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