HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cyc@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang)
Subject: Re: I care,Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:51:23 GMT

>CCP is so eager to take over Taiwan and has the military might to do it
>(unless you are intentionally blind not to see it). When they are
>invited by those TIers, they would be very happy. This is the last thing
>most of us would like to see. I suspect some of Tiers are just CCP
>spies.
>

If so, the pro-unificationers will be much qualified to be CCP spies.
If CCP can easily take over Taiwan without noticable resists, will CCP wait
for so long ?  If CCP is so eager to take over Taiwan, what makes CCP wait
and hesitate not to do so for over 40 years ?

Yi-Chieh
From: cqu@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Chang-ning Qu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Michael Chang in US Open Semi-Final!
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:32:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Sep11.212947.2196@objy.com> cw@orion.uucp (C.W. Chung) writes:
>
>Another interesting notes: the US top men tennis players are either
>first or second generation immigrants:
>	Agassi:		second generation Iranian
>	Chang:		second generation Chinese
>	Courier:	from Australia(?)
>	Lendl:		first generation Czech.
>	Sampras:	second generation from Greek
>

     Does Lendl become a citizen of US?
    I guess he is still keeping Czech citizenship
    even though he lives here over 10 years. Patriot?
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li)
Subject: Re: A thought on Shen Tong's arrest
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:24:37 GMT

In article <92247.200805LXH108@psuvm.psu.edu> <LXH108@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>of more money. Freedom of expression or speech? not the first priority.
>Pro-freedom-of-speech-ers, you are not getting along with the mainstream
>of Chinese people.

The mainstream? The mainstream of American one hundred years ago had
black peopla as slaves. The mainstream of American 50 years ago did
not allow women to vote. The mainstream American forty years ago did
not allow Chinese to immigrate.

The mainstream of Chinese twenty years ago had "class classification"
which prevent many children from "bad" families to participate social
work. The mainstream of Chinese 25 years ago treated professors as dogs.

Yes, the mainstream of Chinese today do not have free speech. The
maintream of Chinese three years ago were supposed to be slaughtered
by the government.

I would like to look back at the mainstream after 50 years.
From: yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , )
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: F-16's fear?
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:24:00 GMT
Organization: New York University

usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu (Usenet on news.acns) writes:

>Since you had bravely cut your wounded arm to survive yourself, you are not  
>supposed to get it back. Check your logics! Next time, say something logical.

Long time no c, Mr. Carl, my argument is logic enough, Taiwan is a part
of China, we got it back when we defeated Japan in WWII.

By the way, when did you learned logic? You took some course in
the missing period? but definitely either you failed the class
or the school just care your tuition.
You have to take 10 more classed, Mr. Carl.

>Carl

Ze Yang
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: wangf@unixg.ubc.ca (Frank Wang)
Subject: Shall we support CCP use force to TI?
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:16:03 GMT

After reading so many articles, follow ups on F16, I have a question
to  us well educated mainlanders, DO WE SUPPORT CCP TO USE FORCE
IF TAIWAN CLAIMS INDEPENDANT LIKE THE YOUGOSLAVIAN ARE DOING?

F. Wang 

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: chyang@cochin.engin.umich.edu (Chung Hsiung Yang)
Subject: Re: Why don't you stay ?
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 13:26:00 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Originator: chyang@cochin.engin.umich.edu


In article <13SEP199210432939@phobos.ucc.umass.edu>, s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194) writes:

> Sorry, Sir. 
> 
> None of the above you mentioned represents SOVEREIGNTY. Hong Kong has
> all the above you mentioned, but nobody would say it is a independent
> country. Everybody knows that it is a colony of Great Britain. Most
> of the people in today's world know the problem of Taiwan: it is the
> result of the WWII and the cold war. Most people in this world would 
> not say it is a LEGITIMATE, SOVEREIGN country. 
> 
> Whether Beijing should unify Taipei with force is another issue and
> I am not intend to discuss that here. Again, this is a issue between
> Beijing and Taipei while the F-16 sale is a issue between Beijing
> and Washington, two world wide recognized sovereign counrties.
> 
> I'd like to remind you as well as Mr. Allen Yang that you can see a lot
> of American students in Beijing, too. Does it mean that they believe
> China is a better place than the United States? I have told Mr. Allen
> Yang that I have no intension at all to stay here any longer than
> it is necessary, not because here is bad but because I love my counrty.
> I am very dispointed to see that several people from Twaiwan always
> like to believe that there is only one cause for every thing. That
> is simply not true. People from mainland came to the US for different
> reasons and may want to stay here for different reasons. Also, people
> may agree with you or disagree with you for different reasons. There
> is no clear cut for anything!! I also feel that Some people, espacially
> people from Taiwan, like to say the other body is "brain-washed". 
> I am sorry to hear that. KMT invented that word and used that a lot
> while Communists in Beijing rearly use it. So, who is "brain-washed"?
> 							---------------

	I believe the communists like the use the word "re-educate", it 
sounds a little more harmless, but it has pretty much the same effect.

> c.q.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: li@sicvax.enet.dec.com (Tong-Kang Li)
Subject: Re: a few question about taiwan
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:43:46 GMT


In article <BuFuKD.7wL@news.orst.edu>, heathd@ucs.orst.edu (Du Shi-hua Heath) writes...
>I have a question about what percent of Taiwanese are born in Taiwan,
>and what percent of Taiwanese have mainland origins.

I think at least 80% of current Taiwan residents were born in Taiwan. 
Except for Taiwan natives, I think 98% of Taiwanese have Mainland origins. 
Although, some of them prefer to be called Taiwanese only for various 
reasons.

>Another question is that if Taiwan put the independency in vote, how many
>Taiwanese would vote for it.

According to last December's election in Taiwan which was treated as indicator 
of Taiwan Independence. The major opposition party, DPP, were promoting the 
idea of TI and the ruling party, KMT, smartly not even mentioning reunification 
but promoting stability, security, and prosperity during the campaign. As a 
result, KMT won landside 72% of votes (the best scores for years) and DDP 
won 24% of votes (the worst score for years).

I think TI and reunification have a few audiences at present. Majority 
of Taiwan residents prefer "maintaining the status quote but keeping TI 
and reunification options open".

> 
>About Taiwan independency, I think it's all up to the people who live in
>Taiwan now.  So I want to know how many people will vote for it in Taiwan.
> 

With Taiwan economic success and recent political reform, recent events, 
arms sale and relation improvments with other countries, have demonstated 
Taiwan people have more confident about their future and changing attitude 
(more friendly and respect) toward Taiwan from other countries.

Personally, I think Taiwan people deserve rights of self-determination.
From: mj05@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (MO JIANCHENG)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Looking for classmates of Tsinghua 85-90
Date: 6 Sep 92 19:34:43 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University


    Last time, I put the message to try to contact some of my old classmates.
Thanks for replying, but I didn't find one of them. Once again, if someone
knows something about Electronic Eng. of Tsinghua (90 graduated), please
send the E-Mail to me. Thank you!
From: U21885@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: test only
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:35:44 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

============================
Test
From: yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , )
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: What About Tibet? (Re: What about China done to Korea)
Date: 4 Sep 92 23:01:00 GMT
Organization: New York University

v999qx29@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu writes:
>In article <65500080@acf3.NYU.EDU>, yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , ) writes...
> 
>>Han people maybe look down (conciously or unconciously) 
>>people from a poorer enviroment just like people in any other society, 
>>but that kind of attitude is not based on cultural or racial differences,
>>it's purely econimic, that is understandable, it's even worse in this
>>country, people look down you even if you do your work better than them,
>>you are clenner than them, what can you do about it? As I stated before, 
>>relatively speaking, Chinese don't care much about people's ethnic background 
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>and religious belief, they can co-exist with different people easily.
> 
> 
>>Ze Yang

> I really doubt it. What about the word "FAN(barbarians in Chinese)".
>Actually, Chinese are just like all other peoples in the world,taking 
>advantage of relatively weak ethnic groups. Chinese had never been so
>pease loving until the empire was defeated by Europeans. It sounds
>"Ah-Q" to say that Chinese is a pease loving people and they don't care
>much about people's ethnic background so that Chinese will have something
>to be proud of and feel less hurt about their poverty, their freedomless and
>the fact that Chinese was defeated by Europeans in almost every aspects.
>Don't let ideological comforting put the people into sleep again. It's time
>to wake up and show something really suuperior to the world.  

I mean relatively Chinese are better in that aspect, considering Jews 
are also wites, they live among Europeans for a long time, but
there are still conflicts between them.
Chinese are not aggresive enough, you can find that
there are much more examples that Han Chinese being defeated by other
ethnic group than vice visa.
I even didn't say that this means supervior, what I want to say is
that Chinese should not only blame ourselves, we should take 
every neccesary measures to build a strong China.
I am not Ah-Q, I think Chinese as a whole is a loser, but we should not
blame ourselves too much.

Ze Yang
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: s9874203@titan.ucc.umass.edu (s9874203)
Subject: email xiangqi game, anyone?
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:49:25 GMT

Is anyone interested in a xiangqi (chinese chess) game by email? I am a
mediocre player. Thanks for your attention.

H. Yang
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: zhuh@athena.mit.edu (Hui Zhu)
Subject: Re: To those pro Shen Tong guys
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:16:10 GMT

In article <92252.114459YXZ100@psuvm.psu.edu>, YXZ100@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
|> 
|> >Sir, You know me when I was in TAM?  Did I made any irresponsible
|> >claim on TAM?  I don't think so.
|> >
|> 
|> 
|> >Here is sth you should learn in US first:
|> >
|> >1. If you want to play, you get to pay.
|> >2. If you cannot pay full, pay at least the minimum.
|> >3. If you cannot pay the minimum, do NOT play.
|> >
|> >Understand?   Are you on TAM during that time? If NOT, shut up. Sir.
|> 
|> Then, if I have played with your game rule, why don't you stay in TAM with your
|> claim about courage? Why do you have to make such a claim in U.S.? Once again,
|> I have no interest to ask you to do so. Simply these are just logical questions
|> following your rule.

Did I play in TAM square as ST did ? so-called student leader?  Was I a
so-called D-fighter?  Am I crying for "democracy" like ST?  Did I
advocate "revolution"? :)

If Not, what/why should I take that responsibility?  Give me your "logic" here.

Listen, still the old rules: If you want to play, take your responsibility.
If you do not have the courage, just do not play.  Fleeing and begging for
foreign interference won't do you any good.  Uncle Sam never did/will bring
democracy to anywhere!
From: stlin@stevelin.Eng.Sun.COM (Steven Lin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: 150 F-16 to Taiwan
Date: 9 Sep 1992 22:14:09 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: stevelin

In article <QINYI.92Sep4001005@r6i.uk.ac.man.cs> qinyi@uk.ac.man.cs (Yi Qin) writes:
>
>China will be the first foreign buyer of Su-27K (K is designated for the
>carrierborne models, like Mig29K). Su-27 will make its first appearance in 
>the coming Farnborough Airshow in UK in mid Sept.
>
>>>afternoon to announce he authorized to sell Taiwan 150 F-16 which
>
>I don't think China will buy, if she wants, F-16 in the sheer number of
>150 or 300. F-16 is just too expensive. It costed 16 milion US$ each
>several years ago. Also, it looks like Taiwan is going to replace all
>her fighters--150 is really a big number for the size of an airforce.
>
>
ROC did not protest against P'ROC buying weapons from Russian. But P'ROC
yelled loud while ROC got the deal to buy volume F-16 fighters.

China, as a communist country, has no way to buy F-16 in any means.

Too expensive? Not for ROC! ROC will buy 150 F-16, in addition 60 more
fighters from Frence, plus self-developed IDF (the first volume production
of 250, and may be more to come). This means new blood has emerged into
ROC defence forces. 

	Behave yourself, brother!


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu (Usenet on news.acns)
Subject: Why people want to leave
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:21:13 GMT

I have been watching netters debating on "F-16 fighters" for days. Each time I 
saw some posts from some of our mainlanders, I was reminded of a recent 
Chinese TV series "Stories in an Editoiral Office (Bian1 Ji Bu4 de Gu4 Shi4)".

In the first episode of the TV series, the Editorial Office is in a very bad
shape. Fewer and fewer people subscribe their magazines. Editors like Li 
Dongbao, Ge Lin and Yu Deli want to leave and go to some other offices. 
People like Old Liu (Mr. Liu) wouldn't leave because he knows that he is too
old and nobody would want him. Only people like Sister Niu (Niu2 Da4 Jie3) 
would stay and fight. Her opinion is quite interesting: She would fight and
defend this last fortress to death. 

Like some of our CSS here, Sister Niu never thinks why people want to leave
and why fewer and fewer people want to subscribe their magazines. She only 
knows how to blame others. She would never ask herself whether the system has
something wrong. In her mind, the old system and traditional values are no
doubt correct. She even dreams of changing the thoughts of the mass to the 
so-called glorious old way.

I think part of the reason why China is still left behind is that there are 
still too many people like Sister Niu. These people are the obstacles of the
development of China. They might personally be good people, but their damage
is far much larger that the gangsters. 

People like Sister Niu in this net, wake up! Stop day-dreaming and be
realistic. Blindly praising China has nothing to do with patriotism.

People like Sister Niu, don't fool yourself any more!


 
Carl
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25632 soc.culture.taiwan:13419
From: utingli@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Tingli Pan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view. (Was: Who Cares 150 F-16s.)
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:25:35 GMT
Organization: Educational Computing Network

In article <1992Sep15.175245.26157@leland.Stanford.EDU> claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>In article <1992Sep15.141044.29969@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> utingli@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Tingli Pan) writes:
>
>>The Chinese government is recognize as an official one by either USA or
>>France, then selling weapons to its enemy is an obvious insult. Due to
>>the circumstances, China and USA do have an agreement that USA can sell
>>weapons to Taiwan when Nixon visited China. Although the amount and
>>level of the weapon is debatable. But other European countries selling
>>weapons to Taiwan is a way of violation of the rules made by those
>>countries themself.
>
>But there is precedence.  For example, most countries (including the U. S.,
>I believe) recognized the former Sandinista government of Nicaragua as the
>legitimate government of Nicaragua, but they supplied their opponents, the
>Contras, with weapons and other supplies.
>
That is true, but it doesn't mean US was right. They layed mines in the
Nicaragua port. They sent advisers to the Contras. If every country does
like that, how about the New World Order?
 
>Another example would be the case of Cambodia.  Before the withdraw of
>Vietnamese troops, most entities (including the United Nations) recognized
>the Khmer Rouge government as the legitimate one in Cambodia; however, they
>supplied weapons and other supplies to other factions, including one led by
>Prince Sihanouk (sp).

No, US never recognized Cambodia even before Vietnam's invasion. 
>
>>Right, the selling is for US's own benefits. But non of Bush or Clinton
>>would have said such word. (They are talking about the peace, or some
>>thing like that in Asia) Otherwise China has every right to sell
>>anything to any country without concerning the objection from US.
>>Actually China already starts that, selling nuclear technique to Iran.
>>If both sides don't restrain themselves then the consquense is not very
>>pleasant. What US is going to do now? Selling F-16 c/d, F-18, or F-22 to
>>Taiwan. And China, put nuclear bomb on sale? Of course none of those
>>will be the concern of you. As far as you have some toys you will be
>>happy.
>
>But there is a difference.  Nuclear proliferation is not in anyone's best
>interest, including China's.  But I don't see how Taiwan getting F-16s can
>endanger China or other countries around Taiwan.

As I said before, to China and Taiwan the selling is more in a political
meaning. That's why China got mad about it. I don't say the selling will
affect the peace in that area, yet if everybody follows this logic, what
might have happened?

Tingli Pan
From: szhang@bcm.tmc.edu (Shide Zhang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Kai Shu Chinese font wanted
Keywords: Chinese fonts, Ziku, Kai3shu1, GuoBao
Date: 8 Sep 1992 21:03:39 GMT

Hi! netters,

Sorry for posting this non-social, non-cultural stuff in this group, but I
do believe that some people in this group can help me. Here is my question:

Does anyone know where I can download (via anonymous ftp) a Chinese font in
Kaishu style assigned to GouBao code? Either 16x16 or 24x24 will be good
****** *****             ******
(Non-PostScript format)

Any info will be greatly appreciated!
Thanks in advance

szhang@bcm.tmc.edu

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: mtl@cs.brown.edu 
Subject: Re: F-16's fear?
Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:20:58 GMT

In article <3531@babcock.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu>, yshuang@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu (Yongshan Huang) writes:
|> 
|> Why fear F-16 ? One hundred and fifty F-16 surely can not 
|> defend Taiwan. And Taiwanese do not like war.  But I just 
						 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> don't understand why the govenment in Taiwan want to spend
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> so much money to help Bush's election. So stupit !
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
China also spent a lot of money buying Sukhoi-27 from Russia, right?

Because CCP does not promise that they will not attack Taiwan.
If China and Taiwan can sit down and sign a peace treaty, I don't think
we need to spend so much money on buying weapons. 
Indeed 150 F-16s can not defend Taiwan, but if someone dares to invade
Taiwan, they have to think about it before they do it.

Ming

		     *****
		**** *   *
		*  * *****
		**** *   *
		*  * *****   
		**** *   *
	    	    *    *
_________________________________________________

"I don't want to get in shape! Round is a shape!"
				     --- Garfield



Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: jzhang@sdcc3.UCSD.EDU
Subject: The logic of "New World Order"
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 04:34:20 GMT

I don't care too much about F-16s, but I do think the recent events
are quite revealing about the "New World Order":
_ The U.S. government has approved the sale of 150 F-16s to Taiwan,
arguing that it is not a violation of the "Shanghai Communique"
which pledged that the quality of arms sale to Taiwan not to be above 
the early 1980s level;

_ In the mean time, the U.S. government is opposed to the sale of
France's Mirage-2000 to Taiwan, arguing that it is an offensive
weapon;

_ The U.S. has expressed opposition to China's sale of nuclear
reactor to Iran, even though Iran pledged full compliance with
the standard of the International Atomic Energy Commission;

_ The U.S. Congress has asked to have China's MFN status 
conditioned, with the limitation of China's weapon sale to the
Middle East being one of the conditions.

It seems to me that the logic of the New World Order is not so new.
Just as the old Chinese saying: "The Governor is allowed to arson,
but the common folk is prohibited from lighting a candle. (Zhi3
Xu3 Zhou1 Guan1 Fang4 Huo3, Bu4 Xu3 Bai3 Xing4 Dian3 Deng1)"
I hope that on the MFN issue, IFCSS will retain its "independence",
and refrain from being used as a pawn by American politicians in
their so-called "New World Order". 

Zhenqin Li
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: Territory of Ancient China : Han Dynasty
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 02:02:35 GMT

In article <9225200.20928@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby) writes:
>**Period:
>
>206 B.C. -> 9 A.D. Han (West).
>25 A.D. -> 208 A.D. Han (East).
>
>**Dynasty:
>
>Han Dynasty
>
>**Area under Central Control:
>
>North:  modern North Korea is under Han control.
>South:  modern Northern Vietnam is under Han control.
>SouthWest:  modern GuiZhou and YunNan are under Han control.

Not quite.  Gui Zhou (then called Yeh4 Lang2) and Yun Nan (then called Dien1)
were then small tributary states.  Influenced, yes.  Controlled, no.

>West:  went as far as the Western edge of modern China occupying
>modern XinJiang Uygur Autonomous Region and GanSu.

Gan Su, yes.  Xin Jiang, no.  Same case: small tributary states.  (And
actually, a few of the tributary states were not so small.)
>
>However, during the Han (East), additional area was gained in
>modern Northern Burma, whereas far NorthWestern area was lost and
>became a small, seperate country.

Not a "small, separate country" but rather separate state*s*.

Besides, I have *never* read anything that suggested that Han controlled
northern Burma.
>
>**Area under Central Influence:
>
>Trade was established as far as India, Persia, Syria, and Rome (East).

Hmmm.  Eastern Roman Empire wasn't even in place during the time of the Han
Dynasty, so that's wrong.  Besides, there was never any direct trade with
Rome.  The farthest recorded by any Han personnel was Gan1 Ying1 (a subordinate
of Ban1 Chao1, the great "conquistador," if you will, of Xin Jiang), who
reached either the Persian Gulf or the Mediterranean Sea, depending on 
different interpretations.
>
>Major surrounding Civilizations are:
>
>Machuria in the NorthEast.
>Mongolia in the North.
>Tibet in the SouthWest.

I don't believe Tibet had a "civilization" then.
>
>there was a civilization in the SouthWest (modern Northern Burma)
>but was conquested by Han (East).

Which is...  (Please name it)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong