Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxe.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ihuxe!rainbow
From: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: RE2:what is love
Message-ID: <1018@ihuxe.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Jan-85 12:48:35 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxe.1018
Posted: Tue Jan  8 12:48:35 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 9-Jan-85 05:20:28 EST
Sender: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 24

Newsgroups: net.singles  Subject: Re: what is love?

>> 	Being "in love" is looking out for the others best interest, only.
>> 	Being "in love" is fulfilling the other persons every need.
>>	Being "in love" is accepting the good and bad in the other person.

>	Agreed.

>> 	Being "in love" is being confident, secure, and taking the initiative.

>	I beg to differ.  Being "in love" does *not* mean being confident 
>and secure.  "Love" means being confident and secure. 

>   dave		/\		    -- druid / daveh --

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