HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby)
Subject: Territory of Ancient China : Qin (Chin) Dynasty
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:26:55 GMT

**Period:

221 B.C. -> 206 B.C.

**Dynasty:

Qin Dynasty (also known as Chin Dynasty), Qin is also the first
"Son of Heaven" or Emperor of China.

**Area under Central Control:

North:  it reaches the Great Wall of China, which was built by Qin,
and extends from Western end of modern Inner Mongolia to modern
North Korea.
 
South:  it reaches South China Sea, and into North of modern Vietnam,
including Hanoi.

Qin struggles in the SouthWest area (modern GuiZhou and YunNan)
with a tribe.

**Area under Central Influence:

It also occupied modern Taiwan and HaiNan Islands.

**Neighbouring States/Tribes/Civilizations:

Mongolians became a much lesser threat with the completion of
the Great Wall of China.  However, tribes in the West and
SouthWest continued to be threats.

-- 
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."
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:30:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.011807.7907@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, yewang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Yenwen Wang) writes...
>In article <10SEP199215495996@deimos.ucc.umass.edu> s9874194@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194) writes:
>>
> 
>Unfortunately, the exact wording in the Communique is not "recognizes"
>(I do not know why you used the past tense :-) Beijing's sovereignty, 
>but that the U.S. "ACKNOWLEDGES" PRC's claim that Taiwan is part of
>China.
> 
>Of course, when CCP educates its people, it pretty much gives the 
>Communique whatever meaning it sees fit(for political or propaganda purposes).
> 
> 
>-- 
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>  Yenwen Wang                        wangy@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu
>  The Ohio State University          yewang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Okey, here is the definitions of the above two words in Webster's
New World Distionary, 3rd College Edition. I hope that you do not
think it is published by CCP.

ACKNOWLEDGE:
1. To admit to be true or as stated; confess.
2. To recognize the authority or claims of.
      ^^^^^^^^^
3. To recognize and answer.
      ^^^^^^^^^
4. To express thanks for
5. To state that one has received (.......)
6. Law to admit or affirm as genuine; certify in legal form.

RECOGNIZE:
1. To be aware of as something or somebody known before.
2. To know by some detail, as appearance, identity.
3. To be aware of significance
4. To ackowledge the existence, validity, authority, or genuineness
     ^^^^^^^^^^^
5. To accept as a fact; admit 
6. To acknowledge as worhty of appreciation or approval
      ^^^^^^^^^^^
7. To acknowledge the legal standing of 
      ^^^^^^^^^^^
8. .......
9. .......

I do not know how do you distinguish them in common sense. And I 
do not know how the original word was. Enlight me!!
c.q.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: WHO@austlcm.sps.mot.com 
Subject: Re: F-16's fear?
Organization: Texas
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:52:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.223832.24909@news.acns.nwu.edu> zdlin@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (ZhongDong Lin) writes:
>
>
>     I donot think Taiwan or China should be the main issues of F-16 deal.
>Taiwan should not be blamed for its fear of security, and PRC should not be
>blamed for its protest (pretend or not).  The real guilty part is George Bush
>and his government.  They made this deal out of pure political reason in a    
>clear violation of 1982 Sino-America treaties. His government then tried to
       ^^^^^^^^^
If the US government can violate its previous treaties with the kmt government to
establish its relationship with the ccp government in 1982, then what is the big
deal about violating the so-called "1982 Sino-America treaties?"
  
>justify its wrongdoing by overriding a international law by a domestic law. 

What are the international law and the domestic law you are talking about?
  
>This just proves that politicans anywhere are the same, it is not the
>interests of people they care about, it is their personal gains.  If selling 

Does the ccp government care about the interests of people living in Taiwan?
 
>weapons is for the purpose of stabilizing a region, why they objected the     
>Chinese arm sales to the third world countries? 
>
>


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: dh5m@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Donghai  Huangfu)
Subject: happy midautumn
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: soc.culture.china
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:38:11 GMT

Happy Mid-Autumn!
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li)
Subject: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:23:29 GMT

It takes at least five years to deliver all 150 F-16s.
With 150 F-16s, Taiwanese is still not strong enough to
attack mainland people. Without F-16s, if Taiwanese want
independence, would mainland resort to millitary action?
I think not. Why should mainland risk so much for this
island? Mainland people will not live better with the
"liberation" of Taiwan. After five years, these plans
may be nothing but toys. After all, the American are not
selling technology to build the plans. Also these plans
are not the first grade fighters (F-16 C/D is more advanced).

These Taiwanese are rich. You cannot prevent them from
spending the 4 billion dollars. I guess if mainland had
such money and mainland were not communist country, American
would be willing to sell F-16 to mainland more eagerly
than to Taiwan. In that case I would still prefer to use
the 4 billion for something else instead of buying these
toys for a few pilots.

I think the Chinese government is over worried and the
Taiwanese is over joyed. What a big deal!

Xiao Li
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
From: dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby)
Subject: Territory of Ancient China : Stone Age
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:20:32 GMT

**Period:

About 30th Centry B.C. to 2183 B.C.

**Dynasty:

Stone Ages.
Four Saints.
Five Kings (2690 B.C. -> 2183 B.C.) (the first King being Yellow King).

**Area under Central Control:

During the Stone Age, the Ancient Chinese Civilization occupied the
area from Southern part of modern Manchuria down to North of Long River.

And went as West as near the end of Yellow River.

**Area under Central Influence:

none.

**Neighbouring States/Tribes/Civilizations:

Tribes in the North, occupying modern day Beijing.

-- 
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."
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: cyc@z.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang)
Subject: Re: F-16's fear?
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 21:16:16 GMT

>
>>Taiwan was returned to ROC not CCP then. I don't think CCP can claim back
>>the territory lost to USSR in Ching dynasty just because it represents
>
>PRC is the legal sucessor of ROC. As regards other lost territory, they
>have treaty with the Chinese government.
>
>>Yi-Chieh
>
>Ze Yang

But, do you know that PRC refused to pay back ROC's war debt borrowed from
the USA during the Civil war at 1949 ?
BTW, how could you claim to inherit your parent's fortune before they died ? 
What's in a hurry ? Unless, PRC can completely eliminate/destroy ROC, 
Taiwan belongs to ROC as you pointed out (thanks) and before then, ROC's 
citizen will exclusively determine the future of Taiwan, such as TI. 
Please respect to your parent's right when they are still alive. You have
to kill them first, in order to inherit their fortune, don't you ?

So, the point is, if CCP want to take Taiwan, come to get it, its not 
for granted. If so, why so many Chinese feel so angry about Taiwanese 
getting help from other countries ? Is there any rule said that a country 
shouldn't get help from other people to defend the country ?
 
Yi-Chieh
From: txu@lab2.ma.utexas.edu (Tao Xu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: anonymous posting
Summary: anonymous posting
Keywords: anonymous posting
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:00:57 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics
From: a@b.c.d
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china


Originator: a@b.c.d 
Nntp-Posting-Host: nntp-server
From: binlee@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (L. D. ROPER)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Nankai Alumni Address Book
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:48:00 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


Hi,all you guys:

   I will edit a Nankai Alumni Address Book for Nankai Alumni in North 
America.If you are Nankai Alumni or you know any of your friends are
Nankai Alumni,would you please or ask your friends send me a short 
message if you or your friends are willing to have their name list on
the Nankai Alumni Address Book(North America).

   In the short message,please including the years and major studied in
Nankai,your current position and your address,phone number,email address
I will post all I got on soc.culture.china and I will send each Alumni
a email message and mail if possible.

   Please contact me at:

     binlee@vtcc1.bitnet
or   binlee@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu

     my phone number are:   (703)231-5575 (office)
                            (703)951-3067 (home)

Your assistance will be highly appreciated!


Best regard to every one!

Bin Lee



this was post on soc.culture.china 54589 








From: binlee@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (L. D. ROPER)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Call for address of Nankai Alumni
Date: 15 Sep 1992 15:46 EDT  
Distribution: world
Keywords:  

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: elelyc@nuscc.nus.sg (Y.C. Liang)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 02:23:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.005750.22943@cs.rochester.edu> zhang@cs.rochester.edu (Zhang Ju) writes:
>
>As long as those fighter jets are not used in a war among Chinese, we
>should feel happy that the military might of Chinese is increased by
>150 F-16 and 60 Mirrage jets.
>
>In the minds of oversea Chinese, there is a de facto Commonwealth of
>China, consisting of China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau and Singarpore. 
>May it be prosperous and strengthful.
>
>Unfortunately, the fate of every Chinese is more or less tied to it.
>
>Ju Zhang

Singaporean are majorly formed by Chinese, Malay and Indian in race.
If there is any "overseas Chinese" here, they are temporary residents,
such as an overseas student.  

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: ping@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Shiping Zhang)
Subject: Re: Seng Tong and Chinese Politics
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:23:47 GMT

In article <92251.121943CHENJC@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <CHENJC@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.075530.16330@mariner.amc.edu.au>, lwang@mariner.amc.edu.au
>(Lou  Wang) says:
>> the other admiration stuff on ST deleted.
>The whole China will benefit from Seng Tongs' actions.
>>..............
>   Don't bother, and no interest to comment your whole shit, but can't help
>   feel funny to see your above words. You over-emphasized ST's showdown, man!
>
>   JC

  Seems it's the CCP government who over-emphasized ST's action.

-ping

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: xlu@hila.hut.fi (Xiaohua Lu)
Subject: help needed
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 09:45:23 GMT

Hi, dear netters:

This is to get help from you.

I am a PRC citizen and presently in Finland. I have gotten the addmission to a
ph.D program to the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology and an
assistantship as well. I made the application for the visa to Hong Kong at the
British Embassy in Finland. Two and a half months after I submitted the 
application the British Embassy got a telex from the Hong Kong Immigration
Department saying that they could issue me the visa on the condition that I 
could be able to present a "one way exit permit" from the Chinese authority
(sounds rediculous, becouse I needn't to go from mainland to Hong Kong). Now
my trouble is neither the British Embassy nor the Chinese Embassy, which is
the only Chinese authority I can find here, know what the "one way exit permit"
is. So I surely can get it nowhere. I have contacted the HKUST for help. They
told me that they got the information from the HK Immigration Department that
I am required to have this because I am a citizen of PRC.

Now I need information on such matters as: what is the "one way exit permit"?
from where and how can I get it?  in what form should it be? can the Chinese
Embassy issue it or equivelant document?

It will be greatly helpful if anyone, especially those who have experienced
similar situations, can give me any response about this. I need also the postal
address, telephone number and the telefax number of the HK Immigration 
Department so that I can know what exactly they want.

Answers can be addressed to my mail box: xlu@hila.hut.fi  or just be posted to
this news group.

Thanks a lot for any kindly help!

Lu, Xiaohua
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Followup-To: soc.culture.china
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 14:52:00 GMT

In article <15197@borg.cs.unc.edu>, chu@church.cs.unc.edu (Heng Chu) writes...
>In article <10SEP199215495996@deimos.ucc.umass.edu> s9874194@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194) writes:
>>1. Selling weapons to Taiwan is an invasion to Beijing's
>>sovereignty. 
> 
>Tell us if CCP ever ruled Taiwan for a single day. 
>Also, how come selling other products to Taiwan is not an invasion of, 
>say what? sovereignty of PRC?
> 
=====================================================================
You do not need a government contract to sell other products. But selling
weapons has to be proved by one's government and normally only sell to
a government, not non-official organization. Beijing and Washington both
acknowledg each other are the ONLY legitimate sovereign government. 
By selling weapons to Taiwan is clearlt a violation to this ackonwledgement.
c.q.
===========================================================================
>>2.
>>The next day you will
>>find that somebody may sell something more dangerous at more
>>attractive price and the Straight will be a very dangerous 
>>place.
> 
>ROC recently has expressed more than once the strong willingness to rule
>out force (by signing pact or equivalent with PRC). Judging from ROC's 
>current prosper situation and the fact that ROC is far too small, I don't 
>think use of force, if any, will be initiated by ROC.
> 
==========================================================================
I do not believe that Beijing will use force either unless at some
extreme conditions. You would not tied your hands regardless of the
situation.

Also, I'd like to point out that Taipei government is willing to see
that Beijing has not promise not to use force, so that KMT can use this
as an excuse to counter attack TI promoters. This is a political accord.

c.q.
============================================================================
>> ...............
> 
>Heng
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: rot@rlyeh.multisys.com (Republic of Taiwan)
Subject: Re: a few question about taiwan
Organization: Multimedia Information Systems Corporation, San Jose, CA                        TEL: (408) 436-8929            E-mail: info@multisys.com
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 05:09:19 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.

Does it matter? KMT believes and believed it is matter, do you?
It does matter how people recongize themselve.
If you does not deem Taiwan as a home, why bother arguing
with people saying his or her home is somewhere else.
Just go back to your REAL home.

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

Such a strange question!
If Taiwan is not an independent country, then who is the
government on top of KMT?
If Taiwan is an independent country, why waste people's
time to declare independent again.
Your question should be,

Shoud people in Taiwan force KMT to drop KMT's claim of
'KMT owns KMT's Tibet, Mongolia and Mainland China and
KMT has been preparing for 40 some years to RECOVER or
INVADE Mainland China, Tibet and Mongolia'?

Should people in Taiwan elect their own president by
population vote?

Should people in Taiwan decide their own fate or let
KMT or CCP decides Taiwanese future?

=
=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.
From: yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: 150 F-16 to Taiwan
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:13:20 CDT
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA

In article <1992Sep7.161956.2002@zip.eecs.umich.edu>, cyc@z.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang) writes:

> I agree with you that Jewish people are smart in doing business and making
> money, but that can trace back to thousands year ago, while Taiwanese just
> started no more than 20 years ago. Giving time, Taiwanese will become
> smarter and smarter. Appreciate your reminds.
> BTW, Isreal has 600+ F-16/F-15 fighters and 1000+ M1 tanks, how do you think 
                                              ^^^^^^^^
> they get those weapons ? As far as this is concerned, Taiwanese are smarter 
> than Isreal, because we only consider to buy 150 F-16s not 600 of them.

Source please!  M1 has not been exported to any country yet.

SF
bvc

-- 
******************************************************************************
*           "I didn't think I ate that much!"                                *
*                                       -- Ding Chavez                       *
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*                yuqian.bvc.edu		    the Suicidal Freshman            *
******************************************************************************
From: nil@aber.ac.uk (Nigel Lueng)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: test
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:35:08 GMT
Organization: University of Wales, Aberystwyth

just a test!
From: gang@ms.uky.edu (Gang Li)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: F-16,pilots.
Date: 12 Sep 92 03:40:05 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

mth015@marshall.wvnet.edu writes:

>One of my Tawanese friends tald me the quality of Tawanese pilot and said
>" If the way break someday, most of F-16 pilot will dispear or be called
>back to there home by there parents or wife."
>I am wonding is it that bad? Welcome your answers.

First, try soc.culture.taiwan,
Second, I don't know what to say ...
From: haiqiu@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Let Taiwan alone and develop China first. (Was: F-16's fear?)
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:03:17 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Sep10.002433.26281@cs.yale.edu>, yang-allan@CS.YALE.EDU (J. Allan Yang) writes:
> 
>  > From: yshuang@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu (Yongshan Huang)
>  > Date: 9 Sep 92 21:21:44 GMT
>  > 
>  > 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 !
> 
> Taiwan wants to buy those fighters, no matter who the President of
> US is. Taiwan is going to buy Mirage 2000 and possibly Mig-29, too.
> Advanced weaponry is needed to protect people in Taiwan from any
> force against their will.

    If Jiang Jie Shi couldn't possibly protect his government when his
army of full American Equipments is much stronger than the PLA which is
merely some ground troups only at that time. How could you expectly buying
a couple of airplane from USA can protect Taiwan now?
 
> People in Taiwan do not want a forced unification with China against
> their will. It's just like overseas Chinese students do not want
> forced return to China against their will. Do you agree that US
> should return any Chinese student back to China by force on the
> demand of Chinese government? If no, why do you think Chinese
> government has the right to force Taiwanese to unite with her?
> 
> If China had a truly democratic government that takes good care of
> her people, no Taiwanese is going to fight against uniting with such
> a great nation.
> 
>  > I think these F-16 can only invoke counter effect to the 
>  > piece of the world. We will see.
> 
> Taiwan is no aggressive force in the region. China, which refuses to
> exclude using force on the unification issue, is a serious threat to
> Taiwan's prosperity and new found democracy.
> 
> I visited some parts of Guangdong in the winter of 1990. I saw many
> positive signs of strong economic growth there. Chinese, Hong
> Kongnese, and Taiwanese are helping each other and all are thriving.
> This is a good model for cooperation. Let's be patient on the matter
> of unification and help each other grow first.
> 
> - Allan

    De2 min2 xin1 zhe3 de2 tian1 xia4, shi1 min2 xin1 zhe3 shi1 tian1 xia3.
That's for sure, despite of what ever weapon you have. Advanced weapon will
only increase the casualty and make the people suffer more, but it will not
change the fate on the side who do not have the support of the people.

----HAMLET
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: WHO@austlcm.sps.mot.com 
Subject: Re: F-16's fear?
Organization: Motorola Inc, Austin, Texas
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:20:15 GMT

In article <65500095@acf3.NYU.EDU> yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , ) writes:
>
>Taiwan is a piece of land got back by China after we defeated Japan, I don't 
                                                   ?? Who are those we? Chinese
never defeated Japan.


>understand why Mr. Chang says it is a country, if it is a country as
>Mr. Chang claimed, there must be very few people know this.
>
>By the way, when those asian countries were fighting Japan's invasion,
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  You were not included either,
 boy(or girl) !


>where were those taiwanese boys and girls, they were not defending
>"their own country", I am sure some of them are serving their Japanese 
>masters, how did they become so tough in recent years?

How can you be so sure that your father/mother or grandfather/grandmother
has not served Japanese masters in mainland?
  
>
>They don't have the right to say taiwan is a independent country now, 
>it's a piece of land owned by Chinese.

I just wonder how your guys can have such a short memory. The place which
you guys call china now was a land robbed from the KMT. Fell no shame is
the worst shame.

> 
>>Yi-Chieh
>
>Ze Yang