HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: berne@nova2.stanford.edu (Jean-Francois Berne)
Subject: Re: France, je vous remercie pour l'election d'Anti-Christ
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:58:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.111517.15377@cas.org> jac54@cas.org writes:
>a.      Laurence tends to follow-up by posting to the net and e-mailing
>	you the same message.
>
>b.      For obvious reasons you get the mail message before you read the
>	post.  For obvious reasons, you reply by  e-mail.
>
>c.      If you get a reply from Laurence, it may well be gratuitously
>	insulting and may bear little relevance to the original message.
>	Unless you are careful a slanging match may ensue.
>
>d.      Tired of the whole thing, you may skip his posting and leave
>	the net with the impression that he has carried the day.
>
>e.      If he doesn't think he's doing too well, he changes from his
>	SSC host to one at CERN and starts bouncing mail messages

Well I'm still new on the net, and as far as I know none of the
above has happened yet. Since I find the thread interesting -for
reasons you have no idea of- I'd like to see it continued for a
while.

JF
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: quigley@acs.ucalgary.ca (Martyn Thomas Quigley)
Subject: Re: A pinch an a punch
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 03:13:11 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

skaamjm@ucl.ac.uk (Matthew Moore) writes:
>'A pinch and a punch on the First of the month,
>and bags I no returns'
>
>One day, someone surprised me with a reply, but I can only remember
>the first line:
>
>'a slap and a kick, for being so quick....'

My (elder) brother always used to boot me up the bum and belt me 
around the ear with the commentary "a kick and a blow for being 
so slow".  Bastard.

>but the second line was also an injunction against retaliation.
>
>Matt

"And you can't get me back 'coz you're such a pratt".  Obvious really,
touch of the rhyming...

Mart

No, don't bother...
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:13121 talk.religion.misc:17291
From: korkiako@cs.Helsinki.FI (Jorma Korkiakoski)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: In response to Jon Livesey, also stand on EC, Maastricht and the
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:50:43 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki, Finland

In <1a77r8INNir6@early-bird.think.com> sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) writes:

>While Germany (in the Weimar Republic) was still a functioning parliamentary
>democracy, the largest electoral success of the NSDAP was around 35%. He
>got his power through the Ermaechtigungsgesetz (Empowerment Act) of 1933.

	Well, in the last elections that were held onMthe 5th of March, 1933,
	NSDAP got 44% of the vote.

-- 
areallyboringsignatureareallyboringsignatureareallyboringsignatureareally
+ Jorma O. Korkiakoski			        korkiako@cs.helsinki.fi +
+            "Tee varma sijoitus meill{!" Kansallis-Osake-Pankki        +
boringsignatureareallyboringsignatureareallyboringsignatureareallyborings
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:13245 rec.arts.books:17212
From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Enforced Shakespeare?
Date: 30 Sep 92 11:13:53 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <BvC0t0.IGF@fulcrum.bt.co.uk> igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes:

   In article <1992Sep29.112614.3849@darwin.ntu.edu.au> salter_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au writes:
   > I've just read in my "Grauniad Weekly" that all British school-children
   > are going to have a compulsory test on a Shakespeare play at the age of
   > 14.

   True.

Sorry to be picky, but if this is a National Curriculum thing, it'll probably
just apply to England-and-Wales.
--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)

		
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Subject: Re: Enforced Shakespeare?
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date:  4 Oct 92 03:34:25 GMT

firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:

>                                                     ...  But Burns a
>poet?  Pull the other one ...                                        

   Gee ... isn't this poetry?:

      
         The Deil he could na skaith thee,
            Or aught that wad belang thee;
         He'd look into thy bonnie face,
            And say, "I canna wrang thee."

        The Powers aboon will tent thee;
            Misfortune sha'na steer thee;
        Thou'rt like themsel' sae lovely,
            That ill they'll ne'er let near thee.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Tory's compulsory union membership law
From: Aengus Lawlor <RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:08:09 EDT
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

In article <BvnK2p.KLF@newcastle.ac.uk>, w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk says:
>RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com (Aengus Lawlor) writes:
>>In article <BvI4tu.1xn@newcastle.ac.uk>, w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk says:
>>>   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.
Does the fact that all the mainstream political parties favoured maintaining
and even strengthening European union not suggest something to you? Perhaps
that it's a politically sensible thing to do, and not some strange, illegal
undemocratic plot to do what ever it is your paranoic delusions lead you to
fear?

Cop yourself on! There is no evil plot!

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: Trevor.Kirby@newcastle.ac.uk (Trevor Kirby)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Names of naughty politicians
Date: 6 Oct 92 08:10:46 GMT
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.


In article <c80J023q24FH01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
>In article <Bvo465.26v@news.fai.com> pault@ossi.com (Paul Taylor) writes:
>   writes:
>  ...bent politicians deleted for brevity...
>>
>>Who was the politician from Yorkshire (I think) who got caught taking
>>bribes for land deals (Smith ?)
>
>T. Dan Smith. He was a councillor who was getting kickbacks from a bent
>architect called Poulson.
>

YORKSHIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

It was County Durham!!!!!!!!!! Land of high alumina cement and a load of schools,
techs etc. that started to fall to bits 5 years later. Aaah all those alfresco
meals in the gym cos the refrectory was collapsing, nostalgia.

 Trev
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Currency Problems
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:37:56 GMT
Organization: sgi

Your habit of mangling postings makes it very hard to answer them.
Unless that's deliberate, you might consider using a more conventional
style.

In article <1992Oct5.221334.5873@menudo.uh.edu>, chem91@Elroy.UH.EDU ("Bill Harrison (713)-743-2789") writes:
|> [stuff deleted]
|> >
|> >It means what I explained earlier in the same posting.   We could
|> >organize defence on a bake sale basis, but how many of us know
|>                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (what does this mean?)

It means you and me collecting money to buy a musket, and our
neighbours doing the same, rather than the Pentagon buying an
armoured division, and billing us through taxes.


|> >enough about defence to make sensible decisions?    It's simply 
|>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (and politicians do??????)

Well, the UK has ended up on the winning side most of the time,
and so does the US, so I guess it's good enough to be going on
with

|> >more efficient to have central design offices and decision making
|>                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (waffle;
|> you would state the reverse in car, TV design etc. What's the difference here?)

No, I wouldn't.   I'm pretty convinced that companies either have 
central design organizations, or they have cenral design standards 
which they enforce.

|> >|>                             US defense (sic) contractors are the
|> >|> most bloated, inefficient, corrupt, etc etc. organizations known 
|> >|> in the industrial world. We've all heard the stories about the 
|> >|> $500 toilet seats etc
|> >
|> >But this says nothing.   In the US, the vast majority of defence
|>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^ (well, you don't have to pay for them, as I said
|> I do, in my previous mesasage [and you deleted before responding to me and the
|> rest of the net]).

Oh?   I don't pay US taxes?   You sure about that?   My impression
is that I pay a whole heap of US taxes.

|> >contractors are not owned by the Govt.   They are companies.   It
|>                                                    ^^^^^^^^^ (I thought
|> that companies were "more" efficient than bureaucracies????)

Sure, and you've confused two different issues.   Is it more efficient
to buy a product from a Govt versus from a company, and is it more
efficient for the Govt to fund defence and bill the rest of us versus
us doing it on an individual basis.


|> >may be true that they are bloated, but that says nothing about the
|> >efficiency of Government paying for defence out of taxes versus the
|> >citizens attempting to do it on an individual basis.
|>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (what??? who even 
|> *suggested* anything like this???? Certainly not me...)

*I* did, in my original message.   I said that defence was one of the
areas, like education, and justice, where it make sense for the Govt.
to run things and bill the rest of us.  I then added that there were
lots of areas where this is *not* the case.   That's the message you
were replying to.

jon.
From: adam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Adam Hamilton)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Currency problems
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:38:49 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <qihtch4@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>The last Labour
>administration had taxes jacked up to 60% of GNP.
>
	The figure is marginally incorrect (but I forget what the real one
is).  More interestingly, taxes, as a proportion of GNP, are HIGHER under
this Conservative Government than under the last Labour one.  A greater
proportion is indirect, however.
From: reese@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: The LSE and County Hall
Date: 28 Sep 92 10:52:46 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620



So, County Hall went to the Japanese consortium for
redevelopment as a wonderful new luxury hotel.

The LSE only wanted to make it into one of the finest
business schools in the world, attracting high-calibre
people from all over Europe.

Obviously, no competition. Great.

Jason
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Abuse A Brit (was Re: Pardon my ignorance and such)
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 11:15:36 GMT



	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.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Currency Problems
Organization: sgi
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 03:52:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.171112.17766@bristol.ac.uk>, smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
>
> The short-range view of British investors, I would claim, is a direct
> result of the commercial environment created by the 'crazy schemes' of
> the Tory party.  Companies can't afford to invest in long-term
> research.  It makes their percentage return on capital look bad,
> depresses their stock value by making it less interesting to
> quick-turnover market speculators, and renders them vulnerable to
> takeover and asset-stripping.  The market (which I do feel is useful in
> concept) has gone mad, and the only defense available to companies is
> to make sure that their short-term, 'right now' profit stays high.
>
> If I had to pin this on a single belief, I'd blame it on the
> Thatcherite 'there is no society, there are only individuals'
> viewpoint.  If it's to be every man for himself, there's no point in
> worrying about the effects in the future.  You'll be dead by then,
> after all, so best to get everything you can for yourself now.

And what are the alternatives here?   Let investors see the 
effects of good and bad management, and move their investment 
around accordingly?

Or take decision-making away from investors, and take companies
under government management?

jon.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:13290 talk.religion.misc:17462 soc.culture.europe:8721
From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: France, je vous remercie pour l'election d'Anti-Christ
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:53:54 GMT
Organization: On the Brew.

Laurence Godfrey:
>The EC
>would be fine without the Germans - this has nothing to do with the Tories
>pathetic attempts to blame the Germans for the mismanagement of the British
>economy, it just has to do with the fact that the Germans are extremely
>objectionable people, and I won't support any organisation that requires
>having contactswith them.

Ray Dunn:
>The short response to this is "It takes one to know one".

Laurence Godfrey:
>The short response to that is "Are all jurors who convict, guilty of the
>offences"

It's astounding that Godfrey can equate his narrow-minded, racist
statements with the impartial conclusions of a juror.
-- 
Ray Dunn at home    |    ray@philmtl.philips.ca    |    (514) 630 3749
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.europe
From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)
Subject: Re: France, je vous remercie pour l'election d'Anti-Christ
Organization: On the Brew.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 16:56:24 GMT

In referenced article, godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
>The EC
>would be fine without the Germans - this has nothing to do with the Tories
>pathetic attempts to blame the Germans for the mismanagement of the British
>economy, it just has to do with the fact that the Germans are extremely
>objectionable people, and I won't support any organisation that requires
>having contactswith them.

The short response to this is "It takes one to know one".
-- 
Ray Dunn at home    |    ray@philmtl.philips.ca    |    (514) 630 3749
From: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Currency Problems
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:00:40 GMT
Reply-To: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Organization: Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.

In article <1992Oct6.090555.5483@nuscc.nus.sg> hiscrp@nuscc.nus.sg
(C R Pennell) writes:
> [...]	  - are you suggesting that all this was due to them propping up
>uneconomic coal-mines and steel mills?

	I'd be surprised if Jon is suggesting that, but no doubt he will
answer for himself.

>					Six years ago (6 YEARS) the
>ability to open the car boot (trunk for US readers) from INSIDE the car
>was standard on the cheapest SUZUKI on the market. There wasn't a car
>made in Europe below the mid-luxury range which had that device.

	My second-hand Vauxhall Cavalier is 9 years old (9 YEARS) and
has that device.  It certainly isn't a luxury car, and I'd be hard-pushed
to describe it as even mid-luxury [whatever that means].  On the other
hand, it seems a little extreme to judge the entire industry on whether
you have to get out of the car before or after opening the boot when
loading or unloading, or for that matter on the number of visors [though
my car is also perfectly well-equipped there].  The most famous feature
of this genre is whether or not there's anywhere to put a coffee cup.

	A much more useful gadget is the one that sounds a buzzer if you
open the driver's door while your lights are on.  I even found a JAPANESE
car that didn't have that.  Although I had never previously parked my car
and left the lights on, I've been surprised by how often the buzzer has
rescued me recently.

-- 
Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:13352 rec.music.misc:24408
From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.music.misc
Subject: Re: Seeking contact address/phone for UK "Our Price" stores.
Date: 1 Oct 92 12:42:55 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1adgh2INN505@seven-up.East.Sun.COM> geoff@tyger.East.Sun.COM writes:

   (1) Do people find this happens often?

I don't come across this selling method often.  When I have, they've never
made a mistake.  The local Virgin Megastore uses an alternative method - they
attach a little theft prevention gizmo to each CD, cassette, and inside each
record sleeve, and the gizmo sets the door alarms off if it leaves the shop.
The security man at the door then taps you on the shoulder and looks
menacing.

   (2) Is this a worthwhile way of avoiding the dreaded longbox?

Anything's worth avoiding the stupid longbox.
--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)

		
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:13615 soc.culture.celtic:6514
From: rm4@st-andrews.ac.uk (Rosa Michaelson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Enforced Shakespeare?
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:17:29 GMT
Organization: Not St. Andrews University

I pities your ignorance and dispises your ignorance.
Have either of you read any Burns other than 'red, red rose'?
A Cotter's Saturday Night? 
Tam O'Shanter? 
surely not...
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: VNS, Wed 30-Sep-1992
Organization: sgi
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 01:48:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.161026.29890@rdg.dec.com>, cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes:
>
> A former TV reseracher has been charged with purgery following 
> his participation in a TV documentary in which the Northern 
> Ireland security forces were accused of collusion with loyalist 
> terrorists.

Well, don't leave it like that.   What on earth did he do?
Purgery, phew!

jon.
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Currency Problems
Date: 30 Sep 92 10:54:10 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Sep30.091937.12568@osf.org> sp@osf.org (Simon Patience) writes:
>Of course if you pay way over the odds for something as basic as power
>then you make *all* your products uncompetative and you haven't a hope of
>exporting anything. 

True, but again there are gradations.  Huge subsidies (over the odds)
will probably have that effect; if the required subsidy is small, on
the other hand, other effects may dominate.  (It is also not necessarily
the case that you lose just because all your goods are more expensive
than imports.  There's a supply/demand argument that can be applied to
show how this situation doesn't necessarily mean you lose out.  However,
I'm not sure I can do it justice.  And, it DOES require free trade, and
the possibility of free movement of both capital and workforce, between
the areas involved, which is yet another reason why I like the idea of
the EC.)

Even if you accept your statement as 100% true in all circumstances,
however, it still can't be used as a defense of Tory policies, as they
are artificially jacking up the price of power by subsidies to nuclear
plants (which, in their own right, are no longer economic on purely
cost per unit grounds), and they are encouraging the construction of
gas turbine plants for baseload generation.  Gas turbine plants make
economic sense as backup capacity for handling peak loads, but not for
baseload generation.  My guess is that they've still got a bee in their
bonnet about the mineworkers unions, and that it keeps them from looking
at the overall situation rationally.

-- 
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: gray@rz-berlin.mpg.de
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Some of my best friends are speculators
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:12:43 +0100
Organization: Rechenzentrum MPG Berlin

Tim Streater (>) asks of me (>>):

>>  My article was meant as a criticism of the failure of political
>>responsibility in Britain.  The contrast between the willingness
>>of the Germans to take preventative measures to forestall inflation
>>(when not hampered by a unity-obsessed chancellor) and the persistant
>>pedalling of soft options, magic cures and crisis management by
>>british politicians of all hues is dramatic and depressing.
> 
> This is an interesting assertion, to which I respond with a number of
> questions:
> 
> 1) Do you include Maggie in this group?

  Yes.  Although first elected on a platform that included kitschy
references to household accounting she also had a penchent for the
easy option, particularly when an election was in the offing.  The
Lawson boom, the Lawson blip, and the late joining of the ERM spring
to mind as specific cases.  In more general terms she ate into capital
by privitising (in my a view a good thing) but failed to invest the
money so raised, preferring to hand it out as tax cuts.  That said,
for all her faults she wasn't quite as bad in this respect as either
the current lot or the bunch she took over from.


> 2) What specifically were the preventative meaures the Germans took?

  Putting up interest rates despite a massive need for investment in
the New Bundeslaender was the biggie, although badmouthing neighbours'
currencies seems to have helped as well.


> 3) If Struan is right then the political debate in Britain must be seriously
>    badly aimed, why is this so?

  I am always right.

  Actually it baffles me too.  All the journalists I have ever met are
well aware of the wool-pulling, so why do they miss the target?  Some
are undoubtedly politically biassed, but most are not.  They are partly
kept in check by the lobby briefing system, but it cannot be so strong.
Maybe its just that I'm in a minority of one.


> 4) Why are we unable to break this boom'n'bust cycle when others can?

  Because the British Electorate, for a multitude of reasons, refuse to
vote for anyone who points out that a little national belt-tightening
might be in order.


Struan
(Rescuer of Damsels, Critic of Governments, Earner of Deutschmarks)
(AKA: "Ye Smugge Englaender")
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:13299 rec.arts.books:17287