HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: About ProblemOlderWomen
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 10:30:16 GMT

<2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

] OK, here's my situation. I'm a 23 year old student. Over the past year or so
] I've grown very close to a woman who's 39 (turning 40 in 6 weeks). 

first Off make sure you know what is still under warrenty,
and when the last major Yard period was...

Nothing Like Being on the Open Seas and having a Shaft Break
and have to go....

Oh, sorry, that ProblemOlderTrampSteamers....


Yes, Here we go:

Most Likely Everything is Out of Warrenty,
and Both Of You are on the Slide side of Life....

But You are both Past Your Sexual Primes anyway....

]  I'm also not pressuring her at all though we do discuss the situation from
] time to time. So what do I do. Do I wait and hope she comes around? Do I
]  put matters on the table in a serious discussion and risk harming our
]  friendship?  Do I just give up any hope of a serious relationship with her?

1. What do You Really define as 'a relationship' and what do You
need IN and OUT of one....

2. sometimes all the details get washed out by being very specific
about this and that Gory Detail of the Matter. 

My ProblemOlderWoman and I agree that there are
HuntingThings, which I as the MALE do,
and there are GatheringThings, Which she Does.

The Problem is that we do NOT always agree that 
<X> is clearly defined as being specifically
IN this or that Group....

One of the Ugly Facts of Life is that an 'arrangement' is what
develops as you resolve who takes out the Garbage....

Not From DisCussing the Merits of an Equitable Distribution
of a GeoPoliticallyRelevantSemanticallyKorrectImplementation....

But who actually gets it from where to where....

So.... 

now that My Housemate is involved with a ProblemYoungerWoman,
my whole sense of Identity is TRASHED, as She picks him up
at the AirPort, and takes him to the Airport... and....

But she and I get to Talk while he is out of town...

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
Chimo
Bob.
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.peeves,talk.abortion,talk.bizarre
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Clarification of Social Obligations
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 04:19:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.014602.7336@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>ObRealLife: why is my ProblemOlderWoman So confused?

	Spending that much time around you, and you have to ask??

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: mel@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Meloney D Cregor)
Subject: Re: Ipisissimus
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 15:17:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.202428.26419@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> allisson@turing.toronto.edu (H. Allisson Roome) writes:
>Sorry, I don't have any seesters (at least that I know of) but I'm
>willing to open with 3 pounds of bananas (and not to be outdone by Mel
>- I'll scrounge up the fondue pot and make chocolate fondue, dip the
>banana, remove the chocolate in one elegant motion (exerting me
>"freedom of expression" again), and then  eat the banana in a fashion
>not suited for viewing by smalldren.  Will that do?

Ah, I've still got you Allisson.  I've got three seesters!



--
 Life is exactly what you make of it, always has been, always will be.
                                          
                                          --  Grandma Moses
From: aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: How Important Is Being IN-LOVE?
Keywords: Love,Romance, Relationships
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:21:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Oct13.182121.19960
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez

In article <5998@news.duke.edu> diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) writes:
>
>I guess my opinion is that for a lasting relationship, I personally need
>both a romantic feeling as well as a friendly one. I think that
>over time the first fine careless rapture of infatuation may fade,
>and that in the end the liking-respect-sexual desire-trust matrix
>is much more important, but I have to admit that when I was dating the
>second person mentioned above I understood for the first time how a person
>could marry someone clearly wrong for her.  For me at least, that
>"in-love" feeling is POWERFUL.  

Fortunately for me, every time I've felt that way about a woman, she has
been completely, totally, and unequivocally uninterested in me.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

Who needs Lime Jello [tm]?  We had lasagna.....
Xref: sparky soc.singles:27782 alt.sex:32980
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.sex
Subject: Re: More Helpful Hints for the 90's
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:23:57 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Oct14.092323.17087@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>] In <1992Oct12.223945.538@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> allisson@turing.toronto.edu (H. Allisson Roome) writes:
>] >In article <73301@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>] >>"Hey baby, want to come back to my cave for a little bouncy-bouncy?"

Wouldn't that hurt off those rocks?

>] >But isn't genetic invasion the favourite form of assimilation?

Only if you have a couple of generations to play around with.

>1. Never Trust a Woman who Invites You Back to here Cave.
>She is looking for someone to clean it up, and to do
>Sex Stuff....

Heck, the cleaning up I wouldn't mind...

>2. Never Trust a Woman who discusses 'genetic invasion'
>as a GeoPoliticalSocioCulturalFactor. 
>
>All She Wants is SEX.
>
How about 'genetic invasion' as a BiologicalEvolutionaryMeansOfGeneShift?

>She's Probably also a RadFemSurfNazi,
>and will want you to wax her board.
>
Not in Colorado.
>
>Modern Day Problems:
>In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
>Chimo
>Bob.

Now this one I do NOT get.  Somebody wanna explain it to me?

Big Al.  The great communicator.
From: brentaa@ac.dal.ca (brent, eh?)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: How Important Is Being IN-LOVE?
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:46:21 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Oct12.222808.308@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, allisson@turing.toronto.edu (H. Allisson Roome) writes:
>       How important is "BEING IN-LOVE" with someone you're involved
>       with for the duration and course of the relationship?
> 
Well, a very interesting question, with no easy answers, but here is my
opinion......
There are two ways one can be IN-LOVE....There is the kind of love that
builds over time, based on mutual caring and respect, and a deep understanding
of the SO, and there is the falling in love feeling, that can happen in an
instant, fire your passions like nothing else, and is based mostly on
"chemistry" and physical attraction.  Both ways of being IN-LOVE can give
you that special feeling, the fire inside from just thinking of the other
person, the rush of joy when you see the person, the "warm fuzzies" when
your just hanging out together, and so on.....
Falling in love can be wonderful, but beware, this kind of love is truly
blind as a bat.....
While it can lead to BEING IN-LOVE, falling in love can also lead to
trouble, since you tend not to know the person as well, and once you've
finished falling, you may find that you're not really compatable, and
it will probably hurt a lot if that is the case.
But sometimes, the fun you can have while falling makes it all worthwhile :-)
BEININ-LOVE ussu doesn't happenhappen (for me anyway) until after you
have known someone for a long time, about six months or a year...
The sweep-you-off-your-feet kind of romance usually happens when you're
falling in love, but there is plenty of equally satisfying, though more
subtle romance in a Being in love kind of relationship.
How important is being IN-LOVE??
IMHO, relationships are primarily for having fun, getting to know someone,
and sharing special moments.  Being IN-LOVE is not a requirement, it's 
kind of an added bonus....if it happens, GREAT, if not, you can still
have lots of fun together.
Most relationships won't last very long, but you never know when that
special one will come along, and sometimes the best relationships start
out as average at best
Romance in a relationship often takes a little work, so if you're not
finding the kind of romance you're looking for, put some effort into
building some, you never know what will happen...
On the other hand, if you find that a relationship just isn't working or
isn't doing anything for you, don't string it out....finish it before
it gets any worse and you and you partner end up hating each other...
Hoooo boy, did I ever ramble on that time!
Well, I hope you find something that makes sense to you in there....
I've had both kinds of love, and while neither worked out, they were both
lots of fun while they lasted.  

				-Brontosaur the LOVE Doctor  :-)
					(yeah, I wish...)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik)
Subject: Re: Vicky Boink.
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 08:19:42 GMT



In article 8279@bmerh85.bnr.ca, myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.051823.18780@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA writes:
>>   The boink will take the ferry to Vancouver Island and get into
>>some of the local nightlife. We were thinking of visiting some of
>>the local attractions and doing some serious hiking in the mountains.
>>We could go on a whale watching trip and essentially pack about 
>>three months of good times into a weekend.
>
>But first, the boinkers _must_ visit Vancouver! (my beloved home town. :)

I'd like to start the festivities at Kaplan's Deli,Corner of Oak(?) and 41'st
for some MONTREAL(home town) smoked meat :=\

>See the Vancouver Aquarium, the world's first aquarium with unscheduled
>whale and dolphin shows. :-)

Yeah, the ocean.

>Cruise through Robson Street, from Burrard to Davie.
>
>Then walk along English Bay.
>
>Check out the night time sight of downtown across the water from the
>darkness of that wonderful patch of grass behind the H.R. MacMillan
>Planetarium. All you instant-romance types can indulge in your favorite
>activiry there.
>
>How about all the _very_ nice Chinese restaurants around town? A
>different one each night can keep you busy for a week even if you only
>try all the best ones.
>
>I can go on and on, but you get the message.
>
>Vancouver, B.C. is a beautiful place to live in, and an excellent tourist
>destination. Go there. Spend there. Have fun there. Spend some more there.
>Heck, even stay there.  :-)
>
 
That's why we decided to call it VickyBoink :=\

Andreas.
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: New Orleans vs. Fox TV
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:44:04 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Oct5.153911.26937@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
 
>Anyone else have an opinion??

You ought to know better than to ask that?

-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira     | Auspex Systems | "Auspex does not share my opinions.  |
| johnf@auspex.com | Santa Clara CA |  So Why am I still working here?"    |
+==========================================================================+
From: catcher@netcom.com (Paul W. Francisco)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Please post proposition 9 (Oregon)
Date: 16 Oct 92 06:02:39 GMT
Organization: Night People

In article <1992Oct15.231831.29526@wixer.cactus.org> sparky@wixer.cactus.org (Timothy Sheridan) writes:
>
>Could somone follow this with a post of porposition #9 from Oregon ?

Certainly.

>I also would like to know if there are national levels where more general
>legislation could eliminate this class of potental 'bullshit' legislation.

The Supreme Court could declare it unconstitutional, or a bill could be
passed into law in the Federal Government outlawing discrimination on
this basis.  I think that is accurate and would do the trick.  Corrections
are welcome, and appreciated.

(what follows was taken from another newsgroup)

==================

The text of the proposition follows:


The state shall not recognize any categorical provision such as "sexual
orientation," "sexual preference," and similar phrases that include
homosexuality.   Quotas, minority status, affirmative action, or any
similar concepts, shall not apply to those forms of conduct, nor shall
government promote these behaviors.

State, regional, and local government and their properties and monies
shall not be used to promote, encourage, or facilitate homosexuality,
pedophelia, sadism, or masochism.

State, regional, and local government and their departments, agencies,
and other entities, including specifically the State Department of
Higher Education and the public schools, shall assist in setting a
standard for Oregon's youth that recognizes homosexuality, pedophilia,
sadism, and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse and
that these behaviors are to be discouraged and avoided.

It shall be considered that it is the intent of the people in enacting
this section that if any part thereof is held unconstitutional, the
remaining parts shall be held in force.

=========================

A comment of my own on this final paragraph.  It can be interpreted 
that they realize that they are stepping on people's rights, and
that a fight will possibly take it to the Supreme Court.  But they
don't care about that, so they are protecting the rest of it.  It
seems a shame that a group that realizes that this may very well be
found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court is still so caught up in
their own version of righteousness that they are pushing ahead to
take away rights anyway.

Also, a comment on the first paragraph.  It says that "the government
shall not promote these behaviors".  If read accurately, it seems to
me that these behaviors are grammatically said to be "sexual preference"
and "sexual orientation".  So this could apply to everyone.  If you
have a sexual preference or orientation, you can't be helped by public
funds or anything else mentioned above.  So it doesn't just apply to
homosexuals, but to the rest of us who like sex also :-)

At least that's how I read it.  YMMV.

I hope this helps.
-- 
Paul W. Francisco        	    In the shadow an angel cries...
catcher@netcom.com                      - Front Line Assembly
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: morton@rtpnet06.rtp.dg.com (John R. Morton)
Subject: Re: Marriage
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 11:47:38 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

>>In article <BvB9Au.uo@inews.Intel.COM>, gbennett@frx781.intel.com (gbennett) writes:
>>|>    Would you be willing to give up a career, a new home, and a new car
>>|>    for an everlasting and loving marriage?

	I suppose so, provided the everlasting and loving marriage fulfilled 
	all of my sexual fantasies and desires !
From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: How Important Is Being IN-LOVE?
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:07:24 GMT
	<DccmsB3w165w@wildrose.infoserv.com>
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com's message of 14 Oct 92 05:13:00 GMT


In article <DccmsB3w165w@wildrose.infoserv.com> rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com (Ray Fink) writes:

   When I was working through my divorce, I read Scott Peck's _The Road
   Less Traveled_. He talks a lot about this distinction and has some
   very definite opinions; I found a lot that I agreed with, and a lot
   that explained what my life had been all about.  He takes a dim view of 
   romance, and strongly favors loving (unconditionally, as Spidey might say).

I had heard that Peck talks about unconditional love -- but thats not
where I got the concept...

   It may be more important to find someone who places the same relative
   values on each; I'm not willing to say that one's right and one's wrong.
   But sooner or later, the reality of who these two people *actually* are 
   will surface; maybe the relationship can survive that, maybe not.  In my 
   experience, if it's grounded in loving rather than in-love the long
   term chances are better and the endings aren't nearly as ugly. That's
   my preference; your mileage may vary. :-) 

Agreed.  Sounds like my life.

Applause.


					Spidey!!!

--
 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                                          jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \                                              Do whatever it takes.
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Clare DOES IT AGAIN!!!!
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:36:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <73287@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>clare@nynexst.com (Clare Chu) writes: 
>
>>  My husband can bench-press 300 lbs.
>So watch it on the playground jimmyboy.
 
 If he could benchpress more then half his weight I would have been more
impressed.
 
>
>>  Ah... Big Bad Clare beat you up, wah wah wah.
>Behold: a woman who believes in non-violence. Except when provoked. I guess
>she decided jimmy was right after all.
 
 She did sound rational, didn't she.
 

 Philly philly philly boink, a go home. You can't push philly round
philly won't go. Try tellin everybody but Oh No. Philly philly philly
boink. A go home. 
 
================================================================================
 Ipsissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes - IIOSF XOX Dawn
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: SeesterSizeWars
Organization: QQQCLC
Distribution: na 
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:38:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.072925.9554@netcom.com> cocoa@netcom.com writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.151749.4815@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> mel@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Meloney D Cregor) writes:
>>Ah, I've still got you Allisson.  I've got three seesters!
>
>Hey!  I have *four* seesters!  What can I get for them, I wonder.

	Kayembee bids thirty quatloos.

	That's each, of course; I've seen their peektures.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: more lefthanded foolishness
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:31:18 GMT

jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
] In article <1a5oa0INNjql@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
] >>Actually since it's the left-handed elite that takes the active role in
] >>defining everything for the rest of homanity, it is really the truth that the
] >>ring symbolizes the dominance of the wearer over the giver, and the offering
] >>of the ring, a gesture of supplication.  This, of course, being true,
] >>because the left hand is naturally the superior hand.
] 
] aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
] >I'm sorry, but the above is just a tad gauche.
] 
] It's interesting how many insults the verbal half of the brain (the left
] brain, which, since it controls the right half of the body, thinks of
] itself as the right side) has come up with for the nonverbal right brain


Not that I would DARE suggest that all of
this is CREEPING CULTRUAL MYOPIA!

But it is not a 'tradition' that is universally
accepted to wear the 'wedding/engagement ring'
on the left hand....

In Many Decent Civilized Cultures it is,
as it should be, worn on the RIGHT HAND.

ciao
drieux



-- 
Modern Day Problems:

ME? engage in Hyperbole?
I have rarely been more than a first Order Function!!!!
Xref: sparky soc.singles:27678 alt.romance:12639 alt.romance.chat:19376
From: peters@CS.ColoState.EDU (eric peters)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance,alt.romance.chat
Subject: Re: How long has it been?
Date: 14 Oct 92 08:45:17 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

So, if all you people have been kissed by an SO of some sort in the last 
6 hours, What are you doing reading the singles group?
-- 
Eric Peters   
peters@CS.Colostate.EDU  
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: More on guys who aren't dating Ed Wright
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 07:59:39 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: soc

In article <JULIE.92Oct9130630@amazon.chem.columbia.edu> julie@amazon.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:
>* loris, n.     Any of several small, nocturnal, arboreal primates of the *
>* genera _Loris_ and _Nycticebus_, of tropical Asia, having dense, woolly *

Yeah! Lets hear it for Nocturnal Primates! 
I do own a silk tie with Lemurs on it :)
(Gee, couldn't tell I'm nocturnal, could you?)
r.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik)
Subject: Re: Clearing Up a TermUsage
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 03:15:33 GMT

In article 12306@wetware.com, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>Petri.Wessman@hut.fi writes:
>] On Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:41:57 GMT, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) said:
>] drieux> I hate these ClosetHetro's who are so easily confused....
>] 
>] Hmmmm. Now *I'm* confused. Exactly *what* is a ClosetHetro? Anything
>] related to LivingRoomMunchkins or KitchenBoogers?
>
>I'm sorry, I had thought that this expression had 
>already been moved into common usage as a 'reclaimed'
>term for those persons who for reasons not fully 
>clarified are still essentially acting like HeteroSexuals.

What? This is the whole world,Luv. Kindly keep your obscure colloquialisms
defined...Are you implying that these closetwhatevers are really gay?

>Now that many persons are aware that HeteroSexualityTheDeathKult
>is really the Ikky Yukky UnNice thing that it is, many persons
>have begun to go into the closet, or are merely in complete
>denial about their HeteroSexual Tendencies.

What's wrong with just being straight guys and curvy girls?

>This term is Gender and Affectional Preference Nuetral
>and can be used for the Bruces who are still carrying on
>as if they really were Just Ward and June in Drag.

HOO-HAH! What's the Beav' got to do with this doubleplusungoodickyyuckydoublethink?

>{ok, I'll say it, "oh How Cleaver of Him..."}
>
>Persons who DO NOT admit that Gestation as an ObligationalPotential
>of Sex - and for some irrational reason presume that SEX is ABOUT ORGASMS -
>suffer the classic symptoms of ClosetHeteroSeXuality.
 
What about plain old-fashioned fun?
Does this make me a dead parrot?

>
>Yes, BEWARE! They Are OUT THERE! And they ARE DANGEROUS!
>
>ciao
>drieux

SURE, Baby-doll! I'm the guy who waits for you when you leave your house
at night. I follow you around wherever you go but disappear into dark 
crevasses when you turn around to look.

Here's looking at you and your modern problems,Kid.

Andy.

Now I don't understand myself. IGNORANCE disclaimer most definitely applies!
>
>-- 
>Modern Day Problems:
>
>Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
>IT's The LAW!!!!!