HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: France, je vous remercie pour l'election d'Anti-Christ
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:00:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: sscvx1.30SEP199218005599
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Sep30.165354.20951@philmtl.philips.ca>, ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)         writes...
>Laurence Godfrey:
>>The EC
>>would be fine without the Germans - this has nothing to do with the Tories
>>pathetic attempts to blame the Germans for the mismanagement of the British
>>economy, it just has to do with the fact that the Germans are extremely
>>objectionable people, and I won't support any organisation that requires
>>having contactswith them.
> 
>Ray Dunn:
>>The short response to this is "It takes one to know one".
> 
>Laurence Godfrey:
>>The short response to that is "Are all jurors who convict, guilty of the
>>offences"
> 
>It's astounding that Godfrey can equate his narrow-minded, racist
>statements with the impartial conclusions of a juror.
>-- 
>Ray Dunn at home    |    ray@philmtl.philips.ca    |    (514) 630 3749

I say again, criticism of a group of people, whether justified or not,
is not necessarily racist.  The Germans are not a race at all, they are
just a nation, and the people of a nation share national characteristics.
Not all of them,, of course, there are always exceptions.

If I were to say that "fat people eat too much" you wouldn't accuse me of
being racist, I presume, and you would allow the statement despite the
fact that some fat people do not eat too much.  Shit - I said fat, what
I meant to say was "circumferentially challenged".

I suspect from your email address that you are Canadian, from the country
that invented "differently-abled" as a euphemism for disabled, and where
full stops (periods) are pronounced "aye".  I didn't like it there at all,
but I think it must be a great country - after all, a thousand ex-Nazi
war criminals can't be wrong in choosing it as their home.

Laurence
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.arts.books
From: quigley@acs.ucalgary.ca (Martyn Thomas Quigley)
Subject: Re: Enforced Shakespeare?
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 10:40:57 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>|> >
>|> >What are we going to do next?   Excuse the little darlings
>|> >from listening to Mozart because it doesn't have a nice
>|> >solid disco beat?
>|> 
>|> No, because it does.  To paraphrase Glenn Gould "A day without
>|> Mozart is like a day without memos."
>
>You wouldn't be one of those people who saw Amadeus and concluded
>that you had heard His music, would you?

No.  Simply pointing out that some people don't like Mozart.

Martyn
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Currency Problems
Date: 30 Sep 92 10:02:55 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <BvDLpy.EM6@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> streater@unixjr.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Tim Streater) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.161657.14744@bristol.ac.uk> P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
>>
>>(We're even importing COAL, for heaven's sake.  Even after the
>>devaluation, the government is planning to go ahead with the closure of
>>another bunch of British coal pits, and the power companies are
>>
>Certainly it should be imported given how much cheaper imported coal is. That
>will reduce the cost of energy to the consumer and to industry, which will
>improve people's standard of living (a bit) and make British industry more
>competitive. Isn't this a Good Thing?

Maybe, and maybe.  See my reply to Jon's article, since I don't feel
like typing it all in again.  As with the original question, though,
whatever the overall effects are, figuring them out is not as simple as
your sentence would make it appear.

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
From: Trevor.Kirby@newcastle.ac.uk (Trevor Kirby)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accents (was Re: Abuse a Brit)
Date: 5 Oct 92 09:10:22 GMT
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.


In article <BvH3MI.KrD@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v064myby@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Christophe J Quaranta) writes:

>
>	PS How many Brits can tell the difference between a Canadian &
>an American?
>					

Thats easy, the one who hits you after you've called them american is the canadian
.

 Trev
bleep
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.arts.books
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Enforced Shakespeare?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:01:49 GMT

In article <CC.92Sep30111913@arran.dcs.ed.ac.uk> cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke) writes:

>The problem is that making the study of Shakespeare's works compulsory is the
>most effective way of getting most of the population to loathe them utterly
>until the day they die.  It's counter-productive.

Chris, I think this is true only of if the compulsory study of Shakespeare
is conducted by a bad teacher. 

The proper way to study these plays is to perform them. The proper way to
enjoy them is to see them in performance. 


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: France, je vous remercie pour l'election d'Anti-Christ
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:47:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: sscvx1.30SEP199217474451
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

>I totally disagree. There are far too many mealy-mouthed hypocrites like
>me poncing around ever so politely in this group. While I disagree with
>almost everything young Laurence says, I love the way he says it. What
                   ^^^^^
>a refreshing change. People reading soc.*.BRITISH should certainly not be
>troubled by him.
> 
>Dick Jackson


A bit patronising, isn't it?  Would that it were true - I'm 39 and very
nearly over the hill.

Laurence
From: chucks@uars2.acd.ucar.edu (Chuck Smythe)
Subject: Re: Enforced Shakespeare?
Organization: Ntl Center for Atmospheric Research, Atmospheric Chemistry
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:49:07 GMT

A very effective way of selling Shakespeare (or other Lit) to the pubescent
mind is to point out the racy bits. Cases in point;

My younger brother, while doing Hamlet in high school, was using a Penguin
text of his own rather than the Gov't Issue one. During readings, he kept   
noticing that people left out lines.  At length, he borrowed a school edition,
located something like -was it 200-? omissions, and passed the list on to
the class.  They immediately all became Shakespeare fans.  Except the blue
noses, of course...

My best friend and I had done much the same for Chaucer a few years before.
Come to think of it, that may be how my brother got the idea. The teacher,
a rather grim faced spinster in her sixties, was not amused.  ;> 

The chairman of the Caltech English Department in the 60's, Dirty Dave, was
faced with the desperate problem of interesting workaholic young technocrats
to Culture.  So the reading list included _Lysistrata_, _Sons and Lovers_,
_Madame Bovary_....I actually did my reading for lit classes as recreation
when I wearied of homework.

			Chuck Smythe
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: ckp2n@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Chris Powell)
Subject: Re: Accents (was Re: Abuse a Brit)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 02:02:10 GMT

sue@netcom.com  writes:
> In article <2OCT199215331112@sscvx1.ssc.gov> godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct2.191154.28988@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, ckp2n@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Chris Po writes...
> >>sue@netcom.com  writes:
> >>My mother, who is German and has lived in the U.S. for 35 years,
> >>is continually asked if she is English.  And strangely, when I
> >>lived in England, many people thought I was English because I
> >>"don't look American."  I never had the nerve to ask what that
> >>was supposed to mean....
> >> 
> >>Chris
> >
> >Maybe I can clarify it for you.  It means you didn't have that look of 
> >over-eager dumbness that characterises Americans abroad.  Also you
> >probably didn't ask how many cents in a pound or where can I buy
> >German Francs.
> 
> Could have been that, or maybe he has a lot of tattoos.
> I figure the parlours must work overtime punching that
> blue dye into all those English limbs (and other body
> parts).  
> 
> Also maybe he walks around chugging cans of shandy or other
> alcoholic beverages.  Noticed a lot of that in London and
> environs.

I hate to break it to you, Sue, but I'm not a he.  Chris is short
for Christina in this case.

(And for those with a prurient interest, I have nary a tattoo.)

Chris (aka Christina Kelleher Powell)

P.S.  A shandy is barely an alcoholic beverage, IMHO.
From: gray@rz-berlin.mpg.de
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Some of my best friends are speculators
Date: 2 Oct 92 11:14:10 +0100
Organization: Rechenzentrum MPG Berlin

Tim Streater complains:
 
> Struan old boy this just will not do. I expect pearls of wisdom, and instead
> I get the following:
> 
> Those German preventative measure in full:
> 1) Crank up the interest rates.
> 2) Badmouth the neighbours.
> 3) Er....
> 4) That's it.
> Three out of ten, boy, try harder next time.

  Just in case you really wanted to know...

  Actually number 1 *is* about all the Bundesbank has to do.  When it
says that it is determined to squash inflation people believe it, mostly
because it has a good record of doing so despite the short term pain
that it inflicts on the German Economy.  In John Major's Big Top they
seem to think that just saying that they are anti-inflation is enough,
and like almost all other post war british governments (Maggie's first
as you rightly pointed out might scrape through as an exception) they
are not prepared to actually do anything, in this case because they are
too hypnotised by John Snow and his poll of polls swingometer to remember
that leaders are supposed to show the way.

  I believe that if JM and his performing clowns had put up interest
rates some months ago the current crisis might have been avoided.  But
they didn't, their credibility drained away and the expectation built up
(fed by leaks from the Cabinet Office) that a devaluation was in the
offing.  Major and Lamont ended up like the monkey in the joke: covered
in shit and trying, panic stricken, to put the cork back in the pig.

  I also believe that tricks like devaluation no longer work in Britain,
if they ever did in the first place.  Devaluation only works if you have
a very disciplined or a very stupid workforce (and I include management
here, so no flames about blaming the working class please).  Britain has
neither.  The same business and union 'leaders' who demand devaluation
then go on to demand or award themselves compensating pay rises, which
negate the supposed positive effects of the devaluation, whilst leaving
all the inflationary effects in place.

  If you ignore the long term inflation that is fuelled by such ineffective
devaluations then the whole thing is a sort of harmless game.  The British
just end up earning more of a currency that is worth less, and nothing
has really changed.  The trouble is that inflation persists, and if people
expect further inflation they keep on demanding higher pay rises even when
the inflation rate has dropped.  This kills the investment that is needed
for any real improvement in the economy stone dead.

Struan
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: Re: Accents (was Re: Abuse a Brit)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:45:27 GMT

In article <2OCT199215331112@sscvx1.ssc.gov> godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.191154.28988@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, ckp2n@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Chris Po writes...
>>sue@netcom.com  writes:
>>My mother, who is German and has lived in the U.S. for 35 years,
>>is continually asked if she is English.  And strangely, when I
>>lived in England, many people thought I was English because I
>>"don't look American."  I never had the nerve to ask what that
>>was supposed to mean....
>> 
>>Chris
>
>Maybe I can clarify it for you.  It means you didn't have that look of 
>over-eager dumbness that characterises Americans abroad.  Also you
>probably didn't ask how many cents in a pound or where can I buy
>German Francs.
>
>

Could have been that, or maybe he has a lot of tattoos.
I figure the parlours must work overtime punching that
blue dye into all those English limbs (and other body
parts).  

Also maybe he walks around chugging cans of shandy or other
alcoholic beverages.  Noticed a lot of that in London and
environs.
From: fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Currency Problems
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:39:44 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:

[...on the uk coal industry....]

>Unfortunately it is not as simple as this. It has been made
>quite clear that if mines are not maintained they flood or are
>damaged in other ways that make them unuseable.

>You also seem, like many free marketeers, to be ignoring the
>time drag factor. If it once again became beneficial or
>necessary to use British coal, a coal industry could not be
>rebuilt from scratch.

Why not? They got built once. Surely we can do it again with our better
technology?

Perhaps you are really saying that if foreign coal became more
expensive, and we'd already closed our mines, the startup costs of
reopening them would be too high and so we'd just have to stick with
high priced foreign coal?

Well, if you really believe that it'd be cheaper to maintain the mines
in the meantime in anticipation of that day then I see an excellent
investment opportunity for *you*. Get some likeminded folks together and
buy a pit. Pay the costs of holding it open in the meantime and then,
when you are proved correct, you'll be able to charge less for coal from
your mine than coal will cost from any mine that has to pay the startup
cost. You should clean up, as it were. Let me know how it goes....

>Matthew Huntbach

FoFP
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:13218 rec.arts.books:17167
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Enforced Shakespeare?
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:43:42 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Sep29.212802.4550@epas.toronto.edu> sfysh@epas.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Moskal Fysh) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.062354.18381@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.112614.3849@darwin.ntu.edu.au> salter_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au writes:
>>>I've just read in my "Grauniad Weekly" that all British school-children
>>>are going to have a compulsory test on a Shakespeare play at the age of 14.

>>>stark staring bonkers?

>>Why is this bonkers?  It sounds like an excellent idea (although it might
>>be better to require more than one play).

>It's bonkers because Shakespeare's English is now 375 or so years old.
>Why should we be expecting 14-year-olds to comprehend it?

When I was at school we started reading Shakespeare at 11. The
publishers of the school editions that we used were aware that some of
the language was archaic, and in those few instances where it would
have been hard to understand, or interpreted wrongly, they provided a
footnote. Not many footnotes were required. I don't recall anybody in
the class having difficulty understanding the language. What we did
have difficulty with was:

	1. Finding a way of reading the text aloud which facilitated
comprehension by the listener. We all found this impossible. In effect
we could only understand Shakespeare as written text, not heard
speech. The complexity of his sentences required that we be able to
scan backwards and forwards to parse them.  But then this is a problem
which only the best Shakesperean actors can handle properly.

	2. Because we were so young -- and immature -- we had
difficulty appreciating what was going on in the plays. Of course we
didn't know that at the time. But in retrospect, that was the largest
reason why many of the class found the plays boring, not lack of
understanding of the language.

With the exception of those who take up a literary career, most people
by the age of 14 have acquired almost all the command of English they
will ever have. If they can't understand his _language_ at 14, I doubt
if they ever will be able to.

I don't think the difference between Shakespeare's 375 yr old English
and current public written English (e.g. as employed on the net) is as
large as the difference between current public written English and
whatever dialect the schoolkids happens to speak in their local
streets. In other words, if they can handle public written English --
which ought to be a goal of their education -- it is only a small
extra step to Shakespeare. In fact, I am sure that the insistence on
Shakespeare is a simply a way of ensuring that that the kids leave
school able to handle current public written English.
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
From: gray@rz-berlin.mpg.de
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Enforced Shakespeare?
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:05:30 +0100
Organization: Rechenzentrum MPG Berlin

  This thread arrived all in a heap here in sunny Berlin.  Having read it
all (pauses to shine fingernails on lapel) at a sitting, and having talked
to many adults who learnt English as a second language and met Shakespeare
as an example of what to aim for, the following thoughts present themselves.

  Firstly that people learning the basics of English should be kept well
clear of the Bard.  His great strengths are an enormous vocabulary, an
extremely inventive use of figurative language, and punctuation and
syntax that boggle even the trained mind.  The combined effect can
to overwhelm the reader, particularly if they are a poorly motivated
beginner.  Of course, it is for precisely these reasons that anybody
with a reasonable grasp of the language who sees it as something more
than just a tool for everyday subsistance should read his stuff.

  Secondly, how Shakespeare is presented makes a world of difference.
I had some excellent teachers who managed to pass on the spirit of
text to students who were frankly baffled by its complexity.  I also
had some total duds who would take us plodding through the words one
by one, dissecting the plays into a million pointless soundbites.
However, even the good teachers couldn't compete with a good performance
when it came to stimulating me to read the plays for myself rather
than for an exam.

  So I believe that schoolchildren should be taught Shakespeare, but
as an example of sophisticated English, not as part of a basic course
(which has happened to german friends learning as adults), and if at
all possible in conjuction with performances or readings.  At what age
this should happen depends on the children, the teachers and a whole
lot more, but I would strongly object to the notion that people should
only be taught what they find easy to learn.

Struan
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:13221 rec.arts.books:17172
From: jseaver@buckaroo.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Enforced Shakespeare?
Date: 30 Sep 1992 01:36:07 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: buckaroo.wpi.edu

In article <1992Sep29.212802.4550@epas.toronto.edu> sfysh@epas.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Moskal Fysh) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.062354.18381@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.112614.3849@darwin.ntu.edu.au> salter_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au writes:
>>>I've just read in my "Grauniad Weekly" that all British school-children
>>>are going to have a compulsory test on a Shakespeare play at the age of 14.
>>>
>>>Is this really true, or is it just a pinko-liberal rumour spread by the
>>>"Gradiron" to convince the rest of the world that the Tories have gone
>>>stark staring bonkers?
>>
>>Why is this bonkers?  It sounds like an excellent idea (although it might
>>be better to require more than one play).
>
>It's bonkers because Shakespeare's English is now 375 or so years old.
>Why should we be expecting 14-year-olds to comprehend it?  It's no
>wonder so many people dislike reading, and never go to the theatre.
>Personally, I'd be quite happy to see Shakespeare completely taken out
>of high school curricula, except for advanced (special) classes and -
>perhaps - university-qualification level senior classes.

	You're joking, right?  You must be.  Though Shakespeare's syntax is
seemingly ancient, the plays themselves are timeless.  Sure, they may be a bit
harder to read, but a good teacher will help smooth over that.  However,
MacBeth was the best thing I read in high school, good'nough for me to take
a full year of Shakespeare.  Anyone who cannot read and laugh at The Taming Of
The Shrew is seriously impaired and should be detected early :).  Shakespeare
is an irreplaceable part of any English-speaking country's English curriculum,
IMANHO.

					-Jay
From: F.Eetgerink@buro.kun.nl (Frank Eetgerink)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Finding a room in London
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:52:28 GMT
Organization: University of Nijmegen

Hello networkers,

I am trying to find a room for one of our exchange-students in London.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
The period will be October 23 till the end of March next year.
Maximum rent 200

Please reply to me direct:
Eetgerink@buro.kun.nl

Thank you
Frank Eetgerink
University of Nijmegen
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:13284 rec.arts.books:17264
From: ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Enforced Shakespeare?
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:58:06 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <NICKH.92Sep30104858@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>How do these people exist? By the time I was thirteen I'd read about a
>thousand novels. They were my raison d'etre. I spent more time reading
>than I did asleep. Maybe I was a little extreme, but not to have read
>a single novel by that age is a complete tragedy.

To be fair, I can only remember studying two novels by the time I was
13 (both rites-of-passage kids' stuff), and the actual _teaching_ of them
was near-zero. The exams were just comprehension tests. Plenty of the
students were still on "remedial" books (realistic stories about urban
violence and teenage pregnancy in words of one syllable).

I don't know (wrt the original poster) whether there's a problem in
Canada with Canadian books being on the syllabus. It's definitely like
that in some ex-colonial countries, and I can imagine being turned right
off literature by being forced to study mediocre and parochial stuff.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british