HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: txc6266@ultb.isc.rit.edu (T.X. Cheng )
Subject: About Big-5 Coded Chinese News
Originator: txc6266@ultb
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 03:45:25 GMT

Dear Netters,

    Is there anybody who knows where I can get Big-5 coded Chinese news
    from Taiwan?  Any comments will be highly appreciated.

Tzyh-horng Cheng
-----------------
txc6266@ultb.isc.rit.edu


P.S.  I know that there is a ftp having some Big-5 coded Chinese news,
      but they are out-of-dated and not from Taiwan.
From: elelyc@nuscc.nus.sg (Y.C. Liang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: TI
Date: 29 Aug 92 03:01:20 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore

In article <1992Aug28.163629.1296@bradford.ac.uk> H.Wang@bradford.ac.uk (H WANG) writes:
>elelyc@nuscc.nus.sg (Y.C. Liang) wrote:
>
>    In article <1992Aug27.171038.8569@bradford.ac.uk> 
>    H.Wang@bradford.ac.uk (H WANG) writes:
>   >
>   >Suggestions: How to Ensure  Taiwan's Independance (TI)?
>   >
>   >
>   >1)  Draw out all the hard currence to buy weapons. Tell ...
>   >
>   >2)  Strict control over minorities in Taiwan. Prevent them ...
>   >
>   >3)  Win international support. Ask those African countries ...
>   >
>   >4)  Assassinate those mainlander or taiwanese politicians ...
>   >
>   >5)  Forget PRC. Have a nice sleep. Tomorrow'll be another 
>   >    day! 
>   >
>   > 
>   > --August 1992, in a very exited mood, night before heavy sh*t fall.
>
>   It was possible to have Taiwan to be independent.  But, the governemnt
>   in Taiwan missed the opportunity.  Somehow, politically, economically,
>   it is quite difficult to do so now.  But, it may be getting easier in
>   the future.  Things are changing.  Regards.
>
>Anyone interested in the ORIGINAL posting please e-mail to me
>for a complete copy.
>
>Copyright reserved by the author.  No one has the right 
>to cite the posting without author's permission.
>
>Hongwen Wang
>H.Wang@uk.ac.bradford

This is a discussion group.  It is a default to let others site your
posting and have any futher discussion.  Copyright Laws does not stop
people to use copyright material as long as it is used in the proper
way.  Such as all the software on the news groups and FTP sites.   If
you do not like people to site your posting, please say so when you post
your article.

By the way, you just sited my posting, didn't you ?
Have a nice day, mate.
From: elelyc@nuscc.nus.sg (Y.C. Liang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Independence of Taiwan: a Suggestion
Date: 29 Aug 92 02:49:03 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore

In article <1992Aug28.141118.9571@linus.mitre.org> 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao) writes:
>When I have lived in MiauLi (military service) for two years, and noticed
>that the local people (Ke4Jia or Hakka) hate Min3Nan2 people just like
>TIers hate CCP.  The independence of Taiwan may further divide people live
>in this island, and cause bloodshed just like Yugoslavia.  So, here is the
>deal.  Divide Taiwan into four contries (at least).  ..................

To be independant, there are several levels.  Whoever called themselves
Ke4Jia or Hakka are independant from whoever called Min3Nan2.  Because
the second group has no whatsoever control on the first group.  Either
finacially or politically.  There is no strong tension among them and
there is no threat or taking-over among them.  All these groups are
under the same government.  They have equal opportunity to get jobs,
education and whatsoever.  There is no need to have their own
government.  People do so, only if they are extremely unhappy with the
current govenment and they cannot turn it over, as a consequence, they
seek for independance.  

Regards.
 
Xref: sparky soc.culture.taiwan:12549 soc.culture.korean:4044
From: kim_sh@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Sung Hyun Kim)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.korean
Subject: Generalizing again?? (was Re: All you d*ckhead friend-betraying Koreans!!!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:16:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: jhunix.1992Aug28.171633.6421
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore

In article <1992Aug24.230918.24991@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> tylee@austin.ibm.com (Ter-Yuan Lee) writes:
>
>From my past experience dealing with the S. Koreans, it seems that there
>is always a sense of self pomposity in them. This kind of self pomposity
>helped the Koreans gain some economic benefit, but did not improve the
>cultural aspects in their life. You can see them renting Chinese (mostly
>Hong Kong and Taiwanese) movies to fill their blank in the everyday life.
Hey...we rent Korean videos too..(actually I don't rent Hong Kong movies at
all...and are there Taiwanese ones too? maybe I should try one :-))

I used to love Kung-Fu movies but current Hong Kong movies are just not for 
me.. but still it depends ...some guys (including Korean Americans) love them..

>For this, Korean can not just bury their heads in the sand lying that their
>culture is totally irrelevant to the Chinese culture. For the same reason
>above, they even claim that Korean culture breeds the Chinese culture, 
>Confucius is Korean, ....., etc. And in their map, ROC does not exist.
>
I don't understand this at all. I don't think Chinese culture is irrelevant
to Korean culture...and I have no idea whether Korean culture has some
relevancy to Chinese culture 'cause I don't know that much about current
Chinese culture (BTW, what is "culture" anyway?)... and I don't understand
what you mean by "(Korean) culture is ..irrelevant to the Chinese.."?

And I don't claim Korean culture breeds the Chinese culture..for the reason,
see above..I don't think Korean culture has influenced Chinese in major way.
And then...who said Confucious is Korean... (s)he must be out of her/his 
mind. Everybody knows. And finally sure,sure ROC DOES exist in our map..
otherwise who would buy it? (:-))... 

>
>Interesting enougn, you can find most Korean males are also heavy smokers.
>And one more thing, most of the male Koreans wear sneakers in a different
>way than usual. The rear part of sneakers are always treaded flat.
>
Interesting enough, I don't smoke at all (sure I am a Korean male who did
undergrad in Korea)..and among my friends only one or two smoke.
About sneakers I have no idea . :-) ( Anyway I don't usually wear sneakers.)

>\* Ter-Yuan Lee                                                              */
Watch out.... In s.c.k, generalization is pretty much flamed.. :-)

-- 
 Sung Hyun Kim                                                         
         kim_sh@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu  // kim_sh@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu 
Dept. of Economics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218               
..... graduate of Korea Institute of Technology.........                                 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.korean
From: 61l512@cfi.waseda.ac.jp (Hello, who are you ?)
Subject: Re: All you d*ckhead friend-betraying Koreans!!!
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: wucc.cfi.waseda.ac.jp
Organization: Dept of Applied Physics, Waseda University
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 03:00:25 GMT

>>
>>In article <9223618.1419@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby) writes:
>>
>>>I'll never ever buy ANY Korean product from now on.... whether
>>>it's car or noodles or cheap pirate/rip-off Taiwan-designed
>>>computers... and I'll encourage all my friends to do so.
>>
In the same logic, you will not buy any product from US, JAPAN, and ALL OTHER
countries who have not diplomatic relation with ROC. How are you living?

-- 
			61l512@cfi.waseda.ac.jp
From: shao@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (SHAO CHUNG-SHANG)
Subject: Re: F16 to Taiwan
Keywords: F16
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:39:29 GMT

In article <BtzKL5.JKE@acsu.buffalo.edu> chchang@acsu.buffalo.edu (Chun-Shi Chang) writes:
>In article <1992Sep02.215310.8526@jho.com> john@jho.com (John Ho) writes:
>>
>>It is now official.  President Bush was in my backyard Ft. Worth this
>>afternoon to announce he authorized to sell Taiwan 150 F-16 which
>>worth more than $4 billion dollars and it saved 3000 jobs in
>>Texas. 
>
>This is simply the greatest news I have seen/heard for years.
>
>Now ROC government must be very careful not to anger the French
>government. We may still need their Mirage.

i think we should buy the mirage 2000, too; if we can .  but, the
question is frence still doesn't say yes.


cs shao.
From: ericlaw@vax.muskingum.edu (Eric Law, Geology Department)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Korean Bashing (Re: All you d*ckhead friend-betraying Koreans!!!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 11:11:04 -0600
Organization: Muskingum College

In article <1992Aug27.173042.10473@terminator.cc.umich.edu>, ywh@asterix.merit.edu (Woody Huang) writes:

> 	of representatives who have no representation at all.  I should've
> 	used 'PEOPLE-ELECTED government' instead of just 'ELECTED government'
> 	in my previous posting.
> 
	** I think it is still not good enough.

	   US "government" is not entirely "people-elected". There
	   are more "appointed" officers than elected officers.

	   Who is running the government? I think most government
	   offices are run by those "non-elected" officers.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: li@sicvax.enet.dec.com (Tong-Kang Li)
Subject: Re: The future of Taiwan (Re: The Foreign Minister of PRC said ...)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:53:54 GMT


In article <Fjj-67@engin.umich.edu>, chen@caen.engin.umich.edu (Jian Chen) writes...
>In article <1992Aug27.183750.13849@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> yewang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Yenwen Wang) writes:
>another political landing. In the future of China, KMT may become
>a consertive party like the consertive party in UK. CCP may become
>a Labour Party like the labour party in UK. China may be renamed as
>Republic of Great China including Mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong. This
>is my prediction. True or not, let's wait for 30 years. (DPP may be
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^
>dead at that time.) 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I hope not. 

Let's be fair, without the effort of some DPP's members in the early 80s, 
People on Taiwan probably still live under political repression which 
happened during 60s and 70s.

Tom
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: rot@multisys.com (Republic of Taiwan)
Subject: Re: The Foreign Minister of PRC said ...
Organization: Multimedia Information Systems Corporation, San Jose, CA                        TEL: (408) 437-3031            E-mail: info@multisys.com
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:05:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.210718.6155@zip.eecs.umich.edu> cyc@z.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang) writes:
=I don't think so. The reason that a country must choose either PRC or ROC
=is that both PRC and ROC claim that they are China. Since there is only one
=China, there will be only one winner. If Taiwan can be something else, 
=PRC can be China while Taiwan can be Taiwan. Two winners can exist at 
=the same time. 

Yes, KMT's Mongolia, Tibet, and  Mainland  China  has  burned  in
those  KMT  leaders'  bugheads.  They have been claiming that for
over 40 years. It won't be easy to ask them to  drop  the  claim,
but  it  would be easy just move those bugheads to the place they
claim they own for over 40 years and never step their foot on.

So all the Taiwanese has to do is to move those people who  claim
they  own  Mongolia to Mongolia, move those people who claim they
own Tibet to tibet and move those people who claim they own Main-
land  China  to  Mainland  China.  Then all Taiwanese can sit and
watch KMT and CCP fight each other NOT in Taiwan.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: cyc@z.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang)
Subject: Re: The Foreign Minister of PRC said ...
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 21:07:18 GMT

>>KMT is also
>>at fault due to the the territorial claim over China which puts Taiwan at a 
>>very embarrassed position in terms of getting international recognition.
>
>In my opinion, no matter KMT claim or disclaim, most of countries will not
>recognize Taiwan as "Republic of anything" at present or near future unless
>you pay enough $$.
>

I don't think so. The reason that a country must choose either PRC or ROC
is that both PRC and ROC claim that they are China. Since there is only one
China, there will be only one winner. If Taiwan can be something else, 
PRC can be China while Taiwan can be Taiwan. Two winners can exist at 
the same time. 

>>This kind of aggressive attempt only show us how China is going to treat
>>Taiwanese once they succeed in annexing Taiwan.
>> 
>>No, it is not going to happen.  We Taiwanese are going to have our own
>>country.  Long live Republic of Taiwan !
>
>I wonder what would happen if Taiwan declares "Taiwan is not part of China"
>and adopts name of "Republic of Taiwan". My guessing is Mainland China will
>blockade the island enough to cause social and economic chaos, e.g., collapse 
>of stock market and money fled out of country, etc. To restore the regional 
>peace, US, Japan, South Korea, etc will put great pressure on Taiwan to 
>force her to withdraw the declaration. After months, Taiwan may have to back 
>to previous state and take a very very long time to recover the economy and 
>dignity.
>
>Any comments.
>

This thought is like to ask a victim don't resist and just let a killer
kill him. Human being is granted to live not to be killed. Man.
Only an aggressive country will be asked to back off not a country being
under attacked. If U.N. didn't ask Kuwait to give up and surrender to Iraq, 
why should U.N. ask Taiwan to give up its right to live and right to 
determine their future.

Yi-Chieh
Xref: sparky soc.culture.taiwan:12631 soc.culture.korean:4109
From: txc6266@ultb.isc.rit.edu (T.X. Cheng )
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.korean
Subject: Re: Korean Airline flights unwelcome in Taiwanese Airspace, etc. [FWD]
Date: 29 Aug 92 01:24:04 GMT
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Originator: txc6266@ultb

In article <1992Aug27.030808.14877@mtu.edu> yuchao@mtu.edu (Edmond CHAO) writes:
>In article <Aug.26.10.21.20.1992.9023@gandalf.rutgers.edu>, junglee@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Jung S. Lee) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug25.185028.10446@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, txc6266@ultb.isc.rit.edu (T.X. Cheng ) writes:
>> > In article <BtIr9n.56J@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jclei@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Jason Lei) writes:
>> > 
>> > Dear Korean Airlines Pilots,
>> > 
>> >   Fly carefully, do not be shot down by anybody's missile AGAIN.
>> > 
>> > R.O.C. Air Force
>> > (Just for entertainment)
>> 
>> You must be fucking out of your mind if that is entertaining. People
>> are still being hurt by the incident.
>> 
>> If you are pissed, go somewhere else. I don't take that kind of crap here.
>> 
>> Jung S. Lee
>
>
>Dear netters:
>
>  I DOUBT that Mr. T.X. Cheng (who wrote this joke) is a Chinese
> 
>  from mainland China (PROC) rather than from Taiwan (ROC),
>
>  because his middle initial X. is a typical mainland-China type spelling. 
>
>  If that is the case, you can blame him whatever you want.
>  
>  I think no one should make such a serious joke on Korean people.
>
>  Just feel a little strange!
>
>
>
>  Edmond (Yuan-Ning) Chao
>  yuchao@mtu.edu
>  Dept of ME
>  Michigan Tech. Univ. 

Guess where I am from by my name?  Please don't be silly, it makes no sense.

Maybe I am from Mars.
From: slzw0@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Look ! Stupid Taiwanese !!
Date: 31 Aug 92 10:41:51 MDT
Organization: Utah State University


From: mtl@cs.brown.edu (Ming-Tsung Lu), Brown Computer Science Dept.

>We Taiwanese may be stupid, but we know how to spell plane. It's
>PLANE, not PLAIN.
>Don't worry, Dan doesn't spell very well either.
>Do you get that? !


Mr. Lu:

  Thank you so much for checking spell for me.
  I will hire you as a my spell chAcker.   :-)
                                  ^C.S. Park

From: ericlaw@vax.muskingum.edu (Eric Law, Geology Department)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: The Foreign Minister of PRC said ...
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:38:11 GMT
Organization: Muskingum College

In article <l9o1r5INNo5n@pollux.usc.edu>, mcyang@pollux.usc.edu (Bien-Chao Iunn) writes:
> 
> No, it is not going to happen.  We Taiwanese are going to have our own
> country.  Long live Republic of Taiwan !


	** Even if you use the Chinese way to count the age, ROT
	   is still "0" year old.

	   I am sorry, you may want to count it by Taiwanese way.
	   May I ask how old is ROT now? 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: scc53091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve C. Chen)
Subject: Re: F16 to Taiwan
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:43:00 GMT
Keywords: F16

shao@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (SHAO CHUNG-SHANG) writes:

>In article <BtzKL5.JKE@acsu.buffalo.edu> chchang@acsu.buffalo.edu (Chun-Shi Chang) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep02.215310.8526@jho.com> john@jho.com (John Ho) writes:
>>>
>>>It is now official.  President Bush was in my backyard Ft. Worth this
>>>afternoon to announce he authorized to sell Taiwan 150 F-16 which
>>>worth more than $4 billion dollars and it saved 3000 jobs in
>>>Texas. 
>>
>>This is simply the greatest news I have seen/heard for years.
>>
>>Now ROC government must be very careful not to anger the French
>>government. We may still need their Mirage.

>i think we should buy the mirage 2000, too; if we can .  but, the
>question is frence still doesn't say yes.


>cs shao.


The main reason is that the ROC Air Force uses the English system for all the
maintence systems for the existing jet fighters.  On the other hand, the French
arm forces use the Matric system.  If the Taiwanese decides buy both F-16s and
the Mirages, they'll have to purchase a whole new set of maintence equipment
just for the Mirages.  In addition, the F-16s don't cost as much as the Mirages
and they are battle tested (Israelis, Desert Storm, etc).  What do other people
think?  By the way, the above info is written according to what I heard in 
Taiwan this summer.

Steve Chen
scc53091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: rot@multisys.com (Republic of Taiwan)
Subject: Han people adn Chinese?
Organization: Multimedia Information Systems Corporation, San Jose, CA                        TEL: (408) 437-3031            E-mail: info@multisys.com
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:55:53 GMT

In article <78682@ut-emx.uucp> joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang) writes:
=In article <1992Aug28.000437.24388@leland.Stanford.EDU> claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
=>I don't think this is quite it.  First, the Chinese living in northern China
=>now are definitely not pure Chinese (or perhaps I should say Han) stock.
=
=On the other hand, Chinese living in southern China are also
=definitely not pure "Chinese" stock.  There was no doubt a lot of
=intermarriage between the refugees from the North and the indigenous
=peoples of the South.
=
=I don't think it makes sense at all to look at Chinese from the
=viewpoint of "genetic purity."  Genetically speaking, no one alive
=today can be considered "pure Chinese."


Because there was never a Chinese exist before ROC.

People call themselve HaGa, HoLo or whatever it  fits  when  they
confront another people different from themselve.

Even today, not many people understand what 'Chinese' mean  under
KMT's sophisticated brainwashing.

Basically, Han people just do not understand Nationalism.  If you
are  the  center of the world, why you need Nationalism.  Nationa
is an artificial product of western civilization.  To Han people,
they only know Han and non-Han, and different people among Han.

Don't get me wrong. I am not here to judge, but to state facts.
From: jch@netcom.com (Jack Hwang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: The future of Taiwan (Re: The Foreign Minister of PRC said ...)
Date: 4 Sep 92 05:35:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <78680@ut-emx.uucp> joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang) writes:

>I do agree that the DPP had a useful role to catalyzing some of the
>changes on Taiwan.  The trouble is that now that most of the political
>repression is gone, DPP seems to have a bit of an identity crisis.
>
>DPP can decide to be the "party of opposition to KMT" or it can decide
>to be the "party of Taiwan Independence."  The trouble with being the
>"party of Taiwan Independence" is that it loses a lot of support from
>"pro-China" people who would like to see a healthy opposition party in
>Taiwan.  Unfortunately, DPP seems to have chosen to this and is
>attacking the KMT where it is strongest (the Taiwan/China issue),
>rather than focusing its attack on areas where KMT is weak (the
>environment for example).
>
>This is rather unfortunate since two-party political systems tend to
>be more open and healthier than one-party domainant political systems.

Well, if you heard KuLing's speeches recently, you wil find that there
is a solution already.  Since a two-party political system is much more
open and healthier than one-party dominant system, a four-party system
would be much open and healthier than two-party system; also, a eight-
party system ... just kidding.

However, his suggestion was to make a four-party system: DPP can split
to be Democratic Party and Progress Party.  Let TIers stay in PP to work
for their dream of TI and let the rest stay in DP for Taiwan's democracy.
Also, KMT (China People Party) can split to be China Party and People Party.
Let proUnifier stay in CP to dream their Big China and let the rest in the
PP to work for the benefit of people in Taiwan.  Won't that solve the
problem?
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: junglee@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Jung S. Lee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.korean
Subject: Re: All you d*ckhead friend-betraying Koreans!!!
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:43:09 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.korean
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <4eal3G200WB4B4_r8C@andrew.cmu.edu>, jt2o+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Teng) writes:
> hahahahahah!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAA!!!

By the way, what are you laughing at so much?

Jung S. Lee
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: li@sicvax.enet.dec.com (Tong-Kang Li)
Subject: Re: The Foreign Minister of PRC said ...
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:51:30 GMT


>Yes, U.S (I am not sure about Japan and S. Korea) would try to restore the
>regional peace, but would do it in a totally opposite way as you suggested.
>The U.S would force the PROC to withdraw itsmilitary threatening or blocking.

When you want to count on the U.S. for this matter you should think what is 
the best interest to her. Is losing Taiwan Independence or military 
confrontation with China? I think U.S. would rather losing Taiwan Independence 
than military confrontation (unless China decides to use forces to unify Taiwan
that may be a different story).

Also the fact is U.S. government has expressed many times for opposition of 
Taiwan Independence. And China is not Iraqi, Lybia, or Panama. Military 
confrontation with China can be very costly to the U.S. 

Now you can see whether U.S. will persuade Taiwan giving up TI or fight for it.

>The U.S. (so far) has never tried to obstruct any country declaring
>independence. On the contrarily, she gave full recognization soon. See the
>examples of Croatia, Bosnia, or any republic in the Commonwealth.

U.S. was the last major NATO member to recognize Croatia, Bosnia, and three 
Baltics. As for Republics in the Commonwealth, U.S. would like to see 
Gorbachov (sp?) continue to lead these Republics under the name of 
Soviet-Union but Soviet Union collapsed herself then U.S. recognized these 
Republics after the break-up.

Since tension in the East Asia region has been greatly reduced these several 
years, U.S. has no reason to recognize Taiwan Independence at the risk of 
her own interest.

I understand your frustration and resentment but truth is truth.

Tom
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan