HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: A.L.Radtke@bradford.ac.uk (Drew Radtke)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Rampant paranoia (was Voting slips: what happens to them,DANGER!)
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:11:39 GMT
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: s3535@muser

w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk writes:
>I think I had better resend the original post I sent which started this 
>subject off.  People appear to be joining the subject without reading 
>earlier messages. 

Ah ha! Sorry for the confusion. The odd thing is, although I looked for
the first article called "Voting slips: what happens to them,DANGER!"
it did not reach our machine. From other people's responses it did not
reach their machines either. Could there be a reason for this I wonder?
-- 
Drew Radtke * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A.L.Radtke@bradford.ac.uk
* * * * * * * * Fax: +44 274 305340 * Voice: +44 274 383180 * * * * * * * *
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Gas stoves
Date: 9 Apr 92 11:36:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: topaz.STEINLY.92Apr9123650
	<34376@ttidca.TTI.COM> <34379@ttidca.TTI.COM>
	<EWADAMS.92Apr9015132@netcom.Netcom.COM>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
In-reply-to: ewadams@netcom.Netcom.COM's message of 9 Apr 92 09:51:32 GMT

In article <EWADAMS.92Apr9015132@netcom.Netcom.COM> ewadams@netcom.Netcom.COM (Ernest Adams) writes:

   It may be that British flour isn't bleached.  You might try using
   unbleached flour.  On the other hand, our wheat is grown in gigantic
   factory farms where every effort is made to increase production and
   reduce costs regardless of the effect on quality; while yours is
   probably still grown by Farmer Brown using methods that haven't
   changed significantly since the invention of the plowshare in the
   14th century.

After some bad experiences my SO (sorry 'bout the 'Merkinism)
did some research and concluded it was due to different
gluten content, it would also appear that some search will
produce 'Merkin variants with appropriate gluten content.
Or you can try varying the recipe.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  I know people whose idea of fun				*
*  Is throwing stones in the river in the afternoon sun		*
*  Oh let me be as free as them					*
*  				- BB 1986			*
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Why wait 5 years?
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:09:36 GMT
	<RJC.92Apr15203550@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk>
	<1992Apr16.123723.18718@rdg.dec.com>
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research

In article <1992Apr16.123723.18718@rdg.dec.com>, Alan T Potter (atp) writes:

atp> Okay, I shall refrain from commenting on your typing and whether
atp> a national curriculum would have helped there.

The consensus at the schools I went to was that nothing seemed to help
my spelling except perhaps a good dose of vallium for my English
teacher. As to my typing, I wasn't aware that typing was _on_ the
national ciriculum.

rjc> [the government exists, we need the representitives].

atp> We have the representatives - they work in Westminster.  

Actually this would be fine if they ruled that English MPs didn't get
to vote on Scottish issues -- we'd get double use out of the Scottish
members. There would have been no Poll Tax in Scotland for instance.
If you are proposing that, then you are more of a devolutionist than I
thought. Otherwise, those representitives in Westminster have too
little say in Scottish affaisr to count.

atp> Are you saying that either i) a TAX-RAISING assembly or ii) a
atp> NATIONAL GOVERNMENT can be run with no staff more than is
atp> required to run the Scottish or Welsh offices?  Surely not.
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^

Are you related to Humphrey Appleby? 

Anyway, a national governm,ent would indeed have some extra expense --
they'd have to run a military for example -- but at the same token
Scotland wouldn't be paying for the English equivalents and experience
shows that economy of scale does not hold for beurocracy...

A tax raising assembly? Why would that be significantly more
expensive? These (cheap) representitves can vote on the Scottish
executive's budget -- that budget itself is nothing new, it is just
the Scottish Office demand on the treasury which they have to prepare
under the current system. Collecting it can be done by the Inland
Revenue -- I'm sure they can work out how to have a flag in their
billing computer saying whether a person lives in England or Scotland
without it costing the earth. So, what's the problem?

The Welsh situation is different since there would have to be a legal
system set up if the assembly was really to have teeth, but again tax
raising is not a significant cost.

atp> Because that's the difference between democracy and anarchy.

rjc> True, but why are you so sure we are on the better side of that
rjc> division?

atp> Because I feel safe at home at nights, because there are public
atp> services that I can use if I need to, and because the rule of law
atp> is generally upheld and is more prominent than mob rule.

Anarchy is not mob rule. Democracy is mob rule. So, to that extent we
_are_ on the better side of the division and further towards anarchy
than democracy because we recognise people are important, not just
mobs. 

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk			_O_
					 |<
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: cockburn@majors.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Election Results
Organization: Digital Equipment Co. Ltd., Newbury, England
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 07:00:52 GMT


In article <1992Apr9.234947.1@acfcluster.nyu.edu>, axd7104@acfcluster.nyu.edu writes...
>Yes, it's confirmed.  The Tories have won a "Small, but workable,
>majority," according to the BBC World Service.  Thank God.
> 
The situation in England was never in much doubt, England is probably going
to be Tory with a big majority for decades. 

However, the Conservatives still have a tiny number of MPs in Scotland,
and so the constitutional question there still remains. 

We wait to see if the Claim of Right 1988 is to be invoked.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Craig Cockburn, Digital Equipment Co. Ltd, Newbury, England.  
  ARPAnet: cockburn@majors.enet.dec.com                            Saor
  UUCP:..!decwrl!majors.enet.dec.com!cockburn                      Alba!

  Views here are my own, and are not necessarily those of Digital
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.usa
From: "Stephen C. Miller" <stcmille@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Why should Libya hand over the PanAm bombers?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 14:44:01 -0500

In article <NICKH.92Apr7151337@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>
>    I hope this won't come as too much of a shock, but last year there
>    was a substantial, if short, war fought in the Persian Gulf.  It
>    established a new principle in world affairs, that the SC can issue
>    enforceable resolutions, particularly if it seems likely to be able
>    successfully to call on the US to carry the brunt of the effort of
>    enforcing.
>
>... the smell of petrol drifts across the net ... the faint but
>unmistable sound of a striking match ...
>
>Last year there was a substantial massacre carried out in the Persian
>Gulf. It established a new principle in world affairs, that the US can
>bully the UN into passing resolutions against anybody it doesn't like,
>(while vetoing or ignoring any resolutions against allies), and
>`enforce' those resolutions to the extent of working against efforts
>for peace in the interim.
>

....An almost inhuman screech is heard from behind the door, a deep wail
of the most intimate psychological demons being recognized in all their
tragic proportions .... A calm, Germanic voice is heard, "But your
father..."

Last year a prosthetic device was installed in a very important part of
our Commander in Chief's body.  It established a new principle in world
affairs, that when he is having problems getting it up in public or in
private he can inflate his ego through massive bombardment of arabs, or
any other similar demons.
-- 
--------------------
=Steve Miller	 		    stcmille@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
		(Former rock star turned grad student)
  Happyhappy joyjoy happyhappy joyjoy happyhappy joyjoy happyhappy joyjoy
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,uk.politics
Subject: Re: election 92: RESULTS OF FASCIST PARTY
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:16:11 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
>Looking at the summary of the election results I noticed that both
>the National Front and the British national Party had candidates.
>He is one result. does anyone know the number of candidates they had
>and their best and worse vote
>Darlington: 55,255 votes:
>         Dr Donald Clarke (BNP) 355.

They obtained over a thousand votes in both of the two
constituencies (Bow & Poplar, Bethnal Green & Stepney) which
make up Tower Hamlets borough, an area where there has been a
lot of recent immigration from Bangladesh.

Matthew Huntbach
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:5974 soc.culture.celtic:3458
From: dhouliha@hooha.prime.com (Dan Houlihan x4431 5-2)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Is Holohan a dweeb?
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:37:03 GMT
Reply-To: dhouliha@hooha.UUCP (Dan Houlihan x4431 5-2)
Organization: Computervision, Bedford MA

In article <1992Apr8.184447.10856@husc3.harvard.edu> koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
>
>Dweeb is kind of like a nerd.  But what did this Holohan do to be
>called a dweeb. I think i missed one

Well, first off, he works for DEC...

(Just kiddin', Marky  :-)

- Dan Houlihan  (egad ANOTHER one)
  Computervision, Bedford, Mass.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Re: MAJOR WINS MAJORITY!!!
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:53:16 GMT

J S Wilson writes:

	I never doubted for a second that John Major would not win.  

Come again....
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:5936 soc.culture.celtic:3451
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: My final word
Date: 8 Apr 92 11:17:51 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster

In article <1992Apr08.001931.515@dircon.co.uk>, uad1189@dircon.co.uk (Dave Yadallee) writes:
> 
>   On April 9th, Keep the UK United.  Vote LDem.
But only if they are the only party that is going to keep the Tories out. 
Otherwise vote Labour
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Victory V lozenges
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:20:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Apr10.112010.10919
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In response to Philip Carney down in Texas, I asked about Pimms and not
Glenfiddich or steam ale for the reason I like Pimms, but also
Glenfiddich can be found in my local supermarket and is not hard
to find Boston.  And, I dont like ale in general but Newcastle
Brown Ale of which I do like can be found in many bars in Bsoton.

I asked about things I couldnt find not things that can be found
in Boston.  But, then again Boston has alot of Irish so it we can
find Guinness with no problem, also.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: What happened to Peter Haines??
Organization: :noitazinagrO
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 14:00:48 GMT

In article <14APR92.18314941@skyfox.usask.ca> nikkhah@skyfox.usask.ca writes:
>Peter Haines who used to be leader of the Young Liberals, later on
>as far as I know joined the Labour Party. He was active against racism
>and once was accused of bank robbery. Eventually he was acquitted.
>
>I want to know whether he was standing for parliament and if he was
>did he get elected. please post any information that you might have.

You must have missed the discussion of about a month ago.  Peter Hain
has been an MP for some time now.  He recently alleged that someone in
the security services had stolen important information on floppy disk
from his House of Commons office.

-- 
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)    ||-------------------------------|
||Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY 14653-7300|-------------------------------|
|| If Unix is a computer system            ||-------------------------------|
|| then a pile of bricks is a house        ||-------------------------------|
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Election Results
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:20:26 GMT

Nigel Goddard writes:

	Woe unto us!  I spent the evening listening to the results on 
	the World Service with a group of fellow Brits.  Stunned disbelief,
	followed by gnashing of teeth.  One woman announced she is no
	longer British.  Those who had thought of returning from exile
	will remain abroad.  Those who had thought they were abroad
	temporarily will reconsider.

Nigel and his pals (Shrill, whiny voice is heard offstage "I am no longer 
British.") are living in some Aristophanian Cloud Cuckoo Land. Once Foot 
and Thatcher were no longer at their respective helms, the Cons and Labs 
might just as well have been renamed Tweedledum & Tweedledee. As the 
Observer put it "the Election is about who will get to be motored around 
in chauffeured limosines." 

						Francis Muir

francis@sep.stanford.edu
From: skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: American view of the Election
Date: 7 Apr 1992 13:16:48 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute

In article <1992Apr6.161732.21745@newcastle.ac.uk> Trevor.Kirby@newcastle.ac.uk (Trevor Kirby) writes:
>
>In article <1992Mar27.135551.4032@city.cs>, simon@cs.city.ac.uk (Simon Brock-Gunn) writes:
>
[stuff deleted]
>>
>Does the existance of the NHS or otherwise affect the rest of the world?
>Does poll tax/rates/council tax affect the rest of the world?
>Do pensions affect the rest of the world?

Yes they do, If the people of the UK go broke/unemployed it effects 
us very much since the UK has invested more money in our country (US) 
than Japan.

>
>I could go on ad nauseum (cue predicatable comment) but basically I think the  
>only thing that the rest of the world cares about is our economy and defence
>policies and these are not the only issues at stake.

Very true, much more is at stake like the future of your country. Also
true, its your country but some in the US would hate to see the UK go
down the drain. Can you say capital flight ?

Tim

Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:6156 soc.culture.celtic:3510
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Election Results: Scotland.
Date: 12 Apr 92 08:58:35 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <1992Apr12.080212.11573@leland.Stanford.EDU>, rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes:
|> 
|> The interesting thing about Scottish independence/home rule is that it
|> would forever guarantee a Tory majority for the rest of England.
|> 
|> Labour has what, 40 seats in Scotland?  Tories about ten?  Strip out 
|> the Scottish seats from the British parliament and you have a very, 
|> very grim situation for Labour in {Britain - Scotland}.
|> 
|> You simply cannot imagine a better time for Labour to fight an
|> election than right now.  Yet they still failed by a considerable 
|> margin.     What faint hope they have (in their current form) of 
|> holding power ever again vanishes completely without Scotland.

I think what you say here is correct, and may even happen if 
Scotland stays in the Union - which I hope they do, but it's 
their choice.

I think that Labour really fought this election as two parties.
One faction still identified with what has been historically
old-Labour, while the other faction self-identified as 
anti-Tory.  The Tories figured this out, I think, and made sure
that while they supplied ammunition to the anti-Tories, they 
didn't supply any to the old-Labour group.  Since anti-Tories 
are actually split between Labour and other parties, that meant 
that it was very hard for Labour to win.

The Labour platform showed signs of a compromise between two 
essentially incompatible party wings, and that, in turn led to 
the suspicion that the anti-Tory wing would be used to win the 
election while the old-labour wing would emerge afterwards and 
take over.    This suspicion that there were really two Labour 
Parties was even seen in Kinnock's inability to get a single 
image over.   He tried to sound like Mr Save-you-from-the-Tories, 
but Ashdown really stole that role from him, leaving him sounding 
a lot like like Mr Deliver-you-to-the-left-without-asking-you.
Very uncomfortable.   Very shifty.

To have a healthy democracy, we have to have an anti-Tory
party, and we have the makings of one if Ashdown takes the 
moderate segment of Labour under his wing, and the leftists
go off and become radicals.

It will be interesting to see what happens.  Back to the
future, kind of.   Shades of Asquith.

jon.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.arts.books
From: crs@beta.lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby)
Subject: Re: ENGLISH AS SHE IS SPOKE
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:28:25 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.192448.17120@wpi.WPI.EDU> mfriley@wpi.WPI.EDU (Margaret F Riley) writes:

= >And don't forget the even more regional "pop" as in "Give me a pop." 
= >Mid-western US only?
= >Paul
= 
= Nah, Pittsburgh, PA call 'em pop too.
= 
= margaret

Ditto Wheeling, WV.


-- 
Best,

Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby				"I'm the NRA!"
	  crs@lanl.gov
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,uk.politics
Subject: Re: political parties
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:42:37 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <1992Apr16.115847.20066@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lhb6v@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Laura Hayes Burchard) writes:
>In article <STEVEW.92Apr15144648@mushroom.cs.man.ac.uk> stevew@cs.man.ac.uk (Steve Wallis) writes:
>>As for what Militant (and Scottish Militant Labour) stands for, here is a
>>summary taken from the "Militant" newspaper:
>
>[a long list, containing the odd sensible statement interspersed with the likes
>of this]
>
>>*	A job for all with a maximum 35 hour week without loss of pay.
>>*	A #190 per week minimum wage for all, including pensioners, the sick
>>	and disabled.
>>*	Reversal of all Tory cuts and a massive programme of public spending
>>	on housing, education and health.
>>*	Nationalisation of the 200 largest companies, including banks and
>>	insurance companies, under democratic workers' control and
>>	management, with compensation only for any shareholder in genuine
>>	need.
>>*	A democratic, socialist planned economy to end the chaos of the
>>	profit system.
>>*	No return to capitalism in the former Stalinist states.  Establish
>>	workers' democracy and genuine socialism.
>>*	A socialist world where hunger, poverty, the threat of environmental
>>	destruction and world war can finally be abolished.
>
>*collapses in hysterical laughter*
>
>And I thought it was Lord Sutch who ran the Monster Raving Looney party...
>

I must be thick or something but these all seem like intelligent
points to me.


-- 
   "This isn't an argument, you're just contradicting me!"  "No I'm not."
   
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
From: U48073@uicvm.uic.edu (Cole Kendall)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: election 92: LORD SUTCH'S RESULTS
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:40:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: uicvm.92106.104048U48073
 <1992Apr14.180226.11092@husc3.harvard.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

In article <1992Apr14.180226.11092@husc3.harvard.edu>, koumis@husc4.harvard.edu
(Anthony Koumis) says:
>
>In article <1992Apr14.161555.22165@newcastle.ac.uk> w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
>writes:
>>Screaming Lord Sutch of the Monster Raving Loony Party stood against
>>all three party leaders here are his results, with a few other candidates
>>thrown in for comparison - notice how bady the Greens (a serious party) do.
>>
>>Huntingdon:  10 candidates

***Other results inserted where missing***

>>            1st John Major (Conservative) 48,662
              2nd H A Seckleman (Labor)     12,432
              3rd A N Duff (LD)              9,386
              4th P Wiggin (Lib)             1,045
>>            5th Deborah Birkhead (Green)     846
>>            6th Lord David Sutch (Loony)     728
              7th M Flanagan (C Thatch)        231
>>            8th Lord Buckethead (Gremloids)  107
              9th C Cockell (FTM)               91
>>           10th David Shepheard (natural law party) 26
>
>Out of curiousity, was #9 from the "forward to Mars" party?
>I think I saw on the PBS link up to Independent News that he
>got 91 votes????

My results are from The Times, which only identifies parties by
abbreviations, and I assume FTM is indeed Forward to Mars.  What
exactly is C Thatch?

Also, if anyone is sufficiently desperate for the results of a
particular constituency, I will type in a few.


Cole Kendall   <u48073@uicvm>
From: sharder@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Soren Harder)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Why wait 5 years?
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:49:49 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

>In article <8992@scott.ed.ac.uk>, sharder@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Soren Harder) writes:

>Say what?   "Do whatever you can"?    Like for instance have the
>Scots themselves vote for the SNP last week?

>Oh, no.   That's too easy.   Far better to vote Tory (25.7) and 
>labour(39.0) and then complain afterwards.

SNP got as many votes as the Tories. Labour and LibDem supported some
kind of devolution, which was enough for most scots.

>Am I the only one who is beginning to think that whatever the Scots
>claim to want, in practice they act so as to minimize achieving it,
>and to maximise the opportunity to whinge afterwards.

I don't think a 75% front against the tories and for the tories is
acting 'so as to minimize achieving' independence. 

What do you expect from them. To put SNP into real power they needed
4300% percent of the Scottish Vote (!) (ca. 28 mill. votes)

>jon.

Soren Harder
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:6362 alt.politics.british:14