HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Subject: Re: Enforced Shakespeare?
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:59:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.170438.29625@netcom.com> tmaddox@netcom.com (Tom Maddox) writes:
>
>	The difficulties of Shakespeare's language for students who have 
>read little should not be underestimated.  Shakespeare's vocabulary is, of
>course, large, and much of it is obsolete (in the dictionary sense, I hasten
>to add); more than that, his syntax is, to these same students' sense, 
>terribly, needlessly convoluted.

Was Shakespeare's "difficult" language immediately accessible to an
Elizabethan audience? I assume it was, because he was writing plays for
a living. It would seem that language skills were more advanced in his
day than they are now? I have been led to believe by period drama that
17th Century British people took a delight in words, word play, puns and
so on -- is that true?

Dick Jackson
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Children in Pubs?
From: Francesco.Ballara@comp.vuw.ac.nz (devitt)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 05:35:24 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Victoria Uni. of Wellington, New Zealand.


My mother, my brother (aged 15) and I are going to Britain in January.
We thought 'pub lunches' might be a cheap and possibly nice way of gaining
nutrition.

What is the age limit for entering pubs in Britain?
Can my 15 year old brother go into a pub, when accompanied by his
mother, in order to eat only?
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:13143 talk.religion.misc:17332
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Challenge to DSY: where's the beef? (was Re: In response to Jon L....)
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:01:44 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <NICKH.92Sep28173953@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU>, nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>
> Not this old chestnut. Look, those countries have nothing in common
> except a history of conquest. You have never been able to present (on
> s.c.b) a coherent argument for such a union. I have never heard anyone
> else put forward this mad idea, and hope I never shall. The arguments
> for a common Europe are stronger on every point: Europe is Britain's
> natural trading arena, our languages and peoples are more closely
> related, we share a similar level of economic development, and have
> many cultural aspects in common.

Seconded.   I think that what people like Dave miss is that
Europe isn't going to go away any time soon.   There may
be details about Europe that we don't much care for - and
vice versa - but Back to the Future simply isn't an option.

jon.
From: guy@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Halloween in Britain (was Re: Halloween in England)
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:20:06 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

jmb@ukc.ac.uk (J.M.Bremner) writes:

>a "neep", what the English call a swede ("food for sheep in England, and
>men in Scotland" -- Dr. Johnson).  

I thought the Johnson quote was about oats -- "a food which in England
is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people".

-- 
Guy Barry | Computer Laboratory     | Centre for Cognitive Science
          | University of Cambridge | University of Edinburgh
          | Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk  | guy@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
          | +44 (0)223 334757       | +44 (0)31 650 4422
From: harderaf@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Help seeking flat in London
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:13:32 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <1992Sep28.094634.10707@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
> From: achin@math.tamu.edu (Andrew Chin)
>>I will be taking up a position in central London in February
>>and will be looking for a furnished one-bedroom flat to rent
>>for no more than 600 pounds/month inclusive of bills.  My
>>priorities include:
> 
> 600 pounds is about the right rate for a one-bedroom flat in
> London. You'll have a resonable choice, and the only thing you
> won't be able to afford is something really luxurious or
> really central.
> 
>>Important:
>>        quiet
>>        low crime rate (inside entry?)
>>        walking distance to shopping and tube
>>        mod cons (central heating, decent kitchen and bath)
> 
> I am rather puzzled as to why Americans should always be so
> obsessed with "bad" areas. There is nowhere in London which is a
> "no-go" area. True, some parts are a little more pleasant than
> others, but I work in the middle of the supposedly "bad" East
> End, frequently travel home late at night, and have never
> encountered any problems.
> 
>>1.  How nice a place could I expect?
>>2.  In which neighborhoods/boroughs should I concentrate my
>>    search?
>>3.  What are the advantages/disadvantages to using a letting
>>    agency such as Runyards?  Are there any specific agencies
>>    to hire or avoid?
> 
> General advice is shop around. Because of the recession (and,
> though it hurts to say, the Conservatives' abolition of rent
> control laws) there's no shortage of rented property. It's
> generally considered that the western parts of London are
> "nicer" than the eastern parts, and the parts south of the
> Thames are served by overground rail rather than the tube and
> are thus less convenient for transport.
> 
> Don't sign anything or pay anything until you are completely
> satisfied. The rip-off agencies that used to exist when rented
> accomodation was more scarce have been forced to clean up, but
> shop around between agencies as well.
> 
> Matthew Huntbach

Dear Pal:

EVERYWHERE is safe in London!  Remember the police don't carry guns.  And  so
you're safe...EVERYWHERE!!!


Love,

Ali Spaerk
From: martin.baines@uk.sun.com (Martin Baines - Sun UK - SE Manager Cambridge)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Abuse A Brit (was Re: Pardon my ignorance
Date: 29 Sep 1992 13:36:35 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Ltd
Distribution: world
Reply-To: martin.baines@uk.sun.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: bottomdog.uk.sun.com

In article 4500@bnr.uk, agc@bmdhh298.bnr.ca (Alan Carter) writes:
>In article <TORKEL.92Sep28180332@bast.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>|> In article <6250083@hpopd.pwd.hp.com> ian@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Ian Watson) writes:
>|> 				       
>|>>I've been hauled up once before for using this term ["Jap"], and I still
>|>>don't see why.  To me, it's the equivalent to 'Brit', which I don't
>|>>find in the least offensive.
>|> 
>|>     ...In the case of "Jap" it has emerged in soc.culture.japan that some
>|> Japanese at least consider it highly offensive... 
>
>Can anyone think of a derogatory term used by other nations (that the
>British can understand to be insulted by it), to refer to the British
>(or in my case the English)?
>
>I don't mean things like 'Limey' or (from a Scot) 'Englishman' :-)

Pommy Bastard

---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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,rec.arts.books
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Enforced Shakespeare?
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 11:11:06 GMT

In article <qh3pk9g@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.170016.20950@osf.org>, dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
>|> In article <1992Sep30.162336.20876@cas.org>, jac54@cas.org () writes:
>|> |>  I take my cue from Vera Brittain's daughter's response
>|> |>  when TBW observed that children were leaving secondary
>|> |>  school unable to read or write.  She observed that all
>|> |>  children are supposed to be able to read and write when they
>|> |>  finish primary school.  (Guess who would have been Ministrix
>|> |>  for Education at the appropriate time.)
>|>
>|> How about Shirley Williams?
>|>
>|> You probably can't lay the blame at the door of one party (cue ancient
>|> argument about forced comprehensivization).
>
>You have to give them this: the comprehensive system
>*did* bring every pupil to the same level.
>
	Only the poor people, by leaving the Public Schools alone the
	reforms served to increase differences in the quality of
	education received by the rich and the poor (actually, the rest).

	Poor Shirley, I do admire her but I think that all that happened
	here was another couple of paving stones were put in the road
	to hell.

	Alec Chambers.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british


In soc.culture.british, agc@bmdhh298.bnr.ca (Alan Carter) writes:

> Is English unusually rich in these terms of abuse?

	I have no idea if it's true but I do remember reading once that
 the British have more slang terms of abuse for other races/nation-
 alities than any other nation.....

		arf
From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Know someone at Triumph or Norton???
Date: 6 Oct 92 11:57:28 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Oct5.182245.11475@pixel.kodak.com> dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:

   Are there any British motorcycle companies? 

Don't know about Triumph, but the "Norton" name is still around, although
it's attached to a new company (unless it just went bust, of course, which is
quite possible...)

However Norton makes motorcycles mainly to get publicity for their nice new
rotary engine - the main company business is selling the engines for various
uses, like in power boats.  So I doubt they'd be interested in a new engine.
Any other British motorcycle company is likely to be operating on a
shoestring and building small quantities of antique bikes for nostalgia fans.


--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Currency Problems
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:48:39 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Oct5.134049.29324@osf.org> sp@osf.org (Simon Patience) writes:
>However if the only commodity is water then I don't see the problem. The
>consumer could buy the water supply from a water supplier and it doesn't
>really matter which molecules of H2O actually arrive providing the
>customer/provider idea has been honored. A supplier could be stopped from
>contributing to the network if the water quality drops below the
>acceptable level (and presumably the customer has to select another
>supplier). 

A bit weak.  So, you'd be happy if you paid your $100000 to Rolls
Royce, and then a Lada (with the same capacity and 0-60 spec) arrived
at your door?  (Assuming both meet some governmentally laid down
'specification of minimum acceptibility', and that someone, probably the
guy who paid for the Lada, ends up with your Rolls?)  No, that is not a
real choice of supplier for the consumer.  It is ultimately a monopoly
situation, or at least a situation where 'the market' breaks down
because there is no relationship between the vendor and the consumer.

[I said:]
>> Second is trickier, but incredibly fundamental.  It is obviously
>> possible for the government monopoly to be more efficient, and so
>> cheaper.  
>
>I don't see this at all. It is not obvious to me and in fact in goes
>against past experience I would have thought.

Umm, you've left out my crude math, demonstrating that, and also my
dramatic last paragraph, validating it.  Nevermind.  I think we've
at least determined the limit of where we agree, in this area.  I can't
take it much further than repeating what I've already said, which is
patently obvious from the foundations I'm standing on, and obviously
totally incorrect from yours.  Can we leave it that way, or should I
repeat the 'Oh, yes they can' a bit more?

Cheers...

-- 
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: w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Tory's compulsory union membership law
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:25:36 GMT
Reply-To: w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
Organization: Chemical & Process Engineering Dept, University of Newcastle, UK.

RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com (Aengus Lawlor) writes:

>In article <BvI4tu.1xn@newcastle.ac.uk>, w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk says:
>>
>>   You might be interested to hear that John Major has announced that
>>before the end of the year a bill will be introduced into Parliament
>>which will make everyone join a union.
>>
>>   It's the "Treaty on European Union".
>>So the party which attacked unions and claimed unions were too powerful
>>is now forcing everyone to join a new one, without letting them have
>>any choice.
>'Everyone' has the same choice on this issue as they have on any other
>measure introduced by the Governmnet. They can choose to elect somebody
>who is against European Union at the next election. In fact, given that
>the treaty was signed in Maastricht last November, you could have elected
>a government that was against European Union only a few months ago. But
>it just so happens that people don't vote in large numbers for candidates
>that oppose European Union. I wonder why?

  I might be able to suggest a valid reason.
 There are three main parties in England
 The Conservatives - support staying in the EEC.
      The Liberals - support staying in the EEC.
            Labour - support staying in the EEC.

  Now I might have missed something - but I don't see how it mattered
which of them you voted for with respect to the EEC.

The parties against staying in the EEC are maybe just the communists and
fascists  and neo-fascists.

   Now this is not to say people not having a choice of EEC membership
is a bad thing, but I think you would agree that at the election they
did not have a choice between the moderate parties on this issue.
them anti
>Aengus
>--
>RBYAML@ROHMHAAS.COM                    Aengus Lawlor
>RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET                   (who used to be ALAWLOR@DIT.IE)
>"How about some of that famous Dublin wit, Barman?"
>"Certainly, sir. Would that be Dry or Sparkling?"
From: kp@cc.uow.edu.au (Karen Pepper)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accents (was Re: Abuse a Brit)
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:58:15 GMT
Organization: University Of Wollongong

martin.baines@uk.sun.com (Martin Baines - Sun UK - SE Manager Cambridge) writes:

>In article KrD@acsu.buffalo.edu, v064myby@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Christophe J Quaranta) writes:
>>	PS How many Brits can tell the difference between a Canadian &
>>an American?

>Easy eh?

No doat aboat it.


-- 
* Karen Pepper                  *                                     *
* Moth Wrangler and Stylist     *  " Fingite me mortuum esse. Dicite  *
*                               *    aliquid belli. "                 *
* kp@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au       *                        - Petronius  *
From: david@postman.gr.osf.org (David George)
Subject: Re: Currency Problems
Organization: OSF RI Grenoble
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 11:22:54 GMT

In article <haverkam.48.717775100@uni-duesseldorf.de>, haverkam@uni-duesseldorf.de (Wilhelm Haverkamp) writes:
|> When I hear about comments in British newspapers
|> about currency problems I sometimes think that
|> the question of valuating a national currency
|> is somehow handled like a question of  victory
|> or defeat in former times.

Ditto for similar German newspapers.  Bild ran the
headline "SUPERMARK" with such comments in the article
as "Mark storms off battlefield victorious over
pound and lira".

Almost like they're making up for past defeats ?

Of course das Bild is about as representative of German
public opinion as the Sun.  Mabye you just read the
wrong newspapers, Wilhelm ?

David.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: Service (or lack thereof)
Organization: :noitazinagrO
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 13:51:33 GMT

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!

--
||)) There is no truth to the rumor that:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||)) Lotus are suing Apple for copying the look and feel of their lawsuits )|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: Re: Pardon my ignorance and such
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:36:58 GMT

In article <BvI4yC.24n@newcastle.ac.uk> news@newcastle.ac.uk (NEWS system) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.211224.25022@netcom.com>, sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) writes:
>From: ntgk@turing.newcastle.ac.uk (Trevor Kirby)
>Path: turing!ntgk
>
>
>>
>>How the heck can I bomb something if I don't know where it is?  
>>Oh I get it, we had the British troops to show us the way.  
>>You'd been there before anyway...   ;-)
>
>{pre-emptive strike on}
>
>Can we just admit she's lead with her chin, and miss the friendly fire flame
>fest out this year please.
>

I *had* thought of the connection.  

BTW "friendly fire" is as stupid a phrase as "near-miss".

Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: agc@bmdhh298.bnr.ca (Alan Carter)
Subject: Re: Return to UK - Queries.
Organization: BNR-Europe-Limited, Maidenhead, England
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 14:53:55 GMT

In article <riaedwards.1.718095832@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au>, riaedwards@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (AUDREY EDWARDS) writes:
|> 
|> I'm returning to the UK in December (yippie, Ipswich in deepest Winter!!), 
|> and would be grateful for anwers to the following queries:-
...
|> 
|>  2) (as I will be temporarily [hopefully!!] unemployed on my return)

I left Ipswich about this time last year. At that time the place 
struck me as particularly economically depressed. The little flowing 
through the docks (mainly timber since Felixstowe containerised) seemed 
to have dropped off even more, there had just been 300 made redundant 
at Pauls' grain works near the docks, the USAF bases that helped support 
the retail sector were closing down, BT were operating Project Sovreign 
to cut staff levels, the insurance companies were experiencing losses 
and even Fisons were starting out on a difficult time for their share price.
This recession has been bad all over the UK, but Ipswich seems to have been
hit particularly hard.

Many of the shops in the town centre were closed down with boards over 
the windows. In the week I left, the Austin Reed branch was closing down.
A woman working there said that although the shop was right in front of
the door to the big new Buttermarket development that was being built,
she didn't beleive that any shops would be opening there so that would be
to no advantage.

This is a purely personal impression over 12 months old, but my advice 
would be to avoid Ipswich if you want more than a hypothetical 
aquaintance with employment.

(Note to pals @kbss.bt - I *know* the countryside is lovely but this is
midwinter!)

   Alan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Maidenhead itself is too snobby to be pleasant. It is the haunt of the
   river swell and his overdressed female companion. It is the town of showy
   hotels, patronized chiefly by dudes and ballet girls. 

   Three Men In A Boat, Jerome K. Jerome, 1889
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: chem91@Elroy.UH.EDU ("Bill Harrison (713)-743-2789")
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accents (was Re: Abuse a Brit)
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:43:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: menudo.1992Sep29.174325.13794
Reply-To: chem91@Elroy.UH.EDU
Organization: University of Houston

In article <vq+pf8h.sue@netcom.com>, sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) writes:
>>  Studious readers of Mr Fodor's guides will have been warned
>>  that the term "Britisher" is considered mildly abusive in
>>  Britain.  I would give bonus points to anybody using it for
>>  at least getting on the right side of the equator.  I've
>>  been identified as an Australian, a New Zealander and even a
>>  South Efriken.
>>  
>>  Alec Chambers.
>
>
>Yes, but have you been thus misidentified by a fellow Englishman?
>Didn't I have a laugh when this happened to my SO!  He was most
>disgruntled.  
>
>Also, one American asked him if were German.  That was even funnier.  
>
>David Brooks has mentioned that Brits that have moved to the US obtain
>a "mid-Atlantic" accent.  I think this only happens if they
>move to the mid-Atlantic.  :-)
>

----------
I think that it's geographic... East coasters assume you're a Brit, west
coasters assume an Aussie. However, I was in a bar once in the West
and somebody said to me "you're Australian". His mate said "No, Scottish".
(I have a fair approximation of "standard BBC English accent").

Stay loose chaps,
Bill

+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\               /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Bill Harrison,            \             /       "Be as radical as... |
| University of Houston, TX  >-----------<         reality itself"     |
| CHEM91@JETSON.BITNET      /             \                V. I. Lenin |
+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/               \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:13342 rec.music.misc:24403
From: igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Enforced Shakespeare?
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:29:16 GMT
Organization: Fulcrum Communications

In article <1992Oct2.185346.19917@nas.nasa.gov> wismith@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (William R. Smith) writes:
> Current research has now proved conclusively that Shakespeare's plays
> were written by a different person of the same name.

Several critics have suggested that we should consider the plays to have
been written by an unknown contemporary of the same name.  They do this
in order to remove the accretions of folklore around an author about
whom very little is known.

ian