HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:06:01 GMT

In article <1dooqcINNls9@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> martin.baines@uk.sun.com writes:
>In article 14410@dcs.qmw.ac.uk, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>[deleted earlier thread]
>>I don't believe there ever has been a Catholic PM, but there
>>have been PMs from other non Church of England denominations
>>for whom the same comments could apply.
>
>Not to mention Disrelli who wasn't even Christian: he was Jewish.
>

	Disraeli was born into a Jewish family but his father had
	him Christened.  Did he not, however, play a role in easing the
	restrictions on Jews in some fields?

	It is also the case that many of the first group to form a
	Labour government were not Socialists but old-time Methodists
	who saw the changes they brought about as doing little more
	than their Christian duty.  I think that a couple of them
	were quite proud of their ignorance of Marx.

	Alec.
From: Geraint.Jones@comlab.oxford.ac.uk (Geraint Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Oxford Poly
Date: 6 Nov 92 11:49:11 GMT
Organization: The Royal College of Tree Surgeons and Plant Therapists
Originator: geraint@pierrot.comlab

When I spouted: 

>I think it's not approved yet, because they took so long to come up with it,
>but the proposal is Oxford Brookes University.  John H. Brookes was (er um, 
>um...) principal of the predecessor institution of the Poly, which must    
>have been a college of some other sort.  Something like that.             

apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt) chimed in with:
(  I think one of the other proposals considered was Isis University.

There were lots of silly ones too.  They did have a go at `Oxford City', but 
The University wasn't happy with that.  They were very lucky not to get saddled
with `Maxwell'.  I think they would have been better with `Headington' in the
title somewhere (they're in Headington...  no that's too obvious). As it is,
it seems likely that the `Oxford' will get left out of casual references to
Brookes University.  Let me pass on the first sighting (or rather hearing)    /
of a reference to `Brooke Bond University', which is my bet for what the     /
kids will /actually/ call it.	    		                            / g
___
All for Osiris University, myself.  Department of Stygian Studies.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Accent, Dialect and Language, the politics thereof
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:48:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.153056.6453@gssec.bt.co.uk> cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk (Colin Wilson) writes:

>I am guessing, of course, but I suspect that the way in which you
>perceive Burns has been coloured by the rather crass (in my judgement)
>personality cult that has grown up around him. This has more to do with
>his image as a womaniser and a drinker than with the merits of his
>poetry, of which the particants have generally no great understanding.

Thank you, Colin, for taking the time to post a thorough defence of
Burns.  I excerpt the above, in order to admit that, on reflection,
you may very well be right in your guess.

So, you have encouraged this detractor to go back and read again some
of Burns' work, if possible setting aside any bias.  Tastes differ, of
course; but you have convinced me that my view of Burns is indefensible
without my giving him another serious try.

My apologies to you and the other fans of Burns.
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: British constitution: draft FAQ entry.
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:48:40 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.usa
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <lg534jINNce@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Trelford Pinkerton) writes:

   [...]
   Audrey says that Prof. Harry Calvert's work "An Introduction To British 
   Constitutional Law"(1985) claims
   > We would, however, search the written constitution of the US equally 
   > vainly. It has never been denied that that the USA functions under a 
   > written constitution, yet the fundamentally important power  which 
   > the Supreme Court exercises to declare invalid laws which transgress 
   > the Constitution is nowhere written into it.

   If Prof. Calvert states that, then his search was not thorough enough.
   Article III of the US Constitution starts:
   Section 1.  The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in 
   one supreme court ...

   Section 2.  The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law
   and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United
   States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their
   authority;

   You can't get much more explicit than a direct statement that the Supreme
   Court has judicial power over all laws of the US.  Perhaps Prof. Calvert is 
   confusing the exercise of this power with its establishment?   The first 
   exercise did not occur for some decades after the Constitution was ratified.

Well, Section 2 doesn't actually say that the judicial power of the US
(which is the power that the SC wields, see Section 1) includes the
power to declare laws `unconstitutional'. In fact it says that the
power extends to cases under (a) this constitution,
			     (b) the laws of the US,
			     (c) treaties made or which shall be made.
Not that they have the right to declare when (a) and (b) are
incompatible.

This no longer has anything to do with British culture, so I'll follow
up to soc.culture.usa (which I don't read :->).

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Rule Britannia
Date: 5 Nov 92 12:49:38 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Nov5.065701.150709@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> dk0a@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DIMITRIOS KOUVATSOS) writes:

   I'm surprised to hear that "everyone" complains that the UK is not a
   democratic country! Did Major roll over the tanks to Number 10 last April,
   or what? I'd suggest that, for whatever reasons, the Tories won the popular
   vote. Simple arithmetic.

No they didn't.  Simple arithmetic.

   It appears that you have no understanding whatsoever of how the capitalist
   system works. The UK, as well as the USA and the whole Britannic world,
   swept to prosperity in the 18th and 19th century because it _created_ vast
   new wealth that had never existed before - not because it stole it from
   the underdeveloped societies of the Third World, which until recently had
   never developed the cultural mindset necessary for prosperity - the spirit
   of trade, maritime dominance, individualism. 

Say that to someone from India, Africa, or any of the other places we looted,
and I'm sure you'll get a rather different view.  Britain made vast fortunes
out of the slave trade, for instance.  And "maritime dominance"?  Do you
*really* want a return to the time when we could bully nations by threatening
them with gunboats?  When we could, and did, ruthlessly overthrow governments
all over the world, purely for our own convenience?  Really!
--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Private Uni's
Date: 6 Nov 1992 20:23:04 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Nov6.161254.7913@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk writes:
>
> When I say "centuries" I mean as in "more than two".

Is that a special rule, or is it part of your "robust
political debate" rule?

jon.
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:43:19 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <6250102@hpopd.pwd.hp.com> apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt) writes:
>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.
>>-- 
>
>Perhaps you are unclear on the terms catholic, Catholic, and Anglo-Catholic;
>three different things.  Most CofE members recite the Apostolic Creed each
>week, but that doesn't make them Anglo-Catholics.
>
>Andrew (what do I know, I was raised a Baptist)

"...we believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church...".

I believe this is from the Nicene Creed.  The older Apostles'
creed goes, "I believe in the holy catholic church".  In the
Lutheran church in America we used to say "holy Christian
church", but for some years now the lower case catholic has
been restored, doubtless an ecuminical gesture.

The point is that Christians believe that there is one church,
regardless of who administers its earthly offices.  I was 
taught to believe that members of the Church of Rome also 
belong to it, but that Lutherans do not acknowledge the
authority of their clerical hierarchy and deny some of their
doctrines.  Just who belongs to the "catholic church" is
a matter of opinion depending on which denomination you 
belong to and perhaps your own judgement. Ultimately, it is 
God who knows.

g.p.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: dc@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Douglas Chester)
Subject: Re: The dog in the House of Commons
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:00:11 GMT

In article <Bx8K6E.Lws@sci.kun.nl> caspar@sci.kun.nl (Caspar Terheggen) writes:
>I hope you didn't expect some political observation, because this
>is about a real dog.  ;-)
>
>Watching the debates about the Maastricht treaty, I saw a dog
>lying on the floor on "Labour's side" of the House of Commons
>(sp?).  This was quite a surprise, because I don't think they
>would allow a dog in the "tweede kamer" of the Dutch Parliament.
>I had noticed it before, but it's not always there.  Whose dog
>is it?
>
>Caspar.
>--
> Caspar Terheggen  +31 80 652801  caspar@sci.kun.nl  U634008@HNYKUN11.bitnet


It belongs to David Blunkett, Labour's shadow health spokesman, who is
blind (ergo it is a GUIDE dog).

It is probably the best behaved creature in the Commons!
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: phil@rahul.net (Phil Gustafson)
Subject: Re: Lyrics to God Save the Queen
Organization: a2i network
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:35:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.100808.18246@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:
>Could someone post the entire libretto of Wagner's "Ring" cycle (all
>four operas, please), if possible with both a literal translation and 
>a singing translation?  Thanks.
>

Well, I can give you an outline:

  Rhinemaidens: Weia! Waga! Woge, du Welle, walle zur Weige! Wagala weia, etc.

This doesn't mean much in any language, so I'll skip the translation.

  Alberich: Wie durch Fluch er mir geriet, verflucht sei dieser Ring.

This means "Put this ring on, and you're verflucht." Nobody pays attention.

Now, Donner has a great noisy aria, but the next crucial line is on the
next night:

  Hunding: Heilig ist mine Herd: heilig sei dir mein Haus!

This means, "This is my house, and I'll feed you, but keep your hands off
my wife." Ha.  A few tuba notes later, Hunding notices a surprising
resemblance between Seiglinde, his old lady, and Seigmund, his visitor,
and says:

  Hunding: Wie gleicht er dem Weibe! Der gleissende Wurm glaenzt auch
  ihm aud dem Auge.

This has been translated as "He has the same snaky look as my wife".
S. and S. are of course twins, and spend the next act making noisy
exuberant love.

The rest of the Opera has valkyries saying "Hojotoho", and Wotan
and Brunnhlide just going on and on and never shutting up.

The next night, we have "Siegfried", perhaps the most monumentally
unfair opera ever written.  The poor tenor stomps around and makes
a sword and kills a dragon, all the time singing at the top of his
lungs.  Three hours into the show, he gets involved with competitive
singing with a well-rested soprano who is often bigger than he is.

  Siegfried: Das ist kein Mann!  Brennender Zauber zueckt mir ins
  Herz; feurige Angst fasse meine..

He has discovered that Brunnhilde is a woman.  He briefly believes
that she is his mother (actually, she's his aunt) but soon figures
things out, and the two have a monumentally noisy coupling.

The key line from the finale is:

  Brunnhilde:  Ruhe, ruhe, du Gott!

Which means, hey it's over.  Twenty hours and (at San Francisco)
$400 (plus refreshments) later, everything goes back to pretty much
the way it started, except Wotan and all the other Gods get burnt
up.

New Wagnerites are very strongly urged to find a copy of Anna Russell's
version of the Ring.  There's a dichotomy here: we're talking about the
most beautiful music to spring from a human pen, and we're talking about
a plot line that the Marx brothers would have rejected.


-- 
Phil Gustafson <phil@rahul.net>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: hugh@sci.kun.nl (Hugh Osborne)
Subject: Re: Just a quick question
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:29:55 GMT

In <1992Nov10.191649.10040@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:

>In article <A.Grant.18.721245531@ucs.cam.ac.uk>, A.Grant@ucs.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:
>> 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.
>Actually that would be an anacronym if it were the case, which it isn't. It's
>derived from the Germanic word fikken

related to the Dutch word "fokken", "to breed".  Hence the Dutch
emigrant farmer who, when asked what he did, answered "I fokk sheep."
--
Hugh Osborne                              Dept. of Informatics
                                          University of Nijmegen
                                          The Netherlands
                                          +31-(0)80-65.25.99
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: Re: British constitution: draft FAQ entry.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 23:12:27 GMT

In article <lg534jINNce@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Trelford Pinkerton) writes:
>In all humility I offer below a draft s.c.b FAQ entry on the topic of
>"Does Britain have a constitution?".
>

God, please tell me you weren't actually born here; that you're
a transplant who has "got religion".  Please.

Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15742 alt.folklore.urban:28284 misc.legal:19835
From: twcaps@tennyson.lbl.gov (Terry Chan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
Subject: Re: The amazing disappearing British Constitution
Date: 12 Nov 1992 17:49:14 GMT
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department
Reply-To: TWChan@lbl.gov (Terry Chan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.117

tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

  +>It should be noted that England is one of the oldest nations on the face of
  +>the planet, and it predates literacy by some centuries, which accounts in a
  +>large manner for why its constitution is unwritten, and instead relies upon
  +>the traditions which served as law for so many generations.

It is?  

rancke@diku.dk (Hans Rancke-Madsen) writes:
  +
  +On the other hand, Denmark, the oldest, does have a written consitution.
  +                            ^^^^^^^^^^
  +     (Well, we have the longest continuing line of kings, anyway).

The "oldest"?  What?  How about the Japanese?  Supposedly, they can 
trace their dynasty back kibollions of years (essentially to the
Sun god or whatever).

Terry "Say, don't you have a queen now?" Chan
--
Energy and Environment Division   | Internet:  TWChan@lbl.gov
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory      | 
Berkeley, California  USA  94720  | Carpe Per Diem
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: bvaughan@lotka.Princeton.EDU (Barbara Vaughan)
Subject: Re: Just a quick question
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 02:46:14 GMT


In article <A.Grant.27.721488342@ucs.cam.ac.uk> A.Grant@ucs.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:

 [ On whether "fuck" is an acronym for "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge". ]
>
>In the sense that it appeared on charge sheets, or whatever the medieval
>equivalent was. (E.g. "fined 10 groats, F.U.C.K.")...
> I might be more inclined to
>believe the stories about obscure Germanic roots if the word wasn't
>conspicuous by its absence from early English texts, in contrast to other
>four-letter words. 

I just checked my online OED.  The earliest citation of fuck is in one of
Dunbar's poems, 1503.  Its precise meaning isn't obvious from the
context, but in this 1535 citation (Lyndesay, Satyre 1363) it is:
"Bischops may fuck their fill and be unmaryit."

Do you have a citation of "fined 10 groats, F.U.C.K." before 1503?  The
OED mentions a MG synonym "ficken" (synonym implies it means "fuck", not
"strike"), but says that no relationship can be shown.

Barbara Vaughan
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15507 alt.folklore.urban:27907
From: sasbmt@jjoyce.unx.sas.com (Bruce Tindall)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Anglican vs C of E
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:27:57 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasbmt@jjoyce.unx.sas.com


In article <BxGK23.1qv.1@cs.cmu.edu>, nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>The Episcopal Church in the USA is a part of the Anglican Communion.

And to confuse things further, in the USA there are congregations
calling themselves "Anglican" churches which have split off from the
Episcopal Church because they object to the ordination of women and
to some of the language in the current American version of the Book 
of Common Prayer.  I don't think these soi-disant "Anglicans" are
recognized as part of the Anglican communion, but I'm not sure.

Bruce "Ex Uno Plures" Tindall


-- 
Bruce Tindall, Core Testing Mgr., SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C. 27513
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Salaries+cost of living in UK
Date: 7 Nov 92 15:00:21 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <CC.92Nov5174027@arran.dcs.ed.ac.uk>, cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke) writes:
> Come, friendly bombs, and fall on Slough
> It isn't fit for humans now, 
> There isn't grass to graze a cow,
> 	Swarm over, Death!
[etc]
> 		John Betjeman, c. 1937

One might have thought that things would improve in 55 years......
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Subject: Re: Oxford Poly
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:20:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.114911.29704@pierrot.comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Geraint.Jones@comlab.oxford.ac.uk (Gerain writes...
>When I spouted: 
> 
>>I think it's not approved yet, because they took so long to come up with it,
>>but the proposal is Oxford Brookes University.  John H. Brookes was (er um, 
>>um...) principal of the predecessor institution of the Poly, which must    
>>have been a college of some other sort.  Something like that.             
> 
>apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt) chimed in with:
>(  I think one of the other proposals considered was Isis University.
> 
>There were lots of silly ones too.  They did have a go at `Oxford City', but 
>The University wasn't happy with that.  They were very lucky not to get saddled
>with `Maxwell'.  I think they would have been better with `Headington' in the
>title somewhere (they're in Headington...  no that's too obvious). As it is,
>it seems likely that the `Oxford' will get left out of casual references to
>Brookes University.  Let me pass on the first sighting (or rather hearing)    /
>of a reference to `Brooke Bond University', which is my bet for what the     /
>kids will /actually/ call it.	    		                            / g
>___
>All for Osiris University, myself.  Department of Stygian Studies.

I missed the start of this thread.  In the light of some of my recent
criticsms of the new universities, I would like to say that these did
not (will not) apply to Oxford Poly, which I understand does have quite
high standards of education

Laurence

Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: sp@osf.org (Simon Patience)
Subject: Re: Religion & Morality (was Re: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?)
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:40:33 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.
> 
> Some societies allow religion too great a place; we call them theocracies.
> Others, by contrast, foolishly deny religion any place, and then find not
> only endless public strife about moral issues unresolvable within a crippled
> polity,

France currently allows no interference of religion in either government
or education. I don't see the fabric of society collapsing around me here.
Basically you are talking complete crap.

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
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?
Date: 12 Nov 1992 03:32:25 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Nov11.232304.7980@digi.lonestar.org>, gpalo@digi.lonestar.org writes:
> In any case, religion, art, and education belong, according to
> Steiner, to the cultural sphere and need to be kept free from the
> other two. Current American experience in all three certainly
> validates the last sentence.  We have our controversies over prayer
> in schools, public education vs choice, and the government funding
> of obscene art. 

If I may pick a nit here, it wasn't all that clear that all
the Art in question was even obscene - whatever that really
means.    I believe that the Helms Bill which attempted to
define obscene art for the purposes of NEA funding would have
defined *all* homoerotic art, for example, as obscene, whether
it fitted ordinary definitions of the word or not.

jon.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15122 alt.folklore.urban:27404
From: streater@unixjr.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Tim Streater)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Date: 5 Nov 92 02:34:05 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <lfgdnoINN46@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Trelford Pinkerton) writes:
> 
>Sort of makes the dirt of a Presidential election fade by
>comparison, doesn't it?  That's what you get when you don't have
>a Bill of Rights.
> 
Ah, but that's just it. There *is* an English Bill of Rights. Passed by
Parliament in 1689 and entitled "An Act Declaring the RIghts and Liberties of
the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown". This was passed after
the Catholic James II (brother of and successor to Charles II) had done some
number of things people didn't like, which resulted in his being booted out 
and WilliamAndMary being asked to reign instead. It forms part of the written
part of the Constitution.

Feels like I post this every 6 months or so when some yo-yo bleats on about
lack of Bill 'O Rights, Constitution etc. Should be part of the s.c.b FAQ,
along with Dan Archer's great aunt's maiden name.

tin.