HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: The amazing disappearing British Constitution
Date: 9 Nov 1992 19:26:55 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <lfqqn8INNa2s@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
> In response to the flagrant taunt:
> > the British Constitution: everyone's sure we've got one, 
> > but no-one can actually produce it.
> 
> Jon Livesy lists:
> > Coronation Charter of Henry I, 1101.
> > Great Charter, 1215.
> > Declaration that the Commons shall Initiate Money Bills 1407.
> > Habeas Corpus Act, 1679.
> > Bill of Rights, 1689.
> > Act of Succession, 1701.
> > Septennial Act, 1716.
> > Reform Acts, 1832, 1867, 1884.
> > Ballot Act, 1872.
> > Representation of the People Act, 1918, 1969.
> 
> We've already established that mere laws cannot comprise a constitution.
> A Constitution is a framework within which all laws are made, and with
> which all laws must agree.   It's a "meta-law" in comp sci terms.

And if you allow me to define sport as an acivity in which
teams pass balls around, then running and swimming aren't
sports.

If you tell us that the British Constitution is different
to the American one, or that there is no concept of
separation of powers in Britain, then I don't think anyone
here will complain.   That's right, we would say, and
that's simply the way we do business.     But handing it
down as an edict that Britain "has no Constitution" when we
all know perfectly well that it does, doesn't add much to
the discussion.   Especially when the Constitution that
you claim you do have is fairly obviously inspired by the
Constitution you claim we don't have.

And what goes for Britain goes for much of the rest of
Europe.  The other day, Italy acceeded to the Maastricht
Treaty, surely a pretty significant change in anyone's
Constitution.   They did so by holding a Cabinet meeting.
No referendum, not even a Parliamentary vote.

Aso outside Europe.  Japan has a Constitution which places
very restrictive limitations on the maintenance and
employment of Japanese armed forces.  When they found they
needed an Army, they simply got themselves a "Self-defense
Force".  And when the time came when they couldn't avoid
sending some Japanese troops overseas, they had a
Parliamentary vote to authorise it.

I think that these absolute claims that this and that country
"don't have" constitutions is simply a way to avoid a more
interesting question: why do some constitutions seem to work
well, and some seem to work so badly.

jon.
From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: VNS: Mon  2-Nov-1992
Keywords: VNS,news,sport
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:44:44 GMT
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.

=><><><><><><><><>  T h e   V O G O N   N e w s   S e r v i c e  <><><><><><><><>
=...
=>FOOTBALL
=>========================
=>       Results:
=>
=>       FA Premier League
=>       Aston Villa          2   Queens Park Rangers   0
=...
=>       Barclays League Division 1
=>       Brentford .......... 5   Bristol City ........ 1

Thanks Gwyn for posting the VNS, it helps this far-away ex-pat keep in
touch. Could someone please get me up to date on the change from the old
First Division, Second Division, etc scheme to the Premier League and
Barclays? When did this happen? What was the rationale behind it and has
it made any kind of difference to football in practice?

Thanks (I hope)         -- Dick Jackson
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Down with Maastricht
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:58:33 GMT

In article <6250100@hpopd.pwd.hp.com> apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt) writes:
>yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>
>Some of the Tory MP's were complaining of excessive whipping...
>
	Things have changed a lot since Profumo's day.

	Alec
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15269 alt.folklore.urban:27558
From: chem91@Elroy.UH.EDU ("Bill Harrison (713)-743-2789")
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: An astonishing Guy
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:35:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: menudo.1992Nov6.153528.7700
Reply-To: chem91@Elroy.UH.EDU
Organization: University of Houston


[...]
>Don> 1. What constitutes a "gun nut".
>

One who belives that the more guns there are, the "safer"/less crime there
will be, perhaps??? (and also republican politicians, of course).  ;=)

Bill

+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\               /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Bill Harrison,            \             /       "Be as radical as... |
| University of Houston, TX  >-----------<         reality itself"     |
| CHEM91@JETSON.BITNET      /             \                V. I. Lenin |
+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/               \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
From: lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund)
Subject: Re: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?
Summary: 	Lloyd George but still no Churchill jokes 
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 23:07:19 GMT

In article <lfqsm6INNa86@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Trelford Pinkerton) writes:
(deleted)
>
>A Catholic prime minister would certainly raise major questions of
>protocol however: for example, certain appointments within Britian's
>State Church (Bishoprics, etc) are made on the prime minister's
>recommendation.    A Catholic prime minister would therefore be selecting
>the leaders of a competing franchise.
>
	Was this a problem when Lloyd George was PM?  He was chapel, wasn't
he?



-- 
Larry Headlund  lmh@world.std.com    Eikonal Systems (617) 482-3345 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Subject: Re: Goldsmith's Coll, students
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:26:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.154713.6676@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>
>Many London place names have two meanings due to the way the
>London boroughs were formed in 1964. In many cases a borough
>was named after one of the places in it. Thus "Lewisham" can
>mean both the area immediately around Lewisham High Street, and
>the whole of the London Borough of Lewisham, which encompasses
>Lewisham, New Cross, Deptford, Lee, Ladywell etc. 

Most Londoners I know wouldn't use "Lewisham" alone to mean
the Borough.  When I lived in Plumstead I certainly wouldn't
have said I lived in Greenwich.

--
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 
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15827 alt.folklore.urban:28460
From: mjl-b@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Anglican vs C of E
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:24:12 GMT
Reply-To: mjl-b@minster.york.ac.uk (Mathew Lodge)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

In article <1ds8odINNg1j@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov11.153749.10571@menudo.uh.edu>, chem91@Elroy.UH.EDU writes:
>> >> > do you stop?  Earth Goddess worshippers?  David Icke?
>>                                                ^^^^^^^^^^ who?

Couldn't resist this one:

David Icke is the self-proclaimed Son Of God and guardian of purple force
fields everywhere. This information was received with less than total
credability by most people.

>jon.

Mat

| Mathew Lodge                      | "I don't care how many times they go    |
| mjl-b@minster.york.ac.uk          |  up-tiddly-up-up. They're still gits."  |
| Langwith College, Uni of York, UK |  -- Blackadder Goes Forth               |
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: Re: JANET/Internet
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:00:41 GMT

Gwyn Evans writes:
>
>Danny Rothenberg 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.

The Internet is ONE physically connected network, not a collection 
of networks.  There are other networks which are able to speak with 
machines on the Internet via gateways.  It is easy to get the idea that
the Internet is a collection of networks by virtue of the fact 
that it communicates with so many others.

>   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'.

Here's the biggest clue:  if a network doesn't use Internet addressing, 
it can't be ON the Internet.

>   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'.
>

Well you can't blame them for being confused!  
Wouldn't it be easier in the long run for Janet to convert to the Internet 
standard?  Either that, or someone should modify the mailers to juggle the
addresses.  

I'd enjoy inserting rude remarks about muddle-headed academics here, 
but I can't really since the Internet was born from university nets in
the US.  Darn.
From: chem91@Elroy.UH.EDU ("Bill Harrison (713)-743-2789")
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Down with Maastricht
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:51:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: menudo.1992Nov6.155151.8993
Reply-To: chem91@Elroy.UH.EDU
Organization: University of Houston

>>
>>Some of the Tory MP's were complaining of excessive whipping...
>>
>	Things have changed a lot since Profumo's day.
>
>	Alec

You're going to tell me that Harvey Proctor was the chief whip, right???
Bill


+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\               /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Bill Harrison,            \             /       "Be as radical as... |
| University of Houston, TX  >-----------<         reality itself"     |
| CHEM91@JETSON.BITNET      /             \                V. I. Lenin |
+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/               \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15842 alt.folklore.urban:28472
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?
Date: 13 Nov 92 12:27:24 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Nov10.095942.12097@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
> If you believe there is "one holy catholic and apostolic
> church" then why remain a member of a separate church that
> deliberately split off from that one holy catholic church in
> order that a randy king could legitimise his bit of nooky?
> There is only one Catholic Church, the one that is loyal to the
> see of Peter so the "Roman" is superfluous. Don't use the term
> "Roman Catholic" when you mean "Catholic".

Well it's not our fault if some members of the one holy catholic and apostolic
church don't believe that we are all really Christians, don't accept that all
priests ordained in the apostolic succession are really priests, don't accept
that married men, let alone women, can be ordained priest.

Of course if members of the catholic church who remain loyal (as you put it) to
the see of Peter were to see the error of their ways, I for one would be
delighted to end 400 years of bickering.

(Well it's no more biased than your post, Matthew...) 
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Down with Maastricht
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:56:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.155151.8993@menudo.uh.edu> chem91@Elroy.UH.EDU writes:
>>>
>>>Some of the Tory MP's were complaining of excessive whipping...
>>>
>>      Things have changed a lot since Profumo's day.
>>
>>      Alec
>
>You're going to tell me that Harvey Proctor was the chief whip, right???
>Bill
>
	I cannot tell a lie...

	Alec
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Religion & Morality (was Re: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?)
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:42:09 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1dol6oINNlgf@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM>, smckinty@sunicnc.France.Sun.COM writes:
> 
> Why should a religious body be regarded as the only acceptable arbiter of
> morals? Are athiests therefore immoral by definition? Are fundamentalist
> religious leaders proclaiming holy wars always morally correct?

No, of course religion isn't the only arbiter of morality.  As an
atheist I believe I have as much basis for my sense of morality as
any Christian etc.

However, this does not mean that Christianity must be ejected from
politics.    It must grant equal access to other faiths and non-faiths,
not resign entirely.

> 
> I fail to see why a society should be any less moral merely because
> it sees no place for religion.

I do.   If society listened to my non-religious arguments, and refused
to listen to religious ones, that would be immoral.   Stupid, too.

jon.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15762 alt.folklore.urban:28333 misc.legal:19855
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
Subject: Re: The amazing disappearing British Constitution
Date: 12 Nov 1992 21:14:20 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <d9g402Vf2a=s01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com writes:
> In article <1dpgohINN633@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon 
> Livesey) quoted:
> > In article <1992Nov10.144958.11600@maths.nott.ac.uk>, anw@maths.nott.ac.uk 
> > writes:
> > > 						An example of such
> > > a meta-law is the one banning hybrid Bills (of which, according to Urban
> > > Legend, the most famous was one in which some obscure new measure to do
> > > with sewage disposal had tacked on to it by some disgruntled clerk that
> > > "J Arthur Boggis of 123 Acacia Avenue, Sometown was hereby divorced from
> > > his wife Mildred").  Accusations of hybridicity have occasionally been
> > > made, and invariably result in much behind-the-scenes scurrying by party
> > > functionaries attempting to patch things up.
> 
> If we're talking US (hard to tell from context) I highly doubt this.  The US 
> COnstitution has a prohibition gainst Bills of Attainder, of which this is 
> probably an example.

I believe you could not be more mistaken.   I have head
that it's really not uncommon for the US Congress to pass
laws that benefit individual persons.   Immigrantion cases
are the classic example.

jon.
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dog in House of Parliament
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:03:35 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <721329909.14573@minster.york.ac.uk> stuart@minster.york.ac.uk writes:

>The vote that night was on Maastricht - not on confidence in the
>government. 

So why was the PM threating to resign or to call a general election?
Why were wavering Tory backbenchers told that it was a confidence
vote?  And why did the PM bother to have the vote at all?  The Second
Reading of the Maastricht bill was passed overwhelmingly earlier
this year, and the Government could have proceeded directly to
the committee stage as is normal with all other bills.

>Therefore MPs (and parties) should have voted for what they
>said at the last election, when all three main parties were in favour of
>the treaty. The Democrats voted in line with their previously stated
>position, and principles are important, even in politics!

Voting against this motion would not have constituted voting against
the treaty.

>In summary: If Labour had wanted a confidence motion then they should have
>tabled one, otherwise they should have voted on the issue and not what
>they would have liked the issue to be.

If the Government had wanted a confidence motion then it should have
tabled one.  To table a completely superfluous motion just so that
you can be seen to win it (by fair means or foul) is asking for
trouble.

--
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 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:56:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.175946.22711@gssec.bt.co.uk> cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk (Colin Wilson) writes:

>How much more of this ignorance will we be faced with? All poetry is in
>dialect, because all forms of language are dialect, including the
>Standard English that Alasdair Grant apparently reveres so much.

How many times do we have to try to get the point across?  Yes, John
Keats spoke Cockney dialect, and Burns spoke Scots dialect.  The
difference remains: that one is revered for the poems he wrote, and
the other for the dialect he wrote them in.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: Salaries+cost of living in UK
Organization: Vonnegut Tent Rentals, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 15:28:44 GMT

Hugh Graham (hg798502@LANCE.ColoState.Edu) wrote:
> ment@cs.swarthmore.edu (Andrew Ment) writes:
> >ajj@zycor.lgc.com (Andrew Jackson) writes:
> >
> >>Could somebody out there clue me in about Windsor and vicinity? Is
> >>housing readily available? If so, where would be a good place to
> >>look? Should my parents bother with a car? Questions about basic
> >>living in Windsor (if there is such a thing).

> >there's this lovely castle just down the road ...
> 
> Yes, but why did they build it so close to the airport?
> 
So they could make a quick getaway with the loot!

--
||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?
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Subject: Re: Just a quick question
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:31:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.193944.11916@aus.intel.com>, ajw@aus.intel.com (alan waldock)          writes...
>In article <6NOV199208200941@sscvx1.ssc.gov> godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
> 
>>                                           A couple, of opposite sex, living
>>together as man and wife - that is a euphemism for sleeping together.
> 
>Which is itself a euphemism...
> 
>-- Alan Waldock, from but not on behalf of Intel Corporation
>   ajw@aus.hf.intel.com       ...uunet!intelhf!aus!ajw

Gosh, you're quite right.  I should have said 'that is a euphemism for fucking'
I guess, but then fucking is itself a euphemism too.  Intercourse is a little
too diffuse, sexual intercourse is not well defined either.  I am reminded
of Burgess' trilogy on Malaysia (name long forgotten) in one of which he describes
a court case in which a proprietor of a business is accused of raping an
employee.  The British prosecutor constructs an impossibly elaborate 
question to try to determine whether or not penetration took place, along the
lines of "...did he, I mean could one suppose, was the member actually, I
mean did the two of you ..etc" and after some ten minutes of this the 
translator finally turned to the accuser and said in Malay "enter, yes?",
to which she immediately responded in the affirmative.  So much for the
precision of the English language.

Laurence
From: kakleman@soc13.acpub.duke.edu (Kubilay Akleman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: ****Useless info (Re:Berwick-upon-Tweed)****
Date: 13 Nov 92 04:48:42 GMT
Reply-To: kakleman@soc13.acpub.duke.edu (Kubilay Akleman)


I must stop posting replies to articles before I've read the whole file!
(Re: Berwick-upon-Tweed - someone posted a perfectly satisfactory reply)
Sorry for polluting the e-mail lines with my drivel...
Andrew

Y gwledydd Celtaidd i'r Celtiaid!
From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:50:21 GMT
Organization: Not Philips.

In refd article, A.Grant@ucs.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:
>The point is, is it worth someone living in Scotland _now_ 
>learning Scots, when instead they could learn French or Russian and have
>access to an infinitely greater corpus of literature than a few rusty old
>curiosities?  Not to mention speaking to Britain's European partners in
>their own languages?

Well that depends on what you mean by "worth" it, and there lies the
real issue that's being discussed here.  Clearly it's not worthwhile for
you.  For someone who feels deep empathy for his roots, it may well be.

Language is not just about communication, strange as it may seem.  There
are deep cultural factors at play.

Alasdair's assumption that learning Scots implies that French or Russian
wouldn't be learned is not valid.  My experience is that multi-lingual (or
even multi-dialectual) people are much more open to acquiring some
proficiency in a further language than those only exposed to a single
language.

>p.s.  I still claim that Burns is not respected _in his own right_.  If he
>hadn't written in dialect, he would have been entirely forgotten.

I wish I knew what this meant.

He _did_ write much of his work in Scots.  If that _is_ part of what he is
respected for, how is that not "in his own right"?

The only interpretation I can find is that Alasdair is an extremely
"successful" product of the dialect-is-unworthy-speak-only-RP education
system that most of us have endured, and that he actually feels scorn for
the language.

As Billy Kay describes so accurately, most Scottish schoolchildren
including my generation were ridiculed, often physically punished, for
using their native Scots in school.  It was not proper to speak Scots.

Apart from this, most of the respect for Burns is for what he wrote
_about_, and much of that comes from countries who only read him translated
into their own language, so dialect hardly comes into it.
-- 
Ray Dunn at home        |  Beaconsfield, Quebec  |  Phone: (514) 630 3749
ray@philmtl.philips.ca  |  dunn@cam.org          |  uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray
From: sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Split soc.culture.british
Date: 12 Nov 1992 15:27:31 GMT
Organization: TMC
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <1992Nov12.121359.17488@rdg.dec.com>, evansg@uproar.enet.dec.com (Gwyn Evans @ IME) writes:
|> 
|>   Not seriously, although I'd be interested in what sort of splits
|> you had in mind. How about:-
|> 
|> 	soc.culture.british.speech
|> 	soc.culture.british.geography
|> 	soc.culture.british.news
|> 	soc.culture.british.politics
|> 	
|>    and for the occasional spill-over from t.p.g,
|> 
|> 	soc.culture.british.wot.no.guns
|> 
|>   What did I miss, I wonder?
|> 
|> Gwyn

So where did the culture go ? like, The Archers, or those fascinating
discussions about Marmite ? and is Mornington Crescent geography ?
For 'speech' read 'language', by the way. We shouldn't ignore the
written word. It also allows Yadallee another group to crosspost into.

Daan Sandee                                           sandee@think.com
Thinking Machines Corporation
Cambridge, Mass 02142                                 (617) 234-5044