HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:35:49 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1dsj89INNg1j@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov11.232304.7980@digi.lonestar.org>, gpalo@digi.lonestar.org writes:
>> In any case, religion, art, and education belong, according to
>> Steiner, to the cultural sphere and need to be kept free from the
>> other two. Current American experience in all three certainly
>> validates the last sentence.  We have our controversies over prayer
>> in schools, public education vs choice, and the government funding
>> of obscene art. 
>
>If I may pick a nit here, it wasn't all that clear that all
>the Art in question was even obscene - whatever that really
>means.    I believe that the Helms Bill which attempted to
>define obscene art for the purposes of NEA funding would have
>defined *all* homoerotic art, for example, as obscene, whether
>it fitted ordinary definitions of the word or not.
>
>jon.


Granted.  I just wanted to characterize the controversy, which 
is real enough. The problem is that a political institution 
whose charter is to represent the whole population in matters 
of law and equity is making moral and aesthetic judgments that 
clearly divide the population. The very fact that the NEA has 
to make a generic ruling on what is and is what is not obscene 
intrinsically intrudes on the freedom of the artist.  The 
conflict is between equity (political sphere) and freedom 
(cultural sphere).  This is a problem even when there is no
dispute about obscenity or morality.

It's not something that can be decided by democratic vote either,
even if the majority rules the work to be obscene.  That is why
according to Steiner the cultural and political spheres should 
remain independent of each other.

Curiously enough, while the law, in the usual sense of the word,
belongs to what Steiner called the political sphere, magistrates
act primarily out of the cultural/spiritual sphere.  All judgement,
including those regarding equity, ultimately require the element
of freedom. So a judge is more like a teacher or an artist than
a politician.  Our U.S. Constitution has a flavor of this in its
creation of a separate and relatively independent judiciary.  But
it too has overstepped its bounds and muddied things.  The court
has been legislating and administering and the Congress and 
President have politicized the selection of judges.

(Haven't brought the third element, the economic sphere, into it 
yet, but it is in there too gumming things up by the trillions.  
There the principal has to do with "free associations").

But the Helms bill is just as bad as the existence of the NEA in
the first place.

Gerry
From: aejones@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Amanda Banana Farts )
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: question on cost of living in UK
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:31:50 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

I am planning on studying in London next year, and would like to
know, realistically, what I can expect to spend.  I would be
interested in renting a room in an apartment, nothing fancy, but in
central London.  

Thank you.

Amanda 
From: cls@trsvax.tandy.com
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:37 CST
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Crime rates in Britain compared
Message-ID: <-1835767285@trsvax>
Nf-ID: #N:trsvax:-1835767285:000:627
Nf-From: trsvax.tandy.com!cls    Nov 10 17:37:00 1992



Have any of you ever seen statistics showing crime rates in Britain 
compared to crime rates in the U.S.?  I've been wondering about this.
Since there are almost no guns there and since I live near Dallas, 
which is the murder capital of the U.S., Britain seems like it surely
must be a wonderful place to live as far as crime is concerned.
Or could it be that Britain has just as much crime, minus crimes 
committed with guns?  Even that surely must be much better.


------------------
Domain: Christine_Siewert@trsvax.Tandy.COM
  UUCP: ...!uunet!letni!rwsys!trsvax!cls
    or: ...!decvax!microsoft!trsvax!cls
Ft. Worth, TX

Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Subject: Re: Dog in House of Parliament
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:42:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.102130.2990@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>From: ses@cmns-sun.think.com (Simon Edward Spero)
>>  Is it true that the Liberal Democrats have finally decided to follow David
>>Owen and join the Tory party, or do they just act that way?
>
>The motion asked for support of the Maastricht treaty. 

No it didn't.  It invited the House to proceed with the ratification
process.

All the
>Liberal Democrat MPs, with the exception of Nick Harvey support
>the Maastricht treaty, so all, with the exception of Nick
>Harvey voted for it. What's wrong with this?

This is incredibly naive of you.  It's perfectly possible to support
the Maastricht treaty and yet to favour delaying ratification.
Whethe  the Lib Dems should have voted against the motion for
tactical reasons is another matter.



--
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: A.Grant@ucs.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 7 Nov 92 19:03:22 GMT
Organization: University of Cambridge

In article <1992Nov6.142335.8244@gssec.bt.co.uk> cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk (Colin Wilson) writes:
>In any case, some of the classic Scots literature goes back to a time
>before the "union" with England when there was no need, or place, for
>nostalgia or misrepresentation.  Grieve was well known for his
>admiration of Dunbar, a prominent member of a succession of writers
>known as the "Makaris".  In the fifteenth century, Dunbar, Barbour and
>their peers produced work that won admiration all over Europe, in a
>Scots that was as respected a literary medium as any other European
>language of that time.

But surely this is true of dozens of now-extinct European languages and
dialects?  The point is, is it worth someone living in Scotland _now_ 
learning Scots, when instead they could learn French or Russian and have
access to an infinitely greater corpus of literature than a few rusty old
curiosities?  Not to mention speaking to Britain's European partners in
their own languages?

p.s. I still claim that Burns is not respected _in his own right_. If he
hadn't written in dialect, he would have been entirely forgotten.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
From: A.Grant@ucs.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Organization: University of Cambridge
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:20:29 GMT

In article <librik.721398175@cory.Berkeley.EDU> librik@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David Librik) writes:
>Keep in mind that pupils at Welsh-language schools (these are actually
>"bilingual" schools, as English is just another subject, but is usually taught
>through the medium of English) have higher scores on English GCSEs than
>monoglot English pupils.  (The same is true for A-levels as well.)  This is
>according to statistics released last year; bilingual education makes you
>smarter.

Not necessarily; one would have to look at
 - are bilingual schools, on average, better funded?  Are these ones that
   were set up specially, by better-off LEAs who had the resources to do?
 - are the teachers more motivated, or simply better?
   (I imagine that a bilingual teaching qualification must require a more
   than average degree of effort...)
 - were these mostly rural schools, and were they compared with schools 
   in similar areas in Britain? Country schools (particularly primaries)   
   are often vastly better than ones 100 times the size in urban areas.   
 - were parents (English and Welsh) more motivated? How many Welsh-speaking
   parents had learnt it as adults (indicating strong motivation)?

I hate to sound like a wet blanket, but "bilingual education makes you 
smarter" isn't justifiable. By that argument, wearing Winchester school 
uniform makes you smarter.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15637 alt.folklore.urban:28096
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Not really Re: An astonishing Guy
Date: 11 Nov 92 05:45:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov11.054541.4588
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Nov10.221726.4781@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.011557.28085@netcom.com> sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
>writes:
>>So let's just sum it up by saying: No, I am not that worried about our 
>>"right to bear arms".  Rather the opposite.
>>
>>You can write back on this topic, but I will have my fingers in
>>my ears and whistle loudly. :-)
>
>Obviously you have more faith in the gummint than I do...
>

Obviously you have more faith in all the lovely, righteous people out
there committing bazillions of crimes with guns in the USA.
From: cabr01@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:40:55 GMT
Organization: Strathclyde University VAX Cluster


In article <1992Nov13.075941.3950@rdg.dec.com>, cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes:
> 
> In article <27421@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, mike@frey.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes...
>>No, I don't think this is rite, Scots English or whatever is
>>as far away from Anglo-Saxon grammar as standard English(es).
>>It too lacks all the complicated inflections & has different
>>3rd person pronouns (I think) than Anglo-Saxon dialects had.
> 
> Some examples of Scots grammar:
> and for all you people living in England, the US, Canada etc who say 
> "I've heard that here". Well, Scots have emigrated/been transported all
> over the world and many took their language with them.
> 
> 1) Scots: "The car needs washed"
>    English: "The car needs a wash" / "The car needs washing"
> 
> 2) Scots has different 2nd person pronouns. English just has "you",
>    Scots has "you" and "yous
> 
> etc....
Another example is:-
In English,
It is the English who are to blame for the ruination of Scotland.

In Scots,
Hids the Bastard English that's tae blame for this bruck tae happen tae us.
  
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: scarfman@wam.umd.edu (Jonathan Smith)
Subject: Re: Lyrics to God Save the Queen
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:03:26 GMT

_My Country Tis of Thee_

My country tis of thee
Sweet land of liberty
Of thee I sing
Land Where My fathers died
Land of the pilgrims' pride
From every mountain side
Let freedom ring.
-------------------------------------------------------------
From Jonathan H. Smith       || Cognito Ergo Calvino & Hobbes
Of the University of Maryland||------------------------------ 
in College Park		     ||  
			     || Now Residing in England
"What color is your scarf?"  || At the University of Bristol
-------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Crime rates in Britain compared
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:14:41 GMT

In article <-1835767285@trsvax> cls@trsvax.tandy.com writes:
>
>
>Have any of you ever seen statistics showing crime rates in Britain
>compared to crime rates in the U.S.?  I've been wondering about this.
>Since there are almost no guns there and since I live near Dallas,
>which is the murder capital of the U.S., Britain seems like it surely
>must be a wonderful place to live as far as crime is concerned.
>Or could it be that Britain has just as much crime, minus crimes
>committed with guns?  Even that surely must be much better.
>

	About 18 months ago, the "Economist" observed that property
	crime rates in some areas of Britain were approaching those
	in the U.S.  The murder rate per head of population is about
	12-fold higher in the U.S. than it is in the U.K.

	Killing with guns is unusual in Britain, usually a kitchen knife,
	18th. Century marble bust of some magnate, or some other
	blunt object is used.

	Alec.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15628 alt.folklore.urban:28075
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Anglican vs C of E
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:23:08 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1dkml4INN582@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> 
>> This is in
>> the context of the Monarch being the Supreme Head of Britain's 
>> official state religion.
> 
> There is not, so far as I know, any "official state
> religion".
Not unless you call a religioNot unless you call areligion" if the head of
state is the head of the religion, if the law of the religion is the law of the
land, if the officials of the religion are appointed by the head of government,
if the installation of a new head of state is performed by an official of the
religion. 

You get my drift?
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
From: pgunderw@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Peter G. Underwood)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The dog in the House of Commons
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:57:56 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Nov5.110011.13742@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>, dc@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Douglas Chester) writes:
> In article <Bx8K6E.Lws@sci.kun.nl> caspar@sci.kun.nl (Caspar Terheggen) writes:
>>I hope you didn't expect some political observation, because this
>>is about a real dog.  ;-)
>>
>>Watching the debates about the Maastricht treaty, I saw a dog
>>lying on the floor on "Labour's side" of the House of Commons
>>(sp?).  This was quite a surprise, because I don't think they
>>would allow a dog in the "tweede kamer" of the Dutch Parliament.
>>I had noticed it before, but it's not always there.  Whose dog
>>is it?
>>
>>Caspar.
>>--
>> Caspar Terheggen  +31 80 652801  caspar@sci.kun.nl  U634008@HNYKUN11.bitnet
> 
> 
> It belongs to David Blunkett, Labour's shadow health spokesman, who is
> blind (ergo it is a GUIDE dog).
> 
> It is probably the best behaved creature in the Commons!
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:06:59 GMT

sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) writes:
: >
: >Very few Americnas know that chunks of their own Bill of Rights
: >is inspired by, and in some cases quoted from, the English Bill.
: >
: >Notable exceptions are the gun nuts, who know that it refers to
: >a right to bear arms, but who quote it incorrectly, since they 
: >miss out the bit about "subject to law".
: >
: 
: Bollocks - most 'Americnas' know that.  You are correct about
: the gun nuts, however.  They also miss out the bit about
: the right to bear arms being contingent on their being part of
: a well-regulated militia.  

And, you -just like many people - assume that the use of the terms
are the same today as they were when the Bill of Rights was drafted.
If you read the contemporary literature, you will find that the
militia is composed of all able bodied male citizens of a certain
age range. The literature also points out that the militia is not
controlled by the government. More to the point, the necessity of
the militia is to protect the citizens from a tyranical government.
Whether that could be done these days, given the technology available
to the military, is another argument.

If you want more information - try groups like talk.politics.guns.

Bill
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 6 Nov 1992 19:32:59 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <CC.92Nov6125235@arran.dcs.ed.ac.uk>, cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk writes:
> 	<1992Nov6.100915.2585@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
> Sender: cnews@dcs.ed.ac.uk (UseNet News Admin)
> Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
> Lines: 10
> In-Reply-To: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk's message of 6 Nov 92 10:09:15 GMT
> 
> In article <1992Nov6.100915.2585@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
> 
>    I could say exactly the same about Cockney.
> 
> And lots of Welsh people could say exactly the same about Welsh.

Are you sure about that?   I thought that there were Welsh
language radio and TV channels.   I also thought that Welsh
language was taught in schools in Wales.

Is it really true that Welsh is "almost totally confined to
comedy"?

jon.
From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 10 Nov 92 13:10:27 GMT
	<CC.92Nov6125235@arran.dcs.ed.ac.uk>
	<1992Nov6.160639.7577@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
	<1992Nov6.192525.27372@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Nov6.192525.27372@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:

   Are we talking about local accents within Scotland, or "educated
   Scots" as heard on BBC Scotland (or spoken by John Smith)?  My
   experience is that "educated" accents are acceptable from any part of
   the country; the main prejudice is against urban accents (e.g. London,
   Birmingham, Liverpool, Glasgow).

We weren't originally talking about accents at all, but about languages.
--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)

		
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry on grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk)
Subject: Centralization of power (was: British Constitution)
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:21:07 GMT

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

>In article <1992Nov12.113132.7519@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk writes:

>> Sure -- but in the meantime the old democratic consensus
>> which used to be a safeguard against over-centralized power
>> has been eaten away, so it's become that much harder for
>> any effective opposition *in the country* to find a voice.
>
>Ironically, this is one of the reasons that many people
>supported centralisation, and repeatedly re-elected the
>Party that carried it out.

How do you know?

>Had people like - what was his name, Ken Livingston? - not
>insisted on setting himself up as a kind of domestic
>government-in-exile there probably would not have been
>anything like the public support that there was.

On the contrary, there was a lot of public support for the
retention of the GLC -- even Tories like Edward Heath and
Peter Walker were in favour of it.

>Now I realise that the Left has been out of power at
>Westminster for a very long time, but that is mostly
>something that they did to themselves.   They caught a very
>strong current of history exactly backwards.    But that
>does not mean that the rest of the UK political scene is
>corrupt: it just means that the Left didn't know when to
>trim their sails.

The point is that if a party is out of power at Westminster, there are
precious few other places for it to cut its political teeth.  You
can't rise to power in the national government in the UK by first
gaining power at local or regional level as you can in other European
countries of comparable size.  Maybe if Neil Kinnock had been "Prime
Minister of Wales" for a while he might have been a more credible
Westminster politician -- or alternatively he might never have risen
to power at national level at all!  That's why I say that the UK's
notion of democracy is a strange one; it means concentrating power
through elected representatives at the centre, rather than empowering
the voters at all levels.

>Now, is there some natural right to set up a rump
>political opposition power base out among the local
>councils, just because you can't win at Westminster?   I'm
>not sure.

Under the British constitution, the answer is no, and the Tories have
seen to that.  If we had a genuinely pluralist democracy, the answer
would be different.

--
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 
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15123 alt.folklore.urban:27405
From: twcaps@tennyson.lbl.gov (Terry Chan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:26:56 GMT
Reply-To: TWChan@lbl.gov (Terry Chan)
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.117

plummer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David Barker-Plummer) writes:
  
  +I remember learning in school that "Guy" Fawkes was actually an
  +Italian mercenary by the name of Guido.  True or false.

Guido Fawkes?  Doesn't have the same ring to it.  If he kept it
'Guido', he probably would have succeeded.


Terry "I'm partial to 'Groucho' myself" Chan
--
Energy and Environment Division   | Internet:  TWChan@lbl.gov
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory      | 
Berkeley, California  USA  94720  | Carpe Per Diem
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15215 alt.folklore.urban:27511
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Date: 6 Nov 92 06:04:57 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Nov5.095955.15890@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, rgep@emu.pmms.cam.ac.uk writes:
> I am unaware of any law that prevents a Roman Catholic from becoming
> Prime Minister.  All such religious disabilities for MPs were repealed in 
> the 19th century.  It is quite impossible for any such law to have
> been passed in the 17th century, since the office of prime minister
> only emerged in the C18.  It is true that a RC may not become monarch:
> a logical consequence of being head of the established church.
> 
> Please either post the name and date of the relevant Act of Parliament
> or withdraw the comment.

As far as I know, all religious restrictions on holding public
office were abolished in the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829.

jon.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: Just a quick question
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<6NOV199208200941@sscvx1.ssc.gov> <1992Nov6.193944.11916@aus.intel.com>
	<6NOV199217314279@sscvx1.ssc.gov>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:18:06 GMT

Laurence Godfrey writes:

   Alan Waldock writes:

   >Laurence Godfrey writes:
   > 
   >>                                           A couple, of opposite
   >>sex, living together as man and wife - that is a euphemism for
   >>sleeping together.
   > 
   >Which is itself a euphemism...

   Gosh, you're quite right.  I should have said 'that is a euphemism
   for fucking' I guess, but then fucking is itself a euphemism too.

It is? In what way is `fuck' euphemistic? I thought it was
straight-forward, like `fart' or `shit'.

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu