Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site trwrdc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rlgvax!trwrdc!frith
From: frith@trwrdc.UUCP (Lord Frith)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Nominally single????
Message-ID: <1067@trwrdc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Oct-85 13:36:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: trwrdc.1067
Posted: Mon Oct 14 13:36:25 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Oct-85 07:04:35 EDT
References: <285@whuts.UUCP> <533@oakhill.UUCP> <286@whuts.UUCP>
Reply-To: frith@trwrdc.UUCP (Lord Frith)
Distribution: net
Organization: TRW Advanced Technology Facility, Merrifield VA.
Lines: 33

In article <315@whuts.UUCP> amc@whuts.UUCP (Andy Cohill) writes:
>> These people approach potential relationships with a lot of fantasies
>> built up in their heads that a new relationship will somehow make
>> their life better. A relationship based on fantasy will sooner or
>> later come to a bad end. My claim is that a person who is happy with
>> his own life is secure and mature, and will approach relationships
>> with realistic expectations.
>
> I know that this will shake up the net, but I agree with Bill's
> posting one hundred percent. A relationship is a lot of work, and
> has little to do with that strange chemical imbalance called 'love'
> that occurs in the intial stages of some relationships.

Chemical imbalance in who?  The reason I ask this is because I believe
(and have very good reason to believe) that love is more than a chemical
reaction between people.

I guess you mean chemical as in "chemical imbalance in the person who
is in love."  This may be true, however this sort of chemical imbalance
is CAUSED by and is the direct result of being in love and not the
other way around.  It also lasts far longer than the initial stages.
So the use of the phrase "chemical imbalance" implies something not
meaningful.

I'm very tired.
-- 

seismo!trwrdc!root				- Lord Frith

"And I want you"
"And I want you"
"And I want you so"
"It's an obsession"