HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lulu@pike.ucr.edu (david lu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Don't ride MARTA (Atlanta)
Date: 25 Aug 92 04:59:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: galaxy.21934
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <66435@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt2768b@prism.gatech.EDU (JENGLUNG LIN) writes:
>Since Olympic 1996 in coming to Atlanta, the rapid rail system -MARTA decides
>to use multiple languages to guide tourists. The languages include Japanese,
>Korean, but NO Chinese.
>
>Chinese is not less than Japanese or Korean in population. I think MARTA is
>just discriminating against Chinese.
>
>Let's show this to them - DO NOT RIDE MARTA until the situation changes.

I don't think this is a case of discrimination--just economics.
They can't possibly include every conceivable language in the
world, and there are more Japanese and Korean tourists than there
are Chinese tourists.  Yes, there are more people in the world
who understand Chinese than any other language, but most of them
are in mainland China and probably will not be visiting Atlanta
in 1996 as tourists.

BTW, does anyone know how many Chinese *tourists* there were in
Barcelona?  Here in Southern California, I've seen a lot of
Japanese tourists groups in popular sites, but hardly any
Taiwanese or Korean groups.

			- David

-- 
---==lulu@ucrengr==---  just another overworked graduate student.
David T Lu, Amateur Thinker: lulu@ucrengr.ucr.edu, {ucsd, uci}!ucrengr!lulu
"I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle."
					- Arthur Dent, Hitchhiker's
From: ericlaw@vax.muskingum.edu (Eric Law, Geology Department)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Let go the embassy; let Taiwan be Taiwan.
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:37:19 GMT
Organization: Muskingum College

In article <7911@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>, chang@wright.seas.ucla.edu (Fengteng Chang) writes:
> 
> Check it ! The first statement that there is only one China is right.
> For your second and third statements, most of the exact wording are
> like "respect Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China".

	** These are quite meaningless words. Why would people like you
	   spend time in studing them? 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: shao@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (SHAO CHUNG-SHANG)
Subject: Re: Korean Bashing (Re: All you d*ckhead friend-betraying Koreans!!!)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 03:20:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.173042.10473@terminator.cc.umich.edu> ywh@asterix.merit.edu (Woody Huang) writes:
>
>	Now the real question is: 
>	After next presidential election, can we say Taiwanese government
>	IS a PEOPLE-ELECTED government?
>

after next election, yes, we can say roc government is a people-elected 
government from any aspect.

cs shao.
From: btlee@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Anitesh Barua)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re:a Korean view on ROK/PRC diplomatic normalization.
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:58:51 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

yewang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Yenwen Wang) writes:	

	>I think the main reason for such anti-ROK sentiment is:
>Given the many options ROK government has, why did President Roh took
>the one that hurt ROC most? We feel Roh is sucking up to mainland
>CCP regime.
>And for argument such as 'ROK is very NICE that it delayed the normalization
>of diplomatic relationship with PRC for sooooooo long.' It sounds like
>Mainland China has been soooooo eager to establish diplomacy with ROK.
>The fact is, mainland China has been reluctant to do so until rycently.

    I agree to your assertion that ROK government hasn't delayed its decision "on the behalf of ROC". I cann't believe there is such "moral", "personal" and altruistic thing in international affairs. By the same token, you can not accuse ROK's decision as "betrayal of long friend."   In the previous posting, I give one "practical" reason why we have been eager to establish diplomacy with Mainland China.   

Yesterday, I read an editorial from one Korean news paper on this issue, titled "Taiwan can live well and will prosper still and forever!".  That's the quote from USA president Carter(SP?) when he mentioned about ROC after US shifted to PRC.  The conclusion of that aditorial is that Taiwan surely will prosper as she has done regardless the diplomatic tie with ROK and we really regret that we can not recognize both chinas. However, we also belive and hope that some time latter, if we can see really "one chi
na" as both governments insist, then we will see more "ROC-like" china than "PRC-like".  

However, I disagree to your assertion that Rho's government is sucking up to main land regime. As I pointed out, it has been long time since any ideologies or moral principles diappeared in inter-national stage.   My point is that our government did the right thing for our own people's interests and you would have been hurt no matter what course and procedure ROK government followed when ROK does not have any choice to recognize both countries.  

If you, taiwanes really hate Roh government, please wait only three months. Anyway, we will have new president.  If you keep accusing ROK, I will think we are just victim of your "internal" politics because it's your CHINA who force us to select only "one" and I have seen even opposite opinions among you taiwaneses about "one china". 

BTW, I am still missing everything which I experienced in Taipei including girls in "Bei-tto".   Don't be hurt by negligible. Taiwan will proser still. 
Have a nice day
From: slzw0@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: What a childish talking !
Date: 30 Aug 92 00:42:21 GMT
Organization: Utah State University


To:	IN%"slzw0@CC.USU.EDU"
CC:
Subj:	RE: Look ! Stupid Taiwanese !!

Return-path: <cyen@ponder.csci.unt.edu>
Received: from ponder (ponder.csci.unt.edu) by CC.USU.EDU (PMDF #2458 ) id
 <01GO4ZWC6ISG8YBYDH@CC.USU.EDU>; Sat, 29 Aug 1992 03:00:53 MDT
Received: by ponder (5.61/1.36) id AA16924; Sat, 29 Aug 92 04:01:46 -0500
Date: 29 Aug 1992 04:01:46 -0500
From: Jesse@ponder.csci.unt.edu
Subject: RE: Look ! Stupid Taiwanese !!
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan

>In soc.culture.taiwan you write:

>>Dear Taiwanese Fighter Plain Pilots:
>>We Korean Airlies have loaded air to air missle to shut down ROC fighter
>>plains around ROC cost.  GO AHEAD KIDS !  WE WILL MAKE OUR DAY !!  Our next
>>mission is blow up the tiny island that is attached at the end of PRC tail.

>>Korean Airlines Pilots
>>(This is not for just entertainment)

>deleted...



>>LOOK AT THE REALITY !!   REALISE YOUR SITUATION !!
>>UNDERSTAND THE ICY INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSHIP AMONG THE COUNTRIES !!
>>AND THINK OVER WHAT YOU CAN DO !!
>>THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO MOVE EMOTIONALLY !!

>>This is not the game between person to person.   Don't point to ROK !
>>point yourself to fix your problem !   If you guys do not change you
>>guys attitude,  you will remain just tiny county forever.  Be a big
>>minded guy for your future.   Assume PRC is also part of yours and do
>>your best !!

>>C.S. Park




>I don't think this korean guy is mature enough. Anyway, no matter he is a
>korean or not, I have an advice for him, "WATCH YOUR MOUTH!"

>Jesse


  What would you say to your friends one who posted "d*ck head Koreans.."
  In spite fact that I really want to say "d*ck head Taiwanese.."
  I didn't, because I am not the type of guy who speak as Taiwanese do.

  The reason is simple.   " I AM A KOREAN "


C. S.  Park
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: rot@multisys.com (Republic of Taiwan)
Subject: Re: Can we not all get along?
Organization: Multimedia Information Systems Corporation. (TEL: 408-437-3031)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 16:08:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.000437.24388@leland.Stanford.EDU> claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.222708.23570@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> thuang@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Tze-yau Huang) writes:
>
>>First, some Taiwanese Hakka escaped from China to Taiwan more than one
>>millinium ago and historials are arguing wether Hakka were originated
>>from China proper or entered China from North Asia long time ago.  For
>>Taiwanese Holo, genetic analysis points out that they are more likely to
>>be a sinicized Yue people but the analysis is blurred by the
>>intermarriage of Holo and Taiwanese Pinpu (Austronesian or
>>Proto-Malayo-Polinesian).  There is no reason to choose China
>>particularly as homeland while there were intermarriages and migrations.
>>Also, there is no such thing as big China.  There is China Proper, the
>>region that has been consistantly populated by Han population ruled
>>effectively by the Chinese Dynasties.  These is the China ruled
>>effectively by the PRC.
>
>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.
>First, there were the mixture with the "Five Hu's" during the Wu4 Hu2 Lwan4
>Hua2 period and the North/South Dynasties period (304-609 for the two periods).
>Second, there was the mixture with the Turkish, Manchurian, and Mongolian
>races starting from the collapse of Tang Dynasty down to the early parts of
>Chin Dynasty.
>
>The reason why, then, the Holo should be considered Chinese is that *they*
>(like the Hakka and other southern Chinese people) are the "purer" Chinese.


According to KMT, HaGa and HoLo people are real Han people who
migrated south from Central-Plane to southern Mainland and
the people left behind are all half-breed of Barbarian and Han.
This could explain why Taiwanese are look so different from
those Mainland 'Barbarians'.(borrow from KMT's term)

The truth is Taiwanese is really look and feel dramatic different
from Communist Mainlanders and HongKong-ese, according to
an American, Greg Kemnitz.

Xref: sparky soc.culture.taiwan:12524 soc.culture.korean:4032
From: hnkst2+@pitt.edu (Hanhwe N Kim)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.korean
Subject: Re: Korean Bashing
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:49:41 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.taiwan
Organization: University of Pittsburgh



(Paul Chang) writes:
>My colleague next "door" is from ROK. He told me the general reaction
 of Korean people >on the ROK-PRC normalization is not so good. He
 personally doesn't feel ROK will gain too much from this. He thinks
 although the potential market in mainland China is there, how are
 ...

The main reason the South Korean govt. has been trying to get closer
to PRC is because it wants to use Peking's influence with the North
Koreans in its dealings with them on reunification and making peace.
Economics is probably secondary to the political aspects and
implications of the new relationship with Peking.

The PRC is North Korea's primary ally. While the PRC and South Korea
were enemies, the PRC would be more inclined to help the North Koreans
in case they wanted to fight another 'Liberation war'. Normalizing
diplomatic relations probably makes the PRC less inclined to help
and thus adds to detering such a war, at least in the eyes of South
Koreans. The weakening of the North's diplomatic ties with the PRC
might also encourage North Korea to try to normalize relations
with the west and become more open, and less xenophobic, and less
militaristic.

Of course there are a couple big ifs here, and this whole thing could
backfire and cause the North Koreans to be more defensive and feel they
have less to lose in a war. As for myself I feel cautiously optimistic.

While I feel the way our government went about the whole affair was
extremely dishonorable, the decision itself was inevitable. I hope that 
after the tempers cool down in Taiwan, they will at least understand 
the background. Another war in Korea would be devastating.
-Han Kim
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: campbell@cco.caltech.edu (Cameron D. Campbell)
Subject: Re: Don't ride MARTA (Atlanta)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:48:12 GMT

jeffho@eecs.nwu.edu (Chuen-Hsuen Jeff Ho) writes:

>Is it true that "Japanese tourists and students are allowed to enter USA 
>without any VISA and travel document" ?  Teach me. 

Japanese nationals are automatically granted 60-day tourist visas when
they arrive in the United States.  Of course they must have their passport
with them when they arrive, so if you consider the passport a travel 
document, they do need a travel document.  And they do need a visa,
the only thing is, they get it when they arrive at the airport in the U.S. 

I think it is part of a reciprocal agreement.  American citizens are 
automatically granted short-term visas when they arrive at the airport in
Japan.  I am not sure how long they are allowed to stay.  Similar 
arrangements exist with many European countries.

Cameron

-- 
For those of you using my U. of Penn e-mail address, please note my new
e-mail address: campbell@alumni.caltech.edu.  You don't have to rush and
change your .mailrc files right away, though, because the U. of Penn account 
has been set up to forward mail here.
From: rot@rlyeh.multisys.com (Republic of Taiwan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Bush decides to allow sale of F-16s to Taiwan
Date: 2 Sep 1992 17:34:09 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Organization: Multimedia Information Systems Corporation, San Jose, CA                        TEL: (408) 437-3031            E-mail: info@multisys.com


Quote from today San Jose Mercury,

"The president is expected to make an official  annocement  today
during a trip to Texas."

"A spokesman for Sen Lloyd Bentsen, D-Texas, said  Tuseday  night
that  the  senator  had  been "reliably informed" that Bush would
make public his approval for the sale of F-16s to  Taiwan  during
his campaign swing in Texas."


Organization: Junior, Social & Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.korean
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 09:49:07 -0400 
From: Joseph Yen <jy0x+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: All you d*ckhead friend-betraying Koreans!!!
	<1992Aug30.175418.26893@eng.umd.edu>

From Daeshik Kim-
     
In article <1992Aug30.065923.7861@leland.Stanford.EDU> claudius@leland.Stanford
.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
	wrote irrelevant stuff to the subject.

Why is his joke irrelevant?  How do you define what is relevant?  Is the
purpose of this BBoard only to waste time humouring the Taiwan/Korean
issue?  Is that all you care about in life?

And another thing...why do you care?  Have you been appointed Defender
of the Korean Way by your *DEMOCRATICALLY* elected president?(What a
joke, S Korea is considered the least democaratic "free" state by
several poli sci texts....)  

I thought the joke was mildly amusing.  It can be replaced with another
other badly engineered car- (e.g. Yugo) and is not expressly aimed at
the Korean people.  I felt it was rather appropriate as a side joke for
the heat over over the Korean/Taiwanese problem. 

                                               Joseph Shu Shen Yen
From: H.Wang@bradford.ac.uk (H WANG)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Independence of Taiwan: a Suggestion
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:10:38 GMT
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: 90908648@muser


Suggestions: How to Ensure  Taiwan's Independance (TI)?


1)  Draw out all the hard currence to buy weapons. Tell
    Taiwanese people to prepare for the worst. Save 
    enough oil, raw material in case there'll be a blockade.
    (Give up car and motorcycle to save petrol for 
    military use). Dig deep tunnels to prepare a 
    nuke attack. Build thick walls across main street 
    for a possible street fight. 

2)  Strict control over minorities in Taiwan. Prevent them 
    from declaring independence themselves. If any bastard
    want to declare a 'Republic of South Taiwan' or a 
    'Republic of West Taiwan', wage war on them. No mercy.
    Keep Republic of Taiwan as a whole (discussion open).

3)  Win international support. Ask those African countries 
    to write to UN for peace-keeping in Taiwan. Give money
    to anyone who would like to acknowledge ROT (make sure
    the money is not exhausted on weapens!). Send envoys (who
    must speak and write perfect English like someone here,
    but not like those who can only use dirty words, they'll
    ruin the whole bussiness!) to persuade the world to 
    agree to TI (give bribe whenever applicable).

4)  Assassinate those mainlander or taiwanese politicians 
    in Taiwan who oppose TI. Arrest those Taiwanese 
    bussinessmen who invest in Mainland. Exile whoever 
    dare to say no. Spray what ever sh*t all over those 
    who express different ideas in an international 
    net like this one.

5)  Forget PRC. Have a nice sleep. Tomorrow'll be another 
    day! 

         Gold bless all the Chinese !
     (Do not include those who do not agree with TI)

         Gold damn all the Chinese!
     (Do include those who do not agree with TI)            

          Long live pro-TIs!
         (This should be OK. OK?)

 
 --August 1992, in a very exited mood, night before heavy sh*t fall.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: yewang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Yenwen Wang)
Subject: Re: a Korean view on recent diplomatic development.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:12:27 GMT

In article <78774@ut-emx.uucp> btlee@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Anitesh Barua) writes:

>
>Many friends from Taiwan accused korean government not to give much proparation time for taiwan government. For me, this accusation also seems groundless.

I think the main reason for such anti-ROK sentiment is:

Given the many options ROK government has, why did President Roh took
the one that hurt ROC most? We feel Roh is sucking up to mainland
CCP regime.

And for argument such as 'ROK is very NICE that it delayed the normalization
of diplomatic relationship with PRC for sooooooo long.' It sounds like
Mainland China has been soooooo eager to establish diplomacy with ROK.
The fact is, mainland China has been reluctant to do so until rycently.


-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Yenwen Wang                        wangy@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu
  The Ohio State University          yewang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.korean
From: shin@krusty.ee.udel.edu (Jeong-Gyun Shin)
Subject: Re: Korean Airline flights unwelcome in Taiwanese Airspace, etc. [FWD]
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:17:18 GMT

In article <2A9A9A94.23990@orion.oac.uci.edu> eaeu228@orion.oac.uci.edu (Steven Wei Wu) writes:
>>>claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote: 
>>>->2.	All Korean Airline flights would become unwelcome in Taiwanese
>>>
>>>this is, at best, a symbolic gesture.  it's not like it would take
>>>more than five seconds for a korean airlines to fly around the
>>>republic of china's airspace.
>>
>>Yes, Korean Airline can still profit by flying around Taiwan without landing
>>and asking her passengers to use parachute.  :))
>
>I guess banning Korean Airline in Taiwanese air space will not do much damage
>to South Korea. People can still travel in air lines other than Korean Airline.

No flames but seems like international politics is indeed game of interests:
banning Korean airlines wouldn't do much harm to Taiwan but banning U.S. 
airlines would do so.  So ... I guess that's why U.S. airlines continue to
fly to and out of Taiwan even though U.S. was the very dear ice breaker.
Come to think of it, viva la independent Taiwan!
Xref: sparky soc.culture.taiwan:12643 soc.culture.korean:4118
From: ericlaw@vax.muskingum.edu (Eric Law, Geology Department)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.korean
Subject: Re: Korean Airline flights unwelcome in Taiwanese Airspace, etc. [FWD]
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:43:31 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.korean
Organization: Muskingum College

In article <Aug.29.19.22.23.1992.27194@gandalf.rutgers.edu>, junglee@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Jung S. Lee) writes:
>> 
> I must ask you who sets the standard? Who?

	** If we do a survey to 1000 people on one question:
	  
	   Should be respect human right?

	   Suppose 800 say Yes and 200 say No. 

	   Let me ask you: who sets this "standard" congition
	   to these 800 and 200 individuals? 

> Because principle of individual is different, people are always
> searching one who has similar principle with him. 

	** So you and your girl friend share the same principles.

	   Then answer me: Why do we have so much divorces in our
	   society? Does that mean the "standard principles" among
	   a couple "changed"? 
> 
>> 	   Could similar questions be applied to international relations? 
> So which country sets standard principle for international relationship?
> Simply yours doesn't make any sense whatsoever. 


	** Again, countries are made of people. Should be there any
	   international rule depends on the answer of question should
	   be there any rule among people.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: bbs@medsys.rn.com (Public BBS System)
Subject: Re: Language
Reply-To: bbs@medsys.UUCP (Public BBS System)
Organization: Med-Systems, Kingsport, Tennessee
Date: 03 Sep 1992 10:53:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.193011.22704@wuecl.wustl.edu> anw1@cec1.wustl.edu (Aaron Wong) writes:
>
>New York Times has an article about how people in Guangzhou (Canton City)
>refuse to speak Mandarin and thus annoy the hell out of the northern 
>bureaucrats. I read it last month and found it very funny...
>
Perhaps you want to study the political stance of New York Times.

Chou1

Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: shao@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (SHAO CHUNG-SHANG)
Subject: Re: Korean Bashing (Re: All you d*ckhead friend-betraying Koreans!!!)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 07:29:26 GMT

i think we keep this kind of article inside our group.  and there is
no need to cross-post this kind of articles to korean group.

cs shao.

Xref: sparky soc.culture.taiwan:12492 soc.culture.korean:4008
From: junglee@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Jung S. Lee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.korean
Subject: Re: Korean Airline flights unwelcome in Taiwanese Airspace, etc. [FWD]
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:30:38 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.korean
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Aug27.122036.3660@vax.muskingum.edu>, ericlaw@vax.muskingum.edu (Eric Law, Geology Department) writes:
> In article <Aug.26.10.41.01.1992.10682@gandalf.rutgers.edu>, junglee@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Jung S. Lee) writes:
> > 
> >   Don't worry. I think S. Korea already recognized N. Korea as an
> >   independent country. Two flags in front of U.N. building, you know.
> >   We are not as stubborn as you guys. We are trying to work things out
> >   with N. Korea for reunification. I guess you guys need to learn a
> >   lesson from your old friend.
> 
> >   Heck, who cares where you are born? We could come across on 42nd St.
> >   and become friends.  
> >   Everything is changing as time goes. 
> > 
> > Jung S. Lee
> 
> 	** Stubborn means holding principle.
> 

Principle of who are you talking about, you or me?
What is the standard for one's principle?
There isn't such a thing as standard.

> 	   You are not stubborn means you are drifting by short
> 	   benefits.
> 

If one think the goal of his life is living together with others(the
rest of people) in happy,  perhaps he could be flexible on his own way
of thinking of ethics and moral. Without listening to others, the
person who are stubborn often gets isolated from others. And I guess 
that is what's happening to Taiwan(didn't mean to offend any).
  
> 	   Whatever you do, you can't make a friend over 80 years
> 	   this way.

Who said? I don't even know if I would live up to 80 years. 
Perhaps you could drop by at my place in h* and tell me after we die 
if you live up to 80 years.

> 
> 	   If that is all you want, your life has no value.
> 

No, this isn't all I want, whatever you meant. And tell you what?
I can see the meaning of my life from my lovely girl friend, my
work and everywhere everyday. 

You just reminds me of the commercial in which a bird with a long neck
puts his head in the sand in desert alone.

> 	   Enjoy your valueless life.

I am enjoying very much, thank you.

Jung S. Lee