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