HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Technical Clarification
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 11:09:30 GMT

bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:
] >>>>> On 6 Oct 92 20:42:38 GMT, lawrence@ctron.com (Gary St. Lawrence) said:
] 
] > My system WENT down for a FEW HOURS AND I missed any mail I might have
] > been SENT. If you SENT ME SOMETHING, PLEASE send it again.
] > Love getting mail!
] 
] Oh no!! A few hours!  YOU MUST have MISSED hundreds OF MESSAGES.


Well, actually it is a matter of how his network,
internally, and externally, is configured, and
if the 'system' outage occurred during a major
'linkage.'

Most Likely, though, the mail would have
backed up at an adjacent host awaiting
to have a friendly host to host chat.....

ciao
drieux

ps: These are NOT the Old Days... Most sites
can handle a couple of days worth of outage
before email is piddled on the floor....



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
Chimo
Bob.
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Female geek beats crap out of Ed. Film at eleven.
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:03:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <ewright.719176075@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1992Oct15.184349.10592@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>
>>Do cute guys in red BMWs put their cellular phone numbers on those
>>vanity plates?  I didn't know those things had point-n-shoot
>>capabilities although that *is* an interesting concept:
>
>Not very resourceful, Nancy.  All you need is a friend who works 
>for an insurance company or the state DMV. Call him, give him the 
>license number, get the name, then call information to get the 
>phone number.
>
>You don't have to be a geek to figure that out.  Why, if he
>knew how to dial a phone, I bet even Jimmy Dutton could do it.
>
 
 Guess who wrote that. EDDIE. Eddie wrote that. He's cool. He's tops.
I call him BIG Eddie. Eddies me pal. Eddie is funny. I couldn't live
in this crazy world witout Eddie. When Eddie calls me a chimp I
jump up and down and hold his cup. Nobody does it like the Edster.
Eddie and me pick up girls together. We're insatiable. We're never
satisfied. We're HOT. We sizzle. Phermones attract woman.
Nobody attracts women like the Edmeister. We have the same color stroking
jackets. We sit in front of a roaring blaze and pick toe cheese.
We're playboys. Watch out girls. Eddie and me are back in town.
We're gonna Lambada tonight. Hooya git along little Eddie.

 
================================================================================
 Ipsissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes - IIOSF XOX Dawn
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: BARBIE DOES IT AGAIN!!!!
Date: 9 Oct 1992 22:29:52 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Oct9.191931.25643@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA writes:
>  Why not think about Ghandi? Why not watch the film?
>
>  HE NEVER RESORTED TO VIOLENCE, JUST PEACEFUL RESISTANCE!!

And look at what it got him.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Bathsheba.Grossman@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bathsheba Grossman)
Subject: Re: Philly Boink Re-announcement
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 04:24:31 GMT

Allison Writ:
>looking forward to this party -- can we few proud net.women handle "raving
>nurds"

Honey, is that meant for a question?  My _arms are nurds rampant gules on
field argent, below a whip hand sable and flanked by bar sinister.

P.S. A leatherman is on my utility belt too - away with your
food-trough-wiping corkscrew, wood saw, and fish scaler.  In these parts
it's phillips screws 1000 to 1 over dead fish.

Liz on the other hand Writ:
>Yes, Sheba's talking about the Philly Boink here...sounds like her party
>venue will be quite interesting.  ...
>I thought I'd post a  reminder about the upcoming Philadelphia event of
> the year, the Philly Boink! ...  Weekend of Nov 21

Yes, by all means email Liz and/or me and show up, lurkers welcome.  I have
infinite cold hard floor space (500 or so guests would be no problem) and
Liz has a king waterbed and couches and stuff.  

>$10/article clothing exhange rate 
>...hoping Bobbles can be traded for clothing as well.  Sheba and I ought
>to fare pretty well with the $2000 worth of bobbles James will be bringing
>us...there's going to be a lot of male clothing separated from its owners
>;-).

Speak for yourself - I can use the cash.  Socks, that's the ticket, I'll wear
many socks.  Do you think he really means those things that hang off the
edge of chintz curtains?  I thot he meant baubles but maybe that's wishful.

-Sheba

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOSEPH ALOYSIUS MCVEIGH)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: More Questions we all wanted to ask
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:50:27 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

Here's a question that I've been asking everyone lately. It comes c/o a slow
trading day at my buddy's firm:

If your arms were removed, which would you rather have in their place: two
bear claws, or a bionic arm and a pocket fisherman?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Aloysius McVeigh | I never believed in fate....Always felt, you make
   jm0i@.Lehigh.edu     | your own way, you take care of your own, and you pick
       "N.I.N.A."       | after yourself.                           - Ed Hurley
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik)
Subject: Re: Aggression in boys (Was: Re: BARBIE DO
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 23:27:56 GMT

In article 26193@nynexst.com, clare@nynexst.com (Clare Chu) writes:
>In article <LOWRY.92Oct7170735@rotor.watson.ibm.com> lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.162053.3664@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>> >  
>> > I don't see a lot of bullys man handling girls out on the
>> > playground.  Your experience is probably different. As long as you
>>
>>Sure, girls don't get beat up that much in playgrounds.  But in real
>
>  Playgrounds ARE real life.  Girls
>  get beat up, and sexually harrassed.  Girls get their heads flushed
>  in the toilet by other girls.  Girls get cigarette burns, earrings
>  pulled, bit, scratched, punched, kicked.  Girls get beaten up by
>  so-called boyfriends.  Girls get raped, molested, subject of catcalls
>  and obscene language, threats, and occasionally killed for not going
>  out with some guy.  (Just happened here in New Rochelle).  Lots
>  of sexual harrassment occurs on school buses and in the school
>  hallways and playgrounds.  Surprised?
>
>  And you can't just sit there and hope that some "knight in shining
>  armor" will come and rescue you.  Not in real life.  I've had a switch-
>  blade pulled on me, my sister almost got abducted by some guys in
>  a van.  Self-defense and martial arts are just as important, if
>  not more so, for girls as for boys.  
>
  When I was twelve, Girls the same age were bigger and stronger than me.
I kept getting beat up by them. This shattered my pride, and it took years
to heal the emotional scars. I was brought up by my parents (who came from
the old country) to ALWAYS be a gentleman and NEVER hit girls.

  What should I have done? hit back and be punished for bullying somebody's
ANGELIC little daughter?

  Should I have just sat there and taken it "LIKE A MAN" the way I did?

  I was a sensitive boy. The physical scars were long forgotten by the
time the emotional wounds healed...

Andy.
From: bmeyer@feds12.prime.com (Bob Meyer)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Farewell all.
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:22:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: really trying

In article <1992Oct8.205557.17438@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct8.142018.10264@bsu-ucs.uucp> 01ksdavis@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rebel without a clue.) writes:
|> >-- 
|> >
|> >	Just letting everybody else in the newsgroup that I will no longer be
|> >in this newsgroup.  Not even as a lurker as of something that has recently 
|> >happened to me.
|> >
|> >	So, look for me in either alt.romance from now on, or even soc.couples.
|> >
|> >	Keep smiling everybody.
|> >	Kyle
|>  
|> Bwah Bwa Bwa. Bwa Bwa Bwa.
|> Bwa bwabwa. Bwa bwabwa. Bwa bwabwaaaaaa
|> Bwa bwa bwa bwabwabwaaaaaaa
|>  

   Don't worry ... he'll be back!  ;-)
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Seesters (was: Re: FOR MY BROTHER)
Date: 16 Oct 1992 16:49:22 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Oct15.202751.19717@doug.cae.wisc.edu> christin@cae.wisc.edu (Christine Haas) writes:
>Hi,
>
>I am posting this for my brother who is looking for a female
>with which to correspond by U.S. mail (he does not have computer
>access.)
>
>He is 29 years old, brown hair, brown eyes, 6' tall, and being
>his little sister, I have no clue how much he weighs.  

The real question is: how old are YOU, and what do YOU look like?

And does he have other younger seesters??

>Chris.  :)

I bet that colon and right parenthesis really confuse the banks who handle the
checks you sign.
Xref: sparky soc.singles:27499 alt.romance:12492 alt.romance.chat:19296 talk.bizarre:33695
From: tomault+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Galen Ault)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance,alt.romance.chat,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: How long has it been?
Date: 12 Oct 92 01:05:44 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Oct6.134605.16183@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mneeley@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark Neeley) writes:
>How long has it been since you were kissed by a member of
>the opposite sex?
>
>	Mark (almost a year)
>

Unless one counts relations (mother, grandmother, etc.)

			NEVER!

Tom Ault

"Someday, I'll get all the little bits of myself put together into one big
 bit.  This will occur five seconds before I kick the bucket."
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Ipisissimus
Organization: my opinions only
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:56:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.130633.28367@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:

> ... phila. I'm not coming anymore.
>Too scared.

Oh, come on.  Kiran and I were so looking forward to winning all your
seesters...


Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Xref: sparky soc.singles:27297 alt.romance:12396 alt.romance.chat:19242 talk.bizarre:33353
From: sheph@wam.umd.edu (pale blue eyes)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance,alt.romance.chat,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: How long has it been?
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:38:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: wam.1992Oct8.233818.5060
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Oct6.134605.16183@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mneeley@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark Neeley) writes:
>How long has it been since you were kissed by a member of
>the opposite sex?

oh, what the heck ....

seven weeks.  exactly.  :'(

but i'll get to re-experience that wonderful expression of love in 23 hours
and 7 minutes.  :)

(i can't wait until you get home, davie .... )

 
-- 
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>   stephanie j. bartosz      sheph@wam.umd.edu       univ. of maryland  <> 
<>          "the only thing to fear is fearlessness." --r.e.m.            <>  
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik)
Subject: Re: The Engaged Psychobitch from Hell Synd
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 18:45:42 GMT

In article 21984@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com, smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith) writes:
>In article <1biej9INNaqc@uwm.edu>, markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
>
>|> Higher divorce rates, and all the other social phenomena of today that people
>|> would falsely point to as indications of social and institutional breakdown are,
>|> in reality, quite natural and inevitable consequences of the highly singular
>|> historical change our entire civilization is going through.
>|> 
>|> They are not "problems", they're not "caused" by anyone, they cannot be
>|> "solved".  They are the inevitable consequences of the nature of our time or
>|> any other similar time of the past or any other similar time yet to be.
>
>Bullshit. Maybe if you throw in a few more polysyllabic words we can declare
>you an expert and put a "Dr" in front of your name.

Naw, ditch the "Dr" and tack on a "Piled higher and Deeper"(PhD.)

The Arsonist
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Should be an FAQ
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:20:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <DANIEL.92Oct15150348@algol.clsi.COM> daniel@clsi.COM (Daniel Barclay) writes:
>>  Okay, so here's this hipothetical question. You hug someone. Who's
>> male. Who just happens for some reason to have an erection.
>
>Well...
>
>Several women on Outward Bound with me last year said they detected that 
>condition in an instructor who hugged them goodbye a little closer than wanted
>(or expected).  
>

 Was his name Eddie and did he smell like the great outdoors?
 
================================================================================
 Ipsissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes - IIOSF XOX Dawn
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
From: Bathsheba.Grossman@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bathsheba Grossman)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Philly Boink Announcement
Date: 7 Oct 92 23:25:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Oct7.134054.21972@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.051701.18804@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bathsheba.Grossman@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bathsheba Grossman) writes:
>>Yes you can play poker and everything at my place.  What about an exchange
>>rate of one article of clothing per, say, $10?
> Sounds good. Here's a hundred, get busy.

Everyone has hir price.  In advance and nonrefundable of course.

>================================================================================
> Ipisissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes - IIOSF XOX Dawn
> Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
>================================================================================

James, fond as I am of you and the kung-fu kiddies, it would be a comfort
to me in my declining years (conjugating also) if you would remove the
second i from this sig.

-Sheba
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Define "Single"
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:48:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct14.202321.9570@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>
>I know this has been discussed before, but does the "single" in
>soc.singles mean NOT MARRIED or NOT IN A RELATIONSHIP?
>
I don't really know.  I guess I lean towards the former.

>Is there an assumption that all single people want to be not
>single?
>
Not on my part.  Some people seem to think that being part of a couple
is the only way to live.  Some people seem to think that being happy
is much more important than whether or not one is part of a couple.
Some seem to have achieved both happiness and coupleness.  

>Does participation in soc.singles imply that you are looking for
>someone to have a relationship with and want to do so by having
>them send you email?
>
I certainly hope not!  I thought that the groups for "people seeking
people" were alt.personals and such.  I thought soc.singles was for
discussions about things having to do with the single lifestyle.  I
didn't think there was any sort of electronic doorman checking one for
wedding rings before allowing postings, or anything.

I mean, if participation in soc.singles implies that one is looking
for a relationship, why not allow singles' ads?  I believe that 
singles' ads are discouraged because this is a discussion group.
More of an electronic cocktail party, if you will, than an electronic
dating service.
From: pickerig@dns0.bham.ac.uk (Mr. G. Pickering)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: FOR MY BROTHER
Date: 16 Oct 92 08:49:41 GMT
Organization: The University of Birmingham, England
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Flame, Flame, Flame.

Try going down the street, take your first left and go to the
penpals section.

Thank you and goodbye!

--
Guy Pickering
Electronic Eng, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham. ENGLAND
G.PICKERING@uk.ac.bham  or pickering@uk.ac.bham.eee
--
"Simpleton?...Now I know that means something bad." - Kelly Bundy
From: infante@acpub.duke.edu (Andrew  Infante)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: POT AND THE RELATIONSHIP, LET THEM SMOKE!
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:35:26 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

I resent the remark about engineers not being people - or smoking pot.
;)
andy (who must be careful about what he says)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: mlw@cisco.com (Monica Waldman)
Subject: Re: relationship gone to pot?
Organization: () 
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:47:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.055202.10025@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>Of course, if he offered to take you for a spin, you'd jump on it
>immediately.  You women are all alike, fall for the first guy in a fast
>sportscar.  (Or would you do the feminist thing and take him for a spin
>in *your* sportscar?)
>
>Some of you may think I'm making a joke.  I'm not.

You're not joking, just making a stupid statement.

-- 
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
From: fy03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Francis J. Yenca)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: The Engaged Psychobitch from Hell Syndrome
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:16:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.wer9lAa00WC0ICa0V8
	<73290@apple.Apple.COM>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Stef Jones writes:

>marcia@netcom.com (Marcia) writes:

>>Question: is the higher divorce rate directly caused by the living together 
>>or sleeping together, or is it because of other factors, such as a
traditional
>>religious belief system, that would simultaneously make someone less likely
>>to cohabitate/sleep with before marriage and make divorce less of an option?

>Yes. I think economic factors also come into play. There were previously fewer
>divorces because fewer people could afford to split up their households.
>But we  can't conclude that a marriage is successful just because it has
>not resulted in divorce.

Yeah, check with the guy from the University of Chicago who just won
the Nobel Prize for Economics.

Frank
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik)
Subject: Re: Qui est le plus MUSHY?
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 02:20:11 GMT



Now the score is:     Damen: 2
                     Herren: 8

This is not a good enough statistical sample, sportsfans.
Ten opinions.
Are men really more sentimental and prone to be maudlin than women?
Cast your votes, and let the Nanaimo Bars fall where they may.

Andreas.
From: Fred.Preuett@p69.f150.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Fred Preuett)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: How long has it been?
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 19:13:46 EDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/150.69 - Carrie's Living Roo, Largo FL

Hello Greg!

 On 08 Oct 92, Greg Bullough blathered to All:

 >> In article <1992Oct6.134605.16183@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
 >> mneeley@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark Neeley) writes:   How long has it been since
 >> you were kissed by a member of  the opposite sex? about six inches.

 GB> Wow. An honest man. Someone fetch Diogenes.

 GB> Greg

I think that would be sorta problematical, seein as 'ow ee's dead.

Thanks,
Fred

--  
Internet: Fred.Preuett@p69.f150.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG
UUCP: ...!myrddin!tct!psycho!150.69!Fred.Preuett
Note:psycho is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write to
     root@psycho.fidonet.org.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: How Important Is Being IN-LOVE?
Keywords: Love,Romance, Relationships
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:01:07 GMT

rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com (Ray Fink) writes:
>kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Me) writes:
>> To be seen and to be understood and to be valued for what is important
>> to _you_ is the foundation of romantic love.  There's nothing
>> "blind" or "unconditional" about it at all.  It's the love of two
>> souls who perceive each other clearly, and value what they see. 
>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>An *excellent* definition of a healthy relationship, IMHO. 

Thanks.  It would be mine if it weren't Nathaniel Branden's ideas.
(Tho in all fairness it's been so long since I read his books that
I've forgotten too many of the details.)

>I'd call this "loving" rather than "in-love", though (to use
>Allisson's original terms).

Why do you think these things are exclusive?  If both parties are
healthy adults, those in-love feelings and loving _both_ exist--and
in-love doesn't go away.  

There seems to be a notion that you can't have both, that you have to
_choose_ one or the other, that if you fall in-love you aren't able to
properly fall into loving.  That's simply not true.  

(Branden addresses these concerns in his books, the first of which,
_Psychology of RL_, is much more theoretical than the second.  Both
are highly recommended.  "Two thumbs up" as some people say.)

It's certainly possible to have one without the other, but I want both.
Call me greedy if you like, but I'm being realistic as well.  

>My observation/experience is that "in-love" (the intense attraction,
>euphoria, etc) particularly at the beginning, tends not to see very clearly.

Depends on the people involved *smile*  

For some of us, the lucky ones, that intense connection and euphoria
arise _because_ we see and are seen clearly.  And as we discover that
our first impressions are correct, it only gets stronger and deeper.

-- 
"The world is so empty if one thinks only of mountains, rivers, and cities;
 but to know someone here and there who thinks and feels with us,
 and who, thought distant, is close to us in spirit,
 this makes the earth for us an inhabited garden."..................Goethe
-- 

Kiran Wagle                           <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.singles