HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: London Underground sell-off?
Date: 16 Dec 92 09:13:31 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

In article <1992Dec15.194841.6880@news.Hawaii.Edu> gerard@caliban.soest.hawaii.edu (Gerard Fryer) writes:
>|> Andrew Merritt writes:
>|> >Has anyone else heard rumours about the London Underground system being
>|> >privatised in the new year?

>On the other hand there has to be some way of infusing London Transport
>with more cash, or at least get them to spend more on maintenance.

Yes, this seems to be the standard argument for privatising
anything. First state-owned companies are banned from borrowing
their own money (funny how state-owned companies in other
countries get by perfectly well without this ban - and in at
least one case even buy up privatised British companies).
Second they're starved of government cash.

Then it's "look how badly these nationalised concerns are
doing". I still can't see how introducing the necessity to
extract money from them to pay shareholders' dividends is
supposed to improve things though.

Matthew Huntbach
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: arpepper@math.uwaterloo.ca (Adrian Pepper)
Subject: More silly songs.
Keywords: while shepherds washed their socks by night christmas carols
Organization: University of Waterloo Math Faculty Computing Facility, Ontario.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:58:34 GMT

Is there any more to the following:

  While shepherds washed their socks by night,
  All seated round a tub,
  The angel of the Lord came down,
  And taught them how to scrub.


Of course, I can imagine that the rhyming scheme could lead to
alternate parodies that my mother would not want to know about...

Adrian.
arpepper@math.uwaterloo.ca
From: maz@jupiter.linguistik.uni-erlangen.de (Marco Zierl)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: foreign study in edinburgh
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 11:12:32 GMT
Organization: CLD, University of Erlangen, Germany
Distribution: soc
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.188.186.5


I'm studying computational linguistics in Erlangen-Nuremberg at the
moment. I'm planning to study in Edinburgh next year and any help or
advice according to the subject of computational linguistics or the
study itself would be very much appreciated.

Thanks 
		Marco Zierl

   __     __ 
  /  \   /  \
  |   \_/   |___ _  _ ___ ___
  | |\   /| |   \ |/ /  _\   \
  | | \_/ | | ()|   /  (__ () |
  | |     | |__ ( _| \__ / __/
  ( )     ( ) maz.linguistik.uni-erlangen.de
From: mckeonj@ul.ie
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Nominate President of Britain
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:20:44 GMT
Organization: University of Limerick, Ireland

I see on the news tonight that Wedgie introduced a Bill into
Parliament to abolish the Monarchy and establish a Commonwealth
of Great Britain, with a President, and bring down the voting
age to 16.
I like the idea of a President. Any nominations?
(Must be British, though. Pity! Mary Robinson could fit
Britain in with Ireland. Maybe Jaques Delors?)
-- 
"If England sleeps, shall Ireland dream?" : Se/an macEoin
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John McKeon, Material Science Dept. University of Limerick, Ireland
From: martin.baines@uk.sun.com (Martin Baines - Sun UK - SE Manager Cambridge)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: London Underground sell-off?
Date: 16 Dec 1992 13:55:02 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Ltd
Distribution: world
Reply-To: martin/baines@uk.sun.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: bottomdog.uk.sun.com

In article 23822@dcs.qmw.ac.uk, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
[deleted earlier thread]
>>On the other hand there has to be some way of infusing London Transport
>>with more cash, or at least get them to spend more on maintenance.
>
>Yes, this seems to be the standard argument for privatising
>anything. First state-owned companies are banned from borrowing
>their own money (funny how state-owned companies in other
>countries get by perfectly well without this ban - and in at
>least one case even buy up privatised British companies).

It's just this free borrowing of State owned corporations
that is causing the Germans diffiuculty in meeting the
Public Borrowings as a % of GDP requirements set out in
Maastrict. However you look at it: if your wholy owned
subsidiary owes the money its your problem. If the government
owns a company, utimately its responsible for the debt.
(o.k. I know about limited liability, but imagine HMG
saying: sorry we know British Coal got itself in this
mess, but we aren't going to bail them out.)
As for state owned companies buying foreign companies:
imagine the out cry from Labour if a British state owned
business were to do it. Mind you thinking about it, British
Coal would probably be quite profitable if it bought up
some cheap Polish coal mines....

>Second they're starved of government cash.

Correction: they have to justify their use of *our* money, and when
push comes to the shove it's easier to sell spending money on (say)
Nurses pay rises than new Underground lines to the electorate.

>Then it's "look how badly these nationalised concerns are
>doing". I still can't see how introducing the necessity to
>extract money from them to pay shareholders' dividends is
>supposed to improve things though.

About as justified as the few old state utilities that actually
used to make money remitting their "surpluses" back to
the tresury. There used to be a nice line in hidden taxes
on telecoms before BT was privatised. Dividends to the
shareholders are really little different from interest
repaid on capital borrowed: except cheaper. If the state
owned companies were to follow Labours ideas of raising
money on the private capital markets, they would still
have to pay the equivalent of dividends in return
for the use of the capital. If they didn't they wouldn't
raise much money.

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

Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: Anglepoise Lamps
Organization: Vonnegut Tent Rentals, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 14:37:29 GMT

David Morning (dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk) wrote:
> dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:
> 
> >Someone else came up with the title - "Luxo Jr.". "Sesame Street" often 
> >carries short items made by the same animators.  They serve to illustrate
> >concepts like 'heavy' and 'light' (bowling ball vs. beach ball), 'light' and
> >'dark' etc.  The computer animation of the lamps is impressive, but what 
> >makes them stand out is the infusion of character in the objects.  You 
> >haven't lived until you've seen a desk-lamp do a double-take.  (All this
> >watching of kids' TV is, of course, merely part of the business of 
> >bringing up of one's young children.)
> 
> Ahh..but the one's on Sesame Street are in the main stop motion animation
> with real objects. What was *really* impressive about Luxor Jr. was that
> it was all computer generated with ray tracing and rendering rather than

Beg your pardon but there are ray-traced animations on Sesame Street.  I've
seen the stop-motion animations too (most ingenious, some of them) but I 
also know ray-trace when I see it, and the ones featured match the 
description of "Luxo Jr."  There are also 2-D cartoons that look like they
were done with a kid-paint program.


--
||------------------------------------------------------------------------
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:17447 soc.culture.celtic:8118
Organization: Bar-Ilan University Computing Center, Israel
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 11:22:38 IST
From: Danny Rothenberg <X68147@BARILVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: The Welsh Flag
 <CALUM.92Dec7173459@ivy.clu.cf.ac.uk> <1992Dec7.201751.20686@news.nd.edu>
 <1992Dec8.113836.17451@rdg.dec.com>

In article <1992Dec8.113836.17451@rdg.dec.com>, cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com
(Craig Cockburn) says:
>
>Why is the Welsh flag not represented in the Union Flag?
>

I always thought it is because Wales was conquered by Edward I, and never,
unlike Scotland, regained her independence.  The Union flag recognises not
so much the Union of the Kingdoms (England & Wales with Scotland) in 1603
on the death of Elizabeth I of England and the accession to the English
throne of James VI of Scotland to become James I of England, but the Act
of Union in ?1703 which united the two parliaments at Westminster.  Hence
Scotland having separate laws to England and Wales.  Ireland, later Northern
Ireland was joined to the Westminster Parliament at a later date.

Apropos to the events of 1603, should it not be the English clamouring for
indepence from the Scots, and not vice versa.  (BTW the verse about those
'rebellious Scots' in 'God Save the Queen' has, to the best of my knowledge
been officially dropped.)


>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  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
-------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Rothenberg    |
Bitnet:             |   quis custodes ipsos custendiendos?
X68147@barilvm      |
Internet            |   "Well.  Apart from that, what have the Romans
x68147@vm.biu.ac.il |    ever done for us?"  -Reg  ('Life of Brian')
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: smckinty@sunicnc.France.Sun.COM (Steve McKinty - Sun ICNC)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Recommend a play in London
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:51:43 GMT
Organization: SunConnect
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.france.sun.com

In article <1992Dec16.125417.23914@eua.ericsson.se>, euamgk@eua.ericsson.se (Marina Kohnen) writes:
> Hi,
> 
> I will be in London between the 20th and 27th of December.
> 
> I know that a lot of theaters will be closed for Christmas, but anyway...
> Can someone recommend some good play that he or she or a friend has seen?
> 
> Not a musical, something serious.  West End, or Fringe, or the National, or Barbican.

Try "The Woman in Black", at the Fortune Theatre, Covent Garden.

I don't know if its still running (it was a few months ago). It's a ghost
story, which I saw about 3 years ago. It would spoil it completely
to say much about it, but I would never have believed you could build
the atmosphere they did in a theatre, with just two actors, few special
effects, and very few props.

It has a nasty twist right at the end, we left the theatre still
shivering...

Steve

-- 
Steve McKinty
SUN Microsystems ICNC
38240 Meylan, France
email: smckinty@france.sun.com	   BIX: smckinty
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: sosc1055@wc10.writer.yorku.ca (Sandra Martindale)
Subject: What's Email Address for Dundee U??
Organization: York University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:43:10 GMT

	I think that the subject heading is pretty self-explanatory. I  
need to get in touch with someone who is at Dundee, I think she's in the  
Arts College as she is studying Architecture. Any suggestions? Also need  
email address for Leeds Polytechnic!
	I don't usually read this news-group so please send replies to my  
address.

					Thanks muchly,
					Sandra M. (Skamp)
					sosc1055@reader.yorku.ca
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Time to elect a monarch?
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:47:32 GMT

yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:

>With the recent in the Crown, one should speak on this situation.
>One must note that despite my Centrist politics, I am an avowed Monarchist.
>But with the recent separation of the Prince and Princess of Wales, this throws
>the current system in doubt and one should wonder if the Magestrate should be
>elected by Her/Her Royal Majesty's subject.
>A thought to consider, especially when Poland did it at one time.
>BTW, you are safe to assume that since I am a Loyalist that I am  strongly
>Anti-Republicans, and as a British National, I do believe that there is no room
>for a EuroParliament in Britain and hence anti-political-Unification-European.

I take it back. He's not Henry Root - he's Roger Irrelevant.

"Wibble wibble Ms. Johnson. I must save Lassie from the lawnmower."


Paul Moloney (B.A. (Computer Science)())(U of Dublin 1992)))))())))))()
God Save Sherriff Yadalee! God Bless the Queen Mother! God save Jesus!
He scores on the rebound! Wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble!
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive  P a u l   M o l o n e y    "I'm pretty witty and you're itty bitty    pe
james  Trinity College, Dublin     And isn't it a pity the city can't see?   vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: ewadams@netcom.com (Ernest Adams)
Subject: Re: London Underground sell-off?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:42:50 GMT

Andrew Merritt writes:
>Has anyone else heard rumours about the London Underground system being
>privatised in the new year?  Apparently the lines will be sold separately;
>I'm not sure if the stations are to be sold as a separate package (i.e. I'm
>not sure how they plan to manage the stations that are interchanges between
>different lines).
>
>Andrew

Since it's not April 1, the only possible response to this is....

     PROLONGED SCREAMS OF HORROR!!

The London Underground is a British institution MUCH more important than
democracy, monarchy, cricket, colonialism, fair play, unheated loos and
so on. What's next? Privatizing the British Museum? Perhaps you should
sell off bits of Stonehenge to tourists, as well... make a bit of money
and remove an annoying obstacle to the artillery practi[c/s]e which
Salisbury Plain is *really* intended for.

THIS IS AN ABOMINATION! FOR GOD'S SAKE, STOP THEM BEFORE THEY SELL AGAIN!
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:27:43 EST
From: Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: If the Wales' divorce
 <Bz3LJ3.JG0@hpqmoea.sqf.hp.com> <92346.1713052893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <1992Dec12.032153.593@fwi.uva.nl>

In article <1992Dec12.032153.593@fwi.uva.nl>, hm@fwi.uva.nl (Hans Mulder) says:
>
>In <92346.1713052893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
>says:
>>In article <Bz3LJ3.JG0@hpqmoea.sqf.hp.com>, prr@hpqmola.sqf.hp.com (Peter
>>Roubaud) says:
>>>Andy (2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA) wrote:
>>>> It has been argued that if Charles divorces, he would be unable to become
>g
>>>Kin
>>>> as he would no longer be qualified to be Head of the Church of England. I m
>a
>>>> not sure of that, todays paper cited the example of King Charles II (I
>>>think)
>>>> in 1698 who as King, divorced his wife and did not need to abdicate.
>>>
>>>Most impressive since Charles II died in 1685.
>
>>I did put a qualifier in there:) I am certain of the year (or rather what the
>>paper said) I am uncertain of the monarch.
>
>This can't be correct: in 1698, the king of England was William of Orange.
>If there ever was a king of England who couldn't divorce and keep his job,
>it was William, since he was king only by virtue of his being married to
>Mary Stuart when she inherited the throne.
>
>Compare: if Charles divorces he may still be king, but if Di divorces she
>surely can't be queen.
>
>HansM

Hm well, then the paper had the year wrong, did Charles II not divorce his wife
From: apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:31:10 GMT
Subject: Re: London Underground sell-off?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, CCSY Messaging Centre, UK.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british

mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>In article <6250105@hpopd.pwd.hp.com> apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt) writes:
>>Has anyone else heard rumours about the London Underground system being
>>privatised in the new year?  Apparently the lines will be sold separately;
>>I'm not sure if the stations are to be sold as a separate package (i.e. I'm
>>not sure how they plan to manage the stations that are interchanges between
>>different lines).
>>
>Only slightly confused - it's not London Underground that's
>being sold off (yet), it's London buses.
>
>Matthew Huntbach
>----------
No, I'm not confused; it is definitely the Tube I'm talking about.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: ewadams@netcom.com (Ernest Adams)
Subject: Re: US bombed Libyan civilians
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:44:50 GMT

The War of 1812, which gets big hoopla in U.S. history books because
it was a big threat to the fledgling nation, probably doesn't even
make it *into* British history books -- as far as they're concerned,
it was a minor skirmish over some trading rights.... about as important
to them as the Grenada invasion was to us.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
Subject: Re: Anglepoise Lamps
Organization: Fulcrum Communications
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 09:09:04 GMT

In article <IDF.92Dec15195317@fat-controller.cs.bham.ac.uk> idf@cs.bham.ac.uk (Ian Fitchet) writes:
> > It's called "Son of XXXXXX", where XXXXX is the name of an anglepoise lamp.

>  Done by the same people that won the computer animation competition
> the next year with the story of the unicycle in the shop...

Sam Leffler showed them both at the EUUG shebang in 1988.  Excellent.

ian
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 09:45:44 EST
From: Aengus Lawlor <RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: this same old lie again. NI
 <1992Dec10.010517.18918@brtph560.bnr.ca> <1936@spam.ua.oz>

In article <1936@spam.ua.oz>, jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew) says:
>In article <1992Dec10.010517.18918@brtph560.bnr.ca> andrewg@brtph346.BNR.CA
>writes:
>>I once met an Irish Catholics who was an officer in the Ulster Defence
>>Regiment.
>>I believe he wanted to stay under British rule as did his Catholic
>>co-workers in
>>the UDR and Catholic members of the RUC.
>
>Last I heard the RUC/UDR was 98.something% Protestant. It does not have
>a good record for recruiting or promoting Irish Catholics (putting it
>mildly) There are some, but then even the Socialist Workers Party gets
>a few votes as does Screaming Lord Such.
The fact that the RUC and UDR are so overwhelmingly protestant isn't
entirely due to discriminatory hiring practices. The SDLP has refused
to recommend that nationalists join the RUC, and nationalists who do
join are subjected to threats, above and beyond the threat that all RUC
officers are under.

The RUC, as a full-time professional police force, working under very
demanding conditions, have some degree of support/sympathy among moderate
nationalists. Nationalist politicians want all British Army patrols in
nationalist areas to be escorted by the RUC, because the RUC are considered
more trustworthy.
>
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.british,soc.culture.celtic
From: walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,)
Subject: Re: The story of the Scottish flag
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:19:41 GMT

From article <CC.92Dec14132352@arran.dcs.ed.ac.uk>, by cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke):
> In article <1992Dec11.194356.16767@news.nd.edu> ulick@bernini.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford) writes:
> 
>    On the subject of Scottish kings, were thay all called
>    James or Malcolm (apart from Bob the Spider guy, of course).
> 
> There were a number of Alexanders and Davids.
> --
> 	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)
> 
> 		
And Edgar (wasn't his nick name the Maiden), and of course Duncan, and Donal
Bane(sp?), and Kenneth., and MacBeth (what was his first name?).

													GW
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: London Underground sell-off?
Date: 16 Dec 92 11:32:37 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

In article <1gmuokINN49p@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> smckinty@sunicnc.France.Sun.COM (Steve McKinty - Sun ICNC) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.091331.23822@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>>
>> Then it's "look how badly these nationalised concerns are
>> doing". I still can't see how introducing the necessity to
>> extract money from them to pay shareholders' dividends is
>> supposed to improve things though.
>
>What's the difference between borrowing from a Bank and paying interest,
>and borrowing from private investors and paying dividends? Other than the
>fact that the bank chooses how much they want, while you choose what
>dividend you pay to the shareholders.
>
I am not sure what the "you" is here. If by "you" is meant the
company directors, "you" are elected by the shareholders to
work in their interest and no-one else's. If you don't pay them
the dividends "you" are likely to find yourself chucked out and
someone more amenable put in control. So the difference is
immense - it's whether the thing remains in your control or
not.

You are, in any case, assuming that the money raised from
selling shares in formerly nationalised industries goes back to
the industry rather than simply reduces taxes.

I cannot see why the Conservative government bothered with a
defence policy when its privatisation policy has meant opening
the doors to anyone to invade the country and take over vital
parts of it. Then, I cannot see why the opposition couldn't use
this line to knock the stuffing out of them.

Matthew Huntbach
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: alice_bertelson@pts.mot.com (ALICE BERTELSON X2572 P7331)
Subject: "Green" Cards
Reply-To: alice_bertelson@pts.mot.com
Organization: Paging and Wireless Data Group
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:03:35 GMT

In article 9B8@srgenprp.sr.hp.com, patk@sr.hp.com (Patrick Kearney) writes:
>*>Can anyone tell me why Green Cards are actually blue? Mine is. Does
>*>the colour of these things have some significance? Are Green ones
>*>reserved for Hispanics, Blue for Europeans etc.? 
>*>
	Stuff deleted..

NO I don't think so, Mine (and another 2 guys I know who work here (all British))
 is WHITE... Maybe you are in a secret group or something!! Or maybe all the ones 
out of Miami are white and so forth!!

                     ___
                    (o o)
     ------------ooO-(_)-Ooo----------------
 ___________________________________________________________________
|*******************************************************************|
|   ***   Alice, Alleycat or the Brit    ***      		    |
|      **********************************			    |
|								    |
|  Motorola Paging Division	 Phone: (407) 364-2572		    |
|  Mail Stop 36			 Fax:  (407) 364-3571		    |
|  1500 NW 22nd Avenue		 Email: alice_bertelson@pts.mot.com |
|  Boynton Bch, FL 33426. USA	 Mac Email:) EAB001@email.mot.com   |
|___________________________________________________________________|