HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Private Uni's
Date: 9 Nov 92 10:11:48 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
>In article <27812@castle.ed.ac.uk>, matt@castle.ed.ac.uk writes:
>> Err excuse me but bollox...
>>
>
>Well, quasi-bollox.
>
>> Oxford and Cambridge are NOT the *only* ones founded centuries ago.
>>
>> Durham, Bath, Bristol to name but 3 English ones. As for other British
>> then how about St Andrews, Glasgow and Edinburgh?
>
>I don't know about the rest, but I think Durham is a Henry VIII
>foundation.   Trouble is, it was founded as a theological college
>and then re-founded in the nineteenth century as a regular
>University.

I checked in my Whitaker's Alamanac at the weekend. Dates of
foundation as universities for Durham, Bath and Bristol were
1832, 1966 and 1909 respectively. As for the Scottish ones,
once again I wrote "English" meaning "English". It is amazing
how the Scots will whinge if you use it to mean "Scotland" as
well, but if you use it correctly they'll *still* whinge
because they won't realise you've used it to deliberately used
Scotland and can't resist getting in a "you're wrong because in
Scotland ...".

Matthew Huntbach
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
From: pugh@pico.math.ucla.edu (David Pugh)
Subject: Re: How to insult a Brit (reprise)
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 18:36:20 GMT

>>>   Also, we need a gender-
>>>   neutral form, or both masculine and feminine forms. If 'Britishwoman' is
>>>   preferred, so be it. But 'Briton' sounds like you paint yourself with
>>>   woad.
>>>
>>How about Britperson?
>>
>>David
>
>Would that be pronounced "Brittperson" or "Brightperson"?
>
>Gerry

Brittperson I guess. As a Brit myself I don't think Brightperson would
be appropriate.

The plural would of course be Britpeople.

Someone said that a Merkun should therefore be called Ameriperson implying
I suppose that all Merkuns are happy. Is this true?

David
From: nikolay@husc10.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Date: 12 Nov 92 07:11:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc10.NIKOLAY.92Nov11231145
 kia.fi><1dp8psINN5oj@early-bird.think.com><1992Nov11.214556.7118@digi.lonestar.org>
Organization: The Kremlin Wall of Harvard
In-reply-to: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org's message of 11 Nov 92 21:45:56 GMT

gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:

> 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:

MF
>>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

DS
> 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."

Nope, I believe the term _corpus_ refers to
_corpus delicti_, or the indicia (contituent 
elements) of a legal offence.

Philip Nikolayev
nikolay@husc.haravard.edu
From: pgunderw@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Peter G. Underwood)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Why Berwick-upon-Tweed?
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:22:33 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <NIKOLAY.92Nov9214111@husc10.harvard.edu>, nikolay@husc10.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev) writes:
> I found the following passage in George III's proclamation
> of October 30, 1776, for a general fast in connection with
> his planned suppression of the American Revolution:
> 
> 	...That a public fast and humiliation be observed
> 	throughout the part of our Kingdom of Great Britain
> 	called England, our dominion of Wales, and town of
> 	Berwick upon Tweed, upon the Friday the 13th of 
> 	December next, that so both we and out people may
> 	humble ourselves before Almighty God,.....etc.
> 
> My question is, what is so special about Berwick-upon-Tweed?
> Why is it mentioned separately?
> 
> Philip Nikolayev
> nikolay@husc.harvard.edu



Berwick-upon-Tweed was the site of many battles between the English and the
Scots, the dispute being over the position of the border.  The town fell
into desuetude as a result of theses battles and its uncertain status and
was declared a neutral town in 1551.  In 1885, in one of the periodic fits
of local government reorganization which Britain has endured, it was 
agreed that it should become part of the County of Northumberland.  Thus, 
before this time, legislation tended to include special mention of the 
town in order to ensure that the law applied there as elsewhere.

Peter G. Underwood, University of Cape Town.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: evansg@uproar.enet.dec.com (Gwyn Evans @ IME)
Subject: Re: JANET/Internet
Reply-To: evansg@uproar.enet.dec.com (Gwyn Evans @ IME)
Organization: Digital Equipment Service Industries Solutions Company Ltd
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 08:59:49 GMT


In article <92315.142837X68147@BARILVM.BITNET>, Danny Rothenberg
<X68147@BARILVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>Is JANET part of Internet, or is there just a gateway?

   Well, if you'd care to define the Internet, (isn't it just a
collection of networks joined by gateways?), I might be able to 
answer that question.

   In practice, mail from/to JANET normally goes through a gateway
machine that converts the JANET (UK *academic*) address of the form
'uk.ac...' to/from the form '...ac.uk'.

   On a more general note, many people on JANET believe that all of
the UK domain uses the JANET form of addressing. I'm afraid that 
they're misinformed but anyone who wishes to contact me to discuss
it may do so at the address below or at 'gwyn@cix.compulink.co.uk'.

--
+======================================================================+
| Gwyn Evans  | evansg@uproar.enet.dec.com |  Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK  |
| DESISCo - Digital Equipment Service Industries Solutions Company Ltd |
|  Views expressed and statements made are mine and not those of DEC   |
+======================================================================+
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Followup-To: soc.culture.british
Date: 6 Nov 1992 05:57:58 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <5829@balrog.ctron.com>, smith@ctron.com writes:
> 
> 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.

Is that the same Supreme Court that ruled in favour of slavery,
then of separate but equal - that is, completely unequal -
facilities, then in favour of special restrictions based on race
(twice) and in general has reversed itself from time to time 
over two hundred and fifty times?

All governments are after your rights.   Worshipping a bit of
paper doesn't help.   In fact, in the US it seems to get in the
way.   These days Americans seem all the more willing to have
the police kick down someone else's door, or arrest someone
else who "fits a profile", because they know that the Constitution
"protects their rights".

jon.
From: ecsv24@castle.ed.ac.uk (J Bradfield)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: British constitution: draft FAQ entry.
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:16:39 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Bradfield <jcb@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In <lg534jINNce@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Trelford Pinkerton) writes:

>If Prof. Calvert states that

[the power of the Supreme Court to invalidate unconstitutional laws is
 not written in to the Constitution]

>, then his search was not thorough enough.
>Article III of the US Constitution starts:
>Section 1.  The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in 
>one supreme court ...

>Section 2.  The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, 
>arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties 
>made, or which shall be made under their authority; 

>You can't get much more explicit than a direct statement that the Supreme
>Court has judicial power over all laws of the US.

No, you couldn't. But there isn't one. There's a statement that the
judicial powers extends to all cases arising under the constitution,
laws, and treaties. This reading is supported by the rest of Section
2, which talks about the cases, not about the law, and by the heading
"Judicial power; the cases to which it extends".
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Down with Maastricht
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:30:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.192148.14167@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:
>In article <e4TPTB9w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>
>>American (n) - A person resident or born on the Continient of America
>                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^
>Does this include Canadia?
>

	Are you sure you don't mean conidia, the asexual spores of
	ascomycete fungi (includes morels and truffles)?

	Alec.

	P.S. Conidians, I really like the place and the people.

	P.P.S. Laurence, DON'T!
From: mwilson@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Mark C. Wilson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Where to stay in Edinburgh etc
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:00:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: schaefer.1992Nov5.170024.11748
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin Dept. of Mathematics

Thanks to all who replied to my questions about Edinburgh. Someone told
me not to post to a net I don't usually read. This happens all the time
on soc.culture.newzealand without comment. Anyway, thank you and sorry.

							Mark
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 18:29:21 GMT

In article <TDS.92Nov5201550@qpc1.ATT.COM> tds@hoserve.att.com (Tony DeSimone)
writes:
>>Very few Americnas know that chunks of their own Bill of Rights
>>is inspired by, and in some cases quoted from, the English Bill.
>>
>>Notable exceptions are the gun nuts, who know that it refers to
>>a right to bear arms, but who quote it incorrectly, since they 
>>miss out the bit about "subject to law".
>
>Don> 1. What constitutes a "gun nut".
>Don> 2. Maybe the English version says "subject to law" but the American
>Don>    Bill of Rights does not.
>
>No, it doesn't say ``subject to law,'' but what could have been meant
>by the phrase ``A well-regulated militia?''

There's a lot of debate on that subject; peoples' interpretation of it
seems to depend on whether they like/want guns or not.  Here's the
interpretation written by Roy Copperud, a journalism teacher at USC,
contributor to dictionaries and author:

   [Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the
   security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your
   letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a
   clause.  It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is
   followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb
   'shall').  The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for
   maintaining a militia.

   "In reply to your numbered questions:

   [Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep
   and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

   [Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear
   arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by
   others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect
   to a right of the people."

In addition, the Supreme Court asserted in their decision in the 1990
case US v Verdugo-Urquidez that the Second Amendment was an individual
right.

   don
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Lyrics to God Save the Queen
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 11:49:33 GMT

In article <BxF87v.268@rahul.net> phil@rahul.net (Phil Gustafson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.100808.18246@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:
>>Could someone post the entire libretto of Wagner's "Ring" cycle (all
>>four operas, please), if possible with both a literal translation and
>>a singing translation?  Thanks.
>>
>
>Well, I can give you an outline:
>
>  Hunding: Heilig ist mine Herd: heilig sei dir mein Haus!

	Goodness! a sacred oven.

>
>The key line from the finale is:
>
>  Brunnhilde:  Ruhe, ruhe, du Gott!
>
>Which means, hey it's over.  Twenty hours and (at San Francisco)
>$400 (plus refreshments) later, everything goes back to pretty much
>the way it started, except Wotan and all the other Gods get burnt
>up.


	The most interesting aspect of the finale is that Brunnhilde
	is able to simultaneously bring about the heat-death of
	the universe and the Big Bang (her pet name for Siegfried as
	it happens).  It is evident from this that space-time is not
	so much curved as downright twisted.


>New Wagnerites are very strongly urged to find a copy of Anna Russell's
>version of the Ring.  There's a dichotomy here: we're talking about the
>most beautiful music to spring from a human pen, and we're talking about
>a plot line that the Marx brothers would have rejected.
>
>
>--
>Phil Gustafson <phil@rahul.net>

	Leb' wohl du kuehnes, herrliches Kind!

	Alec.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15387 alt.folklore.urban:27728
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Britain doesn't have a Constitution (Re: An astonishing Guy)
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:08:40 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <1992Nov6.170011.9982@vax.oxford.ac.uk> daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>
>But the UK will have a written Constituion if Maastricht is ever ratified :-(

Why?  Where in the Maastricht treaty does it state how Britain is to be
governed?

--
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: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,uk.politics
Subject: Re: The Maastricht vote (was Re: Dog in House of Parliament)
Date: 10 Nov 92 09:29:41 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
In article <1992Nov9.094914.12365@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>>Why is it naive? The Parliamentary Lib Dem position was that
>>even voting for postponment would have shown lack of British
>>willingness to accept the Maastricht treaty, and thus would
>>have damaged British prospects. As an opponent of Maastricht, I
>>don't believe this, but I have no reason to believe that the
>>Lib Dem MP's vote was anything but a sincere show of support
>>for an issue in which they deeply believe.
>
>Last Wednesday's vote was procedurally unnecessary.  It was engineered
>by John Major because he wanted to be seen to win something.  How you
>can talk about a sincere show of support for such a Machiavellian
>device I don't know.  The Lib Dems supported the Government at Second
>Reading.  Wasn't that sincere enough?

If the vote was so meaningless, why is it that politicians in
other European countries, including people on the left such as
Mitterand, have expressed such relief that it was passed?

>>John Major may have
>>resigned, but it is also incredibly naive to blame the current
>>mess on him rather than on 13 years of Tory government.
>
>If you're talking about Maastricht, then it isn't naive to
>blame him because it's a policy he has personally identified
>with.  If you're talking about the current air of crisis
>management within the Government, then I don't know who's to
>blame, but there's been a general lack of leadership since
>he took over.

I think it's extremely important for opponents of the
government *not* to blame Major personally. That is only
playing to the "bring back Thatcher" wing. Most of the problems
the government is fighting with now are the long term effect
of misgovernment under Thatcher. While it is unrealistic to
suppose that Thatcher could be brought back as leader of the
Tory Party, it is not unrealistic to suppose they could bring
someone in who stood on the platform of "going back to Margaret
Thatcher's principles". They managed to pull off tehlast
election by a change of leadership, don't let them managae iot
with the next one.

Matthew Huntbach
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
From: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell)
Subject: Re: In your school?
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:23:08 GMT

godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:

>I quit my job at NRC after a row with them.  You infer that it concerned the
>quality of my work, but for the record it did not.  I was not SENT back from
>Canaa - on the contrary I resigned from NRC immediately after they had
>renewed my contract.  I wonder if that is clear enough for you.

   I understood quite clearly that you had quit at NRC. My only intention was
to infer that I was quite glad you were gone from Canada. I apologise for
any unintended offense.

>I don't accept your strange ideas about class at British universities.  What
>you suggest does not happen at any of the universities I have been associated
>with.

   I don't accept your strange ideas about Canada. What you suggest does 
not happen at at any of the universities I have been associated with.



Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
From: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Followup-To: soc.culture.british
Reply-To: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:21:44 GMT

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>> 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...
>
>You might be thinking of corpus delecti.   The corpus in habeas
>corpus is the corpus of the bod being accused, not the bod that
>got bumped off.

The confusion was compounded by Dorothy L. Sayers, whose "Have His Carcase"
is actually a case of a missing body.  "Corpus dilecti" simply means the
body of the facts, not the fact of the body.

>    It says that you have to produce the accused
>bod before a magistrate within a certain period of time, or face
>various penalties.    It's a rather complicated and very important
>Act, and well worth the read.

(1) Unconvicted prisoners *except those charged with treason* could
petition to be brought to court and have the charges described (2)
indictment and trial are one a set schedule (3) no double jeopardy (4) no
imprisonment out of England.  My history book says this contains no new
principle, but made clear the exercise of an ancient right.  Sound
familiar? 

>> What's this got to do with fat lords and adjudicators?

An important constitutional provision was passed when a teller in the
House, feeling a little high-spirited, counted a very fat Lord as 10 yea's,
and forgot to correct the record before it was formally recorded.  But I
don't think it was this law.  I can't find the reference, though.
-- 
David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
Allueberall und ewig blauen licht die Fernen!  Ewig... ewig... earwig... O!
From: fevrier@sunburn.ec.usf.edu. (Ian Fevrier (EE))
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Address for Reading U
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:48:19 GMT
Organization: Univ. of South Florida, College of Engineering


Can anyone furnish me with an E-Mail address for Reading University in
Berkshire ? 

Please respond by E-Mail. Thanks in advance.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Subject: Re: Split soc.culture.british
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 12:15:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.205506.29648@rdg.dec.com> cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes:
>
>The volume of messages in this group is getting very large - has 
>anyone considered splitting the group?

I think it would be a good idea to keep the political discussions
separate from the "cultural" (and more general) ones.  There do
seem to be two distinct audiences for the group.

Of course, if uk.politics gets sent all round the world (which
I wouldn't wish), this would be unnecessary.

--
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: jeremy@castle.ed.ac.uk (Jeremy Henderson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dog in House of Parliament
Date: 6 Nov 92 12:21:32 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <SES.92Nov5173817@cmns-sun.think.com> ses@cmns-sun.think.com (Simon Edward Spero) writes:
~
~The guide dog in question belongs to David Blunkett, the Labour local
~government shadow. I know I know its name, but I can't dredge it up at
~the moment.
~
~The dog usually behaves better than most Tory backbenchers; the only real
~mishap happened during this years budget debate, when an overdose of 
~lamont caused a brief bout of projectile vomiting...

By the dog, or the Tories?



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

~"I hope you realise that it's probably against the Computing Regulations
~ to do that." - M. Holmesatollah