HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: acm@cs.brown.edu (Andrew MacKeith)
Subject: Re: Seebackascopes
Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:57:53 GMT

I think I once had one of these,  a short 3 inch tube with a 45 degree mirror at the end, and
a hole in the side of the tube.  At the eye end it widened so that it would fit the eye like
a monocle.  It was more a SeeSideaScope really.  I think it was useless and so disappeared
quickly.  Its good to know there are some Eagle readers out there.

Long live "Luck of the Legion".
-- 
Andrew MacKeith
acm@cs.brown.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Keywords: Scots, Cockney, Taggart, Eastenders
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:45:07 GMT

In article <BxJyLL.4EE@newcastle.ac.uk> unregistered@newcastle.ac.uk (William Coyne) writes:
>
> How about this simple rule - if you can understand what they are saying
>   they are speaking a dialect of English.  

Oh, so Geordie isn't a dialect of English then... <duck>



--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 
Computer Laboratory                | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl 
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:29:23 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1992Nov5.203543.5140@igor.tamri.com>, donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
> >Notable exceptions are the gun nuts, who know that it refers to
> >a right to bear arms, but who quote it incorrectly, since they 
> >miss out the bit about "subject to law".
> 
> 1. What constitutes a "gun nut".
> 2. Maybe the English version says "subject to law" but the American
>    Bill of Rights does not.

No, but it does start ``A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State''.  Even more illuminating of the original
intention is Section 13 of the Virginia Bill of Rights, the source for
much of the first 10 Amendments:

	That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the
	people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe
	defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of
	peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in
	all cases the military should be under strict subordination
	to, and governed by, the civil power.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
From: wisp@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Wisp)
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:23:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.092722.3664@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:

>[Lots of history...]
>You are also wrong to suppose the 12 years of the Republic were
>in any way "glorious". Cromwell shut down Parliament and ruled
>as a military dictator. The return of the monarchy was seen as
>a return to liberty not a loss.
>

Absolutely right! Apart form all the misery he caused on the mainland, lets
not forget his 'Hearts and Minds' tour of Ireland (Drogheda, Wexford etc.),
which is still quoted today as a major reason for the enmity between
Ireland and GB...

The Wisp. [of course, just like the holocaust, it's all fake propaganda...]
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15747 alt.folklore.urban:28298
Organization: Bar-Ilan University Computing Center, Israel
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:34:25 IST
From: Danny Rothenberg <X68147@BARILVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: RE: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?
 <1992Nov10.095942.12097@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> <10NOV92.13101878@isdres.er.usgs.gov>

In article <10NOV92.13101878@isdres.er.usgs.gov>, rhadden@isdres.er.usgs.gov
says:
>
>We are all Cathoic. some of us just aren't roman.

Well.  Apart from that, what have the Romans *ever* done for us?

-------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Rothenberg    |
Internet:           |   quis custodes ipsos custendiendos?
X68147@vm.biu.ac.il |
Bitnet:             |   "Well.  Apart from that, what have the Romans
x68147@barilvm      |    ever done for us?"  -Reg  ('Life of Brian')
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk (Colin Wilson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:45:26 GMT
Organization: BT

In article <1992Nov6.160639.7577@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
|> From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
|> In article <1992Nov6.100915.2585@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
|> >
|> >   I could say exactly the same about Cockney.
|> >
|> >And lots of Welsh people could say exactly the same about Welsh.  So?  What's
|> >your point?
|> 
|> The usual anti Scotch whingers point. The Scots claim that
|> they are discriminated against because their dialect is not
|> heard on TV except in comedy. This is likely to be accompanied
|> by attacks on the "Southern English". My point is that the
|> southern English are treated exactly the same as the Scots -
|> when was the last time you heard anything serious on the TV
|> discussed in a Cockney or any other real southern accent?

When I lived in London, some years ago, I can remember serious matters being
discussed on the TV, in a Cockney accent, by Janet Street-Porter, Danny Baker
and so on.

In any case, it is a mistake to assume that Scotland should be seen in the
same light as any region of England: if Scotland and southern England were
treated identically, as you claim, it would reveal a misconception on the
part of those who formulate policy. Scotland is a nation in its own right
and deserves to be treated as such, not as a region of anywhere.

What attacks on the southern English, or anyone, have there been in this
thread?

********************************************************************************
*  Colin Wilson,                           E-mail:  cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk     *
*  Glasgow Engineering Centre,             POTS:    (041) 220 5340             *
*  British Telecommunications plc.                  (+ 44 41) 220 5340         *
*  7 Caledon Street,                                                           *
*  Glesca / Glaschu G12 9BY,             Scotland a Twa-Leidit Fowkrick        *
*  Scotland / Alba.                      Biodh Alba 'na Poblachd Dha-Chananach *  ********************************************************************************
From: apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Ghostwatch and intelligence
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:18:43 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard SSG/CCSY-PWD, UK.

Adrian.Waterworth@newcastle.ac.uk (Adrian Waterworth) writes:
>       I'll bet you're probably wrong. Then again, given ...
>the fact that certain quarters
>of the collective British intellect have fallen so low that some people
>were stupid enough to be taken in by Ghostwatch last Saturday night and
>subsequently phoned the Beeb to complain about it, maybe you're right.

You're kidding?  Despite the fact that the programme was billed in the Radio
Times as a play, and the acting was so bad?  How many people complained, and
what did they complain about?
From: sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Habeas Corpus (was: An astonishing Guy
Date: 11 Nov 1992 13:42:52 GMT
Organization: TMC
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <1992Nov11.032144.8164@osf.org>, dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

[well, actually it wasn't jon who wrote that, he knows better than that ..]

Somebody who shall remain nameless wrote :
|> >> Maybe I've missed something, but I always thought that Habeus Corpus was a
|> >> law enacted to prevent people being tried for murder when there was no body
|> >> of the deceased to prove that murder was indeed done...
|> >
|> >You might be thinking of corpus delecti.   The corpus in habeas
|> >corpus is the corpus of the bod being accused, not the bod that
|> >got bumped off.
|> 
|> The confusion was compounded by Dorothy L. Sayers, whose "Have His Carcase"
|> is actually a case of a missing body.  "Corpus dilecti" simply means the
|> body of the facts, not the fact of the body.

The point she makes is that you can't have an *inquest* without a body.
And Lord Peter says something about the Have-his-Carcase Act, thus confusing
the issue. You can perfectly well be tried for murder without a corpse.

(By the way, it's neither "corpus delecti" which sounds too necrophagic for
me, nor "corpus dilecti", but "corpus delicti", which means "the body of
the crime". Any physical piece of evidence representing the offense. A
murdered body can be used as a corpus delicti, but not every corpus delicti
is a corpse. If you steal a car, the car becomes the corpus delicti.)

Daan Sandee                                           sandee@think.com
Thinking Machines Corporation
Cambridge, Mass 02142                                 (617) 234-5044
From: jheikkil@ling.helsinki.fi (Juha Heikkila)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Split soc.culture.british
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:48:36 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki, Department of General Linguistics

In article <1992Nov12.121544.8970@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:

  > In article <1992Nov11.205506.29648@rdg.dec.com> cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes:
  >>
  >>The volume of messages in this group is getting very large - has 
  >>anyone considered splitting the group?
  >
  >I think it would be a good idea to keep the political discussions
  >separate from the "cultural" (and more general) ones.  There do
  >seem to be two distinct audiences for the group.
  >
  >Of course, if uk.politics gets sent all round the world (which
  > I wouldn't wish), this would be unnecessary.

I can see the problem - the volume seems to have increased. But
there may be less active contributors in your audience - like me
- who still enjoy following both discussions. I don't get
uk.politics, so moving political discussions there would take
much of the fun away from me.

--

  Juha Heikkila            jheikkil@ling.helsinki.fi
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: Religion & Morality (was Re: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?)
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1dol6oINNlgf@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> <1992Nov11.094033.13734@osf.org>
	<1992Nov11.140440.21793@sei.cmu.edu> <1992Nov11.150154.20583@osf.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:08:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.150154.20583@osf.org> sp@osf.org (Simon Patience) writes:

   In article <1992Nov11.140440.21793@sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
   > In article <1992Nov11.094033.13734@osf.org> sp@osf.org (Simon Patience) writes:
   > 
   > >France currently allows no interference of religion in either government
   > >or education. I don't see the fabric of society collapsing around me here.
   > >Basically you are talking complete crap.
   > 
   > Is this the same France that Edmund Burke wrote about?  The one that
   > enthroned the 'Goddess of Reason' as her supreme deity?  The one that
   > spawned the Terror and the Committee of Public Safety?  The same
   > France that gave us the Directorate, the Consulate, the Empire, and
   > twenty years of war, at the end of which she was drafting fifteen
   > year old boys to face the guns?
   > 
   > Nah, must be somewhere else entirely.

   Funnily enough, I believe that all this happened before the separation of
   church and state.

Nope. Before the _current_ such separation, but distinctly _after_ one
such separation.

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15227 alt.folklore.urban:27531
From: spxsjm@thor.cf.ac.uk (Mr S J Morris 92)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:24:13 GMT
Organization: University of Wales College at Cardiff
X-Mailer: Cardiff Computing Maths PP Mail Open News Gateway

In article <Bx7rIG.o0@apollo.hp.com> johnf@apollo.hp.com (John Francis) writes:
|
|"12 brief glorious years" in which religious persecution of almost
|everyone (not just Catholics) reigned rampant. This was indeed the
|cup of liberty shared by the Pilgrim Fathers, another group not
|exactly known for their religious tolerance.
|Just how did Charles II grab the throne?  Did he, perhaps, overrun
|the country with an army (the method used by the republicans)?
|

That's hardly a fair representation of the state of affairs under
Cromwell, it seems to me. Granted, there was certainly persecution of
Catholics - this can be explained (although clearly not
excused) by the fear that such people were susceptible to be recruited as
agents for hostile Catholic nations such as France, Spain or Ireland.
At this time the Thirty Years War was devastating much of Central
Europe, and there was a real fear of something similar happening in
Britain.

As for non-Catholics, there was virtually unlimited religious freedom.
The period saw an enormous proliferation of religious groups -
Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, Quakers, Levellers, True
Levellers, Diggers, Fifth Monarchists... - who so long as they toed the
line and didn't start using violence against those who disagreed with
them (the Fifth Monarchists fell down here) could say and do what they
liked. Of course this amount of freedom - following closely on the heels
of the oppressive regime of Charles I and Archbishop Laud - led to a
great deal of confusion, excess and extremism which made the country
virtually ungovernable. Charles II was welcomed back in the hope that
he'd restore a bit of order - this he did by chucking all the
evangelicals out of the C of E, coming down like a ton of bricks on
nonconformists in general and throwing many of them (John Bunyan for
example) into prison, and making life generally miserable for everybody
except High Anglicans. This is why, after twenty years of this, when
things looked like getting even worse under James II, peoples patience
snapped again and William and Mary were welcomed in with open arms.

Steve Morris,
Department of Physics, University of Wales College of Cardiff.
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Private Uni's
Date: 7 Nov 92 14:53:08 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <graikund.721012412@jupiter.newcastle.edu.au>, graikund@jupiter.newcastle.edu.au (Gitesh Raikundalia) writes:
> Dear British Netters
> 	
> 	I was hoping to ask if anybody out there can give me an "order of
> reputation" of private universities (if any) in England. How well-accepted
> are they compared to the public uni's, like Oxford, Cambridge, etc.? Do
> the public universities take postgraduate/research students via personal
> funding?
> 
Certainly. 

1) Buckingham University
2) Err...
3) That's it.

Given that they've just elected the extremely unlamented Baroness IronLady of
an extremely small place in Lincolnshire, they are not well-regarded,
particularly in the publicly-funded universities, which tend to be hotbeds of
moderate radicalism. 

As for the publicly-funded universities, how much are you offering? 
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: root@grok116.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (0000-Admin(0000))
Subject: Re: US/British Citizenship
Organization: NCR Corp., Columbia SC
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 21:36:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.221536.28201@hemlock.cray.com> trk@palm15.cray.com (Tim Kirby) writes:
>Walter Rolandi (rolandi@hssc.scarolina.edu) wrote:
>: wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) writes:
>: 
>: >If true, this would represent a major break with earlier US policy ...
>: 
>Hmmm. It's sort of "allows by turning a blind eye". My understanding is that
>the US citizenship (at least in the case of marriage) still requires the handing
>over of the "other" nationality passport after forswearing all others (so to
Stuff deleted.

This same subject keeps coming up. We need a FAQ for this group.  I am not
sure of the date but I believe that the US Supreme Court ruled that your
citizenship in another country has nothing to do with the United States
and therefor it can not be revoked by the US or you can not be forced to
give it up.  The only area of concern to the US is if you retain
citizenship of a counrty that advocates the overthrow of the US. Your home
country may decide to revoke your citizenship.

My wife, born a Brithish citizen, also became a US citizen last year.  There
was never any question as to her British citizenship.  She has two 
passports and has used them both on trips we took to Europe in the
past year. 

Someone posted all the legal elements of this about a year ago.  I'll 
see if I can dig it up.
From: mossop@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Antony Mossop)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Private Uni's
Date: 6 Nov 1992 20:40:09 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <27812@castle.ed.ac.uk> matt@castle.ed.ac.uk (M P Taylor) writes:
>Err excuse me but bollox...
>
>In article <1992Nov6.103222.3273@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>>illuminating. Many of the misconceptions about English
>>universities arise because people tend to think in terms of
>>Oxford and Cambridge. In fact these two are not very typical of
>>the rest, they have a lot of peculiarities due to being the
>>only ones founded centuries ago.
>>
>Oxford and Cambridge are NOT the *only* ones founded centuries ago.
>
>Durham, Bath, Bristol to name but 3 English ones. As for other British
>then how about St Andrews, Glasgow and Edinburgh?
>
>Beware of sweeping statements please readers and writers.
>
>		Matt


Bath University was founded within my lifetime if that's a century
plus than my memory must be worse than I thought, I suppose that
might explain it though.


Tony Mossop, geophysics, Stanford
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Private Uni's
Date: 12 Nov 1992 00:24:36 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <27981@castle.ed.ac.uk>, matt@castle.ed.ac.uk writes:
> In article <1dmt76INNplh@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov9.101148.13305@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk writes:
> >> As for the Scottish ones,
> >> once again I wrote "English" meaning "English". It is amazing
> >> how the Scots will whinge if you use it to mean "Scotland" as
> >> well, but if you use it correctly they'll *still* whinge
> >> because they won't realise you've used it to deliberately used
> >> Scotland and can't resist getting in a "you're wrong because in
> >> Scotland ...".
> >
> >I think we're into pre-emptive or even recursive whingeing here.
> >
> >jon.
> 
> No in fact Jon we're into presumptive whingeing here.

Which was exactly my point.   I didn't see the point of
mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk complaining about how Scottish posters
"will" whinge, or will "still" whinge.

However, by reacting as you have, I think  you may have
proved his point rather than mine.

jon.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15717 soc.culture.celtic:7283
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 12 Nov 92 09:22:37 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk (Colin Wilson)
>In article <A.Grant.24.721429206@ucs.cam.ac.uk>, A.Grant@ucs.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:
>|> But why is Scotland special?  Should children be allowed to write essays
>|> in Cockney rhyming slang?
>
>Scotland is a nation. Cockney is the speech of a particular section of
>society in a particular region of England. In the end, though, the contexts
>in which Cockney is used ought to be for those who speak it to decide.

Although some slang words in Cockney are derived in the rhyming
method, this is a fairly minor component of the speech of
London. I think it would do a lot to help the self-esteem of
working-class people in the south if there were an open
recognition that their normal speech is just another dialect of
English, and not just "bad speech" as it is usually termed.
This would have to be followed up by accepting that they would
have to learn standard English as a second language, which is
in effect what happens anyway, although it is not made
explicit.

>What is this idea that you have invented of a "viable language"? Why have
>you concluded that this description does not apply to Scots and Gaelic? Is
>Danish, which has a similar number of speakers to Scots, a "viable language"
>or should its speakers abandon it in favour of German or English?

I think you are going over the top here. On the one hand you
have been trying to persuade us that Scots is a separate
language, not just a dialect, and to argue this case you drew a
distinction between "English spoken with a Scottish accent" and
"Scots" and told us that when we heard Scottish people speaking
we were usually hearing the former. On the other, your Danish
analogy seems to be suggesting that most Scottish people speak
"Scots" most of the time. I don't think you can have it both
ways.

Matthew Huntbach
From: chgs02@vaxa.strath.ac.uk ("A.Mair", Politics)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:44:35 GMT
Reply-To: chgs02@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
Organization: Strathclyde University Computer Centre.

Scots is the word used only as opposed to English.
There are many DIFFERENT Scottish accents e.g. Glaswegian, Aberdonian
where the where the native speakers might have great difficulty in
conversing with each other, and no difficulty writing to each other
as both would write the same "English" spelling taught in schools at 
least until recently. This is best illustrated on videos or TV appearances
of talented performers like "Scotland the What"'s Balmoral small shopkeeper
phoning up the Royal family for their Christmas order for toys.
(We have a special line in futrets spelled F-e-r-r-e-t,futret made for us
by a wee wumman in Hong Kong, and a rubber chjuck, D-U-C-K, chjuck...)
or perhaps more widely available, recordings of Andy Stewart's "The rumour".
  Comedy is more popular than serious recordings but I have enjoyed
the Grey Granite trilogy&"The White Bird Passes", in a different strain.
 The pressure is to become More Proper when serious and More Broad when
funny,so Adam McNaughton's Shakespeare condensed is the funnier for the
Scots voice used.
Ann
p.s. The Scot trying to speak POSH and failing is an unending source of comedy.
From: Christopher.Carne@brunel.ac.uk (Christopher J Carne)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: What time is "half seven"?
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:04:00 GMT
Organization: Brunel University, West London, UK

In article <1992Nov1.182445.661@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>In article <1992Oct30.151915.24598@ccu.umanitoba.ca> feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:
>>Is "half seven"
>>	a) six-thirty;
>>or is it
>>	b) seven-thirty
>>?
>
>You should at least consider a third possibility:
>
>        c) three-thirty (half of seven being three and a half...)

Three-Thirty? Surely you mean half three? And half three is of
course either one-thirty, one-fifty or half one. And half one is...


CHR$
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british