HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: Women priests can't sing
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:34:55 GMT

In article <19952.2b0a0f30@ul.ie> mckeonj@ul.ie writes:

   However there is one drawback to having a woman a priest, one that 
   seems to have been overlooked in the debate.
   Women can't intone.

But who wants sung rites anyway? Ghastly things.

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Splitting up s.c.b and debate on Uk.* groups going international, vo
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:44:19 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Nov17.013155.2054@philmtl.philips.ca> ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes:

   Disseminating uk.* outside the UK:  I'm really against this even though I
   personally enjoy taking part in local UK discussion.  All of the locally
   distributed groups are (and should be) local-centric not only in the
   subject matter of the discussions that take place, but also in the
   _background, knowledge and attitudes_ of their participants.

Yes, I agree - the only difference between soc.culture.british and uk.misc
that I can see is that one goes all round the world and the other doesn't.
If uk.* groups were exported all over the place we'd effectively end up with
two soc.culture.british groups instead of one.  Bleargh!
--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)

		
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
From: walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,)
Subject: Re: French influence.
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:42:05 GMT

In regard to the French influence, I also have a theory that a "buttery"
(a pastry/bun that is eaten at breakfast and is loaded with salt and
butter, and found in the NE of Scotland - along with butter biscuits) is
a deformed and degenerate croisson (sp?).

													GW
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Death Duties
Date: 20 Nov 92 09:57:48 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: thos@suite.sw.oz.au (Thomas Cohen)
>I was having a discussion with a colleague about the Death Duties
>as imposed in Britain subsequent to WW2. What we were wondering was
>what sort of percentage were they?
>
>I recall Giles cartoons about Ye Stately Homes being sold or made
>into tourist attractions, and was also wondering how and when they
>were brought in.

They were brought in by the Liberal Chancellor of the
Exchequer, William Harcourt, in 1894 (all this from memory, but
I don't think I'm entirely wrong).

They are being progressively reduced by the Tories on the
grounds that this will increase equality of wealth (don't ask
me to explain the logic of this one, ask a Tory).

Matthew Huntbach
From: kjell@emke.chalmers.se (Kjell Siimon)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Anyone out there from Shetland Is. ?
Date: 19 Nov 92 14:02:53 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.british
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology


Hiya, folks around the misty isles!!!

I would like to get in contact with anyone from/living on Shetland Islands.
Would be happy for any reply
so, thanks in advance.

(I've also posted this question
 in soc.culture.celtic)


Kjell the Brave
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:16134 soc.culture.canada:8651
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Canadian free speech in action
Followup-To: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:16:28 GMT

LAURENCE GODFREY (godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov) wrote:
>Some of my Canadian readers have complained to the lab at which one of my accounts
>is based, in an attempt to have me prevented from using the vax from which I
>usually access usenet.  It seems that rather than endure my complaints about
>their awful and intensely boring country, they would rather try to construct
>a case for interfering with my legitimate work.
>
>So much for free speech in God's own country!  Anway, their attempt has failed,
>and if I were to stop using the vax in question there are many other places
>from which I can access usenet.

Good. It is my sincere belief that each individual has the right to spew as
much twaddle as he or she is capable of. Also, given the entertainment
value of Mr G's posts, it would be something of a loss should he be
censored.

[sci.research.careers removed from groups lists for the obvious reason]
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:16321 soc.culture.canada:8776
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:37:50 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Canadian free speech in action
 <1992Nov23.055848.4892@mdivax1.uucp> <23NOV199202083860@sscvx1.ssc.gov>

In article <23NOV199202083860@sscvx1.ssc.gov>, godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE
GODFREY) says:
>
>In article <1992Nov23.055848.4892@mdivax1.uucp>, robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
>(Jim
>Robinson)  writes...
>>LAURENCE GODFREY (godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov) wrote:
>>>
>>>At the request of a number of readers of scb, scc and src, I have posted
>>>below some recent correspondence which illustrates the dispute I am
>presently
>>>engaged in with NRC.  I have nothing to hide.
>>
>>Laurence, you have called Canadians assholes, you have said that you do
>>like Canadians and Canada, and you have made numerous other derogatory
>>remarks aimed at Canadians and Canada. I would suggest that at this point
>>you are wasting your time posting the particulars of your dispute with the
>>NRC to soc.culture.canada. Human nature being the funny thing that it is, I
>>suspect that most readers of the aforementioned newsgroup could not care
>>less about your predicament. In a sense that is too bad as an injustice is
>>an injustice is an injustice; on the other hand, life's a bitch and then
>>you die.
>>
>>[sci.research.careers deleted from groups list for the obvious reason]
>>--
>>Jim Robinson
>>robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
>>{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
>
>I know, but a few will.  And it takes only a few for the word to get around.
>
>Laurence
>

Are you sure? A few may think your cause worthy, many more have decided on the
basis of your posts that you're a complete nutter. Frankly, I think the
travelling word of the many will have a far greater influence than that of a
(I suspect very) few.
From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 20 Nov 92 11:38:09 GMT
	<1992Nov18.174903.19913@maths.nott.ac.uk>
	<1992Nov19.144846.15747@gssec.bt.co.uk>
	<1992Nov19.215337.5379@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Nov19.215337.5379@infodev.cam.ac.uk> ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:

   I quote from Lynch's "Scotland - a new history" (emphasis mine)

    "Gaelic, which had formerly been 'Scottish speech', was overtaken by
     _a brand of English_, which had been called 'Teutonic speech' and now
     became known as 'Scots'. It fast became the language of the court
     and government and Lowland society."

    "It was the Lowland perception of Gaelic rather than the extent of its
     usage which was changing: by 1450 Lowlanders were calling it Erse rather
     than Scotice. They termed their own speech _'Inglis'_; by 1500 they called
     it 'Scottis'."

He didn't mean, of course, "a brand of modern-day English English".  Nobody
disputes that Scots, ne Inglis, is an Anglo-Saxon language.  What is in
dispute is whether it's a branch of modern English or whether it's
independently descended from old Anglo-Saxon "English", a rather different
language.  Those in the know seem to prefer the latter theory, I've heard.
--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)

		
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: In your school?
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 01:52:36 GMT

godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
: In article <1992Nov15.151635.11992@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>, bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes...
: >godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
: >:
: >: You're wrong there.  If you look back at newspapers etc. around Feb. 87
: >: you'll find that my dispute with the NRC got considerable publicity, also
: >: on TV and radio stations.  And I haven't finished with them yet - I have
: >: a pending legal action over being excluded from publications by NRC (see
: >: New Scientist July 11th, 1992).  Apart from that, I believe I have done
: >: a great deal to damage the reputation of Canada in High Energy physics
: >: and intend to do a great deal more
: > 
: >Hell hath no fury like a PhD with a bruised ego.
: > 
: 
: Wrong - my ego is intact.  My fury is the result of injustice.  Hard for
: you to grasp that, huh?

Frankly, neither I nor anyone else really gives a toss.

-- 
Brian Ross                         "How do we arrange lures in our tackle box?
bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     From left to right, according to size and 
                                    frequency of use." -- Anal-Retentive Chef.
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Rule Britannia
Date: 16 Nov 92 10:17:55 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
In article <1992Nov13.102620.14167@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
|>                         We have already reached the state
|> where large parts of the country the two party system is
|> effectively Conservative-LibDem, not Conservative-Labour,
|> althogh this is disguised because in most of
|> Conservative-LibDemland, the LibDems come second to the Tories
|> so don't get any seats. If they were to do a little better,
|> we'd have a permanent three party situation, much as in
|> Germany.

>You raise a good point.    I think that the situation you
>describe here is at least party the result of Labour policies
>up to about five years ago.   As Labour's move back towards the
>centre becomes a more solidly accepted fact in the public
>consciousness - politics always has some hysteresis - we may
>see some LibDem support move back to Labour.

I think this is to somewhat misunderstand the situation, though
perhaps understandable if your knowledge of British politics
comes from the British press which has consistently misreported
the Liberal Party.

It was way back in 1974 that the Liberal Party established
itself as the principle opposition party in many parts,
particularly southern England. Since then it has become so dug
in that in those places only loonies join Labour, anyone who
simply wants to oppose the Tories and get on with running
things in a better way joins the Liberals. Arguably, in rural Devon
and Cornwall Labour never did really supplant the Liberals as
the principle opposition party.

It may be that some LibDem votes in places where the Labour
Party remains strong will drift back to Labour, and Labour
smears against the Lib Dems are spread in order to encourage
this, but I think we will see less of this in places where
Labour has been reduced to a fringe party.

Matthew Huntbach
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
From: georgere@microsoft.com (George V. Reilly)
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 19 Nov 92 04:39:36 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

A factoid that seems pertinent to this thread.

The book of _The_Story_of_English_ has a chapter on
Scots, in which it remarks about the Scots translation
of the New Testament:
	In Lorimer's _New_Testament_, only the Devil
	speaks Standard English.
________________
George V. Reilly   <GeorgeRe@Microsoft.Com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: What's the name of the Cambridge bookshop?
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 12:21:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.034346.2724@netcom.com> prwr001@netcom.com (Robert W. Row) writes:
>I am trying to remember the name of the big bookshop
>in Cambridge in England.  I had an account there in
>the early 1970s but neither I nor an English friend
>currently working over here who also bought books there
>can remember its name.  One of those memory lapses that
>gradually drives you mad.
>Anyone can help, please?
>Thanks
>Rick Row


	Bowes & Bowes.

	Alec.
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Fixed Term Parliaments
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:17:39 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Distribution: uk
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <By6Hn4.4v8@dcs.ed.ac.uk> eo@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Emma Osman) writes:
>In article <ALTI.92Nov23163748@tanera.dcs.ed.ac.uk> Thorsten Altenkirch writes:
>
>[re the current system whereby the government can call an election whenever
>it thinks it's most likely to win]
>
>>  Is there really somebody in favour of this sort of political gambling?
>
>Apart from the Tory party, you mean? I've certainly never found anyone to
>argue in favour of it - at least, not after initial knee-jerk reactions of
>"but we never did it that way before" (the governmen't usual response to
>any good idea which might threaten its monopoly of power) have been brushed
>aside.
>
>Maybe *this* is an electoral reform that Labour and the Lib Dems can
>agree on?

It was in both the Labour and the LibDem 1992 manifestos.  I think it
got into the Labour manifesto because Neil Kinnock was personally
committed to it.

Funnily enough, I don't remember Labour being in favour of fixed term
parliaments when they were in power...


--
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: mike@frey.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Splitting up s.c.b and debate on Uk.* groups going international, vo
Date: 19 Nov 1992 02:07:13 GMT
Organization: N.I.C.E.
Reply-To: mike@frey.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.81

Craig Cockburn writes:
>You assume everyone has kill files or an equivalent.
>I don't.

This is a disastrous handicap in coping with USENET -- some form of
article killing has got to be in the basic toolbox.  Otherwise, it's
like having a radio whose volume is permanently wired to "all the way
up".  I always tell people in this situation to stop what they are
doing & go find software that does the job.  Can this really be 
unavailable for the architecture or operating system you are using?
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Splitting up s.c.b and debate on Uk.* groups going international, vo
Date: 19 Nov 92 11:39:16 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Nov17.094543.24836@rdg.dec.com> cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.013155.2054@philmtl.philips.ca>, ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes...
>>Splitting up s.c.b:  There is no valid reason to do this.  The eclectic
>>subjects in this group are one of the main reasons it's a delight, and the
>>volume is far from the heaviest in usenet.  Either you _want_ to read this
>>volume, in which case after a split you'd you'd have to chase it to
>>whatever other groups were split off, or you can handle what you don't want
>>to read perfectly well by kill files.
>> 
>You assume everyone has kill files or an equivalent.
>
>I don't.

Time to get a new newsreader, then.

Seriously, though, I'm not convinced that a split would be a good
idea.  I've seen a number of my other pet groups 'explode' into masses
of more specific groups, and I'm not convinced it pays off.  More
newsgroups increases the overheads both on the news system, and on
individual readers.  (There will be some few readers who might only
read one of the new parts, but most participants seem to find that
they've got to watch several of them.)

Further, it brings a host of new problems.  As the groups become more
specific, it becomes more difficult to work out which is appropriate
for any given article.  So, people cross-post.  If you don't have kill
files, you probably also don't have cross-posting filters, so you end
up seeing those several times.  Worse (and especially with crossposted
articles), subjects tend to drift, so that even if a conversation
initially belongs in some particular subgroup, it may well shift into
less appropriate ground.

In that case, if the author is sharp, he'll try to move the chain to a
more appropriate place.  This usually ends up meaning that the
discussion continues in a fragmented manner in both groups, making it
hard to follow.

Finally, you get an additional overhead, imposed by people flaming and
counterflaming about whether any particular discussion belongs in the
current subgroup, or whether it ought to be moved somewhere else.  You
might well find that by splitting the group, you INCREASE the traffic,
by stepping up the noise.

Now there may well be grounds for splitting s.c.b -- splits are not
always a bad move -- but the precise nature of the split needs to be
very carefully considered, or else it will end up making everything
worse.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
Subject: Re: Splitting up s.c.b and debate on Uk.* groups going international, vo
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:25:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.073658.27531@netcom.com> sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) writes:
>Even the most old-fashioned and plain vanilla unix-based readers
>support kill files, and so should ALL newsreaders.  7 years ago
>we had kill files, and we had a tiny fraction of the volume of muck
>that clogs up the 'net these days.  It is mind-boggling to me that
>anyone would develop a newsreader without some sort of filtering
>capability.

I have no time to get involved in a discussion of the realities of the
PC/Mac world, except to point out that J. Random User is just as likely
to be using an Apple Notebook running a black box OCO newsreader over
SLIP/PPP, than a Sun running 'rn' (which is what I use).  For more
mind-boggles, read comp.sys.mac.dcom, bit.listserv.novell, etc. etc.
The world has moved on a lot in 7 years.
From: sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Split soc.culture.british
Date: 17 Nov 1992 19:23:16 GMT
Organization: TMC
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <92320.145057X68147@BARILVM.BITNET>, Danny Rothenberg <X68147@BARILVM.BITNET> writes:
|> In article <1dtt53INNri6@early-bird.think.com>, sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee)
|> says:
|> >
|> >So where did the culture go ? like, The Archers, or those fascinating
|> >discussions about Marmite ? and is Mornington Crescent geography ?
|>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> Has anybody got the rules, if any, for Mornington Crescent.  I have
|> never been able to work it out :-((((

Do not despair. It took me something like a year of diligently reading
this newsgroup before I understood the rules. In fact, they were revealed
in a blinding flash of insight. An Aha-Erlebnis, if the term may be
permitted. But I do not pretend to qualify as a player.

|> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Danny Rothenberg    |
|> Internet:           |   quis custodes ipsos custendiendos?
 (You're missing a verb. Try "Quis custodiet ipsos custodiendos?" 
  O Juvenal Lord, true is thy sentence.)

Daan Sandee                                           sandee@think.com
Thinking Machines Corporation
Cambridge, Mass 02142                                 (617) 234-5044
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 16 Nov 92 09:24:52 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: sewell@tsingtao.bnr.ca (Henry Sewell)
>Scouse is another dialaccent which distinguishes
>between you (2nd singular) and yous (2nd plural).

I know a number of people of Anglo-Indian or Goan background
and have noticed that they tend to use "you-all" for 2nd person
plural quite consistently, a construction which I had
previously associated with the southern USA. Is this a
carry-over from Indian languages which have a separate 2nd
person plural?

Matthew Huntbach
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
Subject: Re: Thatcher urges Israeli students to unlock 'secrets of the universe'
Organization: Fulcrum Communications
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:23:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.172803.10204@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
> "The Paul Smee centre", a new name for the Adam Smith Institute....

You can't drive a Mini traveller and be anything to do with the Adam
Smith Institute.  Even in spirit.  Trust me on this one.

Even it was eight years ago...

ian
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
From: turgd00@DMI.USherb.CA (DAVID TURGEON)
Subject: Re: Canadian free speech in action
Organization: Universite de Sherbrooke -- Dept. d'Informatique
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:34:12 GMT

In article <23NOV199202083860@sscvx1.ssc.gov> godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
>In article <1992Nov23.055848.4892@mdivax1.uucp>, robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)  writes...
>>LAURENCE GODFREY (godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov) wrote:
>>>
>>>At the request of a number of readers of scb, scc and src, I have posted
>>>below some recent correspondence which illustrates the dispute I am presently
>>>engaged in with NRC.  I have nothing to hide.
>> 
>>Laurence, you have called Canadians assholes, you have said that you do
>>like Canadians and Canada, and you have made numerous other derogatory
>>remarks aimed at Canadians and Canada. I would suggest that at this point
>>you are wasting your time posting the particulars of your dispute with the
>>NRC to soc.culture.canada. Human nature being the funny thing that it is, I
>>suspect that most readers of the aforementioned newsgroup could not care
>>less about your predicament. In a sense that is too bad as an injustice is
>>an injustice is an injustice; on the other hand, life's a bitch and then
>>you die.
>> 
>>[sci.research.careers deleted from groups list for the obvious reason]
>>-- 
>>Jim Robinson
>>robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
>>{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
>
>I know, but a few will.  And it takes only a few for the word to get around.
>
>Laurence
>

EVERYBODY knows you are a Dickhead... Word doesn't need to get around...

I suggest you get on with your life!  Go play with yourself or something...





-- 
David Turgeon                        Computer Science Student
(819) 823-BILL                       University of Sherbrooke (Quebec)

"GOOD Judgment comes from experience....Experience comes from BAD Judgment"
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british