HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slzw0@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Look ! Stupid Taiwanese !!
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:56:40 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

txc6266@ultb.isc.rit.edu (T.X. Cheng ), Rochester Institute of Technology
writes:

>Dear Korean Airlines Pilots,
>Fly carefully, do not be shot down by anybody's missile AGAIN.
>R.O.C. Air Force
>(Just for entertainment)


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)

>From: shao@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (SHAO CHUNG-SHANG), University of Colorado, Boulder[m
>Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 19:12:05 GMT

>maybe.  how about let roc government take over the korean embassy in
>taipei, and sell it to north korean as their trading center.

>cs shao.


Please do.  Why don't you just give it free to the North Korea?  We are
going to unify within next 5 years.  So, it dosen't make any different.



In article <1992Aug23.134049.8253@csd.brispoly.ac.uk> c_tsai@csd.brispoly.ac.uk
(C Tsai) writes:

>   In fact, we have been said Korea are our best friend before.....
>Do you think Korea is our best friends?????? I think it is 1992 best Jokes,
>because we know that Korea always is our economy enemy.... Why we want to
>said Korea is our friends....  In int	national trade.... Taiwan and always

>   To sum up, I don't think Korea is our friend.....( I mean Korea government
>and Korea companies, not Korea people.... ), Korea always is our economy
>enemy......


Do you guys think we are the economic enemy of yours ?   Sorry,  we have
never thought of it !   We have just treated you guys as little toy maker.


>Korea always still our enemy.......... Don't lie ourselves.......
>Because Korea always still our enemy.......... Don't lie ourselves.....
>gest that we call them 'enemies', when see them?

Right,  Kids should be educated not to speak a lie. We can see you are
getting mature.  But be aware of "enermy-phobia"   OK?


OPEN YOUR EYES STUPID TAIWANESE !!

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





Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: mtl@cs.brown.edu (Ming-Tsung Lu)
Subject: Re: Look ! Stupid Taiwanese !!
Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:09:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.235640.58498@cc.usu.edu>, slzw0@cc.usu.edu writes:

|> 
|> 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.
|> 

Mr.Park!

We Taiwanese may be stupid, but we know how to spell plane. It's 
PLANE, not PLAIN.
Don't worry, Dan doesn't spell very well either.
Do you get that?!

Ming

Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: kemnitz@netcom.com (Greg Kemnitz)
Subject: Re: ROC-terminated-South Korea
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 20:15:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 


"We have no permanent friends or enemies - only interests" - Lord Palmerston.

People can be friends, but States can be allies or opponents depending on
where their national interests lie.  Saying a State is a friend or enemy is
like saying a corporation is a friend or enemy...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Kemnitz                        | "I ran out of the room - I
MultiMedia Information Systems Inc. | didn't want to be killed by a pile
kemnitz@netcom.com                  | of VMS manuals" :-)
                                    |
                                    | --A friend at DEC Palo Alto in the Quake
Xref: sparky soc.culture.taiwan:12660 soc.culture.korean:4123
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: 31 Aug 92 20:42:41 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.korean
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Aug31.104331.3673@vax.muskingum.edu>, ericlaw@vax.muskingum.edu (Eric Law, Geology Department) writes:
> 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?
>

So What you are saying is the majority rules in the society though 
opinions of minority would be respected. But majority still rules, right?
Now let's go back to Taiwan. How come Taiwan doesn't follow the standard
which regconize Mainland China as legitimate China supported by almost 
every country in the world? From what you said in your previous posts
and this, your argument simply contradict one another.

> > 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.

No, I will put it lots in common, not same principle

> 	   Then answer me: Why do we have so much divorces in our
> 	   society? Does that mean the "standard principles" among
> 	   a couple "changed"? 

Yes, it can be changed. But others can be factors of divorce.
And I don't see anything wrong with change in their principle.
Change is good.

> >> 	   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. 
> 

I will be waiting for your next post.

Jung S. Lee


junglee@rucs-admin@rutgers.edu
junglee@gandalf@rutgers.edu
From: ericlaw@vax.muskingum.edu (Eric Law, Geology Department)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: old Her[4] and Christine
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:29:29 -0600
Organization: Muskingum College

In article <1992Sep4.073534.27346@leland.Stanford.EDU>, claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>>
>>	   Identify yourself as a "Chinese" and discard TI.
> 
> Identify yourself as a "Soviet" and discard LI.
> 
> I am not a TIer, but I think your logic is seriously flawed.

	** Ha, here comes another one to criticize my logic.

	   Taiwan is able to "recover" China while Lithuania can
	   "only" run away from Soviet Union.

	   Lithuania has others to help (or to do the same) while
	   TI can't even hold itself.

	   Is your logic better than my? 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: ykhsu@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (yung-kao.hsu)
Subject: Re: The Foreign Minister of PRC said ...
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:49:23 GMT

In article <92240.095103U38250@uicvm.uic.edu> <U38250@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
>The U.S would force the PROC to withdraw itsmilitary threatening or blocking.

	Yes, but I don't think this "force" will include military means.
	Since the top priority for US is to maintain the status quo, I
	think the same pressure would also be applied on Taiwan to step
	down her tune (assuming Taiwan won't collape in such a crisis).

>The U.S. (so far) has never tried to obstruct any country declaring
>independence.

	Except the independence act from her own: the Civil War.  
	Actually, I find it hard to find many countries that will
	obstruct the independence of other countries except coming
	within their own.

> On the contrarily, she gave full recognization soon. See the
>examples of Croatia, Bosnia, or any republic in the Commonwealth.

	US was criticized for recognizing the independences of Baltic States
	too ssssllllloooowwwwly; the reason was US wanted to wait and make
	certain it was the "right" thing to do (roughly this is what Bush
	said). This suggests US will evaluate her benefits from Taiwan
	against PRC carefully in this issue. 

	Also, recognizing the independence of a country does not means US
	will fight for that country's independence (did she ever?).

	In your example, I am not sure US recognizes the independence of
	Bosnia let alone fighting for her. It would be nice if US does
	follow what you have described though. Anyway, Taiwan should not
	make decisions primarily based on possible support from other nations.

Yung-Kao Hsu

Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: tsai@pioner.sst.hlo.dec.com
Subject: Excerpt from UPI news. 
Reply-To: tsai@pioner.sst.hlo.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:04:23 GMT

UPI News:
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 92 3:46:08 PDT
...
...
        On the domestic political front, Seoul's decision to recognize
Beijing has raised questions -- even within the ruling Nationalist party
-- about Taiwan's continued claim to rule all of China.   
        Wei Yung, president of the Vangard Institute for Policy Studies and a
ruling party candidate in year-end legislative elections, thinks
Taiwan's one-China policy needs ammending to allow for dual recognition.
        ``What we should do is redefine China as a nation with two political
systems, each with international status formally recognized by other
countries,'' Wei said.
        Such arguments have already had influence on Taiwan's foreign policy.
        In January, Taiwan changed its rigid one-China posture to establish
consular ties with Latvia, ignoring the Baltic republic's recognition of
China. Last month, the island reestablished diplomatic relations with
Niger without requiring Niamey to first break ties with Beijing.
...
recognition.
        The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), Taiwan's leading opposition
group, says Taipei could overcome Beijing's attempts to isolate the
island diplomatically by recognizing Taiwan's defacto independence.
        ``Under the one-China policy, the PRC is the only government to
represent China, therefore we don't have any space,'' said DPP
legislator Hung Chi-chang, ``I think this is the right time to consider
(a policy of) one-China and one-Taiwan.''
From: thuang@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Tze-yau Huang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: The Foreign Minister of PRC said ...
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:51:37 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <14786@borg.cs.unc.edu> chu@church.cs.unc.edu (Heng Chu) writes:
>
>*** It sounds like it is ROC government's claim that puts so many countries
>    to recognize (or acknowledge, whatever) Taiwan is part of China (which 
>    in their words means PRC). If ROC is so small that can be ignored,
>    why its claim can be so effective?
>
The claim is not effective but the claim is too huge to be ignored.  Few
states in the world would recognize Estonia if she claims Russia as part
of her territory.

TY Huang
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: ghe@nyx.cs.du.edu (George He)
Subject: Re: The Foreign Minister of PRC said ...
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 14:08:37 GMT

In article <HJj-pz#@engin.umich.edu> chen@caen.engin.umich.edu (Jian Chen) writes:
>... *** below is words from the foreign minister of communists' China ***
>But if ROC government wants to start the diplomatic war, I 
>have the power to cut off the major diplomatic relations ROC has, including 
>S Korea and S Africa.
>
>... *** below is words from a disgusting mainlander ***
>I wish ROC government can be wise and do not make any aggresive
>move.

Whatever Taiwan people and government want to do is Taiwan's own business.
It's none of you communists' business.
We don't need a mainlander to puke those communists' bullsh*t in our newsgroup.

Who starts the diplomatic war? communists' China or Taiwan?
Who wants to isolate Taiwan from the international society to force Taiwan
to give in? I believe even a 3-year-old can answer these questions correctly.

>
>	May God bless all of Chinese.
>
There is one special kind of Chinese. Maybe they are not Chinese at all 
because they have forgotten basic Chinese virtues.
I would call them "DOGs and PIGs."

This kind of creature take their communists' government's propaganda
as God's messages and even help in spreading those bullsh*t, 
which is exactly like DOGs.
To the outer world, this kind of creature behave exactly as 
BIG CHINA CHAUVINIST, which is like PIGs.

For those Chinese degrade themselves as "DOGs and PIGs",
they are not worth of any blessing.

>
>J Chen
>Department of Chemistry
>University of Michigan
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi)
Subject: Re: TI
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell Computer Science
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:33:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.163629.1296@bradford.ac.uk> H.Wang@bradford.ac.uk (H WANG) writes:
>elelyc@nuscc.nus.sg (Y.C. Liang) wrote:
>
>    In article <1992Aug27.171038.8569@bradford.ac.uk> 
>    H.Wang@bradford.ac.uk (H WANG) writes:
>   >
>   >Suggestions: How to Ensure  Taiwan's Independance (TI)?
>   >
>   >
>   >1)  Draw out all the hard currence to buy weapons. Tell ...
         No! Buy all the oil from all over the world, dig a big hole in the 
             middle of Taiwan, fill the big hole with those all, then....
>   >
>   >2)  Strict control over minorities in Taiwan. Prevent them ...
>   >
>   >3)  Win international support. Ask those African countries ...
>   >
>   >4)  Assassinate those mainlander or taiwanese politicians ...
>   >
>   >5)  Forget PRC. Have a nice sleep. Tomorrow'll be another 
>   >    day! 
>   >
>   > 
>   > --August 1992, in a very exited mood, night before heavy sh*t fall.
>
>   It was possible to have Taiwan to be independent.  But, the governemnt
>   in Taiwan missed the opportunity.  Somehow, politically, economically,
>   it is quite difficult to do so now.  But, it may be getting easier in
>   the future.  Things are changing.  Regards.
>
>Anyone interested in the ORIGINAL posting please e-mail to me
>for a complete copy.
>
>Copyright reserved by the author.  No one has the right 
>to cite the posting without author's permission.
>
>Hongwen Wang
>H.Wang@uk.ac.bradford


Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.korean
From: ghe@nyx.cs.du.edu (George He)
Subject: Re: Economical Statistics about Taiwan, S. Korea, China
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 13:34:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.223431.8932@ulowell.ulowell.edu> cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.023602.10104@ultb.isc.rit.edu> txc6266@ultb.isc.rit.edu (T.X. Cheng ) writes:
>>Dear netters,
>>
>>    The following economical statistics table for your referance.
>>
>>Timothy Cheng
>>--------------
>>txc6266@ultb.isc.rit.edu
>>
>>
>>Source: University of Maryland at College Park Information Database
>>
>>Item/Country         |    Taiwan      |    S. Korea    |    China
>>---------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------
>>Population (7/92)    |   20,658,702   |   43,134,386   |  1,151,486,981
>>---------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------
>>Export (Billion USD) |                |                |
>>       (1991)        |      67.2      |      65        |     62.1
>>---------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------
>>Import (Billion USD) |                |                |
>>       (1991)        |      54.7      |      70        |     53.4
>>---------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------
>>External debt        |                |                |
>>(Billion USD, 1990)  |       1.1      |      31.7      |      51
>>---------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------
>>GNP  (Billion USD)   |     150.8      |      238       |     413
>>---------------------+----------------+----------------+-----------------
>>GNP per capita (USD) |     7380       |     5600       |     370
>>
>Bullshit measure for economic power--GNP!
>exchange rate between U.S. dollar and German mark has dropped from 2.4
>Mark/dollar to 1.4 Mark/dollar. is U.S. 40%(=1/2.4) percent less powerful just
>for that, economically?
>
Bullsh*t comments from a mainlander refusing to recognize China's poorness?!

I guess acknowledging one's own weakness and try to catch up 
is a better attitude.

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 11:15:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.041228.6428@engage.pko.dec.com> li@sicvax.enet.dec.com (Tong-Kang Li) writes:
>several hundred years ago, first immigrant group ("newcomer" by your 
>definition) should speak Taiwanese aboriginals which is the only Taiwanese 
                                                      ^^
That should be an are. Different aboriginal tribes speak different language
/dialect.

>mothertongue at the time to show the identity with Taiwan. Can we turn the 
>clock back so everyone should only speak Taiwanese aboriginals to show the 
>identity??
>

Chou1
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: li@sicvax.enet.dec.com (Tong-Kang Li)
Subject: Re: Language
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 01:52:07 GMT


In article <1992Aug29.201748.19832@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, chou@cs.washington.edu (Pai Hsiang Chou) writes...
>>Personally, I think we should continue this policy but all dialects should
>>coexist peacefully.
> 
>This policy is cruel, destructive, and damaging to people's pride
>and dignity.  It should be changed now or else our languages will
>die and be lost forever.  Merely lifting the oppression is not
>sufficient because the damage is too severe.  It will take a lot
>of people's awareness and participation to heal this wound.

I think the approach of the policy can be changed but not the goal of the 
policy. In other words, speak common language (It just happened to be 
Mandarin but majority of people on Taiwan feel Holo should be the one then 
we switch to it) in the public places but can speak different languages 
privately. TV etc media should provide spaces for all different languages.

I just can not image that you speak your language and I speak mine and we 
have to rely on translators at the meetings, etc public places.

>>BTW, just heard Holo Opera is coming to New York City in September and will 
>>perform at Taipei Theater which owned by Taiwan government.
> 
> 
>So what?

Why angry? I entered it here because I read yesterday newspaper and thought 
it encouraging and interesting. That's all.

Tom
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: hhwu@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (eric.wu)
Subject: Re: F16 to Taiwan
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:23:11 GMT
Keywords: F16

In article <Bu10rL.D1o@news.cso.uiuc.edu> scc53091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve C. Chen) writes:
>I am pretty sure it'll be the F-16 C/Ds.  Why would Taiwan buy 150 planes with
>worse avionics with their own IDF fighter??  What do other people think?
>
>Steve Chen
>scc53091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

The model is not specified in any of the information I have seen.  But
according to WJ, which quoted Benson (D-Texas), US may sale F-16 A/B
so that China will not be too upset.

Eric
Xref: sparky soc.culture.taiwan:12645 soc.culture.korean:4120
From: ericlaw@vax.muskingum.edu (Eric Law, Geology Department)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.korean
Subject: Re: Korean Bashing (Re: All you d*ckhead friend-betraying Koreans!!!)
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:16:15 GMT
Organization: Muskingum College

In article <1992Aug30.143943.23889@medsys.rn.com>, bbs@medsys.rn.com (Public BBS System) writes:
> 
> I was somewhat surprised to hear a friend of mine saying that S. Korea
> was very Gou4 Peng2 You3 that they delayed establishing relationship with
> mainland China for so long.
> 

	** Not until they see the big market of China becomes
	   available.

	   This is called "Jian4 Chian2 Ian3 Kai1" (see moneny eye open).
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.korean
From: shao@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (SHAO CHUNG-SHANG)
Subject: the embassies
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 21:00:56 GMT


In article <1992Aug30.065923.7861@leland.Stanford.EDU> claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.053547.28943@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> shao@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (SHAO CHUNG-SHANG) writes:
>
>>that building was built by ching, but this was far before the birth of the
>>rok.  today, the building is belonging to the government of roc.  if rok
>>government ignores the right of roc government of owning the property in
>>korean (because the termination of the political relation).  roc government
>>can use the same logic and reason to take over the korean embassy in taipei.
>>ther is nothing to do with who built what.  it is the matter what is belonged
>>to whom.  two buildings are all the properties owned by two governments.
>>they are the same.
>
>Not true.  (Not that I liked to see Beijing taking over the former Taipei
>embassy, but...)  The embassy is legally viewed as *Chinese* property, so
>whichever government is viewed as the legitimate Chinese government (and
>legitimate successor to the Ching government) gets the property.
>
>For example, let's say that A dies and leaves his property.  Initially, his
>nephew B is considered his heir.  Therefore B gets the property.  However,
>later it was found that A had a son (C) who really should be his heir.  C will
>be able to get the property due to the inheritance rights.  It is the same
>case here, since Beijing (not Taipei) is now viewed as the legitimate
>successor to Ching.

very questionable analogy.  first, the birth of roc is earlier that the birth
of the proc.  so, roc is the one which directly inherit the building.  so,
there is no connection between proc and ching.
secondly, as i know, the rok was founded after world war two.  at that time,
the ching dynasty has been gone for thirty years.  there is no coneection
between ching and rok.  i can not see why that building is the property
of ching, evan it was built by ching.
so, i don't think your theory of inheritance is a suitable explaination here.

>The Korean embassy in Taipei is in a whole different situation.  If after B
>was declared the heir of A, in the case above, B purchased a property with his
>own money that had nothing to do with the inheritance that he got from A, then
>naturally, even when C shows up, he has no rights whatsoever to the property
>B bought.  It is the case here; the Seoul embassy here had nothing to do with
>Pyangyong, so North Korea has no claim whatsoever over the property.

if i can't agree with your antecedent, i won't agree with your conseguent here.
therefore, rok embassy is under same condition as roc embassy.

>I understand (and share) the frustration of seeing the property going to
>the communist regime in Beijing, but let us not, because of the frustration
>and the bitterness towards Seoul, impair our reason.

well, i don't think my emotion defects my ration.

cs shao.


Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan