HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbrooks@penge.osf.org (David Brooks)
Subject: Re: The Archers: a beginner's guide (was Re: Archers - FAQ)
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:08:42

wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:

>   Corrections to this are very welcome!

Good with the younger generation, I see, but a few errors.  For example,
Tony is Phil's nephew.

Here goes.  My reference dates from 1985, so the youngest are missing.
This is just the Archer clan.

Generation 1
------------

John Archer m. Phoebe.  Children:

Dan (1896-?).  I think he died in '86 or so.  Today, Oct 15, would have
		been his 96th birthday.
Ben (1898-1972) m Simone Delamain, lived in Canada
Frank (1900-57) m Laura Wilson, lived in NZ.

And William Forrest m. Lisa.  Children:
Doris (1900-80)
Ted (1902-20)
Tom (b 1910) who m. Pru Harris (b 1921)

Tom and Pru fostered two boys, Johnnie and Peter.

Generation 2
------------

Dan and Doris were the heads of the family for many years.  Children:
Jack (1922-72) m. Peggy Perkins (who is now Peggy Woolley)
Phil (b 1928) m. (1) Grace Fairbrother (1929-55)
		 (2) Jill Patterson (b 1930)
Christine (b 1931) m. (1) Paul Johnson (1931-78) (2) George Barford (b 1928)

Phil and Jill are now the family elders.

Generation 3
------------

Jack and Peggy ->
Jennifer (b 1945) m. (1) Roger Travers-Macy (b 1944) (divorced 1976)
		     (2) Brian Aldridge (b 1943)
Lilian (b 1947) m. (1) Lester Nicholson (1946-70)
		   (2) Ralph Bellamy (1925-80)
Tony (b 1951) m. Pat Lewis (b 1952)

Lilian and Ralph, with James (b. 1973) buggered off to Guernsey to live off
his loot.  Stephen has enumerated Jennifer's and Tony's broods; Adam's
father was Paddy Redmond.

Phil and Jill ->
Shula (b 1958) m. Mark Hebden (b 1956)
Kenton (b 1958)
David (b 1959)
Lizzie (b 1967)

Christine and Paul Johnson adopted Peter (b 1965).

E&OE.
--
David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
Three more months!  Three more months!
From: mlemmerm@nl.oracle.com (Mick Lemmerman Publisher)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The Bloody War in Ireland.
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:53:50 GMT
Reply-To: mlemmerm@oracle.nl (Mick Lemmerman Publisher)
Organization: Oracle Europe

In article <Bw2vvD.1r1@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> cscdc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Dan Carpenter) writes:
|Without any personal opinions, -- Just the facts -- or in-depth
|analysis, what *is* all the fighting about?
|Is it a Religious Apartheid?
|Just curious for the facts.
|Dan

Aaaarrghh! Straight in the kill file with that one BEFORE
seeing two million postings full of familiar opinions.

Dan, there are facts, facts and damn facts.
From: trevc@sal.reading.sgi.com (Trevor Cotton)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Service (or lack thereof)
Date: 13 Oct 92 10:22:11 GMT
Reply-To: trevc@reading.sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA

In article <1992Oct12.162812.3159@maths.nott.ac.uk>, anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) writes:
|> 
|> 	In the last three or four years, I can remember only one restaurant
|> meal and two pub lunches spoiled by smokers [it doesn't actually bother me,
|> but my wife is very sensitive].  Even in the pubs, it seems to be only in
|> the evening that most people light up, and we don't seem to get the "fug"
|> of years ago.  Perhaps it's just the places I frequent?
|> 
|> -- 
|> Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
|> anw@maths.nott.ac.uk

Probably the fact that at around 2 pounds 10 pence for a pack of
20, us smokers are no longer prepared to give you non-smokers
the benefit of our second-hand smoke for free.
I smoke in my (smallish) flat with all the windows shut. I can build
up a nice 'fog' which sustains me and means I actually end up smoking
less cigarettes and so save money.

(FTHI :-)

-- 
--trevc--
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: Re: Irish Rejects Associated (IRA)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:28:22 GMT

In article <83umsB4w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>Time to launch nukes at the USA.
>
>So far, it is the USA that has come out in criticism against my anti-IRA stand
>without any idea how BOTH British and Irish fell about the Northern Irish
>sitiuation.
>
>For the most part, the Irish and the British are coming up with the fact,
>USers, not!!!
>
>Havng spoken to people of both British and Irish nationalites, many fell that
>the NI situation is an embarrassment to both of them.
>
>I would like to challenge all USers to think of the following:
>   What if one state in the Union decided to seceed and was not allowed to, say
>Texas.  Wouldn't you expect a group of Texans to form an independence group
>having a covert civil war in Texas and random bomb attacks in the rest of the
>country?  How would you fell.?
>
>BTW, getting the UN into NI is a very good idea, I second such a motion.
>
>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

I almost followed your post until you got to the Texas secession
paragraph.  A lousy example, and you sound as though you support
bloody independence movements to boot.  Now I think that Quebec
might be a better example, since it is real.  Haven't heard of much
bad behavior in that struggle, however, at least not like what goes
on constantly with the IRA.  I wonder why.

I'll say it for you - the IRA are vermin.  Scum-sucking low-life
indescribably vicious thugs.  But such people do not come from
nowhere.  I suspect some reading of history and a little thought
will give you an insight or two.  It's all right to say that things
are hellishly wrong - what (realistically) can be done that hasn't
been tried before?  I think you'll agree that all attempts up to
the present have not been very effective.

P.S.  The Texas secession was a bad example because most Americans
couldn't care less whether Texas stays or goes.  :-)

Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: chem91@Elroy.UH.EDU ("Bill Harrison (713)-743-2789")
Subject: Re: Privatisation snippets
Reply-To: chem91@Elroy.UH.EDU
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:34:09 GMT

(disucssion re selling off nationalised industries on the cheap
[I think ;=)  ])
>
>Mr Harrison.   You don't seem to get it.   I was one of the 
 ^^
[ahem, blush, actually Dr. ;=) , but just call me "Bill" ]

>Oh, and I'll spare you the obvious retort that if pinkos are 
>"provoked" by reality, that says a lot about pinkos.    That's 

It makes life more exciting...   ;=)

>far too nasty a thing for even me to say.
>
>jon.

But Jon, we weren't talking about small "family firms" etc. going public. This
was about the (IMHO) misguided selling-off of nationalised indistries in
Britain over the last 10 or so years well below their rasonable/fair value.
(How are the share prices set in the first place, if not to reflect the *value*
of these organisations?) One *could* take the view that "investors" were so
excited at the thought of new, lithe efficiency under private management that
the prices rocketed within hours [as did the directors' salaries ;=) ;=) ]. Or,
one could assume that the Tories cynically or incompetently (under)priced the
shares "to sell". **Either way** the move is not in the best interests
of the British taxpayer (you know, that old bloke you meet down the pub).
fact, IMHO, (s)he's being *ripped off*... 

Stay loose,
Bill

+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\               /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Bill Harrison,            \             /       "Be as radical as... |
| University of Houston, TX  >-----------<         reality itself"     |
| CHEM91@JETSON.BITNET      /             \                V. I. Lenin |
+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/               \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:14040 alt.politics.british:271 soc.culture.celtic:6747
From: newt@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Michael Steven Newton)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.politics.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Irish Rejects Associated (IRA)
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:43:21 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:

>My disgust for these extremists cannot be hidden any longer.  All they
>accomplish is that MORE restraint should be but on Northern Irish territory.

  My disgust for English subjugation is equally strong!

  "As Sir Edward Carson once smugly announced, force had created Northern
  Ireland and only force would destroy it."
	-- 'The Celtic Revolution', by Peter B. Ellis

>It seems that there are people who CANNOT respect the fact that 20 years ago,
>the British Army came in AT THE INVITATION of the then Stormont government as
>THEY turned to Westminister for help.

  Hey, it's not like this thing just started 20 years ago with Irish
  agression.  Read some history, and not just the English propoganda.

>I wonder what would happen if the British and the Irish military decided handed
>in to work on a peaceful resolution to the Northern Irsih problem.

  They've had several centuries to do so, with many other cultures and
  countries as well, what makes you think the English will make an
  exception?

>It was agreed in the 1920's that 6 Irish counties that wanted to remain under
>the Crown, went its way.

  "It was agreed".  Mighty ambiguous.  By whom?  How? 

  "One of the basic problems of Lloyd George's Treaty with the Irish
  revolutionary government in 1921 was the fait accompli of Partition,
  which had also been part of the Home Rule Bill.  The original plan was
  the separation of the nine counties of the province of Ulster from
  the rest of Ireland.  But only four out of the nine counties had clear
  Unionist majorities.  It would therefore be impossible for the Unionists
  to rule th4e entir3e province.  Therefore, Fermanagh and Tyrone were
  placed with Antrim, Armagh, Down and Derry to form a new statelet,
  'Northern Ireland', and the remaining three counties of Ulster were
  allowed to form part of the 'southern' state.  This would give the
  Unionists a permanent majority in the region of 60 to 40 per cent, by
  virtue of the fact that one hundred years of successful propoganda
  had made the word Unionist and Protestant synonymous.  Thus the word
  'democracy', applied in a Northern Ireland context, left a bitter taste
  in the mouths of the majority of the Irish people.
    The Northern Ireland Parliment came into being in May, 1920, and of
  the 52 seats in the new assembly, 40 went to Unionists and 12 to
  Republicans.  This opened the way for sectarian violence in an effort
  by the Unionist leaders to strength their positions by driving
  Catholics out of the new statelet.  On May 31, over 80 Catholic
  families were rendered homeless, eight were killed and thousands began
  to flee for safety to the south..."

  -- mn
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Subject: Re: Car Boot Levers
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:57:27 GMT

>In article <1992Oct7.114350.24738@its.bt.co.uk> tjo@its.bt.co.uk
>(Tim Oldham) writes:
>>I've always been dubious of the utility of this feature; how can
>>you lock something in the boot to keep it safe(r), if you can get into
>>the boot just by pulling a lever?

In our (Japanese) car the boot and cover to the petrol inlet are openable
from the inside, but these features may be disabled by disconnecting
links. So you can have this luxury feature if you want it, or turn it off
if you live in a bad part of London. Damn clever, those Japanese!

Dick Jackson
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: agc@bmdhh286.bnr.ca (Alan Carter)
Subject: Re: Stroud (was Re: Salaries)
Organization: BNR-Europe-Limited, Maidenhead, England
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 09:49:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.155045.20901@cas.org>, jac54@cas.org () writes:
|> In article <1992Oct13.114941.7543@bnr.uk> agc@bmdhh286.bnr.ca (Alan Carter) writes:
|> >
|> >S.W. England is variable when it comes to house prices/cost of living.
|> >For example, in Bristol it's big city prices all the way, but around Stroud,
|> >where everyone is a hippy :-) and you are closer to the agricultural base,
|> >you can live more cheaply.
|> >
|> 
|> 	Stroud? Hippy? Good heavens, have the ravens flown from
|> 	the Tower?

Yup. The big stone houses in Painswick are very impressive, but the
place has always had more Morris Minor pickups per acre than anywhere
else in the country, it's on the road west to Mid Wales from most 
bits of England, and it's got pretty countryside. Have you never taken
a look in The Pelican in the middle of Stroud?

   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: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Privatisation snippets
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:50:12 GMT
	<26760@castle.ed.ac.uk> <1992Oct12.125236.9433@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
	<26841@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <26841@castle.ed.ac.uk> fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:

   Why is this? Food is VAT exempt (unless you eat out) and food must
   surely take up a higher fraction of the incomes of the poor. What is it
   that the rich are buying that's VAT exempt?

Some of it isn't.
--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Prophecy explained. (was: Responding.....)
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:11:43 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

Quoting DSY (Dave Yabadabadoo):

_____________________________Begin Quote_______________

nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>
>DSY writes a lot of things with which I disagree: see the blow-by-blow
>account below. But here at the top I'll put a simple request to DSY:
>
>Please provide an exegesis of Revelation which gives some reasonable
>evidence to believe that the Anti-Christ's empire will (a) be a real
>historical and political entity (b) be formed from ten nations, and
>(c) have its seat in Rome. This propositions run against every serious
>commentary which I have ever seen.
>

DONE!!

Staring at Revelation 12, verses 1 and 2 describe Israel.

Quoting verse 3 "Suddenly a red Dragon appeared, with 7 heads, and ten horns,
                 and 7 crowns on his heads"

--------------------End Quote---------------------

Dave! You've got it all wrong. The red dragon is obvious: it's a reference to
Wales. The 7 heads is a punning reference to the River Severn; the ten horns is
a corruption of the original "tenor hordes" quite clearly referring to the
famous Male Voice Choirs of the Principality.

_-------------------Begin Quote------------------ 
Read Revelations 17:7-9.  Quoting verses 9 to 14:

"And now think hard: his seven heads represent a certain city built on seven
hills ... They also represent 7 kings. 5 have already fallen, the 6th now
reigns, and the seventh yet to come, but his reign will be brief. 


---------------------End Quote---------------------

Not city but *national park*. (St John must have been quite confused by this
one.) Of course the national park is Snowdonia; seven hills is about right. The
first six kings are obviously the ancient kings of Wales; the seventh is
clearly Prince Charles. His reign will be brief---Britain will become a
republic---and with the abolition of the ancient monarchy will come the return
of the antichrist. 

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   Remember what happened to the dinosaurs!
wilcox@maths.oxford.ac.uk  |    I did---and look what happened to me.
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: The BBC on KALW - FM 91.7 in the San Francisco Bay Area
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:49:06 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

Here is the schedule for BBC programs on KALW.

They also carry quite a lot of CBC (Canadian), some
German radio (but in English), etc. 

They are very happy to send you a program guide that
lists everything in detail. They don't expect you to
join or subscribe in order to get a program guide.
They will send you one free if you call them up on

                (415) 695 5740 

and ask for one. And now, the BBC schedule:


     Newsdesk               Weekdays       5:00am
     World News             Weekdays       6:00am
     World News             Weekdays       7:00am
     World News             Weekdays       8:00am
     World News             Weekdays       9:00am

     World News             Sun-Fri        9:00am

     News about Britain     Weekdays       9:10am
     World Business Report  Weekdays       9:05am
     Letter from America(*) Monday         9:15am 
     World Today            Tues-Fri       9:15am

     Newsdesk               Weekdays      11:00am
     Seven Seas             Fri            1:30pm  (Shipping news)
     Farming World          Fri            1:45pm
     Newsdesk               Weekdays       8:00pm
     Outlook                Mon,Wed       11:30pm
     Meridian               Tue,Thur,Fri  11:30pm  (Arts program) 
     Newsdesk               Daily          midnight

     Science Magazine       Thu            9:30am
                            Sat           11:30am

     World of Books         Fri            9:30am
                            Sat           11:00am


    (*) Alistair Cooke's weekly discussion of the state of the
        world in general and the United States in particular.
From: jeremy@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Currency problems
Date: 15 Oct 92 10:01:58 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Oct14.160208.9511@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
~In article <26839@castle.ed.ac.uk>, fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
~> 
~> No, I'm not. the main difference between minarchists (most libertarians)
~> and anarchists is that minarchists believe that the state is necessary to
~> provide defence of people's rights and property. That requires the
~> Police, an army, and a Justice system. 
~
~So you think it's alright to beat the population into submission, but not to
~help them get up afterwards?

You're being a little harsh here. Mike's main concern is that no-one should
steal his Hawkwind albums. You and I know that no-one wants to, but that's
another story.


-- 
===Jeremy Henderson===jeremy@castle.ed.ac.uk=          

"Telling people how to think doesn't work. They always have stupid
 ideas of their own."
From: huw@castle.ed.ac.uk (H G J Evans)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Words: American vs English (UK type)
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:08:03 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Oct7.084220.2360@pierrot.comlab.ox.ac.uk> Geraint.Jones@comlab.oxford.ac.uk (Geraint Jones) writes:
>thos@suite.sw.oz.au (Thomas Cohen) enquires:
>(  What do people over in the UK call Tractor-trailer rigs (to use the 
> ) American parlance)? We call them Semi's (from semi-trailer or
>(  semi-articulated, which doesn't really make a lot of sense).
>
>The trade calls them `artics', but the man in the street calls them
>`lorries', or perhaps in a fit of particularity `articulated lorries'.


Actually, I would have thought that artic. was the universal parlance,
although everybody I ever met who either drove, loaded, serviced,
managed or otherwise worked with lorries typically used the term 'wagon'
to refer to anything from a luton transit up to a 38 tonne artic. It is
also quite common to refer to vehicles by their gross laden weight (GLW)
if you happen to know it. For example, you might talk about 7.5 tonners,
sixteen tonners, etc. It is easy to recognise 7.5 tonners but not to
differentiate between bigger wagons. Trailers are called 'trailers', and
tractors are called 'tractors', although I did once hear an artic driver
refer to his 'unit', as in 'tractor unit'. Many other terms are used to
distinguish different types of vehicle, such as 'luton', 'flat bed', box
wagon', etc.
Finally, any large, noisy vehicle which drives through your quiet,
peaceful village is called a 'juggernaut', regardless of weight, axle
configuration, or anything else.

Huw.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,misc.jobs.misc
From: mossop@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Antony Mossop)
Subject: Re: Salaries
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:59:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.153958.11186@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.083506.136@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>>From: hiscrp@nuscc.nus.sg (C R Pennell)
>>>Question:
>>>       Assume a basic salary of 17,000 pounds a year. Before tax.
>>>       Assume that there is sufficient capital to buy house without
>>
>>17,000 is more than many people with families and mortgages or
>>rent to pay earn. It is about the average salary in the UK.
>
>Yesterday's(?) Wall Street Joural carried a comparison of pay scales
>
>................................
>
>white-collar:
>
>Britain: $74,000
>
>US     : $57,000
>
>In fact pay + benefits in Britain was higher than in the US for all
>except the highest level - CEO.
>
>Now, does any of this make sense to anyone? It seems frankly absurd

For certain white collar, maybe. I remember seeing average
wages for stock-brokers and the like in the US. I remember being
suprised at how low some of them were compared to the UK, the example
of stock-broker was some figure just over $100 000. You could
barely get a mortgage on a shoe box in the home counties on that
kind of wage. Other money based jobs also appeared to be a bit
low or similar compared to the UK. On the other hand fully qualified
engineers were also earning in the $100 000 bracket and MD's were
2 to 3 times that (some US medics are pricing themselves out of the
market, still their insurance is meant to be touching 6 figures as
well). This helps to explain the "brain-drain" a bit, ever heard of
the massive exodus of financial analysts, jobbers etc.. from the
UK to the US, I doubt it, most of the ex-pats are technical/scientific.
If you play with money for a living you're better off back home.

OK now to explain some of the discrepancy between the WSJ and reality
as I see it. I think it's probably a sampling problem, e.g.  screen
slaves and lower office minions are generally not treated as white
collar workers in the UK (at least they can't in the figure quoted
as the vast majority of office workers in the UK earn below $25 000
p.a.); highly qualified engineers are often thought to be blue
collar in the UK etc. Whatever the article appears to be wrong.

P.S. Recent grad.'s wages don't seem to be massively different
between the two countries, but the proportion of grad.'s over
here is much higher.


Tony Mossop, geophysics, Stanford