HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kyle@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Kyle Wohlmut)
Subject: Enough talk!  Time for beer!
Followup-To: kyle@csli.stanford.edu, alt.beer
Summary: Coaster exchange program
Keywords: coasters, beer-mats, Schlitten, stamps
Organization: Rocking Pig Enterprises
Distribution: public, world
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 21:43:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.190048.25729@morgan.ucs.mun.ca>,
mgw@weejordy.physics (Martin "That's Right" White) writes:

> Hello to beer drinkers worldwide.

Quite a powerful way to start a message, especially for this
newsgroup... so I'll echo it on this message, in which I'm making a
modest proposal.  Greetings to all beer fanciers, everywhere; everyone
having a beer, recently having had a beer, or looking forward to their
next beer.

This request goes out to all readers of alt.beer, but particularly our
European residents... I recently moved my place of residence and as I
was packing up, I noticed how lacking my collection of coasters is
becoming.  I used to have a prized collection of beermats (Ich glaube,
der wort ist auf Deutsch "Untersetzer," nicht wahr?), but over the
years I've lost a lot of the great ones due to overuse, spillage,
misplacement, or just plain giving them away.  I'd like to get my
collection back up to snuff, so if there's anyone out there who would
help me, perhaps someone of similar interest, I'd be very grateful.
If you'd care to take a moment next time you're in your favourite pub,
whether it's in three months, or three hours, grab a local coaster,
stick it in an envelope and mail it to me (my boss collects stamps, so
this should work out great, if anyone participates).  I'll gladly
reciprocate by sending one from California, or any other California
curiosity as long as it's small and comparatively easy to mail.  

If there's any interest, e-mail me to exchange addresses and let's do
it.  Thanks for your time, and to everyone else, sorry for the
comparatively low beer-content of this post.  But hey, where would we
be without beermats?

-/-/-/-/-/-/
Kyle
'Another disappearing thing is the casual vomit.' --Billy Connolly
/-/-/-/-/-/-


Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
From: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: What does _cowardly_ mean?
Originator: lnds@zeus.biochem.ualberta.ca
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 04:51:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.023221.1@jaguar.uofs.edu>, ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu (Dave D. Cawley) writes:

> What would it take to make the PIRA less _cowardly_?  Capitulation to
> the will of 10 Downing ST? I have a feeling that nothing would do it 	

   Mohandas Gandhi did not capitulate to the will of 10 Downing St.
I have never heard anyone call him cowardly.

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
From: foster@mtechca.uucp (self.attribute:=major_arcana[0].name)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: So, do they have one or not?
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:39:23 GMT
Organization: MAINTECH, A division of Volt Delta Resources, Inc. Orange, CA

Sorry to keep dragging British constitutionality into s.c.c.
(tho not very sorry, cos other people keep dragging the equally
irrelevant Yorks and the football cup and American beer in here) 
but I didn't mean to ignite a flamewar over the relative merits of
the two systems. I shouldn't have been so sarcastic when I wrote:

Jeff Foster> You do? Pray educate us ignorant Californians, 
             who have been taught that one of the reasons 
             our system is superior to yours is that we have 
             rights that the Legislature cannot take away.

I ~meant~ to deprecate the quality of California public schools 
for having left me an uninformed jingoist.

All I want to know is what Clive Feather is talking about when he says: 

	Chris Lee> We don't have a bill of rights.
	Clive Feather> Yes we do. It was passed in 1689.

Was it an Act of Parliament? Was it the feared and dreaded Charter?
Was it a royal decree? What does Britain have that they call a bill
of rights? If you tell me what it is called, I promise I will go
read about it at the library and I won't ask anyone in s.c.c how it
works or whether it is any good or better than ours or any of that.

Thanks very.

-jeff "doesn't read s.c.b." foster
Xref: sparky soc.culture.celtic:3522 soc.history:3571 sci.archaeology:1743
From: emcmanus@gr.osf.org (Eamonn McManus)
Subject: Re: Bitch! (was Re: Liking Indiana (was ...
Organization: Open Software Foundation Research Institute, Grenoble
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 12:39:29 GMT

Geraint.Jones@comlab.oxford.ac.uk (Geraint Jones) writes:
> X   The dog also had 6 pups and I was wondering...
>Here's a bit of celtic.culture(.soc) for you.  Is the use of `dog' for `dog 
>or bitch' an anglophone peculiarity,  or is it just a bit of urban language 
>that I would find in other languages if I spoke enough other languages that 
>are spoken in large enough cities?

In French the generic masculine words "chien" and "chat" are often
used to refer to specific female animals, even though feminine forms
"chienne" and "chatte" exist.  Whether this is more common in the city
than in the country I am not in a position to tell.

,
Eamonn
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british
From: trifid@agora.uucp (Roadster Racewerks)
Subject: Re: Update on the Caraher shooting
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 04:52:06 GMT


Well!
Bravo, Holohan! A report on a possible attrocity that is written by a decent
journalist...

This is the sort of thing we need to see for a proper discussion. I don't think
any sane person believes this doesn't happen now and again, and when it does,
it needs a full airing. If either of these accused soldiers is guilty as
charged, I hope they let him/them rot forever, as an example to others that
abuse of power is no better.

Interesting that one of them has a celtic name, too.... )-;

Suze

Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
From: spain@galvia.enet.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: USA go home (Was Re: Shooting)
Reply-To: spain@galvia.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 10:03:10 GMT

--

George I trust you will understand if a Vietnamese person or a Japanese
person decided to blow you up because of the crimes committed by your compatriots in the past.

Virtually every country in the world have had times in their history when they
didn't cover themselves in glory.  Britain certainly has an inglorious past.
This does not justify murder.  It's American support that keeps the IRA
in business.   
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

          U.S.A. here we come

          God thinks he's Jackie Charlton

       Gary Spain, DEC, Galway, Ireland   - spain@galvia.enet.dec.com

|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: USA go home (Was Re: Shooting)
Summary: Irish-Americans are fully domesticated & have had all the req'd shots
Keywords: norm, Nietzsche, OPM
Date: 16 Apr 92 07:32:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: dog.22735
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Organization: N.I.C.E.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

Aengus Lawlor writes:
>American contributors are decidedly more blood-thirsty than the norm. As for

The norm of what?

>Irish cousin. Does this not indicate that the Brits did them a favour in
>running them out of Ireland 150 years ago?

(Pretzel logic indeed!)  In a Nietzschian sense, yes, I suppose so.
It seems to be an on-going favor, btw.

 ....
>Now you're actually talking some sense, Gary. The reactions of Irish Americans
>are a direct result of the history they were taught in school or the home.
>Much of this history was 3rd or 4th hand by the time you got it. The stuff
>they put in the history books doesn't turn people into IRA supporters on its own

I'm not following you here.  There's a sort of sociological  theory
here, but to what end?  & it's clearly not the only explanation possible.
Please explain what you mean.

>maybe even guaranteeing to underwrite some of the costs that might be

As usual, we should pay for someone else's mistakes.  Sure.
Take a number.

>involved. Maybe if you spent more time utilising those rights, you wouldn't
>squeal so much when we shun you for your inappropriate opinions.

I have just a sneaking little ol' feeling there'd be a _lot_
of loud squealing about "interference in our internal affairs"
if that incredibly remote suggested scenario ever actually did take place.

As usual, British & Irish (-origin) posters exaggerate the influence,
interest, & attention span of Irish-Americans.  For the most part, 
they don't care, they're not organized, & don't remember.  The savvy
political ones (like Reagan) are too pragmatic to worry about a "little"
British indiscretion like NI or the like.  -- in my opinion of course.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british
From: k052682@hobbes.kzoo.edu (James M. Brennan)
Subject: Re: Update on the Caraher shooting
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:09:36 GMT

>Latest news is that an IRA bomb in London killed a 14 year old
>girl and seriously injured here 7 year old sister.

I think cowardly applies...hmmm, seems that the IRA's inevitable "phone
call" wasn't in time...I'm sure that those "heroes" are terribly upset.

James Brennan
k052682@hobbes.kzoo.edu



Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
From: bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Purported inaccuracies in 200 years of Peace and Friendship
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:38:56 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.

In article <1992Apr8.084003@mark.enet.dec.com> holohan@mark.enet.dec.com (Mark Holohan) writes:
>
>  
>  I've included below the references used by F. Robert Dougherty for
>  his article, 200 years of Peace and Friendship.   I suggest that anyone
>  who has misjudged this article,  as the work of a lier, or propagandist,  
>  please check his references.

What you haven't addressed is the charge that the article presents a
number of minor misunderstandings between the two nations completely out
of context. The entire purpose of the article is to attempt to present
the UK in a bad light, and make it seem as though the countries have been
on the brink of war for 200 years when this is obviously not the case.
Since the mid-1800s relations have mostly been pretty good, and have
often been very close indeed.

-- 
Bruce Munro.  <bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!ukc!stc!bruce
BNR Europe Ltd, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. 
Phone : +44 81 945 2174 or +44 81 945 4000 x2174
"There are no strangers, only friends we don't recognise" - Hank Wangford
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
From: cockburn@majors.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn)
Subject: Re: Scotland: Independance v Devolution
Organization: Digital Equipment Co. Ltd., Newbury, England
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 09:28:30 GMT


In article <1992Apr10.221103.1363@news.clarkson.edu>, walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,) writes...
>As i listened to the World service during election night (late evening
>over here) the initial feeling was that Scotland was going to be a
>"problem" for Major in the next parliment. However, as the evening drew
>on, and as a slight swing to the Tories was detected in Scotland, the
>concensous was that Scotland would not be an issue for Major to deal
>with because "the Scots had shown that then were not interested in these
>matters as demonstrated by their lack of support for the SNP." Would
>someone in Scotland wish to make a comment on this analysis?
> 

A lack of support for the SNP ? The SNP increased their percentage of
the vote by over 50 % since the last election.

A few more by-elections and Jim Sillars will be back and the Tories
will have just as few seats as they did before 9 April. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Craig Cockburn, Digital Equipment Co. Ltd, Newbury, England.  
  ARPAnet: cockburn@majors.enet.dec.com                            Saor
  UUCP:..!decwrl!majors.enet.dec.com!cockburn                      Alba!

  Views here are my own, and are not necessarily those of Digital
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
From: spain@galvia.enet.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: What does _cowardly_ mean?
Reply-To: spain@galvia.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 12:20:59 GMT

--
In article <1992Apr6.023221.1@jaguar.uofs.edu>, ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:

|>> Unfortunately, the cowardly group he backs
|>> (the provisional IRA) are guilty of attrocities which have provoked, what
|>> can at best be described as unacceptable behaviour by some of the Security 
|>> forces.
|>
|>	I keep hearing this word  _cowardly_  tossed at the PIRA. And I wonder
|>what the definition of this word is, in this context. 
|>
|>	I would assume that any group, however large or small, that would
|>reject the rule of a powerful gov't and decide to actively engage it in combat
|>would be anything less than _cowardly_. Be it the PIRA, Sandinistas, American
|>colonists, Shining Path or what have you. 
|>
|>	I would also what makes them _cowardly_? There strategy for engagement?
|>Would they be more brave if they picked a time and a battlefield to tell the
|>British Army to be there? I'd say that was foolish. Is a mortar atack on the
|>British Prime Minister in broad daylight a cowardly act? Is a bomb in an
|>attache case at the foot of the table Hitler was standing at _cowardly_?
|>
|>	What would it take to make the PIRA less _cowardly_? Capitulation to
|>the will of 10 Downing ST? I have a feeling that nothing would do it and that
|>the flinging of _cowardly_ in both directions is meaningless at this point.

Cowardly is a term often applied to the IRA in that many of their attacks
are on defenceless civilians who have no way of defending themselves.  
Attacks on the security forces are generally done from a distance and 
generally have the advantage of surprise.  They would obviously be very
foolish to try and engage the army in open combat.  

I would consider civilian attacks, blowing up businesses or businessmen
who don't pay protecxtion money and kneecapping of teenagers to be the acts of cowards.  It depends on your perspective I suppose.

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

          U.S.A. here we come

          God thinks he's Jackie Charlton

       Gary Spain, DEC, Galway, Ireland   - spain@galvia.enet.dec.com

|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
From: smaill@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Alan Smaill)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: So, do they have one or not?
Date: 12 Apr 92 17:22:01 GMT
	<1992Mar30.130016.56@mtechca.uucp> <1992Apr1.162557.2743@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
	<1992Apr7.103923.66@mtechca.uucp>
Organization: DAI, University of Edinburgh

In article <1992Apr7.103923.66@mtechca.uucp> foster@mtechca.uucp (self.attribute:=major_arcana[0].name) writes:

	   Chris Lee> We don't have a bill of rights.
	   Clive Feather> Yes we do. It was passed in 1689.

   Was it an Act of Parliament? Was it the feared and dreaded Charter?
   Was it a royal decree? What does Britain have that they call a bill
   of rights? If you tell me what it is called, I promise I will go
   read about it at the library and I won't ask anyone in s.c.c how it
   works or whether it is any good or better than ours or any of that.

It is called simply "the bill of rights".
When James the  Seventh and Second was chased away in 1688,
thus ending absolute monarchism, Parliament wanted to set
down what rights the subjects of the constitutional monarchs
that followed should have.

It has an important place in political history as a forerunner
to the constitutions associated with the American and French
revolutions.
--
Alan Smaill,                       JANET: A.Smaill@uk.ac.ed             
Department of Artificial           ARPA:  A.Smaill%uk.ac.ed@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
       Intelligence,               UUCP:  ...!uknet!ed.ac.uk!A.Smaill
Edinburgh University.
From: trifid@agora.uucp (Roadster Racewerks)
Subject: Re: Is this good history?
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 05:12:21 GMT

In article <8680023@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> dlc@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Dennis Clark) writes:
>
>  I don't know about Joyce's approach as I have not heard about or read 
>anything from that author.  But ESPECIALLY when dealing with "celtic" history
>the turn of the century books tend to have a LOT of "popular" anthropology,
>eg. wishful thinking and folklore given as fact.  It makes for good reading,
>but may not be the best source for real data.
>
>  Hmmm, thinking hard on this, that title rings a bell, I may have it in my
>library - I'll go check...
>
>DLC
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| Dennis Clark(303)229-4313   telnet 1-229-4313   email dlc@fc.hp.com       |
>| Hewlett Packard FWL Perf. Lab, 3404 East Harmony Rd. Ft. Collins CO 80525 |
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Joyce's approach seemed sensible to me. He used two sources, actual artifacts
in museums, and the various texts written either during the time or just
after. Since he knew medieval sources were contaminated by all sorts of outside
influences, and earlier ones were rife with legend, he said he did this: He
looked pretty much askance at the primary themes of the story (the actions of
the hero, for instance) and tried to cross-reference them in as much depth as
possible. What he found the most useful of these tales were the *incidental*
details. He gave the example of St. Bridget stopping the king and requiring
some sticks to help built a wattle and daub house. When he  refused her, she
made his pack horses faint until he relented. The part about the horses is
most likely highly exagerated, if true at all...BUT the part about strings of
pack ponies carrying peeled sticks ready for building, and the evidence for
the continued use of wattle construction into the time of the author of the
tale is very likely, as no one in their right mind would *invent* details that
were merely incidental, if they gave the lie to his story...

It isn't the best evidence, and he knew that, but it is certainly worth 
mentioning. Much more likely to be reliable than the hero tales themselves.
(He also gave the example of a certain stlye of decorated stirrup being
mentioned, and the exact type being found later.)

Suze
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company
Date: Wednesday, 8 Apr 1992 17:19:34 EDT
From: Aengus Lawlor <RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Liking Indiana (was Re: Sick'n'tired of the "Troubles"

In article <1992Apr8.022248.7698@macc.wisc.edu>, oconnell@vms.macc.wisc.edu
(Kevin Patrick O'Connell) says:
>
>In article <92097.080553RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET>, Aengus Lawlor
><RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET> writes...
>>(And from somebody who blithely admits that the various foibles of Dev are
>>over his head!)
>>
>>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?"
>
>After further reflection on this bit of Aengus's post, I'm still
>baffled.  What's the sin in non-familiarity with Eamon(n?) DeValera?
>Clearly he played a key role in recent Irish history.  If Aengus
>believes (and rightly) that I have little knowledge of Irish affairs,
>why is he surprised to learn that I know less than he about "Dev"
>(with whom he seems to be rather chummy)?
Your posting suggested that you felt that the whole "Northern Ireland thing"
is all a storm in a teacup, and that we should all grow up and not waste
bandwidth prattling on about it. You then indicate, with a reference to
Dev's foibles, that you have very little knowledge, and less interest, in
the history of modern Ireland.

The "sin" you refer to isn't your lack of knowledge of Dev or his role in
the formation of modern Ireland, it's that you so easily dismiss the issue
of Northern Ireland, as though it had no significance.
>
>I would not like to see this exchange become heated.  Again, I
>apologize for ruffling any feathers.  My earlier statement (to the
>effect of "why are they all fighting--they all look the same to me")
>was more in the tradition of statements like "What if they had a war
>and nobody came?"  Obviously it was taken much more harshly than
>intended, and I am sorry, Aengus, but I stand by John's concern.
>Ireland is more than the NI conflict, and often this group is not.
Maybe when you've spent a little more time reading this group, you'll see
there's more discussed here than Northern Ireland, and that when it is
discussed, there's some light with the fire. Yes, the ranters are a pain
in the arse, and they tend to divert attention from the more productive
threads of discussion, but this newsgroup has less traffic than most,
and there's more than enough room for you to post all the articles about
Flann O'Brian you want, we're not using up your quota!
>
>Kevin
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.celtic
From: cockburn@majors.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn)
Subject: Re: Scottish flags
Organization: Digital Equipment Co. Ltd., Newbury, England
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 09:14:32 GMT


In article <1992Apr16.160609.5513@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, esh2@po.CWRU.Edu (Evelyn S. Hlabse) writes...
>I tried posting this before and did something wrong, so I'll try
>again.
> 
>Why are there two Scottish flags?  Three if you count the Union
>Jack.  Since I am Scottish I was asked this and didn't have an
>answer.  I assume one has something to do with royalty but I'm
>not sure.
> 
The Union Jack is the one flown on ships - the one on the land is
more correctly called the Union Flag - but nearly everyone else
makes this mistake too so don't worry about it !

The Union Flag represents the UK
The blue and white flag is called the Saltire and represents the
country or Scotland. 
The yellow and red rampant lion is really only supposed to be used
for royalty.

The origins of the saltire are reputedly from St. Andrew who
foresaw his death on the cross shaped like the one in the flag.
The blue represents the sky behind the cross - obviously they
had better weather in those days :-)

Now, can someone explain why the blue in the Union Flag is completely
different to the blue in the Saltire?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Craig Cockburn, Digital Equipment Co. Ltd, Newbury, England.  
  ARPAnet: cockburn@majors.enet.dec.com                            Saor
  UUCP:..!decwrl!majors.enet.dec.com!cockburn                      Alba!

  Views here are my own, and are not necessarily those of Digital
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic