HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.politics.british,soc.culture.european
Subject: Re: The Decline of Britain (was Re: Great Britain as a malfunctioning democracy)
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:50:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: zola.jknkgt4
Organization: sgi

In article <1992Apr16.074028.8287@leland.Stanford.EDU>, rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes:
|> In article <jjjqrlk@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >
|> >
|> >If I had meant trade deficit, I would have said trade deficit.  I
|> >meant Balance of Payments Deficit, and that is why I said Balance
|> >of Payments deficit.   Germany currently has a rather large Balance
|> >of Payments deficit.
|> >
|> 
|> Ah! You mean Budget Deficit!  And you are _still_ wrong.  Until reunification
|> Germany had a very low budget deficit, and it still had some of the most
|> impressive economic numbers anywhere.

No, I still mean Balance of Payments.   Balance of Payments is similar
to Trade, except that it's a wider measure.   Trade surplus (deficit)
shows the difference between exports and imports in visible trade.
Balance of Payments (also called current account) includes invisble
things like insurance, banking earnings, tourism, and some other
things. 

At the moment, the twelve month figures for Germany show a Trade deficit
of about seven billion dollars, while the Balance of Payments deficit
is about $26bn.   That's a hefty chunk of change.

|> 
|> If anything, the budget deficit ("Balance of Payments Deficit") that 
|> Germany has developed since it reunified will put it in the economic 
|> soup, not boost it's statistics as you claim.

Two points here.   First, the budget deficit is an internal measure
of tax revenues versus government spending.   It has only indirect
connections to trade.    Secondly, I'm not claiming that having a 
bidget deficit "boosts" anything.   Where did I say that?

|> 
|> Yours for terminological exactitude,

Me too.
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Victory V lozenges
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:53:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: topaz.STEINLY.92Apr9135357
	<9APR199208265498@zeus.tamu.edu>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
In-reply-to: pac9897@zeus.tamu.edu's message of 9 Apr 92 13:26:00 GMT

In article <9APR199208265498@zeus.tamu.edu> pac9897@zeus.tamu.edu (REVENGE OF THE KILLER TOMATOES) writes:


   Newquay Steam Bitter? Packet of choccie biccies would be welcome down
   here as well though, specially Hob-Nobs...

The Safeway here has regular hob nobs! 
Some specialty stores have choclate digestives,
one in Carmel (for Bay Area folks) has McVitties...

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			 Lick Observatory     	  *
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	  *
* Oh look out my country's patriots are hunting down below	  *
* What do they know of England who only England know  - B.B. 1991 *
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:6159 rec.arts.books:7838
From: harper@oracorp.com (Douglas Harper)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: ENGLISH AS SHE IS SPOKE
Date: 10 Apr 92 03:01:05 GMT
Organization: ORA Corporation, Ithaca, New York

In article <1992Apr5.154938.15375@uniwa.uwa.oz.au> amuzon@maths.uwa.oz.au (Polish news) writes:
>wojdylo@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) writes:

More of the same.

I know I'm not the only one dead sick of the insane ravings of this
person.  If you feel as I do that he has seriously abused the net,
especially in his attempts to stay out of KILL files, please sent a
complaint to postmaster@maths.uwa.oz.au.  I have.


-- 
Douglas Harper          harper@oracorp.com      (607) 277-6093 [ext 252]
#
Question for the net:  who said of the Holy Roman Empire that it was
neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire?
From: sharder@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Soren Harder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Democracy?????
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:39:46 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

mlemmerm@nl.oracle.com (Mick Lemmerman Publisher) writes:

>The tories have an overall majority of 21 seats - seemingly large.

>If the labour party had managed to win only 11 more of the marginals
>they were aiming for, this majority would have been denied.

>Many of the marginals were won by tories with a majority of around 100
>to 200.

>11 x 200 = 2200 votes determining who should govern the country.

And we can add, that the argument: 'but Labours seats are just as
marginal' is not valid, as the 5 (or 6) most marginal seats were won
by Tories over Labour. At least some of them were won with less that
100 majority.  (This statistics is taken from Guardian or The
Scotsman, can't remember which).

Soren Harder

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Soren Harder, (MSc student)
Centre for Cognitive Science, 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh
E-mail: sharder@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Questions on the election
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:39:45 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster

In article <s4tebINNenk@seven-up.East.Sun.COM>, geoff@hinode.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top) writes:
> Quoth migod@turing.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) (in <1992Apr10.115106.19941@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>):
> #-- What was the "conservative newspaper" that endorsed Labour this time
> #   around?  The local news didn't identify it.
> 
> Well, IMHO the most unexpected endorsement for Labour was from the
> Financial Times. On the other hand, they do print on pink paper...
> 
> [Any other suggestions for "most unlikely endorsement"?]
> 
Yup, the British people for the Conservative party after 13 wasted years.
And I thought they'd worked out that we need a radical new approach to
politics. 


> Geoff
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --         Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)       --
> --                SunConnect, A Sun Microsystems Business                   --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff Lane)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Election Fraud by the Conservatives
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:16:24 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, England.

In article <PLUMMER.92Apr10085146@tulum.cs.swarthmore.edu> plummer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David Barker-Plummer) writes:
>Do you get to be on the roll if you don't pay the Poll Tax?
>-- Dave
Yes. They are supposed to be totally independent lists.





-- 
Geoff. Lane.                                  Janet: zzassgl@uk.ac.mcc.uts
UTS Sys Admin, Manchester Computing Centre, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M13 9PL
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: david@guadet.gr.osf.org (David George)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Election Results
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:33:18 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.070851.2795@rdg.dec.com> cockburn@majors.enet.dec.com  
(Craig Cockburn) writes:
> 
> 
> However, the Conservatives still have a tiny number of MPs in Scotland,
> and so the constitutional question there still remains. 
> 

Maybe the Tories could introduce P.R. to Scotland as an experiment ?

David.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: umrutko0@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski)
Subject: Those Darned Crop Circles Again
Summary: Request for new info on those circles
Keywords: crop circles
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 14:56:44 GMT

Well, now that everybody has recovered from the election, it's time for
more serious matters.

Since it's getting to be about time for crop circle appearances again
in England, I would like to ask Britons to be on the lookout for such
things.  There are interesting rumours here in the Colonies that Doug
and Dave will be creating another hoaxed formation in an attempt to
fool the cerealogists again.  In addition, the people who believe that
wind vortices are responsible for the things require new formations to
appear each year in order to show they are not just hoax fads. (This
probably wouldn't convince them otherwise, though.)  So, regardless
whether or not they are caused by aliens, winds, vortices or bored
Brits, crop circles are still worth examining; the phenomenon is
interesting as a physical entity, if not a sociological one.

So, please keep an eye out for new circles (or rings or hieroglyphics
or shapes) in the fields, and post to me or to the group in general.

Thx!

-- 
Chris Rutkowski - umrutko0@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: spinoza@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Prince Lev of the Domovoi)
Subject: Re: Why should Libya hand over the PanAm bombers?
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:30:06 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Apr6161722@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu  
(Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
> In article <NICKH.92Apr3121309@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU  
(Nick Haines) writes:
> 
>    In article <1992Apr3.162536.6929@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>  
bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow) writes:
>       In article <NICKH.92Apr2190242@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU>  
nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
> 
> 
>    As someone else pointed out, acts committed outside the US _cannot_  
be
>    properly tried in a US criminal court.
> 
I'm not a lawyer, but I remember reading somewhere that US flag carriers,  
of which Pan Am was one, are considered US territory, or that the US has  
jurisdiction over crimes committed on US flag carriers.


lev
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Why wait 5 years?
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:35:50 GMT
	<1992Apr15.082231.15597@rdg.dec.com>
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research

In article <1992Apr15.082231.15597@rdg.dec.com>, Alan T Potter (atp) writes:

atp> Unfortunately, the Tories appear to be wavering in their
atp> committment to keep us free of unnecessary, expensive, extra
atp> layers of government.

Is this a joke? The Tories are _specialists_ at introducing
unnecesary, expensive extra layers of government. Each privetisation
introduced an whole new corps of beurocrats to oversee the new
`private' industry where the old beurocrats were busy as before. Their
main health and education reforms were just to insert an extra layer
of beurocracy at the school/hospital level. Oh and don't forget the
national ciriculum -- gotta have a whole new class of beurocrats to
administer that.

And, to take the other end of this statment, there is no extra layer
of government involved in a Scottish or Welsh parliament -- the layer
is already there (Scottish office, Welsh office and all the quangos
associated with them). All that is involved is a new level of
representitives. Representitives are (relatively) cheap -- they want
the job and get low wages, all that is needed is some offices. 

atp> Because that's the difference between democracy and anarchy.

True, but why are you so sure we are on the better side of that division?

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk			_O_
					 |<
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: Snooker record (was Re: The Vogon News Service: 06-Apr-92)
Organization: :noitazinagrO
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 13:21:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.201347.21490@osf.org> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
>cockburn@majors.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes:
>|>     "Can Wattana top his record break of one hundred and forty seven?"
>|> 
>|> 				- Nick Owen, LWT, at a snooker match
>|> 				  [ 147 is the maximum break possible. ]
>
>Actually 155.  I think Hurricane Higgins scored 152 once, but my Guinness
>is at home (along with my book of records).
>
Please explain.  15 reds plus a black with each is 15 + (15 x 7) = 120.
The colours then score 2+3+4+5+6+7 = 27.  You might end up with a total
score of more than that: for instance your opponent might inadvertently
pot the black on the break, for 7 away, then you can get a 147 break for
a total of 154.  In fact in theory you could tool around for a long time
before potting anything, with your opponent just giving points away, so
there is no theoretical limit to score.  However you just can't score
more than 147 at one go.

-- 
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)    ||-------------------------------|
||Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY 14653-7300|-------------------------------|
|| If Unix is a computer system            ||-------------------------------|
|| then a pile of bricks is a house        ||-------------------------------|
From: peterw@spider.co.uk (Peter Woodhouse)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Snooker record (was Re: The Vogon News Service: 06-Apr-92)
Date: 8 Apr 92 10:38:41 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <1992Apr7.132154.9645@ssd.kodak.com> dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.201347.21490@osf.org> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
>>cockburn@majors.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes:
>>|>     "Can Wattana top his record break of one hundred and forty seven?"
>>|> 
>>|> 				- Nick Owen, LWT, at a snooker match
>>|> 				  [ 147 is the maximum break possible. ]
>>
>>Actually 155.  I think Hurricane Higgins scored 152 once, but my Guinness
>>is at home (along with my book of records).
>>
>Please explain.  15 reds plus a black with each is 15 + (15 x 7) = 120.
>The colours then score 2+3+4+5+6+7 = 27.  You might end up with a total
>score of more than that: for instance your opponent might inadvertently
>pot the black on the break, for 7 away, then you can get a 147 break for
>a total of 154.  In fact in theory you could tool around for a long time
>before potting anything, with your opponent just giving points away, so
>there is no theoretical limit to score.  However you just can't score
>more than 147 at one go.
>
>-- 
>||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)    ||-------------------------------|
>||Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY 14653-7300|-------------------------------|
>|| If Unix is a computer system            ||-------------------------------|
>|| then a pile of bricks is a house        ||-------------------------------|

Ok, I'll explain.  

All balls are on the table.  Your partner plays and fouls and leaves you 
snookered ie. a free ball.  You pot any colour (1 point) as a red and then
the black (8 points total).  You then continue and clear up all the balls
as you correctly described - a further 147 points.  Total 155.

Peter
-- 
Spider Systems Limited                          E-mail:  peterw@spider.co.uk
Spider Park, Stanwell Street                    Phone :  +44 31 554 9424
Edinburgh, Scotland
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Subject: Re: Meaningless coincidence
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 13:52:45 GMT

In article <19088.29eaad2b@ul.ie>, mckeonj@ul.ie writes:
|> On the day that Harold Wilson announced his resignation as leader
|> of the Labour Party, Princess Margaret announced her divorce.
|> On the day that Neil Kinnock announced his resignation as leader
|> of the Labour Party, Princess Anne announced her divorce.

It was widely circulated at the time that Wilson timed his resignation, at
HM's request, to pull the immediate spotlight away from Margaret.  Whether
that was the intent, it was the effect.

Presidents are adept at engineering trivial, headline grabbing crises to
cover up serious bad news.
-- 
David Brooks				dbrooks@osf.org
Systems Engineering, OSF		uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Marmite in S.F. Bay Area?
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:11:19 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

The British Food shop on Campbell, in Campbell. That's just West of San
Jose. I get Eccles cakes, Danish Bacon, Ribena, Branstone Pickle etc
there. Just the place for an expatriate MAncunian who misses the tastes
of home!

Chris Lee
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Great Britain as a malfunctioning democracy
Date: 16 Apr 92 09:15:01 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Apr15.170606.15280@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
>Just to interject some U.S. information here.
>
>The President
>is elected by the people at large every four years--not by the congressional
>representatives.  

I occasionally wonder whether direct election of the PM might be a
partial answer.  I suspect that that would be too drastic a change to
get passed, or accepted and understood by the electorate.  Most British
people, I think, pretty much like the basic way the government works,
and it has worked pretty well for quite some time.  I think there is a
groundswell of opinion to the effect that maybe it could be made
better, but I suspect that 'tuning' rather than fundamental change
would be more acceptable.

>The congress has no reason to support the President, even if they're in the
>same party.  In parliamentary countries, if the prime-minister isn't supported
>by the MP's, the government fails.

True, in fact in the US it is almost a modern tradition for the
President not to be from the party that dominates the legislature.  No
rules, just seems to happen.  The Pres probably IS from the 'wing' that
dominates Congress, since, as I said, the traditional Congressional
split is left/right rather than Dem/Rep.  Even that's not guaranteed,
though.

-- 
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: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: British leftist losers
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:23:36 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <1992Apr15.151324.27517@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:

>Firstly, the Labour Party does not support proportional
>representation. 

But it may well do before long.

>Secondly, whereas most Labour supporters would
>put the Liberal Democrats as their second choice, Liberal
>Democrat supporters split almost evenly to the Conservatives
>and Labour as their second choice. So such an agreement would
>have no effect on Conservative-Labour marginals. 

A reasonable line of thinking, although if the Labour candidate
could be sold as standing for PR rather than the Labour party
it might influence a significant number of Lib Dem voters.

>The only seats
>it would affect are that small number which are Conservative
>held on less than 50% of the vote with the Liberal Democrats
>second. There are only a dozen or so of these, 

... which would have been enough to deprive the Conservatives of their
overall majority at last week's election, ...

>and even here it
>may well be the case that some of the Liberal Democrat
>supporters would go to the Conservatives if they felt their
>Liberal Democrat vote was in some sense also a Labour vote.

I don't think that would have a serious effect.

>Many Liberal Democrats support their party precisely because
>they oppose the two-party system. It would thereore be anathema
>to them to join up with either of the two establishment
>parties. 

I agree with you there.

>As for the idea of a temporary alliance between Labour
>and Liberal Democrat, many Liberal Democrats have bitter
>memories of the supposed temporary alliance between the Liberal
>and Social Democratic parties, which ended up with the two
>parties being forced by the press into a shotgun marriage which
>at one stage looked as if it would destroy the lot of them.

I can sympathize, but there's a big difference.  The SDP/Liberal
alliance had only 25% support at the 1983 election, and the
electoral system prevented it from having any real power, so
that the two parties had to remain together to fight the next
election.  A temporary Labour/LibDem alliance would have a good
chance of commanding majority support for the limited period
needed to win an election under present rules and then introduce PR.

Of course, if by some catastrophe the Conservatives managed to defeat
a united opposition, the effect on both Labour and the Liberal
Democrats could be disastrous.  I don't know whether either of the
of the parties would in practice be prepared to take this risk.
My feeling is that they will have to.

--
Guy Barry	Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 | University of Cambridge
		  Fax: +44 (0)223 334678 | Computer Laboratory   
	   JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl | New Museums Site, Pembroke Street
        Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk | Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Subject: Re: News from Ambridge (was Re: Gas stoves)
Followup-To: soc.culture.british
Reply-To: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 04:16:19 GMT

nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>How about a regular Archers update for those of us beyond the reach of
>the LW transmitter? Weekly/fortnightly would do.

A minibus edition?  Yes please.
-- 
David Brooks				dbrooks@osf.org
Systems Engineering, OSF		uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british