HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein)
Subject: Re: IMPERFECTIONS (was:  Hints)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:44:39 GMT

In article <25769@sybase.sybase.com> mysti@sierra.sybase.com (Mysti Rubert) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.161759.15687@schbbs.mot.com>, Matt Valentine writes:
> 
>|> I dont really believe that those super-intense feelings that are present  
>|> in the first year or so of the relationship are ever as strong again.   
>|> Yes, there still can be romance, but the people should start accepting  
>|> each other as imperfect. 
>
>Whoa, since when does accepting another human as imperfect kill your
>desire for them?  It has been my experience that feelings (physical as
>well as emotional) intensify over time as the relationship progresses
>and matures.  If a relationship is dead after a year, or stops
>growing once you get to know the person better, well....
>
>-- 
>========================
>Mysti Rubert, Oaktown, California
>

I don't think it's the inability to accept people as being imperfect.
I feel that the inability to compromise is the problem.
The belief that "What I feel is right, what you think is wrong."

I would expect my SO to be imperfect.  And I would hope she would 
expect the same of me, being imperfect.  I would also hope that
when these differences creep up during the relationship, we would
talk about our interpretations of the others actions and develop
an understanding, and care enough to alter our behavior in order
to keep the relationship strong and growing.  I'm not talking about
changing who we are just to satisfy someone else.  I'm talking about
a willingness to express ourselves or communicate a little differently
in order to help a relationship we care about to stay strong and alive.
Obviously, if we don't care enough about the relationship, then the 
effort isn't worth the time and energy.  That should be communicated also.

I also believe that although some of the feelings or excitement
present during the beginning stages of the relationship may change
or fade, they are constantly being replaced by new ones, just as
strong, just as important, just as exciting.  

				Steve
				
				just my thoughts.
				they may change tomorrow.
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.sex
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Dawns perfect score(as close as it't gets)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:08:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.183739.6648@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> cjp8b@dayhoff.med.Virginia.EDU (Chris Penington) writes:
>In article <lgl0ohINNr1e@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov17.233938.52596@gmuvax.gmu.edu> sparker@gmuvax.gmu.edu writes:
>>>
>>>When you ask these little lovelies  for their I.D., you are told, 
>>>immediately, to fuck off. 
>...
>>>This, you see, is the result of single parent homes.
>>
>>Not necessarily.  I have both of my original parents and I could tell you
>>to fuck off as well as anyone.
>>
>>Fuck off.
>
>10.0, 10.0, 10.0, 10.0, 10.0, 9.8, 10.0
>
>(The Soviet judge just *has* to be different. :) )

I'll have to concur. That's the first ten to date.
 
================================================================================
 Ipsissimus of the Inner Order of Sesquipedalian Fruitcakes 
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
From: jsmt@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Julia Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Seriousness.
Date: 19 Nov 92 08:09:16 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <1992Nov16.020712.25404@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA writes:
>
>My definition of seriousness in a relationship is that things
>are getting serious when both partners agree to move in together.
>
>What is your definition?

I think there are different levels of seriousness a relationship
can go through.  One is, "You are more important to me
than other people in my life." Another is, "I want to share
pleasure and joy with you."  Another one is, "I anticipate a future
with you.  Another is, "I want to share my life with you."  Those
don't necessarily involve physical proximity or sharing space, but
do involve in the later stages sharing something - some kind of
bond which says that this person will be there for you even when.
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: My name is worse than yours (was: Re: What is attractive to women?)
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:24:31 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Nov23.013409.9268@midway.uchicago.edu> cal@gsbux1.uchicago.edu (Cal Lott) writes:

>>Oh no! You think you got it bad?
>>I get called things like "Raggedy" Andy, "Randy" Andy, "Handy" Andy, and 
>>Andy "Panda." When my legal name's in print, "Is there more than one 
>>'Andrea' here today?"

And then there are the many ways one can screw up "Lauren."  I've been
called Lou Ann, Luenna, Leeann, Lori, Laura, Laurel, Loren, Lorne and 
Laureen.  During a stay in Britain, a Yorkshireman, when told my
name, asked me why Americans felt this compunction to use silly names like
Heather, Justine and, of course, LAUREN when they could just use
down-to-earth names like the Brits use.  Right, thought I, like Fiona and
Ivor and Prunella.  

 
   

-- 
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: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: Why do women
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 10:35:46 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <By3rI8.D6C@unix.portal.com> mzank@shell.portal.com (matthew c zank) writes:
>Why do women just go for men with big muscle and lots of hair,
>and for any man who does not have any of this "too bad"?
>for that matter why do women have such narrow minds when
>it comes to views on men.

Why do men have such narrow minds about women?
Would you date a short fat balding woman?
Why do men have such narrow attitudes about themselves?
Have you ever gone to your local store and looked around? Lots of short
balding fat guys with wives.
Have you ever considered it might be your attitude, and not your looks?
r.
Xref: sparky soc.singles:31362 ba.singles:2243
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,ba.singles
Subject: Re: The older woman
Keywords: Stef Jones
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:31:58 GMT
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

davidj@wrs.com (David Jones) writes:

>I know you've heard this one before (an ``older woman'' has most likely
>herd it ALL before), but, what constitutes an older woman?

Depends... how old are you?

>And, in your response to "Got some phone numbers?" you excitedly reply:
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^
Excitedly? I was just gently letting him know that if he's going to try 
to get the phone numbers of some ProblemOlderWomen, he should have some
idea of what he's letting himself in for.

>	*clank* *rattle*
>	<four metallic snaps>
>	"I'll be back for you later. Maybe."

>I know there are a thousand ways to respond to this, but don't you think
>you are over-reacting a little?  

Of course I'm overreacting. I'm a ProblemOlderWoman.

>Besides, handcuffs chaff.  I prefer a softer cotton rope.

Yes, they *are* uncomfortable, aren't they. Heh heh heh.  

But don't worry, David. If I'm asked nicely, I'm willing to use a
cotton rope instead. I may be a ProblemOlderWoman, but I'm not 
an ImpossibleOlderWoman.

--
Stef                 Where am I going, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
stef@apple.com
From: schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Are you a Young Transplant?
Date: 15 Nov 92 21:01:21 GMT
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973


Okay, here's a new topic of conversation for you all:

This is for all of the Over-College Age folks out there: how many of you
reading this are recent college grads that have accepted that High
Paying Job that you went to school for in the first place that is
located somewhere other than where you were either (a)raised,
(b)schooled, or (c)would like to be?  Have you become involved with
someone that you met since you moved to said location?  How did you
meet, seeing as how you were in a new area where you had no friends?

I'm just curious, because I suspect that this is a pretty big problem
for a lot of recently graduated people.  (I got out of grad school a
couple of years ago myself, and have yet to adjust to the move).

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Schroeder  		|  
schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov         |        It's a pomaceous life. 
Brookhaven National Laboratory  | 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: These religious social activities
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:35:42 GMT

In article <=akq!tl@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.022101.26831@vela.acs.oakland.edu> jmwojtal@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Wojo) writes:
>>It seems that my Mom found out about a Catholic mass party for all singles and
>>young adults.  I never been to one of these type of get togethers so I'm 
>>writing to you about advice.

>>Please mail or post if you have any advice.
>
>Yeah, don't wear your 'I Swing with Satan' Tee-shirt.

Unless you're interested in meeting someone with a sense of humor
whose mother made her come.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: dks@sr.com (Dave K. Sprow)
Subject: Re: finding a soulmate
Reply-To: dks@srhqla.UUCP (Dave K. Sprow)
Organization: Silent Radio, Los Angeles
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:17:43 GMT

In article <1er6srINNn33@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> jdavidso@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu writes:
>
>On the subject of communicating with your soulmate, I think it is just as  
>important to be able to feel confortable with each other even when you  
>find yourselves in a "lull" in the conversation; You cannot fill every  
>minute with conversation (well, maybe some can), no matter how  
>compatible, and if you don't enjoy the "quiet" moments, also, I think you  
>find yourself wanting the proberbial "more".
>a

Here, here!!  When I'm with that special someone, there's *all* kinds of
communication going on in total silence (no, not just *that* kind).  Words
sometimes just get in the way in very special moments.  Silence with your
partner can be *very* intimate.


--
>************************************************************************
> the Lost Cause                       jdavidso@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
>(hardwaire guy extraordinaire)       MACTech,NeXTtech; NeXTmail accepted
>                      "Everything is relative."
>************************************************************************

David S.


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: whalen@starch.enet.dec.com (Rich Whalen)
Subject: Re: What is attractive to women?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 11:50:04 GMT


In article <0-qqvw=@lynx.unm.edu>, blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes...
>In article <1992Nov22.043524.6806@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>>>|>Au contraire, high-heeled shoes are used to create a supernormal stimulus,
>>>|>just like lipstick, neck rings, brassieres, corsets, bustles, and foot-
>>>|>binding.  
>>>|They also landed me on crutches for the past three months.  I just
>>>|recently burned my last pair of high heels.  They sat on the log in the
>>>|fireplace for a few moments, then -- WHOOSH!  They burst into flame.
>>>Interesting.  Women used to burn their brassieres.  Men didn't complain.  
>>>I wonder what'll happen if women start burning their highheeled shoes.
>>     I'd imagine that the men would clap and say "good riddance."
> 
>The short ones would.

That's veritically challenged!

>:)
>r.
>(its a joke see -> :)
Xref: sparky soc.singles:31473 alt.pagan:13180 alt.romance:14392 alt.sex:37113 alt.polyamory:1851 talk.religion.misc:21783
From: lort@fraser.sfu.ca (Charles Lort)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.romance,alt.sex,alt.polyamory,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Prove That Kids are Precious Gifts From God. (Was: Re: ra-ising c-hildren)
Date: 22 Nov 92 02:30:09 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:

>In article <16NOV199214485252@apsicc.aps.edu> jim@apsicc.aps.edu (frost...) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov16.062327.3208@netcom.com>, rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes...
>>>In article <1dv474INNn3@manuel.anu.edu.au> Lubosh <Lubosh.Hanuska@anu.edu.au> writes:
>>>>
>>>>Okay, but I think little kids are too precious gifts of God to be used
>>>>for experiments.
>>>>Lubosh
>>> 
>>>     You have to prove there is a God before you can say that little
>>>kids or anything for that matter is a precious gift from God.
>>	
>>	I disagree with this statement. You don't have to prove that
>>	there is a God to say that children are a rare gift indeed.
>>	To take and corrupt a fresh childs mind is, or should be a crime.
>>	If doubt be taken just talk to people who have been trying un-
>>	successfully to have children of their own.
>>
>>> 
>     Did I miss something here.  Lubosh said "...little kids are too
>precious gifts of God...", which says that kids are precious gifts
>from God.  I repeat and add, before Lubosh can say that kids are precious
>gifts from God, he has to prove God exists and that God says that kids are 
>precious gifts from HIM/HER in a scientifically verifiable way.

obviously you have never had children of your own.  One day you may if you are intelligent enough, have that rare opportunity to be in the delivery room when your own child is born.  Then you can argue that there are no miracles or God.

lort@sfu.ca                           One day I'm going to find out to make a
				       .signature file and not have to do this
					time
From: pdsmith@bbn.com (Peter D. Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Nightline and Presidential Cantidates
Date: 16 Nov 1992 22:33:54 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Reply-To: pdsmith@spca.bbn.com (Peter D. Smith)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <1992Nov14.005107.37442@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOSEPH ALOYSIUS MCVEIGH) writes:
>I'm one of those purists who likes facts. By definition, a recession is a
>period of 2 or more consecutive quarters of GNP contraction. Note that the
>definition does not mention level of income, amount of wealth, or ability to
>spell "discretionary."


Well, that's glory for you.


				Peter D. Smith

(10 point trivia question: where's the quote from, and why does it apply?)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,ba.singles
From: davidj@wrs.com (David Jones)
Subject: The older woman
Summary: four metallic snaps
Keywords: Stef Jones
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:38:21 GMT

Stef Jones writes (among other things):

"The older woman flirts with a self-controlled awareness
which can make her assaults much more deadly than the
blind rushes of the young"

I know you've heard this one before (an ``older woman'' has most likely
herd it ALL before), but, what constitutes an older woman?

And, in your response to "Got some phone numbers?" you excitedly reply:

	*clank* *rattle*
	<four metallic snaps>

	"I'll be back for you later. Maybe."

I know there are a thousand ways to respond to this, but don't you think
you are over-reacting a little?  I mean, give the poor guy the number
for AA or something but, my God, do you have to shackle and leave him at
the mercy of the elements before he even gets your name?

Besides, handcuffs chaff.  I prefer a softer cotton rope.

Thanks for your input - or, was it output?

-------------------
  David W. Jones
  davidj@wrs.com
-------------------
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (dreas)
Subject:  NameKoolnessWar
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 20:38:47 GMT

In article 9268@midway.uchicago.edu, cal@gsbux1.uchicago.edu (Cal Lott) writes:
>atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (dreas) writes:
>
>>In article 92Nov22123125@candidus.ma30.bull.com, drg@candidus.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R. Guilderson) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov22.151315.4882@wetware.com> diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:
>>>
>>>   ] >all "Robert"s liked to be called "Bob"
>>>
>>>   ] consensus has decreed that all Elizabeths be called 'Liz'.  
>>>
>>>   [all Dianas]
>>>   getting called "Princess Di"
>>>
>>>All Ezekials are called "Zeke"
>>>All Philips are called "Phil the pill"
>>>All Patricias are called "Patty cakes" or "Peppermint Patty"
>>>
>>>All Daniels are called one of these
>>>"Dan the man"
>>>"Book 'em Danno"
>>>"Oh Danny boy the pipes are ..."
>
>>Oh no! You think you got it bad?
>>I get called things like "Raggedy" Andy, "Randy" Andy, "Handy" Andy, and 
>>Andy "Panda." When my legal name's in print, "Is there more than one 
>>'Andrea' here today?"
>>                                        /      ^
>>A couple of years ago, somebody said, "He, 'dreas, Comment ca va?" 
>>[too bad this keyboard isn't rigged for French. :+(]       S
>>                                                           
>>He sympathized with me because his name was "Marie-Louis."
>>dreas
>
>	Try explaining how to pronounce "Cal" to your new classmates in
>elementary school. It inevitably comes out "Cow", which is a source of
>endless fun and amusement to some. "Cow", "Cow Patty", "Cow Lot" (my last
>name is Lott), etc.
>
>	Cal is also fun for junior high: "Cal-ifornia", "Cal-Can", "How
>now Brown Cow."
>
>	Now that I am supposedly more mature, though, I have come to
>appreciate having a less common name.

I was being Satyrikal when I posted this.
I like having an extremely uncommon name, BTW.

-   /^   -   ^ -  - 
Andreas Max Tovornik (AKA dreas)
From: jsmt@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Julia Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is "NOT" attractive to women?
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:36:31 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <722517262.6914@minster.york.ac.uk> aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.233309.29815@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein) writes:
>:
>:But I'm sure there are a few common denominators as far as what women
>:DON'T find attractive:
>:
>:4)  Nails not longer than hers (fingers and toes)
>:
>  If it really upset a woman so much then I doubt I would find them 
>  attractive so there wouldn't be a problem.
>
>  (I play bass and guitar so half of my nails tend to be longer, half not
>   which would probably makes me look like a BizzareMutantFromThePlanetZog 
>   did I not bear a passing resemblance to Art Garfunkel)

Aaron, it isn't the *looks* of the fingernails, it is the *use* of
the fingernails that women tend to object to, the feel of them in
certain... tender... regions.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: dks@sr.com (Dave K. Sprow)
Subject: Re: Blood types
Reply-To: dks@srhqla.UUCP (Dave K. Sprow)
Organization: Silent Radio, Los Angeles
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:08:44 GMT

In article <lgfg3aINN603@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>In article <lg8potINNhhj@news.bbn.com> ahsiung@labs-n.bbn.com (Anita Hsiung) writes:
>>
>






	



onalit

>>
>>	 A	Love a person forever, wait for someone forever
>
>Nope, my ex was type A.  
>
>>	 O	Warm, logical
>
>Well, that describes me perfectly, so maybe there's something to be said
>for it.  :-)
>
>Are you willing to settle for a couple of counterexamples or do you want
>it logically shot down?  It seems to me that the fact that type O blood
>is the majority, but very few people are warm and logical would shoot this
>in the foot right away.  Sounds more like it's trying to flatter the majority
>of the listeners (AB is only 2% of the population, so few listeners are going 
>to be called fickle.)
>
>Dawn
>"Hello death, goodbye Avenue A.  I'm getting tired of waiting, tired of
>being afraid.  Joseph Campbell gave me hope and now I have been saved.
>So I sing hello death, goodbye Avenue A."  "Folk Song" by Bongwater.


Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.romance,alt.sex,alt.polyamory,talk.religi
From: echristo@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Elena A Christofides)
Subject: Re: raising children
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:56:37 GMT

>> You seem to forget that this kind of experiment happens all the time in real
life. Boys and Girls are raised in single parent households (where effectively 
there IS only one sex present) as well as the fact that  children (who become 
gay in adulthood) are raised in a heterosexual households. There are no hard 
and fast truths that one can use to say what affects sexual-orientation. Some 
theories that other MD's (I'm one) have come-up with is the levels of (female 
and male) hormones that circulate in the mother (and hence get to the fetus) 
may affect the baby in this way. How the mother responds to stress in her life 
will determine the hormones that she produces. And everyone has bothe types of 
hormones circulating in their body (estrogrens and testosterone).
>> As for the "precious gift of God..." If it wasn't for Christianity, the 
human race would not have the problems that it does in dealing with 
homosexuality. Every enlighted person knows that Christianity was an opiate 
created to oppress the masses and that is exactly what it has done for nearly 
2,000 years! Just look at all the hypocrisy in the beloved church itself - they
preach against homosexuality, etc - yet priests are regularly accused of child 
molestations, infidelity (breaking the celibate laws), homosexuality with other
priests,etc....
>> Before you flame me all you religious fanatics  - think of this - I actually
had a priest tell me that knowledge (scientific in particular) is a hinderance 
to faith and believing! Now if that isn't oppressing the gain of knowledge and 
truth, then I don't know what is!!!!!
>> Doc
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Subject: Re: WHAT HAPPENED??????
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:59:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.094245.4156@memstvx1.memst.edu> anthrlib@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>Hello Out There!
>
>I am in desperate need of advice, help, whatever....  For the last three
>monthes I've been falling for one of the nicest guys on the planet (or so I
>thought).  He seemed very interested at first---before he knew that I was.  Now
>that he knows that I'm interested (I told him) he's bolted!  I'm so confused. 
>Never had this problem before.  Any advice? Suggestions? Possible solutions?
>etc?  Has this happened to any of you? I don't get an opportunity to read the
>news often--so please feel free to email me at:
>
>                      Anthrlib@memstvx1.memst.edu.
>===========================================================================

Could it be that..................
	he wasn't _really_ interested in you (at least, not as a "prospect")
	at all, but still liked your company and enjoyed flirting with you?

If that is indeed the case, then when you "tipped your hand" and expressed
interest, then, in his mind, it was "game over".

Keith R
From: pooh@Apple.COM (Pooh)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are you a Young Transplant?
Date: 19 Nov 92 08:53:20 GMT
Organization: Internet Refugee Camp

In the referenced article, martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>I still can't figure out why it is that Dawn, who is a small cute
>brunette with a nice smile, gets results this way, while *I* -- looking 
>rather like Bluto, with a black belt, a decent knife thrower and an
>expert shot with a pistol -- get *laughs* when I threaten violence.

It's because you're so damn *cuddly*-looking, Charlie.

No charge,
Pooh
	pooh@apple.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles