HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matthew@uk.tele.nokia.fi (Matthew Faupel)
Subject: Re: Dum dee dum (was Re: The Archers: a beginner's guide)
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications, Cambridge, UK
	<Bwu28G.32H@dcs.ed.ac.uk> <1992Nov6.090722.626@aber.ac.uk>
	<BxGBFz.15E@dcs.ed.ac.uk> <10989@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
	<BxLxIz.4x3@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:13:00 GMT

In article <BxLxIz.4x3@dcs.ed.ac.uk> morna@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Morna J Findlay) writes:
   In article <10989@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> colin@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
   >In <BxGBFz.15E@dcs.ed.ac.uk> morna@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Morna J Findlay) writes:
   >
   >>In article <1992Nov6.090722.626@aber.ac.uk> dpl@aber.ac.uk (David Philip Langstaff) writes:
   >>>Since then, Robin has been doing his best to avoid Caroline.
   >
   >>Yaaay!
   >
   >>Not any more! :-) :-)
   >
   >Ooh, you little tease... tell all. I've not had an update in weeks, and
   >the sedatives are starting to lose their effect.  

   Well, I've not heard all the episodes but..

   Caroline pounced on Robin in the woods and demanded to know why he was
   avoiding her. He denied it. They quarreled. He admitted Brian has said
   nasty things about her that drove him mad with jealousy. She told him
   what she thought of him for caring what Brian said ( defended herself
   most fiestily I thought) and said she'd never pretended to be "better
   than she should be", and they ended up passionately kissing and
   making up, followed immediately by "Dum de dum de dum de dum" etc

   It was most cheerful. :-) :-)

Just one minor detail - it was on top of Lakey Hill, not in the woods.
After all, where else would it be?  Lakey Hill has a monopoly on amorous
encounters in Ambridge :-)


Matthew
--
---* Amnesiac the Wizard *------------------* matthew@uk.tele.nokia.fi *---
 Opinions expressed here are not those of my company.    | NB. ntl02 is EN
 They're not even my own; I plagiarised the lot of them! | TEE EL ZERO TWO
---* matthew@ntl02.decnet.nokia.fi *------------------* Matthew Faupel *---
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Britain doesn't have a Constitution (Re: An astonishing Guy)
Date: 10 Nov 92 10:08:49 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
>What sane person would craft such an absurdity?  Far better to ensure
>that unconstitutional laws do not get enacted at all; or, if enacted,
>do not get enforced.  The English constuitution attempts the former;
>the Roman attempted the latter.  Both, of course, sometimes fail, but
>probably no more often than the US system; and when they work they do
>not work by first inflicting injury, and then trying to undo it.

I would be interested in hearing how you suppose the "English"
(you mean, of course, "British") constitution attempts the
former, given that it lacks an effective second chamber, an
effective head of state distinct from the legislature, and any
concept of federalism or any other form of division of powers
or safeguard against elected dictatorship, while allowing the
dictator to be put in place on under 40% of the popular vote.

Matthew Huntbach
From: esh2@po.CWRU.Edu (Evelyn S. Hlabse)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re:  US/British Citizenship
Date: 13 Nov 1992 19:08:39 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: esh2@po.CWRU.Edu (Evelyn S. Hlabse)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


By now you probably have all the responses you want to
this but here is my story.

I came to the US in 1956 as a permanent resident from the
Orkney Isles with my parents.  In 1963 I became a US
citizen and took the oath of citizenship in the Federal
Courthouse in Cleveland, Ohio.  Prior to that date I had
to surrender my  permanent resident card (green card).  I
was on my parents passport at that time and they had to
get a new British passport without me on it.  At the
ceremony I took an oath that required me to forsake the
citizenship of all other countries.  It is my understanding
that I am no longer a British subject.  My brother became
a US citizen a few yeas later and he claims he is a dual
citizen but I thought the US didn't recognize dual citizenship.
When he tried to get a British passport, he was told he was
a US citizen and not entitled to one.

So who know whose right.

--
From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: English Terms (40's, 50's,'60's)
Date: 14 Nov 92 02:14:47 GMT
Organization: Not Philips.

In article <1992Nov10.013958.5677@muddcs.claremont.edu>, jharrel@domo.claremont.edu (John Harrelson) writes:
> 
> Help, please...
> TeddyBoy= male, bad boy 
> Mod= ? 
> Rocker= ? 
> FEMALE ROLE NAMES, please...

Teddyboys were so-named for the Edwardian style clothes they wore
(drainpipe trousers, long jackets with velvet collars, suede crepe-soled
shoes), long greasy swept back hair with duck-tail.

Mods wore Beatles/Carnaby Street dress (very mod, you know), rode Vespas
and Lambrettas.  Rockers were skinheads before they shaved their heads,
rode Triumphs and BSA's.  Invaded south coast English seaside resorts
during Easter Weekends and Bank Holidays to enable London Metripolitan
Police Forces to be given publically funded holidays at the same locations.

The terms Mods and Rockers were not gender specific.

The term Teddygirls was not unknown.

Tedyyboys in late 50's and early 60's, mods & rockers in 60's (and perhaps
early seventies?).

Don't know the 40's equivalent.
-- 
Ray Dunn at home        |  Beaconsfield, Quebec  |  Phone: (514) 630 3749
ray@philmtl.philips.ca  |  dunn@cam.org          |  uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Organization: Not Philips.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:19:29 GMT

In refd article, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>Yes, it's obviously used to depict people actually living in
>London. Eastenders or crime dramas would seem a little strange
>if all the characters spoke in upper middle class accents. But
>you would not expect to hear a newsreader (even reading London
>local news), commentator, documentary presenter etc, speaking
>anything remotely resembling Cockney.

On the contrary, you _would_ expect to hear a local London station
presenter speaking in the same way as his audience.  But they don't.

This is a perverse part of the British class system which continues to
perpetuate the myth that intelligence and worth are equated with accent.
-- 
Ray Dunn at home        |  Beaconsfield, Quebec  |  Phone: (514) 630 3749
ray@philmtl.philips.ca  |  dunn@cam.org          |  uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray
From: rgep@emu.pmms.cam.ac.uk (Richard Pinch)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The dog in the House of Commons
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:45:23 GMT
Organization: Cambridge University DAMTP

Was it David Blunkett's guide dog?  He is blind and there is
a convention that prohibition of dogs does not in general
apply to guide dogs.

Richard Pinch
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: li@oracorp.com (Li Gong)
Subject: Re: HobNobs
Organization: ORA Corporation, Ithaca, New York
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 01:07:51 GMT

HobNobs by Carr's is available in regular US supermarkets (such as the
Star Market in Boston area).  I think this tasted the same as what I
had in the UK before.  About $2-2.50 a pack, which used to retail for
around 40p in the UK.

-- 
Li GONG       Direct line: 607-272-0736 then on tone dial 217
ORA Corporation, 301 Dates Drive, Ithaca, New York 14850, USA
Email: li@oracorp.com & Tel: 607-277-2020 & Fax: 607-277-3206
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:45:56 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1dp8psINN5oj@early-bird.think.com> sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) writes:
>In article <MATTHEW.92Nov10185411@eeyore.uk.tele.nokia.fi>, matthew@uk.tele.nokia.fi (Matthew Faupel) writes:
>|> In article <BxHx96.4Ln@newcastle.ac.uk> Trevor.Kirby@newcastle.ac.uk (Trevor
>|> Kirby) writes:
>|> > The right of habeous corpus was passed because the adjudicators counted a
>|> > really fat lord as ten votes.
>|> 
>|> Maybe I've missed something, but I always thought that Habeus Corpus was a
>|> law enacted to prevent people being tried for murder when there was no body
>|> of the deceased to prove that murder was indeed done...  What's this got to
>|> do with fat lords and adjudicators?
>
>A well-known fallacy. I believe a detective novel long ago got it wrong,
>and the fallacy has been perpetuated in the public mind.
>From my online dictionary :
>habeas corpus ( ha be as  cor pus )
>1 Law.
>         a  writ  requiring  a  person  to  be  brought  before  a
>        judge  or  court,  esp.  for  investigation  of  a  restraint
>         of  the  person's  liberty,  used  as  a  protection  against
>         illegal  imprisonment.
>
>Nothing to do with murders or corpses.
>
>Daan Sandee                                           sandee@think.com
>Thinking Machines Corporation
>Cambridge, Mass 02142                                 (617) 234-5044

I think habeas corpus means, "you have the body", i.e. the body of the inmprisoned
person.  The rest of the writ basically says "Well, you can't keep it."

g.p.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
From: librik@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David Librik)
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:22:55 GMT

In refd article, A.Grant@ucs.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:
>Hang on. You're a successful international professional. How far would you 
>have got if all your teaching had been in Scots, with English as a despised 
>foreign language?

I don't think anyone was suggesting that English would be treated as a
"despised" language in a school which teaches through the medium of Scots.

Keep in mind that pupils at Welsh-language schools (these are actually
"bilingual" schools, as English is just another subject, but is usually taught
through the medium of English) have higher scores on English GCSEs than
monoglot English pupils.  (The same is true for A-levels as well.)  This is
according to statistics released last year; bilingual education makes you
smarter.

What was even more interesting about those statistics is that they applied
as well to pupils from English-speaking families who started in Welsh-speaking
ysgolion meithrin (infant schools): of course, the strength of English in
Wales is such that you can hardly grow up without becoming fluent in it.  (And
I suspect the English-speaking families who send their kids to such schools
are the type who are very involved in supporting their child's education.
Middle-class yuppies, basically.)

So stuff your "Education First" nonsense, Dr. Alanobeithiol Williams, Labour MP
for Carmarthen.

- David Librik
librik@cory.Berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Subject: Re: Rule Britannia
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 11:47:53 GMT

In article <1dslaaINN3k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>As I said before, I don't think that I have to show that in
>each and every case, PR has led to disaster.  I merely observe
>that for every Germany, where some form of PR seems to work
>fairly well, there is some other country where it does not seem
>to work well at all.

But this is precisely my point.  By talking about "PR" as though it
were a single homogeneous entity, you obscure the issue.  If you lump
Germany together with Israel, Italy and everywhere else that doesn't
have a simple majority voting system as though they had something in
common, you can always point to some subset of those countries and say
"look where PR gets you".  You might as well lump all the countries
that don't have the German system together in order to discredit the
British one.

What would be constructive would be to look at the political stability
of countries with a German-style system as a group, and compare the
data with similar data for countries that use a simple majority
system, or a two-round system, or the Alternative Vote, or STV, or
pure PR, or whatever.  I don't know of any such study but I'm sure
someone must have done one.


--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 
Computer Laboratory                | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl 
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Goldsmith's Coll, students
Keywords: Information
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:05:00 GMT
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Nov5.031655.15287@muddcs.claremont.edu>, jharrel@domo.claremont.edu (John Harrelso writes...
> 
>I'll be attending Goldsmith's Coll London ca.1/93...Is there someone on the  
>line who can and will tell me some things re:comp.lab equipment, Brit class  
>(course) time/structure, local features of Lewisham (good/bad/indifferent),  
>nearest coffee, latest train, closest record shop, and cheapest food. 
>My thanks to any with input.  
>				John H.
>				jharrel@ptnext.claremont.edu
Yes, my wife is there.  Can you email me (I can't seem to send to you direct
at the address you give above) and I will happily give you more information.
or she will.

laurence
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: How to insult a Brit (reprise)
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:47:19 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1d9mbsINNefn@early-bird.think.com> sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.100342.26399@bristol.ac.uk>, smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
>|> Aw, I'm a Merkun, and I use the term.  Pay closer attention, you may
>|> find that a lot of people actually DO say 'American' that way.  (Dean
>|> was perhaps a bit over the top, but still, if you're not paying careful
>|> attention, you WILL hear what you expect rather than what was actually
>|> said.)  
>
>But did you see the point while you were still living in the States, or
>did you have to go and live among the Britons in order to appreciate the
>problems that your compatriots have when addressing themselves by name ?
>This is not an idle question ; I am really interested whether a hearing
>adjustment acquired as a child has to be unlearned by adaptation to one's
>surroundings, or whether a discerning adult can perceive the problem in
>the original situation.

Zap, there's a congruent example in here.  I've only just realised that
I've been mis-reading your name for the past God-knows-how-long.
Reason being that I've known lots of 'Dean's (including my mom) and
'D*an' just automatically registers as 'Dean' to my eyes.  Sorry about
that.

Anyhow, to your original question.  I'm probably not a representative
sample, since I moved around a lot in my childhood and so have been
aware of difficulties caused by accents for as long as I can remember.
However, in my case, I was aware of extreme cases (e.g. LBJ's 'fellow
Merkuns') long before I came over here.  Now that I've become somewhat
attuned to British pronounciations, I spot it in a wider range of US
accents, including many where I wouldn't previously have noticed it.

Some other peculiarities did require adaptation.  For example, I wasn't
at all aware of the American tendency (which I still share) to
pronounce many 't's as 'd's (e.g. 'glass of wawder', as opposed to the
distinct British 'glahs of waTer') until I came over here.  Now it
stands out like a sore thumb.  (And, in my own unconcious effort to
adapt to local accents, a self-protective move adopted in childhood,
when you were picked on if you talked funny, I frequently find that I'm
double-bluffing myself, and pronouncing 'd's as 't's.  Sigh.)

-- 
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
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15544 soc.culture.canada:8444
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: In your school?
Date: 10 Nov 92 09:50:52 GMT
	<3NOV199218244873@sscvx1.ssc.gov>
	<dhalliwe.720914797@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>
	<4NOV199217052369@sscvx1.ssc.gov>
Followup-To: soc.culture.british
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne---Laboratoire de
	Teleinformatique
In-reply-to: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov's message of 4 Nov 92 23:05:00 GMT

David Lodge, who presumably has some experience in the matter,
has some interesting (and rather funny) things to say about
British vs. American Universities.  Interested parties are directed
to SMALL WORLD, NICE WORK, and several others.

In my limited experience, I would say that Canadian Universities are
quite a bit more like American than British ones and have far more
mediocre US academics who couldn't make it in the States than
British academics who couldn't make it in the UK.

-A mediocre Canadian who couldn't make it in Canada and is now temporarily
working in mediocre Switzerland and, to his great surprise, participating
in this rather mediocre discussion.
--
Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
                 Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn)
Subject: Split soc.culture.british
Organization: Digital Equipment Co. Ltd., Reading, England
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:52:27 GMT


The volume of messages in this group is getting very large - has 
anyone considered splitting the group?

Craig

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Craig Cockburn, Digital Equipment Co. Ltd, Reading, England.     Suas
  Internet: cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com                           leis
  UUCP:..!decwrl!edieng.enet.dec.com!cockburn                      a'
                                                                   Gha\idhlig!
  Views here are my own, and are not necessarily those of Digital
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Date: 8 Nov 92 06:28:56 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1349@ozz.oasis.icl.co.uk>, dvp@getafix writes:
> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
> > In article <5829@balrog.ctron.com>, smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
> > |> In the US, rights are _intrinsic_, in England they are _granted_.
> > 
> > This is a distinction without a difference.
> > 
> Well I'd rather my 'rights' were intrinsic than granted, on a matter of
> principle. Who 'grants' me/us these rights?

Pardon me, but it's you who are claiming that these rights
are granted.   At the time of the Great Charter, the King
referred to "The laws of Edward":   (Quoting Marsh again)

	"The reference to the Laws of Edward as well as to
	Henry I's Coronation Oath, is significant.   Men
	were not seeking any radical change in the forms
	of Government, but rather a renewal of their old and
	remembered rights, whose roots lay in pre-Conquest
	England.   For the Laws of Edward were themselves based
	on more ancient documents, and echoed the laws of
	King Alfred the Great."

In other words, try to forget the idea of Parliament or the
Crown 'granting' you rights.   What Parliament is doing is
asserting a set of rights that you have had since about
800.    Exactly which rights could effectively be asserted
at any given time varied, depending on the power of the King,
just as the effective rights of Americans varies from
Administration to Administration.

But this distinction you have come up with: 'intrinsic'
versus 'granted', is bogus.   The Barons who confronted
King John were not asking him to 'grant' new rights.   They
were forcing him to observe very old rights.

jon.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Inuit terms (was: In your school?)
Originator: clamen@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<5NOV199203214252@sscvx1.ssc.gov> <Bx9LM2.Mw9@ecf.toronto.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:55:10 GMT

In article <Bx9LM2.Mw9@ecf.toronto.edu> ambidge@ecf.toronto.edu (Chris Ambidge) writes:

   By the way, re:  Inuit -- singular, Innu; plural,  Inuit.  No such word as
   Inuits.

Inuit is the plural, but I believe the Innu are a different people
altogether, native to north-eastern Quebec and Labrador.  I am not
sure about the singular form for "Inuit", but perhaps "Inuk"?

--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Just a quick question
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:24:38 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Nov11.084939.16567@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:
>In article <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:
>
>>> 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. 
>			   ^^^^^^^^^
>Is this a new portmanteau word?  "Anachronistic acronym"?

I thought it was Anglo-Saxon, with the same root as fecund (fertile)
and fecundate (fertilise).

>--
>Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 

Chris
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15496 alt.folklore.urban:27881
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Anglican vs C of E
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:35:29 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <BxGr2M.C3M@cck.coventry.ac.uk>, cmh004@cck.coventry.ac.uk writes:
> 
> >BTY, I miss the analogy between American slaves and religious
> >dissentors. To be a Roman Catholic or a Unitarian was a capital crime
> >in GB until one of the Toleration Acts (rightly dated) in 1803 (?)

I don't quite know where this 'capital crime to be a
Catholic' comes from.

> I don't entirely except the analogy between slaves and religious freedoms
> except that both are invasions of someones personal freedom. Since the
> time of Cromwell you could not be executed for not being a Christian. It
> was far better to torture people to change their beliefs than to kill them.
> Even so it has been legal to be a RC since about the time of the American
> Rebellion. It had somthing to do with the Irish soliders. So I would
> reckon that your date is wrong, as 1784 would be the lattest date possible.

The Bill of Rights merely says that Catholics can't be Monarch,
and complains that James II favoured his Catholic subjects
over Protestants.    The Emancipation Act of 1829 says that
Catholics can hold Pulic Office, including sitting in
Parliament, from which they were excluded under Charles
II.

The Toleration Act (which is 1689, not 1803) gave freedom
of Worship to all Protestant non-conformists, and declared
that they could hold public office.

jon.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban