Favorite Groups

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Robert Thurlow

unread,
Jan 24, 1993, 10:32:43 AM1/24/93
to
In <1993Jan24....@netcom.com> rohw...@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:

> Sure and by the way I am 30. I like, in alphabetical order:

[Mr. Data dumps his database]

Boy, now that was sure what I had hoped to read today on soc.singles!
A computer generated list of artists like "Browne, Jackson". Be still
my beating heart! Just the raw data I wanted! Happy, happy! Joy, joy!

Hint: if you're trying on any level to portray yourself as a human
being with warmth and emotions, it's not working. You come across
in almost any article I read by you as a logical little automaton
with Spock ears. If that's really what you're like, please accept
my apologies for making a big deal about it.

> There are other artists and groups which I like that I may not
>listed.

Oh no! How can your machine mind live with such imprecision?

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thu...@convex.com
"Shouldn't I have this, shouldn't I have this, shouldn't I have all of this,
and, passionate kisses, passionate kisses, passionate kisses, from you?"
- "Passionate Kisses" Lucinda Williams

Charles R. Martin

unread,
Jan 24, 1993, 1:47:48 PM1/24/93
to
In article <1993Jan24....@netcom.com> rohw...@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:


>I'm under 30, and I posted the original quote. Doesn't anyone listen
>to any decent music any more?
>

Sure and by the way I am 30. I like, in alphabetical order:

AC/DC;
.
.
.
Young, Neil.

There are other artists and groups which I like that I may not
listed.

Jeez, I hope you have that on computer, and didn't have to go to all the
effort of typing that in alphabetically to prove that you're humor-
challenged and can't tell when someone is kidding you.
--
Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/mar...@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

Guy Barry

unread,
Jan 24, 1993, 11:25:38 AM1/24/93
to
In article <1993Jan24....@netcom.com> rohw...@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>

>>I'm under 30, and I posted the original quote. Doesn't anyone listen
>>to any decent music any more?
>
> Sure and by the way I am 30. I like, in alphabetical order:

[much deleted]

>ABBA;
>Blondie;
>Frankie Goes to Hollywood;
>Madonna;
>Richard, Cliff;
>John Travolta and Olivia Newton John;

Obviously not.

The question was intended as rhetorical, but let me rephrase it: are
there other people born after 1960 who prefer listening to popular
music from before 1960?
--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757
Computer Laboratory | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street | JANET: Guy....@uk.ac.cam.cl
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK | Internet: Guy....@cl.cam.ac.uk

trygve lode

unread,
Jan 24, 1993, 4:50:21 PM1/24/93
to
In article <1993Jan24.1...@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gd...@cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
>In article <1993Jan24....@netcom.com> rohw...@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>>
>>In article <1993Jan21.1...@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gd...@cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
>
>>>I'm under 30, and I posted the original quote. Doesn't anyone listen
>>>to any decent music any more?
>>
>> Sure and by the way I am 30. I like, in alphabetical order:
>
>[much deleted]
>
>>ABBA;
>>Blondie;
>>Frankie Goes to Hollywood;
>>Madonna;
>>Richard, Cliff;
>>John Travolta and Olivia Newton John;
>
>Obviously not.
>
>The question was intended as rhetorical, but let me rephrase it: are
>there other people born after 1960 who prefer listening to popular
>music from before 1960?

Well, I do have a fondness for Dvorak, J.S. Bach, and a lot of baroque
harpsichord music--does that count?

Trygve (Who has pretty standard musical tastes--Sisters of Mercy, Donovan,
Kate Bush, Mannheim Steamroller, Divinyls, Cream, Pink Floyd,
Tori Amos, the Byrds, Nirvana, Moody Blues, ABBA, Blondie,
Jane Wiedlin, Rachel Sweet, the Guess Who, Jennifer Warnes,
Scorpions, CSN, Altered Images, Billy Joel, Yvonne Elliman,
Joan Jett, Lobo, Alan Parsons', Traffic....)
--
How many brewers does it take to change a light bulb?
One third less than it takes to change a regular bulb.

W. David Rohwer

unread,
Jan 24, 1993, 6:41:20 PM1/24/93
to
In article <thurlow....@convex.convex.com> thu...@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
>In <1993Jan24....@netcom.com> rohw...@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>
>> Sure and by the way I am 30. I like, in alphabetical order:
>
>[Mr. Data dumps his database]
>
>Boy, now that was sure what I had hoped to read today on soc.singles!
>A computer generated list of artists like "Browne, Jackson". Be still
>my beating heart! Just the raw data I wanted! Happy, happy! Joy, joy!
>

Guy Barry asked and I answered him with who I liked. Computer
generated? Nah.

>Hint: if you're trying on any level to portray yourself as a human
>being with warmth and emotions, it's not working.

Fine. I can not control how others perceive me. I can only control
my own actions. If you perceive me the way that you do, then fine. You
do not know my motivations and what I am trying to accomplish, if I am
trying to accomplish anything, by posting here.

>You come across
>in almost any article I read by you as a logical little automaton
>with Spock ears. If that's really what you're like, please accept
>my apologies for making a big deal about it.
>

If that is the way that you interpret how I am by my posts,
then I can not change how you interpret me. After the PSC thread,
I believe that I have revealed more non-logical things about myself.
If you don't see that, then fine.

>> There are other artists and groups which I like that I may not
>>listed.
>
>Oh no! How can your machine mind live with such imprecision?
>

Easy.

--
Reggie elected into Hall of Fame! +---------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------+ / Snowmobiling: Catch the fever! /
/ // W. David Rohwer // Amiga ++---------------------------------+
| \X/ Go A's \X/ 3000 / Internet: rohw...@netcom.COM /
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

W. David Rohwer

unread,
Jan 24, 1993, 6:50:11 PM1/24/93
to
In article <MARTINC.93...@grover.cs.unc.edu> mar...@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24....@netcom.com> rohw...@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>
> >I'm under 30, and I posted the original quote. Doesn't anyone listen
> >to any decent music any more?
> >
>
> Sure and by the way I am 30. I like, in alphabetical order:
>
> AC/DC;
> .
> .
> .
> Young, Neil.
>
> There are other artists and groups which I like that I may not
> listed.
>
>Jeez, I hope you have that on computer, and didn't have to go to all the
>effort of typing that in alphabetically to prove that you're humor-
>challenged and can't tell when someone is kidding you.
>--

No, I did not have the list on my computer or anywhere else for
that matter.

If you look at a follow-up article to my article, written by Guy
Barry, then you will see that he said, "The question was intended to
be rhetorical, but let me rephrase it: ...." So, it seems that Guy
may have meant for his question to be non-humorous and that is how
I intrepreted it. If you see it as humorous and I don't, then it is
not that big of a deal. I am sure that I see some things that I
believe are humorous and you see the same things as non-humorous. That
is just the way that life goes.

trygve lode

unread,
Jan 24, 1993, 8:24:17 PM1/24/93
to
In article <thurlow....@convex.convex.com> thu...@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
>In <1993Jan24....@netcom.com> rohw...@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>
>> Sure and by the way I am 30. I like, in alphabetical order:
>
>[Mr. Data dumps his database]
>
>Boy, now that was sure what I had hoped to read today on soc.singles!
>A computer generated list of artists like "Browne, Jackson". Be still
>my beating heart! Just the raw data I wanted! Happy, happy! Joy, joy!
>
>Hint: if you're trying on any level to portray yourself as a human
>being with warmth and emotions, it's not working. You come across
>in almost any article I read by you as a logical little automaton
>with Spock ears. If that's really what you're like, please accept
>my apologies for making a big deal about it.

Funny, I don't recall getting that impression from his posts, either
recently or in past months. However, back during the "Pre-Sex-Contract"
flame-fest, I seem to recall a bunch of people who reacted with such a
lack of emotional control or rationality that perhaps even David's
return flames seemed so logical by comparison as to seem almost Spockian.

Trygve
--
"I never would have guessed that Grandma would have brought a severed
head back from the 7-11, which was reasonable, because she never did."

dmc

unread,
Jan 24, 1993, 8:29:43 PM1/24/93
to
In article <1993Jan24....@netcom.com> rohw...@netcom.com (W. David
Rohwer) once again proves that he is an alien life-form with:

[Gigi quote and convo deleted]

>Some dude in the UK sez:
>>I'm under 30, and I posted the original quote. Doesn't anyone listen
>>to any decent music any more?

> Sure and by the way I am 30. I like, in alphabetical order:

[idiotic list deleted]

Jesus Christ Superstar, Rohwer! You're a numbskull... Nobody
gives a tinkersdamn what you like. (Yea, I'm speaking on behalf of the
world here...)

> There are other artists and groups which I like that I may not
>listed.

Yea, I'm sure there are -- but they ran you outta Tower Records
before you could write them all down, huh?

Go write a contract or something, you're becoming really irritating.


Desiree


Mean Green Dancing Machine

unread,
Jan 24, 1993, 8:31:59 PM1/24/93
to
>The question was intended as rhetorical, but let me rephrase it: are
>there other people born after 1960 who prefer listening to popular
>music from before 1960?

Yes. Unlike Mr. Rohwer, I shall refrain from abusing your eyes with a
catalog.
--
--- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
@netcom.com

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

Kinky vanilla queer het

dmc

unread,
Jan 24, 1993, 8:44:43 PM1/24/93
to
In article <1993Jan24.2...@netcom.com> rohw...@netcom.com (W. David
Rohwer) addresses the masses from atop Mt. Olympus:
>Rob (he's cool) Thurlow spake:
>>Rohwer's typical twitish droppings:

>>
>>> Sure and by the way I am 30. I like, in alphabetical order:
>>
>>[Mr. Data dumps his database]

(this line has nothing to do with the content
of this post, I just liked it and wanted to see it again...)

> Guy Barry asked and I answered him with who I liked. Computer
>generated? Nah.

Rohwer, get real. Guy Barry asked if people listen to good
music (or something similar) these days... I have to say, from my
viewpoint, the bulk of your list does not constitute good music.
ABBA? God. You should be shot, you really should...(or be forced
to hang with Dan Holmes for an extended period of time...) He didn't
ask for people to list out in alphafuckingbetical order the groups
they liked the mostest. A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

>>Hint: if you're trying on any level to portray yourself as a human
>>being with warmth and emotions, it's not working.
>
> Fine. I can not control how others perceive me. I can only control
>my own actions. If you perceive me the way that you do, then fine. You
>do not know my motivations and what I am trying to accomplish, if I am
>trying to accomplish anything, by posting here.

La dee fucking dah. Get off your high horse Rohwer. Stop
trying to justify yourself all the time.

>>You come across
>>in almost any article I read by you as a logical little automaton
>>with Spock ears. If that's really what you're like, please accept
>>my apologies for making a big deal about it.
>
> If that is the way that you interpret how I am by my posts,
>then I can not change how you interpret me. After the PSC thread,
>I believe that I have revealed more non-logical things about myself.
>If you don't see that, then fine.

If you're trying to fake a Moscny on us here, you're failing.
Miserably. If you're trying to show your ability to respond to jibes
with humour; you're failing. If you're trying to rationalize, and
be cool, calm and logical in all things --- you're succeeding. Jesu!
You're a cold fish, Daveymeboy. Gotta loosen up before you start to
crack.


Desiree

dreas

unread,
Jan 25, 1993, 12:11:25 AM1/25/93
to
In article 23...@netcom.com, rohw...@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>
>In article <1993Jan21.1...@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gd...@cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
>>In article <1jlmqk...@lynx.unm.edu> blow...@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan20....@netcom.com> aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>>>>>All together now:
>>>>>"We met at nine..." "we met at eight..." "I was on time..." "no, you
>>>>>were late..." "Ah yes, I remember it well."
>>>>For the totally clueless out there, this is from _Gigi_.
>>>
>>>And for those under 30, "Gigi" was a broadway musical from long back. :)
>>>r.

>>
>>I'm under 30, and I posted the original quote. Doesn't anyone listen
>>to any decent music any more?
>>
>
> Sure and by the way I am 30. I like, in alphabetical order:

[Pap and puffery deleted]

Now that we know everything about your taste in music, we can clearly
see that you have yet to come out of a thing called adolescence.

Nobody cares what you like or don't like unless you actually get intimate
with others, and they ask you. By the looks of things, you have problems
getting intimate with others because you appear to have an intellectual
age of thirteen, yet you may be thirty biologically.

This is a most saddening predicament, Ol'man.

rON was just making an innocent little joke that stereotypes people under
thirty. Others who read the group (myself included, BTW) are younger than
you and did no more than snicker because they have the ability to laugh at
themselves, whether they "remember it well" or not.

Get a life, and stop being such a foolish child...

dreas

dreas

unread,
Jan 25, 1993, 12:26:19 AM1/25/93
to
In article 29...@infodev.cam.ac.uk, gd...@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:

>The question was intended as rhetorical, but let me rephrase it: are
>there other people born after 1960 who prefer listening to popular
>music from before 1960?

Of course there are. I enjoy oldies because they have an energy that
today's muck just doesn't capture. I won't give you an ugly list, but
I enjoy rock, blues, and rhythm and blues from the 'fifties and earlier.

Jazz from the 'twenties really works for me, just like classical music.
And BTW, I was born in 1964...

dreas


Guy Barry

unread,
Jan 25, 1993, 7:07:43 AM1/25/93
to
In lots of articles, lots of boring people write:

>[lots of flames I can't be bothered to quote]

Oh, shut up the lot of you! I really couldn't care less what music
anyone listens to. Now I remember why I unsubscribed to this group
years ago.

trygve lode

unread,
Jan 25, 1993, 1:00:36 PM1/25/93
to
In article <1993Jan25....@netcom.com> des...@netcom.com (dmc) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24....@netcom.com> rohw...@netcom.com (W. David
> Rohwer) once again proves that he is an alien life-form with:
>
>[Gigi quote and convo deleted]
>
>>Some dude in the UK sez:
>>>I'm under 30, and I posted the original quote. Doesn't anyone listen
>>>to any decent music any more?
>
>> Sure and by the way I am 30. I like, in alphabetical order:
>
> [idiotic list deleted]
>
> Jesus Christ Superstar, Rohwer! You're a numbskull... Nobody
>gives a tinkersdamn what you like. (Yea, I'm speaking on behalf of the
>world here...)

No, you're not--actually, I rather like knowing a little bit about the
tastes of the people I've gotten familiar with over the net; it's nice
to get a glimpse into their spirits from a slightly different angle
(even ones who claim not to be a net.personality). (For that matter,
I rather like Jesus Christ Superstar as well, though I like the version
with the blue album cover better than the one with the brown album
cover.)

It's not as if the topic of music hasn't come up on soc.singles many
times before (oddly enough without anyone leaping into personal attacks
on the people discussing the subject)--I've even been inspired by some
of the comments on the subject made by such notables as Rob Thurlow,
John Fereira, and Charlie Martin enough to go down to the local record
store and buy copies of albums they were discussing.

[rest of personal attack deleted]

Trygve (Have you considered switching to decaffeinated?)
--
"What do you get when you drop a piano down a mineshaft?
A flat minor."

dmc

unread,
Jan 25, 1993, 2:34:36 PM1/25/93
to
In article <1993Jan25....@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tl...@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:

>No, you're not--actually, I rather like knowing a little bit about the
>tastes of the people I've gotten familiar with over the net; it's nice
>to get a glimpse into their spirits from a slightly different angle
>(even ones who claim not to be a net.personality).

Duoy. My comment about speaking on behalf of the world was
intended to stop those from jumping in and saying "but you're not
speaking on behalf of me" -- obviously it didn't work. Simply put,
I was stating that I realized I was *not* speaking on behalf of anybody
else but myself. Alas, the twist didn't take the intended turn.

And that's all cool and groovy if you like to read long
alphabetical lists -- tis your preference. Ain't mine. And as long
as they crop up, I will say, I don't like it. I fail to see how a list
showing nearly every popular top 40 group over the past ten years can
give insight into a person, but whatever...

> (For that matter,
>I rather like Jesus Christ Superstar as well, though I like the version
>with the blue album cover better than the one with the brown album
>cover.)

I wouldn't know. It's not my taste in music personally. I
gave it a listen a time or two and decided it wasn't my cup o' tea.

>It's not as if the topic of music hasn't come up on soc.singles many
>times before (oddly enough without anyone leaping into personal attacks
>on the people discussing the subject)--I've even been inspired by some
>of the comments on the subject made by such notables as Rob Thurlow,
>John Fereira, and Charlie Martin enough to go down to the local record
>store and buy copies of albums they were discussing.

Yea? So? You're talking about a discussion. Was Davey's
dump a discussion of his tastes -- or just a gagging list of groups?
Two different things. And yea, Rob's got cool taste in music.
(and yea, that's a suckup...) John's cool too (suckup II); I don't
know Charlie and I don't suck those I don't know.

>Trygve (Have you considered switching to decaffeinated?)

Close. I was undergoing a massive nicotine fit. Got any
'ludes?

Whatever,

Desiree

Rick Shrum

unread,
Jan 25, 1993, 3:34:16 PM1/25/93
to
In article <1993Jan25....@netcom.com> des...@netcom.com (dmc) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.2...@netcom.com> rohw...@netcom.com (W. David
> Rohwer) addresses the masses from atop Mt. Olympus:
>>Rob (he's cool) Thurlow spake:
>>>Rohwer's typical twitish droppings:
>>>
>ABBA? God. You should be shot, you really should...(or be forced
>to hang with Dan Holmes for an extended period of time...) He didn't

WHADDYA MEAN?!!! Dan Holmes rules the world!!!!


>
>
>Desiree
>

R ****
I
C
**** K

Jeff Wall

unread,
Jan 25, 1993, 4:54:06 PM1/25/93
to
In article <1993Jan25....@netcom.com> des...@netcom.com (dmc) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24....@netcom.com> rohw...@netcom.com (W. David
> Rohwer) once again proves that he is an alien life-form with:
>
>[Gigi quote and convo deleted]
>
>>Some dude in the UK sez:
>>>I'm under 30, and I posted the original quote. Doesn't anyone listen
>>>to any decent music any more?
>
>> Sure and by the way I am 30. I like, in alphabetical order:
>
> [idiotic list deleted]
>
> Jesus Christ Superstar, Rohwer! You're a numbskull... Nobody
>gives a tinkersdamn what you like. (Yea, I'm speaking on behalf of the
>world here...)

Boy am I glad I'm not part of this world on a regular basis because I
would rather not have you speaking for me, thankyouverymuch.

This is your second post flaming David and I really don't understand why,
guess I don't care much either, but why don't you turn that pent up energy
toward something more constructive like flaming the people who post
personals or something :-).

Cheers,

Jeff Wall

Jeff Wall

unread,
Jan 25, 1993, 5:05:34 PM1/25/93
to
In article <1993Jan25....@sol.UVic.CA> atov...@engr.UVic.CA writes:
>In article 23...@netcom.com, rohw...@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>>
>>In article <1993Jan21.1...@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gd...@cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
>>>In article <1jlmqk...@lynx.unm.edu> blow...@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan20....@netcom.com> aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>>>>>>All together now:
>>>>>>"We met at nine..." "we met at eight..." "I was on time..." "no, you
>>>>>>were late..." "Ah yes, I remember it well."
>>>>>For the totally clueless out there, this is from _Gigi_.
>>>>
>>>>And for those under 30, "Gigi" was a broadway musical from long back. :)
>>>>r.
>>>
>>>I'm under 30, and I posted the original quote. Doesn't anyone listen
>>>to any decent music any more?
>>>
>>
>> Sure and by the way I am 30. I like, in alphabetical order:
>
>[Pap and puffery deleted]
>
>Now that we know everything about your taste in music, we can clearly
>see that you have yet to come out of a thing called adolescence.

That's fine with me. I plan on being the world oldest teenager. I don't
ever want to be old and stuffy. So there, Na, Na, Na-Na-Na.

No seriously I think there is some thing to be said for someone (and I'm
not saying David is this person) who has the ability to change with the
times and adapt to what essentially amounts
to new cultures. I guess I get bored with the status quo.

[drivel deleted]

Cheers,

Jeff Wall

dmc

unread,
Jan 25, 1993, 6:36:39 PM1/25/93
to
In article <1993Jan25.2...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> jw...@nyx.cs.du.edu
(Jeff Wall) writes:

>Boy am I glad I'm not part of this world on a regular basis because I
>would rather not have you speaking for me, thankyouverymuch.

Yeayeayea. Blah blah blah. Already said why I said it.
See that. If you don't want to; don't.

>This is your second post flaming David and I really don't understand why,
>guess I don't care much either, but why don't you turn that pent up energy
>toward something more constructive like flaming the people who post
>personals or something :-).

Tell you what Jeff -- you flame the personals or whatever you
see as potential bbq material -- I'll flame or not flame whatever I
see fit, okie dokie artichokie?

But lose the smiley, I heartedly dislike people that talk outta
both sides of their face.


Toodles,

Desiree


trygve lode

unread,
Jan 25, 1993, 7:38:30 PM1/25/93
to
In article <1993Jan25.1...@netcom.com> des...@netcom.com (dmc) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25....@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tl...@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>
>>No, you're not--actually, I rather like knowing a little bit about the
>>tastes of the people I've gotten familiar with over the net; it's nice
>>to get a glimpse into their spirits from a slightly different angle
>>(even ones who claim not to be a net.personality).
>
> Duoy.

I always wondered how that was spelled.

> My comment about speaking on behalf of the world was
>intended to stop those from jumping in and saying "but you're not
>speaking on behalf of me" -- obviously it didn't work. Simply put,
>I was stating that I realized I was *not* speaking on behalf of anybody
>else but myself. Alas, the twist didn't take the intended turn.

Oh, well.

> And that's all cool and groovy if you like to read long
>alphabetical lists -- tis your preference. Ain't mine. And as long
>as they crop up, I will say, I don't like it. I fail to see how a list
>showing nearly every popular top 40 group over the past ten years can
>give insight into a person, but whatever...

You'd be surprised; another great way of getting a sideways look into
someone's skull is by hearing what their favorite jokes are--it'll tell
you quite a lot if you pay attention.

>> (For that matter,
>>I rather like Jesus Christ Superstar as well, though I like the version
>>with the blue album cover better than the one with the brown album
>>cover.)
>
> I wouldn't know. It's not my taste in music personally. I
>gave it a listen a time or two and decided it wasn't my cup o' tea.

Too bad--Andrew Lloyd Webber has written some of the best musicals
of the last few decades and I think they're quite enjoyable to listen
to. (Though Les Miserables still holds on to the position of "My
Favorite Musical.")

>>It's not as if the topic of music hasn't come up on soc.singles many
>>times before (oddly enough without anyone leaping into personal attacks
>>on the people discussing the subject)--I've even been inspired by some
>>of the comments on the subject made by such notables as Rob Thurlow,
>>John Fereira, and Charlie Martin enough to go down to the local record
>>store and buy copies of albums they were discussing.
>
> Yea? So? You're talking about a discussion. Was Davey's
>dump a discussion of his tastes -- or just a gagging list of groups?
>Two different things. And yea, Rob's got cool taste in music.
>(and yea, that's a suckup...) John's cool too (suckup II); I don't
>know Charlie and I don't suck those I don't know.

(Hmmmm..."a gaggle of groups"? That works.) Hey, not every message
about music is going to be formatted and phrased exactly the same way;
some people may even like some thing you don't care for. These things
happen--at least it's not an 800-line anonymous personal ad....

>>Trygve (Have you considered switching to decaffeinated?)
>
> Close. I was undergoing a massive nicotine fit. Got any
>'ludes?

Hang on a sec'--I think I've still got some Quayle-ludes left around
here somewhere. Just don't take too many at once, because they can
have strange side effects, not the least of which might be to turn you
into "Desireeeeeeeee."

Trygve
--
Maturity, as the term is normally used, indicates the extent to which
someone behaves in a socially expected manner. Some level of "maturity"
is necessary to operate within society, but too much tends to eliminate
the individual as a person.

quir...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

unread,
Jan 26, 1993, 1:33:02 PM1/26/93
to
jw...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Jeff Wall) writes:

> That's fine with me. I plan on being the world oldest teenager.

Well, you'll have to kill Cliff Richard first. Not that that's a bad thing,
mind you...

--
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (Quir...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz)
"Only the free have disposition to be truthful.
Only the truthful have the interest to be just.
Only the just possess the willpower to be free." - WH Auden.

Jeff Wall

unread,
Jan 26, 1993, 9:14:17 AM1/26/93
to
In article <1993Jan25.2...@netcom.com> des...@netcom.com (dmc) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.2...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> jw...@nyx.cs.du.edu
> (Jeff Wall) writes:
>
>>Boy am I glad I'm not part of this world on a regular basis because I
>>would rather not have you speaking for me, thankyouverymuch.
>
> Yeayeayea. Blah blah blah. Already said why I said it.
>See that. If you don't want to; don't.

Yeah I read it - but I'm curious - how did you expect the net.world to
assume you weren't serious?? I mean there was no indication that you were
being sarcastic. I took what you wrote at face value, so sue me.

>>This is your second post flaming David and I really don't understand why,
>>guess I don't care much either, but why don't you turn that pent up energy
>>toward something more constructive like flaming the people who post
>>personals or something :-).
>
> Tell you what Jeff -- you flame the personals or whatever you
>see as potential bbq material -- I'll flame or not flame whatever I
>see fit, okie dokie artichokie?

Kay-o, I was just looking out for the overall good of soc.singles.

> But lose the smiley, I heartedly dislike people that talk outta
>both sides of their face.

Hmmmm, didn't know I was. You took my post as a flame, it wasn't. I
don't usually find flaming to accomplish much, although they can be
humerous sometimes. The point of the smiley was to lighten the situation
up a little. I was smiling when I wrote it so I put a smiley on the post.
Cool down, relax, take a breath, you're liable to have a stroke if you keep
this up :-) :-) <- note smileys, this was meant to be said with a smile on
the face. Don't take life so seriously.

>Toodles,
>
>Desiree

Toodle-oo,

Jeff

Charles R. Martin

unread,
Jan 26, 1993, 5:16:02 AM1/26/93
to
In article <1993Jan26.0...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tl...@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:

In article <1993Jan25.1...@netcom.com> des...@netcom.com (dmc) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25....@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tl...@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>

> Yea? So? You're talking about a discussion. Was Davey's
>dump a discussion of his tastes -- or just a gagging list of groups?
>Two different things. And yea, Rob's got cool taste in music.
>(and yea, that's a suckup...) John's cool too (suckup II); I don't
>know Charlie and I don't suck those I don't know.

Oh, don't be such a stick in the mud, Des.

Charles R. Martin

unread,
Jan 26, 1993, 5:46:10 AM1/26/93
to

> That's fine with me. I plan on being the world oldest teenager.

Well, you'll have to kill Cliff Richard first. Not that that's a
bad thing, mind you...

Are you sure he's not already dead? I mean, have you seen the way he
looks now?

smit...@advtech.uswest.com

unread,
Jan 26, 1993, 3:36:40 PM1/26/93
to
In article <MARTINC.93...@grover.cs.unc.edu> mar...@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:


Now who took the title of "world's oldest teenager" away from Dick Clark?
I must be tuning in to a different station.

Cari

dmc

unread,
Jan 26, 1993, 3:43:46 PM1/26/93
to
In article <1993Jan26.1...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> jw...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Jeff Wall) writes:

[my comments as to why I said something deleted..]


>Yeah I read it - but I'm curious - how did you expect the net.world to
>assume you weren't serious?? I mean there was no indication that you were
>being sarcastic. I took what you wrote at face value, so sue me.

Naw, I'd rather settle outta court, if you don't mind. Lookie,
I said that I failed to pull off the twist in the desired manner.
But frankly, I really don't give a hoot if the net.world.at.large
understands everytime I'm being sarcastic, phunny or whatever. I've
been around here for a long time (no age jokes, if you please) but even
I fuck up every now and again. Capische?

>I said:
>> Tell you what Jeff -- you flame the personals or whatever you
>>see as potential bbq material -- I'll flame or not flame whatever I
>>see fit, okie dokie artichokie?
>
>Kay-o, I was just looking out for the overall good of soc.singles.

Don't do that unless you get a written contract that you'll
be paid for your services. It's hell being a playground parent -- even
around the best behaved bunch...

>Hmmmm, didn't know I was. You took my post as a flame, it wasn't. I
>don't usually find flaming to accomplish much, although they can be
>humerous sometimes. The point of the smiley was to lighten the situation
>up a little. I was smiling when I wrote it so I put a smiley on the post.
>Cool down, relax, take a breath, you're liable to have a stroke if you keep
>this up :-) :-) <- note smileys, this was meant to be said with a smile on
>the face. Don't take life so seriously.

You assume I took your post as a flame. And thanks for the
smiley lesson, but I generally find the little critters to be a waste of
time, myself -- so I don't use them. Enough people know my style to
know when I'm joshing, manipulating the net, or yanking chains that I've
outgrown them.

And thanks, aussi, for the hints. But I don't take life so
seriously as most of you think. It's all an evil ploy ...

Remember, I do not exist...

Desiree

dmc

unread,
Jan 26, 1993, 3:49:24 PM1/26/93
to
In article <MARTINC.93...@grover.cs.unc.edu> mar...@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) imparts the sage advice:
>I said:
> >{...} I don't know Charlie and I don't suck those I don't know.

>
>Oh, don't be such a stick in the mud, Des.

Can't Charlie -- it's in my genes...


Desiree

N.B. Don't worry net.folken if you don't get it -- you have to know
me to understand.

Thomas Beagle

unread,
Jan 27, 1993, 4:58:03 PM1/27/93
to
In article <1993Jan26.2...@netcom.com> des...@netcom.com (dmc) writes:
> You assume I took your post as a flame. And thanks for the
>smiley lesson, but I generally find the little critters to be a waste of
>time, myself -- so I don't use them. Enough people know my style to
>know when I'm joshing, manipulating the net, or yanking chains that I've
>outgrown them.

Police officer : "Madam, at no point before the car crash were you
seen to be indicating. Can you explain this?"

Desiree : "Thanks for the indicator lesson, but I generally find


the little critters to be a waste of time, myself -- so I don't use

them. Enough people know that I live in this street so they should
have realised I was going to turn in here. It was his fault that he
doesn't live in the area!"

Could all the net.old.farts try to remember that just because they've
been on the net since it was net.singles (or whatever) doesn't
actually make their posts any clearer?

--
Thomas Beagle | tho...@datamark.co.nz Work: 64 4 233 8186
Technical Writer | tho...@cavebbs.welly.gen.nz Home: 64 4 499 3832
Wellington, NZ | A man without a woman is like tea without sugar.

Robert Thurlow

unread,
Jan 27, 1993, 10:46:04 PM1/27/93
to

>It's not as if the topic of music hasn't come up on soc.singles many
>times before (oddly enough without anyone leaping into personal attacks
>on the people discussing the subject)--I've even been inspired by some
>of the comments on the subject made by such notables as Rob Thurlow,
>John Fereira, and Charlie Martin enough to go down to the local record
>store and buy copies of albums they were discussing.

I very much agree. You know, on thinking about it, I think what I had
the biggest problem with in David's post was that he made a list almost
designed to preclude discussion with that "Young, Neil" crap (I still
can-fucking-not believe a human being would type it in that way!). It's
almost like a personal ad - the excusion of open discussion is the
real unwelcome thing. If I could make my feeble human brain figure out
how David expected anything good and interesting to come out of that
post, I think I'd write a book.

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thu...@convex.com
"Shouldn't I have this, shouldn't I have this, shouldn't I have all of this,
and, passionate kisses, passionate kisses, passionate kisses, from you?"
- "Passionate Kisses" Lucinda Williams

rON.

unread,
Jan 28, 1993, 3:17:28 AM1/28/93
to
In article <1993Jan27.2...@datamark.co.nz> tho...@datamark.co.nz (Thomas Beagle) writes:
>Could all the net.old.farts try to remember that just because they've
>been on the net since it was net.singles (or whatever) doesn't
>actually make their posts any clearer?

I think he just called a big lot of us 'old'. :)
Not all of us that have been reading since the Dawn of Time (no offense, Ms.
Hardin) of (yes it was) net.singles are 'old.farts'. :)
Hell, I'm not even close to 30 yet. (getting there, but not quite yet :)
r.

rON.

unread,
Jan 28, 1993, 3:25:05 AM1/28/93
to
In article <thurlow....@convex.convex.com> thu...@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
>>>Boy, now that was sure what I had hoped to read today on soc.singles!
>>>A computer generated list of artists like "Browne, Jackson". Be still
>>>my beating heart! Just the raw data I wanted! Happy, happy! Joy, joy!
>You mean you enter "Browne, Jackson" BY HAND? Do you do that when
>speaking, too? You must have a hard time talking to anyone except
>toll-free salespeople.

Actually, my personal catalog of CDs is listed like that.
But, of course, since I do things like place my Led Zeppelin under 'Z', or
that sorta thing (hey, >I< know where to find 'em :) I guess I can understand
daves list. (though I do think that posting the whole thing looked silly)
r.

Graydon

unread,
Jan 28, 1993, 1:02:59 PM1/28/93
to
In article <thurlow....@convex.convex.com>, thu...@convex.com (Robert
Thurlow) says:
>In <1993Jan27.2...@datamark.co.nz> tho...@datamark.co.nz (Thomas )
>Beagle
>writes:

>
>>Could all the net.old.farts try to remember that just because they've
>>been on the net since it was net.singles (or whatever) doesn't
>>actually make their posts any clearer?
>
>You bet! But in exchange, could all the net.young.fucks try to
>remember that we're not generally *trying* to be cliquish and
>exclusive?

>
>Rob T
>--
>Rob Thurlow, thu...@convex.com

You're not.

It's _very_ rare that something that desperately needs more context
than can be inferred from what's posted with it gets posted, as well.

It (for the other wet-behind-the-ears-types) also helps if you
can post something that has some sort of 'hook' to it - arguments
that are strongly closed don't get responded to, much.

Graydon

Dawn Hardin

unread,
Jan 28, 1993, 10:40:33 AM1/28/93
to
In article <thurlow....@convex.convex.com> thu...@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
>In <1993Jan25.1...@netcom.com> des...@netcom.com (dmc) writes:
>
>Wow. I want to give this a high mark, because *nobody* ever sucks
>up to me (whimper, whine, sob :-) Can someone other than the Russian
>judge send me the rating privately so I can calibrate my meter?
>

Hey! I sucked up to you not a month ago. You mean you didn't even
notice?

Dawn (the has-been net.goddess)
--
"You have this adorable and misguided notion that death is something really
radical and cool but I still can't help being attracted to your fresh-faced
uncompromised tatoo-ed rebel stance and god damn, I'd like to help you
sing your tune." "Folk Song..." by Bongwater

John Fereira

unread,
Jan 28, 1993, 3:45:23 PM1/28/93
to
In article <1993Jan27.2...@datamark.co.nz> tho...@datamark.co.nz (Thomas Beagle) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.2...@netcom.com> des...@netcom.com (dmc) writes:
|> You assume I took your post as a flame. And thanks for the
|>smiley lesson, but I generally find the little critters to be a waste of
|>time, myself -- so I don't use them. Enough people know my style to
|>know when I'm joshing, manipulating the net, or yanking chains that I've
|>outgrown them.
|
|Police officer : "Madam, at no point before the car crash were you
|seen to be indicating. Can you explain this?"
|
|Desiree : "Thanks for the indicator lesson, but I generally find
|the little critters to be a waste of time, myself -- so I don't use
|them. Enough people know that I live in this street so they should
|have realised I was going to turn in here. It was his fault that he
|doesn't live in the area!"

Police officer: "Sir, the reason that I pulled you over is becuase
your turn signal has been flashing for the last 20 miles. When you
started honking your horn every five seconds a few miles back I thought
there might be something wrong with your vehicle."

Thomas: "Oh, yes officer, I realize that. You see, I was planning on
changing lanes in about five miles and I wanted to make sure that everyone
understood my intentions.

--
-john

Robert Thurlow

unread,
Jan 27, 1993, 10:27:41 PM1/27/93
to
In <1993Jan24.2...@netcom.com> rohw...@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:

>>Boy, now that was sure what I had hoped to read today on soc.singles!
>>A computer generated list of artists like "Browne, Jackson". Be still
>>my beating heart! Just the raw data I wanted! Happy, happy! Joy, joy!

> Guy Barry asked and I answered him with who I liked. Computer
>generated? Nah.

You mean you enter "Browne, Jackson" BY HAND? Do you do that when


speaking, too? You must have a hard time talking to anyone except
toll-free salespeople.

>>Hint: if you're trying on any level to portray yourself as a human


>>being with warmth and emotions, it's not working.

> Fine. I can not control how others perceive me. I can only control
>my own actions. If you perceive me the way that you do, then fine. You
>do not know my motivations and what I am trying to accomplish, if I am
>trying to accomplish anything, by posting here.

BULLSHIT. You create an image of yourself when you post here; how
you choose your words and your topics entirely controls how your
audience views you until you actually meet someone in the flesh.
You can make yourself come across in any way you want! Best of all,
you can try to select your words such that your basic personality
comes through. That means that people who like your net.personality
will stand a good chance to like your real.personality. You can do
this, many have! To say "It's not anything to do with me" is the
biggest cop-out of all. If you truly don't give a fuck about what
anyone else thinks of you, you probably wouldn't have posted your
music list, I think.

>>You come across
>>in almost any article I read by you as a logical little automaton
>>with Spock ears. If that's really what you're like, please accept
>>my apologies for making a big deal about it.
>>

> If that is the way that you interpret how I am by my posts,
>then I can not change how you interpret me. After the PSC thread,
>I believe that I have revealed more non-logical things about myself.
>If you don't see that, then fine.

Actually, you aren't emotionless; I did learn that from the PSC
thread. Thanks for the correction. You're suppressing any positive,
warm emotions (i.e., any emotions that aren't hatred at any woman who
dares to get money from you and intolerance toward a church). As such,
you make my skin crawl, where before I simply though of you as having
no redeeming characteristics. Get thee to a mental health facility!

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thu...@convex.com

Robert Thurlow

unread,
Jan 27, 1993, 10:39:27 PM1/27/93
to
In <1993Jan24.2...@netcom.com> rohw...@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:

> If you look at a follow-up article to my article, written by Guy
>Barry, then you will see that he said, "The question was intended to
>be rhetorical, but let me rephrase it: ...." So, it seems that Guy
>may have meant for his question to be non-humorous and that is how
>I intrepreted it.

I agree, I didn't think it was rhetorical. But did you expect any
responses?

I can see it now. Dream babe writes:

"Oh David, you're so cool! I love "Young, Neil" as well! Let's fuck!"

Robert Thurlow

unread,
Jan 27, 1993, 10:57:27 PM1/27/93
to

>Kay-o, I was just looking out for the overall good of soc.singles.

WOW! You get to do this?!?!? I'M IMPRESSED, D00D. I never ran into
someone in charge of the whole of soc.singles before in my whole eight
years of posting, I mean, usually we have to do that messy stuff of
just speaking for ourselves, y'know? C00L! Boy I'm glad I met you -
you should fax me your business card, y'know?

>> But lose the smiley, I heartedly dislike people that talk outta
>>both sides of their face.

>Hmmmm, didn't know I was. You took my post as a flame, it wasn't. I
>don't usually find flaming to accomplish much, although they can be
>humerous sometimes. The point of the smiley was to lighten the situation
>up a little. I was smiling when I wrote it so I put a smiley on the post.

It runs in my mind that Des prefers her criticisms straight, no chaser.
I know I do - one of my ugliest flames was to a person who opened a
piece of mail with "Thank you for telling me that" and closed with
"You guys are so damned arrogant!" Be consistent.

Robert Thurlow

unread,
Jan 27, 1993, 11:05:43 PM1/27/93
to

>Could all the net.old.farts try to remember that just because they've
>been on the net since it was net.singles (or whatever) doesn't
>actually make their posts any clearer?

You bet! But in exchange, could all the net.young.fucks try to


remember that we're not generally *trying* to be cliquish and
exclusive?

Rob T

Thomas Beagle

unread,
Jan 28, 1993, 4:57:19 PM1/28/93
to
In article <1k84qo...@lynx.unm.edu> blow...@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.2...@datamark.co.nz> tho...@datamark.co.nz (Thomas Beagle) writes:
>>Could all the net.old.farts try to remember that just because they've
>>been on the net since it was net.singles (or whatever) doesn't
>>actually make their posts any clearer?
>
>I think he just called a big lot of us 'old'. :)

If the wheelchair fits... :-)

>Not all of us that have been reading since the Dawn of Time (no offense, Ms.
>Hardin) of (yes it was) net.singles are 'old.farts'. :)

I liked Rob's "net.young.fuck" in response.

On the other hand, some of us have been reading Usenet for a few years
now but have only just got around to discovering soc.singles. We don't
know everyone here that well and using such things as smilies does
help to make meanings clear.

ObSingles : Damn, there I was feeling happy with my life and enjoying
being single until, whammo, I meet a perfectly unavailable perfect
woman. Now I feel all tense again...

Robert Thurlow

unread,
Jan 27, 1993, 10:50:11 PM1/27/93
to

>And yea, Rob's got cool taste in music.
>(and yea, that's a suckup...)

Wow. I want to give this a high mark, because *nobody* ever sucks


up to me (whimper, whine, sob :-) Can someone other than the Russian
judge send me the rating privately so I can calibrate my meter?

Rob T

trygve lode

unread,
Jan 29, 1993, 12:22:57 AM1/29/93
to
In article <thurlow....@convex.convex.com> thu...@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:

] In <1993Jan24.2...@netcom.com>

] rohw...@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
]
] > Guy Barry asked and I answered him with who I liked. Computer

] >generated? Nah.
]
] You mean you enter "Browne, Jackson" BY HAND? Do you do that when
] speaking, too? You must have a hard time talking to anyone except
] toll-free salespeople.

[most of tirade deleted; if you care, you can read it in any of the
several messages Rob has been posting each day that all say the same
thing, with each only a little more strident than the previous one]

] As such,

] you make my skin crawl, where before I simply though of you as having
] no redeeming characteristics. Get thee to a mental health facility!

I know someone who, back in his early to mid teens, used to have
tantrums like this when someone did something he thought was improper,
like wearing a shirt that didn't have all it's buttons buttoned--he
figured that if a shirt had buttons, then they were meant to be buttoned
and would become quite vocally angry at anyone who failed to use buttons
in the manner he felt they should be. Granted, leaving a collar button
undone is a bit more serious (and at least as peculiar) as typing
"Browne, Jackson," but there were other things at least as trivial as
your particular hangup that he couldn't deal with rationally either.

Fortunately, he grew out of it not too long after becoming old enough to
drive--now, I'd gotten the impression from your other posts that you
were perhaps a little older than that (do correct me if I'm wrong here),
but perhaps you're just a late bloomer and just need a little more time.

Ah, well; if nothing else, the recent onslaught of your anti-David
messages has given him a good chance to impress me with his ability to
remain intellectually competent and rational no matter how much you
stomp your little feet and throw ASCII tantrums at him for typing in
a few names in alphabetical order or having well-expressed and
considered ideas on controversial subjects.

Trygve
--
"There exists considerable anecdotal evidence for helpful dolphins carrying
injured swimmers back to shore; however, it seems unlikely that injured
swimmers who were carried out to sea by equally well-intentioned but
somewhat more misguided dolphins would have much to say about it."

Robert Thurlow

unread,
Jan 29, 1993, 12:55:13 AM1/29/93
to
In <lmfvjh...@news.bbn.com> dha...@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:

>In article <thurlow....@convex.convex.com> thu...@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:

>>Wow. I want to give this a high mark, because *nobody* ever sucks
>>up to me (whimper, whine, sob :-) Can someone other than the Russian
>>judge send me the rating privately so I can calibrate my meter?

>Hey! I sucked up to you not a month ago. You mean you didn't even
>notice?

Um, er, ah, well, OF COURSE I noticed your splendid suckup, dearest!
I'm so sorry not to give you your propers, especially after dinner
in December. Heavens, what a faux pas; please accept my apologies,
lovely and talented one.

>Dawn (the has-been net.goddess)

I hope you ain't cashing in the chips - we need Alice to populate the
next generation of soc.singles posters!

(OBTW, the beard has drawn compliments, and is indeed going to stay
for awhile. We'll now see if I can figure out how to trim it so it
doesn't look scraggly in another month.)

Elizabeth Abrams

unread,
Jan 29, 1993, 10:06:11 AM1/29/93
to
In article <1993Jan28.2...@datamark.co.nz> tho...@datamark.co.nz (Thomas Beagle) writes:

>On the other hand, some of us have been reading Usenet for a few years
>now but have only just got around to discovering soc.singles. We don't
>know everyone here that well and using such things as smilies does
>help to make meanings clear.

Not that this is on the subject or anything, but has anyone out there
besides me ever wished that there was a smiley button on the phone?
Some of the same limitations-of-medium which make it hard to judge irony,
sarcasm, etc. on the net also apply on the phone; the other person can't
see your expression, you can't use gestures, and so on. I found myself
wishing the other day (while talking to a friend whose sense of humor
doesn't quite match mine) that there was a button I could push which would
light up a little smiley face on the other person's phone.

--Diamond

Elizabeth S. Abrams | them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress
| but the memory of the smell of smoke, and the
| presumption that once our eyes watered. -Tom Stoppard

Charles R. Martin

unread,
Jan 29, 1993, 6:44:36 AM1/29/93
to
In article <92...@news.duke.edu> dia...@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) writes:

In article <1993Jan28.2...@datamark.co.nz> tho...@datamark.co.nz (Thomas Beagle) writes:

>On the other hand, some of us have been reading Usenet for a few years
>now but have only just got around to discovering soc.singles. We don't
>know everyone here that well and using such things as smilies does
>help to make meanings clear.

Not that this is on the subject or anything, but has anyone out there
besides me ever wished that there was a smiley button on the phone?
Some of the same limitations-of-medium which make it hard to judge irony,
sarcasm, etc. on the net also apply on the phone; the other person can't
see your expression, you can't use gestures, and so on. I found myself
wishing the other day (while talking to a friend whose sense of humor
doesn't quite match mine) that there was a button I could push which would
light up a little smiley face on the other person's phone.

If it's any comfort, I don't find it hard to tell when you're kidding
over the phone.

Well, at least I don't think I do.


--
Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/mar...@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

"If you make a career out of being discontent without being able to
make it as a poet, you're probably screwing up." -- Rob T.

Peter D. Smith

unread,
Jan 29, 1993, 5:31:22 PM1/29/93
to
I used to 'do' conference calls between us good guys in Boston and those
wretched idiots we were working closely with on the west coast. We kept a
bunch of pictures of our west-coast collegues by the phone, and would
display the one of the person talking...

...except that we kept breaking up laughing.

We also used to press the 'mute' button so they couldn't hear us, and
swear at them.

Robert Thurlow

unread,
Jan 29, 1993, 7:47:35 PM1/29/93
to

>Ah, well; if nothing else, the recent onslaught of your anti-David
>messages has given him a good chance to impress me with his ability to
>remain intellectually competent and rational no matter how much you
>stomp your little feet and throw ASCII tantrums at him for typing in
>a few names in alphabetical order or having well-expressed and
>considered ideas on controversial subjects.

Thanks for the compliment, Trygve. My messages were just for you, and
my hero Charles says that it's quite okay to just kinda flip you off
for this in a semi-humerous fashion rather than give any serious thought
to your criticisms. I'm glad you liked my writing enough to comment.

Thanks again,

trygve lode

unread,
Jan 30, 1993, 2:18:04 AM1/30/93
to
In article <92...@news.duke.edu> dia...@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) writes:
>
>Not that this is on the subject or anything, but has anyone out there
>besides me ever wished that there was a smiley button on the phone?
>Some of the same limitations-of-medium which make it hard to judge irony,
>sarcasm, etc. on the net also apply on the phone; the other person can't
>see your expression, you can't use gestures, and so on. I found myself
>wishing the other day (while talking to a friend whose sense of humor
>doesn't quite match mine) that there was a button I could push which would
>light up a little smiley face on the other person's phone.

No, never, absolutely not--anything but that!

Trygve (And if anyone comes up with a phone that has quoting capabilities
and can automatically append lengthy .sigs to the ends of
conversations, I may have to kill him.)
--
"After all, you never know when something's going to happen like the
time on the Tibetan railway that Isambard (you remember, the guy with
the duelling scar than ran all the way down to his navel, around to his
left hip, and finally wandered down to somewhere under his right sock)
found out that I was carrying the deeds to the mineral rights for
Winchester Cathedral and alerted SEPULCHRE (good thing I knew about
that trick elbow of his and managed to toss him off the train using a
particularly vigorous version of the Heimlich maneuver) so that I
couldn't risk returning to my hotel room and had to make it to Istanbul
with nothing more than the bottle of Worstershire sauce I'd picked up
from the dining car."

W. David Rohwer

unread,
Feb 1, 1993, 2:31:58 AM2/1/93
to
In article <thurlow....@convex.convex.com> thu...@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
>In <1993Jan24.2...@netcom.com> rohw...@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>
>> If you look at a follow-up article to my article, written by Guy
>>Barry, then you will see that he said, "The question was intended to
>>be rhetorical, but let me rephrase it: ...." So, it seems that Guy
>>may have meant for his question to be non-humorous and that is how
>>I intrepreted it.
>
>I agree, I didn't think it was rhetorical. But did you expect any
>responses?
>
>I can see it now. Dream babe writes:
>
>"Oh David, you're so cool! I love "Young, Neil" as well! Let's fuck!"
>

No, I did not expect any emailed responses.

--
Reggie elected into Hall of Fame! +---------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------+ / Snowmobiling: Catch the fever! /
/ // W. David Rohwer // Amiga ++---------------------------------+
| \X/ Go A's \X/ 3000 / Internet: rohw...@netcom.COM /
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

W. David Rohwer

unread,
Feb 1, 1993, 3:10:19 AM2/1/93
to
In article <1993Jan25....@sol.UVic.CA> atov...@engr.UVic.CA writes:
>In article 23...@netcom.com, rohw...@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>>
>>In article <1993Jan21.1...@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gd...@cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
>>>In article <1jlmqk...@lynx.unm.edu> blow...@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan20....@netcom.com> aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>>>>>>All together now:
>>>>>>"We met at nine..." "we met at eight..." "I was on time..." "no, you
>>>>>>were late..." "Ah yes, I remember it well."
>>>>>For the totally clueless out there, this is from _Gigi_.
>>>>
>>>>And for those under 30, "Gigi" was a broadway musical from long back. :)
>>>>r.
>>>
>>>I'm under 30, and I posted the original quote. Doesn't anyone listen
>>>to any decent music any more?
>>>
>>
>> Sure and by the way I am 30. I like, in alphabetical order:
>
>[Pap and puffery deleted]
>
>Now that we know everything about your taste in music, we can clearly
>see that you have yet to come out of a thing called adolescence.
>

Now since you have made that statement, prove it.

>Nobody cares what you like or don't like unless you actually get intimate
>with others, and they ask you.

Why do you post articles about your life in Canada, when people
don't ask? I specifically refer to your articles about your landlady.
I would posit that not many people care about your life up there. I could
be wrong. Personally, I think that your articles are quite amusing. Why
are you becoming intimate with the 60,000 soc.singles readers?

By the way, I do not consider who I like in music as intimate
knowledge.

> By the looks of things, you have problems
>getting intimate with others because you appear to have an intellectual
>age of thirteen, yet you may be thirty biologically.
>

Does this mean that all of the sudden you have become a practicing
psychologist? If not, then you do not have the proper psychological
training to make that statement. If yes, then you do not have enough
knowledge about me.

>Get a life, and stop being such a foolish child...
>

How original. If I did not have a life, then I would not be posting
here. Since I do have a life, I do post here.

Couldn't the same put down be directed at you? I posit that it could
be, but I don't plan to put you down with that put down.

Julie Wright

unread,
Feb 1, 1993, 1:13:49 PM2/1/93
to
rohw...@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:

>In article <1993Jan25....@sol.UVic.CA> atov...@engr.UVic.CA writes:

[about W. David's music list]

>>Nobody cares what you like or don't like unless you actually get intimate
>>with others, and they ask you.

I wouldn't go quite that far. I'm perfectly willing to read about what
David likes or doesn't like as long as he has something interesting to
say. People who answer questions literally and in great detail without
stopping to think about whether they're producing something other people
will be interested in reading will eventually take some heat for it.
If I were boring a good section of the Net audience with my posts, I'd
want to get some corrective hints, even if they were flames. (Fire away.)

>Why do you post articles about your life in Canada, when people
>don't ask? I specifically refer to your articles about your landlady.

I love the landlady stories, myself. I'm hoping we get a Trace Meets
the Landlady episode soon.

When I started reading this group, I thought dreas' posts were a lot less
interesting than they are now. I figure he knows how to learn from the
feedback he's gotten, and that he makes a real effort to entertain and
interact. You're a good sport, David, and you do have some interesting
ideas, but the reason you're getting flamed now is that you don't seem
to put much effort into being entertaining. It's one thing to be willing
to propose unpopular ideas, which I personally admire even if I don't
agree with you on them, but weighing in with your life statistics when
they don't illuminate much about you or the subject in question seems
like disrespect for your audience. For instance, in the music thread,
nobody would have batted an eye if you'd picked a few of those groups
and said _why_ you liked them. (Well, people probably would have disagreed
with whatever you said, but not with your style!)

>I would posit that not many people care about your life up there. I could
>be wrong.

I _wouldn't_ care what dreas' landlady was up to if he didn't tell the
stories so well.

>Why are you becoming intimate with the 60,000 soc.singles readers?

Hey, that's pretty ambitious! But better not put notches in the bedposts,
dreas; you'll end up with a pile of wood shavings.

---Julie

--
* i was standing underneath a beautiful tree/ there was nobody there/
* my heart was aglow/ i was hoping for/ somebody to pull through for me/
* somebody's gonna have to be me ---- The Roches

Walter Lego

unread,
Feb 1, 1993, 6:41:09 PM2/1/93
to
In article <JULIE.93F...@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu> ju...@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:
>
>say. People who answer questions literally and in great detail without
>stopping to think about whether they're producing something other people
>will be interested in reading will eventually take some heat for it.

Really? If people stopped to think before posting, do you realize what would
happen to this group?

>If I were boring a good section of the Net audience with my posts, I'd
>want to get some corrective hints, even if they were flames. (Fire away.)

If a woman were to bore a good section of the Net with her posts, she has
problems that cannot be solved by any amount of flaming.

Walter

What disclaimer?

Orc

unread,
Feb 1, 1993, 9:15:02 PM2/1/93
to
In article <1993Feb1.0...@netcom.com> rohw...@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
(a defense of himself that wanders along in erratic ways, but
manages to demostrate that he really and truly is somewhat clue
challenged. An interesting example of a net.person, I'm sure,
but, alas, a wee bit too humorless for my tastes. So... *plonk*)

dreas

unread,
Feb 1, 1993, 11:00:05 PM2/1/93
to
In article 27...@netcom.com, rohw...@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:

>>Now that we know everything about your taste in music, we can clearly
>>see that you have yet to come out of a thing called adolescence.
>>
>
> Now since you have made that statement, prove it.

You're doing that already.

>>Nobody cares what you like or don't like unless you actually get intimate
>>with others, and they ask you.
>
> Why do you post articles about your life in Canada, when people
>don't ask? I specifically refer to your articles about your landlady.

I posted one such article about life in Vicky. People enjoyed them, and they
told me so via email. I keep writing them for an encore. They STILL enjoy them!

I have yet to read something from you that is enjoyable.
(this is a bit of constructive criticism, you understand)

>I would posit that not many people care about your life up there. I could
>be wrong. Personally, I think that your articles are quite amusing. Why
>are you becoming intimate with the 60,000 soc.singles readers?

Why are they amusing to you?
If they amuse you, they also amuse others. I enjoy controlling emotions. </.)



> By the way, I do not consider who I like in music as intimate
>knowledge.

Yeah, but why a whole FUCKING record catalogue? You are the only one who
would think of posting stuff like that. I found it considerably more annoying
than any personal ad, if you must know the reason for my flaming you.

I would have left you alone if not for that NAUSEATING pre-sex contract
stuff. You only reinforced my first impression of your personality.

You've PISSED OFF a number of readers with that followup, at least judging
by their followups. Get a clue, Buddy...

>> By the looks of things, you have problems
>>getting intimate with others because you appear to have an intellectual
>>age of thirteen, yet you may be thirty biologically.
>>
>
> Does this mean that all of the sudden you have become a practicing
>psychologist? If not, then you do not have the proper psychological
>training to make that statement. If yes, then you do not have enough
>knowledge about me.

When you argue with me like this, you reinforce my comments, believe it or not.

>>Get a life, and stop being such a foolish child...
>>
>
> How original. If I did not have a life, then I would not be posting
>here. Since I do have a life, I do post here.

Then I suggest that you get a clue. Also, look up the word "metaphor."

> Couldn't the same put down be directed at you? I posit that it could
>be, but I don't plan to put you down with that put down.

I don't have to put you down. You do a great job of it on your own.

dreas


dreas

unread,
Feb 2, 1993, 12:07:48 AM2/2/93
to
In article 93Feb1...@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu, ju...@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:
>rohw...@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes:
>
>>Why do you post articles about your life in Canada, when people
>>don't ask? I specifically refer to your articles about your landlady.
>
>I love the landlady stories, myself. I'm hoping we get a Trace Meets
>the Landlady episode soon.

T'anks, Luv. When Trace meets Joyce, I'll write about it...

>When I started reading this group, I thought dreas' posts were a lot less
>interesting than they are now. I figure he knows how to learn from the
>feedback he's gotten, and that he makes a real effort to entertain and
>interact. You're a good sport, David, and you do have some interesting
>ideas, but the reason you're getting flamed now is that you don't seem
>to put much effort into being entertaining. It's one thing to be willing
>to propose unpopular ideas, which I personally admire even if I don't
>agree with you on them, but weighing in with your life statistics when
>they don't illuminate much about you or the subject in question seems
>like disrespect for your audience. For instance, in the music thread,
>nobody would have batted an eye if you'd picked a few of those groups
>and said _why_ you liked them. (Well, people probably would have disagreed
>with whatever you said, but not with your style!)

Good points, BTW.

>>I would posit that not many people care about your life up there. I could
>>be wrong.
>
>I _wouldn't_ care what dreas' landlady was up to if he didn't tell the
>stories so well.

May I take a bow?

>>Why are you becoming intimate with the 60,000 soc.singles readers?
>
>Hey, that's pretty ambitious! But better not put notches in the bedposts,
>dreas; you'll end up with a pile of wood shavings.

I have to go and sharpen my knife, now.
Ta-ta...

dreas


Kenn Barry

unread,
Feb 2, 1993, 1:54:29 AM2/2/93
to
In article <1993Feb1.2...@walter.bellcore.com> nobody writes:
>In article <JULIE.93F...@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu> ju...@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:
>>
>>say. People who answer questions literally and in great detail without
>>stopping to think about whether they're producing something other people
>>will be interested in reading will eventually take some heat for it.
>
>Really? If people stopped to think before posting, do you realize what would
>happen to this group?

1) It would shrink to manageable size, and I'd have more time
for other things.

2) Ed Wright would only post one-line humor.

3) There would be no personals.

4) No one would xpost stuff from alt.romance.*.

5) It would be a lot more interesting.

Kayembee

Stef Jones

unread,
Feb 2, 1993, 11:29:37 AM2/2/93
to
rohw...@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer) writes (regarding dreas):

> Why do you post articles about your life in Canada, when people
>don't ask? I specifically refer to your articles about your landlady.
>I would posit that not many people care about your life up there. I could
>be wrong. Personally, I think that your articles are quite amusing. Why
>are you becoming intimate with the 60,000 soc.singles readers?

> By the way, I do not consider who I like in music as intimate
>knowledge.

That's precisely the *problem* with posting your entire music collection.
David, in order for something to be worth reading on soc.singles, it has to
contain or demonstrate at least one of the following three things:

1. intimate personal details about someone's life (gossip)
2. humor
3. intelligence

The problem with your list is that it contained none of these. dreas's
posts about his landlady contain all three.

--
Stef "Excuse me. This life isn't working. I want to exchange it."
st...@apple.com "Have you tried plugging it in?"

Guy Barry

unread,
Feb 2, 1993, 2:50:08 PM2/2/93
to
In article <78...@apple.apple.COM> st...@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:

>David, in order for something to be worth reading on soc.singles, it has to
>contain or demonstrate at least one of the following three things:
>
>1. intimate personal details about someone's life (gossip)
>2. humor
>3. intelligence

You obviously don't read very much then.


--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757
Computer Laboratory | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street | JANET: Guy....@uk.ac.cam.cl
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK | Internet: Guy....@cl.cam.ac.uk

Bill Ralston

unread,
Feb 2, 1993, 8:24:07 PM2/2/93
to
In article <1993Feb2.0...@netcom.com>, ba...@netcom.com (Kenn

There'd be lots of people like me, who type in follow ups, think about it,
and then hit cancel instead of send.

It would be a lot LESS interesting.

-- Bill w...@mitre.org (Who loves the subjunctive tense, but unfortunately
has
a thesis advisor who consideres it inappropriate...)

* If my employer knew what I was posting, I'd probably be unemployed *

Mark Israel

unread,
Feb 2, 1993, 9:05:09 PM2/2/93
to
In article <1993Feb2.0...@netcom.com>, ba...@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:

>>> People who answer questions literally and in great detail without
>>> stopping to think about whether they're producing something other people
>>> will be interested in reading will eventually take some heat for it.

Anyone who's generating heat is generating interest.

> 4) No one would xpost stuff from alt.romance.*.

I cross-posted because I was trying to get a debate going between
Edward V. Wright (who was reading only alt.romance) and Daniel Mocsny
(who was reading soc.singles). I was hoping they would finish each
other off.

mis...@csi.uottawa.ca Mark Israel
Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.

Charles R. Martin

unread,
Feb 2, 1993, 4:35:10 PM2/2/93
to
In article <1993Feb3.0...@csi.uottawa.ca> mis...@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:

In article <1993Feb2.0...@netcom.com>, ba...@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:

I cross-posted because I was trying to get a debate going between
Edward V. Wright (who was reading only alt.romance) and Daniel Mocsny
(who was reading soc.singles). I was hoping they would finish each
other off.

You mean it's your fault?

Kenn Barry

unread,
Feb 3, 1993, 1:40:35 AM2/3/93