HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Service (or lack thereof)
Date: 10 Oct 92 19:49:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <10OCT199206273850@sscvx1.ssc.gov> godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.012931.103@nuscc.nus.sg>, hiscrp@nuscc.nus.sg (C R Pennell)         writes...
>>sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) writes:
>>: My SO, on the other hand, has completely lost patience with the
>>: pace and quality of service in the UK, *and* he is completely
>>: smoke-intolerant.  Luckily we didn't have to eat out together
>>: very many times.  :-)  He also created quite a ruckus at the
>>: village whist drive by requesting that the girl at his table
>>: not inhale in his face.  I wanted to slide under the table.
>> 
>
>I should think that the inhalation of your husband's face did the young
>lady considerably more harm than the cigarette smoke.  He was quite right
>to protest against the use of these tactics during whist - inhalation of
>faces is definitely against the rules.  Had you slid under the table, as
>you contemplated, I fear you might never have emerged again, as i know for
>a fact that the strangest un-Californian activities take place under the
>tables of village whist drives.

>Have you suggested to your SO that he try a clothespeg on his nose and
>an oxegen mask on his mouth (always assuming that those two facial structures
>still remain after the inhalation disaster)?  How very unfortunate for your
>SO that he is apparently confined to California for the rest of his natural
>life.  Mind you, it doesn't sound like he'd have that much fun travelling
>with you, as you insist on dragging him to whist drives.  Just think - he
>is denied access to most of Europe, all of Asia, all of South America, all
>of Africa, just because a few years in california have made him unable to 
>tolerate smoke.

>Isn't it astonishing how delicate human beings can be.  Princesses cannot sleep
>when a pea is hidden under 6 layes of mattress, Californians would rather
>be triple-bypassed than have their whole day spoiled by having to inhale
>cigarette smoke, yet Filipinos living on Pinatubu survived a volcano, 
>Filipinos living in Smokey mountain in manila (so-called because it is
>a burning garbage tip on which people build their houses) live on to
>be explited by American companies providing materials to enhance your
>smoke-free standard of living in California, South Americans and Thais and
>Burmese are ravaged by hurricanes and flooded regularly because their
>rain forests are being uprooted to provide nice polished wood to furnish
>the smoke-free restaurants your husband requires for his health.  Certainly
>my sympathies lie with you Californians for the lead you have taken to improve
>others' quality of life.
>
>Have a nice day
>

One hardly knows where to begin.  What a bubbly little fellow you are.
Perhaps you have run out of cigarettes.

I am puzzled why you are so worried about my SO's travel possibilities.
Umm, thanks for caring.  
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: dbrooks@penge.osf.org (David Brooks)
Subject: Re: Edinburgh
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:46:47


chem91@Elroy.UH.EDU ("Bill Harrison (713)-743-2789") writes:
> Now; try these ;=) Worcester, Gloucester, Leicester, Leominster, 
> Towcester, Vale of Belvoir, Uttoxeter, Beaulieu...

I recognize these!  Most of them are towns in Massachusetts.

Don't forget Reading.

In Mass., unlike England, Woburn is pronounced anomalously (Woob'rn).  And
the town of Somerset is in Bristol county.
--
David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
Four more months!  Four more months!
From: cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dum dee dum...
Date: 8 Oct 92 08:16:25 GMT
Organization: Keele University, England

From article <10554@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>, by colin@cs.uq.oz.au (Colin Millerchip):
> I know: I (almost) only ever post to this group when I want something.
> 
> Well... what gives? Any news gratefully received. When last I heard,
> things were getting interesting for the Pargitters.

Julia's trying to 'divorce' Elizabeth from Nigel and substitute Debbie
in her place, Jennifer is, not surprisingly all for it, especially after
she's had the dinner party treatment. What'll happen
when she  finds that this is only machination on Pargeter senior's
part might be interesting. There's a question at the moment as how
willing Nigel and Debbie are in all of this. Julia's also running short
of money - N wants to sell her four-poster bed no less and is
threatening to dump Nelson if he does stump up more cash.


> Also, any news on a possible Omnibus on the World Service?

I haven't any. Why do they put the dreadful citizens (if it's still
going) on the world service and not the Archers? I suffered a terrible
year of withdrawal symptoms in Spain.

Andy

=================================================================
ANDY FEAR 		  BLACKPOOL FC - THE PRIDE OF LANCASHIRE

cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk    VIVA ER BETI MANQUE PIERDA		

or    			  TANGERINE AND GREEN... MAGIC
		  		 
Dept. of Classics,        
University of Keele,	 "I am willing to love all mankind, except 
Staffs ST5 5BG,		  an American"
ENGLAND. 		 	      - Dr Johnson
==================================================================
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Privatisation snippets
Date: 14 Oct 92 09:25:26 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <26841@castle.ed.ac.uk> fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
>A quick question though: do you folks that oppose the privatisations
>here, also oppose them in Russia? I don't have details (though I'm sure
>someone here will inform us) but it looks like they are simply giving
>everyone shares in things and saying "on you go mate, now you own it."
>Is this a fair way to do things? I kinda like the idea myself.

Um, I've done my arguing already, but I did mention that I prefer a
mixture, feeling that some things are best done by 'privatised'
companies and some best done centrally by national ownership.  I'd
apply the same criteria to the Soviet privatisations, which means that
some are a good thing and some are not.  (In my view, which I don't
really have time to re-argue.)

However, if a government REALLY feels that it wants to privatise
everything, then my feeling is that the Russian way is the proper way
to do it.  It's my feeling that I (and everyone else in the country)
own these nationally-owned industries, with the government's proper
role being that of our agent.  Since I already own part of the company,
I shouldn't have to buy it from myself.  Totally appropriate for the
government to give people the shares representing their individual
portion of the previously jointly-owned company.

-- 
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: reese@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Energy Policy (or lack of it.)
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:56:11 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Oct14.180939.9523@vax.oxford.ac.uk>, wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
> 
> First, did anyone else notice what Tim Eggar said on Today this morning? At teh
> moment Nuclear Electric is being subsidised to the tune of around about 1.2
> billion a year. Apparently each coal-miner has cost the government 400,000
> pounds in the last 13 years, a figure which is far too much. I noticed, by the
> way, that he didn't say what that money had been spent on, though Arthur
> Scargill implied it had gone on shutting down coal mines and maintaining them
> once they had been shut down. Now multiplying 400,000 by the 30,000 miners the 
> government has just sacked gives me a figure not unadjacent to 12 billion, or 
> rather less than 1.2 billion per year. So an insignificant nuclear industry is
> worth spending money on, whereas an enormous competitive efficient world-class
> coal-mining industry is not. It's hardly surprising they've screwed this
> country up so much, is it?

This raises the question: "Why does the government and just about everybody
in authority in Britain like Nuclear Power stations so much?"
What is so good about them?  Surely the old argument that they also 
produce nuclear material for the "defence" of the country is really becoming
less and less valid these days?  Why don't we all just quietly let them
become obsolete and replace them with other generators?

I am in favour of alternative power schemes, but fair's fair and all that,
I don't really see other countries making so much power from renewable
sources either. We're all in the same boat, together...

Jason
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Gissa Job Mate
Date: 17 Oct 92 03:08:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: sscvx1.16OCT199221084955
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Oct16.172542.7784@rz-berlin.mpg.de>, gray@rz-berlin.mpg.de (Struan Gray)       writes...
>  What I don't need anyone to tell me is that the manner in which
>the closures were announced is positively revolting.  Unacceptable
>faces indeed.
> 
> 
>Struan

This is a side issue - it would not make the decision any the more palatable
if it had been presented in any other way.  I'm afraid you are being unduly
influenced by the Tory press if you have been sidetracked into the issue of
presentation.  The real issue to confront is that every economic decision
made by the past 4 Tory governments has been disastrous for the majority
of the British - the only change recently is that fewer and fewer people
are getting any benefit from these decisions and the government justifications
are sounding increasingly hollow even to the thickest of Tory supporters.

laurence
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: Re: Service (or lack thereof)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:26:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.135133.4293@pixel.kodak.com> dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:
>Sue Miller (sue@netcom.com) wrote:
>: In article <17725@autodesk.COM> mickw@autodesk.com (Mick Washbrook) writes:
>: >
>: >Ah, but you're making the assumption that going shopping or out for
>: >dinner in Britain is supposed to be an enjoyable experience. It's
>: >not. You're supposed to sit through abominable service, get soup
>: >spilled on you, have rude waiters ignore you, and then--when you're
>: >asked if you've enjoyed your meal that tasted like polystyrene 
>: >peanuts--reply, "Gosh! Rather!" Then you fork out two months'
>: >salary and stagger to the nearest vomitorium.
>: >
>: >You foreigners just don't get it.
>: >
>: You're right.  And we are not bothered.
>: 
>You know, this newsgroup may not need a FAQ, but what it does need is
>regular postings on the particular nature of the humor that is common
>currency in the home islands.  This would spare us the incidents
>of offense taken by those who fail to recognize satire when they see it.
>
>It was just a Joe Miller - honest!
>

I *knew* that.  I have shared my house with an Englishman for
quite a while now, and I was not humor-impaired even before that
time.  I was just despairing at the way that the English seem
to feel that they must take lousy service and not complain.
Forbearance is a good thing - up to a point.

My SO, on the other hand, has completely lost patience with the
pace and quality of service in the UK, *and* he is completely
smoke-intolerant.  Luckily we didn't have to eat out together
very many times.  :-)  He also created quite a ruckus at the
village whist drive by requesting that the girl at his table
not inhale in his face.  I wanted to slide under the table.
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Cities with 7 hills (was Responding to the Nick and Jon challeng
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:05:50 GMT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #1, Edmonton, AB, Canada

Bernard BELL <BERNARD@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes:

- In-Reply-To: luchini@nhmfl.fsu.edu (Marco Luchini)
- >
- >In-Reply-To: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca's message of Wed, 14 Oct 92 05:38
- >In article <k7TmsB3w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
- >(Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
- >>
- >> Read Revelations 17:7-9.  Quoting verses 9 to 14:
- >>
- >>  quote deleted
- >>
- >> Rome is the only city that I know of that has 7 hills.
- >
- >Tallahassee, FL, is also built on seven hills.  And it is much more
- >unpleasant than Rome.
-
- Edinburgh also has seven hills and is  much more pleasant than Rome.
- So, DSY, don't be so dogmatic about a book that's intended to be
- mysterious. Why are fundamentalists always so concerned to remove
- all the mysteries of the Bible?  What room is left for faith?

  A simple point:  The only city in john's time that had 7 hills was Rome!!
Please read the verse carefully, and note the historic relevance.

-
- A further observation that I know has come up many times before, but I'll add
- my voice to all the others: DSY, please exercise a bit more care with your
- cross-postings line. What has this thread got to do with soc.culture.french?
-
- Bernard Bell
- SLAC, Stanford, California

  Defence: The cross-posting is a response to a challenge that did find its way
to 4 groups, relative to the Masstricht vote and has evolved as such.

Dave Shariff Yadallee (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca,
userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
Canadians: send a clear message to the government!  ON Oct. 26, Abstain
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Name of the Royal family ?
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:32:00 GMT
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Oct7.133131.24950@odin.corp.sgi.com>, me@laurence.com                           writes...
>In article <1992Oct6.230040.12498@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, nabil@cae.wisc.edu (Nabil Ayoub) writes:
>|> A friend of mine asked me about the name of the royal family
>|> of the UK but I could not remember it. Is it 'Windsor' ? 
>|> Please reply by email as I do not read this group. 
>|> Thanks a lot folks.
>|> 
>|> Nabil
> 
>Why is it Laurence is never around when you need him most?

The names of the British royal family are :elizabeth windsor (we call her
Brenda Windsor, her husband is normally known as Stavros as he comes originally
from Greece [ sometimes he is called Phil the Greek ]), her sister Margaret
(who we like to call Yvonne), her daughter Anne (who I think retains the
surname Windsor even during those occasions when she is married) - 
sometimes Anne is cruelly known as Horse-of-the-Year because of her interest
in the beasts and her surprisingly equine features, the open-minded Prince
Charles who is also a Windsor and said to be so open-minded these days that
he ca actually hear the wind whistling between his ears, the once-lovely
Diana (nee Spencer), Charles' wife [soon to be ex-wife], whose friends call
her Squidgy (in English this word means squashy) for reasons that have
yet to be revealed but certainly have nothing to do with the texture of
her breasts which I understand are a big improvment on those of the
repellant Fergy (nee Sarah Ferguson) whose breasts have recently been
portrayed on the front pages of the world's newspapers, enabling us all
to confirm the long-suspected truth that she has a nipple right in the
middle of each breast, married to the dim-witted Andrew Windsor but
allegedly not sleeping with him anymore, brother of Edward Windsor, a
man who is sexually challenged and the only member of the royal family
who has a real job (in a few years he is likely to be one of the few people in Britain who
can lay claim to a job), working for the Really Useful Theatre Company as
a doorman (or similar).  I have excluded Anne's former husband Mark Phillips,
known in his army days as Fog because he was said to be dull and wet, and
a few other hangers-on.

The British royal family, I am proud to say, has the distinction of being
the ugliest royal family in the world.  While Princesses and Queens are
supposed to be beautiful, ours derived mainly from german stock so they
are appallingly repulsive and we don't even pretend these days that theu
look nice, except when they get married.  I have forgotten to mention
the aged Queen Mother, also called Elizabeth Windsor (confusing isn't it),
who we sometimes call Gladys.  She is popularly thought to be popular
with the public, although in fact she is a raving Tory and fanatical
snob, and most people only like her because the newspapers tell them to.

regards Laurence
From: sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Sod
Date: 7 Oct 1992 11:32:53 GMT
Organization: TMC
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <1992Oct7.081111.23361@osf.org>, sp@osf.org (Simon Patience) writes:
|> In article <1asqupINNsq@early-bird.think.com>, sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) writes:
|> > (Not mentioned here, the adjective (pretending to be a gerundive, but the
|> > verb doesn't exist to my knowledge) : sodding.
|> 
|> Sod that. 
|> 
|> Simon.

I stand corrected. But is there any other use of the verb except as an
imperative ? For instance, "He was just soddin' around ..." ?

Daan Sandee                                           sandee@think.com
Thinking Machines Corporation
Cambridge, Mass 02142                                 (617) 234-5044
From: pd@x.co.uk (Paul Davey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Does being Tory mean you're Thick
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:57:00 GMT
Organization: IXI Ltd.
X-Disclaimer: This is not the view of IXI Ltd unless explicitly stated.
X-Copyright: The author asserts the right of paternity in this message.

>>>>> On 13 Oct 92 16:18:00 GMT, godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) said:
  ...
-> I suggest that being Tory simply means that you're thick.

While this appears to have a certain amount of empirical truth Ian
Aitkin (recently retired political columnist) said (rough quote):
 ``It's always a mistake to judge someone on their political views.''

Or if you prefer political views bear little relation to intelligence.

--
    Regards,			IXI            Internet: pd@x.co.uk
	Paul Davey		Vision Park    UUCP:     pd@ixi.uucp
				Cambridge      Bang:     ...!uunet!ixi!pd
 "These are interesting times"	CB4 4ZR, UK    Tel:      +44 223 236 555
From: sp@osf.org (Simon Patience)
Subject: Re: Service (or lack thereof)
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 08:11:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.202155.21552@morrow.stanford.edu>, mossop@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Antony Mossop) writes:
> I realise this particular poster was not referring to California
> but previous ones have. I'm vaguely interested in the suggestion
> that they find breathing a problem when a smoker, smokes in the
> same building and yet manage to survive in what I assume is urban
> California. LA and to a lesser extent the Bay area suffer on occasion
> from truly hazardous air pollution, even the general air quality in
> the Bay I find more irritating then an average British pub (though
> this could be the local lack of humidity).

I expect that part of it is that the concentration of pollutants, when
sitting near a smoker, is significantly higher than the general
polution of the area.

> I suppose that some
> people may well be immune to other pollutants and especially sensitive
> to tobacco smoke but I'm a bit dubious considering how many now claim
> this (where did all the smokers in the past come from?). To make a
> sweeping generalisation I've tended to find that allergic, trouble
> breathing etc is Californian for 'I don't like' (and it's spreading
> to other English speakers). 

Although there may be something to this, it is also a fact that alergic
reactions, especially those involving breathing problems, have
significantly increase in the last 10 years.

> I don't like smokey places myself,
> especially from large numbers of commercial cigarettes being smoked,
> even though I do smoke (hand rolled cigarettes of good quality tobacco 
> usually I smoke one of these a day).

Although pollution is still pollution, regardless of the 'quality'.

> I realise that this view may seem
> like ignorance, perhaps sacrilege, it's just that I sense that pervasive
> smell of overdone puritanism and perhaps even a touch of humbug.

Or maybe people just finally fed up of being abused.

Simon. (An Ex-smoker (the worst sort :-) of 12 years)

-- 
  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
From: v064myby@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Christophe J Quaranta)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Edinburgh
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:33:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	Can anyone tell me how you're supposed to pronounce Edinburgh?
Every Scot I talk to seems to say Edinboro!  I assume they're not referring
to Pennsylvania.
						Latre,
						'Q'
From: Geraint.Jones@comlab.oxford.ac.uk (Geraint Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Letter from America
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:55:44 GMT
Organization: The Smolensk Powdered Goat Society
Originator: geraint@pierrot.comlab

Richard Pennell:

(  	Ah yes, Mr Cooke. When I was small, my parents used to listen
 ) religiously to him. I was brought up on Cooke-on-America. SO were lots
(  of other people I know. It took the form of brainwashing, I think.
 ) My wife (Singaporean) pointed out as we were listening to the great man
(  on the car radio here (World Service on FM in Singapore) that he is
 ) actually a pompous boring old fart. I suddenly realised a. that (as
(  usual) she is right and b. that for thirty years I had never actually
 ) listened to a word the p.b.o.f had said. Do other people agree with this
(  assessment? and what do Mercans think of his account of THEIR country. 

Of course he's a pompous boring old fart; that's the whole point.  It is not
meant to be listened to for its content.  It's an Art Form.  He more or less
invented it, and the amazing thing is that he is still doing it.  Think of /
it as a newspaper `column' -- not news, not about its subject, but about  /
its author.  He just does it on the wireless, that's all.                / g

____________________
	Not that I would miss it if I happen to be near a radio 
	when one of the five or six weekly broadcasts is on.
	I'll miss it when he puts the last edition to bed.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: y
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:01:20 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <Bw51yt.7pq.2@cs.cmu.edu>, jch+@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes
|> > No.   These sheets are aimed at Americans who don't know Poland
|> > from Portugal.   However, most of them would giggle at the idea
|> > that the State Department thought it necessary to tell them that
|> > the UK is a stable democracy.    They might need to be told that
|> > about Hungary or Spain, but not about the UK.
|> 
|> You're kidding, right?  The last time I had to relieve someone of the
|> misapprehension that Britain is an absolute monarchy where the Queen
|> gives out the orders was last Monday. 

That's OK.    I once met some old gaffer in the UK who
wanted to know if they have aeroplanes in Canada yet.
I'm not such a fool as to think him typical.

jon.