidates -- he beat
>Bush by about 5 points.  But in terms of electoral votes, he won by a
>"landslide."  
>
>No other office needs this "electoral college" system -- people win or
>lose by the popular vote, period.  Which only makes sense.  So why do we
>still use it for the presidential elections?

Actually the process of "electing" a Prime Minister in countries like
Canada and the UK, is similar.  In each riding one MP is elected to
Parliment and the party with the majority of MP's forms the government.
The government then selects it's Prime Minister and Cabinet.  It not
impossible for someonne to become Prime Minister even though their
party didn't get a majority or even plurality of the popular vote.
Occasionally, (in Canada and the UK, not so in some other contries),
you can even get a coalition or minority goverment and that case
the Prime Minister's party doesn't have a majority in Parliment.
Mind you the job of a Prime Minister is different from that of
a President.  One key difference is that the Prime Minister isn't
usually the actual head of state or commander of the armed forces.

							Ross Ridge
--
Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU						 l/
rridge@nyx.cs.du.edu							[OO]
									-()-
Disclaimer: I've never been to Denver (or PEI)				 db
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans)
Subject: Re: I didn't do it
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:09:33 GMT

In article <MARTINC.92Nov12151225@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>Silly ass postnews program.  My careful explanation that I was reposting
>this anonymously to protect the ... innocent ... disappeared.
>
>   In article <1992Nov5.180142.26353@cbnews.cb.att.com>
>   eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans) writes:
>
>   >Houseguests of mine were _extremely_ thoughtful.  They left behind
>   >just such thick, soft cotton ropes tied to the feet of my (guest) 
>   >double bed.  Now, wasn't that sweet??
>   >
>   >
>   >Piglet, who rather supposes they were left as an apology for
>   >        keeping me awake all night.....talking
>
>   We didn't keep you awake all night talking.  One of us was fairly
>   quiet; while the other one was loud, "talking" normally requires some
>   degree of coherence.
>
>   _I_ think it was the two boyfriends you had visiting who kept you
>   awake.
>
>   <Anonymous>

I didn't say you kept me "awake all night talking", I said you kept
me "awake all night.....talking".  Seeing, I was bein' subtil.

And, hey!!  Don't go talking about my houseguests like that!!  Only
_one_ of them was my boyfriend.  Nyah!!


Piglet, snitting.....and considering threatening to expose identities
        if "Anonymous" doesn't watch hir step.....nyah!
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik)
Subject: Re: Fueling the Canadian Ire
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 02:30:11 GMT

In article 6033@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu, rridge@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ross Ridge) writes:
>allisson@turing.toronto.edu (H. Allisson Roome) writes:
>>With the lack of approval of the numerous proposals that were slated on the
>>26th, it seems likely that with no legislative reason to stay together Canada
>>may very well break apart.
>
>Actually Canada has all the legislative reason it ever have had for
>remaining together, the British North America Act, or as it's known
>today, the Constition Act 1867.  While Quebec didn't sign the Constitution,
>they joined Confederation, and so are still subject to the BNA act.
>
>All the No vote did is give more ammunition for seperatists, it did
>not affect the provinces' right to succession.  In other words things
>continue as normal in Canada.

I must disagree. The NO vote expressed our distrust for the way Mulroney's
gang is handling things. Had a YES vote won, we would still be in the same
situation as we are...No better or worse. At least we more or less agreed
that the Charlottetown document was a load of crap, with too many unresolved
issues. The day that all First Ministers agree on all issues, I'll vote YES.
This referendum had nothing to do with Quebec's potential separation. That
was just some Conservative Propaganda designed to make us fear the country's
breakup and vote for something inherently unfair. We didn't buy it and I'm
glad because now Quebecers might understand that most of Canada agrees with 
it at least on some issues.

>>What is ironic is that the things that most Canadians decry
>>as cornerstones of what makes them Canadian (i.e., Socialized
>>Healthcare, CBC, and certain social policies) are intrinsically tied
>>to the government, the same government that Canadians effectively gave
>>a no-confidence vote to on the 26th of October. 
>
>No, it wasn't the same goverment as the the one that introduced 
>socialized health insurance, or created the CBC.  This goverment
>introduced the Good and Services Tax and the US-Canada Free Trade
>Agreement, things that most(*) Canadians think are what's wrong with
>this country.

We just didn't choose to buy any more bullshit from a bullshit government.
 
>>Allisson  (I'm not Canadian; I only post from an acount there)
>
>I'm Canadian; I just don't post from an account here.
>
>						Ross Ridge

I am Canadian and posting from an account here.
 
>(*) but not me.
>
>--
>Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU						 l/
>rridge@nyx.cs.du.edu							[OO]
>									-()-
>Disclaimer: I've never been to Denver (or PEI)				 db

Neither have I

dreas


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein)
Subject: Re: Married Men
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:38:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.152628.254@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> markr@mcil.comm.mot.com writes:
>In article <lfei4fINN3ua@news.bbn.com> ahsiung@labs-n.bbn.com (Anita Hsiung) writes:
>
>>Well, I found out why I find married men attractive: they are relaxed.
>>They know that "women like to be held", they're less obssessive than
>>their single counterparts, and they're more willing to take the time
>>to get to know you.

Interesting......and those could very well be the qualities that their
wives were attracted to when they first met.  And look what ended up
happening to her.  Oh, how nice is sincerity.

But, wouldn't it be more fullfilling to be with a guy who will continue
to treat you as well even after you are married. 

I question the motives of both people involved in a relationship where
one is married.  If the guy is unhappy with the marriage, he should
get out of it and devote himself fully to the new one.  If he cons the
woman into believing he wants to (but never does), then I feel the affair
is more of an ego trip for him, and a no win situation for the woman.
In other words, she's being used.

If a woman allows herself to become involved with a married man, 
(or vise versa) I can't help but to feel that she/he is doing so because
(in an odd way) it's safer.  Less chance for total committment.  If it
fails, it can't be due to any fault of her/his, it was because of the wife
and/or marriage or whatever, but not her.

>There are single men like that out there, I know, because I am one.
>(often they are identified as Nice Guys (TM) :-(
>
>Mark
>
Excellent point.  Although those types of guys are often overlooked.
WHY ??????  What fun is it to persue someone who "doesn't" act like he
doesn't give a sh*t????  Hmmmmmm........become a "jerk".  You'll 
probably have more success and/or options.  

**Just my opinions, although they could change by tomorrow**
			
				Steve
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Hints (Was Re: What is attractive)
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:18:39 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Nov4.182033.9837@b8.b8.ingr.com> larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings) writes:

>the child.  After attempting all routes I could think of to avoid the 
>question, I had to answer and answer truthfully.  My answer consisted of
>You know I love the baby very much, but the first year or two together is
>always the hardest, because the people have to get to know each other, and
>having a child can only complicate things.

I'm confused here.  She had a child, and you broke up because you thought
the child would complicate things?  Or -- she had a child, and you broke
up because you wanted her to get rid of the child?  



-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: being between "Just Friends" and "relationship" and "kill me".
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:39:01 GMT

In article <5688@jptcs.COM> tps@jptcs.com writes:
>james.j.dutton (jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com) wrote:
>: Which brings up another interesting topic. Why do you think (apart from the
>: fear and preoccupation) hamsters are usually brown on top and white on
>: the bottom? Do you think they believe in themselves or figure it's just
>: an illusion? I'll post a summary starlit night later. 
>
>Could it be because I turn the toaster oven on broil instead of toast?
>I hate it when the bottoms don't get done! :)

I love their lil bottoms too.
 
================================================================================
 Ipsissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes 
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Slow loris (was Re: marital counciling)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:40:31 GMT

In article <JULIE.92Nov9001730@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu> julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:
>(I still wish I had a slow loris though.)
>
>---Julie
>-- 
>* loris, n.     Any of several small, nocturnal, arboreal primates of the *
>* genera _Loris_ and _Nycticebus_, of tropical Asia, having dense, woolly *
>* fur, large eyes, and a vestigial tail.  [French, probably from obsolete *
>* Dutch _loeris_, simpleton, clown.]    ---- American Heritage Dictionary *

Would you settle for a color photograph?  There's an excellent one on page
58 of _A Complete Guide To Monkeys, Apes, And Other Primates_ by Michael
Kavanagh (ISBN 0-670-43543-0).  This male specimen of _Nycticebus coucang_
is shown gripping tree branches with both hands and both feet and looking
at the camera.  The full moon is in the background.  The photo is also
reproduced on the back cover of the dust jacket.  (This is not to be construed
as incitement to steal either the book or the dust jacket or to remove page
58 with a razor blade.)

-- Herb Huston
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: a question in search of an answer!!!
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:16:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <MARTINC.92Nov9143213@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.223644.9213@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein) writes:
>
>   In article <MARTINC.92Nov8152512@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>   >In article <644@ka2qhd.de.com> bill@ka2qhd.de.com (Bill Luzenko) writes:
>   >   question: why can two women dance together and be friends,
>   >   but when two men do the same they are two homos? 
>   >
>
>   Could social standards (the norm) have anything to do with this?
>
>'ere now.  Don't get me tied up in this.

>		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu

Now remember......you have a dissertaion to write.  

	THWART OFF THE TEMPTATIONS OF SATAN !!!!!!!!!!
	
	
StEvE
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith)
Subject: Re: girl/lady/female boy/guy/male
Organization: GAGGING SLOTH RECORDS
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:09:18 GMT

In article <JMD.92Nov11143912@lion.bear.com>, jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1992Nov10.184253.20942@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith) writes:
|> 
|>    In article <1992Nov10.060932.28448@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Bathsheba.Grossman@launchpad.unc.edu (Bathsheba Grossman) writes:
|> 
|>    |> In this vein, let it be known that any person who refers to me as a
|>    |> "sculptress" will receive a swift boot to the head.  This is a term whose
|>    |> excess specifity is not valuable in any context.  IMO.
|> 
|>    Well...there is one. Say, for the sake of argument, I were dating a sculptperson. And say that I mentioned to my friends that I were dating
|>    a sculpter. It just doesn't sound quite as...non-controversial...as scultptress!
|> 
|> Better than dating a sculpture...

HEY! WATCH IT BUD...SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE SCULPTURES.

Some of them are even anatomically correct.

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: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: New Thread on meeting people
Date: 10 Nov 92 10:55:08 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

James Davis Nicoll (jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca) wrote:
: 	About the only people to approach  me these days are religious
: cultists, who I *deliberately* ignore.

  Funny, I have the same problem, only cultists and down-and-outs seem to
  single me out. Sometimes I wish I had time to reeducate the cultists
  but often I am strangely busy. 

: 	Odd.  If I am out in public, my mind edits people out of the
: scenery, except as obstacles to be avoided. I suppose that's why I
: don't make contact with people in lines at stores or at bus stops:
: if I don't expect to be intereacting with people, they cease to exist
: for me.  

  I tried an experiment this past weekend. I was walking around Leeds
  deliberately making eye contact while looking rather disinterested.
  Not surprinsingly it makes people feel uncomfortable. Smiling at them
  would probably make them squirm even more, after all in England if 
  you are happy you certainly don't go inflicting it on other people.
  (And if you're sad you are supposed to starch your trembling upper 
  lip)

		Aaron Turner		aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: wkaufman@us.oracle.com (William Kaufman)
Subject: Re: girl/lady/female boy/guy/male
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 05:19:33 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Nov10.060932.28448@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bathsheba.Grossman@launchpad.unc.edu (Bathsheba Grossman) writes:
] 
] [...] I can be a chairman,
] poet, author, sculptor, mailman, waiter, seaman, &ct &ct.  I hope you won't
] find that disconcerting; some people may.

    Just don't try doing all of them at once.  Not to say you're
incapable of it, but I'd be worried that, between writing sonnets and
serving me tea and crumpets, the ship might run aground.  OK?

] In this vein, let it be known that any person who refers to me as a
] "sculptress" will receive a swift boot to the head.  This is a term whose
] excess specifity is not valuable in any context.  IMO.

    (I suppose "sculptrette" is out of the question.)

    Well, I won't call you the "-ess" word as long as, whilst serving me
(as the ship softly gurgles and slips beneath the waves, and the sonnets
and manuscripts float by in the water), you don't demand that I call you
a "waitron".  YECH!

    (I think it was Martin Mull who demanded that people in charge of a
board of directors be called "chairperchildren", since "chairperSON" was
clearly sexist.)

    Oh, the hupersonity!  The *hupersonity*!

                                           -- Bill K.

Bill Kaufman,          | "Maybetheyhadaridiculousstatementtomakeaboutsomethingt
Corporate Lackey       |  heyhadntexperiencedPossiblySamhadadifferentopiniontha
wkaufman@us.oracle.com |  tnobodyeverconsideredimportant."  -- the Meat Puppets
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: PRES DEBATE
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:16:07 GMT

tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker) writes:
>W. David Rohwer writes:

>As I understood things, it was James Baker III, not Bush that apporved
>the keynote speaker for the convention. If this is the case, why is
>the hate and bilge spewed by that *idiot* being laid at Bush's feet? 

Because Bush hired the bastard.  Jim Baker was just doing his job.
(While much of the blame for this defeat rests with Darman and Baker,
Bush could have just said no.)

>group as a whole. It is even more distressing that Republicans for Choice
>and other such groups within the party as well as Bush himself didn't speak
>out against such extremist views. 

Yes, a good deal of the blame for this defeat rests in the people who
nominated Bush four years ago, and those who wrote the platform and
organised the convention this year.

>As for the senate critters, I take comfort in the fact that I will be
>able to vote against Feinstein again in just two years.

Too bad you can't vote against Boxer in two years.  

>>       /  Voting For: Perot, Boxer, Feinstein, 161 (Dr. Assisted Death) /

This is interesting.  Mr Rohwer votes for a supposedly centrist
budget-slasher, while simultaneously voting for one of the two
candidates (Boxer and Feingold) farthest to the left of those in
contention this year, who is reputed to be one of the biggest spenders
in the House (and whose opponent, for all of his (serious) flaws, is a
supporter of limited government.) 
-- 

Kiran Wagle                           <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>