HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Subject: Re: In your school?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 08:34:00 GMT

In article <dhalliwe.721004691@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>, userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halli writes...
>godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
> 
>>No flames, i agree with you - the problem in many Canadian schools is INDEED
>>due to the ex-patriate Brits, and you're right that many of them (I can think
>>of quite a few examples) went there because they couldn't get a univ job in
>>the UK.  BUT the reason they were hired is that despite their low quality,
>>they were still better than anything the Canadian system could produce from
>>the home market.  So Canada stands twice condemned - it has to hire mediocre
>>Brits and it does so because it can't produce anything less mediocre itself.
> 
>   Back in the sixties, Canadian universities were expanding at a rate
>which precluded "hiring at home" due to the limited number of PhD programs
>in the small number of established universities. At this time, many foreign
>academics were hired, including Brits. Unfortunately, a few of those Brits
>*still* think that the worst Brit grad is better than the best Canuck grad
>for the simple reason that the Brit grad's great-grandfather used to play
>cricket with their great-grandfather.
> 
>   Of course, we hired a few good Brits, too. Usually the ones that were
>very intelligent, extremely capable, but couldn't get jobs in Britain
>because their great-grandfathers rubbed shoulders with the dustman's great-
>grandfather, and there was no way that the old boys wanted that sort of
>person teaching at their universities.
> 
>  So Britain stands twice-condemned: once for keeping their low-quality
>people because they had all the correct schools on their C.V., and once
>for sending away all the bright ones because of their "lower-class"
>background.
> 
>   Fortunately, we occassionally get to send one or two of the bad ones
>back. Sorry to hear you'd left NRC, Laurence! ;-)
> 
> 
>Dave Halliwell
>Department of Geography
>University of Alberta
>Edmonton, Alberta

I quit my job at NRC after a row with them.  You infer that it concerned the
quality of my work, but for the record it did not.  I was not SENT back from
Canaa - on the contrary I resigned from NRC immediately after they had
renewed my contract.  I wonder if that is clear enough for you.

I don't accept your strange ideas about class at British universities.  What
you suggest does not happen at any of the universities I have been associated
with.

Laurence

Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: anandjr@hubcap.clemson.edu (Rajesh Anandjiwala)
Subject: HELP.................HELP
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson SC
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:26:11 GMT



I need e-mail address of Dr. Iype in Textile Department at
The University of Leeds, Leeds.

Can somebody help me. I will also like to know about how to
get e-mail address of any person in UK thtough database.

Many thanks.


Rajesh Anandjiwala
***********************************************************************
*		Email:	anandjr@hubcap.clemson.edu                    *
*			anandjr@clemson.clemson.edu                   *
*                                                                     *
* School of Textiles				T.No. (803) 656-0373  *
* 161 Sirrine Hall, Box 341307			Fax No.(803)656-5973  *
* Clemson University                                                  *
* Clemson, SC 29634-1307                                              *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
From: kathleen@casbs.Stanford.EDU (Kathleen Much)
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Organization: Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:35:31 GMT

In article <8200.9211060924@thor.cf.ac.uk> spxsjm@thor.cf.ac.uk (Mr S J Morris 92) writes:
>As for non-Catholics, there was virtually unlimited religious freedom.
>The period saw an enormous proliferation of religious groups -
>Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, Quakers, Levellers, True
>Levellers, Diggers, Fifth Monarchists... - who so long as they toed the
>line and didn't start using violence against those who disagreed with
>them (the Fifth Monarchists fell down here) could say and do what they
>liked.

The Quakers, at least, would seriously disagree with you as well as
with Cromwell, and they eschewed violence.  _The Sufferings of the
Quakers_ documents in great detail hundreds of persecutions of Quakers
by the Commonwealth (it covers persecution by monarchs as well).

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Much, Editor		|E-mail: kathleen@casbs.stanford.EDU
CASBS, 202 Junipero Serra Blvd.	|Phone: (415) 321-2052
Stanford, CA  94305		|Fax: (415) 321-1192
From: bocmunro@bnr.co.uk (Bruce Munro)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 9 Nov 1992 16:54:27 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bnsgs179.bnr.co.uk

In article <CC.92Nov6125235@arran.dcs.ed.ac.uk> cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.100915.2585@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>
>   I could say exactly the same about Cockney.
>
>And lots of Welsh people could say exactly the same about Welsh.  So?  What's
>your point?

I don't think so, Chris. The Welsh have the S4C television station, that
shows many Welsh programmes, and the BBC shows Welsh programs, including
Pobol y Cwm, a Welsh soap opera. Seems to me that the Welsh language gets
a reasonable crack of the whip.

-- 
Bruce Munro.  <B.Munro@bnr.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!uknet!bnruk!B.Munro
BNR Europe Ltd, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. | Note the change
Phone : +44 81 945 2174 or +44 81 945 4000 x2174   | of e-mail address.
"There are no strangers, only friends we don't recognise" - Hank Wangford
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Rule Britannia
Date: 11 Nov 1992 00:40:37 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <CC.92Nov10132130@arran.dcs.ed.ac.uk>, cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk writes:
> In article <1df1qvINN7jo@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> 
>    And is that what you want?   A permanent state of
>    coalitions?  Have you taken a look at Israeli, or Belgian
>    or Irish politics recently?   Or the sparkling record of
>    our own lamented National Government back in the thirties?
> 
> Or the sparkling record of most countries which are richer than the UK?  So
> many countries use PR (like, practically all of the democratic ones) that you
> really can't validly point to a little weak subset of them and say "look,
> that's where PR gets you".

Fallacy count:

    1.	That ones voting system and ones country's riches
	are connected.   They may or may not be.  

    2.	That showing that (some) rich countries use PR proves
	anything.   (Some) poor countries use PR as well.

    3.	That I said "That's what PR gets you".    I just asked
	if a permanent state of coalition was what we wanted.
    
    4.	That Italy, Ireland, Israel, Belgium are a "weak little
	subset".    In fact, these are countries where PR has
	caused major trouble.    The real issue is "What would
	PR do here?".

jon.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: MDuPree@world.std.com (Micky DuPree)
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Summary: This post has nothing to do with the subject line.
Keywords: Mark McManus, Taggart, Strangers
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 08:36:16 GMT

In article <BxD21q.CKF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jasstev@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
(stevens jason) writes:
>Mark McManus is one of the best actors on tv.

He was the only thing that made "Strangers" worth watching.  Of course
that and "Taggart" are the only shows I've ever seen him in and he was
playing similar characters in both of them, so I really don't know if he
has any range.  For all I know he could be a one-trick pony, but if so,
it's a hell of a good trick.

>>-Micky (headed for the U.K. in 1993
> Where are you going?

I'll be based in the metro London area, although I plan to make
extensive trips up to Manchester, the Merseyside area, and Glasgow.

I'll save the regular s.c.b. posters the bother and make the obligatory
remarks myself:

    "A Yank in London?  Goodness, we don't have nearly enough of
    those, now do we?"

    "You can save a lot of money by living outside of London and
    making day trips into the city."

    "Doesn't the television stuff belong in another newsgroup?"

And I'm going to make the standard frantic posts about voltage
transformers and electrical plug converters (yes, now I wish I had saved
earlier answers on the subject) and cheap rooms near a Tube station (no
such thing) in a couple of weeks, thereby letting myself in for some
more.

-Micky


* A single written s.c.b. FAQ is a lot like a single written           *
* constitution: not necessary to keep things running, but it would     *
* make reference easier.                                               *

* Anyone who doesn't put L. Godfrey and Yadallee in their kill files   *
* is begging to have a bad day.                                        *

Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15704 alt.folklore.urban:28222 misc.legal:19816
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
Subject: Re: The amazing disappearing British Constitution
Date: 12 Nov 92 01:39:13 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <lfqqn8INNa2s@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM 
(Trelford Pinkerton) writes:
> We've already established that mere laws cannot comprise a constitution.
> A Constitution is a framework within which all laws are made, and with
> which all laws must agree.   It's a "meta-law" in comp sci terms.

"Trelford", 

I think your definition of "Constitution" is too narrow.  It's certainly more 
narrow that that accepted by those who study and write on British 
Constitutional law.

Black's Law Dictionary provides several definitions of "Constitution".  Some 
clearly encompass the British unwritten constitution:

"The organic and fundamental law of a nation or state, which may be written 
or unwritten, establishing the character and conception of its government, 
laying the basic principles to which its internal life is to be conformed, 
organizing the government, and regulating, distributing, and limiting the 
functions of its different departments, and prescribing the extent and manner 
of the exercise of sovereign powers.  A charter of government deriving its 
whoile authority from the governed."  (a third definition, that of a written 
document, is omitted.)

The British Constitution, it seems to me, is a combination of comman and 
statutory law considered by the British legal tradition to be fundamental to 
the British scheme or government and justice.  This is my own definition 
here, so I don't claim it as any authority.

I believe your objections stem in part that it would seem that, if the 
British Constitution may be modified with as much ease as a law regulating 
hunting or importation of gerbils, it's not much of a constitution.  That may 
well be.  However, if a nation had a constitution which was modifiable by a 
mere 50% vote of the legislature, as I'm sure many constitutions are, would 
you deny that the document was nonetheless a constitution, merely by that 
fact?  I would not.

The key, I think, is that every nation has a constitution: it has some 
organic law, whether defined in a parchment document or a long legal 
tradition, which _constitutes_ what that nation is, how its government works, 
and what its relationship to its citizens is.

It should be noted that England is one of the oldest nations on the face of 
the planet, and it predates literacy by some centuries, which accounts in a 
large manner for why its constitution is unwritten, and instead relies upon 
the traditions which served as law for so many generations.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 10:38:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Down with Maastricht
Organization: Hewlett-Packard SSG/CCSY-PWD, UK.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british

yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>Hopefully, soon, the Maastricht Treaty will be shot down to flames today.

'Fraid not, DSY (can I call you Dizzy?).  It was close; the Labour amendment
to the bill which would have delayed the committee stage until after the
Edinburgh conference was defeated 319 to 313 (or thereabouts; a majority of
6 anyway).  The enabling bill itself was passed by a majority of 3.
This supposedly gives John Major a chance to actually do something with the
remaining couple of months of his EC leadership.

Some of the Tory MP's were complaining of excessive whipping, but I didn't
hear any details of what convinced them to vote with the Government.

Andrew
From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Salaries+cost of living in UK
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:40:27 GMT
	<5NOV199203145022@sscvx1.ssc.gov> <1992Nov5.125734.9296@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Nov5.125734.9296@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:

   In practice, wouldn't living in the area mean living somewhere
   like Slough? (cue Betjeman quote) 

Oh alright, if you insist!


		  Slough
		  ------

Come, friendly bombs, and fall on Slough
It isn't fit for humans now, 
There isn't grass to graze a cow,
	Swarm over, Death!

Come, bombs, and blow to smithereens
Those air-conditioned, bright canteens,
Tinned fruit, tinned meat, tinned milk, tinned beans,
	Tinned minds, tinned breath.

Mess up the mess they call a town -
A house for ninety-seven down
Ane once a week a half a crown
	For twenty years.

And get that man with double chin
Who'll always cheat and always win,
Who washes his repulsive skin
	In women's tears.

And smash his desk of polished oak
And smash his hands so used to stroke
And stop his boring dirty joke
	And make him yell.

But spare the bald young clerks who add
The profits of the stinking cad;
It's not their fault that they are mad,
	They've tasted Hell.

It's not their fault they do not know
The birdsong from the radio,
It's not their fault they often go
	To Maidenhead.

And talk of sports and makes of cars
In various bogus Tudor bars
And daren't look up and see the stars
	But belch instead.

In labour-saving homes, with care
Their wives frizz out peroxide hair
And dry it in synthetic air
	And paint their nails.

Come, friendly bombs, and fall on Slough,
To get it ready for the plough.
The cabbages are coming now:
	The earth exhales.

		John Betjeman, c. 1937
--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)

		
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: graham@sees.bangor.ac.uk (Graham A Stephen)
Subject: Re: Accent, Dialect and Rabbie Burns
Organization: University College of N Wales, Bangor
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:43:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.102526.16570@osf.org>, david@postman.gr.osf.org (David George) writes:
> ...
> 
> Still take heart Craig, I'm sure that people are reading Burns outside of the
> 'O' level syllabus in Scotland and elsewhere and it's a well known factoid that
> forced study of poets or authors is enough to put you off their works for life.
> Maybe this is the trump card of the S.E.D ?
> 
> David.

There is no `O' level syllabus in Scotland. 

--
graham a stephen                    
(e-mail: graham@sees.bangor.ac.uk)        

``One measures a circle beginning anywhere'' -- Charles Hoy Fort (1874-1932)
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:39:47 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: A.Grant@ucs.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
>In article <BxF4G7.7vK@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> monaghan@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (N.O. Monaghan) writes:
>>I do not think there is any constitutional reason why the Prime
>>Minister should not be a Catholic. However I think there may
>
>Apropos of this, what about the Irish PM and President? Is there any
>constitutional requirement that they _should_ be Catholics? Or would it
>just be very difficult if they weren't?

A completely different situation. The Irish government has no
control over the Irish Catholic Church (some might say it is
the other way round ...). In fact Ireland has had a Protestant
President.

Matthew Huntbach
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: Re: s.c.b FAQ (was: An astonishing Guy)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:20:50 GMT

In article <1dicjuINN582@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov7.145554.9994@vax.oxford.ac.uk>, wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>> In article <rhaller-051192131050@rhaller.cc.uoregon.edu>, rhaller@ns.uoregon.edu (Rich Haller) writes:
>> > In article <Bx81st.1n0@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>,
>> > streater@unixjr.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Tim Streater) wrote:
>> > 
>> >> lack of Bill 'O Rights, Constitution etc. Should be part of the s.c.b FAQ,
>> > 
>> > What s.c.b FAQ? Was I out selling the pound short when one was posted?
>> 
>> The one that operates on the same basis as the British Constitution: everyone's
>> sure we've got one, but no-one can actually produce it.
>
>Let's see:
>
>	Coronation Charter of Henry I, 1101.
>	Great Charter, 1215.
>	Declaration that the Commons shall Initiate Money Bills 1407.
>	Habeas Corpus Act, 1679.
>	Bill of Rights, 1689.
>	Act of Succession, 1701.
>	Septennial Act, 1716.
>	Reform Acts, 1832, 1867, 1884.
>	Ballot Act, 1872.
>	Representation of the People Act, 1918, 1969.
>

And here I thought it was only in the USA that people thought
'more is better'.


Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Subject: Re: Rule Britannia
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:05:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.102620.14167@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:

>We have already reached the state
>where large parts of the country the two party system is
>effectively Conservative-LibDem, not Conservative-Labour,
>althogh this is disguised because in most of
>Conservative-LibDemland, the LibDems come second to the Tories
>so don't get any seats. If they were to do a little better,
>we'd have a permanent three party situation, much as in
>Germany.

This is a little misleading because the majorities of Tories over
LibDems are in general much greater than the majorities of Tories over
Labour.  There are currently 145 seats where the LibDems are in second
place to the Tories.  By my calculations, the following percentage
swings from Tory to LibDem (assumed uniform across those seats) would
give the LibDems the following numbers of extra seats:

Swing		1%  2%  3%  4%  5%  6%  7%  8%  9% 10%
Extra seats      4   7  11  14  19  24  28  32  37  44

By contrast, in the 188 seats where Labour is in second place to the
Tories, the following swings from Tory to Labour would give Labour
the following numbers of extra seats:

Swing		1%  2%  3%  4%  5%  6%  7%  8%  9% 10%
Extra seats     18  29  35  49  70  76  80  91 101 113

The figures show that in general Tory-LibDem seats are a good deal
less marginal than Tory-Labour seats.  It would take a 9% swing
for the LibDems to gain a quarter of their winnable Tory seats,
whereas it would only take a 4% swing for Labour.  

--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 
Computer Laboratory                | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl 
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: s.c.b FAQ (was: An astonishing Guy)
Date: 7 Nov 92 14:55:54 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <rhaller-051192131050@rhaller.cc.uoregon.edu>, rhaller@ns.uoregon.edu (Rich Haller) writes:
> In article <Bx81st.1n0@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>,
> streater@unixjr.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Tim Streater) wrote:
> 
>> lack of Bill 'O Rights, Constitution etc. Should be part of the s.c.b FAQ,
> 
> What s.c.b FAQ? Was I out selling the pound short when one was posted?

The one that operates on the same basis as the British Constitution: everyone's
sure we've got one, but no-one can actually produce it.
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: How to insult a Brit (reprise)
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:43:35 GMT
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.

Jon Livesey writes:
>
>My own objection to the word "Brit" is that it seems to be
>an American invention.   There's really nothing wrong with
>"Briton" and "The British".

About two or four years ago a tabloid newspaper for ex-pats was started
up (in the Los Angeles area and perhaps elsewhere) under the name "True
Brit". I haven't seen it recently, but then again I haven't visited my
English import store run by the nice lady with the Glasgow accent.

Dick Jackson
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15513 alt.folklore.urban:27914
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: s.c.b FAQ (was: An astonishing Guy)
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:49:43 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Nov9.115453.19249@osf.org>, dbrooks@osf.org writes:
> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> > [etc]
> >	Declaration that the Commons shall Initiate Money Bills 1407.
> 
> -->	Petition of Right, 1628.
> 
> >	Habeas Corpus Act, 1679.

Yup, I agree with that.   In fact the Petition of Right is
particularly relevant since it's one of the documents that
remind the King what the right sof the people *already are*.

Although the language is polite, the Commons are clearly
warning Charles that he is violating laws and rights that
already exist, and they cite Acts going back to the Great
Charter to prove this.

Charles assented.   Pity he couldn't keep his word.

jon.
From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: Happy Guy Fawkes Day! and please read this if you have any pets...
Organization: Vonnegut Tent Rentals, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 20:23:40 GMT

K.J. Cater (kjc7435@ultb.isc.rit.edu) wrote:
> Happy Guy Fawkes Day (from a displaced Brit). :)
> 
> If you have a pet (cat/dog/etc.). be sure to keep it INDOORS tonight.
>
You know, it really pays to get these transatlantic health warnings off
good and early, like the day before.  This one went out at 8pm UK time,
which is too late to save many timid felines.

But it was a nice thought anyway.... 

WARNING!!!  Remember to make your brass monkey wear pants as the weather
gets colder!!!  Protect your dog from rabid carol singers!!!  


--
||Halloween Candy: the office snack    |
||from Nov. 1st onwards............... |Puff the Magic Dragon
||-------------------------------------|Lived by the sea
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Who knows what's in the autumn mists
||Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY      |In the mind of Yadallee?
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british