HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nicky@akira.fdn.org (Jean-Philippe NICAISE)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.french
Subject: Re: British phones in France
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 01:51:59 MET
Organization: French Data Network
Reply-To: nicky@fdn.org
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <1993Jan7.132206.14719@osf.org> (soc.culture.british,soc.culture.french), david@postman.gr.osf.org (David George) writes:
| In article <29959@castle.ed.ac.uk>, jeremy@castle.ed.ac.uk (Jeremy Henderson) writes:
| |> Does anyone know if a British phone will work in France. If not, are
| |> adaptors available, or will I have to buy a new one?
| 
| Yes they will.  Although a 'friend' of mine had trouble getting the bell
| to work on his Pansonic due to faulty line installation by French Telecom.
| He had to rewire the line back to the junction box.  It is illegal to connect
| anything other than an approved phone, and only French 'phones get approval.

True.

| The Fine is 400 Francs and Telecom have, as Richard Stilgoe might sing "a
| statutory right of entry to your home".

As far as I've read, I've never seen any mention of this 400 F fine.
I'm also aware that France Telecom people are allowded to enter ONLY
offices and CANNOT enter any home without un "mendat de perquisition".

| The 'approved' answerphone from Matra looks something like the thing at the
| start of Mission Impossible.  Handsets are usually disfunctional.  However you
| won't want to ever use your phone 'coz the charges are a rip-off.  No single
| market here, mate.

My Alcatel approved answerphone is nice looking and very efficient:
I've never had any "non" message (i.e. a ring indicating that the
caller has hooked down before leaving a message) because it can detect
it.

| So what about all this approval business ?  Well there are only 3 or 4 exchange
| manufacturers in the world (Siemens-Plessey, Alcatel, AT&T...) and all
| exchanges are compatible.  Therefore any 'phone approved for one system must
| be safe to use on another.  Yet another case where the European consumer is
| getting stuffed.

Yes, but safe doesn't mean legal ... ;-)
The Telecom European market will certainly be one of the most difficult
to build !!

Cheers!
== nicky.

Jean-Philippe Nicaise -- Paris, France -- nicky@fdn.org, nicky@etca.fr
FDN (French Data Network) -- Association regie loi 1901 -- info@fdn.org
From: mfriley@pacman.WPI.EDU (Margaret F Riley)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Attn: Viewers of "Jeeves and Wooster"
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:12:35 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: pacman.wpi.edu

In article <1993Jan11.204251.1062@osf.org> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
>ewadams@netcom.com (Ernest Adams) writes:
>| ...Steven Fry explaining what a "gentleman's
>| personal gentleman" was. During his explanation, the sound dropped out
>| for a moment on the line "...packing his <silence>," while describing
>| Jeeves' duties.
>| 
>| Was this accident or censorship? What could Fry have possibly said in
>| that line which required censorship? Does anyone else know what the line
>| was?
>
>Making sure that the young master had a reasonable supply of cigarettes
>in his pocket, or "packing his fags".
>-- 

Oh, no wonder!   Obviously Rebecca Eaton at WGBH thought this was
a politically incorrect word, not realizing that the majority of the
US viewing public of this series does have an education that would permit
them to understand that "fags" are cigarettes.    More PC bullcrap
from the world of W. God Bless Harvard.

Margaret
From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Q: Last song played on Radio Luxemburg ?
Date: 5 Jan 93 03:37:47 GMT
Organization: Not Philips.

In refd article, i6finn@aud2.aud.auc.dk writes:
>  What was the last song (Title, artist) played on Luxemburg ?
>  (December 30, 1992, approx. 11.57 p.m. GMT)

_Approximately_ 11.57?

Clearly not by your H. Samuels Everite watch!

RIP Radio Luxemburg.  Another little bit of British, and particularly 50's
and 60's, culture gone, but not forgotten.
-- 
Ray Dunn at home        |  Beaconsfield, Quebec  |  Phone: (514) 630 3749
ray@philmtl.philips.ca  |  ray@cam.org           |  uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray
From: Albert.Gaylord@f40.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Albert Gaylord)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Record shops (LPs)
Date: 12 Jan 93 09:05:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: therose.726883539.AA00000


 > From: aledm@grant.ncd.com (Aled Morris)
 > Newsgroups: soc.culture.british

 > In article <C0I43v.5vL@world.std.com>,
 > eac@world.std.com (Eric A Cottrell) writes:
 >|> I seem to remember a commission reporting that cars are higher priced in
 >|> the UK due to driving on the left. I can understand this in cars, but
not
 >|> in other goods.

 > Yes, it must cost the Japanese a fortune to convert
 > their cars to right hand drive ;-)

Why?  They drive on the same side of the road as the British!

Albert Gaylord
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.usage.english
From: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: Back from the UK
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 23:30:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.020701.9391@news.columbia.edu>, gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

> Just got back from London, among the goodies toted back this trip are
> some more US/UK differences worthy of discussion:
>
>
> a) "Scheme"
>
> On the front of the VAT refund form, the header read:
>
>			H.M. Customs and Excise
>			 Retail Export Scheme
>
> Generally in the US, a scheme is something at its best a little 
> underhanded, and at its worst a criminal offense.  A "retail export 
> scheme" would be a smuggling operation.

   Collins English Dictionary gives:

	1. a systematic plan for a course of action.
	[...]
	3. a secret plot.
	[...]
	7. Chiefly Brit. a plan formally adopted by a commercial
	enterprise or government body, as for pensions, etc.
	8. Chiefly Scot. an area of housing that is laid out
	esp. by a local authority; estate.
	
> b) "Toilet"
>
> Britons tend to use this word as a substitute for what Americans 
> would call the "bathroom" or the "restroom" or (I hear, in some 
> parts of the country) the "washroom."  

   British houses often have the bath in a separate room from the
toilet, so the euphemism "bathroom" wouldn't work.  Of course,
"water closet", "W.C.", "the loo", etc. are often used.  (Choir 
conductor's advice on how to sing the word "Hallelujah":  "Go to the 
'loo'!")  But I'd say the Americans are more guilty than the British 
of using a "substitute"!

> c) "Store" vs "Shop"
>
> In America, the standard terminology for a place of retail sales is a 
> "store" whereas in the UK it's a "shop."

   Collins gives this as the first meaning of "store" (n.) *and* of
"shop" (n.), without labels.  Britons say "department store", not 
"department shop".  But they do say "chemist's shop" (which 
traditionally sells a smaller range of goods than the American 
"drugstore", but then there's Boots...).

> The most pronounced use of the word "shop" in the US is in the phrase 
> "coffee shop"

   Britons might say "coffee bar", or "coffee shop".

> d) The word "quite"
>
> I acquired a catalog of musical instrument kits (lutes, harpsichords,
> etc) and it had a legend to show the level of difficulty of the kits.
> The list read:
>
> 	 * = Easy
>       ** = Quite easy
>      *** = Average
>     **** = Quite Challenging
>    ***** = Challenging
>
> To my eyes this looked strange, as I would say that something "quite
> challenging" is more challenging than something "challenging," 

   It's ambiguous.  "This cup is quite full" means "This cup is 
completely full" on both sides of the Atlantic.  And on both sides of
the Atlantic, "This book is quite good" means "This book is fairly 
good."
 	
> Opinions, anyone?

   Of course!

misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
From: rogerc@discovery.uk.sun.com (Roger Collier)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Eastern hemisphere electrical power
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:17:07 GMT
Reply-To: rogerc@discovery.uk.sun.com
Organization: Sun Microsystems (UK) Ltd
NNTP-Posting-Host: discovery.uk.sun.com

In article 6928@its.bt.co.uk,  tjo@its.bt.co.uk (Tim Oldham) writes:
>
>Hey! Who *hasn't* had a 240V mains shock? I know I have...aged 11, I was
>fascinated by the fact that when you stuck a pair of scissors into the
>top socket, the little doors would open...and pins could then be jammed
>in and hold there by the doors...
>
>Quite tingly, and a bit of a shock, but my heart kept beating...
>

I bet I've had a bigger shock than you have.  8-)


         #################################
         #     Roger.Collier@Uk.Sun.COM  #
         #                               #
         #     Sun Microsystems,         #
         #     Coventry, England.        #
         #     (44) 203 692255           #
         #     DoD#226                   #
         #################################
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: david@postman.gr.osf.org (David George)
Subject: Re: --Body Shop & Wind vs. CO2
Organization: OSF RI Grenoble
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 11:45:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.093038.12364@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:

Remember swimming in the Black Rock pool while me ma went down The Laines to
buy some Ecocrap.  

|> In those days the North Laines where it was situated was a run-down area
|> full of discount shops.  Nowadays it's full of trendy boutiques

Funny it all looks like run down discount shops to me.  Must be the effects
of the recession and the fact that nearly everything is twice the price here
in Fr*glandia.

david
From: R.J.Woolley@lut.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Eastern hemisphere electrical power
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:15:39 GMT
Reply-To: R.J.Woolley@lut.ac.uk (Late Login Merchant)
Organization: Loughborough University, UK.

In article <C0HE54.vE@fulcrum.co.uk> igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.071308.15181@netcom.com> ewadams@netcom.com (Ernest Adams) writes:
>> New, but in this case I'll make an exception. Non-lethal line voltage
>> just makes better sense than 220 volts. It's like putting that smelly
>> 
>> (It also means our power cords can be discreet little things, not enormous
>> cobra-hooded snakes that make a little radio look like an arc welder...
>> but that's an aesthetic consideration.)
>
>Really?  Suppose you want a 1KW electric heater.  On 240V that'll pull a
>shade over 4 amps.  On 110V it's around 9 amps.  I reckon the heating
>effect in a cable is proportional to the square of the current, so that
>doesn't make the cable any smaller...quite the opposite.
>
>The size of a cable is dictated by the current it carries, not the
>voltage applied across it.
>
>ian
The other part not conidered by our American cousins is that all plugs in the UKhave an earth (ground) pin.

Surely this of some use?

Rob
<R.J.Woolley@uk.ac.lut>
From: sadamson@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (stuart.r.adamson)
Subject: Re: Eastern hemisphere electrical power
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 09:47:19 GMT
Summary: size

In article <1993Jan7.071308.15181@netcom.com>, ewadams@netcom.com (Ernest Adams) writes:
> Somebody wrote:
> 
> >Underpowered and over here.
> 
> Generally I'm not in favor of trying to make the Old World more like the
> New, but in this case I'll make an exception. Non-lethal line voltage
> just makes better sense than 220 volts. It's like putting that smelly
> stuff in natural gas: you don't *have* to do it, but it gives the
> innocent victim of a breakdown better odds of surviving.
> 
> (It also means our power cords can be discreet little things, not enormous
> cobra-hooded snakes that make a little radio look like an arc welder...
> but that's an aesthetic consideration.)

The above is true but for things like hair dryers & Washing machines
etc, the motor has to be twice the size to deliver the same mechanical power.

Another point would be that the electrical losses are greater at lower voltage,
and 110 volts is not "safe" as such, any voltage greater than 50v should
be shielded, and could cause harm to life.

As in most things there is a trade off betweed power/cost and safety.


Stuart Adamson (My opinions not my employers)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: Re: Buying things cheaper in the USA
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:50:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.000609.15030@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> kelley@rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com (Sean Kelley) writes:
>Morna J Findlay (morna@dcs.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
>: In article <1993Jan8.174939.16131@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> kelley@phecda (Sean Kelley) writes:
>: >morna@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Morna J Findlay) writes:
>: >: find - a Kirby Vacuum cleaner.
>: >
>: >What's a "Kirby"?  
>
>: See above.
>
>Never heard of it.
>

Kirby: a vacuum cleaner sold in yesteryear by door-to-door salesmen.
It may still not be sold at retail outlets like department stores.
They are astonishingly expensive, and laden with features that the
average person would seldom, if ever, use.
From: steven@cwi.nl (Steven Pemberton)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Glastonbury Thorn Tree
Date: 7 Jan 93 10:40:53 GMT
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam

> In article <1993Jan5.092106.12107@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
> There is a legend that Jesus was brought to Britain as a child
> by Joseph of Arimethea [...]
> They stayed at Glastonbury, and {{it is said}} there is still a
> thorn tree there which grew when Joseph planted his staff in the
> ground. 
Which is meant to bloom every year on Xmas day; it was of particular
joy to opponents of the new calendar that it bloomed on Old Christmas
Day (Christmas day according to the old calendar) in the year after
the calendar change. Or so they say.

Steven Pemberton, CWI, Amsterdam; Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl
"Let us go then you and I/while the night is laid out against the sky/like a
					smear of mustard on an old pork pie"
Nice poem Tom. I have ideas for changes though, why not come over? - Ezra
From: tang@akofin.enet.dec.com (Gabe Tang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: england(quite) ? somewhat : very (was: Back from the UK)
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:16:35 GMT
Organization: the vms company


re: Tom Christiansen etal on the meaning of "quite"........

>:>>And on both sides of the Atlantic, "This book is quite good" means
>:>>"This book is fairly good."

>>I can't agree with that.  If someone said to me that the book they were
>>reading is "quite good," I'd take that to mean that it's very good.

>It depends on the emphasis. "This book is QUITE good" means
>it's fairly good. "This book is quite GOOD" means it's very
>good. 

>I have to agree with Gabe here.  I haven't ever heard "quite" to mean 
>anything but "very".  That "quite good" should be less good than merely 
>"good" is a bizarre notion over on this side of the pond.


	While on holiday in England a few years ago I had an opportunity to
	visit with an uncle and aunt whom I had not seen for over 10 years. 
	They had prepared a nice meal and had a middle-aged gentleman friend 
	join us at dinner. Being the only American in the group, after dinner
	they promptly inquired how I found the meal of roast beef and
	Yorkshire pudding to have been. In my best American-English
	I stated that it had been "quite nice".  Furrows appeared on all
	brows and disappointment set in. The gentleman friend then went on
	to explain how odd that I had used an "English term". They had been
	expecting the American over-use of the superlative and looked
	forward to such glowing remarks as "superb, excellent, outstanding,
	marvelous" and such. 

	From this, I take it that most English are decidely too dependent upon 
	America's Hollwood film and television programs for examples of 
	American culture, speech and other stereo-types. Also, it appears the 
	word "quite" should be considered more specificly the preferred usage 
	of the English and not of Americans. 

	Wellllll...........to tell the truth............I used the phrase 
	"quite nice" purposefully...............because it really wasn't a 
	"very good" meal!  8-o  Somehow, English cooking/food isn't quite as 
	tasty to my palate as the English seem to think it should be.......
	I'd prefer Chinese cooking most any day...........hmmmmm..........
	savoury steak and kidney pie, eh........that's only what you say. :-)

-gt	
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:18531 alt.usage.english:10470
From: mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Back from the UK
Date: 12 Jan 93 09:34:29 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

In article <1993Jan12.032713.10746@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.233015.28726@csi.uottawa.ca> misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>
>>And on both sides of the Atlantic, "This book is quite good" means
>>"This book is fairly good."
>
>I can't agree with that.  If someone said to me that the book they were
>reading is "quite good," I'd take that to mean that it's very good.
>
It depends on the emphasis. "This book is QUITE good" means
it's fairly good. "This book is quite GOOD" means it's very
good. The latter would be used particularly in circumstances
where you weren't expecting the book to be good e.g. imagine
you are reading a book with a cover which makes it look like a
trashy pulp novel, but which on reading turns out to be
well-written and meaningful, and a literary friend looks at you
in a disapproving way -  you'd say "This book is quite GOOD" as
an introduction to explaining why it's better than it looks.

Matthew Huntbach
From: sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: British Imperial Weights and Measures
Date: 7 Jan 1993 02:02:43 GMT
Organization: TMC
NNTP-Posting-Host: tremor.quake.think.com

In article <1993Jan3.112639.9382@pierrot.comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Geraint.Jones@comlab.oxford.ac.uk (Geraint Jones) writes:
|> dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning) wrote:
|> (  vogelm@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Michael Vogel) writes:
|>  ) >I would like to get some information about weights and measures.
|> (  >Is the UK ever going to change from the British imperial system to the 
|>  ) >metric system?
|> 
|> I bought some marine ply last week; it came from a piece whose standard width /
|> was quoted in milimetres, and whose cut length was measured in inches.  I    /
|> used to think that this sort of thing was just an urban legend.             / g

Plenty of similar things come to a continental mind. 
Remember lineprinters ? those big things costing more than the computers
they were attached to ? Font size was American standard, i.e. 6 or 8 lpi,
and 10 cpi horizontal. You needed an integral number of lines per page, so
computer paper had a vertical page size of 8.5" or 11". The horizontal size
didn't matter, though, as the tractor adjustment was continuous. So on
the continent, lineprinter paper was 11"x40.5cm. I suppose I still have a
sample somewhere ; the boxes I use when moving have this size on their
labels and I got those in 1979.
In some countries, they used 12" paper because you could print a DIN A4
form on it. Talk about mixed systems. Caused infinite software problems
in trying to convince the O/S to print 72 lines per page.
In the '70s, when the metrication fever struck in Britain, plywood was sold
there in units of 30 cm (exactly), whereas on the Continent, of course,
they used (still do, I think) units of 30.48 cm.

Daan Sandee                                           sandee@think.com
Thinking Machines Corporation
1010 El Camino Real, Suite 310
Menlo Park, CA 94025                                  (415) 329-9300
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Martini
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:13:07 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <1993Jan11.144641.1476@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
>
>As far as I know "Martini" is a proprietary name for a brand of vermouth
>in Britain. not a generic, but then I don't drink the stuff so I'm
>hardly an expert.  The American usage has always baffled me: is it
>a proprietary name over there as well?

Another thing while I think of it: how is "vermouth" pronounced?  I
always call it "VER-m'th" (with the accent on the first syllable),
but the American pronunciation seems to be "ver-MOOTH" (with the
accent on the second syllable).  

Many years ago I remember seeing an American TV comedy sketch (can't
remember the programme or the actors, sorry) containing a running
gag which totally baffled me.  Character A is mixing a drink.
Character B walks up to him.

B (pointing to drink): "What's that?"
A: "It's a Martini."
B (tastes drink): "Needs more vermouth."

(B pulls stopper out of bottle.  There is a loud pop.)

B (tastes drink again): "Great!"

(Audience explodes into gales of laughter, even the third or fourth
time this is repeated.)

I think this may have helped to convince me that Americans will laugh
at anything if they're told to...

--
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: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Truly English?
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:45:38 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1993Jan8.113815.16952@osf.org> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
>Adrian.Waterworth@newcastle.ac.uk (Adrian Waterworth) writes:
>>	Such turns of phrase have always tended to be associated with
>>and used by the monarchy (particularly the reigning monarch). Hence it
>>is often described as "the Royal 'We'".
>
>When I were a lad, I was taught that there were three circumstances when it
>was formally proper to call oneself "we".  The monarch, a newspaper editor,
>and... I forget.  Anyone know the third?
>
>The idea was that this person in some sense embodies a plurality.
>-- 
>David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
>Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
>Shine out, fair sun, with all your heat!  Black winter freezes to his seat...
>The boneless fish close quaking lies...the stars in icicles arise!

Shopkeepers. Yes, we have no bananas. Remember her background. But I never
knew a shopkeeper who used "we" when talking about anything else.

I think she started using it when she was talking about things where she
thought there was a consensus, like the Falklands, and she used "we" to
imply everybody in Britain.

It pissed me off, even then. She thought she was more important than the
Queen, who was the only one (by definition) who could use the royal "We".
Remember the the Falklands victory parade in the City of London. She
organised it and forgot to invite the Queen. Constitutionally the Queen
should have ordered it and invited the PM. Other PMs did this sort of
thing properly, and advised/suggested it to HRH, who gave the order.

Another case was when the US invaded Grenada. Reagan sent the troops in
first, and then told Thatcher, who was reported as being "absolutely
livid". But the Queen is the head of the Commonwealth. Reagan should have
consulted her, and she would have used her First Minister as an adviser.

I heard that Wilson was the PM who had the best relationship with the
Queen because he was more down to earth than the rest. Can anybody
confirm this?

Cheers......Chris Lee
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: noel@lonemb.demon.co.uk (Noel Bradford)