HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: This Psalm thingummyjig
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:17:07 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Dec17.162652.10210@spider.co.uk> alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld) writes:

   In article <BzCxy9.Lq@dcs.ed.ac.uk> morna@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Morna J Findlay)
   writes:

   >What's this psalm ( to MacCrimmong - whassat?) that everyones on about?

   23rd Psalm, also known as "The Lord's My Shepherd".  Usually sung a
   funerals.  I've always been told that it has particular associations
   with Scotland, particularly when sung to "Crimmond" (the tune thats
   used at funerals).  Its also often sung at Weddings.  I believe its
   because its one of the 3 hymns everyone knows (Morning has Broken and
   Abide With Me being the other two)

   Alison.

I've always been fondest of "Jerusalem".  Pity it's a specifically English
hymn - it's got such a *magnificent* tune.
--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)
From: alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: This Psalm thingummyjig
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:26:52 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <BzCxy9.Lq@dcs.ed.ac.uk> morna@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Morna J Findlay) writes:
>What's this psalm ( to MacCrimmong - whassat?) that everyones on about?
>
>M ( still a bit tipsy afer Chrustmas lunch)
>

23rd Psalm, also known as "The Lord's My Shepherd".  Usually sung a
funerals.  I've always been told that it has particular associations
with Scotland, particularly when sung to "Crimmond" (the tune thats
used at funerals).  Its also often sung at Weddings.  I believe its
because its one of the 3 hymns everyone knows (Morning has Broken and
Abide With Me being the other two)

Alison.
From: morna@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Morna J Findlay)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Cromwell
Date: 16 Dec 92 11:27:12 GMT
Reply-To: morna@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Morna J Findlay)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <CC.92Dec15155934@carna.dcs.ed.ac.uk> cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.102103.13683@newstand.syr.edu> crdunlea@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Christopher R. Dunlea) writes:
>
>   Regarding Ulick Stafford's comments on Cromwell, I also
>   remember the Ladybird books being quite filledwith praise for
>   Cromwell. My impression of Cromwell from modern historiography
>   was that he was feared by everyone and loved by few. To this day, I
>   have to ask whether those children's books were typical of English
>   attitude, or what? As I've said, most historians, left or right,
>   view Cromwell as an intolerant dictator.
>
>Most remarks about Cromwell that I've come across in the British media (the
>BBC mainly, I suppose) have been quite anti-Cromwell, but mainly because he
>was anti-Royal, rather than for any better reason. 

If we're talking uninformed opinion here, I'd agree.

I am reminded of that famous picture "When Did You Last See Your Father?"


( Which, in case as it's not as famous elsewhere as it is in Britain,
depicts a heroic 6 year old aristocrat in Blue, being questioned by some
nasty rounheads, while his older sisters look on in tears)


M

-- 
Morna Findlay 					JANET:morna@uk.ac.ed.dcs 
	Thanksgiving For a National Victory (Robert Burns)
Ye hypocrites! are these your pranks? To murder men and give God thanks?
Desist, for shame! Proceed no further: God won't accept your thanks for murther.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
From: cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn)
Subject: Re: Permission denied
Organization: Digital Equipment Co. Ltd., Reading, England
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:40:41 GMT


In article <TMACLEAN.19.0@shark.stmarys.ca>, TMACLEAN@shark.stmarys.ca (Terry MacLean) writes...

>This restriction is basically imposed by Ferrie's management - neither
>he nor I can do much about it.  It's just something we have to live with.
> 

Well it's certainly not a Digital regulation, because I checked when 
I started posting the Vogon News to this group. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Craig Cockburn, Digital Equipment Co. Ltd, Reading, England.     Suas
  Internet: cockburn@system.enet.dec.com                           leis
  Voice: +[44] 734 580597                                          a'
  Views here are mine,                                             Gha\idhlig!
     and are not necessarily those of Digital or any other organisation
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
From: jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Subject: Re: Cromwell
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: 14 Dec 92 04:40:49 GMT

crdunlea@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Christopher R. Dunlea) writes:

>garding Ulick Stafford's comments on Cromwell, I also
>remember the Ladybird books being quite filledwith praise for
>Cromwell. My impression of Cromwell from modern historiography
>was that he was feared by everyone and loved by few. To this day, I
>have to ask whether those children's books were typical of English
>attitude, or what? As I've said, most historians, left or right,
>view Cromwell as an intolerant dictator.

>Any comments?

   I remember when travelling around Ireland we kept being told things
like, "There used to be the oldest abbey in the county here until
Cromwell's soldier's destroyed it," and "This was the most important
town this side of Dublin until Cromell burned it," and "In the old days
this was the finest farmland in this island until Cromwell came." I
don't know much about history, but the impression I got was that this
Cromwell guy must have been the biggest asshole in the history of the
world.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.celtic:8298 soc.culture.british:17782
From: mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british,uk.politics
Subject: Re: UK unemployment figures
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:21:20 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

In article <1992Dec18.164646.3506@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.153233.14477@news.clarkson.edu> walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,) writes:
>>Real question: do you know what the median incomes are for these
>>regions, or standards of living?
>>
>Oh easy. The standard of living when taking into account
>average costs against average income is by far the lowest in
>south-east England due to much higher housing costs there.

Although I have repeated this on numerous occasions, no-one has
actually noted the logical error in it, so I will do so myself.
Housing costs are not exported, unless the predominant form of
housing is private tenancy owned by absentee landlords. Money
spent on housing must be returned to the local economy, either
in rents or capital gains/inheritances.

Thus strictly it is wrong to say that *average* standard of
living is low due to the high house price/wage level ratio.
Clearly a substantial proportion of income in south-east
England is unearnt deriving *from* the housing market.

For many, high house prices are offset by substantial lump
sums derived from inheritance/capital gains. However, not
evryone is in this situation, and it is those who are not who
are in a dire state. Many of them borrowed heavily to try and
get housing, and are now caught in the debt trap. The debt they
are struggling in misery to pay really is going to fund the
happiness of those with capital.

The visible face of the south-east is the capital-owning class,
who are so completely dominant in the politics and public
image of the region, that many, whom I have crudely termed "Scotch
and northern whingers" are unaware there is anyone else.
Clearly, electoral reform to provide minority representation is
a first stage in bringing to public attention the plight of the
southern underclass.

Further from this, though, is the need to develop a political
consciousness based on an understanding of inequality caused by
the land situation. This is where Labour and the socialists are
useless. Their analysis of capital discounts the land issue
and overemphasises industrial capital. It is ironic that
whereas the political trendy are prepared to call for land
reform in the Third World, they cannot see the need for it
under their own noses.

The old Liberal Party had a phrase written into its
constitution which stated that "community created land values
should belong to the community". If this had been taken seriously,
it would have been as far reaching as if Labour's Clause IV
were taken seriously.

Matthew Huntbach
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british,uk.politics
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Subject: SE living standards again (was Re: UK unemployment figures)
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:11:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.164646.3506@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.153233.14477@news.clarkson.edu> walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,) writes:
>>Real question: do you know what the median incomes are for these
>>regions, or standards of living?
>>
>Oh easy. The standard of living when taking into account
>average costs against average income is by far the lowest in
>south-east England due to much higher housing costs there. In
>fact, when I have raised this issue before, the answer has
>always been "oh but look at how many jobs you have going down
>there".

Here's something I don't understand.  Even before the slump started to
hit the south-east, everyone living in London knew how expensive
housing and transport costs were.  Most people there, even in
reasonably well-paid jobs, experienced a pretty mediocre standard of
living.  Nearly all the national media are based in London, so
you would have expected the media to reflect this situation.
Yet they continued to push this picture of how prosperous the South
East was.  Why?  Were people in London and the South East trying
to delude *themselves*?
--
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: calum@ivy.clu.cf.ac.uk (Calum Gordon)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Scots Wha Hae lyrics
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:45:43 GMT
Reply-To: Calum Gordon <calum@clu.cf.ac.uk>
Organization: Computational Linguistics Unit, Univ of Wales College of Cardiff
Posting-Software: GNUS: NNTP-based News Reader for GNU Emacs


Anyone know what tune this is sung to ? i always thought it was just
spoken verse.

Other Scottish tunes: 

"Flowers o' the forest" - a lament on Flodden but without words, I believe.
"Grannies Hielen 'hame" - just joking!

How about a Runrig anthem? :)

eg. "Alba", "Skye", "Loch Lomond", ...

--
** Calum Gordon <calum@clu.cf.ac.uk>      ** TEL: +44-222-874000-x5310 **
** Computational Linguistics Unit (CLU)   ** FAX: +44-222-874293       **
** University of Wales College of Cardiff ** JAN: <calum@uk.ac.cf.clu> **
** ----- "People with (a) CLU use Suns; CLUless people use Macs" ----- **
From: morna@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Morna J Findlay)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: This Favorite Lie Again (clarification)
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:10:27 GMT
Reply-To: morna@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Morna J Findlay)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1992Dec14.110624.1@jaguar.uofs.edu> littlec1@jaguar.uofs.edu (Chris Little) writes:
>
>While I'm aware that the recent elections reflected badly on Sinn Fein support
>and while I believe that IRA support in Eire is diminishing, I'm not convinced
>it's dead and don't know if it ever will be.  Any support is SIGNIFICANT. 
>Perhaps I should have that used word in the first place.

Don't you find it significant that support for Sinn Fein is so small -
sorry - tiny?


>I also believe that the elections don't necessarily reflect the sentiments of
>the populace in all facets of life.  Maybe they reflect the priorities of the
>populace, which at the moment seem to be the country's economy, employment and
>a life more than financial worry.

True - but people usually vote on the issues that are most important to
them. If many people in Ireland are in favour of Sinn Fein's objectives,
then these objectives must be well down their list of priorities, or SF
wouldn't have lost all but one of their deposits.


M

-- 
Morna Findlay 					JANET:morna@uk.ac.ed.dcs 
	Thanksgiving For a National Victory (Robert Burns)
Ye hypocrites! are these your pranks? To murder men and give God thanks?
Desist, for shame! Proceed no further: God won't accept your thanks for murther.
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:15:42 EST
From: Aengus Lawlor <RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: New World Order - what about NI???
 <1ghnieINN16b@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM>
 <1992Dec16.034803.25407@philmtl.philips.ca> <28317@optima.cs.arizona.edu>

In article <28317@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
says:
>In article <1992Dec16.034803.25407@philmtl.philips.ca>, ray@philmtl.philips.ca
>(Ray Dunn) writes:
>> Not that I would wish a tour of duty in NI on them, but I'm fascinated that
>> you seem unaware that Canadian Forces have played a bigger role in UN
>> peacekeeping than those of any other nation, and that Canada spends the
>> largest portion of its Defence budget on that role than any other.
>
>Care to expand on this? In particular, how have you determined that Canada
>has "played a bigger role" than any other nation in peacekeeping? Is this
>in raw numbers? A percentage of the population? As of 1980? What? Since
>Canada has a "defence" budget the size of Arizona's state budget, I'm
>curious just how earth-shattering the Candian effort has been if in fact
>it is that impressive....
> How many Canadian troops were in the gulf? How many are in Somalia?
Neither the Gulf war, nor the current situation in Sonalia can be described
as UN peacekeeping. The Gulf war was not run by the UN, and the soldiers who
took part in the Gulf war did not wear the blue helmets of UN forces.

The US was quite adamant that the forces it committed to Somalia would be
directed by US military leaders, and would not be directed by the UN.

And has the US paid it back dues to the UN yet? (An interestingly appropriate
point in this group. Ireland is one of the nations that the UN owes money
to for peacekeeping services. About #13 million, I think).

Aengus
--
RBYAML@ROHMHAAS.COM                    Aengus Lawlor
RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET                   (who used to be ALAWLOR@DIT.IE)
"How about some of that famous Dublin wit, Barman?"
"Certainly, sir. Would that be Dry or Sparkling?"
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british
From: crdunlea@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Christopher R. Dunlea)
Subject: Re: The story of the Scottish flag
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 00:36:08 EST

In article <1992Dec14.161156.27972@news.clarkson.edu> walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,) writes:
>From article <1gdrn0INNnu9@network.ucsd.edu>, by fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu (Fragano Ledgister):
>> 
>> It is rather hard to believe that the Stuarts ceased being kings of
>> Scotland when they became Kings of England.
>> 
>But they were not kings of England, they were kings of the UK (United
>Kingdom) when the Union of the Crowns Took place in 1603.
>
>														GW
>

This is incorrect. The Union of the Crowns did not produce the United Kingdom
in 1603. Rather, it was the Act of Union of 1707 that created Great Britain 
and the United Kingdom. Until that time James, Charles, Charles II and 
James II were King of England and King of Scotland. This I know
from my research, and because my dissertation advisor blares at the 
undergrads "You CANNOT speak to me about the British Empire in the              Seventeenth Century! It did not exist! Only the English Empire existed,
because ONLY the English ruled it!" Point being, not only were the 
parliaments entirely separate, as well as the State Churches (one 
of the causes of the Bishops' War of 1640 was precisely because the
English and Scottish states were not united) but the Crowns were
joined only in fact, not by law.

Chris

Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
From: "david hamid" <david.hamid@canrem.com>
Subject: the story of the scottish
Reply-To: "david hamid" <david.hamid@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: soc
Date: 13 Dec 92 00:43:25 EST

HM>Lots of countries have queens known Elizabeth the Second:
  >Antigua & Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada,
  >England, Grenada, Guernsey, Jamaica, Jersey, Man, Mauritius, New Zealand,
  >Papua New Guinea, Scotland, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts & Nevis,
  >St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Trinidad & Tobago, Tuvalu.

Oops.  Trinidad and Tobago is a republic, not a monarchy!

               David Hamid
---
  1st 1.00 #907  
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british
From: crdunlea@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Christopher R. Dunlea)
Subject: Re: The dates 1603, 1688, and 1707.
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 14:54:14 EST

In article <1992Dec16.160734.5965@news.clarkson.edu> walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,) writes:
>From article <1gloqjINNsu0@network.ucsd.edu>, by fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu (Fragano Ledgister):
>> But it wasn't a united kingdom, it was a union of two separate
>> kingdoms. The kingdoms weren't united until the Act of Union of
>> 1707 (excepting the period of the Commonwealth and Protectorate,
>> when they were a unified republic.).
>> 
>Why is 1603 called the Union of the Crowns?
>
>							GW
>

For the same reason 1477 was the Union of the Crowns in Spain, Graham.
Two heads of state merged their bloodlines and inheritances, but did
NOT merge the state apparatus. Note that in Britain there were TWO 
state churches (Anglican and Scots Presbyterian), depending on the 
state; TWO Parliaments, one in London, one in Edinburgh; TWO militaries.
If you need further proof, note that the Acts of Trade and Navigation of 
1651 specifically excluded Scots traders from the American colonies
as a foreign nation (ie, they had to go through London merchants like
the French, Dutch, etc). 

Chris


Xref: sparky soc.culture.celtic:8110 soc.culture.british:17439 soc.culture.usa:9182
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: British interference in U.S. elections
Date: 14 Dec 92 12:33:26 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Dec10.131641.10054@cas.org> jac54@cas.org writes:
>In article <27900@dog.ee.lbl.gov> mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
>>jac54@cas.org () writes:
>>jac54>      The CIA maintains that it has never operated within the UK (vide
>>
>>mike>the CIA bankrolled an anti-communist British magazine called "Encounter"
>>
>>jac54> It's pretty difficult to prove a negative (falsifiability etc).
>>
>>Taking the CIA at their word is what makes it funny.
>>
>	Am I therefore to believe that if the CIA were to say
>	that they are operating in Britain, you wouldn't believe
>	that either?

Naw, it's not that simple.  (Things never are.)  There's a very nice
rule of thumb for aiding in guessing the value of a statement.  (It's
actually just an informal restatement of one of the fundamental laws
for determining the 'information content' of a 'message', and in the
more formal form it is central to fields like data compression and
encryption.)

That is, you evaluate the possibility that the same person or people
could have said the opposite.  In this case, for example, the CIA would
say they weren't operating in the UK whether they were or not, so their
statement that they haven't done it does not actually carry any useful
or believable information (even if it is accidentally true).  On the
other hand, since it's a virtual certainty that they would deny any
operations, if they DID say they were operating in the UK that would
certainly be a believable statement.

Similar examples abound.  Statements by Tories to the effect that the
economy is getting better, or by Labour to the effect that it is
getting worse, convey no useful information.  On the other hand, if
Labour were to say it was getting better, or the Tories were to say it
was getting worse, then such statements would be completely
believeable.  (Both those sentences assuming the current Tory
government and Labour opposition, of course; in the case of Labour
government, the roles would reverse.)

Now, getting back to the CIA, their charter is (primarily, at least) to
gather intelligence and conduct other operations such as to ensure the
security of the USA in the global arena.  This includes not only trying
to find out what your 'enemies' are up to (and maybe spoil it), but
also trying to ensure that your 'friends' are really 'friendly', and
aren't going to suddenly stab you in the back.  As such, they would be
derelict in their duties if they were not operating in the UK, so I'm
forced to believe that they probably are -- regardless of what they
might say.  I'm also certain that the needs of diplomacy mean that they
would never admit to it.

-- 
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: scimitar@suction.acme.gen.nz (Robert Singers)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: New World Order - what about NI???
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 00:27:15 +1300
Organization: Barbed Wire Cat Productions

smckinty@sunicnc.France.Sun.COM (Steve McKinty - Sun ICNC) writes:

> In article <28026@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
> > 
> > So what better solution than for the
> > British to approach the UN and ask that the World help in solving the
> > troubles in Northern Ireland? At the very least, remove British troops
> > from the Island and allow "neutral" forces to attempt to keep the
> > peace.
> 
> I can see logistical problems with using UN troops. Much of the Army role in
> NI involves police duties, such as checkpoints, house searches etc. That
> does require that the troops speak English (well, John Pepper might disagree.
> 
> The main english-speaking troops in the UN are British, Irish and American.
> The first two are obviously ruled out, and I think the various well-known
> attitudes re: Americans & the Republican movement (correct or otherwise)
> would make US troops distrusted by the Unionist camp.

What about Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand troops.  All three of 
these Commonwealth countries come from mixed United Kingdom backgrounds, 
and would operate with a decent degree of neutrality.

Robert Singers               | Nothing I say or do should be taken as
scimitar@suction.acme.gen.nz | a reflection of any form of reality or
                             | consensual hallucination.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic