HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cgk26737@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (C G Kolar)
Subject: Re: Cricket and British Politics
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 08:39:50 GMT

banarji@unixg.ubc.ca (Ajai Banarji) writes:

>		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 think that the SHOCKING truth about the sport's affiliation with
Conservative politics should be told.

The following excerpt is from Herbert Sutcliffe's 1949 book
  _How To Become a First-Class Batsman_ (Yorkdale Press Ltd, Bradford)
  and should explain, in full, the extent of this "special relationship."

///// BEGIN \\\\\

   For cricket is a game which calls for courage, skill, strategy and,
above everything else, self-control.  Cricket, more than any other game,
tests the temper of a man, and in the test reveals his character.
Cricket helps to keep a man fit in body and mind; it assists in the
development of sporting instincts and it strengthens character.  Above
all, it teaches team spirit -- that spirit of comradeship which counts
for so much in every walk of life.  I say that nothing has played so
important a part in the moulding of the character of the British 
race as the game of cricket.  Throughout the long history of the British
Empire, cricket --along with rugger and soccer-- has helped to place this
country in the forefront of all nations and which will, by our adherence
to those high principles of team work, fair play, and clean living,
re-establish our position at the head of all nations.
   But it is not my intention to preach a sermon on the importance of
cricket to the British Empire.  I do say, however, that our glorious
national game should be played by all between the ages of five and sixty.

\\\\\ END PP. 7-8 /////

I will gladly pay 10 Pounds to any person who mails, to this address,
  information substantiating the rumor that one Mr G Gooch conspired
  with the Thatcher Regime in the re-arming of Britain and the 
  re-enforcement of colonial rule in the Falkland Islands. 

I think we should be told.

/////\\\\\/////\\\\\/////\\\\\/////\\\\\
Christopher G Kolar	     	The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Cognitive Flexibility Laboratory	 Internet:  c-kolar@uiuc.edu
Center for the Study of Reading		NovaNET:   chris / mfl / nova
     *** Not affiliated in any way with the study of Slough. ***
From: pdg@crosfield.co.uk (paul goffin)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mortgages (was Re: Simple message)
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:07:18 GMT
Reply-To: pdg@crosfield.co.uk (paul goffin)
Followup-To: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Organization: Crosfield Electronics, Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom.

In article <JIM.92Apr14181721@hunter.cs.strath.ac.uk> jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.154104.17609@cl.cam.ac.uk> mrw@cl.cam.ac.uk (Michael Warner) writes:

>   Seriously, are banks willing to lend 100% of the purchase price,
>   particularly in today's market where prices are falling ?!?!?

>Of course they are! They get the poor sucker who takes out the
>mortgage to pay for an insurance policy (the mortgage indemnity
>premium) that guarantees the bank or building society gets its money
>back. [i.e. You pay for their risk.] They probably get commission from
>the insurance company for this rip-off as well.

Actually, the rip-off is even worse than this!

If you default on the mortgage, the bank/building society will
reposess and sell the house.  If that dosn't pay off the debt, they
will collect some money from the insurance company.  If that
still isn't enough, then YOU STILL OWE them the rest! (even though
you've lost your house!) and they will still charge interest on
that debt.

BUT the worst bit is that the INSURANCE company can now try to recover
the ammount they paid to the bank from YOU!

So you end up with no house, a debt to the bank AND a debt to
the insurance company!  That's not to mention that the DSS will
now regard you as intentionally homeless and will not help
to find accomodation for you.

It seems amazing to me that it can be legal for you to pay for insurance
and then be persued by the insurance company if they have to pay out!

Paul.
-- 
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
+ Paul Goffin +  Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K.  +44 442 230000x3357 +
+             +  My opinions are my OWN. - no one would pay for this! +
+-------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Rampant paranoia (was Voting slips: what happens to them,DANGER!)
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:05:30 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: dpl@aber.ac.uk (David Philip Langstaff)
>At this stage the spoilt ballots are weeded out and the returning officer has
>a discussion with the candidates to decide which ones are Ok. I've seen
>ballots refused because of CND signs, people writing 1,2,3,4 in order of
>choice and also by people signing their names in the boxes. One of the best
>ones was a little poem about anarchy & freedom (words by Cr@ss, I think),
>although one year there was a ballot paper that the returning officer refused
>to show to any of the candidates !!

I think you would have been in your rights to demand to look at
this ballot paper. The standard practice is that all spoilt
ballot papers are shown to all candidates - this makes spoiling
your paper by writing some message on it quite a good way of
getting through, since the candidates will see it.

In a place I used to stand as a candidate there was someone who
used to vote for me by putting a tick against my name and a
cross against the others. The returning officer ruled this as a
spoilt paper. A paper with just a tick by your name, however,
counts as a vote in your favour.

Matthew Huntbach
From: awrc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Al Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Farewell to Kinnock
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:18:48 GMT
Reply-To: awrc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Al Crawford)
Organization: The University Of Edinburgh - Department Of Computer Science

And lo, rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) spake unto the masses saying:
>
> You miss the point. The point is to be prime minister supported by The
> Sun one must be a failure. Major is truely world class at that and The
> Blue Witch, for all her oxbridge degree failed to do anything as a
> chemist except whip air into ice cream.

Isn't this true of all politicians though? If they were any good at
whatever they did their degree in (or in the case of JM, when they did their
non-certificate woodwork class :-) rather than at blowing their own
trumpet, they'd be busy doing *that* instead of having gone into politics.

Those who can do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach but have
enormous egos go into politics?

As an example I ask those readers who are at academic establishments to
have a good look at their "student politicos", especially if they are at a
UK university. These are the people who will be the next generation of
"university educated politicians", the Margaret Thatchers and Neil Kinnocks
to come. Around here at least, they're a bunch of wasters who seem to have
come to university mainly to mess around playing student politics and who
will only scrape through their degree on a wing and a prayer, if at all.

--
		      Al Crawford - awrc@dcs.ed.ac.uk
       "Breakdown. Splinter. A thousand fragments disperse and die."
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: david@guadet.gr.osf.org (David George)
Subject: Re: political parties
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 11:46:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.184237.22178@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael  
Traub) writes:
> >In article <STEVEW.92Apr15144648@mushroom.cs.man.ac.uk> stevew@cs.man.ac.uk  
(Steve Wallis) writes:
> >>As for what Militant (and Scottish Militant Labour) stands for, here is a
> >>summary taken from the "Militant" newspaper:
> >
> >>*	A job for all with a maximum 35 hour week without loss of pay.
> >>*	A #190 per week minimum wage for all, including pensioners, the sick
> >>	and disabled.

Brilliant, forget all this programming nonsense.... I'm off to work as a Ski  
Instructor at Anoch Moor - I've already spotted a nice cottage.

> >>*	Reversal of all Tory cuts and a massive programme of public spending
> >>	on housing, education and health.

and ME !

> >>*	Nationalisation of the 200 largest companies, including banks and
> >>	insurance companies, under democratic workers' control and
> >>	management, with compensation only for any shareholder in genuine
> >>	need.

Love it!  Stuff all those greedy southerners who bought BT shares.

> >>*	A democratic, socialist planned economy to end the chaos of the
> >>	profit system.

Excellent idea, making a profit is so difficult anyway.

> >>*	No return to capitalism in the former Stalinist states.  Establish
> >>	workers' democracy and genuine socialism.

Great, that'll stuff any competition we'll have from these up and coming
Europeans.

> >>*	A socialist world where hunger, poverty, the threat of environmental
> >>	destruction and world war can finally be abolished.

Suits me.

> 
> I must be thick or something but these all seem like intelligent
> points to me.

Must be but who cares ?  Forward to the Socialist Nirvana.

David
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Why wait 5 years?
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:01:03 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <1992Apr16.122729.24713@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
|> In article <jjk94t8@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >Say what?   "Do whatever you can"?    Like for instance have the
|> >Scots themselves vote for the SNP last week?
|> >
|> Since many scots do not want *full* independence voting for the SNP
|> would be a foolhardy move.

My point exactly.    There was a party which supported full independence
and they voted it down.    By voting Tory, about a quarter voted for
no change at all.     So, why do we have to go through this
crap about general strikes and blood in the stree if the Scots
themselves won't vote for full independence?

|> 
|> >Oh, no.   That's too easy.   Far better to vote Tory (25.7) and 
|> >labour(39.0) and then complain afterwards.
|> >
|> The majority voted labour, the party who offered them what they
|> desire, their own parliament.

No, a majority did *not* vote Labour.   Go read the figures.

jon.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: The Decline of Britain (was Re: Great Britain as a malfunctioning democracy)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 13:36:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.101803@axion.bt.co.uk> ravis@axion.bt.co.uk (Richard Avis) writes:

>To be honest, I have (personally) lost all respect and sympathy for
>the squalid little people who keep voting the Conservatives in. Frankly,
>I think they are turning into a bunch of bigotted, self-interested morons
>who seem unable to understand that the country

If it is self-interested for a rich person to vote Conservative, is it also
self-interested for a poor person to vote for Labour?
If yes, why the whine?  If no, what's the point of the Labour Party??

>is descending into a terminal decline. And why shouldn't they be, after
>all that's what the tabloids keep telling them they should be, along with
>the tory propaganda and red scares.

Do you consider the magazine _The_Economist_ to be a "tabloid" or
"tory propaganda"?  Do you consider its editors and writers to be "morons"
and "bigots"?



Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:5828 soc.culture.celtic:3387
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Monday, 6 Apr 1992 19:58:35 EDT
From: <TWOLAND@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Is Holohan a dweeb?
 <1992Mar18.144639@mark.enet.dec.com>  <1992Mar27.160310.7545@rz-berlin.mpg.de>
 <1992Apr1.214005.60@mtechca.uucp>

>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.


I disagree.  I think the term Dweeb, which I use for anyone particularly narrow
, close-minded, repetitive, pointedly insulting, and silly (in other words, a "
Get a Life!"er) applies perfectly to the guy.  Besides, Hughes' movie may have
been the first place you heard the phrase, but it's been around a long time, an
d I was using it before _Breakfast Club_.

You're right about the other word, though.  <sigh>  If the guy is so full of ha
te, why doesn't he direct it against the thing he really detests and spare us
all his rantings?
From: albion@bnr.ca (Alan Buchanan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Gas stoves
Date: 12 Apr 92 20:57:15 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <#ctjjnf.sue@netcom.com> sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) writes:
>
>Just an aside - the USA (not "American", the Americas comprise many
>nations) Sweet Tooth pales when compared to the UK Sweet Tooth.  
>I believe that the country which wins the most-sugar-consumed-per-capita 
>race is Scotland, followed closely by England.  
>

At least we Scots have the 'taste' to eat the sugar raw, or with sugar
extract and concentrate of sugar.

It came as a big disappointment when I tasted my first 'Italian' in
California and discovered that sugar had been used instead of salt.

In my day, eating Italian was rivalled only by eating Indian in Glasgow.


                               Alan
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Me
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:21:48 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

Wouldn't normally bother with this, but since I seem to be in the
middle of several discussions here right now, should point out that I
probably will be off news until Wednesday (extended Easter break).
Owing to having very limited disk space, we are running very short
expiration times on news.  So, if you want to yell at me some more, and
you want me to see it, best if you wait until Sunday, at least, to do
it.  Or, if you want to yell at me in my absence, do feel free to carry on.

Happy Easter...

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
From: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Can YOU predict the election outcome? - **RESULTS**
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:12:06 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.
In-reply-to: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk's message of 13 Apr 92 11:53:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.115327.25550@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:

   How many people actually _read_ the election manifesto's. I believe
   careful reading of the manifesto's would have enabled a thinking
   person to accurately predict who would get the country's vote of
   confidence.

I very much doubt that any sane person would want to read the
manifestos far less believe any of the rubbish in them. The front page
of the Sunday Sport is more truthful than the ideological drivel, lies
and wishful thinking in party manifestos.

		Jim
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: General Election - The Result
Date: 10 Apr 92 14:31:53 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <11168@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> andrew@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Andrew Sharff) writes:
>The sky is blue, the sun rises in the East and sets in the West and the 
>Conservatives have made history and won their 4th consecutive election - 
>with an overall majority!

Well, first time this century that the Conservatives have taken 4
elections in a row.  According to the Beeb, they managed 5 in a row
some time last century, though.  (Oh, and also, according to the Govt's
current educational policy, 'history' does not include anything less
than 40 years old.  So, whatever they made, it's not history.  Won't
be until 2032 or so.)

>I wonder now how long Neil Kinnock will remain leader of the Labour party!
>He undoubtedly cost them dear - they have much more talented and intelligent 
>people to call on.

I haven't decided yet whether I think he's in danger or not.  Yeah, he
didn't do as well as expected, but on the other hand Labour did an
awful lot better than they were doing before he took over as leader.
Could go either way, I think.

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
From: percus@husc9.harvard.edu (Allon Percus)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Scouts and Scouters
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:13:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Apr10.141326.10924
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Apr09.220543.59377@yuma.acns.colostate.edu> fitch@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Chris the wonder Scout) writes:
>CAN YOU HELP ME?
>My name is Chris Fitch.  I am a 21 year old history major at Colorado State
>University.  I am a Boy Scout leader and am trying to teach my Scouts about 
>the world they live in.

Oh it's SCOUTS you want to know about.  I'm sorry, I thought you
said Scots.


Allon Percus
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: MAJOR WINS MAJORITY!!!
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:16:52 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <jia45as@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>If you don't have the figures, why be so precise?   Why "thirteen"
>years, for example?

Because it's a nice number.  Because it's when the Tories came to
power.  Because in about 1979 the Labour government, after a really bad
patch in the mid-70s, had got inflation down to 8%, only to have it
shoot back up in the period after the election.  (It is now a bit lower
than that, though, actually.  Something between 4 and 6 depending on
which set of the Government's figures you believe -- or prefer.)
Because it's the baseline for the Tories' claims that unemployment was
ridiculously high under Labour (and they STILL haven't got that down to
the level they inherited).  It's a natural watershed point.  It's
almost inevitably used as a baseline by the sorts of newspaper articles
I read.  Finally, because my arguments are based against the policy of
the ~13 year old Tory government, and it feels logical and obvious to
compare what they've given us with what they inherited.

(The figures above are trivial to verify, so I'll leave you to find
your own references if you want them.  When/if I re-find any of the
more obscure figures I'm looking for, I'll be sure to pass on sources
as well.)

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
From: axd7104@acfcluster.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: MAJOR WINS MAJORITY!!!
Date: 11 Apr 92 01:25:26 GMT
Organization: New York University

In article <1992Apr10.144725.2121@bristol.ac.uk>, smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
 In article <1992Apr10.052826.28630@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> jswilson@mta.ca writes:
>>I never doubted for a second that John Major would not win.  He (or rather) and
>>the Conservatives are the best bet to pull Britain out of the recession.
> 
> I don't understand why people believe this.  It was this government
> (and particularly the Lawson budget of a few years ago) that put us
> into it.  In the past 13 years, Britain has been falling further and
> further behind in the EEC 'league tables' of economic performance.  (I
> think only Portugal and Greece are worse, at this point -- that's
> nearly right anyway, may have missed someone.)

Oh, please.  In case you haven't noticed, the WORLD is in recession
right now.  The UK, The USA, Japan...things are bad all over.  There's
barely such a thing as an "English economy" anymore.  There's just one
big economy, and it flows up and down.  This recession will end, the
economy will grow again, then another recession will come about and
fade away, ad infinitum.  As far as the economy is concerned, it doesn't
matter one bit whether the PM is Tory, Labour, or Monster Raving Loony.

-- 
Aaron Dickey                      Bitnet: axd7104@nyuacf
New York University             Internet: axd7104@ACFcluster.nyu.edu

Al Roker Is God.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: The Decline of Britain (was Re: Great Britain as a malfunctioning democracy)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:05:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.220357.213802@cs.cmu.edu> goddard+@cs.cmu.edu (Nigel Goddard) writes:
>The Economist is a pretty good indicator of what the business community
>in Britain (and increasingly the US) want.  Since the Tories hew closest
>to business interests, the Economist line and the Tory line are often
>similar.  But I don't think the Economist pushes the Tory line.  Rather,
>both the Economist and the Tories push the business community line.
>Calling it propaganda may or may not be enlightening.  And of the two,
>the Economist is more loyal to the business community; the editors are
>quite willing to criticize Tory policy if it is not good for business
>interests.  American approval of the magazine is due to the incredibly
>strong identification of educated Americans with business interests
>(often to the point of equating "democracy" with "free markets", for
>example).

No, educated Americans don't "equate" democracy with free markets.  We just
think that both are important.




Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: mason@habs11.enet.dec.com (Gary Mason)
Subject: Re: Monk music on Butterflies
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 16 APR 92 16:09:50 EST

>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???????

At the risk of taking a lucky guess (based upon the language in your question),
I would look into almost ANY recording of Gregorian Chants if I were you.

Cheers...Gary
mason@habs11.enet.dec.com