HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dcook@spam.ua.oz (David Cook)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Why lurkers lurk ...
Date: 29 Aug 92 16:05:42 GMT
Organization: Stats Pure & Applied Maths, Uni of Adelaide, Australia

I thought I'd unlurk just long enough to add my $0.02 on why
we lurkers do (lurk, that is).

For a start, many people can only read news, not post, for example
undergrads in the CS dept. here (thanks to a forging fool a few years
ago).

Many people have nothing to say. (on being single, anyway)
(Of course, some people say nothing in large volumes)

People outside the US have the disadvantage of seeing news with
a large delay after it was posted, eg locally, the most recent 
articles I see are already 2 days old. Whenever I'm about to
post, I think about whether there's any point in continuing a
thread that may have died out days before I join it. Also,
many of the threads get hashed out very quickly by those
geographically near to each other.

Many people worry about articles being read by those at their
place of work/study (eg those CS undergrads I mentioned may
be reading this article :-)

There are probably lots of other reasons, maybe as many reasons
as there are lurkers :-) But don't worry, keep on posting, and
maybe we'll learn something, and un-single ourselves :-)

btw: Someone mentioned 200 articles/day being the norm for soc.singles ..
Are a lot of people using strange 'Distribution:' lines or something ?
We don't get nearly that many (and reading doesn't take long, with
liberal use of 'k' (in rn) :-).


-- 
David T Cook   e-mail: dcook@spam.adelaide.edu.au   Phone: +61 8 228 5709
Assistant Computer Manager, Stats, Pure and Applied Maths, Adelaide Uni.
"Behind the lines, a face that glimmers. Still looking for a face that shines."
       - Heartland, The Sisters of Mercy
From: wjb@moscom.UUCP (Bill de Beaubien)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Las Vegas
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:04:30 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford, NY
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Herb Huston (huston@access.digex.com) wrote:
: According to my trip logs, I stopped for lunch in Houghton on August 23,
: 1987, while driving from Iron Mountain to Duluth.  While this might seem
: odd, it was because I was taking the Lake Superior Circle Tour (or whatever
: it's called).

Yep, it *is* a bit out of the direct line between the two points, being up
on the peninsula and all :-)
 
: I added the Portage Lake Vertical Lift Bridge to my collection.  My guess
: would be that a ferry was used between Houghton and Hancock (note to Finns
: on soc.singles: Lots of Finns settled in Hancock).

Collection of what?  And yes, that'd have to be my guess too.  As to Finns,
a couple years back Hancock passed a resolution that all streets would have
two names, one in English and one in Finnish;  of course, I'm not quite
sure where that leaves Montezuema or Tezcuco avenues.  (I have no idea
why there're streets by that name in Hancock, either :-)
 
: No record of where I ate, but I do remember eating a pasty.
Well, that limits it to nearly every place in Houghton county :-)  Though
at least it means you probably didn't eat at Burger King.  Come to think
of it, the Library doesn't serve pasties either.  Maybe the Kaleva?

Bill
-- 
"Bless me, Father; I ate a lizard."
"Was it an abstinence day, and was it artificially prepared?"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill de Beaubien / wjb@moscom.com 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 14:52:34 GMT
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez

You really *haven't* been reading soc.singles for the past three years,
have you?
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

So much Astroglide.  So little time.
From: dy@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Dr. Yes)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Lurkers...
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:48:59 GMT

tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:

> In article <pban8+_@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
> >
> > Why do they lurk?
> 
> I can think of lots of good reasons--they can pick up pointers on flirtation
> from Larry Margolis and james dutton, learn more uses for bananas and 
> fudge sauce, and read about people's lives that make them feel that 
> they don't have it so bad after all.

I think people lurk in soc.singles because there really isn't
anything more intrinsically interesting than ways and means of
meeting and interfacing with MOTAS.  I've often wondered if
Aristotle or Leibnitz ever wrote treatises on the topic and then
decided not to publish them. Or do people lose interest in the
topic when they find an SO of their own?

--
Still Using Waffle 1.64!    | Wafffle, QEdit and Webster's
                            | NewWorld -- one great menage a
                            | trois!
From: lurk@biff.net (A. Random Lurker)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: SOC.SINGLES
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:09:37 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: forney.berkeley.edu

Dear VIKAS,

I read your fasinating article about SOC.SINGLES asking WHAT IS THIS
NEWSGROUP ABOUT and found it very inseresting.  We have a lot in common.
Wanna be pals?

Sincerely,
A. Random Lurker

P.S. Are you a woman?  I heard a rumor that there are women in this BBoard.

:-)


--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
From: reykja@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Reykja Sigurdsson)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 07:56:20 GMT
Subject: Re: The Fine Line (was Re: Boink Blues)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: soc.singles

> 
> I live a short distance away from Denver, and I LOVE the winters here.  :-)
> Maybe I'm strange, but I'd never consider leaving our winters behind for a
> tropical place like St. Thomas unless it was for a visit of a week or less.

         I live in Colorado Springs. (Ten points if you can guess the state!)
;-) And I would move to St.Thomas any day. Winter sucks! A big one! 

> 
> When it gets cold, I just throw more wood on the fire and snuggle that much
> closer with another appropriate warm body!!!   **BIG SMILE**

           Yeah. Right! ;-) 

           Anyway, the winters seem to be getting milder and milder. Maybe
we won't get two weeks of ghu-knows-how-many-degrees below zero this 
year! 

           I'd like the winters here also -- if only they were about 
50 degrees warmer! ;-) 


-reykjavik

                            The seeking of wisdom is the highest virtue-
                                                     --Odin--


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 02:59:41 GMT
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez

In article <JMD.92Sep1160632@lion.bear.com> jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond) writes:
>In article <1rfn0p_.aahz@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>
>   You really *haven't* been reading soc.singles for the past three years,
>   have you?
>
>I don't see a smiley on this, so I'm going to treat it as serious...
>
>My response was not based upon anything which I may (or may not) have
>read here in soc.singles.  It is, however, based upon my own
>experience.  The story I used to tell was very similar to Craig's.
>Fortunately someone pointed out to me how ludicrous it was.
>
>If your complaint is that the "I have trouble asking women out"
>question is an FAQ here on soc.singles, that may be -- but in my book
>anyone reaching out for help deserves to get some.

True enough.  I was just somewhat amused because your post, particularly
the last few sentences, sounded almost like a pastiche of recently
posted articles.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

So much Astroglide.  So little time.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: wtr@mitre.org (Bill Ralston)
Subject: Re: To push wood or not? (was Re: Girls in rec.games.chess)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:38:29 GMT

in article <1992Aug28.033130.11138@mits.mdata.fi> karttu@mits.mdata.fi 
(Antti Karttunen) writes:

[included posting from rec.games.chess describing incident where male choses] [to engage in some hobby (in this instance chess) instead of spending time] 
[with female, female writes him off for making wrong choice]

>This posting also provoked one thought: It seems that (some) males are in
>general more inclined toward various kind of obsessive/compulsive things
>(like games, hacking, all kinds of tinkering, collecting, science, etc.),
>while (most) females are not. Or perhaps their obsessions are elsewhere.

It seems this way to me.  Most women I've dated really seemed to have 
little understanding for the passion with which I pursue my hobbies, and 
did not seem to exhibit similar traits.  Based on magazine audiences, I 
would venture to say women seem more interested in appearances and 
personal relationships.  As to whether the interest it is to the point of 
being obssesive/compulsive, I'd say no more so than men and their passions.

Bill
---------------
wtr@mitre.org
** I never said that, you didn't hear me, and besides I never posted this!**
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Desperation (was Re: Commitment--The C-word?)
Date: 30 Aug 92 22:59:48 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) writes:

>Anyway, I found this post interesting, because somebody pointed out to 
>me recently that I've been
>doing exactly what's described above; interpreting interest as 'desperation' 
>and pursuing
>only people weren't acting interested.  This, as you might guess, is not 
>terribly effective,
>and yet, as irrational as it  seems, I'm doing it myself and I've observed 
>many of my friends doing
>this too.

Note: please make sure to add a Return at the end of each line, and make
your lines less than 80 characters long.

I had that tendency, but something about my current relationship managed to
circumvent it. I am not sure what it was. I think it was that we did not
equate physical contact and emotional comfort with a romantic intent. That
is, we were friends and cuddle-buddies at first, and we didn't expect
things to go any farther. We gradually realized that we were so comfortable
around each other and we had so much in common that we were falling in love,
and only at that point (several months after our first meeting) did we
decide that we should think of what we had going as a romantic relationship
rather than a close friendship.

I think, based on this experience, that 'desperation' is really sometimes
the tendency to attach the label 'romantic' onto a relationship too fast,
before you really feel comfortable with the person or know enough about
them. It is what happens when you start asking yourself 'is he the one'
before you have even answered the question ' do I like him'. Or vice versa
- if someone starts asking that question about you too soon, you may
interpret their position as 'desperation.'

However, it is difficult to avoid this tendency because of the pressure one
feels to be part of a couple, and because many people are taught that
physical intimacy must always be tied to emotional intimacy -- when in fact
there are a lot of people who feel much more comfortable with physical
intimacy than emotional intimacy, or vice versa, and therefore would be
better off not tying them together early in a relationship. 

--
Stef					"One of us has to be a pragmatist."
stef@apple.com				"Nonsense!"
From: neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Why do the lurkers / so furiously lurk together?
Date: 30 Aug 92 11:49:44 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland

In article <4059@moscom.UUCP> wjb@moscom.UUCP (Bill de Beaubien) writes:
>
>It is kind of amazing that somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 person in 3000 
>in the U.S. reads this group.  Heck, that's probably more than watch some TV
>shows :-)  Does this count towards Warhol's 15 minutes?
>-- 

Only if you work for Sun, they rumble you and give you the boot for expressing
your personal views. Then you take them to court.

Neil
From: wjb@moscom.UUCP (Bill de Beaubien)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Kiran Wagle
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:59:22 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford, NY
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
: Survey time! Hey lurkers, why do you lurk? 

Mostly because I don't like posting to groups where I might not have the
chance to read followups to my articles.  I keep telling myself "First,
catch up on all of the articles, then worry about posting."  Well, I'll
grant I've actually managed to catch up once or twice in the last couple
years, but never long enough to start posting.  Gee, only about 200 unread
articles to go... but um... damn, we start processing news at noon.  Sigh.
:-)

Bill
-- 
"Bless me, Father; I ate a lizard."
"Was it an abstinence day, and was it artificially prepared?"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill de Beaubien / wjb@moscom.com
From: helie@bach.udel.edu (Ray)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Morals
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:26:21 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <#bcnwkr@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:

" morals are bulls**t. (can't curse on the net anymore..:(
  There are two personal right/wrong systems- morals and ethics.
  Morals are those that are dictated to you by society, government, religion. "
 
" Ethics, on the other hand, are those right/wrong systems that one sets up
  inside and for oneself. "

" Hey, just because it d`Gp?~joesn't fit your mold of a 'nice' system, do
  mean that it fits everyones model. "
  
Ok, I agree with what you are saying, and I think I might have used the
wrong word.  Let's just say that if you would not appreciate being treated a 
certain way at all, then you are displaying a lack of *something* (morals?)
if you insist on treating someone else the exact same way.  I don't know anyone
who would appreciate being led to believe that you are liked, and that
things are fine in a relationship, when in actuality you are only being 
tolerated until something better comes along.  

If you do not appreciate it when that happens to you, what does that say
about you if you do it to someone else?  Lack of morals?  I don't know
the proper phrase for it, but that person is showing a severe lack of 
*something*!  8-(


Ray
From: lana@magenta.corp.sgi.com (Lana Mountford)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Cooking for 1!
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:09:50 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <kiran.715484723@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
|> lana@magenta.corp.sgi.com (Lana Mountford) writes:
|> 
|> >This, to me, is probably the second worst thing about not being in a
|> >relationship.  
|> 
|> Only the second huh.

Yep -- I leave the assertion of the *worst* thing about not being in a 
relationship to the reader.  ;-)

|> 
|> >I entertain about one weekend a month (small dinner parties, mostly)
|> 
|> Well, tell your friends that the price of admission is one single guy.

You know, I tried that a couple of times.  It didn't work out too badly,
really -- nothing "ignited the brandy," but it was kinda fun.  I should
start doing it again.

|> 
|> -- 
|> "The truffle is not an outright aphrodisiac, but it may in certain
|>  circumstances make women more affectionate and men more amiable."
|>  ..................................................Brillat-Savarin

Hey, it works for me!!!!

-- 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|    /)                      | Lana Mountford    
|   / /  __    ___    __     | Silicon Graphics  
|__(_/__(__)\__/  )__(__)\__ | Mountain View, CA 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing)
Subject: In defense of "rescuers"
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:00:37 GMT

I hate to come off as not being PC, but I want to put in a good word for
Rescuers.  I don't think it's really all that bad.  I don't think there's
anything wrong with letting go once in a while and letting yourself be
"rescued".  Obviously I'm not as fiercely independent as MaX or Nance ... I
mean I am personally not into working on my car (other than adding fluids)
nor do I enjoy home improvement.  But indeed I agree that both women and
men need to be able to count on themselves.  And it's important for women,
because of the social programming that has gone on, to get in touch with
what it's about - taking care of yourself both monetarily and emotionally.
 But good heavens, the couple of times in my life that a man has *dared*
to take the "rescue" mode with me I've been incredibly grateful.  That I
didn't end up with either one of these men says a lot, of course, but I
think the reasons for terminating the relationships had less to do with
their propensity for "rescuing" me than other things.

I just don't want people to stop helping out because they don't think it's
"right" or that they're going to somehow encroach on ones independence. 
There's a difference - an obvious difference - in running another person's
life and taking over the small stuff while a person recovers their sense
of self or whatever.  

I wouldn't want to *have* to rely on somebody, but it's nice to be able
to do it once in a while.

Angelwing - I did it my way with a little help from my friends

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Angelwing       |  "And just where do you think you're going     *
* U. of Washington|   dressed like *that*?                         *
*                 |                            -  My Dad           *
*------------------------------------------------------------------*


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Subject: Too Much of Anything is ...
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:27:09 GMT

Well I'm not sure about the attributions here, but somebody said:
>> 
>> Trust me, it's good but only up to a point.  When instead of finding *your*
>> hand sliding under and inside your pants, like Al Bundy, you find *her* hand
>> there -- and all the time -- then you begine to realize the ramifications of
>> the situation you're in.  There just comes a point when you say, the hell
>> with it, remove your clothes and just walk around nude the whole time you're
>> indoors for her benefit, so that she can claim what she feels is rightfully
>> hers without the clothing obstructing her persistent efforts.

(Note no smileys, so ...)

 And then somebody else said:
>it really does sound quite horrible. :)

And I hereby declare:

Either the "she" in the first post has some real deep emotional problems,
or she's got some physical condition that could probably be sated with a
good supply of "D" cells.

Sure, lots of folks here who are currently without a sex partner and feel
a need for one might read the first paragraph and go "oh, you poor THING!
So much SEX!  A steady wad and you're complaining!  Woo-ee, send it my
way bay-bee!!  Hubba hubba hootchie cootchie!!  I'm here, I'm sexed, I'm
ready!  Neener!!"

But take the scenario a step further.  You're IN that situation.  You've
gotten yourself into this monagamous commitment with someone and now
you find that their life revolves around sex.  They don't care to talk
about their day or hear about yours, they won't play Checkers with you
or watch an old movie on cable, they don't want to go on the bike trails
with you to feel the wind in their hair ... all they want to do is have
constant body contact.  All the time, everywhere.  Even at your mother's.

I have to wonder about people who'd be happy in that situation, as opposed
to those who *think* they'd be happy in that situation.


-Nance
-- 
Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
                            (_) \(_)
From: diana@wetware.com (CatWoman )
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: DEFORMITIES AND PERVE
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:03:40 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare MouseCatcher

stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:

] mike.mcaulay@spacebbs.com (Mike Mcaulay) writes:
] 
] >Seriously though, this sounds like the notion bandied about here not too
] >long ago that for each of us there is a "type" we find most attractive,
] >almost as if we had indelibly imprinted this type during puberty. 
] 
] This is not true for me -- too rigid. The types I find attractive change over
] the years - I have added some and deleted some, and now I find more types
] attractive than I once did. 

My take on it when I have sat and tried to analyze what
I find "attractive" is that I don't have any specific
"type", per-se.  What I do have is a set of physical 
characteristics that will attract my attention when I
see someone for the first time - Tall, long hair, slender,
moustache, deep eyes.  Any of these characteristics will
get my attention - the more there are, the more attention
I will give the guy.

However, I've also realized that once I know the person,
if I have a chance to get to know them, their personality
is what MAINTAINS the attraction - or if I have gotten to
know them despite a lack of any of the above characteristics,
could CAUSE an attraction.

Diana
From: mlb@CISCO.COM (Marcia Bednarcyk)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Why lurkers lurk ...
Date: 31 Aug 92 23:00:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.064532.16030@zooid.guild.org>, Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org> writes:
|> Luckilly for me no one else here reads soc.singles...  But then
|> I have a policy of not saying something that I would regret 
|> if everybody heard.

This is, in general, a good rule to follow here: don't say anything you 
wouldn't want your boss to know. (Because if your boss is like me, s/he
might also read soc.singles. :-) If I want to talk about something a bit 
more personal with someone, I'll generally send them email.

Remember: this *is* a public forum, and what you say might come back to
haunt you...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Bednarcyk                                        ADDRESS: mlb@cisco.com
"Sweaty Snugglebunnies."
"... the meaning of life is to be happy, try not to hurt people, and hope
you fall in love."
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: why lurk? was Re: Kiran Wagle
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:03:48 GMT

In article <17eiglINN1rr@agate.berkeley.edu> jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
>
>kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>>>Survey time! Hey lurkers, why do you lurk? 
>
>In article <1992Aug25.202733.12050@imagen.com> randy@elk.imagen.com (randy
>scofield) writes:
>>If I offend someone, I will have to spend a bunch of time in a flame war.
>
>If you believe this, please keep lurking.  You don't have to spend time in
>a flame war ... you could just apologize, ignore the flames, take it to
>e-mail, or whatever.
>

 Don't forget instigate. Eddie Haskel is my hero.
 
================================================================================
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================