HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: MICH <MICH@UNB.CA>
Subject: RE: Suggestions needed....
Organization: The University of New Brunswick
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:56:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.080425.19672@rdg.dec.com> veburst@contra.enet.dec.com (KSV) writes:
>
>How do you stop loving someone you see almost every day and who hasn't done
>anything wrong?????  I don't want to stop loving him... I don't want to say
>a final goodbye to him because even based on friendship alone, he's the
>best thing that's ever happened to me... I don't want to lose our
>friendship or our closeness but I don't know how to stop the deeper
>feelings from seeping in and making me sad that we don't have more....
>
>Suggestions?  Opinions?  Should I take a long walk off a short pier?
>Should I follow my heart and keep hoping that something will change and bring
>us together?

     I sympathize with the turmoil of feelings that you are
 experiencing right now. I think objectively that you should give up
 hoping that "something" will change and bring the two of you together
 as this friend of yours seems quite content with the situation the way
 it stands. He gets to treat you as something more than a friend
 (hand holding, presents, physical contact) but nicely avoids any
 responsibility for deeper feelings by saying that he will not let
 anything progress beyond a certain point. It almost sounds a bit
 manipulative. I mean, if he is such a good friend why is he so
 unaware of the unhappiness he is causing you?.
      I think you need to need to put a little emotional distance
 between yourself and this person. If he tries to hold your hand
 maybe don't respond. Put a limit on the amount of closeness you will
 allow. If you put some space between yourself and your friend you
 will be able to see the situation more clearly. More importantly,
 if your friend senses that he is "losing you" he may re-evaluate
 his feelings and decide that he really wants to have you for a
 real girlfriend. If your actions do not draw him closer then there
 is probably not a lot happening on his part in terms of true romantic
 feelings.
      By drawing away from your friend emotionally I don't mean to
 suggest that you should adopt manipulative actions yourself but only
 that your self-respect will increase as you set limits as to how far
 you will allow your friend to play with your emotions. As long as
 you allow yourself be available to him emotionally and physically
 (even though in a non-sexual way) he will see no reason to change
 the dynamics of the relationship. I hope things work out the way
 you would like.

 Sincerely,

 Jamie Mitchell

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: marcia@netcom.com (Marcia)
Subject: Re: What is attractive to women?
Organization: The Dolphin Conspiracy, Phase II
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:28:02 GMT

In article <7297@news.duke.edu> diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) writes:
>it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that I want to be
>*called* Elizabeth.  If I wanted to be called Liz, I'd say, "Hi, I'm
>Liz Abrams."  Or "Hi, I'm Elizabeth Abrams.  Please call me Liz."
>If someone is "just trying to be friendly", why not ask me if I
>like to have my name shortened, and what I like to have it shortened
>to?  

Strong agreement here! I think it's almost the height of arrogance to assume
that someone can be called anything other than what they've just introduced
themselves as! (And yes, I get enough impromptu shortening of my name to
get annoying.)

But just to be sure, I now make a point of asking anyone who has a name that
is commonly shortened, "Do you go by X, or are you called something else?" Most
people seem to appreciate that, and I also make a point of using what they
tell me in the next sentence, to let them know that 1. I heard and understood
and 2. give them a chance to correct my pronunciation if I've got it wrong.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Bednarcyk                                  ADDRESSES: marcia@netcom.com
"Sweaty Snugglebunnies."                                     mlb@cisco.com
From: slayer@cislabs.pitt.edu (Deborah)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: **FIRST*DATE*IDEAS**
Date: 15 Nov 92 15:38:52 GMT


>>Ok, so I met this lady about two weeks ago and I'm very interested in her.
>>She showed quite a bit of interest in me also.  We've only had one
>>long conversation and some short phone chats, but I'm pretty sure she'll
>>go out with me. 
>>So I need some attractive, interesting first date ideas.  I want to impress
>>her, but not overly impress.  Also, while we're on the subject, how about
>>some DOs and DON'Ts on first dates. More DOs than DON'Ts please. 
>>Oh yea, I forgot to mention we're both in our mid-twenties.

>Don't even try to impress her with anything special. Going to a nice, quiet
>cafe, and talking about anything at all will be fine. Be yourself. Do not
>try to be impressive!

>Movies suck for first dates. She'll pay more attention on the screen than on you.
>You'll pay more attention on the screen than on her. You won't get to learn
>anything about each other.

>Stay away from loud places, they suck. Quiet is best with some background music.
>My best first date ever was just a long talk in my car with soft music on the 
>radio and a rainy evening outside.
 
 That sounds really great.. I would suggest inviting her over for a nice home
 cooked meal.. Just find out what she likes and dislikes..

 My first date with my fiancee consisted of a right on a trolley.. Just for
 the heck of it.. It was great we had such a good time because we were together
 and we still are..

 


-- 
May look a little young 
So what's wrong ?
You don't have to be old to be wise
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine)
Subject: Re: What is attractive to women?
Organization: Don't blame me, I voted for Bill 'n' Opus
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:22:09 GMT

In article <lh1stdINN3gt@news.bbn.com> kgorman@bbn.com (Karen Gorman) writes:
> 
>If you didn't state your preference clearly during the introduction, then
>I really don't think hostility is called for, particularly since you 
>realize people are just trying to be friendly.

I'm going to side Diamond here: when a person introduces themselves,
they are stating a preference for what they would like to be called.
I've lost track of the number of times some doofus calls me 'Dan' right
after I've introduced myself as 'Aahz' -- even worse, when someone
decides that my "real name" is 'Daniel'.....
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which the only
specification is that it should run noiselessly.
From: gembura@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jerry Robert Gembura)
Subject: test
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 17:13:44 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: v119qkv2@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (POE)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance
Subject: Re: Being Alone?
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:23:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov18.204626.195@news.Hawaii.Edu>, deb@spectra.eng.hawaii.edu (David Barrett) writes...
>In article <1992Nov17.075553.5389@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>>In article <oneil.721868088@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>>>
>>>I honestly believe -- and have been told I'm unusual for this belief -- that 
>>>in a relationship, friendship should come before romance.  Personally, I've
>>>*never* fallen head over heels in love with someone unless I was friends 
>>>first.  Maybe it *is* a little cynical, but I just don't believe in love at
>>>first sight, for myself anyway.
>>
>>I think you are unusual, though not unique, in this respect--it's been
>>my experience that for most people, once they perceive you as a friend,
>>they will no longer ever be able to perceive you as a potential romantic
>>possibility.  Personally, I think your way is more reasonable, but it's
>>still very much the less popular tactic.
>>
>>Trygve 
> 
>I think thanks to the novel and movie world we all have this contention that
>love and friendship is two sides of a coin.  The connotation of "just a friend"
>we perceive as "sorry, but I don't think of you beyond that" or "I don't love
>you that way anymore".  This a falacy!  You cannot separate friendship from loveanymore than you can grow an apple without a tree (you can try, some do).
>Friendship must come first and then deepen into real love.  If it goes the otherway first then it is most likely a physical attraction or infatuation.  If you
>bypass all the steps and hop into a relationship (or bed) then the chances are
>doomed to be short and/or miserable later.  If you are one of those whose first
>sight discovery skyrocketed into the dream of your life, if you ask around, you
>won't find a majority of luck like that.  Over 90% of people today come from
>dysfunctional upbringing and are drowning in bad relationships or stayin away 
>from the good ones because of following unfortuneately learned habits or advice.If you think that you can't be friends with a lover or a friend cannot be your
>lover, then that's what you will get (probably a short romance).  The average
>lenght of time for a relationship today is 3 months because that's about how 
>long it takes for us to drop our acts or method-of-operation and be ourselves.
>Your friends know your true selves and they will make the longest lovers and
>potential soul mate.  The ones who will be most dear, will be the ones near the most.
> 
>dB

	Excellent post my good man!  Now if I can just convince a certain young
lady that what you say is true...

"Here I sit all alone
 Have my mind turned to stone
 Have my heart filled up with ice
 To avoid it breaking twice"

- Mike Poe
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Money and the Single World (was: Education and the Single World
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:55:40 GMT

In article <7068@news.duke.edu> diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) writes:
>In article <Bxv3Mo.F05@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>>A few years ago I was talking with an attractive, single woman who revealed
>>that she had never reconciled a checking account.  Every few years she'd
>>simply close the account and open another one at a different bank.  I never
>>saw her after that evening.
>
>I've never been reduced to this level, but I have to admit that my life
>wouldn't be nearly as simple if someone hadn't invented those checks
>that come with a pressure-sensitive form underneath each check, so that
>you can't lose track of what you've written.

They're obsolete now.

>                                              I'd probably be a little
>bit more organized if someone else's funds were in the same account-
>but I'd much prefer to have separate accounts.

So would the other person, I'd imagine.

>                                                (My bank also offers
>a nifty 800 number which you can call to check whether specific checks
>have been cashed.  I LOVE technology.)

Are you still using stone tools in your cave?  There's now software for
personal computers that not only maintains a check register but also will
dial up a service in Columbus, Ohio, and transmit information on about all
the checks you've just written.  The service then prints up the checks, 
stuffs them into metered envelopes, mails them off, and places a draft on
your checking account.  You can have the service schedule the payments for
future dates.

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: What do you Am men think about Am wome
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:53:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.002151.2050@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com
(Seth Breidbart) writes:
>In article <1992Nov14.111603.28624@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
>tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>
>>Trygve   (Who wonders how long he has to wait for this whole "sexual peak"
>>          business to get over with--it was supposed to start going down
>>          ten years ago and still seems to be on the rise.) 
>
>I've got some bad news for you, Trygve: twenty years after what was
>supposed to have been my peak, I find that I might finally have
>plateaued.  At least I'm not climbing so fast anymore :-)

I'm following up to my own article because I realized it's even worse
than I thought.

Kiran, do you want to tell him about Tucker or should I?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: phys224@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Subject: looks
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:02:58 GMT

hello everyone,i'd like to hear peoples opinions on several things...
i am sick and tired of the media,fashon shows etc. stating what is attractive
in peoples appearance,what we should all be wearing,etc.
personally,i like women who wear no makeup,fancy clothes,etc;i like women
who dress the same as me basically, androgeneously,simply because it
tells me she is probably the type of person who thinks for herself,who has
high self esteem based on positive thoughts about her own personality,
intelligence,etc. 
what do the rest of you think? do you males really think high-heels,
painted faces etc are important with respect to how you like someone?
and do many of you females like macho men,with fancy hairstyles and
designer clothes? and why?what does that tell you about their intellect,etc?
one other thing,why do so many females shave themselves so much?it seems
so irrelevent,yet i only know 1 or 2 women who don't shave their arms,etc.
we are mammels,are'nt we?why only females in our culture,why not males as well

stephen botha,christchurch,new zealand.
From: pm3_norr@csd.uwe.ac.uk (Paul Norris)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: girl/lady/female boy/guy/male
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:23:35 GMT
Organization: University of the West of England, Bristol

In article <m-kq_mr@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
}In article <lggb1iINNe6m@news.bbn.com> pdsmith@spca.bbn.com (Peter D. Smith) writes:
}>>   >|> Better than dating a sculpture...
}>>You don't want to be accused of statuary rape.
}>Which, alas! happens all the time in Marblehead.
[Puns]
[Ouch!]

}r.
}(still can't find a way of getting 'igneous' into a pun :)

Sedimentary my dear rON.
You just have to come up with an igneous idea, of quartz.

Fourteen days to go...

Paul
-- 
Remember.  A Dragon is for life.
Not just for Hogswatchnight.
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr)
Subject: Re: Tolerance of Others  (Was: Re: raising child)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:45:14 GMT
Organization: n.o.y.b

In article <1992Nov18.214535.14730@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.061631.2706@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>>
>>     Are you saying the religious people are not bigots by chance?  If
>>you are, then you are wrong.  Just look at the Christians and their
>>non-tolerance of homosexuals, non-Christian actions and other religions.
>>I do not see any problem with mocking a belief system and the people with
>>that belief system that does not tolerate other's actions or belief systems.
>>Therefore, I do not see any problem with mocking Christians or Christianity.
>
>The only problem is that there is always some group that a person is
>intolerant of.  That means everyone is a bigot.  For instance, are
>you tolerant of neo-Nazi behavior?  Are you tolerant of serial killers?

This is poorly thought out, or bullshit. 

>These are just a few examples.  By mocking Christians, that is evidence 
>that you are intolerant of this belief system and by your own words
>you convict yourself by defining a bigot as anyone "that does not tolerate 
>other's actions or belief systems."  In your case, Christianity.
>
>So does not tolerating homosexuality make a person less tolerant than
>not tolerating Christianity or any religion for that matter?
>
>The point I would like to contribute to this discussion is that there
>must be an underlying principle other than tolerance by which one is
>judged.  Tolerance is neutral.  There are always things that each
>individual is tolerant of and intolerant of.  In other words, everyone
>is both tolerant and intolerant.  However, it is the underlying 
>principle of absolute right and wrong that is the issue.  Finding and
>upholding absolute truth I would think should be the measuring rod
>by which something is tolerated or intolerated.
>
Whether tolerance is neutral depends on context. The sense of the word
tolerance the original poster used was the allowing others to follow
a course of action that ***DOES NOT*** force others to act as they wish 
them to. The sense John Emery is using it is allowing one individual
or group to ****impose their will**** upon another. These *ARE NOT*
equivalent.

>God bless,
>-- 
>John Emery		"You say we've risen to a new age of light.
>emery@tc.fluke.COM       You're telling me what used to be wrong
>			 is now right."

And your .sig, in some cases, yes. After all, slavery used to be "right",
as was torture (see "Spanish Inquisition").

	mark


Xref: sparky soc.singles:31187 alt.sex:36683
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.sex
Subject: Re: raising children
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:29:13 GMT
	<1992Nov4.130459.13474@latcs1.lat.oz.au>
	<sf03bq600VB2I_DkV=@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<1992Nov17.233938.52596@gmuvax.gmu.edu> <lgl0ohINNr1e@news.bbn.com>
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: dhardin@bbn.com's message of 18 Nov 92 17:53:21 GMT

In article <lgl0ohINNr1e@news.bbn.com> dhardin@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. 
   >  If they had any respect for their elders, they would act like 
   >humans instead if animals. 
   >
   >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.

   Dawn

*sigh*.  Now we know why Dawn is the pinnacle to which we all aspire.
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: What is attractive to women?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:35:50 GMT

In article <MARTINC.92Nov20111012@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>In article <By0Kns.Bs8@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>
>   >                         He fought the first duel in Massachusetts, and had
>   >to spend a day chained to his partner-in-crime.
>
>   Both duellists surviving is the least satisfactory outcome, but I guess that
>   your ancestor's being killed might have made problems for you, eh?
>
>Actually, no: duels were usually fought to settle an affair of honor;
>once a single touch had been made or a sigle shot had been fired, honor
>was satisfied and the offended party could hold his head up again.  This
>is why the Hamilton/Burr duel was such a furor -- Hamilton threw his
>shot (unless the rumor is true and he had a misfore from a hair-trigger)
>but Burr shot him anyway.

The Hamilton-Burr results was slighly more satisfactory, but the most 
satisfactory outcome is the death of both duellists, leading, as it does,
to an increase in the average intelligence of the population.

Abraham Lincoln was once challenged and had the choice of weapon.  He
selected broadswords.  His challenger considered the length of the former
railsplitter's arms and decided upon a different method for settling their
dispute.

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: British men
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:58:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: grover.MARTINC.92Nov16105845
	<dp7p9bk@lynx.unm.edu> <1992Oct30.223301.21342@panix.com>
	<25259@sybase.sybase.com> <MARTINC.92Nov2121051@grover.cs.unc.edu>
	<25748@sybase.sybase.com> <MARTINC.92Nov15183150@hatteras.cs.un
Distribution: na
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu's message of 16 Nov 92 02:21:55 GMT

In article <BxsEKJ.3q8@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:

   martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
   >See reviews of Faludi's book in the Wall Street Journal and the New
   >Republic, among others.  Sorry I can't give you a date reference, but I
   >can't afford the space to keep the things around.

   You throw your New Republics out???  

I try very hard to throw *everything* out.  It just is getting too much
for me -- the last move about finished me.

   Sheesh.  It's the best journal of
   ideas in the country.  (I pass mine along when I find bound volumes at
   the local public library book sale.)

Great.  Maybe you can find the review.
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Subject: Re: YKYBRNTLW.... (Re: Where to meet women?)
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:12:32 GMT

stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:

] souchay@CAM.ORG (Francois Souchay) writes:
] >aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
] >>souchay@CAM.ORG (Francois Souchay) writes:
] >>>diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:
] >>>>We ProblemOlderWomen can only get the title
] >>>>when we want sex MORE than our ProblemYoungerMen...
] >>>Hmmm.... Haven't dated many French Men , have we?  >:->
] >>I don't think you've met a *real* ProblemOlderWoman yet, have you?
] >>
] >No, why? Got some phone numbers? Heh heh heh.
] 
]          *SLAM* <brandishing Uzi>
] 
] "Up against the wall, Francois. Palms flat! Spread 'em!"
] 
] *clank* *rattle*
] <four metallic snaps>
] 
] "I'll be back for you later. Maybe."
] 
] PS Bruce, you're right. You don't "find" 'em.

Nope.  If you're LUCKY, they'll find YOU.

Diana
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.romance,alt.sex,alt.polyamory,talk.religion.misc