home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky alt.romance:14250 soc.singles:31103
- Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles
- Path: sparky!uunet!clsi!daniel
- From: daniel@clsi.COM (Daniel Barclay)
- Subject: Re: net.hugs?
- In-Reply-To: petitc@nuge114.its.rpi.edu's message of Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:48:48 GMT
- Message-ID: <DANIEL.92Nov18100626@algol.clsi.COM>
- Sender: usenet@clsi.COM
- Organization: CAD Language Systems Inc.
- References: <13NOV92.21925419.0026@lafibm.lafayette.edu> <31517@hydra.Helsinki.FI>
- <1992Nov17.192506.24522@netcom.com> <8cx16zg@rpi.edu>
- Date: 18 Nov 92 10:06:26
- Lines: 26
-
-
- Christopher Jon Petit writes:
- > In article <1992Nov17.192506.24522@netcom.com>, aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
- > |> In article <31517@hydra.Helsinki.FI> taina@cs.Helsinki.FI (Juha Taina) writes:
- > |> >
- > |> >I'd like to ask why people share *hugs* and *kisses* on the net. What
- > |> >is the value of them? Would you also hug and kiss a stranger in real
- > |> >life?
-
- > I think people don't *HUG* each other nearly enough. We all NEED to be
- > touched. That's what's wrong with the U.S. We're too selfish to touch other
- ^^^^^^^
- > people and acknowledge that we DO need other people's attention and affection.
- > So, we use the only 'acceptable' way to need someone---when you're in love.
- ^^^^^^^^^^
- I hadn't heard of selfishness as a cause. Do you really think so? I thought
- it was that most people weren't used to or comfortable with non-"in-love" hugs
- or needs that much.
-
-
-
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Daniel S. Barclay CAD Language Systems, Inc.
- Suite 101, 5457 Twin Knolls Rd.
- Why can't _I_ think of a signature? Columbia, MD 21045 USA
-