HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu (Usenet on news.acns)
Subject: Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view. (Was: Who Cares 150 F-16s.)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:43:53 GMT

In article <BuF5Lq.CvI@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu  
(xiao-lin li) writes:
> 
> I don't share the view of this "blood thirsty chauvinism pig". However I  
think
> this indeed represents part of the mainlander's view. The problem is
> the following: not all Chinese understand the cruelty of the war, not
> all of them understand that people have to die in the war.
> 
> Always in Chinese movie of war heros, only enemies die. They saw Janpenese
> die when they watch "tunnel war" and "mine war". They saw KMT generals
> surrender in "fighting north and south". Not many Chinese people understand
> that a war is a competition of war machine and race of killing. War is
> very expensive and demaging. People live in hell during and after war.
> They don't have the feeling that unless one is forced to go to war, one
> should never applaude war.
> 
> Perhaps some Chinese leaders understand it, but they never tell the people.
> 
> As long as Taiwan is not buying weapons for offense, I don't see any
> worry about their buying f-16s. By the way, if they are indeed buying plans
> for invasion of mainland, remember mainland has nuclear bombs. They
> will be in hell.
> 
> By the way, I don't like Taiwan independence, but I prefer leave them
> alone if they themselves want independence. I have never had any feeling
> about this island in my life. No relative there, never been there and
> never feel invited to there (I am not a communist, nor my family). I can
> visit other countries in the world, but not Taiwan. They don't like
> me because I am an ordinary mainlander. 
> 
> One netter send me an email claiming that it is Taiwanese investment
> in mainland that made the improvement of mainlander's life. I disagree.
> I think they went there for money of their own. They should be grateful
> to mainlanders for hospitality which they lack in Taiwan to mainlanders.
> 

I quite agree with you. If I had power to curse people to death, I would curse   
hundreds and thousands of times those evil-minded people who promote wars. I  
think most of the Chinese leaders understand how terrible wars are. But they  
just don't care because it is the sons of ordinary people who dies in the wars.

Not to mention the wars many years before, let's talk about the Sino-Vietnamese
border wars. Thousands of young people died for nothing (or maybe for the cruel  
Kamel Rouge in Cambodia). I had a friend who got wounded there. A handsome  
young fellow who was good at playing guitar. He lost his right arm. He can no  
longer play guitar. He is still not married. He once said if he had had a  
girlfriend, he could not even hug her. Those evil-war-promoting-devils will  
never understand this.

Carl
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: cyc@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang)
Subject: Re: 150 F-16 to Taiwan
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 20:01:47 GMT

In article <92249.140211TAYAO@MTUS5.BITNET> Tao Yao <TAYAO@MTUS5.BITNET> writes:
>1:150 F-16 are protecting ROC, not ROT, right?
>2:Is a war the solution for TI? The right way is TIers try to persuade
>  1): Taiwanese. Is every taiwanese TIer? definitly not!
>  2): KMT. Will KMT agree that?           No
>  3): Mainlander. Do they like TI?        No
>  4): CCP. Will they give up using force to prevent taiwan from being independe
>nt?                                       No
>
>SUMMARY: Try your best to persuade people accept your opinion. dont think how m
>any F-16 you have so that you can say: Long live TI.

Try to ask how many Taiwanese will accept the control under CCP. The
question is not how many Taiwanese want TI, it is how many Taiwanese want 
to go with CCP. It is CCP who threatens to attack Taiwan all the time. 
Every man with minimal IQ will know how to protect himself from other people's
attack. It is Taiwanese who decide the future of Taiwan, its not CCP, KMT,
and DPP.

Yi-Chieh 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: s9874194@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:56:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.045400.17609@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, smw@siegfried.chm.msu.edu (S.M. Wu) writes...
> 
>I hope somebody can clarify this for me. What did the Taiwan government
>says about this? From what I heard on TV, so far it is only Bush 
>said that he is willing to sale the planes. Does this means that 
>Taiwan wants to buy some F-16s very bad, and Bush finally approve
>it. Or is the US wants to sell some F-16s and asking Taiwan to buy some?
>Is Taiwan definitly going to buy them?
> 
>I have this question because Avaition Weeks mentioned briefly a few weeks
>ago that Russia has formally offered to sale Mig-29 to Taiwan. Probably 
>Bush knows that Taiwan will get hi-tech fighter one way or the other. If he
>does not make an offer now, the business will go to someone else.
> 
>By the way, does anyone has information on the new fighters designed by 
>Taiwan? One of them looks like a cross between F-16 and F-18.

Taiwan has been looking for hi-tech weapons for years. F-16 is one
of the items and from what I hear from the news media, Bush blocked
the sell before and recosidered it under the pressure of the election
this year.

According to CND-G 0909(?), Russia promised not to sell weapons to 
Taipei.
c.q.
From: yong@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Science in China 17
Date: 9 Sep 92 10:01:25 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Science in China (Part 17)

China's Grand Canal, 1770 km long, is completed in 1327, built over many
centuries, starting in 70 AD, it connects Beijing to many parts of
northern China and to the Yangtze River.

The first record of a canal lock is made in the West in 1373, such locks
had been known in China for almost 400 years.

A Chinese encyclopedia in 22,937 volumnes is produced in 1403 in three
copies.

Between 1400 and 1409, the Chinese know that the length of the solar
year is about 365.25 days.

About 1398 Johann Gutenberg (Germany) and Lauren Janszoon Koster invent
printing with movable type, probably independently of Chinese; however,
the inventions of paper and printing with blocks, essential to printing
with movable type, had both most likely been learned as a result of
diffusion to Europe from China.

Alchemy was not merely misguided chemistry, it made many contribution to
chemistry. Alchemy seems to have started with Taoist in China. In China,
the early alchemists were searching for what came to be called the
exlixir of life, a way to provide immortality. Some of their
accomplishments were remarkable, such as the embalming of the Lady of
Tai. This women was buried about 186 BC in a double coffin filled with a
brown liquid containing mercuric sulfide and pressurized methane. Under
these conditions there was no observable deterioration of her flesh when
she was exhumed after more than 2000 years. She appeared more like
someone who had died only a week or so before.
From: minzhi@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Min-Zhi Shao)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re:      Shen Tong's Showdown
Date: 7 Sep 92 17:37:11 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <9209071531.AA17370@einstein.physics.buffalo.edu> xiaofei@einstein.physics.buffalo.edu (XiaoFei Wang) writes:
>* Is American
>* ready to have a governor of a second class to run this "first class"
>* country? Reamain to be checked!
>* 
>
>I would like to point out that Bush is the first vice president who
>became president by vote.

This is not true.  Another "old friend" of China, Dick Nixon, at least,
did it before George Bush.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,talk.politics.china
From: 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Specification of F-16, SU-27 (I)
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:31:59 GMT
Organization: MITRE

In article <92Sep14.133112edt.139@orasis.vis.toronto.edu>,
liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep14.150013.3639@linus.mitre.org> 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao) writes:
> >
> >> >>   PROC(Mainland)
> >> >>     1). purchased about 24 SU-27 fighters last year.
> >> >>     2). bought 72 SU-27 and 24 MIG-31 interceptors early this year.
> >> >>     3). acquired the right to license-production of 200+ MIG-31
> >> > 
> >> >Why they want to acquire the right to license-production of 200+ MIG-31
> >> >instead of MiG-29 or Su-27??  MiG-31 is not an air-superiority fighter.  It
> >> >is only a interceptor with surveillance cappability. 
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> For defence, if you believe that. 
> >> c.q.
> >> 
> >> 
> >
> >Sure, I believe it.  Even A-bomb, H-bomb, and chemical weapon are also for
> >"defense."  You can find a lot of "defense" magzines; you can not find a
> 
> A-bomb and H-bomb are deterence weapons.  When a country has it
> so it can say "don't mess with me, if you nuke me I will nuke you too"
> to its hostile rivals.  
> 
> >"offense" magzine.  But, where is the beef? I still can not find the
> >answer.  Why the ratio between MiG-31 and Su-27(or MiG-29) is 224+ : 96. 
> >This ratio is not a good combination to me and I think they should either
> >lower the MiG-31's number or raise the air-superiority fighter's (MiG-29 or
> >Su-27) number to balance this
> >ratio.
> 
> 
> Not if they don't want to attack a lot of people, than they need a lot
> of interceptors to patrol its airspace.  
> 
> 
Well, what I can say?!  My suggestion to you is that read some books about
military science. AW & SP is a good magzine to start if you real want to
know some military science, especially in airplane
field.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,talk.politics.china
From: s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194)
Subject: Re: Is Zhu Rongji a conservative
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 02:22:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.165733.11129@unixg.ubc.ca>, wangf@unixg.ubc.ca (Frank Wang) writes...
>In article <9209151514.AA24768@janus.ctr.columbia.edu> yjj@ctr.columbia.edu (Yuan Jiang) writes:
>>
>>When Li Peng called for a modest economic growth,
>>he was called a "conservative" and a bad guy.
>>
>>When the "reformer" Deng Xiaoping called for speedy development,
>>everyone including dissidents applauded.
>>
>>Now the "good guy" "reformer" Zhu Rongji calls for a slow down.
>>Is he still a reformer?  How about Wang Bingqian.
>>
>>A deeper issue I've been trying to address: is Deng's
>>campaign (typical CCP movement) style in developing
>>economy really good for China?
>>>              * * *  C h i n a   N e w s   D i g e s t  * * *
>>2. Vice-premier Zhu Rongji Warning on "Runaway" Economy .................45
>>3. Former Finance Minister Wang Bingqian Urges Economic Slowdown ........45
> 
>As an premier, Li Peng took the resposibility for the economy recovery
>from 89 to 92.  He did well no matter how much we do not like him.
>China's economy cannot be controlled buy either conservative or reformer
>alone.  These two sides work just like opposition parties in western
>countries.  The goal of ecomomic growth was very healthy at the beginning
>of this year, about 7-10%.  Keep this growth rate for more years (as
>long as possible), China's economy will be very strong.  It will have a
>big say in world economy though it does not need high GNP per capital.
>Deng Xiaoping is a trouble maker.  He is doing something like Mao did
>in 1958, the BIG LEAP.  Short cut does not mean faster, in Chinese:
>YU4 SU4 ZE2 BU4 DA2.  I came back in the end of July from Beijing.  I traveled
>south and talked with some businessman from fairly big companies in 
>Beijing. The too fast ecom. growth (reforming) has already caused
>their companies troubles then.  Ordinay people did not feel harsh on
>the retail price then but if the government do not do anything on 
>the growth, they will feel bad soon.  Zhu Rongji is doing the right
>thing.  Li Peng did the right thing on econ. last few years.  Deng
>Xiaopin did something wrong.  He should be a real retiree.  Please
>go home to write a book, Deng.
> 
>Reform is necessary but it can't be too fast.   
> 
> 
>F. Wang
No comments on Deng. Your analysis on economy sounds reasonable
to me.
c.q.

Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25288 soc.culture.taiwan:13158 soc.culture.hongkong:10664 soc.culture.korean:4267
From: wangf@unixg.ubc.ca (Frank Wang)
Subject: Re: 150 F-16 to Taiwan
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 05:33:39 GMT

In <laggheINNr2v@nada.cs.utexas.edu> s245@cs.utexas.edu (Spring Class Account) writes:


>China will cancel its $6b airplane order with the US.


China should spend $6b in other countries.  Yunkee is not trustable at all.

Frank
From: dwu@cs.umb.edu (Daniel X. Wu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: The Wyne State Univeristy at MI
Date: 15 Sep 92 05:30:31 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston, Dept of Math and CS

Help!

Is anyone there who can tell me what's the node name for the Wyne State 
University at Detriot, MI?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Daniel Wu
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25483 soc.culture.taiwan:13297
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Date: 14 Sep 92 00:52:09 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.china
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <11SEP199213305227@phobos.ucc.umass.edu> s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194) writes:
>I do not know how do you distinguish them in common sense. And I 
>do not know how the original word was. Enlight me!!

In the 1982 Sino-American communique, the United States "acknowledges
the PRC's position that it is the sole government of China" (que-ren
zhong-hua ren-min gong he guo de li chang) instead of "recognize"
(cheng-ren).  (This is from memory.)  "Acknowledge" is a less forceful
term than "recognize" in diplomacy.


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: ping@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Shiping Zhang)
Subject: Re: Protection bill
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:20:09 GMT

In article <31AUG199220333863@phobos.ucc.umass.edu> s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.015949.3760@bnlux1.bnl.gov>, ping@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Shiping Zhang) writes...
>>In article <26AUG199218513820@phobos.ucc.umass.edu> s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194) writes:
>>>>>[...]
>>>>Why do you need to be protected?
>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>>>> 
>>>Very very good question !! Why do you need to be protected? What are you?
>>>Endangered speices? All of you who are looking for the "protection", if you
>>>can not stand on your own feet without somebody else's "protection", you
>>>doom to fail.
>> 
>>  [...]
>>  
>>  BTW, isn't because of CCP's protection that Chinese are able to stand up,
>>  at last?
>> 
>>-ping
>> 
>I am confused! Chinese stood up because CCP's Protection?

  Are you saying Chinese can stand up without CCP?

>                                                          Anybody protected
>CCP in the 1930's? 1940's? If CCP would rely on the protection from Stalin,
>Chinese would never stand up.

  When did Chinese stand up?  And relying on what (certainly not on themselves
  according to your "if")?

>                              The only protection I could remember was
>the failed Manchukuo which was under the protection of the Japanese.

  Did Manchukuo fail because of the Japanese protection?

-ping
From: jlam@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lord Automato)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view. (Was: Who Cares 150 F-16s.)
Date: 12 Sep 92 04:26:23 GMT
Organization: University of Melbourne


In article <18qo6rINNant@stanley.cis.Brown.EDU>, xzh@eddy.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Xiang Zhou) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep11.164318.3341@news.acns.nwu.edu>, usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu (Usenet on news.acns) writes:
|> |> >     Suppose Guangdong wants to be indepedent some day and pass
|> |> > a referendum, is that O.K. ? Then maybe other Provinces will follow.
|> |> > There will be some thirty countries on mainland, is that what you want ?
|> |> > 
|> |> 
|> |> Ask people in Guangdong whether they want independence. Ask them! Let them  
|> |> vote! If most people in Guangdong want to be independent, let them go! Again,  
|> |> let people choose their future! If most people in Guangdong or Fujian or Yunan,  
|> |> etc. want to be independent, you just can't stop them even you have troops of  
|> |> 10 million.
|> |> 
|> 
|>     I must admit that I have to try very hard to hold my anger and not to be
|> rude.  But I must ask: who the hell are you ?  If you are a Chinese, you must
|> be the first to sell your conutry and friends for your own good whenever
|> you have a chance. 

I don't see there there is any logic behind your assertion.

|> If you are not a Chinese, you must be someone who wants
|> to gain benefits from a chaotic China. 

How do you know that it would be chaotic?

|> Hostile forces had beaten the Chinese for
|> more than 100 years under the name of the Chinese people. You want to follow
|> them?  

Do you include your government, CCP as well?

I think many Chinese are still struggling in the Si Hu Tong of preferring a 
Big but Poor China. If one loves his/her countrymen, let them decide what is best
for them, don't let YOUR way idea of loving a country and YOUR feeling of
nationalism make other people suffer. That is the bottom line.

Lin Can
=========================================================================
.-- .... --- . ...- . .-. -.. . -.-. --- -.. . ... - .... .. ...
--. . - ... -. --- - .... .. -. --.        
.-.. .. ..-. . .. ... ... .... --- .-. - .-- --- .-. -.- .... .- .-. -..
                                                   .-.. .. -. -.-. .- -.
=========================================================================
                                          

Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25457 soc.culture.taiwan:13281
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Question about TI
Date: 13 Sep 92 19:03:46 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.china
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <BuHp5G.EHp@rlyeh.multisys.com> rot@multisys.com (Republic of Taiwan) writes:
>It is interested to know what you gonner react, if
>there has a war between China and US?

I support the side which is closer to humanity.

Of course, being both Chinese and American gives me a great incentive
to PREVENT a war between China and the United States.  Just as the
fact that I know people both on the Mainland and Taiwan makes me more
interested in PREVENTING war than figuring out what to do if one
breaks out.

I suspect that if there were more "global" people like me, there would
be less war and bloodshed. 

>Cut yourself to two half and the left side goes to China to
>yell 'long live Mao', 'liberate evil Capatalists'
>and the right side stays in the US to yell 'those dirty Commi scums'
>'Commi's day is numberd'.

Sorry.  I don't let governments to my thinking for me.  Generally, I
get very, very suspicious if any government wants me to yell anything.
From: jtakala@cc.helsinki.fi
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: "A Chinese encyclopedia"?
Date: 6 Sep 92 09:48:31 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

Could anyone in this newsgroup provide an answer--or any
illumination--to whether a "certain Chinese encyclopedia", which
I'll describe in just a moment, really exists (has existed) or
whether it is just bogus?  

There is a wonderful "classification of animals", allegedly from
"an ancient Chinese encyclopedia", that has been circulating
around in Western literature and philosophy.  Probably the most
quoted source is one coming down from Jorge Luis Borges through
Michel Foucault.  Foucault's _The Order of Things_ opens with
this statement:

"This book first arose out of a passage in Borges, out of the
laughter that shattered, as I read the passage, all the familiar
landmarks of my thought [...]  This passage quotes a 'certain
Chinese encyclopaedia' in which it is written that 'animals are
divided into: (a) belonging to the Emperor, (b) embalmed, (c)
tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs,
(h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j)
innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (l) et
cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a
long way off look like flies'."  

Now, it never occurred to me that this taxonomy would have any
authentic source until I saw articles that took it for genuine
(or a version of it: one serious looking lacked some of the
funniest classes: (e) (h) (i) (j) (k) and (l)).  I could not
ascertain their sources, if they indeed were other than Borges
(or even Foucault).  One bona fide echo of this taxonomy dated it
to the Ming dynasty -- but the traces, again, stopped short. 

So, this is my basic problem: does this Chinese encyclopedia
exist?  Or does anything resembling it exist?  One person who
translates Chinese texts into Finnish pointed out that the
Borges-Foucault version contained items that did not exist in
Chinese culture, such as the mythological sirens. But he also
speculated that some oddities of the classification are similar
to errors in translation, which are very commonplace, some of
them maybe resulting from the lack of punctuation in old Chinese.
So he allowed that there might be a genuine source remotely
resembling the Borges taxonomy, although his best guess was that
it was a fake by Borges.  Admittedly, Borges was very fond of
inventing counterfeit sources, but on the other hand, the piece
in which this classification is to be found, is not a story but
an essay whose other facts seem to be accurate.  As for a source
of the classification of animals, Borges refers to Franz Kuhn, a
German expert and translator of Chinese who lived 1889-1961 but
whose work I have not been able to check extensively (I only know
that he mainly translated fiction).

Jukka-Pekka Takala
Dep't of Sociology, University of Helsinki
and
National Research Institute of Legal Policy
P.O.B. 35, SF-00931 Helsinki, Finland
Internet: JTakala@cc.Helsinki.Fi
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan