HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Blind dates scare me!
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:59:17 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep13.142731.3611@wvnvms.wvnet.edu> un030025@wvnvms.wvnet.edu writes:
>
>	I got a point that I must make on this blind dating thing. I think that
>it sucks! Every girl that I have ever met on a blind date has been psycho. Why
>do we do this? If anyone know, let me know.
>	The last one that I went on this summer was the worst. A girl named
>Becky pulled a knife on me. That really can spoil an evening. I was just
>driving along when I felt a knife on my arm. Scared the s#$t out of me!

> Also she brought M-80's, potatos, a smaller knife, and a cammera.

Oh baby! Does she have any seesters?

It seems to me that a blind date is usually set up by someone else.  Usually
a friend or relative.  Perhaps you need to clue in your friends on the type
of woman that you're interested in.
-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira     | Auspex Systems | "Auspex does not share my opinions.  |
| johnf@auspex.com | Santa Clara CA |  So Why am I still working here?"    |
+==========================================================================+
From: morton@cali.rtp.dg.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: lurkers!????
Keywords: lurking.
Date: 5 Sep 92 06:27:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: dg-rtp.1992Sep5.062737.29381
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

>
>    If you dont want people "lurking" on your "conversions"
>    use Email and save bandwidth!
>    Eavesdroppers Anonymous.

	You know, they could use email, but they don't. Now that tells
you something. There are only three possibilities. When someone posts a
message to another specific ( explicit ) person, in front of thousands
of people, either:
	1) They are oblivious to ridicule, and don't know better.
	2) They feel humanity benefits somehow from reading it.
	3) They are having fun and don't give a flying fuck what we think.


	3)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Subject: Re: SHOULD I CALL MY EX-GIRLFRIEND?
Reply-To: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 17:23:18 GMT

In <1992Sep10.175716.6271@TorreyPinesCA.ncr.com> shear@TorreyPinesCA.ncr.com (Jeff Shear 3769) writes:
>I broke up with my girlfriend about 2 months ago. Since
>then I haven't spoken to her.  I would like to call her
>just to say hi and see how she's doing--sort of to salvage
>a friendship out of a 6 month relationship.  It just seems
>so stupid that two people spend so much time together and
>then all of the sudden they never talk to one another again.
>She hasn't called me and I haven't called her.  Any advice
>out there would be greatly appreciated. I suppose that I 
>haven't called her because I'm afraid to find out how she
>might react to my call.

It is stupid, as you say, but it's also the way it works in some cases.
I've been trying very hard to keep in touch with my ex (we broke up in
July of 91 after being friends for 3 years and lovers for 2), but I still
find it too painful to talk to her.

You won't know how she'll react until you call her, but you should be aware
that pretty much anything could happen (by which I mean that even though
you may think you've dealt with the break-up, or some important parts of it,
being confronted with your ex may show differently).

By the way, IMO 2 months isn't a very long time after a break-up.

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

"It's a summer of existence and the fall of pain."
					- Men Without Hats
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams)
Subject: Re: Desperation (was Re: Commitment--The C
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:25:47 GMT

In <1992Sep9.102845.4852@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> c71@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (David N) writes:

>In article 716025009@unix1.tcd.ie, ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>>In <1992Sep9.071115.446@dmpe.csiro.au> solnorda@dmpe.csiro.au (Chris Solnordal) writes:
>>
>>>A friend of mine insists that it's because when you're going out with
>>>someone, there's a much greater chance that you've just had sex :-)  This 
>>>then attracts potential partners in a big way - especially if it was quite
>>>recent !!
>>
>>>Don't know how true it is, but it sounds reasonable to me :-)
>>
>>
>>	Well, this would further support the theory about the sexual
>>hormones (pheronomes).  Presumably, you would be releasing them in
>>abundance if you have just had sex and therefore would attract others
>>to the smell without them realising why.  Moose do it!  Why do you 
>>think theyr put musk in perfumes and aftershaves! ;>
>> 

>AHA! But Different animals have different pheromones! Does Yves Saint Laurent like
>moose-sex? Or could there be a flaw in the theory?


	According to the powers that be, moose pheronomes are the nearest
to human ones....I'm just repeating what I've been told!  Personally, I 
would have thought that another primate species would have been better....
 
>David
>(As a true Swede, I enjoy eating moose, but it stays at that.)
	You eat moose??? (*Gasp*)  But, they are so cute!  Have you ever
seen the series "Northern Exposure"??
From: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: "We're all normal here"
Date: 15 Sep 92 04:20:06 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa

In article <72347@apple.Apple.COM>, stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:

> Welcome to soc.singles. We're all normal here. 

   Yeah.  Problem is, we want to be tangent.

misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: General topic to break the monotony
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:18:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep8.152104.24662@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>Da plane never cleared forty feet.
>The skydivers needed to clear 500 ft to jump.

Wrongola.  You need 500 ft for your shoot to deploy.  Don't jump
unless you're at 750 ft please.

-Nance, whooze done it four times and lived. (!)
-- 
Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
                            (_) \(_)                           
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Dill Dough
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 14:32:54 GMT

In article <18njttINN7ob@moe.ksu.ksu.edu> tipping@phys.ksu.edu (Tracy N. Tipping) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.055933.24183@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>In  <1992Sep9.210738.3962@panix.com>  pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>>>
>>> The Midwest!?!? You mean the place where people still wear white
>>> shirts and narrow ties and think it's about 1957? Where a good
>>> time is watching cows sleep?
>>
>>Two words.
>>
>>Cow tipping.
>
>Actually, it's Tracy Tipping...(a Texan temporarily living in the Midwest)

So, how many midwesterners have intimidated you?  (Besides Dawn, that is)

-- Herb Huston

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: smith@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith)
Subject: Re: Desperation (was Re: Commitment--The C-word?)
Organization: Gagging Sloth Records
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:05:17 GMT

In article <ewillims.715969109@unix1.tcd.ie>, ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
|>  I have been told by a source in
|> the advertising business that they sometimes use men's legs (shaven) for 
|> advertising hosiery as they are generally longer! (*GRIN*)

Yikes! From now on, I'm only going to look at hosiery ads that include the
whole body! Scary...

jds

***************************************************************************
                               * Health and knowledge and wealth and power,
Jeff Smith                     * Passion and poems and sex
smith@fl08-g.comm.mot.com      * I wear a smile like a leather glove,
                               * I won't shut my mouth for less.
                                                - shriekback
***************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Cradle Robbin?
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:38:18 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep10.130616.29257@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>  nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>
> Oh yes, give me those elevens!

Cradle robbing indeed!  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com (Ray Fink)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Working at a Relationship
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 09:51:56 MDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Wild Rose Refugee Camp

liz@prc.unisys.com (Liz Loquacious) writes:

>This brings up a question of mine.  What does it mean to people when they
>talk about working very hard on a relationship?  Where do you draw the line
>at what is too hard?  Lately I've started looking at it as the same kind of
>"work" that individuals will do for their own growth such as being really
>honest with themselves and accepting the reality of the "good" and "bad"
>things that are happening and being willing to change or grow from the
>experience.  I think issues come up in relationships which require the same
>kind of honesty and that it can be a great place for this kind of "work"
>and for people to grow as a couple and individuals.  Is this the way most 
>people think of the work that's involved?  Saying "very hard" to me brings up
>feelings or thoughts of never ending drudgery.  And it probably stirs up

My $0.02:  I agree with Liz's comments about being honest with themselves,
accepting reality, growing and changing.  But I would add *communicating*.
Obviously a very broad topic, but to me it means things like asserting
one's own needs rather than suppressing them or expecting one's partner
to automagically meet them, learning how to identify problems without 
placing blame, learning to "fight fair", learning to see one's partner
as a distinct individual rather than the sum of one's own experience
and expectations.

For these kinds of work, I wonder if there is such a thing as working too 
hard?  Maybe only by comparing those "costs" to the benefits of being
in the relationship?

-- Ray

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: strickha@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Heath A. Strickland)
Subject: Re: Tallllll women....
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 00:15:29 GMT


In article <1992Sep7.024047.29667@peponi.wcc.govt.nz>  writes:
> In article <1992Sep3.182717.24436@javelin.sim.es.com>,  
gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:
> 
> >Aaah yes.  Tall women.  How would it be?  I know some, dated some.   
Most
> >of them that I know are in their teens!  (bummer).  The rest?  Not one
> >thing in common.  I once told myself I'd only date >6 footers, then  
5'10,
> >now no such limits.  I have found the average and even shorter women to
> >be much more fun (and more readilly available).  But... tall women...  
*sigh*
> >
> >Glenn
> >6'10"  (209 cm)

I would like to find a tall women to see if this is true but long legs are  
sexier (Love lurking)

Heath
6'2"
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: "want" vs "need"
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:24:58 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter) writes:

>diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) writes:
>>A group marriage or whatever would be okay too- I just think
>>it's less likely.

>There's a mailing list ('triples') for people who are interested in these
>sort of relationships.

There is also a newsgroup: alt.polyamory
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Endless Loop?
Date: 5 Sep 92 19:22:29 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOSEPH ALOYSIUS MCVEIGH) writes:

>What's going on? Look at this:

>stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>>Matt, you needn't give in so easy. We know that what you wrote really
>>wasn't a suckup.  I mean, you didn't use the word 'perky' even once.

>Stef, you're sucking up to Matt here, presumably because he sucked up to you.

>Where will this end?

/dev/null

--
Stef             A cat and his owner see a relationship counselor:
stef@apple.com   "He doesn't want you to run the vacuum cleaner or 
                 go out on dates."                      --Nicole Hollander
From: intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Believe in youself, dammit! (was: Re: Singles Bar)
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:02:44 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Sep14.185125.7164@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>
>[........]  However, the last time I put any real
>feelings into something like this (but didn't get any such feelings in
>return), it took me *years* to recover, during which I was entirely
>unproductive.  I can't afford for that to *ever* happen again.

For what it's worth, Kevin, the second time (and third ...) is never
*ever* as bad as the first real break-up.  I can't say that it gets
easier, but at least you know that you will live, make it through, and
that things will get better.  We don't know this the first time our hearts
get broken.  

>In any case, like it or not, I'm quite fearful of putting any real feelings
>on the line without good reason to believe that they'll be returned.  As I
>said, I can't afford a repeat performance of the consequences I suffered the
>last time this happened.

Aw heck it won't be as bad, I tell you!  Risk it - I think the rewards are
worth it.  Of course, I'm hopeless.

>Nah...full steam ahead, and damn the torpedoes!

Right!  There ya go!

Angelwing - A hope*ful* romantic

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Angelwing       |  "And just where do you think you're going     *
* U. of Washington|   dressed like *that*?                         *
*                 |                            -  My Dad           *
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams)
Subject: Re: Flirting.
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 09:27:57 GMT

In <72046@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:

>elliott@csa2.lbl.gov (JAMES ELLIOT) writes:

>>So to everyone out there (especially the few women who actually read and write
>>here) what am I missing?  Fill me in.  What do women like when flirting from
>>men, what do they dislike?  What do they do when flirting with men (i.e. what
>>should I be on the look out for)?  Thanks for the help!

	Remember flirting should always be light and as subtle as
possible....never ever be "heavy" or uncouth!


>From what I understand, it is practically impossible to distinguish
>flirting from being-nice. In other words, just about any social behavior 
>could be meant as flirting, or taken as flirting.

	Hmmmm.... I'm not sure that I totally agree with you Stef.
Evidently, flirting does involve "being nice" but not vice versa!
If I say to you, "Oh, Stef, you look fantastic today", that doesn't
mean I'm flirting with you, even if I was a man.
Okay, so "flirting" can only take place between members of the opposite 
sex or those oriented to the same sex and usually between those who are
attracted (sexually) to each other, though that is not always the case.
I'm sure you all have friends who you regularly flirt with although you
wouldn't dream of being attracted to them in a million years.
Flirting involves teasing, double entendres, body language, facial 
expressions and "being-nice". 

Lots of grins/smiles, seductive glances, twinkling eyes and laughter
crinkles are good signs that someone enjoys your company a lot....add
the appropriate verbalisation and you can be fairly sure they are 
flirting with you! 

>Furthermore, flirting does not mean anything more, necessarily, than "I am
>interested in you at this moment in time."

	True, but it could also be a good indicator that there is a chance
for developing that relationship further in the future.

>Probably the best thing to do if someone is flirting with you is to flirt
>back using a similar or complementary style or intensity. (Presuming you 
>want the interaction to continue, that is.) 
		
	Great advice!

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams)
Subject: Re: chemistry / love at first sight : fact or fiction?
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 10:54:01 GMT

In <rawdon.716137426@cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:

>In <ewillims.716118911@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>>	I heard a very interesting comment on Love at first sight last
>>night which I thought was very clever.  The guy said that it was in fact
>>a form of Narcissism. You can't possibly know what the object of your
>>desires is *really* like so you project onto them all the qualities that
>>you admire or lack in yourself.  The other person then becomes the 
>>epitome of all you want them to be.  That made sense to me. How about
>>you?

>Sounds good to me.  You're really falling in love with an ideal than with a
>real person there.  I suspect when this happens we tend to single out
>people who "look" like they would possess the qualities we want in an SO/
>lover.

	Which is why it's part of human nature to assume that stunningly
beautiful people with purity of features are equally pure and 
beautiful inside.  I can't remember the source now, but i did hear that
beautiful people have a better chance of being acquitted of a crime by 
a jury for that very reason!
From: gds@LA.TIS.COM (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Why do the early-music party animals / so furiously party together?
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:36:15 GMT
Organization: Trusted Information Systems, Inc., Los Angeles, CA

In article <kiran.715752799@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> Kiran Wagle write:
>bgarfink@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (beth diane garfinkel) writes:
>>[about an early music piece?]
>Well, guess this makes four red-hot early-music party-animals 
>who read this group...

So, for the uninitiated (ie., me), what's an early-music party like?
How does this compare to a jazz or funk jam session?
From: bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Please Help Me!
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:25:40 GMT
	<BRUCE.92Sep2172749@suprenum.supr.scm.liv.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK

>>>>>> On 29 Aug 92 23:27:29 GMT, chinj@acfcluster.nyu.edu said:

> A friend of mine told me about this newsgroup and said
> I could meet some interesting live people here that are
> nice and careing.  So, I figure I give it a try and perhaps
> it could ease my mind.

Time to find a new friend?
--
Bruce Stephens
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: dennisp@kpc.com (Dennis Preston)
Subject: Re: Blind dates scare me!
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Inc, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:47:36 GMT

>
>Welcome to soc.singles. We're all normal here. 

SCARY STUFF Stef! I just wish my Hump would move to my right shoulder;-)
Dennis
dennisp@kpc.com
From: dhar@oregon.uoregon.edu (Sanjay Dhar)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re:  A Lurker's Tale
Date: 6 Sep 92 07:12:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: oregon.dhar.43
Organization: Materials Science Institute

In article <1992Sep2.011124.26423@netnews.whoi.edu> capnal@aqua.whoi.edu (Al Duester) writes:


>chibber@doc.helios.nd.edu (bakshi chibber) 
>writes in <1992Sep1.195754.18778@news.nd.edu>

>>I called that #. A man answered, said yes, that was Kiran Wagle's #,
>>but that he was out and would be back on monday. I did not pursue
>>...
>>number on the byline. I picked up the phone and called. A woman
>>answered. I asked for Kiran Wagle, and she said "speaking". I 
>>explained my reason for calling ( how to post) and asked if it was
>>......
>>free will, and I called. Ten days later the # had changed, and
>>so apparently, had Kiran Wagle. I have no problem with different 
>>individuals posting under one name. I do have a problem with
>>dishonesty. I will wait to post until I sort out this group a

>I hate to break it to you, but I've known Kiran for over a decade, and
>in that time period, he's always been a guy. I think those of us who
>have met him would have noticed if he'd gone in for surgery. :)

>A different name, and an effeminate voice don't automatically re/define
>one's sex.

Just a little explanation that might help . Kiran is by default a woman's 
name ( at least in India).
Please no flames .... I haven't read the group in a while and don't where
the whole confusion started :-)....
dhar@oregon.uoregon.edu
home:(503)-345-3556   off:(503)-346-4762
From: diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Where the best posts come from
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:03:34 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <lb9fp9INN5um@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:

>around that they're really cthulhu-descended lovecraftian monsters.  Today

Not that is relevant, but I saw a car a few weeks ago with a bumper sticker
that said "Cthulhu for President: Why Settle for the Lesser Evil?"  I 
thought it was GREAT.  My companion left a note on the person's windshield
that said, "Sorry, I'm not running this election year, but I'm backing
George Bush."

> Dawn

			--Diamond

diamond@acpub.duke.edu |  "*Think* before you ask these questions, Mitch."
Elizabeth S. Abrams    |                         --Chris Knight
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ron@turing.toronto.edu (Ron Wessels)
Subject: Re: Where the best posts come from
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Distribution: na
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:11:10 GMT

jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
> Sorry I was up most of the night during a thunder storm because
>my 2 year old insisted a tomato was going to get her.

Isn't it "tomatoe"?  :-)

Ahhh, what I'd give to be attacked by a tomato, tart, pair of melons,
and/or various other food groups.

-- 
Ron Wessels		University of Toronto		ron@turing.toronto.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: buick@belay (Patrick D. Buick)
Subject: Hey, I clued...
Organization: Belay Enterprises Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:44:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.014721.22606@dgbt.doc.ca> michele@dgbt.doc.ca (Michele Guillet) writes:

<things> *grin*
>
>-- 
>Michele Guillet 			The Communications Research Centre 
>3701 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA, K2H 8S2	tel:613-998-2384
>Internet: michele@dgbt.doc.ca	

I just clued up.. you are with the D.O.C in CDA.. nifty.

Patrick
-- 
===========================| Land Line +1 403 286 9188
Patrick D. Buick EMT, EET  | Internet: buick%belay@uunet.uu.net
Belay Enterprises Inc.     | Internet: buickp@cuug.ab.ca
Calgary, Alberta, Canada   | UUCP:...keyword!calgary!pixel!belay!buick
Newsgroups: soc.singles