Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!saquigley
From: saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Looking at the opposite sex in different ways
Message-ID: <8330@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Jul-84 19:21:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.8330
Posted: Fri Jul 13 19:21:09 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Jul-84 23:50:53 EDT
References: <744@houxf.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 19

>This originally started out as a question, but now it seems like a 
>statement of how I feel and I wonder if other people feel the same way.
>The first type is "lust" at first sight. The second type is "love" at
>first sight. You can have the first type, I'll take the second.
>The first type makes you happy for an hour or so. The second type makes
>you happy for a lifetime. It is just too bad there are not many of them left.

The problem is not that there are not many of them left but that you seem to
insist that people fit in a little category that you've assigned them.
There are not 2 types of women, there are 2 billions (at last count, right?).
Everybody is unique;

This is really a strange posting.  Do people still really believe in those old
cliches of good girls and bad girls (or whatever it is)?  Is this a trap 
posting for people to start reposting banalities like the ones I have just
uttered in the previous paragraph or what?

Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley