HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hevern@cac.washington.edu (M. Hevern)
Subject: Re: Love: Is it a power thing?
Organization: U.W. Information Systems
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:21:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.050246.13585@news.Hawaii.Edu>, venki@mpg.phys.hawaii.edu (N. Venkateswaran) writes:
> 	I solicit your opinion on:
> 
> 	"In love, the one who loves less is the winner."
> 
> 	I believe that Love is a power play between 2 (or more?) individuals.
> 	Love is used to control and mould a person to suit someone else's
> 	perception.

IMHO, if your emotions are being used to manipulate you or you use someone elses emotions to manipulate them, you and/or your co-participants are not in love. Love is not about power or control, but cooperation.

-- 	MH
       *--------------------------------*------------------------------*
       | Michael Hevern			| Voice: (206) 685-3229        |
       | University Of Washington	| * "I can't dance...          |
       | Information Systems		|    I can't talk...           |
       | 4545 15th Ave. NE		|    The only funny thing about|
       | Seattle, WA 98105		|    me is the way I walk."    |
       | Mail Stop: JE-41               |       -- Genesis             |
       *--------------------------------*------------------------------*
	Disclaimer: If I said it I probably meant it.  My employer isn't
		responsible for my opinions.
From: hevern@cac.washington.edu (M. Hevern)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Love: Is it a power thing?
Date: 12 Apr 92 02:58:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Apr12.025837.8445
Organization: U.W. Information Systems

In article <1992Apr12.014246.9486@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
> If love is a "power thing", does that mean I can buy one from Black & Decker?
> :-)

Maybe you and Pooh can send a joint order for your "power thing" and her
"man thing"? You might even get a discount. (:

-- 	MH (The wonders of marketing...)
       *--------------------------------*------------------------------*
       | Michael Hevern			| Voice: (206) 685-3229        |
       | University Of Washington	| * "I can't dance...          |
       | Information Systems		|    I can't talk...           |
       | 4545 15th Ave. NE		|    The only funny thing about|
       | Seattle, WA 98105		|    me is the way I walk."    |
       | Mail Stop: JE-41               |       -- Genesis             |
       *--------------------------------*------------------------------*
	Disclaimer: If I said it I probably meant it.  My employer isn't
		responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Date: 10 Apr 92 04:06:07 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Apr9.153055.28148@u.washington.edu> intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.222755.21043@spool.cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>>In <1992Apr8.025018.4511@midway.uchicago.edu> pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) writes:
>>>I nominate Angelwing for the Soc.Singles.Fantasy.Goddess for
>>>the male contingent.

>>You can't; she ain't single.  She just said so herself in a recent post.

>Oh *reeally*, Michael.  Well I'm not married, so I must be single.  Nyah! 

Ah, a strict constructionist!  Guess I'll be single for life, then...

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

No optimistic outlook survives contact with the human race.
From: state@sargent.cs.unc.edu (Andrei State)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: THE ELEMENTS OF SEDUCTION was (Re: Request : Dating advice from wo
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:17:15 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

U53644@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
|
|(reference is made to comment about a man desiring a relationship more because
|of the initial hostility (well founded), MaX asks if one now understands why a
|lot of women might fear the 'guy next door')
|
|I certainly would understand why a woman would want to avoid someone who
|thought like that, but it really wouldn't be fair to suggest that most men did,

Only those who can afford it.

|any more than it would be fair to suggest that most women play 'hard to get'.

Only those who can afford it.

|Obnoxious people aren't more numerous, just more noticable. Definitely, though,
|it is an argument for trying to get to know someone well(common activities,etc)
|before placing oneself in a vulnerable position.

Sure it is.  And the reason why this is so in the first place is that,
as Dan keeps pointing out, men want sex more than women on the average.


Andrei
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Revenge (Was: Re: A Slight Rant)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 02:40:57 GMT

In article <ktn0gnINNo21@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>In article <1992Apr2.192308.27901@ccu.umanitoba.ca> browns@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Stuart Brown) writes:
>
>>Besides, if he is a genuine asshole, maybe someone will suggest an appropriate
>>revenge.
>
>Now THAT'S my idea of a worthwhile thread!  Does anybody have any ideas,
>thoughts, nasty fantasies that they'd like to share on the topic?
>
>So far, I've bribed my husband's roommate to put laxatives in his coffee,
>but it's been kind of disappointing to date.  Can't find one strong
>enough to really be amusing.  So I'm still in the market for a good
>idea.

	What level of casualties do you consider acceptable? To pick an
entirely fictional example, I could spend time ruining my ex's alleged
current marriage, which might make her 'unhappy' (To the extent her tiny,
reptilian brain experiences the emotions real humans do), but it is entirely
possible her alleged husband is a nice guy, aside from his appalling taste 
in women.

	If the important thing is fucking up someone else's life, without
regard for cost, framing them for drug smuggling, at least in the US, can 
result in the confiscation of their property under the RICO laws (Of course,
if this doesn't work, they may return the favour). Less pleasant regimes can
be persuaded to drag the ex off to a midnight rendezvous with mortality
(Again this can work both ways) given the right political background for
the ex.

	Personally, if it doesn't require evacuating the timezone to limit
fatalities, it isn't worth doing. I look at the iridium layer for inspiration...

	Anyone who obsesses on 'getting even' with an ex really should
consider getting a life.

								James Nicoll
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Could use a boost
Date: 12 Apr 92 17:24:26 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr12.090321.1@vaxb.llnl.gov>  solarski@vaxb.llnl.gov writes:
> next day when she started up her mind games again.

What kind of mind games?  Is this different behavior than before?
Had she given any indications that she cared for you before you
told her?  And what exactly did you tell her - just that you
loved her, or that you didn't want to love her because you were
carrying emotional baggage from a previous relationship?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: The Second Move
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 20:53:53 GMT

stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:

>kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>>and asks them out, then they are brutally rejected because they didn't
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Kiran, please describe a "brutal rejection" and a "non-brutal rejection,"
>so women who continue to make boo-boos and get men to like us by mistake
>can reject these men non-brutally.
It was hyperbole, as i previously stated. 

>>Yes, there would be fewer problems if women tried to achieve real
>>communication and not this vague read my signals stuff. Communication
>>that included words.

>Words such as, "My live-in boyfriend who might propose to me next 
>week said the other day..."? how soon should we say these words?
>most women I know try to get them out within the first couple of
>sentences...

But on the other hand, women who are available and want you to ask
them out don't try to get words to that effect out within the first
couple of sentences. That's what I was talking about, not the case
where the woman are attached. And occasionally, even women who are
attached don't bother to say so.


-- 
"The truffle is not an outright aphrodisiac, but it may in certain
 circumstances make women more affectionate and men more amiable."
                                                ...Brillat-Savarin
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: More Disc on Romantic Songs
Date: 12 Apr 92 06:12:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: spool.1992Apr12.061235.13677
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

I've never really cared in general for songs about love.  Maybe because the
vast majority of them seem to be so BAD, both from a musical and from a
lyrical perspective.  In short, it takes a LOT for a song about love or
romance to move me.  Nonetheless, a few artists have impressed me.  Here's
a quick list off the top of my head:

Chris De Burgh, "Something Else Again"
Pete Townshend, "A Little Is Enough"
Bob Dylan, "Tangled Up In Blue" (and I'm am emphatically NOT a Dylan fan...)
Jethro Tull, "The Waking Edge"
Fleetwood Mac, "The Chain"

I like my love songs to be a little bittersweet; I think that that's just
what punches my buttons as far as *music* goes.

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

"Beauty... survives."
				- James T. Kirk, "That Which Survives"
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Another gem!  (on changing and being authentic)
Originator: lnds@medievil.biochem.ualberta.ca
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 06:16:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr2.222605.6113@gvl.unisys.com>, liz@gvlf9-j.gvl.unisys.com (Liz Loquacious [Bradley]) writes:

> [...] we are the designers of how we will grow and change.  If something
> we do is working for us we can decide to keep it.  If we are not quite 
> the person that we want to be then we can change to be more who we want
> to be, which in the end, if we're driving the change, feels more 
> authentic.  I think many people do try to fit in so much that they will
> change in ways which prevent their real selves from ever being 
> expressed.  That's a horrible way, IMO, to live even if you've got a 
> cute guy on your arm.
>
> You seem to have a problem with wanting to be loved for the "real me".
> I don't use it as an excuse to avoid change in my life.  I think
> even as I change and grow there is a "me" that is evident in how I
> choose to change and grow.  I want that to be seen and enjoyed.  I
> want someone to like me best when I'm my most authentic.  That doesn't
> mean that I will let my body go to pieces cause "it's the real me" or
> that I'd stop taking care of myself in other ways.  I do those things
> in order to better express who I am, how I want to be seen.  That's all
> part of being real and authentic since it's how I want to be.

   Another gem!  *This* is type of posting I'd like to see more of.

   Too many people seek inner peace at the expense of peace with the
world, or peace with the world at the expense of inner peace -- and they
end up with neither.  Liz shows how we may attain both.  And she does so
with eloquence.

   (How many examples did you want, Nancy? :-) )

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
From: michaili@blondie.cs.wisc.edu (Afroditi Michailidi)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:23:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: spool.1992Apr9.002320.22862
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.

In article <3ynjh5c@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>>In article <s4mjv9f@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>>>Calling a non-monogamous relationship 'open' is simply a candy coating for
>>>the fact that you can't trust your partner (or yourself) enough in a
>>>trusting relationship to remain faithful. IM(Never)HO.
>

   Or that they can trust their partner enough to know that they won't leave
them for some ProblemYoungerPerson (tm).

>I still say that a lot of this has to do with trust, and fear.
>Fear that you're not good enough for your partner, or vice-versa.
>Most of the 'open' relationships I've ever seen, or been in, involved
>one partner who 'didn't want to be tied down to one person', and another
>who was so desperate to hold on to their partner that they 'let' their
>partner 'roam'. 'Oh, he/she needs his/her space', or some such crap.
>

   Abusive instances of a concept do not necessarily define it.

>I can believe that there are probably some quite viable relationships where
>both partners have agreed on 'openness', but for the vast majority of 'em
>it one partner yakking the other one off.

   And besides, they'd probably be yakking them off, open relationship or not.
(and here was I, thinking it was 'yakking away').

>Besides, like I said last time, in today's oozing sexual environment,
>momogamy is better than death.

   Not that again! <Shudder> Shades of alt.sex.

>r.


                                             Afroditi
(sorry if this appears twice: problems with the news server)

*****************************************************
Warning: Graduate student -- overworked and underpaid
*****************************************************
From: wjb@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Buse)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:04:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: physical attractiveness (traditionally a "man thing")
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: soc.singles

In soc.singles, pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) writes:
 > In article <3840053@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM> wjb@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Buse) writes:
 >>I once was told that my body temperature actually rises when I become
 >>passionate, but I also wonder if this was all in the imagination. 
 >
 > Aw, that's nothing -- I once knew a man whose hair would literally
 > start falling out at a high rate when he was kissing.  Not that he
 > had much to begin with ... never mind; since then I've found men
 > with receding hairlines terribly attractive. :-)

It may have been nice to help him speed up the process of a receding
hairline, but how did the clothes look with his hair all over them? :-)  

 > Did anyone ever prescribe strategically-placed ice cubes for your
 > condition, Bill? ;-)

Never in the winter!!  No one in their right mind would want to cool 
down a warm body.   :-)  

This reference to ice cubes does make me wonder if you saw the movie
"9 1/2 Weeks".  There was one scene where ice cubes were used in a way
that seems to be similar to what you have on your mind.  

Bill 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:35:12 GMT

In <1992Apr12.232431.21380@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcregor@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Meloney Cregor) writes:
>In article <j#vj=7g.aahz@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>>>Fascinating.  I never found them so hard to manage that I needed to take 
>>>a class.  They're quite well behaved.  Most of the time, they just sit
>>>there and don't do anything.

>>Really?  Well, even if they're not too hard for you to manage, I'd be
>>glad to take the job over for you.....

>Ah, Aahz, always looking for that superior hands-on experience.

I'm sure he'd be content with some female-superior hands-on experience, too.

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

"...Cause living alone is all I've ever done well."
				- Nanci Griffith, "Late Night Grande Hotel"
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: walter (Walter Lego)
Subject: Re: THE ELEMENTS OF SEDUCTION was (Re: Request : Dating advice from women)
Followup-To: soc.singles
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Twisted Pair Inc.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 18:46:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.175704.9732@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>In article <11279@borg.cs.unc.edu> state@sargent.cs.unc.edu (Andrei State) writes:
>>No, but I'm getting yet another hint that as Dan keeps
>>repeating, women want sex less than men on the average.
>
>You know, since every message you've posted lately seems to consist of 
>the above statement phrased one way or another, I'm getting the impression
>that you find women's sexual desire to be very threatening.  

Wrong diagnosis, Dr. Ruth. The common theme in Andrei's messages have been
Dan, not Dan's conjecture. So tell me Andrei, you got Dan's posts plastered all
over your walls?

Finally, we may have found someone on the net who will...

>
>>Andrei
>
>I absolutely don't want to resurrect the "men want it more" argument, but
>I'm still puzzled by just how emotionally important "men wanting it more"
>seems to be to a lot of men.  The only even plausible reason I can think
>of for this would be a very deep, ego-threatening fear of not being able
>to satisfy women sexually if they really have the high sexual appetites
>that they certainly seem to.  Though, I suppose it could be that "men just
>want to argue about it more."
>
>Trygve   (Personally, I rather like living on a planet full of lusty
>          women.)

Or perhaps, sometimes, it is resurrected by men that want to trumpet their own 
sexual prowess?

						Walter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I am posting under a pseudonym for personal reasons. There is 
enough info in the headers to determine my posting site and possibly even 
determine my login name which is all the information you get from other
postings except that in this case you KNOW for sure that the name in the
headers is a pseudonym. If you don't like the idea put me in your kill file.
From: lfd@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (Lee Derbenwick)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: THE ELEMENTS OF SEDUCTION was (Re: Request : Dating advice from women)
Summary: "Never understand men"??
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:48:13 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr5.195219.18854@tigger.jvnc.net>, richh@tigger.jvnc.net (RICHH) writes:
> There are few things as thrilling or as challenging as seducing a woman
> who absolutely loathes you.
> If you can't see the sport in this, you will never understand men.

Speak for yourself, not for "men".  I can't see any sport at all in
seducing a woman who even moderately dislikes me.  If a seduction
is not for mutual pleasure, what's the point?  Using sex to play
power games is adolescent, at best.

 -- Speaking strictly for myself,
 --   Lee Derbenwick, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Warren, NJ
 --   lfd@cbnewsm.ATT.COM  or  <wherever>!att!cbnewsm!lfd
From: pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: More helpful Hints
Date: 12 Apr 92 04:08:31 GMT
Organization: Medieval England, Iowa

In article <1992Apr11.231833.11704@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>Irregardless how syntactically, or semantically correct,
>
>Never start with:
>
>"And Now to Do the 'Sex Stuff'."

What about: "And Now to Do the 'KINKY Sex Stuff'." ??

I think you've been missing something all this time, drieux dollink ...

Pooh (take those chains OUT of the freezer NOW! I MEAN IT!)

      pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing)
Subject: Re: The Second Move
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:28:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.035455.12847@u.washington.edu> hevern@cac.washington.edu (M. Hevern) writes:
>
>**BINGO** We have a winner. Words will do wonders when used in a descriptive 
>and coherent way. On the other hand I've got a weege(sp?) board...
                                                ^^^^^

Do you, perhaps, mean OUIJA board?  Hmmm?  Or is a weege board something
new that you Info Systems types have cooked up?  

>-- 	MH (I wonder if Angelwings temper will remain even?)

So far so good, but the morning is young.

Angelwing - Woman on the edge.

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Angelwing       |"Two things are wanted by a true man, danger and*
* U. of Washington| play - therefore, he seeks woman as the most   *
*                 | dangerous toy."       Friedrich Nietzsche      *
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Serves you right, Broward!
Originator: lnds@zeus.biochem.ualberta.ca
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 12:00:50 GMT

In article <9204071409.AA22492@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com>, GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne) writes:

> [...] I tried out the "non-threatening note" idea a couple of weeks 
> ago. I inter-office-mailed a woman I work off-shift from, stated 
> *politely* that if she might want to do something sometime, here's my
> number.  [...]
>
> A couple of days later I got back a WARNING OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT.

   Serves you right for taking someone's advice, Broward!  You should 
refuse all the psychoanalytical "do this, do that" crap, and do what you 
damn well please.

> 1) I'm fated by God to ONLY meet psycho-bitches.

   Oh, so Angelwing was a psycho-bitch?

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
Xref: sparky soc.singles:10679 sci.med:8442 misc.consumers:10208 misc.kids:12558
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,sci.med,misc.consumers,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Business cards
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:20:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr8.141803.530@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (K. Khan) writes:
>
>In article <1992Apr4.213211.17723@spool.cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>>In <22499@alice.att.com> ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes:
>>>I have seen so many posts over the years about Craig Shergold
>>>dying of cancer that I can only figure he must be a cat.
>>
>>The really funny thing about this is that, in the wake of the initial post,
>>we've gotten at least three different stories about Shergold:  He doesn't
>>exist, he's dead, and he's been cured and no longer wants cards.
>
>The distortions just multiply with each retelling. It started out as get
>well cards, then someone made a "business cards" version and now I see
>that version posted as frequently as the original.
>
>I can't wait to see what people will come up with next. Send your
>business cards to Craig "beyond the grave" Shergold, c/o Marianna Max...
>;-)
 
Craig Shergold is now an international globe trotting playboy/crack dealer
who rules his cartel with an iron fist. Due to his worldwide contacts
made under the beating the Guiness record (brilliant no) ploy, industrial
leaders as well as scum bag politicians never make a move w/o "King
Craigs" Okey Dokey. When his billionaire benefactor discovered "King Craig"
was faking his cancer in order to set up his cartel he was terminated
like so many others. Craig would now like to beat the Guiness record
for "donations" sent upon request. In order to usurp the tax man "King
Craig" would like the "donations" sent to james j. dutton
                                          Naperville Il.
                                           60540
Let's all do our part to help the little nipper.