HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Thatcher urges Israeli students to unlock 'secrets of the universe'
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:28:03 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Nov17.101345.1010@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
> From: mtaghavi@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Amir Taghavi)
>>        JERUSALEM (UPI) -- Israel's leading university named a new science
>>center Monday after former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who
>>urged the nation's researchers to ``unlock the secrets of the universe.''
> 
> Readers might suggest some other equally suitable names they could
> attach to "centers".
> 
> "The Jack the Ripper Women's Rights Center"
> 
> "The Ayatollah Khomeini center for freedom of speech"
[follow-up to s.c.iranian hastily removed]
> 
> "the Jean-Marie Le Pen center for racial understanding"
>                                         
"The Matthew Huntbach centre for protestant theology"
"The Yadallee centre for English Language studies"
"The Godfrey centre for inter-personal relations"
"The Paul Smee centre", a new name for the Adam Smith Institute....
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: Splitting up s.c.b and debate on Uk.* groups going international, vo
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Nov17.094543.24836@rdg.dec.com> <27533@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
	<1992Nov19.123419.17629@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:27:50 GMT

If you don't have a kill-file, surely you can write a shell or editor
script that does the same sort of thing? Trivial in emacs or any Unix
shell.

Nick
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: peeters@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (bert peeters)
Subject: Fax no required
Keywords: Christ Church, Oxford
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 06:35:06 GMT

I would be most grateful if anyone could provide me (via private e-mail as
I am not a reader of this BB) with a fax number for either of the following
(in decreasing order of preference):

a) Christ Church College, Oxford
b) University of Oxford

Thank you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Bert Peeters                         Tel: +61 02 202344
Department of Modern Languages               002 202344
University of Tasmania at Hobart        Fax: 002 207813
GPO Box 252C                            Bert.Peeters@modlang.utas.edu.au
Hobart TAS 7001
Australia
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The vagaries of electoral politics (was Re: Rule Britannia)
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:06:52 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <1992Nov16.145953.11607@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)

>>Most
>>seats where the LibDems are second are rock-solid true-blue Tory
>>heartlands, and quite honestly it doesn't matter whether you vote for
>>the LibDems, Labour or the Monster Raving Loony Party.
>
>Ah yes, like Sutton, which due to the notoriety of the
>Conservative candidate received quite a lot of coverage in
>press general election coverage, always accompanied by comments
>about how this woman had been chosen as candidate for this
>rock-solid Tory seat.
>
>The fact that the council has been controlled by the Lib Dems
>since 1990, and that in local elections more votes were cast
>for Lib Dems in it than for Tories somehow never got mentioned.
>Same goes for a good many other "safe" Tory seats. A large part
>of Liberal Democrat general election work in these seats
>involves actually explaining to people that the Lib Dems *do*
>have a chance and that it is worthwhile going out and voting
>for them. 

Let me see now... (consults program)... in Sutton the Tories got
55.2% of the vote and the LibDems got 33.8% .  Thus it would
need a 10.7% swing to the LibDems next time for them to take
the seat.  I'm not saying this is impossible -- there were
bigger swings at the last election -- but it does mean that
the LibDems are unlikely to take Sutton in the near future.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that the LibDems *shouldn't*
campaign hard in seats like Sutton; on the contrary, that's where
they've the best chance of building up support in the long term.  I'm
just saying that, as things stand, the result in Sutton is unlikely to
affect the outcome of the next election.  For better or worse, it's
going to be the Basildons of this world (or their equivalent after
boundary changes) that decide the outcome, and in those seats there's
not an awful lot of point in voting LibDem.

--
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: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Splitting up s.c.b and debate on Uk.* groups going international
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 06:43:15 MST
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #1, Edmonton, AB, Canada

ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes:

French later.  I can see that Canada might not follow suit after this.

- Two issues.
-
- 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.

   Discretion can also be used, that's why I term kill files as useless.
  Ray, given the VOLUME that come through here, splitting MIGHT be viable.

-
- 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.
-
- uk.* (or can.* or whatever) is _not_ the place to have to put up with some
- dumb (insert-your-favourite-nationality-here) asking uninformed questions
- about the background of a discussion.  That's what the world-wide soc.*
- groups should handle.
-
- The inappropriate circulation of local groups is an unnecessary load on the
- resources of the net.
-
- For ex-pats wanting to keep in touch, I'm sure the desired groups could be
- gatewayed to mailing-lists.
-
- KEEP LOCAL GROUPS LOCAL!

 Again Ray, thanks to USEnet, INTERNET, and others, globalization of local
groups might be a reality.  Sure someone in canda COULD set up an accout
in London, but if internationalization occurs, all the better.

- --
- Ray Dunn at home        |  Beaconsfield, Quebec  |  Phone: (514) 630 3749
- ray@philmtl.philips.ca  |  dunn@cam.org          |  uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray


Dave Shariff Yadallee (B. Sc. (Econ/Math) (U of Alberta 1990) )
 (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
American (n) - A person resident or born on the Continient of America
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: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 15:16:35 GMT

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.

-- 
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.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:16171 soc.culture.celtic:7415
From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: French influence.
Date: 19 Nov 92 23:52:12 GMT
Organization: Not Philips.

In refd article, walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,) writes:
>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?).

They're certainly just as disgustingly unhealthy and delicious as a
croissant - exactly the same recipe methinks - not usually served with a
bowl of cafe au lait though!

One other directly corrupted name from French is "Petticoat Tails" - the
thin triangular cut from the round shortbread.  I can't for the life of me
remember the derivation, "petit something-or-other".  Help please.
-- 
Ray Dunn at home        |  Beaconsfield, Quebec  |  Phone: (514) 630 3749
ray@philmtl.philips.ca  |  dunn@cam.org          |  uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray
From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: English English
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:54:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: pixel.1992Nov16.205457.23754
Organization: Vonnegut Tent Rentals, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Paul Roberts (proberts@informix.com) wrote:
> In article <1992Nov16.172832.3897@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
> >Laurence, is there anything at all that you don't dislike? Anything?
> >
> By the way, this is a purely rhetorical question; I really don't give 
> a damn. Let's see, I think "/: *godfrey@sscvx1/h:j" is what I need at
> this point.

Tsk tsk.  Aren't you interested in finding out whether Laurence can evolve
into a life-form with a sense of humour (or, to be more exact, one able to
communicate a sense of humour to others) ?

BTW if you use /sscvx1.ssc.gov/h you'll kill the original plus any responses
that list the ID of the original as a reference.

And in fact, as with DSY, I find most of Laurence's attacks far too silly to
be worth a KILL entry.  He does at least have the virtue of brevity.  Its
those who post several hundred lines of lunatic fringe cosmology to
sci.space who earn a place on my kill list.

--
||I dreamed I met a Yadallean          |(parody in progress, apologies to
||A most confusing man....             | Tim Rice & Andrew Lloyd Webber)
||------------------------------------------------------------------------
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Subject: Re: Canadian free speech in action
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:48:00 GMT

In article <By6Gp1.Ens@DMI.USherb.CA>, turgd00@DMI.USherb.CA (DAVID TURGEON)     writes...
>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...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>-- 
On the contrary, I have received quite a few emails supporting
my position.  On the other hand, I have no use for postings from
undergraduates with nothing to say, like yourself.  Moreover, if
your solution for dealing with life's problems is the one suggested in your posting,
then I would recommend therapy.

regards Laurence

Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada,sci.research.careers
From: anne@cs.UAlberta.CA (Anne J.R. Nield)
Subject: Re: Canadian free speech in action
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:36:40 GMT

mcdonald@cs.sfu.ca (Ken Mcdonald) writes:



>Question:  Do others agree with this?  In my experience, the typical academic
>is a very self-centred, selfish, and narrow-minded person, with little
>real adherence to any strong code of ethics.  There are, luckily, exceptions,
>but I feel that in general, the people (academics) who are effectively
>running the universities are amongst the worst suited for the job, because
>their overriding self-interest places them only a notch or two above
>used-car salesmen, and WAY below the people I feel comfortable with, in
>terms of trustworthiness.  Comments?


Reminds me of a quote I once saw and fell in love with:

"Trying to control academics is like trying to herd cats!"

Anne

Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
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
	<Bxxo2B.FvM.1@cs.cmu.edu> <19975.2b10a563@ul.ie>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:16:10 GMT

In article <19975.2b10a563@ul.ie> mckeonj@ul.ie writes:

   In article <Bxxo2B.FvM.1@cs.cmu.edu>, nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
   > 
   > But who wants sung rites anyway? Ghastly things.

   Most people who go to church do so to hear sung rites.
   They do not go to hear trendy vicars talking.
   Anyway, I'm a chorister, and go to church to sing.
   I sing because I'm in love with life - how about you?

I go to church in order to worship in unity. I don't go to _hear_
anything in particular, but to _do_ something, and the form of that
something is not as important as the function. I would like to think
this is true of most churchgoers (but I'd probably be wrong).

For instance, I currently attend an Episcopal church (with a sung
rite) and a Friends Meeting (with no rite at all), both of which serve
essentially the same function. When singing forms a part of programmed
worship, fair enough. If the text is written to be sung, then it is
probably better sung. But most modern rites (e.g. ASB rite A) are
written to be spoken and don't work as well when forced into a sung
form.  To assert that a spoken rite is somehow less worthy or less
demonstrative is terribly insulting. To use flamespeak like "trendy
vicars" does not contribute usefully to any discussion of this subject.

There are few aspects of the CofE less comfortable than sung rites
with a tuneless congregation. I am tuneless; I should know.

Nick Haines
From: matthew@uk.tele.nokia.fi (Matthew Faupel)
Subject: Re: What's the name of the Cambridge bookshop?
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications, Cambridge, UK
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:33:28 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?

The one you're probably after is "Heffers" which has a chain of 4 or 5 shops
scattered over the town with one fairly hefty one opposite St. John's
college.  Since the '70s though Cambridge has aquired an enormous number of
new bookshops causing me to wonder whether it has the highest bookshop
density in Britain (outside of Charing Cross road of course).  At the last
count we have:

Heffers, Heffers Children's, Heffers Antiquarian, Heffers Paperback & Video,
Dillons, Waterstones, the C.U.P. Bookshop, W.H. Smith, Galloway & Porter
(Sidney St) and Galloway & Porter (Green St).

That covers the mainstream bookshops in the centre.  There's then also six
antequarian and second hand bookshops and two religious bookshops that I can
think of plus three second hand book market stalls and a bookfair every now
and again in the guildhall.  Oh, and the bookshop down Mill Road.  And the
Heffers in the Grafton Centre.

What I want to know is, how do they all stay in business?


Matthew

--
---* Amnesiac the Wizard *------------------* matthew@uk.tele.nokia.fi *---
 Opinions expressed here are not those of my company.    | NB. ntl02 is EN
 They're not even my own; I plagiarised the lot of them! | TEE EL ZERO TWO
---* matthew@ntl02.decnet.nokia.fi *------------------* Matthew Faupel *---
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:16281 soc.culture.canada:8756
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Canadian free speech in action
Date: 23 Nov 92 05:59:14 GMT
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Followup-To: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]

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
From: huw@castle.ed.ac.uk (H G J Evans)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: VNS: Wed 18-Nov-1992
Keywords: VNS,news
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:47:40 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Nov20.143256.15293@spider.co.uk> peterw@spider.co.uk (Peter Woodhouse) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.122949.1621@rdg.dec.com> evansg@uproar.enet.dec.com (Gwyn Evans @ IME) writes:
>>
>><><><><><><><><>  T h e   V O G O N   N e w s   S e r v i c e  <><><><><><><><>
>>    The government will today publish the first comprehensive league tables
>>    of GCSE and A level results from all the state schools and 25% of
>>    independent schools around the country.
>Can anyone tell me where you can get hold of the table?  Do you have to write 
>away somewhere, if so where, or is it available at libraries etc?

It was published yesterday (19th November) in the Daily Telegraph, and I
suppose other newspapers may well have carried it. Check your local
library. I seem to remember something on C4 news last night about
3000000 leaflets being distributed around the country, but it didn't
exactly say to whom.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%Huw Evans          huw@castle.ed.ac.uk     %
%                   huw@maths.ed.ac.uk      %
%                   Tel.  +44 (0)31-650-5067%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The vagaries of electoral politics (was Re: Rule Britannia)
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:11:16 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
>Obviously this is all a bit crude since people will vote differently
>depending on what type of seat they're in (they'd be mad to switch
>from the LibDems to Labour in Brecon and Radnor, for instance).  But,
>in terms of a general national trend, it does seem that voting Labour
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>would have a much greater effect in dislodging Tory MPs than voting
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>LibDem.
 ^^^^^^

Unfortunately, that phrase can be, and has been, misinterpreted
as meaning "voting Labour anywhere is the best thing to do to
dislodge Tories". As I said, I have actually heard people who
support the Liberal Democrats, and live in seats where the Lib
Dems are a clear second to the Tories, say they are voting
Labour because that's what they have been led to believe by
sloppy usage of that phrase by the supposedly neutral, and by
deliberate use by the Labour Party.

The only non-ambiguous way of phrasing it is "there are moe
places where voting Labour is more likely to dislodge a Tory MP
than there are places where voting LibDem is more likely to
dislodge a Tory MP".

Matthew Huntbach
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:16197 soc.culture.celtic:7427
From: cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk (Colin Wilson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Accent and Dialect, the politics there
Date: 20 Nov 92 10:13:20 GMT
Organization: BT

In article <1992Nov19.043936.25413@microsoft.com>, georgere@microsoft.com (George V. Reilly) writes:
|> 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>

When W. L. Lorimer was translating the scene where Jesus is confronted
and tempted by the Devil, he did at first have the latter speaking
English. He later re-translated it so that both spoke Scots, and this
is how it appears in the finished work. In my view he was right to
change his mind, as the twisting of religious scripture to make a
linguistic or political point is quite wrong.

The editor who prepared the work for publication after Lorimer's death,
however, has included the scene as it was originally translated, along
with other material, in an appendix.

********************************************************************************
*  Colin Wilson,                           E-mail:  cwilson@gssec.bt.co.uk     *
*  Glasgow Engineering Centre,             POTS:    (041) 220 5340             *
*  British Telecommunications plc.                  (+ 44 41) 220 5340         *
*  7 Caledon Street,                                                           *
*  Glesca / Glaschu G12 9BY,             Scotland a Twa-Leidit Fowkrick        *
*  Scotland / Alba.                      Biodh Alba 'na Poblachd Dha-Chananach *  ********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british