HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jswilson@mta.ca (SCOTT_WILSON)
Subject: Re: Budmouth
Reply-To: jswilson@mta.ca
Organization: Mount Allison U, Sackville, N.B. Canada 
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:33:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.105605.7576@rz-berlin.mpg.de>, gray@rz-berlin.mpg.de writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.155158.28454@rdg.dec.com>,
> preece@sbpexe.enet.dec.com (Ian Preece) writes:
> 
>> In article <174@bazooka.Altos.COM>, cbenson@bazooka.Altos.COM
>> (Christopher Benson) writes:
>>>
>>>Wessex itself will probably not be found on modern maps,
>>>but refers to Dorset, Wiltshire and bits of Berkshire, Devon.
>>>
>> Cough, splutter, choke !!!
>> "Berkshire, Devon" ???????
>> Excuuuuuse me, but Berks and Devon are a long way apart !
>> 
>> I think the old Kingdom of Wessex may have included some or all of what 
>> we now know as Hampshire, too.  In fact, wasn't Winchester the old capital?
>
>  I missed some of the earlier posts in this thread, so toast me if I am
>teaching the net the noble art of egg-sucking, but.....
>
>  Don't confuse Hardy's Wessex (spelt W-e-s-s-e-x) and the ancient Kingdom
>of Wessex (spelt W-e-s-s-e-x so they're easy to differentiate).  The former
>is based on the latter but is really only a subset.
>
>  Hardy's Wessex is mostly Dorset, with bits of Wiltshire, Devon and Hampshire
>thrown in round the edges.  Most of the made up towns are modelled on Dorset
>towns, and the Penguin Classics versions of Hardy's wessex novels include a
>useful map showing where everything is.  I think that Budmouth is a combination
>of Sidmouth and Budleigh-Salterton, both small towns on the South Coast.
>
Actually, like I said before, Budmouth is Weymouth according to the Penguin 
Classics - "The Mayor of Casterbridge".  Can anyone confirm my question do
you think that Downstaple is Barnstaple in Devon?
    I think that a lot of the map is made up of Devon.  You can see Exter
-Exonbury-.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: evansg@uproar.enet.dec.com (Gwyn Evans @ IME)
Subject: Re: political parties
Reply-To: evansg@uproar.enet.dec.com (Gwyn Evans @ IME)
Organization: Digital Equipment Service Industries Solutions Company Ltd
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 10:37:12 GMT


In article <1992Apr10.054754.12585@morrow.stanford.edu>,
francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:

>But there are two parties only; that is the principal result tonight.
>The LibDems were wiped out. Most of their votes went to Labour, although
>the Conservatives picked up a few
>					Francis Muir

  We must have a different definition of 'wiped out'. The last news I
saw had them with an expected overall loss of one seat, taking them to
21 seats. The interesting thing will be the proportion of the popular
vote that they got, although it did appear to me that in in certain
constituencies where the Labour party had been a close runner to the
Conservatives in '87, as fair amount of tactical voting had taken place.

Gwyn
--
+======================================================================+
| Gwyn Evans  | evansg@uproar.enet.dec.com |  Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK  |
| DESISCo - Digital Equipment Service Industries Solutions Company Ltd |
|  Views expressed and statements made are mine and not those of DEC   |
+======================================================================+
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.politics.british,soc.culture.european
From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft)
Subject: Re: The Decline of Britain (was Re: Great Britain as a malfunctioning democracy)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 07:40:28 GMT

In article <jjjqrlk@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.200958.7848@leland.Stanford.EDU>, rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes:
>|> In article <ji7i7r0@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>|> >
>|> >But each European country pays a price for its good statistics.   France
>|> >has high unemployment, Germany has a balance of payments deficit,
>|> >Italy has huge public debt.    So when you compare country for country,
>|> >things look a little better.   Not perfect, but not disastrous.
>|> >
>|> >jon.
>|> 
>|> If by "balance of payments deficit" you mean a trade deficit, you are
>|> wrong.  Germany traditionally runs a trade surplus.  This has been changed
>|> to a slight trade deficit because of reunification, but they are already
>|> moving back to a surplus.
>
>If I had meant trade deficit, I would have said trade deficit.  I
>meant Balance of Payments Deficit, and that is why I said Balance
>of Payments deficit.   Germany currently has a rather large Balance
>of Payments deficit.
>

Ah! You mean Budget Deficit!  And you are _still_ wrong.  Until reunification
Germany had a very low budget deficit, and it still had some of the most
impressive economic numbers anywhere.

If anything, the budget deficit ("Balance of Payments Deficit") that Germany
has developed since it reunified will put it in the economic soup, not
boost it's statistics as you claim.

Yours for terminological exactitude,
RNA
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: British Bill: of Rights? of Goods?
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:24:14 GMT
	<RJC.92Apr15200632@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk>
	<1992Apr15.214221.13698@apollo.hp.com>
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research

In article <1992Apr15.214221.13698@apollo.hp.com>, John Francis (jf) writes:
jf> Nntp-Posting-Host: greenwood.ch.apollo.hp.com

rjc> My understanding is that if the current loaded US supreme court
rjc> decides that the right of free speech doesn't apply to atheists or
rjc> something equally weird [ . . . . . . ]

jf> If you mean this to be a 'reductio ad absurdum' example, you will
jf> have to try again!  President Bush has left no doubts as to where
jf> he stands on the issue - this is "One Nation Under God"*, and thus
jf> should have no rights for atheists.  Little details like the
jf> separation of church and state are mere legal quibbles which
jf> should not be allowed to stand in the way of the principles of
jf> natural justice.

I was thinking of that when I posted. I was also think of the UK
blasphemy laws. 

Actually any sufficiently clever lawyer should be able to _derive_
`atheists don't get free speech' from the separation of church and
state :-).

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk	They're painting the deliverence of the ones
			that they dispise...
				- Toyah, `Computer'
From: mckeonj@ul.ie
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Meaningless coincidence
Date: 14 Apr 92 10:00:10 GMT
Organization: University of Limerick, Ireland

On the day that Harold Wilson announced his resignation as leader
of the Labour Party, Princess Margaret announced her divorce.
On the day that Neil Kinnock announced his resignation as leader
of the Labour Party, Princess Anne announced her divorce.
-- 
"Engage" (Jean Luc Picard)
===================================================================
John McKeon, Material Science Dept. University of Limerick, Ireland
Sysop, STYX BBS Limerick Ireland, +353-61-338228, FidoNet 2:263/271
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: jlloyd@cc.uow.edu.au (Jonathan Lloyd)
Subject: Re: Farewell to Kinnock
Organization: University Of Wollongong
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 08:06:15 GMT

pac9897@zeus.tamu.edu (SMELLS LIKE JOHN MAJOR....) writes:

>So goodbye Neil Kinnock, depised by far-left and Tory alike. Well, thanks
>for trying but we appreciate that no one can face up to lies on the
>scale propagated by Fleet Street.

Oh come on Philip, you don't give the British public credit for enough
good sense to be able to be able to read between the lines in the 
gutter press.

Besides, the gutter press are balanced by the socialist types in
the BBC television news, which are giulty of almsot as much bias in a
far more powerful medium.
 
>By way of an aside, does anyone remember how in the late-1980's
>the press tried to show how inferior Kinnock was with his degree
>from Cardiff Uni. when compared to Thatcher and her Oxbridge degree.
>Remarkably, when Johnny "Two O-Levels" took over the premiership,
>I seem to remember precious little in the way of any newspaper
>pointing out how Kinnock had a degree, passed his o-levels and A-levels.
>Mind you, the British press are something for the British to malign
>and the foreigner to view with disgust and disbelief.

All true I know. You are absolutely correct.
But remember the tories skillfully used John Major's "ordinary chap"
image -and that all it is an _image_- to their advantage.

>Hopefully someone like John Smith will get the job, as it's going to take
>a particularly senior and skilled politician to hold Labour together
>through the next bleak 5 years.

For the record I'm a conservative, on the side of ecconomic rationalism.
Unfortunately both sides of the house are not exactly on the ball at the 
moment. A strong opposition is essential for the UK's democracy to work 
best. That is probably one reason why the past few years have been a bit
of disaster. John Smith will be a big improvement on Kinnock, who I think 
was Labour's biggest liability, and the Tories big asset.

Actually Philip I think you are being a bit too pessimistic.
There are signs of recovery on the horizon. And I believe when the recovery 
does arrive (say in 94-95) it will have a better base than if some of the 
silly ideas the Labour party have would have been passed into legislation.
The recession in Britain must be a miserable experience for many, but
what I have seen of Labour policy indicates that the incentives to work
our way out would be taxed out of existence.
Their basic elctoral cry -reading between the lines- is that "if we make all
the _rich_ people poorer we will make all the poor rich" and we all know
that kind of stuff is utter crap -just like what our "gutter press"
writes.

I forgot to say I was a cynic too......

********************************************************************
** These views are my own and do not reflect upon the policy *******
** or views of the University of Wollongong, only of a young *******
** welshman in a land down under ---Cymru am Byth ******************
********************************************************************
Phone +61 42 213018     Fax +61 42 213112       Email J.Lloyd@uow.edu.au
From: andrew@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Andrew Sharff)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Exit Polls
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:41:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: gazette.11161

For those suffering out of the country, and without cable, the latest ITN exit 
polls in the last half hour are:

        Conservatives - 42%  - 315 seats
        Labour        - 38%  - 293 seats
        Lib Dem       - 18%  -  18 seats
  
        (326 seats for majority)

The BBC came out with almost identical figures.
Granted, these are only exit polls, but I seem to remember that they were pretty close in 1983 and 1987.

It would seem likely at this stage that John Major will make history leading the 4th successive tory government (if these polls are right a Lab/Lib dem alliance will still be short of the conservatives - they would need all the other parties as well ie SNP.

Of course I may be totally wrong!
From: pjs@euclid.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter J. Scott)
Subject: Re: Fill in the ___...  major, minor; maximus, ___, minimus
Reply-To: pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:05:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.055955.26554@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, ai888@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Flesher) writes:
> 
> Traditionally, in English public schools, if two brothers named, say, 
> Smith are attending the school at the same time, they are distinguished 
> as Smith major and Smith minor. If three brothers are attending, I believe 
> that the oldest is referred to as Smith maximus and the youngest as 
> Smith minimus, but what is the one in the middle called? Smith medius?

Well, in the books I read, they would have been Smith primus, Smith
secundus, and Smith tertius, which obviously left room for future
expansion...

-- 
This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news.  Any questions?    |    (pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov)
From: jmb@ukc.ac.uk (Mike Bremner)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Victory V lozenges
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:16:45 GMT
Organization: Institute of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Kent

Forget the election!  Let's have some culture.  Here's a short item from
today's "Independent":

    Cadbury Schweppes has bought Hacks and Victory V medicated
    sweets brands for \pounds3.1m from the receivers.

Could this be the beginning of the export success story of the
nineties?
From: smckinty@sunicnc.France.Sun.COM (Steve McKinty - Sun ICNC)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Small print (was Re: Mortgages)
Date: 16 Apr 92 08:13:25 GMT
Organization: Sun Technologies Enterprise Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.france.sun.com

In article <21780569@otter.hpl.hp.com>, tgg@otter.hpl.hp.com (Tom Gardner) writes:

   > That's an even worse situation that a clause added to my car policy when it was
   > renewed. The insurance company confirmed that (under this fully comprehensive
   > policy), if my neighbour stole my car then I wasn't covered! And this was with
   > a reputable company.
   > 
   > Moral read the small print, and understand it's implications. The buggers'll
   > squirm out of anything if they can...

Very true. A couple of years ago my friends (comprehensively insured) car
was written off by his wife (her fault). He had a protected no-claims
bonus, and was rather surprised when his next insurance premium was
substantially higher.

He queried this, pointing out that he should not have lost any of his bonus
despite the accident, because he was paying extra for the protected bonus.

The response?  "Quite correct sir, your bonus is unchanged at 60%, however
your wife cost us a lot of money, so we are adding a loading to your
policy because she is listed as a driver".

With small print like that, why pay the extra for the [un]protected bonus.
You can't win!

-- 
Steve McKinty
SUN Microsystems ICNC
38240 Meylan, France
email: smckinty@france.sun.com	   BIX: smckinty
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:6562 alt.politics.british:24 alt.activism:7767
From: jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.politics.british,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Election Results
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:14:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: tygra.1992Apr14.001454.15728
Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Detroit, MI

In article <n_tjzbj.kemnitz@netcom.com> kemnitz@netcom.com (Greg Kemnitz) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.140104.164652@cs.cmu.edu> goddard+@cs.cmu.edu (Nigel Goddard) writes:
^^>Woe unto us!  I spent the evening listening to the results on 
^^>the World Service with a group of fellow Brits.  Stunned disbelief,
^^>followed by gnashing of teeth.  One woman announced she is no
^^>longer British.  Those who had thought of returning from exile
^^>will remain abroad.  Those who had thought they were abroad
^^>temporarily will reconsider.
^^
^^
^^
^^My sympathies.  On this side of the pond, I am getting ready to pack
^^my bags for points unknown--I had hoped it would have been Britain.
^^Just so you know you're not alone in kindred misery, it seems pretty 
^^certain that we will be going for a renewal of Republican rule through
^^sixteen years--and if you forget the brief post-Watergate aberation of
^^Carter, make that 24 going on 28 years. :-( :-( :-(
^^
^^
IMHO, Carter was the best president in my lifetime as he cared about
the people and seemed to want to do what was good for them. We haven't
had one like him since.

-- 
CAT-TALK Conferencing System   | E-MAIL: jp@Michigan.COM
+1 313 790 6426 (USR HST)      | MICHIGAN NETWORK SYSTEMS, INC.  
+1 313 790 6432 (TELEBIT PEP)  | 800-736-5984  FAX: 313-790-6437 
********EIGHT NODES*********** | TELEBIT, DIGIBOARD, ISC UNIX, MICROPOLIS
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Re: The Vogon News Service: 06-Apr-92
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 14:25:00 GMT

Dave Jones writes:

	Simon Edward Spero writes:

		Craig Cockburn writes:

			"Can Wattana top his record break of one hundred 
			and forty seven?"

				   - Nick Owen, LWT, at a snooker match
				     [ 147 is the maximum break possible. ]

		Actually it's theoretically possible to score 155; if your 
		opponent commits a foul before any balls have been potted, 
		and leaves you snookered, the subsequent free ball counts 
		as an extra red.

	Aha! All is explained.  However I think some Americans will find
	themselves snookered by the jargon that may yet be unleashed in 
	this thread.......

Lurking Yanks must learn to fend for themselves

						Francis Muir

Francis Muir

francis@sep.stanford.edu
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Why wait 5 years?
Date: 17 Apr 92 08:00:11 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <jknug28@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Apr16.122729.24713@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>|> In article <jjk94t8@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>|> 
>|> >Oh, no.   That's too easy.   Far better to vote Tory (25.7) and 
>|> >labour(39.0) and then complain afterwards.
>|> >
>|> The majority voted labour, the party who offered them what they
>|> desire, their own parliament.
>
>No, a majority did *not* vote Labour.   Go read the figures.
>
Correction. The majority of the voting public voted Labour. (Nit picker)



-- 
   "This isn't an argument, you're just contradicting me!"  "No I'm not."
   
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: horne-scott@CS.YALE.EDU (Scott Horne)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Election Results
Organization: Computer "Science" Dept, Yale University
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 00:46:53 GMT

In article <n_tjzbj.kemnitz@netcom.com>, kemnitz@netcom.com (Greg Kemnitz) posts for Jon Rhein:
<In article <1992Apr10.140104.164652@cs.cmu.edu> goddard+@cs.cmu.edu (Nigel Goddard) writes:
<
<>Woe unto us!  I spent the evening listening to the results on 
<>the World Service with a group of fellow Brits.  Stunned disbelief,
<>followed by gnashing of teeth.  One woman announced she is no
<>longer British.

She should've announced that long ago.

<My sympathies.  On this side of the pond, I am getting ready to pack
<my bags for points unknown--I had hoped it would have been Britain.

Same here.  I'm leaving at the first opportunity.  Maybe we can share
an apartment.

But I'm not sure why you were setting your sights on Britain.  Sure, anything
is an improvement over the US, but....

<Just so you know you're not alone in kindred misery, it seems pretty 
<certain that we will be going for a renewal of Republican rule through
<sixteen years--and if you forget the brief post-Watergate aberation of
<Carter, make that 24 going on 28 years. :-( :-( :-(

What aberration?  Carter is right-wing trash, too, so far as I'm concerned.

					--Scott

-- 
Scott Horne                               ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne
horne@cs.Yale.edu      SnailMail:  Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT   06520
203 436-1848                Residence:  Rm 1848 Silliman College, New Haven, CT
ZANG4 HAN4 YI4 JIA1 / GONG4 JIAN4 ZHONG1HUA2!
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: political parties
Date: 13 Apr 92 10:35:30 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
>But there are two parties only; that is the principal result tonight.
>The LibDems were wiped out. Most of their votes went to Labour, although
>the Conservatives picked up a few.

The LibDems were not wiped out. They got 17% of the vote, which
was at the lower end of the support the polls were giving them.
I think they badly messed up the last week of the campaign
(mainly due to Paddy Ashdown's ego-tripping) resulting in a
crucial 2-3% of the vote going from Lib-Dem to Tory. This was
enough to boost the Tories in the Lab-Con marginal seats and keep
them ahead of Labour, and deny the LibDems themselves any gains
from the Conservatives. Nevertheless, there are still large
parts of the country where the LibDems remain the major
opposition party to the Conservatives.

Matthew Huntbach
From: goddard+@cs.cmu.edu (Nigel Goddard)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Election stats (3/5) Votes by sex, age & class
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:10:38 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <MATTHEW.92Apr13230031@matthew.ntl02.decnet.nokia.fi> matthew@ntl02.decnet.nokia.fi (Matthew Faupel) writes:
>Breakdown of voting proportions by sex, age and class.
>Source: Independent on Sunday, 12 Apr 92
>              Con      Lab   LibDem   Other
...
>AB             59       20       19       2
>C1             52       24       20       5
>C2             41       38       17       5
>DE             29       50       17       4

Can someone explain what these class classifications are?  I'm especially
interested in the proportion of the voting age population in each class
and the income bands for each class.


Nigel







-- 
Nigel Goddard
goddard@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu
From: martinb@bottomdog.uk.sun.com (Martin Baines - Sun UK - SE Manager Cambridge/Gatwick)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Why wait 5 years?
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:22:39 GMT
Reply-To: martinb@bottomdog.uk.sun.com
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: bottomdog.uk.sun.com

In article 26000@cl.cam.ac.uk, gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:
>In article <1992Apr16.123723.18718@rdg.dec.com> potter@movies.enet.dec.com (Alan T Potter) writes:
>>
>>In article <RJC.92Apr15203550@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk>, rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes...
>
>>>And, to take the other end of this statment, there is no extra layer
>>>of government involved in a Scottish or Welsh parliament -- the layer
>>>is already there (Scottish office, Welsh office and all the quangos
>>>associated with them). All that is involved is a new level of
>>>representitives. Representitives are (relatively) cheap -- they want
>>>the job and get low wages, all that is needed is some offices. 
>>
>>We have the representatives - they work in Westminster.  Are you saying that
>>either i) a TAX-RAISING assembly or ii) a NATIONAL GOVERNMENT can be run with
>>no staff more than is required to run the Scottish or Welsh offices?  Surely
>>not.
>
>The answer to (i) is probably yes; there are already Inland Revenue and
>Customs & Excise staff working in Scotland (I'm not quite so sure about
>Wales), and they would simply become directly answerable to the relevant
>Scottish or Welsh minister.  (ii) would require more staff in Scotland
>or Wales, though this would be partly offset by a drop in the number
>of civil servants in London.

I don't quite agree: in addition to the tax collection functions already
present, there would need to be an addition level of staff to deal with
aportioning monies between Westminster and the Scottish assembly. In
an ideal world (joke!) that should not be a lot staff, but it is
certainly non-zero.

Martin

---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment"

Martin Baines, Sales Support Manager,
Sun Microsystems Ltd, 306 Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 4WG, UK
Phone: +44 223 420421                 Fax: +44 223 420257
JANET:     Martin.Baines@uk.co.sun    Other UK:  Martin.Baines@sun.co.uk
Internet:  Martin.Baines@UK.sun.com
X.400:     g=martin s=baines prmd=sunir admd=mci c=us