Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Are you involved with anyone? Message-ID: <2576@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Tue, 29-Oct-85 17:13:39 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2576 Posted: Tue Oct 29 17:13:39 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 1-Nov-85 01:17:11 EST References: <133@cornell.UUCP> Reply-To: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin (DRXAL-RI)) Organization: USAMC ALMSA, St. Louis, MO Lines: 24 There's something that seems to have been ignored in this whole long discussion of "nominally single" -- just because someone is currently attached/involved/married or otherwise "taken" does NOT mean that this person is "unavailable" -- it means that there will be various degrees of difficulty in your forming a relationship with this person. "Difficult" is not the same as "impossible". After all, married people have affairs, leave their spouses for other SO's or just split, period. Engagements are broken. Live-together couples break up. "Steady dates" become no longer steady. Etc. I recall that one poster mentioned that he seemed to have an instinct to pick out the one attached female in a group to be the one in which he was interested. This might simply be that he has good taste! (After all, the most desirable [use your own criteria here] people are likely to become attached quickest!) Now, you might have moral or practical objections to deliberately making an effort to break someone else out of their current relationship in order to get them to form some sort of relationship with you. Fine. Then don't do it. But just because you choose not to try the infinite methodologies you could apply in this situation does not make the other person "unavailable". It is when s/he REALLY rejects you after you have tried that s/he is "unavailable". (And determining what is a *real* rejection when people are so changeable is beyond me!) Will