home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky alt.romance:14386 soc.singles:31458
- Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!olivea!pagesat!spssig.spss.com!news.oc.com!convex!thurlow
- From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
- Newsgroups: alt.romance,soc.singles
- Subject: Re: net.hugs?
- Message-ID: <thurlow.722379460@convex.convex.com>
- Date: 21 Nov 92 20:57:40 GMT
- References: <31517@hydra.Helsinki.FI> <1992Nov17.192506.24522@netcom.com> <8cx16zg@rpi.edu> <1992Nov18.130850.24192@dgbt.doc.ca>
- Sender: usenet@news.eng.convex.com (news access account)
- Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
- Lines: 15
- Nntp-Posting-Host: dhostwo.convex.com
- X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
- Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
- not necessarily those of CONVEX.
-
- In <1992Nov18.130850.24192@dgbt.doc.ca> michele@dgbt.doc.ca (Michele Guillet) writes:
-
- >I agree with you. I think we forget easily that touch is needed,
- >infants that aren't held don't develop normally. It is sad when the
- >house pet gets more attention and touch than the people living there.
-
- True; pets are usually safer and more predictable about how they will
- respond to physical contact. I wish a couple of pet owners I know
- thought as I do that the extra challenge of dealing with humans was a
- feature rather than a problem.
-
- Rob T
- --
- Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com
- "I get so tickled debunking bad personal philosophy." - Milquetoast
-