HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: horne-scott@CS.YALE.EDU (Scott Horne)
Subject: Re: dweeb?
Organization: Computer "Science" Dept, Yale University
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 00:28:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.153946.17825@sun.pcl.ac.uk>, marcus@sun.pcl.ac.uk (Marcus Harvey) writes:
<
<I've always held the belief that the reason you spell "centre" c-e-n-t-e-r
<and suchlike is because the original settlers were better with a spade and a
<plough than a pen and paper...

Fortunately, not everyone in this country fits that characterisation (note
the correct spelling--no `z').  Two or three of the quarter-billion (or
quarter-milliard :-)) of us eschew the vile orthographic revisionism of
Noah Webster.

(To ignorant Yankees out there:  Yes, it's `plough', not `plow'.  Learn to
spell.)

					--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: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Why wait 5 years?
Date: 17 Apr 92 05:11:05 GMT
	<1992Apr15.082231.15597@rdg.dec.com>
	<STEVEW.92Apr16125945@mushroom.cs.man.ac.uk>
Followup-To: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research

In article <STEVEW.92Apr16125945@mushroom.cs.man.ac.uk>, Steve Wallis (sw) writes:

sw> Working class people usually have to work for somebody else
sw> (unless they are on the dole, etc).  They do relatively low-paid
sw> jobs, often with little chance of promotion.  They have a
sw> relatively small amount of savings, if any (or they are in debt).

Hmm, so university research staff are working class?

Marx must be exerting significant gyroscopic stablisation on the
earths orbit over that.

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk	I always though `working class' was defined by
			knowing how to make tea properly...
From: xxxxajh@brunel.ac.uk (Alan J Holmes)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Rampant paranoia (was Voting slips: what happens to them,DANGER!)
Date: 7 Apr 92 12:25:32 GMT
Reply-To: xxxxajh@brunel.ac.uk (Alan J Holmes)
Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK

In article <4521@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> mark-r@spec0.ee.man.ac.uk (Mark Robinson (JO PhD)) writes:

>HANG ON A SEC. I've come into this thread a little late, so I'm probably
>missing the point, but last time I voted in a general election, I don't
>remember writing my name and address on the ballot paper. Perhaps MI5
>or CIA or SA have a huge database cross-referencing (pun intended) everybody
>to the style of cross they draw? (oops almost drew a smiley, must remember
>this is s.c.b).

You don't, but take great care to watch the hands of the clerk
who hands you the voting slip.  He/she will mark the counterfoil
with your roll number.  This roll number is the one which appears
beside your name and address.  i.e. your name and address has
now been cross-referenced to your vote.

Like it or not this has been the practice for many more years
than I have been voting.   I usually try to upset them by
handing my voting slip to my wife and then taking hers.
Sometimes they get quite shirty about this behaviour.  Try it,
go with a friend if you haven't a wife, then post the reaction.

Regards

Alan Holmes
From: gray@rz-berlin.mpg.de
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: dweeb?
Date: 6 Apr 92 11:46:12 +0100
Organization: Rechenzentrum MPG Berlin

In article <1992Apr1.214005.60@mtechca.uucp>, 
  foster@mtechca.uucp (self.attribute:=major_arcana[0].name) writes:

> This really ought to go in alt.english.usage instead. C'est la vie.
> 
> In article <1992Mar27.160310.7545@rz-berlin.mpg.de>, Struan Gray writes:
> 
>>Personally I think [Holohan]'s a dweeb (I love those american words)
> 
>   (stuff deleted showing how I used "dweeb" incorrectly)
> 
> Mr Holohan may well deserve a marvelously descriptive American adjective,
> but dweeb is not the right one. Note that I am NOT defending Mr Holohan
> or his views, but rather the misuse of my native tongue by foreigners.
> 
> -jeff "US troops out of California!" foster

  Is this a first?  Are the colonials getting so uppity that they now
think they have a language worth defending.  Aaargh.  Vote Conservative.
Perhaps a flame will work:

  Don't tell me how to speak, you no-good, half-baked (see I know how to
use hyphens) apology for a linguistic guardian.  First you use capitals
in the wrong places, viz adjective "American" and negative "NOT", and then
you don't use them in your (proper) name.  I ask you, how can you expect
me to take you seriously?  If I were you (gee, a subjunctive) I'd crawl
under one of those picturesque californian rocks and not come out for a 
very long time.  Oh yes indeed.

  NO, it won't work: If I start sounding like John Major I must be in the
wrong.  I promise not to do it again.

   TTFN

    Struan

ps. Where does "dork" come from?
From: martinb@bottomdog.uk.sun.com (Martin Baines - Sun UK - SE Manager Cambridge/Gatwick)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Election Results
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:57:01 GMT
Reply-To: martinb@bottomdog.uk.sun.com
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: bottomdog.uk.sun.com


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

If they think Britain under the Conservatives is so bad, why on
earth have they chosen the USA for their exile? The policies there
are not exactly socialist heaven: maybe Cuba would be a good place
for them to try?

On a (slightly) more serious note, I believe the result of this
election reflects a real cultural shift in English attitudes
(I deliberately say English, to avoid a flame war from the Celtic
fringes). From the war to the mess of the '70s, the prevailing
attitude was one of state dependency, high taxes and low expectations.
Since '79 we have seen a real shift towards more acceptance
of responsibility for ones own welfare (rather than expecting the
state to do it all for you), and a corresponding distrust of
the old socialist politics of envy.

Of course, the result may just reflect Essex Man thinking: "let's
really stuff those whinging jocks for another 5 years".....

(Smilies deleted due to cultural sensitivities)


---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:6211 alt.society.civil-liberty:3408
From: david@guadet.gr.osf.org (David George)
Subject: Comparitive Tax Rates [was Re: MAJOR WINS MAJORITY!!!]
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 07:19:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.142640.15659@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk  
(Jonathan Spencer) writes:
> smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Apr13.073340.16687@osf.org> sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon  
Patience) writes:
> >>This is the thing that pisses me off most about the Tories. For someone
> >>on twice average earnings (and above) Britain has the highest income tax
> >>rate in Europe. So much for incentives for entrepreneurs.
> 
> What are the figures for each country, have you got them?
> 
> --Jonathan

'In Britain a married person starts paying the current top tax-rate on roughly
1.5 times average male earnings; the top-rate (31%) threshhold in America is
four times average earnings and in France (57%) and Germany (53%) more than
six times.  Already, British executives pay more of their income in tax than
their foreign counterparts'  - Economist p54 21-27/March/1992

[ my comment ]

Average Salaries in Germany and France are higher than in England,  N.I. is
also higher but tax relief possibilities are greater'


Tax Burdens :
'For a married man with 2 children, mortgage of twice salary up to tax relief
limit and pension contributions of 8% gross salary:

2x average earnings:

Labour (planned) 24%,  Conservative 21%,  Labour (1979) 20.5%

4x average earnings:

Labour (planned) 38%, Conservative 28.5%, Labour (1979) 29%

Average earnings (1979) 4,520  (today) 17,450

The Callaghan Govt. claimed to be squeezing the rich until 'until the pips
squeeked' we can see that the Tories still are.
' - same source

The Tories have not been able to fufil their manifesto promise of 1979 to  
reduce the overall tax burden because costs and spending in Education and  
Health have actually increased.  Labour's plans to tax the rich would raise  
just over a Billion pounds, a 'puny' amount when you consider that Health and  
Education 21% of public spending.  The only way of significantly increasing  
spending in these areas would be to raise taxes for all tax payers.

David
From: simon@cs.city.ac.uk (Simon Brock-Gunn)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Can YOU predict the election outcome?
Date: 6 Apr 92 09:55:22 GMT
Organization: City University, London

With all this discussion of the polls, I thought it would be interesting
to have some predictions of the outcome of this election in terms of
numbers of seats.  Therefore, I propose a Grand Usenet Election Prediction
Poll.  This is how it works:

1 Reply to this message by pressing 'R' or whatever your software needs to
  reply including this text (do *not* post it to the net).

2 Type in figures after the colons below to show how many *seats* you
  think each party will have after the election.

3 I will post a summary of the results as soon as the *real* ones are
  known, and the person closest to the actual outcome may claim the title
  "Voice of the People" (in the unlikely event that they have not done so
  already).

SEATS-1   Conservatives: 
SEATS-2   Labour: 
SEATS-3   Liberal Democrats: 
SEATS-4   SNP: 

General notes:

The total number of seats available to these and all other parties is 651.

The absence of any party above is merely to keep the work to a minimum.

In order to be counted, your vote must reach me before 10pm BST on 9 April
1992, and must include the four lines above, each with the number of seats
you think the party will attain appended to the line.  

You will *not* receive an acknowledgment of your prediction (do you think 
I have nothing better to do?), but if you think it has been lost in the
ether, submit it again.  In the event of more than one prediction being 
received from a person, only the final prediction received will count.

Do not bother including any other message in your reply since these
predictions will be counted automatically and not read by human eyes.
Any other correspondence should be sent with a different subject heading.

==============================================================================
|| Simon A. Brock-Gunn | Computer Science Dept. | You can't have everything ||
|| simon@cs.city.ac.uk | City University, Nort- | - where would you put it? ||
|| Tel +44 71 477 8000 | hampton Square, London |---------------------------||
|| Fax +44 71 250 0837 | EC1V 0HB, England, UK. |   (THIS SPACE FOR RENT)   ||
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: banarji@unixg.ubc.ca (Ajai Banarji)
Subject: Cricket and British Politics
Originator: banarji@unixg.ubc.ca
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 03:23:06 GMT

		Thatcher's Theorem: How the World Cup influences
		  	  British elections

  The Theorem states: "Whenever the champion of cricket's World Cup
fails to retain the trophy, the incumbent party in Britain wins"

Proof:
In 1979, the West Indies retained the trophy. The Tories came to power.
In 1983, there was a new champion (India). Tories retained power.
In 1987, Australia was the new champion. Tories retained power.
In 1992, well, you know the rest.

  Perhaps Kinnock and Ashdown ought to concentrate their energies on
helping Pakistan to retain the trophy in 1996.
  I wish I had taken this prediction rule more seriously. Ladbrokes were
offering something like 10-1 against a Tory majority the day before the
election.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.travel
From: pasward@maytag.waterloo.edu (Paul A.S. Ward)
Subject: Re: Long Layover at London Heathrow
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:53:14 GMT

In article <13478@suns3.crosfield.co.uk> pdg@crosfield.co.uk (paul goffin) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.194601.23780@cco.caltech.edu> tylerh@cco.caltech.edu (Tyler R. Holcomb) writes:
>#This sunday I am traveling to Israel on British Airways.  I will

Nice.  I wish it was me ;-)

>#have a ten-hour layover at Heathrow airport.  I would not
>#like to spend this time hanging around the airport - I would
>#much rather hop on the public transport (the Tube?) and see
>#*anything.*  I have no delusion about seeing all the sights - 
>#I just want to see someting other than planes landing. I will
>#be traveling light, and I intend to have  British money before
>#leaving  Los Angeles.  
>
>Are you sure you'll have any time?

No sweat.  My wife and I did it a couple of years ago.  We had an
8 hour stop over.  We went downtown (picked up our hotel tickets in
the El Al place downtown and then wandered around for a few hours.

IMHO Hethrow is the fastest airport to get through that I have ever been
in (about 15 minutes from getting of the plane and then through customs).

>Heathrow check-in times are at least two hours, and longer
>if you're going somewhere risky like Northern Ireland or
>Israel.

Israel?  Risky?  I'd feel safer there than in LA mate.

Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:6202 soc.culture.celtic:3523
From: ceci@lysator.liu.se (Ceci Henningsson)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Women in parliament
Keywords: April 9th and April 11th
Date: 12 Apr 92 21:08:21 GMT
Organization: Lysator Computer Club, Linkoping University, Sweden

Someone talked about minority candidates for parliament and I got the
impression that they were under-representated. How about women?

I suppose they make up at least 50% of the voters, or do some women
refrain from voting because of their sex?

How many female candidates were there? 

Were there any significant differences between the parties as to the
percentage of each gender's candidates?  

Does any party in Britain use a qota system for gender representation
the way many European environment parties do?

One might think that having a female prime minister for many years
would make a country more open to women in politics. Has this
happened? 

I heard that tory politicians had made outright racist statements
about a coloured tory candidate, have similar things happened to
female candidates?

--Ceci, interested in comparative anti-sexism

Ps: I am not posting this to the feminism group. I think that these
issues are too important to be tucked away in a special group. Besides
I don't like their moderation policies.

--
=====ceci@lysator.liu.se===========================================
"Words of more than one syllable, not stressed on the last syllable,
do not double the final consonant, unless it is l, when a suffix
beginning with a vowel is added,..." From The Oxford Guide to English Usage
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: Re: Gas stoves
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 16:45:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <EWADAMS.92Apr9233636@netcom.Netcom.COM> ewadams@netcom.Netcom.COM (Ernest Adams) writes:
>
>The most important reason for putting the sugar in is that it caramelizes
>on the outside, producing a nice brown loaf even if the other ingredients
>are more akin to paper pulp than anything else.  Sugar isn't for flavor
>or preservation (after all, we have chemicals for that), but a marketing
>tool.
>
>-- Ernest
>
>PS. The remark about Farmer Brown was intended as a compliment.  I'm not
>*that* ignorant.

I could tell that you meant it as a compliment, but it just didn't
work.  My roommate grew up on a farm in Yorkshire and his response
to it was unprintable.  He, by the way, says he has never noticed any
difference between bread back home and here.  And he's the type
that would complain about it if he had!!  I guess one needs a more
refined taste to tell the difference.  Taste is one trait of which
he is seldom accused.  :-)


 
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:6473 alt.politics.british:17
From: ravis@axion.bt.co.uk (Richard Avis)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.politics.british
Subject: Re: The Decline of Britain (was Re: Great Britain as a malfunctioning democracy)
Date: 15 Apr 92 08:02:52 GMT
Reply-To: ravis@axion.bt.co.uk (Richard Avis)
Organization: British Telecom Research Labs


In article <1992Apr14.235038.24564@leland.Stanford.EDU>, rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes:
|> >
|> >I think it probably fits into the group of Tory propaganda, since you ask.
|> >Whilst I think it is a good magazine, I really do not think it is
|> >worth the orgasms that so many Americans seem to have at it's mere mention.
|> >You may care to remember that The Economist was the magazine that backed
|> >water and electricity privatization, the introduction of the Poll Tax
|> >and several other of the less popular Conservative policies. I doubt that
|> >the Economist has been what one could call objective since Rupert Murdoch
|> >bought it out in the 1980's.
|> >
|> 
|> All of which, in concept, are good ideas.  Their execution was another
|> matter.
Bzzzt, wrong. The Poll Tax was a morally reprehensible idea from start to finish.

Bzzzt, wrong again!! Selling off the water and sewage businesses was
inspired by the Tories barking mad tendency. Firstly, there's going to be
no competition, and secondly how on earth can it be cheaper when a PLC
makes a 10%+ return not 5%? Electricity privatisation was even more laughable,
they ring fenced nuclear power and are allowing the squandering of North Sea
gas in the most inefficient way possible, while the coal industry goes to the
wall.

I love it!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Avis (Mr. Forgettable)

EMail : ravis@axion.bt.co.uk
Mail : BT Laboratories,
       Martlesham Heath,
       Ipswich,
       Suffolk,
       IP5 7RE.

"We had to destroy Ben Tre in order to save it." - Unknown U.S. Army Major

===========================================================================
From: salter_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: reasons for leaving (was Re: Inclusion of expats in UK elections)
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:01:15 +0900

>> 
>> Maybe we should have people say why they left.
> 

I left because of lousy British politics and lousy British weather.
I used to think the politics would improve before the weather did,
but what with the Greenhouse Effect I'm not so sure now.

Linden

(One of a group of people called, by writers to "The Australian" a 
"Labour-loving Luddite" and "one of Margaret Thatcher's Boat People".)

-- 
Linden Salter-Duke		email: SALTER_DUKE@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU
Northern Territory University
Darwin, Australia		Snail: Box 40146, Casuarina, NT 0811
From: billp@pcsbst.pcs.com (Bill Potter)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Election stats (3/5) Votes by sex, age & class
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:48:19 GMT
Reply-To: billp@pcsbst.pcs.com (Bill Potter)
Organization: PCS Computer Systeme GmbH

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
> Men            42       37       17       5
> Women          43       34       19       5
> Age 18-24      36       37       21       6
> Age 25-34      40       38       17       5
> Age 35-54      44       34       18       4
> Age 55+        45       35       17       2
> AB             59       20       19       2
> C1             52       24       20       5
> C2             41       38       17       5
> DE             29       50       17       4

First of all, thanks to Matthew for typing all these stats in. 
Not an easy task.

I was looking at similar stats in the Sunday Times. 
What struck me was "How do they know?" After the disaster of the
pre-election opinion polls and the exit polls, how can we assume
that these breakdowns by age and status are accurate. Presumably
the raw data is gathered from something like an exit poll.
Someone must then have massaged the figures so that the totals fitted
the actual results. How much massaging was done to the details?

=============================================================================
Bill Potter    : unido!pcsbst!billp       : 1992 - 500th Anniv. of a lost
PCS GmbH       : billp@pcsbst.pcs.com     : Italian sailor and 200th Anniv.
D8000 Muenchen : You can't sink a RAINBOW : of the year of the sheep.
=============================================================================
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Can YOU predict the election outcome? - **RESULTS**
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:24:44 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <1992Apr13.163209.25032@newcastle.ac.uk> J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>
>>>15   239   241 257 124  29  Richard Marshall <lah014@cck.coventry.ac.uk>
>
>124 seats for the LDs??? <collapses into fit of giggles>

Well, if the election had been held under prop... [large hook appears and
drags poster from his terminal]


--
Guy Barry	Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 | University of Cambridge
		  Fax: +44 (0)223 334678 | Computer Laboratory   
	   JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl | New Museums Site, Pembroke Street
        Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk | Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK
From: apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 09:31:33 GMT
Subject: Re: Is Holohan a dweeb?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard NSG-PWD, UK.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british

horne-scott@CS.YALE.EDU (Scott Horne) writes:
>One other thing:  Don't swear by the _OED_.  See what it has to say about the
>"correct" pronunciation of `key'.

Could you expand on this comment?  The pronunciation given looks normal to
me (ki: (where ':' stands for the similar looking IPA character), with the 
i: sound the same as the 'ea' in bean).

Andrew
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Monk music on Butterflies
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:01:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Apr16.160110.11177
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Apr16.151804.4362@ssdc.honeywell.com> nigel@ssdc.honeywell.com (Nigel Birch) writes:
>Dear All,
>
>This is a strange question, but I'm hoping that one of you may know.
>
>You will all remember the classic situation comedy "Butterflies".  In one
>or more episodes, Ria's husband (the boring dentist) would be sitting in his
>armchair listening to a record of monks singing. DOES ANYONE KNOW THE NAME
>OF THIS RECORDING???????
>
>If none of you know, I will have to write to the BBC!
>
>If by chance, any of you are BBC employees......maybe you could find someone
>to ask!????
>
>My e-mail address is nigel@ssdc.honeywell.com
>
>Thanks,
>
>Nigel C. Birch


I remember the series but dont know the name of the music.  But there
is a net group on british.comedy and on uk.tv so either one but 
also help if british.culture cant.

Good luck