HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yjhbhc@dante.lbl.gov (Joe Huang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.japan,soc.history
Subject: Re: US Ironclads (Was: Re: US colonializing )
Date: 10 Sep 1992 19:30:53 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley
Reply-To: yjhbhc@dante.lbl.gov (Joe Huang)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.106

In article <CB.92Sep10112746@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
>
>The first important iron ship was, I believe, the Dreadnought (I could
>have the name wrong).  It was an English ship of about 1870.  As
>described in Scientific American a few years ago, this ship started the
>19th century's version of an arms race: England's rivals immediately had
>to equal or top it.  The original was never actually used in battle but
>influenced the subsequent course of naval warfare.
>

Heehee...a chance to recall what little I remember about naval warfare
from high school and college days readings :-)  

The Dreadnought was built in around 1904 at the height of the naval
arms race between England and Germany.  Its importance laid not in 
being the first ironclad warship, but in carrying only big guns 
of the same caliber (10 12") instead of the mishmash of calibers 
carried by earlier ships.  This all-or-nothing design gave the 
Dreadnought such a preponderance of "throw weight" that, combined 
with its greater speed, made all earlier warships obsolete. The
ensuing naval arms race was won by England, who entered the 
First World War with more than double the number of "Dreadnoughts" 
than Germany, although subsequent battles suggested that the German
Dreadnoughts were better built.
 
The first iron warships were built 40 years before the Dreadnought
in the 1860's.  I believe technically the French built the first
ironclad (the Glorie), but the British generally led in its 
development until the 1930's. The thing with the American Civil War 
ironclads (monitors) is that they were basically riverboats that
can't function in deep water. The ocean going navy still consisted 
wooden sailing ships. By the time they converted to metal ships
(in the 1880's ?), the American navy was quite behind the European
powers.
 
>Chris Brewster
>cb@cray.com

Joe Huang

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: abc@x.y.z
Subject: anonymous posting - just a test
Organization: test
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:03:37 GMT
Originator: abc@x.y.z

Hi, guys,
I know you can track me down.  Could you send me e-mail?

Just a test, please take it easy. 

(ps. thank you SFU guy.)
From: rap@news (Ross Paterson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Chinese culture
Date: 15 Sep 92 10:05:30 GMT
Reply-To: rap@doc.ic.ac.uk
Organization: Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK.
NNTP-Posting-Host: peaberry.doc.ic.ac.uk

From article <14SEP199222351358@deimos.ucc.umass.edu>, by s9874194@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194, YANG, Changqing):
> China's being poor today is not necessarily the result of Chinese
> culture. Look at the history of past two hundred years we should
> know that. One of the reason for China's being poor is those
> people with so-called superio culture. 

The Westerners certainly did a lot of nasty things, and the welfare of
China was not among their concerns.  But are you suggesting that they
made China poorer than it was before, or poorer than it would have been
if there had been no Western presence in China?  Surely the evidence
points in the opposite direction: productivity had shown little change
for the preceding couple of centuries, and continued unchanged in those
areas with no contact with the West.  Which were the most productive
regions of China during this century?

I'm not suggesting that it has anything to do with Chinese culture;
the usual explanations speak of a "high-level equilibrium trap" --
the agricultural economy had been optimized to such a point that no
incremental change could improve it.
From: yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , )
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: 150 F-16 to Taiwan
Date: 5 Sep 92 20:32:00 GMT
Organization: New York University

v999qx29@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu writes:

>way to make unification possible. No body has the right to claim his group
>the only legal government of a country unless they are elected by the people.

We can choose the government, but territory is something beyond that, the
people is the owner of the land.

>TI is an unacceptable lose to you then win it back by making Mainland at least
>as good as USA. Don't you see people all over the world coming to the US?

Agreed.

Ze Yang
Relay-Version: version nyu B notes v1.6.1 1/11/90; site acf3.NYU.EDU
From: yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , )
Date: 5 Sep 92 18:46 EDT
Date-Received: 5 Sep 92 18:46 EDT
Subject: Re: 150 F-16 to Taiwan
Message-ID: <65500093@acf3.NYU.EDU>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.6.1 1/11/90; site acf3.NYU.EDU
Organization: New York University

cyc@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang) writes:
>>>Actually, American are also rebels from England. In fact, if one can trace
>>
>>America is different. 
>>1) Before its independence, this land was only a conlony 
>>of the Great Britan, people lived here paid taxes to the English 
>>government but could not enjoy the right of British citizens.
>>2) A lot of people were from countries other than England. 
>>3) A lot of people came here because of religious conflicts in
>>their old land.(I guess that's why Lincoln said "...A new nation,
>>conceived in liberty...).
>>4) The now USA is far away from England, it's also larger than 
>>England.
>>We can see that USA was born to be different. People came here
>>with different ideals, and the undeveloped continent gave
>>them a good place to form a kind of new culture.
>

>As a summary, when people don't like their government or the government
>that governs them, people have the choice to build their own country.
>Then, what's the different between TIers adn American ?

The difference is that, there are more people who think TIers are 
wrong than who think the Americans are wrong to choose independence.
You see, we cannot only concern about our own interest, we have to
balance others too.

>Of cause, if there wasn't 1940 civil war among CCP and KMT, TIers may not
>exist. Similarly, if Great Britain had treated American fairly, there may
>not be the USA, isn't it ? It is the bad guys and bad governments that forced
>people to become rebel and eventually, build something new and better.
>That's the whole idea about TI. Hadn't have Ching dynasty, there may not be
>CCP and KMT, now the rise of TIers is just a clear sign to declare the end
>of two evil parties CCP and KMT. Bad and old thigs will be gone eventually, 
>new and good things will prevail in the end.

Your analisis on American independence is not complete. 

>Yi-Chieh

Ze Yang
From: dhsy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: American Election
Date: 7 Sep 92 23:14:57 EDT
Distribution: soc
Organization: Cornell University

roten@CUBA.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Roten) writes: 
> If you track the policies espoused by the dominant faction of the 
> Democratic party, (ie., the liberal wing), you will find, over the last 
> 40 years, the following trends:
> 
> 1) Growing protectionist tendencies.  This is BAD for China (and the US 
>    too, BTW).  And all it will take to stifle the growing trade 
>    interdependence between China and the US is one piece of sufficiently 
>    protectionist legislation passing the Democrat-controlled House and 
>    Senate, and being signed into law by a President (Clinton, for the 
>    sake of argument) who has *openly* espoused protectionist aims (I 
>    refer to a recent speech in Michigan).  
> 
> 2) Growing isolationism.  Again, bad for US-China relations.  

I thought the liberal ideology and protectionism are inconsistent.
Protectionism is a better fit for Pat Buke.  

> 3) Growing geopolitical cluelessness.  

No evidence.  What about Carter's credit on the Middle East peace process?

> 4) Growing economic cluelessness.  Remember the Carter recession ?  
>    Brrrrr !  The Liberal wing of the Democratic party has a loooong 
>    track record of economic idiocy.  I agree, the Conservatives are 
>    only marginally better, but at least they know what an economy is !

You apparently accepted the conservative explanation of "economic ideocy".
It's not like black and white on how much the government should interfere.
In an economy free growing period, government control will limit the grow and
even slow it down, that's what happened in Carter's time.  But in the
time of recession, only more investment (or spending in conservative's words)
can stimulate the economy, so the traditional Democratic economics will work.

> 
> 5) An growing tendency to link things like trade sanctions to perceived 
>    human rights abuses, when in fact trade sanctions have *never* in my 
>    memory corrected such abuses.  It wasn't Bush who pushed for 
>    revocation of MFN for China.  And Clinton has tied his political 
>    fortunes to the folks who did !  Think about it !!!  

I believe trade sanction is a positive factor in South Africa's progress.

dhsy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu (Usenet on news.acns)
Subject: Chinese culture
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:24:44 GMT

In article <8egEV6S00ioDIDP2UM@andrew.cmu.edu>  writes:
> Excerpts from netnews.soc.culture.china: 10-Sep-92 Re: I'm very
> disappointed i.. George Lo@dvlseq.us.orac (868)
> 
> > In article <1992Sep1.194111.25930@csl.sri.com> dchan@cisco.com (Derek
> > Chan) writes:
> > >
> > >
> > >|> 
> > >|> "Drink Water, Think Source"
> > >
> > >The source is pretty bad now and I am now drinking other country's water.
> > >
> > >|> 
> > >|> Now, I really believe that Chinese are a grain of sand.  PLEASE PLEASE
> > >|> PLEASE prove me wrong by posting some suggestions on how to improve
> > >|> the country!
> > >|>
> > >
> > >I strongly suggest you to read the chinese book written by Ba Young - "The
> > >Ugly Chinese"(I don't know the official English title). "Chinese are a
> > >grain of sand" is actually one of his observations.
> > > 
> > Just from the fact that you are only thinking about drinking water
> > from another country is a good example why Chinese are a grain of
> > sand.  I believe there are a lot of Chinese who are the same and
> > one day I might be the same too.  However, I will be always thinking
> > about the source.
> 
> <<<<<<<<
> 
> 	Please tell me how and what do you mean that you will always thinking
> about the source? A grain of sand is not only a trade mark of the
> Chinese, but across the world. The only thing is  that we are not
> admitting it in order to save face. We have a gov't that have been
> saying that China is the stongest nation in the world. 
> 
> -tie ju

Yes! Our government has been trumpeting that China is the greatest nation in  
the world for years. Is she really the greatest. Realistically, she was a  
thousand years ago but no longer is. What should we do? I think the most  
important thing is to cool down and admit that we no longer live in a greatest  
nation. We need change. The culture need change, the system need change and the  
way people think need change. Don't blame people for not traditional. If we  
keep traditional, our country will stay where she is now forever without  
progress.

Many of us may still remember a film by Wu Tianming, starred by Zhang Yimou.  
The film is called "Old Well". (Lao3 Jing3). People in that northern village  
lived a very hard life. They were trying as hard as possible to dig water from  
the dry land with little luck. Why? that land is too old and dry like our old  
culture. No matter how hard you dig, there is little the culture can offer in  
this modern era.  But people persistantly continue digging and wouldn't leave  
because as they said "This is our ancester's land!" (this is our great  
ancester's culture.)

Yes, the old Chinese culture is our ancester's culture. But why should we stick  
to it? Why not search somewhere else for something new. (as in the film, move  
down hill where there is plenty of water). Why?

Carl
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:03:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.174825.20736@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> jqtan@northstar60 (Jian-Qi Tan) writes:
>Taiwanese government's feeling of insecurity is a result of its own ambition
>to rule the whole China someday.  Especially these days, many foreign powers
>are keen on promoting "human rights and democracy" in China.  Taiwan couldn't
>wait for the day when the central government collapse and it becomes the
>biggest warlord in China, with many F-16s and Mirages.

There is no evidence that Taiwan government cares about mainland's
human right. When mainland Chinese people need their voice, they were
coward. Now they are buying F-16s. I don't see any good wishes from
the Taiwanese government toward mainlanders. They are selfish and it
is impossible for them to realize their ambition.

If they still love China and the Chinese culture, the mainland is open
to them. We have Yellow River, Yangtz River, Taishang Mountain, Great
Wall, Beijing, Nainjing, Shanghai.... all only in their dream and
text book. What do they have? Taipei? Never have any idea about it.
They can come to American alright, but it is not theirs.

We Chinese don't like current government either, but things will change.
We still love our culture, our mountains and rivers, our stories about
beautiful woman Yang Guifei.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao)
Subject: Re: Shen Tong - idiot? hero?
Organization: MITRE
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:35:31 GMT


> >Shen Tong - a idiot? a hero? a pawn to test the depth of China's political
> >reform? or a bargain chip for trade deficit? 
> 
> None of the above. He is a brave young man with passion but without
> calculation. I admire his courage but disagree with his action.
> c.q.
> 
> 
So, he is just like a fast boat without a rudder.  Well, it still has a
powerful engine, isn't
it?
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: ping@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Shiping Zhang)
Subject: Re: To those pro-Shen Tong guys
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:26:26 GMT

In article <92249.140601CHENJC@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> CHENJC@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes:
>Shen Tong simply plays an idiot role in this international politics
>game, directed by his AMERICAN ADVISOR.

  What role did the American advisor assign to the CCP government, which
  seems so willing to play in the game?  And what role are you playing in
  the game?

>                                        That's why many chinese don't
>give a shit on his arrest (or you can call it grabbed/seized, as much
>as you like).

  How many Chinese know the arrest?  And supposedly you don't consider it
  a shit your post which is also on ST's arrest.

>              You guys probably enjoyed ST's recent show too much,
>and forgot you are just watching a play/game.

  That's probably why you enjoy ST's arrest.

>Unlike three years ago, now few and few people trust those so-called
>D-fighters.

  Probably because those so-colled D-fighters are not D-fighters from
  the beginning, or not D-fighter any more, or have become anti-D-fighters.

  In deed, as some netters pointed out, some so called D-fighters become
  anti-D-fighters, after they got their PR.  So seems fewer and fewer
  D-fighters remain as D-fighters.

>JC

-ping

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: jie@tgevax.life.uiuc.edu (Jie Liang)
Subject: Re: Change in spelling of Chinese names
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:02:16 GMT

Well, the Chinese Pinyin rules were adopted by the UN in the late 70's
(since China is a Security Council member and Chinese is one of the
working language of the UN).  I think the US academics and the media
picked Pinyin up after the UN resolution.

If Americans complain about pronunciation from Pinyin, try Japanese
names in Chinese: you will have no clue how unrelated they are. The
Chinese pronunciation of Japanese Kanji names will be more different
then Swahili pronunciation of Ojibway Indian, in most cases. For
example,
Miyazawa = Gong1Zhe2(Palace Pond)
Tanaka = Tien2Zhong1(Field Middle)
Kanemaru = Jing1Wan2(Golden Ball) 
Watanabe = Du4Bien1(RiverCrossing Side)

But there are some similar cases,
Takakura KEN = Gao1Chang1 JIAN4 (HighBarn Healthy), if you consider the
pronunciations of KEN and JIAN close enough.

Sure, the Americans could have sticked with Mao Tsetung,etc, and it
wouldn't have been as confusing as converting miles, feet, yard into
meters, etc. :-)



-- 
 Jie Liang ("Kommissar")         Internet:jlg0805@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
 156 Davenport Hall	                  jie@tgevax.life.uiuc.edu
 607 S.Matthews Ave	  	"Working Hard Advancing Science to       
 Urbana, IL 61801                Corrupt the Mind." -- Black Uhuru  
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: zhuh@athena.mit.edu (Hui Zhu)
Subject: Re: A thought on Shen Tong's arrest
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 19:14:37 GMT

In article <PI.92Sep4195716@spica.bu.edu>, pi@spica.bu.edu (GARMARHARD) writes:
|> 
|> What a lowful society you are plotting here! Don't you forget the 
|> Dictatorship of Wu2 Can3 class (= Dictatorship of CCP). Don't try 
|> to use a legal system to replace our dictatorship!
                                    ^^^^ 
Repalce? *** replace human being? :)

Dude, even your dictatorship has to have a legal system so that you can
           ^^^^
convict people into anti-revolutionary ******* ***. :) :) Hahahahaha
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
From: dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby)
Subject: Territory of Ancient China : Shang Dynasty
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:22:25 GMT

**Period:

1751 B.C. -> 1111 B.C.

**Dynasty:

Shang Dynasty, the first Chinese Dynasty with a detailed record history.

**Area under Central Control:

Same as Xia Dynasty, plus modern Province of GanSu.

**Area under Central Influence:

none.

**Neighbouring States/Tribes/Civilizations:

Mongolians continued to be a threat.
Tribe in the south (same as Xia Dynasty).

-- 
1)-----------------------Rev 6:8 "... They were given authority over a quarter
of the Earth, to kill by the sword, by famine, by plague, and wild beasts."
From: yang-allan@CS.YALE.EDU (J. Allan Yang)
Subject: The purpose of a country. (Was: F-16's fear?)
Organization: Dept of CS, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-2158
	<1992Sep8.192015.20871@oakhill.sps.mot.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:21:11 GMT

After seeing the continuing bickering over the history and
independence of Taiwan that digressed from the thread of the recent
F-16 sale to Taiwan, I would like to ask you to ponder upon what is
the purpose of a country for a short while. It will shed some lights
on why Taiwan (or Tibet, or Inner Mongolia) should or should not
stay as part of China.

Lincoln said it well: a country should be for the people, by the
people, and of the people. Ideally, a country should serve to
protect and promote the wellbeing of her people and thereby gain the
support of her people and justify her own existence. Otherwise, a
country has no adhesive to stay intact without resorting to
oppressive measures. If people have choice, most will join the
country that gives them the greatest prosperity and security. That's
why almost all Chinese and, until recently, many Taiwanese in US
seek for PR or US citizenship. As you may have observed, more and
more Taiwanese in the US are going back to Taiwan because now they
feel they have better opportunities in Taiwan.

If you are against the forced return of Chinese in the US back to
China against their will, then you should understand how the
Taiwanese feel about a forced unification. Taiwan strives for
up-to-date defensive weaponry as a measure against the dire
possibility. It's just like many Chinese students in the US actively
seek congressional support for their indefinite stay in the US.

There will no problem for Taiwan to unite with China someday when
Chinese in the US are as willing as the Taiwanese to go back to
their homeland. After all, we are of the same race and speak the
same language. No Taiwanese is going to fight against uniting with a
truly democratic China that takes good care of her own people.

Regards.

- Allan
From: yeh@netix.com (Mr Shannon Yeh)
Subject: period   (about "democracy")
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Organization: Netix Communications, Inc.
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:48:00 GMT


Today,

	          \					    -------
	       --------					    |-----|
  CCP is         --|--		the Chinese people are 	    |--|--
	       ____|_____ , 				    |/  \|   



If those d-fighters turn into power,

			\	      / __|___			-------
they will become    ----------       /|  /  \	 will become    |-----|
 		      ---|---         | /|=|=|\			|--|--
		    _____|______  ,   |  |-|-|			|  |
				      |    |___\		|/  \|  .


      |	      |-------|   /    /___    ------    ___\___    __\_  _\ __\__
  |---|---|   | ----- |  /|--|    |    |----|     --|--       \|/  |  | |
  |___|___|   |  -|-  |   |--|  \ |    | --|-    ___|___      /|\  |  | |_\
      |       | __|_\_|   |__|   \|    |/   \|                \|   /\_______
      |       |_______|


   |-----|          |      -------    / /____    ___\____
   |-----|     __\__|___   |-----|   /|  |         __|__
   |_____|          /  |   |__|__     |  |--     ____|____
  -----------      /  \|   |  \       |  |--
    / |---        /   \|   |/  \|     |  |		     .
   /\_|______


 ----   \     \  |--|       __|____   ------     ____\_____    /<  /<
---|--|---    \  |  |__\      /       |----|       ---|---     ___\____
  /|  |          ----        / |--|   |__|_      _____|_____   | |--| |
 / |   \/         \/        /  |--|   |  \                       |--|
  \|   /\|   \/   /\           |--|   |/  \/                     |--
                 /  \          | \|    				 |__|

  / /____     -------        |
 /|   | /     |-----|    ----|----
  |  /|\      | |==|      |==|===|
  |  \|      / |--|--|   ----|-----
            /  |  | \|     --|----|
		  |      ----|----|
			     |
			    \|        .


  ----   /_\       _\_  /      |--|   |     /     __|__ __\__     -------
  ___| |--|---|      | /|--|   |__|  ||    /\       |/ __\__/__   __\_\_/__
  |___ |--|---|      |  |--|  ___|__ ||   /  \     /|   _/__/_    |  ---- |
     |    |          |  |__|     / |  |  /    \     |     \/          \/
    \| ___|_____\   /\_______   / \| \|            \|     /\          /\


   -------   ___\___     |      /____   __\__   | \      ------   -----  __\__
   |-----|    --|--   ---|---    |--|    |==| __|___        |     |---|   -|-
   |--|-     ___|___    /|\      |--|     |     |          /|\    |-|-  ___|___
   |/  \|              /-|-\     |__|    /|\    /\        / | \   |/ \|
                         |         /|     |    /  \__\     \|
                                  /\|    \|

						  ____\_____
       						  | -------|
                                   Yeh Shannon       |---|
  						     |---|
						     |___|
						  ___________
From: v999qx29@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: 150 F-16 to Taiwan
Date: 6 Sep 92 14:44:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep5.220247.29972@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, cqu@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Chang-ning Qu) writes...
>  Oh, your are not too fool. You have certainly bought a house
>or citizenship in tha States, so you could tout your TI ideal
>remotedly instead of ready to fight till last breath in Taiwan
>now. Come on, don't be too reserved, enlight Taiwan government
>with your experience: buy land but weapon, may use for emergency.

Who is the threat that makes all Chinese, not only TIers,try to get
citizenship in the States? Think about it.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong