Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-miles!chabot
From: chabot@miles.DEC (L S Chabot)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: net.singles
Message-ID: <1469@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Apr-85 09:30:59 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.1469
Posted: Wed Apr  3 09:30:59 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Apr-85 08:05:48 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 22

Since Melanie persists in believing in digitized marriage certificates, I will
explain why I included that clause: it was to distinguish my question from 
past questions (not mine) about why people who are not married but who have a
stable or long-term romantic relationship post in net.singles.

It is not noticed that you post much in net.singles, Melanie, so what's your
problem?  And since I have posted a summary of the replies I received, and
stated that I had gained some understanding by way of these replies, why do
you stick to imposing strictures on me that you have decided I must want to 
impose on others, which you built up only from the fact that I asked a 
question--why don't you, in this hypothetical situation you've envisioned of me
saying farewell to net.singles, act on your own principles and allow me the
freedom you say is everyone else's? 


Well, since I didn't touch any nerves, my apology doesn't mean anything: how
can I apologize for something that didn't happen?

L S Chabot
UUCP:	...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot
ARPA:	...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
USFail:    DEC, LMO4/H4, 150 Locke Drive, Marlborough, MA  01752