HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mossop@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Antony Mossop)
Subject: Re: Service (or lack thereof)
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:21:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.132422.8171@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>In article <BvwA9w.Dt5@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> streater@unixjr.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Tim Streater) writes:
>
>>How do smokers there tend to react to requests that they not smoke in your
>>house/office/while you are eating? Just curious.
>
>This is one of the areas where I truly believe the quality of life in the
>USA is better than almost anywhere else.  Nobody smokes in my house, and
>
>How different from my childhood, when just about everybody smoked.  And
>I had almost continual throat and nasal trouble; after an hour in any
>enclosed public place my eyes would begin to water uncontrollably; after
>two hours the stomach cramps would start - and, of course, everything
>smelled vile.


I realise this particular poster was not referring to California
but previous ones have. I'm vaguely interested in the suggestion
that they find breathing a problem when a smoker, smokes in the
same building and yet manage to survive in what I assume is urban
California. LA and to a lesser extent the Bay area suffer on occasion
from truly hazardous air pollution, even the general air quality in
the Bay I find more irritating then an average British pub (though
this could be the local lack of humidity). I suppose that some
people may well be immune to other pollutants and especially sensitive
to tobacco smoke but I'm a bit dubious considering how many now claim
this (where did all the smokers in the past come from?). To make a
sweeping generalisation I've tended to find that allergic, trouble
breathing etc is Californian for 'I don't like' (and it's spreading
to other English speakers). I don't like smokey places myself,
especially from large numbers of commercial cigarettes being smoked,
even though I do smoke (hand rolled cigarettes of good quality tobacco 
usually I smoke one of these a day). I realise that this view may seem
like ignorance, perhaps sacrilege, it's just that I sense that pervasive
smell of overdone puritanism and perhaps even a touch of humbug.

Tony Mossop, geophysics, Stanford
From: huw@castle.ed.ac.uk (H G J Evans)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Return to UK - Queries.
Date: 12 Oct 92 11:06:06 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University


>
>I have a penpal in Sheffield;  she wrote to me her Social Security was 
>107 pound a week.   Depending on all the other things that relate to
>this, it may be enough or it may not.  


That *must* include other benefits than just income support. Does she
have dependant children?  107 pounds p.w. is over  1000 pounds p.a. more
than I get as a graduate student!
It is over five years since I last claimed benefit, as a single adult,
but my unemployment benefit (which was slightly higher than supplementary
benefit, or income support as it is called now) was about 30 pounds p.w.
It was also possible (and as far as I know it still is) to claim housing
benefit to cover the cost of your accomodation. Since opposition parties
still rant and rage about the allegedly low rates of benefit, I imagine
the figures are not greatly changed.

Huw.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Subject: Re: Does being Tory mean you're Thick
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:29:00 GMT

In article <26872@castle.ed.ac.uk>, matt@castle.ed.ac.uk (M P Taylor)         writes...
>In article <13OCT199210180785@sscvx1.ssc.gov> godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
> 
>   ...   a lot of guff   ...
> 
>But then the crucial point:
>>but I suggest that being Tory simply means that you're thick.  Anyone who can
>>be persuaded by the recent bullshit from the government must be intellectually
>>challenged.
>>
>>Laurence
> 
>The sad state of affairs is Laurence that to vote any other way at
>present in this country is futile.
> 
>You can't beat them so you might as well join them...
> 
>		Matt

What is your evidence for that statement?  I know that's what the Mail, Sun,
Star, Express constantly claim in their editorials "it's bad but it would 
be worse under Labour", but where is the justification?

Laurence

Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:14148 alt.politics.british:278 soc.culture.celtic:6798
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Privatisation snippets
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:16:49 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

A few interesting (well, I thought they were) privatisation anecdotes:

British Rail -- the government are looking into selling it off, in
pieces.  There is a strong rumour that SNCF (the French Railway, in
essence government owned) are looking into buying bits of it.  (The
government denies this, but on the other hand government statements of
economic-policy intent don't feature highly on my credibility list this
week.)  Would be wonderfully ironic if we were to end up with a
'nationalised' railway system, but run by (and with profits going to)
the French nation.  Very 'Euro', at least.

Scottish water -- being discussed.  One reader (presumably a Scot)
points out to me that this isn't 'nationally' owned, but rather is
owned by the individual local government units, and that one of the
difficulties that the government is having with working out the
privatisation is that the money would, therefore, go to them, except
that the government is also trying to figure out how to eliminate them
as a tier of government.  This confuses things.  Never mind that.

Was a letter on the subject in one of the Scottish papers last I was up
visiting there.  Missed the beginnings of the exchange, but it was
possible to work out the whole thing from this letter.  It appears that
one of the local Scottish councils had taken a stand against the
privatisation of Scottish water.

Another reader had written to the paper, suggesting that it was very
hypocritical of them to take that attitude, when they had, as an
investment, bought shares in the English water companies when they were
privatised.  The letter I saw pointed out that this was only sensible.
'If the English want to give money away, it is only proper canny Scots
practice that we should have some of it.  That does not mean that we
have to be enthusiastic about giving our money to them.'

Finally -- It occurs to me that no one has yet mentioned what I see as
the only strong argument against government ownership of industry, and
that is the fact (and method) of the privatisations themselves.  Any
sensible private company that wanted to dispose of bits of itself would
KEEP the profitable bits, and flog off the unprofitable ones --
precisely the reverse of government methodology.  AND, they would sell
it at full market value, rather than artificially setting a give-away
price.  QED.

-- 
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: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Currency problems
Date: 14 Oct 92 08:53:10 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <26805@castle.ed.ac.uk>, fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
> In the end, when the question comes to "which bits of the welfare state
> will we cut?" it'll be interesting to see if the middle classes will
> really say "Cut the poor, don't touch our mortgage subsidy!"
> 
They already have. Why else do you think we've still got that Mr Major at
number 10?
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   Remember what happened to the dinosaurs!
wilcox@maths.oxford.ac.uk  |    I did---and look what happened to me.
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Oxford 1969
Date: 8 Oct 92 02:17:46 GMT
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu


This is a bit out of line for s.c.b but I'm too cheap
to call my Oxonian acquiantances...

	Recently it has been alleged the Bill
Clinton is unfit for the (US) presidency 'cause he
didn't take classes/exams during his second year
at Oxford [sic]. Now, figuring him as a PPE type
with a sort of bachelors degree already under the
belt, I started wondering just what exams he would
be expected to take?
	As a BA he's not gonna want anotherone,
and doesn't Oxford have a 7 term residency requirement?
Were there any masters courses then examinable, clearly
Oxford doesn't have the infantile American obsession with
multiple exams concurrent with the course? There were none
of currently popular "diploma" courses available? MPhil
is by thesis and he's not going to get a DPhil in two years,
so did he have anything better to do than to sit in on seminars
and chat over beer? Is there a better way to learn?
	Is there any possibility that the Great American Public
can comprehend the absence of GPAs and and biweekly in-class quizzes?

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  If you ever have to go to Shoeburyness			*
*  Take the A-road, the ok road, that's the best!		*
*  Go motoring on The A13!	- BB 1983			*

 
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:14162 alt.politics.british:279 soc.culture.celtic:6804
From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.politics.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Is there any need for that struggle(Re: Irish Rejects Associated (IRA))
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:33:08 GMT
	<cmp0136.718987750@oxygen.sys.uea.ac.uk>
	<1992Oct13.232949.16429@maths.tcd.ie>
	<1992Oct14.073008.12777@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Oct14.073008.12777@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> bosch@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Gerhard Bosch) writes:

   I assume that the people are not very religious, the protestants and the
   catholics. Just go the a service on Sunday morning a you will see in most
   countries empty churches. I guess that a century ago, there was still
   trouble having the wrong religion, but today the people should be more
   tolerant.  Already the Pope started talking with the protestants. I don't
   think these differences in Religion are very relevant.

I think you're right - but the Northern Ireland fighting isn't really about
Protestants vs. Catholics, it's about Nationalists vs. Unionists.  It just
happens that most of the Protestants are Unionists and most of the Catholics
are Nationalists, because Britain is traditionally Protestant and Ireland is
traditionally Catholic.
--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)

		
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: R0664@vmcms.csuohio.edu
Subject: Re: Southwell (was Re: Edinburgh)
Organization: CSU
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:05:21 GMT

 
In article <1992Oct8.122911.7950@cs.hw.ac.uk> nick@cs.hw.ac.uk
(Nick Taylor) writes:
>And if you want some real fun ask a Brit to pronounce Shrewsbury or Southwell.
>You'll get the oh so clever responses of Shrowsbury and Southall. The natives
>of these places pronounce them as they are spelt however.
 
The other variation of Shrewsbury is Salop, which I heard quite
often when I lived in Bridgnorth, Shropshire.  Caused confusion though
when the name of the county was also Salop!!
 
Richard Cole
The Urban Center
Cleveland State University
Cleveland Ohio 44115 USA
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: mossop@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Antony Mossop)
Subject: Re: Does being Tory mean you're Thick
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:15:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.082301.18861@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>From: mossop@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Antony Mossop)
>>In article <26872@castle.ed.ac.uk> matt@castle.ed.ac.uk (M P Taylor) writes:



>
>I am always sorry to see the "voting is futile" line. If some
>2,000 voters in marginal seats had voted another way, or 4,000
>non-voters actually bothered to vote for non-Tories, the Tory
>government wouldn't have a majority today. How many marginal
>seats were won by the Tories because a few dozen people sat at
>home saying "I hate the Tories, but I'm not voting because it's
>futile". If I were a miner, I would be tempted to get hold of
>such a person if I could find him and string him up.
>
>Matthew Huntbach



Sadly many politicians claim that they have been 'mandated by
the people' and use this as an excuse to do horrendous things.
A lot of people find it very galling for some elected representative,
who only holds the position by the fact that their opponents
were even more incompetent/insane/corrupt, boasting that anything
they do is supported by the electorate. A proportion of the
elegible public does not want to be to blame for putting such
people in power and I have much sympathy with this view. However,
I have always recommended that such people destroy their ballot
paper as this is counted and demonstrates their disagreement with
the system as it stands. Simply not voting has the disadvantage
that it is simply interpreted as apathy and tacit agreement with the
system as it stands. I will also in future suggest they steer
clear of men who fantacise about being a miner with miles of rope.


Tony Mossop, geophysics, Stanford
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Salaries
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:47:11 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: david@postman.gr.osf.org (David George)
>How about a spare bedroom tax ?  For every room which could reasonably be
>used as a bedroom but which no-one is living in you have to 1 Local Tax Unit
>(tbd). I'm treating living space as a resource you'll have to pay for too,
>especially if you're not using it.

I prefer the good old Liberal panacea of Land Value Taxation.
Bedrooms can be created or destroyed, land is permanent, and if
the community takes that value of the land which it has
created, then it is no theft. Just like any other tax, there
can be a tax allowance, so it would be charged only on that
land over and above that you need for living. Some economists
have reckoned that land value tax could largely replace income
tax. The old Liberal Party actually had it written into its
constitution that it believed "Community created land values
should be returned to the community".

Matthew Huntbach
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Does being Tory mean you're Thick
Date: 16 Oct 92 08:23:01 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: mossop@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Antony Mossop)
>In article <26872@castle.ed.ac.uk> matt@castle.ed.ac.uk (M P Taylor) writes:
>>The sad state of affairs is Laurence that to vote any other way at
>>present in this country is futile.
>>
>>You can't beat them so you might as well join them...
>>
>Some people regard running with the herd straight towards a cliff as
>insanity.
>Just because voting may appear futile could not excuse agreeing with
>policies, idealogies and statements that are often clearly a load of old
>todgers.

I am always sorry to see the "voting is futile" line. If some
2,000 voters in marginal seats had voted another way, or 4,000
non-voters actually bothered to vote for non-Tories, the Tory
government wouldn't have a majority today. How many marginal
seats were won by the Tories because a few dozen people sat at
home saying "I hate the Tories, but I'm not voting because it's
futile". If I were a miner, I would be tempted to get hold of
such a person if I could find him and string him up.

Matthew Huntbach
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Currency problems
Date: 12 Oct 92 12:28:24 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

>In article <26691@castle.ed.ac.uk> fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
>>Well, if you want to believe some current advocates of the welfare state
>>then anyone earning less than average income is by definition "poor".
>>This kind of thinking leads to the prevalent nonsense of collecting
>>taxes to redistribute to such obviously poor people as:
>
>>1) Home owners. (Mortgage Interest Relief)
>
>>2) Married couples. (I guess it's just intuitive that single living is
>>cheaper than joint living).
>
>>3) Every child in the country (since we apparently hand out child
>>benefit whatever the earnings of the parents).
>
>>and god alone knows what other nonsense.

I'll grant that (1) and (2) are silly.  (3), though, represents the
BEST way of getting aid to the needy, and making sure that they get
it.  Maximum coverage at minimum cost, just needs integrated with the
tax system.

Specifically, you give the benefit to everyone, and then you set your
tax rates such that it gets partially or completely (or even multiply,
if your leanings are like mine) clawed back from those people who are
sufficiently well-off that they didn't really need it in the first
place.  Much cheaper to administer, and no-one falls through holes in
the net.  (Even the Tories seem to see that, as it's one of their
arguments for not abolishing or means-testing it.)

The reason this argument doesn't apply to (1) and (2) as the system is
currently set up is that universality is missing.  They are given to a
selected subset of people -- in the case of (1), a selected subset
which is made up of people who can afford to buy a house, and thus is
helping the 'better-off' at the expense of the really poor.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: david@postman.gr.osf.org (David George)
Subject: Re: Words: American vs English (UK type)
Organization: OSF RI Grenoble
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 11:31:50 GMT

In article <1au8ugINNmt9@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM>, smckinty@sunicnc.France.Sun.COM (Steve McKinty - Sun ICNC) writes:
|> 
|> In Ireland, a sod is a lump of peat (turf), (which an Englisman would
|> probably call a clod [of earth]).

but might very well call a 'sod' too.  As in Good King Wenceslas
(of Christmas Carol fame) imprinting his boot in 'sods'.  Unless
of course he was some 10C. Polish gay basher....

Anyway I'm just off to have a faggot for lunch.

David.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: hiscrp@nuscc.nus.sg (C R Pennell)
Subject: Re: Service (or lack thereof)
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:29:31 GMT

sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) writes:
: My SO, on the other hand, has completely lost patience with the
: pace and quality of service in the UK, *and* he is completely
: smoke-intolerant.  Luckily we didn't have to eat out together
: very many times.  :-)  He also created quite a ruckus at the
: village whist drive by requesting that the girl at his table
: not inhale in his face.  I wanted to slide under the table.

  You are remarkably tolerant - MY wife would be pretty angry if another
woman INhaled in my face in public (or private, come to that)


Richard Pennell History NUS

: 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: Re: Irish Rejects Associated (IRA)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:35:08 GMT

In article <jyc.719077246@Leland> jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
>
>yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>
>>I would like to challenge all USers to think of the following:
>>   What if one state in the Union decided to seceed and was not allowed to, say
>>Texas.  Wouldn't you expect a group of Texans to form an independence group
>>having a covert civil war in Texas and random bomb attacks in the rest of the
>>country?  How would you fell.?
>
>
>   Um, actually this already happened.  Texas and a number of other
>states decided to secede and weren't allowed to, so they formed an
>independence group called the Confederate States Army which engaged in a
>very extensive campaign of violence.  I wasn't around at the time, but
>from what I hear no one felt very good about the whole thing. 
>

Furthermore, it was partially funded by greedy textile tycoons from 
ENGLAND.
From: streater@unixjr.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Tim Streater)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Driving in UK.
Date: 11 Oct 92 08:12:50 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1b7aqiINNjam@gap.caltech.edu> miriam@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Miriam Jackson) writes:
>Could he drive a rental car which is manual?

Yes.

>Is he obliged to show his British licence?

No.

>If they ask him if he has one and he says no, will he get his hand slapped if
>anyone finds out?

No.

The US licence is valid for manual (stick) and automatic. Also, UK insurance
companies tend to insure the driver, not the car. Hence their concern, which
apparently centres around the fact that they assume that the individual has
presumably spent little time driving on the UK side of the road recently. This
is the case evn iof you have a valid UK licence (as I have). Its the residence
that counts; I had this trouble last year.

tin.
From: wendtr@newton.hartwick.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: London Penpal
Date: 7 Oct 92 11:00:13 -0500
Organization: HARTWICK COLLEGE

In article <26576@castle.ed.ac.uk>, jeremy@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
> In article <qncdv5o@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> =>In article <26546@castle.ed.ac.uk>, jeremy@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
> =>|> In article <qmh65dk@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> =>|> =>
> =>|> =>I think that some candidate for President in 1988 (was it Pat
> =>|> =>Robertson?) boasted of having gone to Oxford and they dug up
> =>|> =>that he'd actually spent six weeks there one Summer.
> =>|> 
> =>|> Are you sure you aren't thinking of Jeffrey Archer??
> =>
> =>No, I don't think he qualifies to run for President.  He
> =>wasn't born in the US, was he?
> 
> I don't know, have you asked him? As a matter of fact I don't think he's
> qualified for anything very much, but that doesn't seem to have stopped
> him.
> 
> (Jon - insert smileys if it would help you)
> 
> -- 
> ===Jeremy Henderson===jeremy@castle.ed.ac.uk=          Vommen
>                                              Bladmagen
>                                    Loepmagen
>                         Naetmagen
*** Can we please keep to the subject, maybe you should have your political
debates elsewhere!