HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein)
Subject: Re: Presidential Poll- Some comments from you.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:10:27 GMT

In article <MARTINC.92Nov9143115@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.222130.8949@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein) writes:

>Unless the Good Dissertation Fairy shows up.  And you know how flighty
>he is.
>
>		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu

				

				*He* ?
		Oh no, I feel the flames boiling now!

				Steve
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: elections
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 01:39:31 GMT

martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

>kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Me) writes:
>>The Republicans won't have a lock on the Presidency until they [...]
>>become a party of limited government and free markets, instead of a
>>party of rich people and big business.

>I'm with Tsongas and Rudmann (sp?) on this one: either
>the Republicans will become what you suggest, or the Democrats will--
>or a third party will, and *they'll* have a lock on the presidency for
>your lifetime.

I think it will have to be a third party, the right wing will never
let the Republican party go and the Congressional Democrats move
further and further to the left every year, it seems.  (Boxer and
Feingold are the worst this year, Brown and Feinstein are prety bad
too.  And DC statehood will bring us two more liberal Senators in
perpetuity.)  But can a third party actually achieve electoral
success?  I don't think so.

(Now the notion of Tsongas and Rudman starting a third party,
and running Bill Weld and Jeane Kirkpatrick at the top of their
ticket--that would be interesting indeed....)

>>Yup.  A little present from Reagan and Bush. 
>Look up who had the last balanced budget.

I don't think it has been balanced in my lifetime, but I thought it
skyrocketed in the Reagan years.  This could be a myth, of course.
-- 

Kiran Wagle                           <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: PRES DEBATE
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:58:18 GMT
	<MARTINC.92Nov8144706@grover.cs.unc.edu> <BxGBzn.8Mn@access.digex.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: huston@access.digex.com's message of 9 Nov 92 13:54:58 GMT

In article <BxGBzn.8Mn@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:

   In article <MARTINC.92Nov8144706@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
   >
   >   >I don't know one way or the other ... but if so, it's another of those
   >   >interesting things.  One of those things that don't seem to be talked
   >   >about since the Beatification.
   >
   >   Actually it has been talked about.  
   >
   >Not much, if a political junky like me hasn't run into it.

   Well, I first heard about it a few years ago on a retrospective about
   McCarthy.  However, for the purposes of posting the article, it took
   me about 5 minutes to verify it in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_.

Herb, I haven't read the whole Encyclopedia Britannica.  I'm sorry.
(Actually, as soon as I've got a real job I plan to get myself one.)

   >   JFK was one of the seven.
   >
   >Was he absent or did he abstain?  If it was an abstention, isn't that
   >almost the same?

   JFK had planned to vote FOR condemnation and had drafted a speech
   explaining why.  It was never delivered.  On the day of the vote he
   was in a hospital in critical condition following back surgery.

That's no excuse.

   Abstaining is not the same as voting for or against.

Oh, Herb, like, get real.  If he'd *been* there -- obviously being in
the hospital is an excellent reason not to be -- the vote had gone
sixty-odd for and he'd been one of a handful of abstentions, when he was
a leader in the opposing party, would you have suspected this meant he
was *for* the condemnation vote?  If a Democrat had abstained in Nixon's
impeachment (in the parallel universe where it came to trial) would
"that's not a vote for or against" have been a defense for him in his
re-election, or against the rest of the party?

There are times when one must be willing to stand up and be counted, and
a manuver like abstention isn't sufficient.  Unless, of course, one
*can't* stand up.
--
		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
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What do you Am men think about Am women?
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:09:09 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings) writes:

>> larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings) writes:
>> >
>> >I could be wrong, but isn't a lot of the "Romance Novels" dealing with Men
>> >coming to rescue Women?  If not from physical danger, then from the drudgery
>> >of their "boring" (refering to the characters in the books) life?
>> >
>> >From what I've seen, more women purchase these than men, so my conclusion
>> >would be (DRUM roll please) Not all women consider "being rescued by a man
>> >to be a bad thing.
>> >

>Aren't a large portion also written by women?  If you have ABSOLUTELY no
>interest in something, do you still read it?  Not me.  Most things I read
>about (history, war, science fiction-space travel, science fantacy-swords
>and sorcery, and not to forget Playboy) I have some interest in, if I didn't
>I would not read them.  I would like to be able to travel through time and
>space to view and participate in the events I read about.  I would love to
>have been there when History was being made, when I read about Vietnam, and
>to a lesser extent other wars, I feel slightly guilty that I wasn't there.

There is a great difference between sitting at your computer terminal
wishing you were in a war, and being in a war. (The other day I was talking
to someone who just got out of the Israeli army. I asked him why he joined. 
He said, "I wanted to do a patriotic thing." I said, "How long did this 
sentiment last?" He said, "About a month." Unfortunately he had to stay for
another three years.)

Likewise, there is a great difference between reading a book about a
handsome brute rescuing a sultry wench in Arabia, and putting up with some 
local guy who decides that you're in need of some kind of revision.

Besides, some of us women identify with the handsome brute.

--
Stef                Beware of Geeks bearing gifs. -- ST*
stef@apple.com
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:21:10 GMT
Subject: Re: Do you remember 1970 to 1980?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: soc.singles



when the NCAA stripped villanova of their second place
finish in the men's basketball tournament after it was
discovered one player was receiving cash/cars/fast women
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: mysti@sybase.com (Mysti)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: British men
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:10:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Sybase, Inc.

In article <MARTINC.92Nov4111530@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>
>Yes, but you can't reason from "there may exist less logical reasons" to
>"those less logical reasons are the -real- motivation".  That appears to
>be what Faludi does, however; in fact, it seems to be the central method
>of reasoning in _Backlash_.  But it just doesn't stand up logically.  

>subconscious or unstated evil motive.

But Faludi is very careful to assemble a wide range of evidence, dating
from a decade or two before the turn of the century until now to back
up what she is saying.  The most lurid example is that of the alleged
"male shortage" which many people may remember.  

>It leads to the sort of thing where -any- disagreement can be ascribed to a
>subconscious or unstated evil motive.

No, neither Faludi nor anyone else I've heard of goes to that extreme.
Did you have a particular instance in mind? 
--
========================
Mysti Rubert, Oaktown, California

"It't not the men in my life, but the life in my men."  Mae West
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Strong women in film (was Re: What do you Am men think about Am women?)
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 09:51:06 GMT

In article <MARTINC.92Nov9101143@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.050437.20319@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>   Just a coincidence that nearly all the lesbian and bisexual women are
>   killers?
>
>Was there *anyone* in the film who wasn't a killer?  Except for the
>corpses, of course.

But the problem is that we see a multitude of hetero characters who
are everything from wonderful people to bad cops.  Lesbigay characters
are few and when they do appear, are usually either played as comical
stereotypes or they're evil and perverted.
From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is attractive to women?
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:54:33 GMT
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: tps@jptcs.COM's message of 12 Nov 92 02:38:05 GMT


In article <5702@jptcs.COM> tps@jptcs.COM (Tim Sailer) writes:

   Sandra Loosemore (loosemore-sandra@cs.yale.edu) wrote:
   : Hanging out in bookstores or libraries is a good sign!  :-)  I also
   : tend to look for absence of bad signs such as wedding rings,
   : cigarettes, alcohol, slobby appearance.  It's not 100% infallible, but
   : I also consider wearing a suit and/or tie to be a bad sign (conformity).
		     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   ThankyouThankyouThankyouThankyouThankyouThankyouThankyouThankyouThankyou
   ThankyouThankyouThankyouThankyouThankyouThankyouThankyouThankyouThankyou!

Ugh.  That stereotype again.

The fact is that at least in the business I'm in (I write software for
an investment bank) either you wear the uniform of a suit and tie or
you don't work there.  The fact is that our customers are large
corporations, other banks, and the odd country (we have been known to
do deals with the German national bank, the State of Israel and the
State of New York).  If you want to get the business you have to dress
the part.  The spin doctors and deal makers want to see what you look
like.  They figure that if you took the time to dress appropriately,
then you probably took the time to triple check the ressults of your
analysis.  Most bank customers would say the same thing.

Fortunately, most of us who wear suits to work every day wouldn't be
caught dead in one on the weekend, unless something absolutely
spectacular happened (like we died).

Another point: Not all suit/tie combos are the same -- I could dress
in the basic business suit and just look boring.  Or I could wear my
custom tailored Armani suit which just rolled off of the top
designer's drawing board, and be dashing.  They are completely
different types of clothing -- don't lump them together.

This is similar to the difference between "casual" and "sloppy" -- I
could wear jeans, a nice shirt and maybe a jacket and look great --
but still casual.  On the other hand, I could wear torn jeans and a 
tee shirt and look like a slob.  Same difference, but in a different
direction.

Spidey!!!


--
 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                                          jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \                                              Do whatever it takes.
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Nightline and Presidential Cantidates
Date: 8 Nov 92 17:06:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: convex.thurlow.721242371
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <MARTINC.92Nov4233432@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

>Do you think it's fair to claim that foreign corporations are taxed at a
>lower rate when they're not?  (Look it up, for god's sake.)

I'd love to, but in defense I notice that nobody in the press and nobody
in the Republican campaign did that where I heard or read about it, either.
I find it quite amusing that someone wouldn't have called Clinton on this
claim you find so ruddy obvious.

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com
"I get so tickled debunking bad personal philosophy." - Milquetoast
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:27:49 GMT
Subject: Re: *Mother* MacDunaugh?! *FAINT*
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: soc.singles



	i find this hard to swallow since immediately
	after the vote in the church of england to
	allow women into the priesthood, the holy see
	in rome issued a statement that this vote 
	placed serious hurdles in the way of bringing  
	the two churches back together.

	BTW, i applaud the church of england... and i
	can't wait for the RC church to smell the
	toast burnin'

pjm.
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Monogamy, Polygamy, and raising children (Was: Falling in Love
Date: 4 Nov 92 20:16:49 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

>In article <73943@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:

>   I have seen some unhappy single-parent families and some happy ones.
>   I've also seen some unhappy two-parent families and some happy ones.

>Wow.  Talk about using parallelism.  How long did you have to search for
>wordings that would make that come out?

No time at all. Editors do it in parallel naturally.

--
Stef                   You either sink or swim, or you don't.
stef@apple.com                           --Bolloxed proverb hall of fame
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: WHAT DO AMERICAN MEN THINK ABOUT AMERI
Date: 11 Nov 92 09:27:01 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

In article <MARTINC.92Nov7000511@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>Funny ... there I was, lost in the middle of a herd of cattle in the
>middle of a field in the middle of North Wales (just outside Ruthin.)
>The lady driving the cattle comes up to the window of the car, and
>starts talking to my (now ex-)wife and me.  Twenty minutes later we're
>practically promising to name our children after one another.

I was thinking about the times when you go into a Welsh pub and suddenly it
goes quiet and then everyone starts talking in Welsh when you know they were
talking in English 30 seconds ago. In those circumstances it is fun to have 
my friend's brother along as for some reason he learnt to speak Welsh. Thereby
hangs another tale...

Honestly though I love Wales. Some of my closest friends are Welsh. I love
the countryside, the throat aching place names, the choral singing, the
sheep, the sheep, and especially the sheep.

>I'd have to say this doesn't match my experience.  Maybe it's the
>accent?  I've noticed English people talk funny.

Obviously you are referring to the tradition of Great British Comedy.

		Aaron		aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: liz@prc.unisys.com (Liz Loquacious)
Subject: Last Philly Boink Announcement
Followup-To: soc.singles
Originator: liz@sequoia
Keywords: Boink, sensitive, fun
Organization: Software Technology, Paramax A Unisys Company - Paoli, PA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:39:17 GMT


This will most likely be the last Philly Boink announcement that you see.
Everything is falling into place and it looks like we'll have about 25
netters participating in this glorious event which begins next Friday
evening.  So if you haven't got any plans yet for the weekend of
November 20th - 22 you're welcome to join us, soc.singles.celebs and
lurkers alike, in Philadelphia.  Crash space is still available although
only sleeping bag space at this point.

Here's a brief description of the events for the weekend and if you're
interested please contact me through e-mail.  

Friday night we will gather in a bar somewhere along South Street and if
the weather is good we'll wander down South Street looking at sights and
popping into other interesting looking bars.  Time to get to know each
other a bit and see one of the more colorful streets of Philly.  

Saturday afternoon we plan to do the art museum tour of Philadelphia, 
grabbing lunch sometime during all this and then dinner before heading
off to the Mt. Airy section of Philadelphia for contra dancing, lessons
included.  There will be an after dance party back at Sheba's place
which will include a poker game hosted by the sensitive James Dutton!

Not sure about Sunday yet, brunch of course, we can put something else
on the agenda based on when people will be heading out of town.

Aside from all this we'll most likely get to witness Allisson's
banana tricks, see if she can really make it a four poster waterbed
and you can get to see pictures from the Boston and Balloon Boinks!
If you're even thinking about it send me mail!  

Liz Loquacious
liz@prc.unisys.com

-- 
 Elizabeth A. Bradley                        liz@prc.unisys.com
 Center for Advanced Information Technology  (215) 648-2688 
 Paramax Systems Corporation                 FAX: (215) 648-2288
 PO Box 517, Paoli, PA 19301
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: How the cold war was won. (was: Nightline and Presidential Cantida
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:54:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.161420.7375@clsi.COM>, kevin@clsi.COM (Kevin Cameron) writes:
> 
> In article <721392335.18765@minster.york.ac.uk>, aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
> > : The reason we "won" the cold war is that their economy collapsed before ours
> > : did. The arms race destroyed both our economies, we just outlasted them.
> > 
> 
> Who has actually won ? Isn't it likely that the Russians will be able to
> rebuild their economy faster than the USA can fix its own ? 

I kinda doubt that.  At least WE still have food in the stores.


> 
> Kev. :-7
> -- 
> Kevin Cameron          CLSI, Suite 100, 5457 Twin Knolls Rd., MD 21045, USA


Larry Billings
*******************************************************************************
*    Sometimes I think it's a shame,     *                                    *
*    when I get feeling better,          *                                    *
*    when, I'm feeling no pain.          *   Should not have got on this      *
*    Sometimes I think it's a sin,       *   FLIGHT, TONIGHT.                 *
*    when I feel like I'm winning,       *                                    *
*    but I'm losing again.               *                                    *
*******************************************************************************


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: zeller@bernina.ethz.ch (Lukas Zeller)
Subject: being between "Just Friends" and "relationship"
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:49:29 GMT

In the discussions of relationship here on the net in particular but 
everywhere else too, I find human relationship parted into two main 
groups:

Being "just friends" (JF) describes a gender independent relationship 
and seems to exclude physical tenderness and being close. I can be JF 
with many people at the same time without evoking jealous feelings in 
any of my other "JF".

Being "in a relationship" with a MOTAS on the other hand does include 
having sex, and claims for exclusiveness (no more than one SO at a 
time). If it is not, jealousy is not only common, but also widely 
accepted and even justified as a inevitable thing.

For me, this separation does not work  I cannot feel this way, not 
all the time.

There are relationships for me that undoubtedly base on the fact that 
we are MOTAS to each other, and it is not at all the same thing as 
JF. A certain physical attraction is part of the relationship, too, 
and makes being physically close a good thing  but there is no need 
nor desire to have sex together. There is also no jealousy; both may 
have other similar or sexual relationships. Of course, this kind of 
relationship may extend to a sexual relationship or it might fade 
(back) to JF, as well as it can be stable.

I'm not asking you if this exists it does for me anyway. But it 
seems to me that many people don't *believe* that it is possible. 
There's an awful lot of fear and preoccupation around attacking every 
relationship that doesn't fit into the single/couple scheme, making 
it sometimes very hard to live it and sometimes even to keep 
believing in it. Some get misused and this may break their belief, 
leaving them with the sad and bitter "realisation" that "It was an 
illusion".

To see that happen (again, just these days) makes me sad, and it's 
why I'm asking you for your opinions about this. I also think it 
might be an interesting topic to discuss, as I haven't seen it here 
in the last few thousand messages I've read :-)
If I get answers by email, I'll post a summary later.

==========================  +---------------------------+  *****************
      Lukas Zeller          |\         E-Mail:         /|  * Never trust a *
 ETH Zurich, Switzerland    | \_______________________/ |  *   computer    *
  (SFIT, Swiss Federal      |  /  zeller@ethz.UUCP   \  |  *  bigger than  *
 Institute of Technology)   | / ..chx400!ethz!zeller  \ |  * you  can lift *
==========================  +---------------------------+  *****************
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: a question in search of an answer!!!
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:25:12 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: bill@ka2qhd.de.com's message of 6 Nov 92 13:57:31 GMT

In article <644@ka2qhd.de.com> bill@ka2qhd.de.com (Bill Luzenko) writes:

   I went to a dance and danced with my male friend. Since I am a man I was
   called queer. question: why can two women dance together and be friends,
   but when two men do the same they are two homos? 

Because.

   Can someone answer this
   question? 

Yes.

   WHY!!!

I have a Master's Degree.  In Science.
--
		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: pickerig@eee.bham.ac.uk (Mr. G. Pickering)
Subject: Re: Do you remember 1970 to 1980?
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 09:45:48 GMT
Organization: The University of Birmingham, England
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Broward Babe Horne (GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu) wrote:
: 
:       As part of an impromptu research project, I'd like to know what
:   YOU think the single most important ( dramatic, traumatic ) event of`
:   1970 to 1980 was.
: 
: 

  A change of government on 1979 (Uk remember).

--
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Guy Pickering                  | School of Electronic & Electrical Eng,  |
| E-MAIL: G.PICKERING@uk.ac.bham | University of Birmingham,               |
| Tel: (021) 414 4340            | Edgbaston, Birmingham. B15 2TT.         |
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| "I have ten pairs of trainers...One for each day of the week" - Sam Fox  |
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+


Newsgroups: soc.singles