HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Subject: Re: The Maastricht vote (was Re: Dog in House
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 08:29:02 GMT

In article <1dopl5INNls9@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> martin.baines@uk.sun.com writes:
>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.

And they had one.  The Second Reading was passed by a majority
of over 200 (Labour abstained, and most other opposition parties
supported the Government).  This was more than enough authority
for the Government to proceed to the committee stage, so why didn't
they just do it?

>>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?

I think this is a fair point; by opposing the motion, Labour
may have given the Tory right greater influence.  I've come
round to the opinion that all the opposition parties should
have abstained, just to show up the motion for the vacuous
nonsense it was.  It would have nicely pointed up the Tories'
difficulties if the only opposition to them had been their
own backbenchers.

--
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 
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15692 alt.folklore.urban:28202
From: mfulsmb@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Martin Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?
Date: 11 Nov 92 10:44:03 GMT
Organization: Manchester University, M13 9PL, UK.

In article <BxG5Lz.IF@cck.coventry.ac.uk> cmh004@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Dave) writes:

>One minor point I say almost every week "...we believe in one holy, catholic
>and apostolic church...". So in this respect I consider myself to be an
>Anglo-Catholic, but I am not a Roman Catholic. So don't use the term catholic
>when you mean Roman Catholic.

Coming from somebody who (presumably) is content to claim he belongs to THE
Church of England, that seems a bit rich.

mcb
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Organization: Not Philips.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:04:41 GMT

In refd article, jasstev@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (stevens jason) writes:
>MDuPree@world.std.com (Micky DuPree) writes:
>>are the regular
>>characters on "Taggart" speaking Scots or are they speaking English with
>>a Scottish accent?
> The actors are all scottish and all good at their jobs. Mark mcManus is one
> of the best actors on tv. I think their would be afew complaints if the Scots
> couldnt protray themselves in a programme!

I'm not sure what this has to do with the question that was asked.

The characters on "Taggart" are mainly speaking English with a Scottish
accent.  There's a fair amount of modern Glaswegian dialect, and the
occasional "pure" Scots word or phrase thrown in.  In other words they're
speaking like most natives of Glasgow do.

-- 
Ray Dunn at home        |  Beaconsfield, Quebec  |  Phone: (514) 630 3749
ray@philmtl.philips.ca  |  dunn@cam.org          |  uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray
From: cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk (Colin Wilson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:20:20 GMT
Organization: BT

In article <1992Nov6.192525.27372@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:
|> 
|> Are we talking about local accents within Scotland, or "educated
|> Scots" as heard on BBC Scotland (or spoken by John Smith)?  My
|> experience is that "educated" accents are acceptable from any part of
|> the country; the main prejudice is against urban accents (e.g. London,
|> Birmingham, Liverpool, Glasgow).
|> 

With regard to Scotland, we're not really debating accent at all: we're
discussing Scots, which not only has a phonology of its own, but has
vocabulary, grammar, syntax and idiom different from English. Scots if spoken
with an English accent would still be Scots, just as English spoken with a
French accent is still English.

Before anyone tells me that the idea of anyone talking Scots with an English
accent is an absurdity, let me say that I know a Scottish woman who was
brought up in England and who is learning Scots as an adult, and who does just
that.

********************************************************************************
*  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: cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk (Colin Wilson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:05:05 GMT
Organization: BT

In article <1992Nov10.144435.22638@ccsun.strath.ac.uk>, chgs02@vaxa.strath.ac.uk ("A.Mair", Politics) writes:
|> Scots is the word used only as opposed to English.

Come again?

|> 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...)

The idea that speakers of the different dialects of Scots have
difficulty understanding one another is almost totally false: in my
activities with the Scots Language Society I encounter speakers of
various dialects other my own, and none of us have any difficulty with
one another. The only real exception to this is the Shetland tongue,
which is influenced by Norse in its vocabulary and pronunciation, and
which presents difficulties for mainlanders.

In case anyone hadn't noticed, the royals are from England and don't
talk Scots at all, hence the need for the shopkeeper to spell out
"futrat" and "dyeuk" (where does Mair get his/her spelling?) as
"ferret" and "duck".

********************************************************************************
*  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: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 6 Nov 92 10:09:15 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk (Colin Wilson)
>I would like to be able to use my own language freely in public and
>professional life. I would like to be able to read daily newspapers
>printed in it. I would like to be able to see and hear a full variety
>of radio and TV programming in it, as opposed to the present situation
>in which the use of Scots is almost totally confined to comedy.

I could say exactly the same about Cockney.

Matthew Huntbach
From: A.Grant@ucs.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 9 Nov 92 11:07:17 GMT
Organization: University of Cambridge

In article <1992Nov8.205021.21238@philmtl.philips.ca> ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes:
>Alasdair's assumption that learning Scots implies that French or Russian
>wouldn't be learned is not valid.  My experience is that multi-lingual (or
>even multi-dialectual) people are much more open to acquiring some
>proficiency in a further language than those only exposed to a single
>language.

True, but Scots is not a particularly good language in this respect - not
different enough from English, for one thing. I take your point that there
is more opportunity for someone in Scotland to be _actively_ bilingual in
Scots and/or Gaelic, but that is the sort of thinking that gets English
children learning Bengali and Urdu (not that I have anything against these
languages, I just think French and German are far more important).

>[Burns] _did_ write much of his work in Scots.  If that _is_ part of what 
>he is respected for, how is that not "in his own right"?

I mean, he is respected as a cultural icon, as the first half-decent poet
to write in dialect, rather as Bob Dylan was the first half-decent poet to
write pop lyrics. And Bob Dylan is internationally respected too. We should
be thankful that such people exist to break new ground, but in both cases
their work doesn't stand up to cold analysis. (Not that Burns is _bad_, but
he's definitely not Premier League.)

>As Billy Kay describes so accurately, most Scottish schoolchildren
>including my generation were ridiculed, often physically punished, for
>using their native Scots in school.  It was not proper to speak Scots.

Hang on. You're a successful international professional. How far would you 
have got if all your teaching had been in Scots, with English as a despised 
foreign language? Comedy actor? Social worker? Institutionalising Scots
and/or Gaelic, which seems to be what you are suggesting, is precisely the
_worst_ thing Scotland could do to itself. Scotland needs Europeans, not
peasants.
From: ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: JANET/Internet
Date: 13 Nov 92 00:53:05 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <1992Nov12.180041.4934@netcom.com> sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) writes:
>>   On a more general note, many people on JANET believe that all of
>>the UK domain uses the JANET form of addressing. I'm afraid that 
>>they're misinformed but anyone who wishes to contact me to discuss
>>it may do so at the address below or at 'gwyn@cix.compulink.co.uk'.

You are either misinformed or confused. NRS names are in left-to-right
order, by analogy with phone numbers, NSAPs etc.; the trailing components
of a name may specify selectors within hosts. DNS names are in right-to
left order, presumably by analogy with postal addresses. A host may be
accessed via an NRS name (which resolves into an X.121 address) or a DNS
name (which resolves into an IP address). It _just so happens_ (actually
it's policy) that JANET hosts getting Internet connections reverse their
NRS name (usually the abbreviated form) and put that in the DNS. In fact
the two addresses, and hence names, refer to different things; at the
very least one will be an X.25 connection while the other will usually
not (directly) be; if ColouredBook<->Internet protocol conversion is 
involved, they may well be different machines.

>Wouldn't it be easier in the long run for Janet to convert to the Internet 
>standard?  Either that, or someone should modify the mailers to juggle the
>addresses.  

As should be evident from the above, JANET is _already_ using the Internet
standard for the purpose of _Internet_ naming.

>I'd enjoy inserting rude remarks about muddle-headed academics here, 
>but I can't really since the Internet was born from university nets in
>the US.  Darn. 

Since both protocols are simply patched-up Heath-Robinson attempts to get
something that more-or-less works for people who can't wait for OSI, and
can't afford SNA or DECNET, I don't see what the fuss is about. Both TCP/IP
and Coloured Books are fatally flawed, but at least CB has the integrity to
describe itself as an 'interim' protocol suite, despite working a darn sight
better than TCP/IP, IMHO.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: andy@mercury.cs.clemson.edu (Andrew J. Greenshields N3IGS)
Subject: Re: Religion & Morality (was Re: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?)
Organization: Clemson University Computer Science Dept.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:03:15 GMT

>In article <1992Nov10.145541.17601@sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>
>Yes, as every sane and stable society has known for eight thousand
>years, religion has a proper place in the body politic.  It should
>be given that place, duly respected and listened to, and, of course,
>firmly confined to that proper place.
>
  And exactly which religion would this be?  I am hard pressed to
think of a sane and stable religion.
 
--
  Andrew J. Greenshields N3IGS    |  Some people can tell what time it is by
  andy@cs.clemson.edu             |  looking at the Sun, but I have never been
  [andy@cs.widener.edu]           |  able to make out the numbers.
-----------------------***STANDARD DISCLAIMERS APPLY***------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Organization: Not Philips.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 03:34:34 GMT

In refd article, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>In refd article, cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk (Colin Wilson) writes:
>
>>How much more of this ignorance will we be faced with? All poetry is in
>>dialect, because all forms of language are dialect, including the
>>Standard English that Alasdair Grant apparently reveres so much.
>
>How many times do we have to try to get the point across?
>Yes, John Keats spoke Cockney dialect, and Burns spoke Scots dialect.
>The difference remains:  that one is revered for the poems he wrote, and
>the other for the dialect he wrote them in.

Perhaps the number of times is in inverse proportion to the validity of the
point and the number of supporting arguments.

This discussion is the only time I've ever seen it suggested that the main
reason for Burns' reputation is that he wrote in dialect.

The suggestion is nonsense.  No supporting arguments have been posted,
several suggesting otherwise have.

Let's have at least one reference from a scholarly work on Burns that
argues his "worth" is based only on the fact that he wrote in dialect, and
not on his work, the construction of language, philosophy of life,
expression and subject matter.
-- 
Ray Dunn at home        |  Beaconsfield, Quebec  |  Phone: (514) 630 3749
ray@philmtl.philips.ca  |  dunn@cam.org          |  uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray
From: G.P.Hansford@bradford.ac.uk (GP HANSFORD)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Private Uni's
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:46:58 GMT
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: 90462077@ccw315

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?

>	I will appreciate if anybody can give me such information. BTW,
>I am from Australia.
>								Gitesh


	The only private Univeristy in England that I know of is the
University of Buckingham.

	Order of reputation?  Well its Chancellor(or Vice-) is
Thatcher, I think that says is all, don't you?


-- 
Graham Hansford,		e-mail on  g.p.hansford@uk.ac.bradford
Comp Sci,
Uni of Bradford,
Yorkshire, England.
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Just a quick question
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:56:35 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: rsthomas@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rich Thomas)

>Could someone tell me (email please) the definition of
>a common-law marriage in England? Thanks.

The phrase is used so often that many people believe there is a
legal definition. There is not. If you are living with someone
as man and wife, but don't have a marriage certificate then if
you die without a will your partner gets nothing. Same applies
to any other rules where marriage brings you some benefit. On
the other hands if it causes you to lose out (liability for
poll tax, entitlement to social security) any form of
cohabiting is treated as marriage. There's tales of social
security official measuring temperatures of beds with
thermometers to find if two people have been sleeping there and
thus can't claim welfare as their combind earnings are too
high.

Matthew Huntbach
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Why Berwick-upon-Tweed?
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:07:54 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <1992Nov10.120658.5732@cas.org> jac54@cas.org () writes:
>
>	I'm still not sure which country it's in.  I think that it is
>	in England but that Berwick Rangers play in the Scottish League
>	2nd division.

Yes, you're right.  Berwick is in England (even though the main part of
the town is north of the Tweed) but the football team plays in the
Scottish League (even though their ground is south of the Tweed).



--
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,soc.culture.celtic
From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Organization: Not Philips.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 05:26:43 GMT

In refd article, A.Grant@ucs.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:
>... Anyway, it makes no difference to my argument,
>which is that Burns is the first representative (in the printed era) of
>a particular type.

No, your argument was that that was Burns' only claim to fame (even though
of course he is _not_ the first Scot to be published in dialect).

>An interesting comparison is with the Australian poet Banjo Patterson.
>Several of his poems are internationally famous ("Waltzing Matilda") and
>have even been filmed ("The Man from Snowy River"). Yet as a poet he is
>the absolute pits.

This may all be very true, but talk about a straw-kangaroo!  What has it
got to do with Burns?

Your description of Patterson's case may match that of Burns in your own
mind, but there's nothing here to _support_ your case against Burns.

Proof that a cherry is red says nothing about the colour of a banana!

>No, I implied that pushing Scots and Gaelic into the service of national
>identity might _make_ English despised. I'd lay bets that the more extreme
>Welsh or Quebec nationalists would be prepared to say that they despise 
>English.

Certainly they would, but for exactly the opposite reason than the one you
state.  It's the suppression of a minority's own language in favour of
English that causes them to despise English, not the acceptance and
teaching of their own language.  Your whole argument is based on the
misaprehension that English is their first language.  For many Scots, and
certainly for the Quebecois, who you choose to bring into the discussion
for some reason, English is their _second_ language.

>And it is you who believe that by 'peasants' I'm referring to a lesser form
>of life, and then have the temerity to attribute this to me. The French don't
>believe peasants are inferior, merely that they are narrow-minded, parochial,
>traditional, and short-termist. Some people may think these are virtues, but
>with the country on the brink of economic collapse, I don't.

There was clearly no interpretation other than that your use of the word
"peasant" was derogatory, with your suggestion that Scotland didn't need
them.

But why deny it?  Hidden under your indignation and this tangential
description of how you disagree with the French view of virtue, is a clear
statement of what you meant.  Introducing the further straw dog of economics
does nothing to disguise it.
-- 
Ray Dunn at home        |  Beaconsfield, Quebec  |  Phone: (514) 630 3749
ray@philmtl.philips.ca  |  dunn@cam.org          |  uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray
From: cicero@hotcity.COM (Andreas Locicero)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Sunday Trading (Was Re: Salaries+cost of living in UK)
Date: 7 Nov 92 14:28:33 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <1d3ap6INNemb@bnsgd245.bnr.co.uk>, bocmunro@bnr.co.uk (Bruce Munro)
writes:
>In article <1992Oct30.145048.10493@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy
Ba
>rry) writes:
>>
>>Oh, you meant the status of Sunday *trading* in the UK.  Well, no, you
>>didn't mean that either, you meant in England, Wales and Northern
>>Ireland (it's all perfectly legal in Scotland).
>
>Not if you want to buy a can of beer/bottle of wine/bottle of whisky
>etc.  it isn't. Always amazes me that Scotland with it's civilised pub
>opening hours and Sunday opening should still have this one anomalous
>restriction in place.
>
>-- 
>Bruce Munro.  <B.Munro@bnr.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!uknet!bnruk!B.Munro
>BNR Europe Ltd, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. | Note the change
>Phone : +44 81 945 2174 or +44 81 945 4000 x2174   | of e-mail address.
>"There are no strangers, only friends we don't recognise" - Hank Wangford
Well that one restriction is more universal.  Here in the US (Land of the 24
hour discount department store and the all night restaurant) many states
prohibit or restrict sunday liquor sales.  If WE do it, it may be a much
tougher nut to crack.  On the other hand, Americans can be rather puritanical
so who knows?

A.J. LoCicero >> cicero@hotcity.com

The opinions expressed above ARE those of my employer!
This message comes to you from beautiful Morgan Hill, California, U.S.A.:
The front line in the war against suburbanization!