HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rolandi@hssc.scarolina.edu (Walter Rolandi)
Subject: Re: US/British Citizenship
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  3 Nov 92 15:54:48 GMT

wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) writes:

>If true, this would represent a major break with earlier US policy,
>which was often quite aggressive in its insistence that people in vari-
>ous dual-citizenship situations had "voluntarily relinquished" their US
>nationality.

there were at least two situations where this wasn't an issue.  if you
come by your second nationality either by birth or by marriage.  under
such circumstances, the state department allows dual citizenship without
hassles.


--

  WALTER G. ROLANDI
  USENET: rolandi@andy.hssc.scarolina.edu
INTERNET: rolandi@hsscls.hssc.scarolina.edu
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Britain doesn't have a Constitution (Re: An astonishing Guy)
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:24:30 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1dpel4INN42j@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) write
s:

>
>I don't think that *any* mere system does much good to anyone.
>Look at the way that this far-famed American Bill of Rights
>was simply not enforced in many important repects for the first
>hundred and fifty years of its existence.
>
>My claim would be that if the US finally has a decent record
>in rights over the past, say, thirty years, that's a positive
>comment on changing attitudes among Americans themselves.   It
>is not evidence that their "system" works better.   They had
>exactly the same Constitutional "system" when their record in
>rights was horrendously poor.
>
>I'd also say that one virtue of the British system is that when
>we need dictatorship, for example that all-party goverment of
>the Second World War, we just go ahead and do it, up front,
>without pretence.   I hope that we all also recognize the dangers
>of doing so, and don't hide behind the figleaf of some supposed
>system.
>
>jon.

An argument in favor of our system is that it suits the vast physical extent
and large population of the U.S., which lends itself to more heterogeneous
state and local governments and many checks and controls to keep power from
being concentrated in Washington.  Unfortunately the power has become con-
centrated there anyway, and Supreme Court rulings have largely limited the
scope of regional and local diversity.  It is arguable whether this is good
or bad in this or that case.  Generally speaking I think it is more often
bad than good.  In any case, we are a big country.

g.p.
From: A.Grant@ucs.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Just a quick question
Date: 8 Nov 92 17:58:51 GMT
Organization: University of Cambridge

In article <BxD4E7.Dtp.1@cs.cmu.edu> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>It is? In what way is `fuck' euphemistic? I thought it was
>straight-forward, like `fart' or `shit'.

It stands for "For unnatural carnal knowledge". Like TDA and GBH.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: arpepper@math.uwaterloo.ca (Adrian Pepper)
Subject: Re: How to insult a Brit (yet again)
Organization: University of Waterloo Math Faculty Computing Facility, Ontario.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:29:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.101341.12690@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>
>I saw the word "Brit" used the other day in the headline of a
>British tabloid newspaper (I hasten to say that I wsn't reading
>the thing, just noticed it when someone else was reading it
>next to me on the train). Like several other words, it's use is
>probably encouraged by being short and easy to fit in tabloid
>headlines.

Well, many of the "woad" versions of "Men of Harlech" include the line
"Go it, Ancient B's".

So then, how about the term "B's"?  The papers should *love* that.

Adrian.
arpepper@math.uwaterloo.ca
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Just a quick question
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:28:09 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Nov6.205222.8235@cas.org> jac54@cas.org writes:

>	My understanding is that Scots Law is different and in their
>	is something called "marriage by habit and repute" which is
>	a common law marriage.  Anybody care to expand or dismiss?

It is certainly the case that some wives "by habit and repute" have
gone to court over the division of the deceased "husband's" estate,
and established their right to a wifely portion, although against the
wishes of the other relatives.
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15506 alt.folklore.urban:27905
From: linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Trelford Pinkerton)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:28:09 GMT
Organization: The Bishops Sandwich Band
NNTP-Posting-Host: positive

> Well, has there ever been a Catholic prime minister of Britain?

From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
> Such a question is significant only in a country where religion 
> and politics are far more entangled than they ought to be.

You mean, perhaps, a country where the monarch is the Supreme Head of
the established Church?  And where bishops of that Church sit in the
upper chamber of the Parliament?  And vote on legislation?
In short, Britain.

I guess I agree that such a country entangles religion and politics 
far more than they ought to be.

Trelford Pinkerton
--
   Inventor of the Lambada-Calculus.
From: wex@castle.ed.ac.uk (John Wexler)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Just a quick question
Date: 13 Nov 92 13:51:05 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University Computing Service

fuck vb perh of Scan origin; akin to Norw dial. fukka to copulate, Sw
dial. focka to copulate, strike, push, fock penis; perh akin to L pugnus
fist, pungere to prick, sting, Gk pygme fist

from Longman Dictionary of Word Origins, 1983

I don't quote this as an absolute authority - just another bit of evidence.
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:17:20 GMT
Organization: Software Engineering Institute

In article <1992Nov9.011417.26343@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:

>Actually, here's all the Constitution says about habeas corpus
>(Article I, Section 9):
>
>	The privilege of the writ of \fIhabeas corpus\fP shall not be
>	suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the
>	public safety may require it.
>
>Lincoln, at least, was quite justified legally -- there was a rebellion
>coupled with invasions on non-rebellious territory.

Rubbish.  That Section of the Constitution is granting powers to the
legislature, not the executive.  The powers of the latter are enumerated
in Art II Sect 2, and the power to suspend habeas corpus isn't one of them.

Moreover, there is a difference between secession and rebellion; Lincoln's
reference to the Confederate States as a "rebellious combination" was a
flat lie.  As so often during the War Between the States, Lincoln was
trying to save the Union by destroying the Constitution that made it
worth saving.  Sic semper tyrannis.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Subject: Re: In your school?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:05:00 GMT

In article <6NOV199217423813@sscvx1.ssc.gov>, godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes...
>In article <dhalliwe.721084988@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>, userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halli writes...
>>godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
>> 
>> 
>>   I don't accept your strange ideas about Canada. What you suggest does 
>>not happen at at any of the universities I have been associated with.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>Dave Halliwell
>>Department of Geography
>>University of Alberta
>>Edmonton, Alberta

What, no mediocrity at the University of Alberta????  C'mon, who do you think
you're kidding - I know people at your university.

Laurence
From: unregistered@newcastle.ac.uk (William Coyne)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Keywords: Scots, Cockney, Taggart, Eastenders
Date: 11 Nov 92 12:56:09 GMT
Organization: Chemical & Process Engineering Dept, University of Newcastle, UK.

MDuPree@world.std.com (Micky DuPree) writes:

>I've lost the original article for this thread, but I wanted to ask for
>clarification.  Someone claimed that Scots could only be found on
>television in comedies.  I've seen some of the Scottish Television
>police drama "Taggart," which is set in Glasgow and concerns Glaswegian
>characters.  My question is for those people who are in the camp that
>says that Scots is a separate language from English: are the regular
>characters on "Taggart" speaking Scots or are they speaking English with
>a Scottish accent?

 How about this simple rule - if you can understand what they are saying
   they are speaking a dialect of English.  If Scots really is a separate
language then if they were speaking it you could not understand them

 Though on this grounds Portuguese and Spanish  or Danish and Swedish
might be classed as single languages.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15697 alt.folklore.urban:28212
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Anglican vs C of E
Date: 12 Nov 1992 00:30:51 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Nov11.095728.14409@osf.org>, sp@osf.org writes:
> In article <1dpgscINN633@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: 
> > In article <1992Nov10.100309.16253@osf.org>, sp@osf.org writes:
> > > 
> > > Would you like to explain what that is, because I can't even think of a
> > > feeble excuse, let alone a good argument.
> > 
> > Because people want it?
> 
> That might be a good argument if there was a scrap of evidence that it
> were true.

And there is.   Me for one.

jon.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15137 alt.folklore.urban:27418
From: rgep@emu.pmms.cam.ac.uk (Richard Pinch)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Keywords: Roman Catholic; Constitution
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:59:55 GMT
Organization: Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Cambridge

I am unaware of any law that prevents a Roman Catholic from becoming
Prime Minister.  All such religious disabilities for MPs were repealed in 
the 19th century.  It is quite impossible for any such law to have
been passed in the 17th century, since the office of prime minister
only emerged in the C18.  It is true that a RC may not become monarch:
a logical consequence of being head of the established church.

Please either post the name and date of the relevant Act of Parliament
or withdraw the comment.

Richard Pinch
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dog in House of Parliament
Date: 6 Nov 92 10:21:30 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: ses@cmns-sun.think.com (Simon Edward Spero)
>  Is it true that the Liberal Democrats have finally decided to follow David
>Owen and join the Tory party, or do they just act that way?

The motion asked for support of the Maastricht treaty. All the
Liberal Democrat MPs, with the exception of Nick Harvey support
the Maastricht treaty, so all, with the exception of Nick
Harvey voted for it. What's wrong with this?

Why is it that on the relatively few occasions when the Liberal
Democrats disagree with Labour, it's almost inevitable that
comments like the above will be made? There are quite a few
occasions when Labour votes with the Tories against the Liberal
Democrats, but we don't go on about "oh, so they've decided to
follow Reg Prentice and join the Tory Party".

Matthew Huntbach
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
From: streater@unixjr.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Tim Streater)
Subject: Re: The amazing disappearing British Constitution
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:08:27 GMT

In article <lfqqn8INNa2s@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Trelford Pinkerton) writes:
>
>Jon Livesy lists:
>> Coronation Charter of Henry I, 1101.
>> Great Charter, 1215.
>> Declaration that the Commons shall Initiate Money Bills 1407.
>> Habeas Corpus Act, 1679.
>> Bill of Rights, 1689.
>> Act of Succession, 1701.
>> Septennial Act, 1716.
>> Reform Acts, 1832, 1867, 1884.
>> Ballot Act, 1872.
>> Representation of the People Act, 1918, 1969.
>
>We've already established that mere laws cannot comprise a constitution.

Unadulterated balderdash - we've established nothing of the sort; you have
merely asserted this.

>A Constitution is a framework within which all laws are made, and with
>which all laws must agree.   It's a "meta-law" in comp sci terms.
>
Seems to me Jon's list fullfils this requirement. Several, at least, of these
laws were passed after periods during which it became clear they were needed (I
cannot think of a good way of expressing this). That is, injustices were
perpetrated and people thought of a new principle, a constitutional principle,
which would prevent *this set* of injustices from occurring again. We proceed
in an evolutionary manner, you see. Further, while none of these laws binds
successor Parliaments, those Parliaments interfere with this set of laws at
their peril. That is, these laws were not just some piece of political
legislation likely to be repealed by the next administration, each was a
landmark that moved the constitutional process forward. Some landmarks have not
been in the form of laws; one such was the principle, established I believe by
the Prince Consort (Viccy's husband, a German), that the Monarch shall not
interfere in politics.

>Perhaps you could provide a list of recent laws in Britain that have
>been overturned as "unconstitutional" by the courts?

This is not the role of the courts; their role is to interpret the will of
Parliament, if I understand it correctly. Folks might however like to debate
whether the Prevention of Terrorism Act could be called "unconstitutional" in
this context.

In any case, the fact that the courts do not do this is a straw man. The 
argument is about whether Jon's set of laws (or some other set) constitutes a
Constitution (sorry about that). I argue that it does, especially since the
US Constitution was based on British practice of the time, and on those laws
in particular (ref: Britannica, 1980 edition), or at least those on the books
in 1776 or so.

I for one would appreciate a good modern reference to the British Constitution.
Any offers?

Sn.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
From: sp@osf.org (Simon Patience)
Subject: Re: Anglican vs C of E
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:06:55 GMT

In article <1ds8jrINNg1j@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Nov11.095728.14409@osf.org>, sp@osf.org writes:
> > In article <1dpgscINN633@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: 
> > > In article <1992Nov10.100309.16253@osf.org>, sp@osf.org writes:
> > > > 
> > > > Would you like to explain what that is, because I can't even think of a
> > > > feeble excuse, let alone a good argument.
> > > 
> > > Because people want it?
> > 
> > That might be a good argument if there was a scrap of evidence that it
> > were true.
> 
> And there is.   Me for one.

I think you will find that you are 'person' and not 'people'. The fact
that I don't want it means that we know from a recent survey that there is
not any evidence that people want this.

Simon.

-- 
  Simon Patience
  Open Software Foundation			Phone: +33-76-63-48-72
  Research Institute				FAX:   +33-76-51-05-32
  2 Avenue De Vignate				Email: sp@gr.osf.org
  38610 Gieres, France				       uunet!gr.osf.org!sp
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Subject: Re: Just a quick question
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:20:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.122743.17010@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, rsthomas@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rich Thomas)      writes...
>Could someone tell me (email please) the definition of
>a common-law marriage in England? Thanks.
> 
>--
>RT
I post in case someone disagrees with me.  A couple, of opposite sex, living
together as man and wife - that is a euphemism for sleeping together.  It
would be hard, but not impossible, to claim a common law marriage exists
between two persons of opposite sex who were not living together.  The woman
in these circumstances is legally entitled to take the name of the man
if she wishes.

Laurence
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Rule Britannia
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:15:27 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Nov6.211248.29979@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
> In article <1deircINN7jo@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> 
> >Did Kohl's party get an absolute majority of the popular vote
> >in the last election?   
> 
> No, and they haven't got an absolute majority in the Bundestag.
> The German government is a coalition.

And is that what you want?   A permanent state of
coalitions?  Have you taken a look at Israeli, or Belgian
or Irish politics recently?   Or the sparkling record of
our own lamented National Government back in the thirties?

More general question.   Are politicians and parties any
better or more trustworthy when more of them are on the
inside.   I like it better when all but one party is on the
outside, loudly pointing out the faults of the governing
party.   That way I can be pretty sure that they aren't
conspiring to carve up power and stay in office for ever.

> 
> >How about Bill Clinton?
> 
> Even if the Americans had the best electoral system in the world 
> (which they certainly haven't!) they couldn't elect the
> President by PR.

That's right.   And by extension, we are talking about the
entire US Administration, apart from a small number of
offices that need Senate approval.   Now, would it be any
improvement if Clinton had to consult with Ross Perot, say,
twenty percent of the time?   [Obviously not, but it's
Friday afternoon and I'm in a silly mood.]

> I suppose they could elect the electors by PR, but they'd
> need a system like the Alternative Vote to ensure that the
> President had majority support.

Ah, but what does that really mean?   "Ensure that the
President had majority support" or "Fiddle the numbers so
that it merely appears that the President had majority
support"?

That's a serious question, by the way.   PR, and similar
systems, have always seemed to me to be mostly ways to
massage voting totals so as to make it *appear* that the
party which ultimately takes power has majority support.
Personally, I think we're all sensible enough to understand
what FPTP means.   Do we really have to go through a little
minuet with transferable votes, or whatever, and the
overwhelming majority of times come up with the same
result, anyway?

Of course, I could easily be wrong about that.   Has anyone
done any simulations to show how many times PR or STV would
have resulted in different UK Administrations this
century?

jon.
From: martin.baines@uk.sun.com (Martin Baines - Sun UK - SE Manager Cambridge)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The Maastricht vote (was Re: Dog in House
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:57:09 GMT
Reply-To: martin.baines@uk.sun.com
Organization: Sun Microsystems Ltd
NNTP-Posting-Host: bottomdog.uk.sun.com

In article 11242@infodev.cam.ac.uk, gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:
[deleted thread as to whether the Lib Dems should/should not
 have supported the government motion over Maastricht]

>But the Government wasn't acting on any sort of principle,
>so why should Labour?  

I would argue the *government* actually were acting on
principle: they wanted to demonstrate Britain's committment
to our treaties by a parliamentary motion to that effect.

It would have been much easier to just not bother with
a vote. The reason for whipping the MPs was that they
were all elected on a very clear election manifesto
commitment to Maastricht (it was on the first page)
and has all committed to the manifesto before the election.

It may have been daft politics, but the *only* reason
I can see for the vote was principle.

>The Government just wanted to win;
>they didn't care how they did it.  We've heard of some
>extremely coercive whipping tactics.  It even emerges now
>that they changed their policy *between* the two votes on
>Wednesday night in order to appease a handful of rebels
>(which was enough to tip the balance).  Labour was
>essentially opposing the Government's mismanagement of
>the bill, not the bill itself.

To use a parliamentary term: RUBBISH!

Labour wanted to defeat the government, and couldn't careless
what they voted down to do it. If the vote had gone against
the government, and Major had resigned but an election was
not called [quite possible], and the new Tory leader was
a EuroSeptic (sic) like Portillo who proceeded to back track
on the treaty [less likely I admit, but possible] how would
Labour have explained its actions to its brothers in the
European Socialist Party?

Martin

---
"You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment"

Martin Baines, Sales Support Manager,
Sun Microsystems Ltd, 306 Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 4WG, UK
Phone: +44 223 420421                 Fax: +44 223 420257
JANET:     Martin.Baines@uk.co.sun    Other UK:  Martin.Baines@sun.co.uk
Internet:  Martin.Baines@UK.sun.com
X.400:     g=martin s=baines prmd=sunir admd=mci c=us
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british