Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ncsu.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!druid From: druid@ncsu.UUCP (druid) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: RE2:what is love Message-ID: <2761@ncsu.UUCP> Date: Wed, 9-Jan-85 22:52:25 EST Article-I.D.: ncsu.2761 Posted: Wed Jan 9 22:52:25 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jan-85 07:26:31 EST Organization: N.C. State University, Raleigh Lines: 23 <<>> > I was trying to make an argument that being "in love" was a state of > experiencing love. How do I respond to an article which agrees in principle > yet contradicts the reasoning? > > If you say love means being confident and secure, then I say a person > "in love" is experiencing those feelings. I would not consider myself > to be "in love" if I were dependent and insecure. > > Robert I wasn't contradicting your reasoning until you defined it above. (forgive me if you stated this in your original posting.). I was (and still am) defining being "in love" as those first wondrous feelings of love, when a relationship is still developing (which may last weeks, months or possibly even years). Eventually this develops (with care and a little luck) into a sure, steady "love". I'm not contradicting you; We're just using slightly different definitions. dave /\ -- druid / daveh -- hesselberth \/ -- decvax!mcnc!ncsu!druid / ncsu!ievax!daveh --