HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 16:57:13 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Magnus Pyke (was: BBC election coverage

In article <27663@castle.ed.ac.uk>, jeremy@castle.ed.ac.uk (Jeremy Henderson)
says:
>
>Has Peter Snow been possessed by the spirit of Magnus Pyke?
>I think we should be told.

What ever happened to Magnus Pyke anyway, I loved him on "Don't Ask Me!"
Last I saw him he was on a video "She Blinded me with Science" about
10 years ago. Is he still alive. We don't get much news about the
fates of British TV celebrities over here, heard about Patrick Troughton's
death about a year after it happened.

By the way, is Geoffrey Palmer still around, he was mysteriously replaced
on one series, I think it was called "Executive Stress" and I'm worried
he might have passed on.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>===Jeremy Henderson===jeremy@castle.ed.ac.uk=
>
>~"I hope you realise that it's probably against the Computing Regulations
>~ to do that." - M. Holmesatollah
From: megana@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Megan Adams)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:01:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics thereof
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british

I'm surprised I haven't seen this old joke on this thread:

- What is the difference between a language and a dialect?

- A language is a dialect with an army.

megana.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: London Ambulance crisis
From: nhansen@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
Date: 12 Nov 92 09:33:06 -0600
Organization: Mankato State University

I would like more information on the London Ambulance fiasco.
Apparently on Oct. 26 a new computerized system was implemented.

	- logged calls in excess of the system capacity scrolled
	  off the top of the screen and were irrecoverable.

	- the system could not distinguish between duplicate calls.
	  Therefore some accidents had numerous ambulances show up
	  while other accidents waited in vain.

	- busy ambulance companies passed idle ambulance companies
	  on the way to a call.

	- there was no backup system to rely on.

	- there was no independent testing performed before
	  implementation.

If you have more information, or can tell me about the political or
social fallout from this, please let me know.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nancy Hansen, Computer Science Dept., Mankato State University,
Mankato, MN 56001
Internet address:  NHANSEN@VAX1.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:43:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Request for Oxford Poly's E-mail Address
Organization: Hewlett-Packard SSG/CCSY-PWD, UK.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british

Geraint.Jones@comlab.oxford.ac.uk (Geraint Jones) writes:
>proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) asks:
>( Isn't it true that they have designated all the Polytechnics in Britain
> )to be "Universities"? If so, what has Oxford Poly become? "Oxford University"?
>( "University of Oxford"? "The Other Oxford University"? Just curious ....
>
>I think it's not approved yet, because they took so long to come up with it,
>but the proposal is Oxford Brookes University.  John H. Brookes was (er um, /
>um...) principal of the predecessor institution of the Poly, which must    /
>have been a college of some other sort.  Something like that.             / g
>___
I think one of the other proposals considered was Isis University.

Andrew
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Organization: Vonnegut Tent Rentals, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 18:55:14 GMT

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com) wrote:
> 
> The United States gov't _could_not_, in theory, pass
> a law in outright defiance of the Bill of Rights or of the Constitution in
> general - that's what the Supreme Court is _for_, to knock such laws down.

Actually the Supreme Court more or less usurped that role.  In a curious 
episode - and I'll have to check the details - one Marbury moved a writ
of 'mandamus' (Latin for "get on with it, mate") to get his appointment
under the Judiciary Act approved.  This went to the Supreme Court, which
I guess was the only Federal judiciary at the time.  The Court found fault
in the Act and did nothing.  Of such stuff is history made.

--
||Halloween Candy: the office snack    |
||from Nov. 1st onwards............... |Puff the Magic Dragon
||-------------------------------------|Lived by the sea
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Who knows what's in the autumn mists
||Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY      |In the mind of Yadallee?
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15152 alt.folklore.urban:27423
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Date: 5 Nov 92 12:59:31 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Followup-To: soc.culture.british
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <Bx81st.1n0@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, streater@unixjr.SLAC.Stanford.EDU writes:
> Ah, but that's just it. There *is* an English Bill of Rights. Passed by
> Parliament in 1689 and entitled "An Act Declaring the RIghts and Liberties of
> the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown". This was passed after

An important semantic difference to point out here: The American Bill of Rights
is passed by _the_people_ of the United States, as an alteration to the
document created _by_them_ which empowers the gov't _they_created_.  The
English Bill, on the other hand, was passed by the gov't, which rules because
no one has successfully overthrown it, and which graciously _grants_ certain
rights to its citizens.  The United States gov't _could_not_, in theory, pass
a law in outright defiance of the Bill of Rights or of the Constitution in
general - that's what the Supreme Court is _for_, to knock such laws down.
But the English gov't could simply pass a new Bill or amend the old one without
getting the approval of the governed.

In the US, rights are _intrinsic_, in England they are _granted_.  Of course,
both are equally valid if you defend them as ferociously as you can.  The US
gov't has shown a dismaying ability to get large segments of the population
to agree with their ignoring the provisions of the 2nd amendment.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
From: sh@cypress.com (Steve Haigh/VDSP)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Help wanted. UK Real Estate
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:53:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor/San Jose, CA
Originator: sh@kahuna

I am thinking about buying a vacation/retirement home in England,
probably South West, in the next few years.

Does anybody out there have and stats on UK residential real estate
trends. I understand house prices are plumetting these days but
I wanted to see actuals. I am most interested in projections and
when a turn arround is likely.

Maybe you could point me to a recent article or something.

Also, does anyone out there have any experience buying property in
the U.K. and renting it out long distance. I would welcome any
practical advice. 

Thanks in advance.

Steve Haigh.
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Down with Maastricht
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 14:37:53 MST
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #1, Edmonton, AB, Canada

wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:

- In article <6250100@hpopd.pwd.hp.com>, apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)
- > Some of the Tory MP's were complaining of excessive whipping, but I didn't
- > hear any details of what convinced them to vote with the Government.
- >
- It was one of those curious affairs. Labour, Plaid Cymru, the SNP and the SDL
- voted against the government because it was a effectively a confidence vote.
- The Lib Dems voted with the government because it was a vote on Maastricht. T
- Ulster Unionists voted against the government because it was a vote on
- Maastricht. One anti-Europe Lib Dem and some Tory rebels voted against the
- government because it was a vote on Maastricht. Some Tory Europhobes voted wi
- the government because it was effectively a confidence vote. One Tory whip
- did not vote because he ran too fast through the lobby.

  Seems to me that Maastricht IS going to get beaten up like an egg.
I will still hold out hope that the anti-devolution-to-Europarliament people
will win the day. Question: Who is Europe outside of Britain knows British
sentiment?
  As for the idea of a British republic, somebody please hold out the net vomit
bag.

 BTW, with Statian President Bush out and Clinton coming in, will the USA
go down flying??
-
- --
-
- Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
- wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.


Dave Shariff Yadallee (B. Sc. (Econ/Math) (U of Alberta 1990) )
 (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
American (n) - A person resident or born on the Continient of America
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15125 alt.folklore.urban:27412
From: dbrooks@penge.osf.org (David Brooks)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:36:25 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Organization: Open Software Foundation

(what is this doing in Urban Folklore?)

linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Trelford Pinkerton) writes:
   The Gunpowder Plot occured on November 5 1605, two years after
   King James 1 (of the "King James Bible" fame) ascended to the throne.
   A group of English Catholics, of which Guido Fawkes was a member,
   decided to kill the King because he had reneged on his promises
   to stop the persecution of Catholics.

Guy Fawkes was something of a patsy, the Lee Harvey Oswald of the 17th
Century.  The plot was led by Robert Catesby and others, who were killed at
Holbeach House.

   Catholics were routinely
   tormented for practising their faith, ever since Henry VIII (of the
   6 wives) 70 years earlier in a stunning burst of arrogance had
   set the monarchy up as head of the church in England, and
   excommunicated the Pope!

Except for the 5-year reign of Mary Tudor ("Bloody Mary"), who persecuted
Protestants.

   James I was always a despotic ruler, and his son Charles I was even
   worse.  In fact Charles I forced a civil war in England, lost, and
   was executed.

What's interesting about Charles, though, was that he genuinely believed in
the Divine Right of Kings to reign, and he genuinely had, or thought he
had, the best interests of the common people at heart.  But he was utterly
disdainful of Parliament.  Reminds me strongly of Ross Perot.  He was
short, too.

   For 12 brief glorious years England was a republic,
   from January 1 1649 to 1660.  Then the cup of liberty was dashed from
   the people's lips when the son of the old king, an even bigger dickwad
   and dilettante than his father, grabbed the throne back.

Poppycock.  The Commonwealth and Protectorate were miserable, and really a
dictatorship.  When Cromwell died, Charles II was recalled by the
Convention and rode into London in triumph, to a clearer understaning of
the relationship between King and Commons.  A nova flared up in Canes
Venatici at this time; it is known as Cor Caroli.

   The cup of liberty passed on to the American people, who had the
   same thirst as the British, but were more successful in satisfying it
   a century later.

More poppycock.

   To this day, it is the law in Britain that a Roman Catholic cannot
   hold the office of Prime Minister.  And the Queen is still Supreme Head
   of the Church of England.

   Sort of makes the dirt of a Presidential election fade by
   comparison, doesn't it?  That's what you get when you don't have
   a Bill of Rights.

That's if you don't count the Petition of Right (1628), the Habeas Corpus
Act (1679) and the Bill of Rights (1689) which together look remarkably
like the US Bill of Rights, but over 100 years earlier.
--
David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: The amazing disappearing British Constitution
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:07:12 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <lfqqn8INNa2s@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM
 (Trelford Pinkerton) writes:

   >We've already established that mere laws cannot comprise a constitution.

   You're taking an overly narrow view of what "constitution" means.
Amusingly enough, the American College Dictionary gives as definition
7 of "constitution"

    the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation,
    state, corporation, etc., is governed: *the British constitution.*

  It is parochial in the extreme to suppose that constitutions in other
countries must be modeled on the US constitution.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Britain doesn't have a Constitution (Re: An astonishing Guy)
Date: 12 Nov 1992 03:26:24 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Nov11.222430.7573@digi.lonestar.org>, gpalo@digi.lonestar.org writes:
> 
> An argument in favor of our system is that it suits the vast
> physical extent and large population of the U.S., which lends
> itself to more heterogeneous state and local governments and
> many checks and controls to keep power from being concentrated
> in Washington.  Unfortunately the power has become concentrated
> there anyway, and Supreme Court rulings have largely limited
> the scope of regional and local diversity. 

I think that in addition to Supreme Court rulings, we have
seen cases of the Federal Government taking effective control
through funding.

One example is the way that Federal highway funding has been
used as a lever to force states to adopt federal standards
on drinking age.    Another is the way that Federal funding
of pre-natal clinics was used to gag doctors who wanted to
provide information about abortion to their patients.

jon.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 01:14:17 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1dejk6INN7jo@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>     [That's the same habeas corpus mentioned in the US
>     Constitution, the one suspended by Lincoln and again in
>     1941, so it ain't entirely clear how full this cup of
>     liberty has been.  njl]"

Actually, here's all the Constitution says about habeas corpus
(Article I, Section 9):

	The privilege of the writ of \fIhabeas corpus\fP shall not be
	suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the
	public safety may require it.

Lincoln, at least, was quite justified legally -- there was a rebellion
coupled with invasions on non-rebellious territory.
From: cls@trsvax.tandy.com
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:37 CST
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: May to December tv show question
Message-ID: <-1835767284@trsvax>
Nf-ID: #N:trsvax:-1835767284:000:507
Nf-From: trsvax.tandy.com!cls    Nov 10 17:37:00 1992



I have another question today.  On our public television station here
in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, on Sunday nights they show British comedies.
They are now showing a second season of May to December.  The actress
who plays Zoe is different in this one.  Does anyone know why the 
previous actress isn't still playing the role?  I like her best.


-----------------
Domain: Christine_Siewert@trsvax.Tandy.COM
  UUCP: ...!uunet!letni!rwsys!trsvax!cls
    or: ...!decvax!microsoft!trsvax!cls

Ft. Worth, TX

Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15524 alt.folklore.urban:27937
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
From: sietsma@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Jocelyn Sietsma Penington)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:48:16 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

>>TP> (Trelford Pinkerton) said: 
>> 
>>TP> Well, it's early November again, time for a holiday celebrated in
>>TP> Britain, the way Halloween is celebrated in the USA.  November 5th
>>TP> is known as "Guy Fawkes Night", and all over Britain people fire
>>TP> off fireworks, light bonfires, and burn effigies of Guy Fawkes.
>> 
>>TP> Guy Fawkes was an Englishman who (in popular legend) tried to blow
>>TP> up the Houses of Parliament with barrels of gunpowder.  He was
>>TP> caught, tortured, imprisoned, and finally executed.
>> 
Craig Cockburn replied:
CC>
CC>It's a bit funny to think that the English and others are now 
CC>celebrating Guy Fawkes day which was the day a Scot (James VII and II )
CC>_didn't_ get blown up. Maybe they liked us after all? :-)
>

No, no.  Sellers and Yeatman gave the _real_ reason years ago -
  To remind the government that it would have been a Good Thing.

--
Jocelyn.
From: rhaller@ns.uoregon.edu (Rich Haller)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: JANET/Internet
Date: 13 Nov 92 19:16:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: rhaller.rhaller-131192104944
Followup-To: soc.culture.british
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Oregon
NNTP-Posting-Host: rhaller.cc.uoregon.edu

In article <JIM.92Nov13112929@hunter.cs.strath.ac.uk>, jim@cs.strath.ac.uk
(Jim Reid) wrote:
> 
> In article <92317.155920X68147@BARILVM.BITNET> X68147@BARILVM.BITNET (Danny Rothenberg) writes:
> 
>    What I really meant was that is it possible to 'talk' from a 'normal'
>    Internet node to somebody on JANET?
> 
> No. JANET is an X.25 based network which runs its own bizarre
> protocols, known as Coloured Book. [Because each protocol spec has a
> different colour of binder - Grey for email, Blue for file transfer
> and so on.]

That's the key point. JANET uses X.25 while Internet uses TCP/IP. Think of
it something like trying to play a VHS tape that was recorded in NTSC on a
tape machine that is expecting PAL or whatever, or VHS versus BETA. Or
trying to receive a radio program broadcast on AM with an FM only radio.
JANET is not just another part of the Internet the way that TCP/IP based
campus networks are. The relationship is more like that between EARN and
the Internet.

> The JANET IP service (JIPS) provides IP connectivity to JANET sites
> who want it. This is done by running encapsulating IP datagrams in
> X.25 packets (as defined in RFC877). JIPS is proving very popular, but
> it has not yet been taken up by all JANET sites. So, if your JANET
> contact has access to JIPS, you will be able to use the full range of
> Internet services - ftp, telnet, talk, X, etc - to communicate
> directly with him/her.

Another key point. Some JANET sites provide tcp/ip services over the same
physical network as the standard JANET x.25 traffic by encapsulation. Think
of it like driving your car from London to Paris. You drive on the normal
roads until you get to the coast. Then your car goes by ferry (or later
chunnel rail) to Calais, say, and you resume driving your car (on the other
side of the road, however).  So, if the JANET site provides JIPS, then it
will look just like another Internet site to other Internet sites.
Otherwise, while you will be able to send e-mail, but not 'talk'.

Keep in mind, however, that just because a site has JIPS does not mean it
will necessarily accept all the possible types of tcp/ip based traffic. It
may filter and discard certain kinds of packets from all or some sites, or
it may not have the necessary software running at it's end to accept
certain types of connections like 'talk'. The thing to do is to try it. You
will either get a connection or something like 'not in host tables' or
'connection refused'.

For example, I was able to telnet to hunter.cs.strath.ac.uk, but I couldn't
finger or talk to it (connection refused).
 
> 		Jim

-Rich
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: The dog in the House of Commons
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 12:07:43 GMT

In article <Bx96Ft.73I@dcs.ed.ac.uk> morna@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Morna J Findlay) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.110011.13742@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> dc@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Douglas Chester) writes:
>>It belongs to David Blunkett, Labour's shadow health spokesman, who is
>>blind (ergo it is a GUIDE dog).

	Translation for the U.S.; guide dog=seeing-eye dog

>>
>>It is probably the best behaved creature in the Commons!
>
>
>It's called "Offa"

	I was going to make a comment about Offa's great engineering
	achievement, but I won't.

	Alec.
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Quayle and the Tailless Cat
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:22:58 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX


>Hmmm... It has often struck me as odd that the Canadians I work with
>all claim to come from a country called Canada, rather than Canadia :-)
>Maybe Canada is that other place that uses the upside down maple leaf
>on its flag...
>
>   Alan

When I was in Germany I heard someone claim that the name Canada was
coined by the Austrian who discovered the place.  He went ashore with
a landing party and, finding no inhabitants, came back a few hours later 
and said, "Ist kahne da".

This seems like a doubly wrong posting doesn't it?

g.p.
From: caspar@sci.kun.nl (Caspar Terheggen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: The dog in the House of Commons
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:11:01 GMT
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands

I hope you didn't expect some political observation, because this
is about a real dog.  ;-)

Watching the debates about the Maastricht treaty, I saw a dog
lying on the floor on "Labour's side" of the House of Commons
(sp?).  This was quite a surprise, because I don't think they
would allow a dog in the "tweede kamer" of the Dutch Parliament.
I had noticed it before, but it's not always there.  Whose dog
is it?

Caspar.
--
 Caspar Terheggen  +31 80 652801  caspar@sci.kun.nl  U634008@HNYKUN11.bitnet
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry on grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: Oxford Poly
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:51:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.114911.29704@pierrot.comlab.ox.ac.uk> Geraint.Jones@comlab.oxford.ac.uk (Geraint Jones) writes:
>
>There were lots of silly ones too.  They did have a go at `Oxford City', but 
>The University wasn't happy with that.  They were very lucky not to get saddled
>with `Maxwell'.  I think they would have been better with `Headington' in the
>title somewhere (they're in Headington...  no that's too obvious). As it is,
>it seems likely that the `Oxford' will get left out of casual references to
>Brookes University.  Let me pass on the first sighting (or rather hearing)    /
>of a reference to `Brooke Bond University', which is my bet for what the     /
>kids will /actually/ call it.	    		                            / g

I read in the Times Higher that students at (the first) Oxford University
have taken to calling it "Oxford B University".
--
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