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 --