HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:09:45 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <MARTINC.92Sep26170548@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>
>
>Whereas I see Ed as potentially one of those Nice Guys but more like one
>of those fellows you see around who wear all black clothes, get all
>hollow-eyed, and go around telling everyone they meet just how morally
>reprehensible they really are, but then the whole world is shit anyway,
>and there is no hope of changing things so we might as well all kill
>ourselves now.  They usually don't bathe enough either.


	Now just a goldanged minute here: *I* wear black and have a
realistic worldview, and *I* have a gf. Morbid people (And people
with limited wardrobes) don't derserve to  tarred with the particular
brush you're using.

	Not that it matters. In the  long run, everyone is carrion.

							James  Nicoll
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: In need of advice...
From: parks_typ@med.wcc.govt.nz
Date: 29 Sep 1992 21:20:04 GMT
Reply-To: parks_typ@med.wcc.govt.nz
Organization: Wellington City Council, Wgtn, NZ
NNTP-Posting-Host: blade.wcc.govt.nz

In article <1992Sep26.233031.26869@ncsu.edu>, cdrice@eos.ncsu.edu (CHARLES DEE RICE) writes:

>>>partner/etc know that I care.  (Flowers, a note now and again, being polite,
>>>etc).

>>Please don't ever change.  

>I'll try not too -- though sometimes I start to wonder why I put forth the
>effort...

>>Funnily enough, the best people seem to walk into your life when you're not
>>looking for anybody (unfortunately usually when you're already involved)
>>therefore by giving up you should produce the same effect (we live in hope).

>Interesting you should say that -- that's the same thing I've always noticed.
>:)  Any time you finally think you've found someone to have a relationship with,
>along comes somebody else that you would've almost killed for before this new
>relationship.  I think it's some kind of 'already-taken-attraction' that effects
>other people when you're around them or something.  Now that you're taken, 
>you're suddenly very attractive.


I got myself a puppy.  I lavish devotion on her, we both thrive on it.

I have near-constant companionship, someone who doesn't care what I look like,
who senses when I'm a bit down and gives me affectionate licks without
prompting and all my friends like her.

What more could a girl want?



>Maybe I just wasn't meant to understand...  :)

Probably not.


Rachel                     "Supergoof"
                               - -
                               O O
                                >
                               \_/
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: wtr@mitre.org (Bill Ralston)
Subject: Re: Marriage
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: soc.singles
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 02:05:45 GMT

in article <BvB9Au.uo@inews.Intel.COM> gbennett@frx781.intel.com 
(gbennett) asks:

>   Would you be willing to give up a career, a new home, and a new car
>   for an everlasting and loving marriage?

I am confused - I thought that was what I had to give up to get _out_ of 
my marriage!! :-(

---------------
Bill
wtr@mitre.org
**Marrou/Lord in '92.  (If you don't know who they are, you are not a 
fully informed voter.  Fulfill your civic responsibility and find out!! **
** Opinions are mine only, and not my employer's **
From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: AAAAaaaaaaaaaaarrrrggghhhhhhh  8-(
Date: 25 Sep 92 16:06:15 GMT
	<JMD.92Sep22225734@lion.bear.com> <1992Sep23.232652.12443@mks.com>
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: fredw@mks.com's message of 23 Sep 92 23:26:52 GMT


In article <1992Sep23.232652.12443@mks.com> fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter) writes:

   jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond) writes:
   >fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter) writes:
   >>jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
   >>>Whats the deal with clean underwear?
   >>Don't forget to wear them
   >Why bother wearing any?  They just get in the way! ;-) ;-)
   Zip, zip, zip, zip, OUCH, zip, OUCH, zip, zip, zip.

Wear button fly!
Or better yet, dont wear any pants at all either!


Spidey!!!


--
 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                                          jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \                                              Do whatever it takes.
Newsgroups: soc.singles,misc.kids
From: ren@Turing.ORG (Karen Prestemon)
Subject: Re: BARBIE DOES IT AGAIN!!!!
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:00:40 GMT

In article <1akbd1INNqt@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.180924.17599@cbfsb.cb.att.com> joni@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (joni.dunlap) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.164641.13426@nynexst.com> clare@nynexst.com (Clare Chu) writes:
>>  or "Math class is hard, but I'm good at it because I study."
>
>Or "if they taught sex in high school like they taught math, teenagers wouldn't
>get pregnant anymore."

Why does she have to be subject specific at all?  Why can't she just talk
about how rockin' school is, or how she's studying for the SAT's?
Why does she have to be such a BIMBO??
From: wjb@moscom.com (Bill de Beaubien)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: To all those "Christian girls"
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:52:58 GMT
Reply-To: wjb@moscom.com
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford NY
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Jeff Smith (smith@comm.mot.com) wrote:
: This was *not* a good post to read on two hours of sleep and no coffee...
Don't feel too badly, Jeff.  It wasn't all that great on 6 hours and 2
diet cokes, either.
-- 
Who needs lime jello?  We had lasagna...
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill de Beaubien / wjb@moscom.com
From: lana@magenta.corp.sgi.com (Lana Mountford)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Keywords: lime pie
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:52:04 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <thurlow.717562904@convex.convex.com>, thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
|> In <1992Sep25.235130.18575@odin.corp.sgi.com> lana@magenta.corp.sgi.com (Lana Mountford) writes:
|> 
|> >I work in Silicon Valley, and the general
|> >topic of social conversation is -- you guessed it -- our respective
|> >companies.   
|> 
|> Sheesh!  This is a better thing to talk about than sports???
|> 

Hi, Rob!

Hey, you been following the news?  What could be more entertaining
than reliving the exploits of those plucky garage-based entrepreneurs
as they move their respective companies into the *real* world of
business, complete with MBAs in tow?  :-)  Honestly, it's a laugh
a minute here!  ;-)
-- 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|    /)                      | Lana Mountford    
|   / /  __    ___    __     |   
|__(_/__(__)\__/  )__(__)\__ | (who has been known to talk about the Niners!)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: wjb@moscom.com (Bill de Beaubien)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Humans as Physical Creatures.
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:35:06 GMT
Reply-To: wjb@moscom.com
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford NY
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.3 beta PL7]

Charles R. Martin (martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu) wrote:
: And how narrowly can we identify the
: "date" on which the Neanderthals disappeared?
July 18th, 39736 B.C.  Any other questions?
-- 
Who needs lime jello?  We had lasagna...
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill de Beaubien / wjb@moscom.com 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Open letter to Edward V. Wright
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 17:07:01 GMT

 
Dear Ed,
 
I'm not going to try to argue your concepts of the value (or lack
thereof) of physical fitness or of your claims of the odds against your
ever finding a suitable mate; I'm sure that no matter what I said, you
could come up with some grammatical foible, some out-of-context quote,
some assertion unrelated to anything I'd ever said, that you could focus
on and defeat in your own mind, convincing yourself once again through
volume and repetition that you are 100% right, reassuringly blinded from
any alternate viewpoints or evidence that doesn't fit your set-in-stone
absolute and unchanging view of the world.
 
Instead, I'm asking, "are you happy with yourself and your life as it is
now?"  I'm curious what your answer is--for all the world, in every word
you send out into the net, you don't seem to be.  I don't doubt your
intelligence, or your mental achievements, but I do question their
efficacy, and the efficacy of your world view, for bringing you
happiness.
 
If you are happy with yourself and your life, that's great; how, though,
do you explain just how unhappy you sound in your posts?  Why, indeed,
do you even devote so much time and effort to reanimating the same,
tired arguments merely to fight them again and again in exactly the same
way, when you could be expanding your mind by other, more profitable
activities, instead of presenting a world-wide impression that you need
to reassure yourself continuously with the veracity of your world-view?
 
If you're not, what changes in yourself and your life do you think would
be more conducive to your happiness?  Have you or are you taking any
steps in these directions?  What reasons do you see for your own unhappiness?
 
Trygve

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 07:42:56 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <ewright.717696345@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>Finally, I am far from being the only person who the physical fitness
>movement attacks for not having a perfect body.  Indeed, it's hardly
>possible to watch television without seeing commercials that tell you
>how out of shape Americans are, how they need to exercise more, all the
>awful things that are going to happen if they don't, etc. 

Because, Edward, what they are saying is true! Did you ever stop to think
of that?
Americans, in general, are not very physically fit. They do need to exercise
more, lose weight, stop smoking, eat better, etc.
It has been proven, again and again, that there is a direct relationship 
between physical fitness and awful things happening.
Being overweight, for example, greatly increases ones chances for heart
disease. Not exercising increases ones chances of getting icky things built
up in your blood vessels, making it harder for you to get blood to your
necessary bits and pieces.
Being fit (and I'm not talking a rippling mass of muscle, but even just
very light exercise, I think its been said that 20 minutes a day, 3 times
a week, or 100-120+ beats per minutes exercise is enough to keep even the
average american in shape) has benefits- longer endurance, faster recovery
time from injury, less suseptibility to diseases, etc.

These are not >my< words, Ed, but the words of doctors, researchers, etc.
I'm not a doctor- don't claim to be. But I have the intelligence to recognize
the truth, at least.

Let me, once again, tell you your argument back. (and the argument you should
have used in the first place).
"But the American Media portrays people who are not physically fit- those who
are overweight, or are percieved as 'ugly' as being worth less than people who
are physically 'fit'. The stereotypical 'hunk' >always< gets the stereotypical
'babe'."

This, of course, is true.
I don't know about you, though, Edward, but I stopped taking >my< role models
from television a very long time ago.
I decided a while back 'Bung on Society'. If society don't like the way I look,
act, speak, etc, then society can go fuck itself. I am what I am. >I< think I
look pretty decent. And while that appearance may never get Madonna into my
bedroom you know what? My life will go on.
r.

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:26:23 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Sep28.051700.3163@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik) writes:

> An engineering degree is only as attractive as the one who holds
>it. When you take that degree and flaunt it, it becomes a form of intel-
>lectual snobbery. 

Well, that's not quite true.  Charlie and company are forever parroting
the standard spiel that says people who exercise are superior, not only
physically, but intellectually, spiritually, morally, and in every other
way as well.  I keep say that no, they are not.  They have simply chosen
to concentrate their abilities in one particular area.  People who choose
to concentrate on things other than exercise may not achieve as much
physically, but this may be compensated for by the things they achieve
in the areas that are important to them.  Charlie and company, however,
will not admit this.  They deny that anyone who concentrates on artist
or intellectual or spiritual development could possibly achieve more in
those fields than someone who spends much, or most, or all of his time
in the gym.  They insist that spending time on athletics does not leave
a person less time to spend on other things and that, furthermore, exercise
heightens a person's other abilities and makes it possible to achieve more
than a nonexerciser possibly could in other fields anyway.
   
This is athletic snobbery, pure and simple.  Yet you do not attack them
for saying it.  Instead, you attack me.  Why?  Because I dare to say
that people who spend less time on physical fitness and more time on
other fields of endeavor tend to achieve more in those fields and therefore
are not inferior to athletes.  For this you attack me as an "intellectual
snob."

My question for you is this.  I have never denied that people who
spend large amounts of time working on their bodies are *physically*
superior.  Why do you find it so painful to admit that people who
spend more time working on their minds could have their own areas
of superiority?  Why is it that when Charlie says that exercise
makes the people who do it superior to me in every way -- physically,
mentally, morally, and spiritually -- he's "making a sincere effort
to help" while, when I concede the physical part but contest the others,
I'm a braggart?  









Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 05:57:46 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <ewright.717781394@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <aa+p3aj@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>>Because, Edward, what they are saying is true! Did you ever stop to think
>>of that?  Americans, in general, are not very physically fit. 
>Do you have any evidence to prove that?

Are you serious? Read a medical journal. Write to the Surgeon General. Take
a look around you.

>>They do need to exercise more, 
>Circular.  Americans need to exercise more because they are not fit
>because they need to exercise more...

Wrong. Americans are not fit for a number of reasons. Lack of exercise is
just one of those things. Poor diet, bad habits (such as smoking, excessive
drinking, etc) are others.

>>lose weight, 
>True, in many cases.  However, exercise will not always cause
>people to lose weight.  It depends on the type of exercise you
>do.  Look at any professional wrestler or football player.  Look
>at the official head of the US fitness program, Mr. Arnold Schwartz-
>enegger.  How much do you suppose those guys weigh?  (Hint: muscle
>weighs more than fat.)

Are you still serious? Lose weight as in DROP THE FAT.
Are you really that stupid to not have recognized that?

>>Being fit (and I'm not talking a rippling mass of muscle, but even just
>>very light exercise, I think its been said that 20 minutes a day, 3 times
>>a week, or 100-120+ beats per minutes exercise is enough to keep even the
>>average american in shape) has benefits- longer endurance, faster recovery
>>time from injury, less suseptibility to diseases, etc.
>But the average American gets that much exercise already, not even
>counting the things he does for exercise.  Why, if he just walks the
>dog, he probably gets 20 minutes of exercise a day.  Mowing the lawn
>is another 20 minutes of exercise.

Walking a dog or mowing a lawn does not increase ones heart rate to the
necessary levels required.

Your attitudes towards fitness and exercise are >totally< fucked. There just
simply is no other way to describe it. I've never seen anybody in my entire
life display (publically) such a totally ignorant attitude. Amazing.

While I still disagree with your attitudes towards physical appearance, in
this regard (exercise and such) you're just so compleatly out of touch with
reality that its just not worth the effort.

Edward- read a book on medicine. Talk to a doctor about fitness. Get a clue.

r.
ps- disclaimer notice- these opinions are mine, not necessarily UNMs, so don't
get any idea that they might be.

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Subject: Re: What I find attractive ?
Reply-To: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:56:13 GMT

In <1992Sep28.222914.29746@newshost.anu.edu.au> ljh655@cscgpo.anu.edu.au writes:
>I am still a young man at 28,

I, on the other hand, am (or feel like) an old man at 23...

>				and I should express that I am going to talk
>about women (please gays don't get offended again). I actually just want to say
>that there is something more than the physical attraction (although that is
>important, too). I had a few girlfriends, and I can say they have been all
>different... So it's really the best to say that I don't know what do I find
>attractive on women, because it's something else that attracts in the first
>place. However, every woman regardless of her physical dimensions has a certain
>level of sex-appeal, and it's really a mystery how that works...

Hmm... I can't really agree with this, though I don't especially disagree
either.  Many women I meet just don't have any particular sexual attraction
for me at all (which doesn't imply that they're *un*attractive, either).

I do tend to sort of "censor" my reactions to some of them from myself,
though.  For instance, I am rarely attracted to women who are involved with
someone else.

>And one other thing - do you think we should examine all this ? Maybe if we
>really love the other person, we shouldn't have any clear idea WHY do we
>love...

Oh, I don't know about that.  I just doubt we're going to GET any clear
idea. :-)

-- 
Michael Rawdon				 rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

"In summing up, the moral seems a little bit obscure...
 Give the director a serpent deflector, a mudrat detector, a ribbon reflector,
 A cushion convector, a picture of nectar, a virile disector, a hormone
	collector."
						- Phish, "Cavern"
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter)
Subject: Sarcasm, ego, arrogance, or reality ? (was Re: More on guys who ...)
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Distribution: soc
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:39:29 GMT

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

You come across in your posts as if you think you are great. Are you really
being sarcastic or facetious, demonstating arrogance and an unjustified ego,
or reflecting reality ?

	fred "If you're reflecting reality, do you have a seester ?" walter
-- 
Disclaimer: everything I write is my *personal* opinion and does not represent
or reflect the opinion of the company which employs me.
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Date: 29 Sep 1992 12:32:05 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <ewright.717693983@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>Well, that's not quite true.  Charlie and company are forever parroting
>the standard spiel that says people who exercise are superior, not only
>physically, but intellectually, spiritually, morally, and in every other
>way as well...

Actually, he's right, at least on the first two counts.

(Didn't Charlie say he was NOT active in any way?)
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Humans as Physical Creatures.
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:02:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsd.1992Oct6.130207.27126
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct5.203312.16263@speedy.aero.org> nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.140852.17299@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>>His saying she was "fat" was a sort of crude way of summarizing
>>that he felt they had nothing in common.
>Wouldn't it have been somewhat more reasonable for him to say that they
>didn't have anything in common?

He was telling ME that.  He did not tell her that he didn't want to see
her again becaus she was fat, for Heaven's sake.  John and I have know
each other since college and it's not unlikely that we'd share the secrets
of our souls.
>
>Is he open to the possibility that someone might be fat and have something in
>common with him?

From the way I see it, he did give the possibility a chance, and after
chatting with her for several hours he assessed that they had little
or nothing in common.  Yes he thought it was possible that they might
have something in common, which is why he didn't shriek and run out of
the restaurant when he saw her size.  She told him that had happened to
her a few times.
>
>I admit that if I were telling a person why I didn't want to go out with him, 
>I'd not be likely to say certain things that I'd tell a friend.  For example,
>I might tell a friend who asked "how did your date last night go?" something
>like "he was awful.  He has poor personal hygiene, interrupted me constantly,
>and has a weird laugh" while (if said creature) called me I'd say something
>like "I don't think we have much in common."  

This is what John did.

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