HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams)
Subject: Re: Cromwell
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, California
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:25:45 GMT

> parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson) writes:

> Interestingly enough, Winston Churchill (who can hardly be considered either
> a bleeding-heart liberal or an Irish sympathizer) condemns Cromwell's Irish
> atrocities quite strongy in "History of the English Speaking Peoples." He
> rejects the usual 'judge by the standards of his own time' argument outright.

..which reminds me of a (no doubt apocryphal) story that
Churchill was once vilifying a recently deceased political
opponent in the House of Commons, and concluded, "He's
gone where Cromwell's gone!"  This was greeted with a chorus
of boos from the assembled MP's, to which Churchill retorted
that the honorable gentlemen were obviously as certain as he
where Cromwell had ended up...
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san ramon, ca -=- rjwill6@pacbell.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: New World Order - what about NI???
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:35:53 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson


 In this day and age of a so-called "new world order" where the United
Nations for once seems capable of at least enforcing some of agreed
upon solutions - I can't help but wonder if there will be a role for
the United Nations in Northern Ireland. The English, it seems to me,
have long claimed that they want nothing more than to get the hell out
but are concerned about the bloodshed that could or would (depends on who you
ask) result from their withdrawl. 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. What would be the result of such a move? Would violence be directed
at the UN troops? From both sides? Would the situation simply continue
as it has in recent years? Would either side or both feel more driven to
take part in serious peace talks?


			gln
 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
From: MICHAEL.WILLETT@OFFICE.WANG.COM ("Michael Willett")
Subject: Nollaig Cridheil to You!
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:50:50 GMT

Malachy Smith, Managing Director of Wang in Eire, sends
his very best wishes for a "Nollaig Cridheil" and a
Prosperous New Year to his fellow Irish around the world.
He extends a personal invitation to all you Irish abroad,
and your families, to drop by his office at Harcourt Centre in
Dublin for a cup of coffee or lunch, any time you come to
Eire.  (He can be reached in Dublin at (353) 1 757 931.)

Michael.Willett@OFFICE.Wang.com
From: morna@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Morna J Findlay)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: This Psalm thingummyjig
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:06:08 GMT
Reply-To: morna@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Morna J Findlay)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

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

M ( still a bit tipsy afer Chrustmas lunch)

-- 
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: hiscrp@nuscc.nus.sg (C R Pennell)
Subject: Re: This Favorite Lie Again (clarification)
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:40:11 GMT


dwilkins@maths.tcd.ie (David Wilkins) writes:

	[lots of stuff I deleted]

: People in Britain continue to use the word Eire to refer
: specifically to the 26 county state.  I believe this is
: to be interpreted not as an insult to the people of that
: state, but rather reflecting their belief that it is the
: preferred name of the people of that state, as evidenced
: by its postage stamps! 

	AS in "I'm flying from Eire to Helvetia tomorrow?"
	Still I suppose it's better than using the name off the stamps of
the United Kingdom (I use the term advisedly)

Richard Pennell, History NUS

Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british
From: dml@philabs.philips.com (Damian M. Lyons)
Subject: Re: This Favorite Lie Again.
Originator: dml@rabbit
Organization: Autonomous Systems, Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:53:28 GMT


In article <1992Dec15.000627.21100@maths.tcd.ie>, dwilkins@maths.tcd.ie (David Wilkins) writes:
|>
|> You have to establish that people in Britain today really are
|> deriving benefit actions in the past, or from present day
|> injustice, before you can talk in terms of grievance and reparation.
|> This is perhaps best examined by considering separately the
|> cases of the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland.
|>.........

Interesting. Sort of a red herring though, don't you think?

|> 
|> The stated reason why NI remains part of the United
|> Kingdom, is that a majority of the population there
|> consider themselves British and wish to remain within
|> the United Kingdom.  One can argue till the cows come
|> home about whether the creation of NI in the first
|> place was justified, and whether its border was
|> just and appropriate, neverthess, as a political
|> entity, it has existed as a six-county unit for
|> 70 years now.

I haven't heard anyone raise their voice in justification of
the creation of NI. Perhaps I missed it, but I suspect
one would be hard pressed to justify the forceful inclusion
of 3/4 million people into a statelet in which they were and are a 
planned minority. This was a blatent move into social manipulation
of the kind that supports ethnic cleansing. Under this situation
it takes a hell of a nerve to crow about majority rule. 

Most unfortunately for everyone conconcerned, the social experiment
backfired and has generated the explosive nation we know 
today as NI. I can't see how anyone can be considered
to have a `net profit' from that.

Thus, the issue is not about whether Britain has exploited,
or is exploting anybody or anything, rather it is about 
aboriginal rights for that 3/4 million minority.  

Such cases  of aboriginal rights are not that rare:
I believe Arizona is presently readressing a 101 year 
old aboriginal rights dispute (with the Hopi indians, I 
recall from this week's NY times). It is simply that NI is
not usually seen in this light.

Damian.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
         Damian M. Lyons | x6444 | dml@philabs.philips.com       
_________________________________________________________________ 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british
From: dwilkins@maths.tcd.ie (David Wilkins)
Subject: Re: This Favorite Lie Again.
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:00:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.212127.15111@maths.tcd.ie> (on the point of being
cancelled and corrected) I write:
>Single Market.  The level of structural funding agreed at the
>EC summit in Edinburgh last weekend is estimated to amount to
>7 or 8 billion Irish pounds spread over 7 years.  This represents
>about two million pounds for each man, woman and child in the
>Republic.

Oops.

`Billion' in this context refers to the `American billion',
that is 1,000,000,000.  Thus structural funds represent
two _thousand_ pounds for each man woman and child.  This
certainly sounds less impressive!

DRW
From: mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Scotland Demands Democracy!
Date: 18 Dec 92 19:26:16 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

In article <CALUM.92Dec18150448@ivy.clu.cf.ac.uk> Calum Gordon <calum@clu.cf.ac.uk> writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.095239.24512@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>
>>  "Disenfranchised" means "denied a vote". Scotland has not been
>>  disenfranchised, in fact it has a rather generous entitlement
>>  of MPs. The problem is that for the past 13 years, the whole of
>>  the UK has elected a majority of Conservative MPs (hasn't cast
>>  a majority of Conservative votes though), which have outweighed
>>  the fact that Scotland has elected a majority of Labour MPs.
>
>Doesn't that tell you something about our prehistoric "democracy" then?
>At least 75 out of every 100 Scots want change to the status quo
>(probably more as even some Tory voters support change but can't/won't
>vote for the other parties). So if a large number of Scottish votes carry
>NO political impact whatsoever then I guess it's almost as good as
>being disenfranchised. The fact is that the Scottish four party system
>just doesn't work with this electoral system - whether the Tories won
>or lost two extra seats has no relevance as the results in terms of
>seats are no more meaningful than the spin of a roulette wheel.

Actually, I am a strong supporter of devolution and electoral
reform, and would not oppose independence if that's what the
Scots wanted. I was simply pointing out that the word
"disenfranchised" could be wrongly interpreted as suggesting
that the Scots had been denied proper voting rights. Given the
widespread ignorance often shown in s.c.c., and the widespread
wish to believe that English people have an evil desire to do
down Celts, I would not be surprised if one or two readers from
across the Atlantic actually read it as saying that elections
were no longer held in Scotland.

As someone pointed out, the situation in which the balance of
power politically in Scotland differs markedly from that in
England has only occurred in recent years. Before that, when
Engalnd went Tory, Scotland went Tory.

>>  I don't recall Scots caring much about south-east England being
>>  "disenfranchised" when it elected nearly all Conservative
>>  MPs, but had a Labour government thanks to the large number of
>>  Scottish Labour MPs.
>
>Well when Scotland is independent you won't have to worry about that
>then, will you? England can be as toryous as it pleases.

Actually, it's something I would worry about, being someone who
lives in south-east England, but who is opposed to the Tories.
I do fear that devolution and regionalisation means being left
marooned in a South-East region under permanent Tory rule, a
bit like being a Catholic under Stormont.

Matthew Huntbach
From: spxsjm@thor.cf.ac.uk (Mr S J Morris 92)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Scotland Demands Democracy!
Date: 16 Dec 92 13:29:15 GMT
Organization: University of Wales College at Cardiff
X-Mailer: Cardiff Computing Maths PP Mail Open News Gateway

In article <1992Dec14.180127.1@vaxa.strath.ac.uk> cabr01@vaxa.strath.ac.uk writes:
|    This may be news to Netters. The BBC did not mention it on a national
|level. The Times was not aware of it today. This is all proof of the
|manipulation of the truth to keep Britain English. BTW I was once in favour of
|the Union. 
|    I would be interested to hear of notification of this turning point in 
|Scottish politics. Has anyone heard of it in the "UK" papers. If so how much?
|
|
|Karl Stephen (Active member of the non-affiliated punters party).

I saw it covered on the main news, but I can't remember if that was the
BBC News at 9 o'clock or the ITN News at Ten.

By the way, how many seats in Parliament does the SNP have? How does it
compare with the four held by Plaid Cymru, out of a far smaller total?



-- 
Steve Morris,
Adran Ffiseg a Seryddiaeth, Coleg Prifysgol Cymru Caerdydd.
(Physics and Astronomy Dept., UWC Cardiff)
***************************************************************************
* For God so loved the world that he* Canys felly y carodd Duw y byd fel  *
* gave his only-begotten Son, that  * y rhoddodd efe ei unig-anedig Fab,  *
* whosever believes in him should   * fel na choller pwy bynnag a gredo   *
* not perish but have everlasting   * ynddo Ef, ond caffael ohono fywyd   *
* life.      (John ch.3 v.16)       * tragwyddol.      (Ioan p.3 ad.16)   *
***************************************************************************
From: mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: This Psalm thingummyjig
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:42:12 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

In article <1992Dec17.162652.10210@spider.co.uk> alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld) writes:
>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)
>
At the last requiem mass I went to, it was indeed the 23rd psalm
sung to Crimmond, and Abide with Me. I think they also had
Jerusalem which must rank there with "hymns everyone knows".
They also had The Old Rugged Cross which must surely be another
"hymn everyone knows" - it has the great advantage of sounding
much better when sung in a drunken state (like several of the
more lachrymose numbers that everyone knows providing they're
Catholic). Probably anyone who's had the standard dose of
UK school religion (enough to innoculate you, not enough to
infect you) knows Lord of the Dance, which is an awful hymn because
you couldn't possibly imagine it being sung in a drunken state.

"Faith of our Fathers" is now out of favour, due to being
insufficiently ecumenical, despite its wimpish last verse which
has the appearance of being tacked on to try and avoid the
offence caused by the rest. This is best sung in a menacing
manner when you outnumber the Prods.

Matthew Huntbach
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
From: jxm@engin.umich.edu (John Murray)
Subject: A Christmas Pint in Dublin
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 20:57:33 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

   Well, the assembled worldly wisdom suggests that Sunday December 27th
   would be an eminently suitable date for a quiet pint or three in Dublin. 
   Neary's of Chatham Street (off Grafton St) has been proposed, seconded,
   and accepted as an appropriate venue by public acclaim. 4:00pm would
   appear to be a reasonable time, since people who have better things to
   do can do them without wasting an entire evening with a bunch of boring 
   Internet geeks! (It is also convenient for the brothers who are home
   from Japan and are planning a karaoke session in O'Dwyer's at 7:00.)
   Let's try the ground floor bar on the right as you face the building. 

   Please wear something obviously non-Dublinish so we'll know who we are.
   (This applies even if you've never set foot outside the Pale!) Moscow
   Aviation Institute jackets or "I <heart> X11 Release 5" t-shirts will
   probably suffice; Opel soccer jerseys or Dunnes Stores Christmas present
   pullovers definitely will not!! 
  
   See you there, 

   John Murray 
   Univ. of Michigan
From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Scotland Demands Democracy!
Date: 16 Dec 92 10:19:07 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <BzAxv7.G2F@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning) writes:

   Yes it was, it got a mention on the 6 o'clock news and News at Ten. They
   also gave the figures at much less than 25,000. I think they said 5,000.

Other parts of the BBC repeatedly reported 25,000.  The police estimated
between 15,000 and 20,000; if your 6 o'clock News really did say 5,000 they
were either lying or wildly wrong.  Perhaps they or you confused it with one
of the other half dozen or so protests that took place during the summit.
--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)

		
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
From: mh10006@cl.cam.ac.uk (Mark Humphrys)
Subject: Re: Could someone post the latest results in the election.
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Distribution: soc
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:23:01 GMT

In article <SINEAD.92Dec10103214@kenbisi.osaki.ssl.fujitsu.co.jp>, sinead@osaki.ssl.fujitsu.co.jp (Sinead) writes:
|> 
|>  <1992Dec8.182608.2891@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
|> 
|> 
|> > |> result says is "we don't agree with abortion, we don't want
|> > |> any hand in it but we have no right to stop you seeking it
|> > |> elsewhere"
|> 
|> > You both misunderstand the referendum. Pro-choice voters like myself voted NO
|> > on the main abortion issue, because it WASN'T a right-to-choose amendment;
|> > it was a 'right-to-life' amendment,
|> 
|> > Mark Humphrys
|> 
|> ...... mm i was wrong. but isn't it saying the same thing....
|> (even in a case where the life of the mother is at risk) we
|>  will not allow abortion in ireland but will allow anyone
|> who wants it to get it elsewhere.

Well that's been the traditional position in Ireland
( and the traditional hypocrisy ).
But the case of the 14 year old girl made the Irish electorate think
seriously about the issue ( for the first time apparently
- it was like watching people grow up in public ), 
and go beyond the anti-woman propaganda they were fed at school and at church.
Opinion polls showed a majority pro-choice for the first time ever,
and I was making the point that perhaps now ( 1992 ) the traditional
hypocrisy no longer holds.

The unexpected Supreme Court decision legalised abortion in Ireland,
and last month's vote was to roll back that decision.
So naturally pro-choice voters voted 'No'.
The firmly anti-abortion voters also voted 'No', on the grounds that
it wasn't rolled back to absolute zero.
So with all those who felt really strongly about the issue
on the one side, it was a nice non-acrimonious campaign, and the
amendment was inevitably defeated.

I believe the Irish electorate not only are happy with the 
Supreme Court's ( highly restrictive ) legalisation of abortion,
I believe they would vote to liberalise the law even further
( *if* they are given such a vote, which they have not been
  since the X case )

Times are changing, even in Ireland..


|> i realise there's a big difference between legalising abortion
|> and allowing it in "certain" circumstances but when the irish
|> voted to save the life of the child over the life of the mother
|> it *was* saying under no circumstances will the mother be given
|> the right to choose.
|> 
|>    _
|> sinead.

When did the Irish vote to do this?

Mark Humphrys
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british
From: dwilkins@maths.tcd.ie (David Wilkins)
Subject: Re: This Favorite Lie Again.
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:47:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.173447.24844@cs.tcd.ie> riordanm@cs.tcd.ie (Mark Riordan) writes:
>Some of the British gentry continue to profit from ground rents on 
>lands in Ireland (Republic) despite the dubious nature of their
>claim on the land. This was presumably insisted upon in the treaty
>negotiations or subsequently.

The only commitments resulting from treaty negotiations are the
terms of the agreed treaties themselves.

I cannot offhand recall anything in the terms of the Anglo-Irish
treaty along the lines of what is described above.

The nearest to such an obligation in the treaty that I can
recall is the commitment imposed on the Irish government to
continue to forward to the British government `land annuities',
essentially mortgage repayments paid by farmers under the
Wyndham Act and other land reform acts at the turn of the
century, under which land was purchased from large landowners,
by agreement or on a compulsory basis, so that tenants could
purchase their land by making payments over a period of
around sixty years, at a rate that compared favourably
with the rents they were then paying to their landlords.

For the first decade of its existence the Irish Free
State (as it then was) did not have the power to repeal
the terms of the Anglo-Irish treaty, which was entrenched
in Irish law by acts of both the Westminster Parliament and
the Dail.  However the Statute of Westminster gave de Valera
the power to repeal the terms of the treaty by repealing,
in its application to the Free State, the original act
of the United Kingdom parliament entrenching the treaty
provisions.  De Valera duly repealed this act, and stopped
payment of the land annuities.  (Irish farmers however
were not exempted from paying the annuities; the Irish
government collected them and payed them into their
own coffers.)

As a result of this, Britain retaliated by imposing high
tariffs on imports of Irish produce, particularly agricultural
produce, and the tariffs the Free State introduced in response
produced the `Economic War' of the '30s.  These matters were
finally settled as a result of the agreements made by de Valera
and Chamberlain on the eve of the Second World War (or
`Emergency'), the same agreements that resulted in the return
to the Free State of the `treaty ports' of Cork Harbour,
Berehaven and Lough Swilly.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.usa
From: sdr57@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: British interference in U.S. elections
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:15:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.171009.29193@news.clarkson.edu> walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,) writes:
>From article <1992Dec11.144945.29711@cas.org>, by sdr57@cas.org ():
>> In article <1992Dec10.165739.29411@mercury.cair.du.edu> kguinn@zephyr.cair.du.edu (Kip J. Guinn) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec9.171222.4182@cas.org> jac54@cas.org writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec9.154539.14942@news.clarkson.edu> walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>      We're getting our agencies and nationalities mixed up here.
>>>>>>      The CIA doesn't operate within the U.S. and so wouldn't be
>>>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>Hahahahahaah!  Sorry--I just couldn't help it.
>>>
>>>And to think some people actually believe the intelligence agencies are
>>>forces for good, and actually give a damn about laws governing them...
>>>
>>>Kip
>>>
>>>
>>
>>    [stuff explaining the CIA etc.]
>>
>
>
>You also forgot the Secret Service agents (which are infact Treasury agents).
>
Deleting all my text certainly made it look that way.
However, if you had left my post intact you would have
shown that I did indeed include the Treasury department
in my list of organizations which compete with the FBI
for internal jurisdiction. (It would have also been
apparent that the list was not intended to be comprehensive.
Incidentally, Treasury is also the parent of other agencies,
such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which
exercise what many would regard as police functions.)
******************************************************************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
		    -(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")

My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.

Stanley Roberts

Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic