HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view. (Was: Who Cares 150 F-16s.)
Date: 13 Sep 92 19:11:08 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

In article <79639@ut-emx.uucp> joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.154353.2277@news.acns.nwu.edu> usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu (Usenet on news.acns) writes:
>>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.

Change the world "evil-minded people" to "class enemy".

Now, do you understand how culture revolution started?  
No one is naturally immune to hate, isn't it?  

Chill out, and you will think clearer.  

>
>Do you not see the contradiction in the statement you just made?
>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: gang@ms.uky.edu (Gang Li)
Subject: Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view. (Was: Who Cares 150 F-16s.)
    <1992Sep11.205834.7702@news.acns.nwu.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:25:37 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu (Usenet on news.acns) writes:

>Why you guys are so afraid of letting people choose their future ( apparently  
>people in PRC can't vote for their future now). Why you guys are so angry about  
>this. In fact, I don't think people in Guangdong or Fujian would choose to  
>leave now. You guys acted as if they would choose to break away if they are  
>given the chance. 

>Oh, I see, deep in your hearts, you even think many Chinese would leave as you  
>guys and China will disappear. That's why you are so afraid. Don't worry.  
>Things are not so bad yet. 

>Carl

Don't be so sure, learn something about US civil war. I begain to understand
why Americans are still talking about this a lot nowadays.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: shi6@chaos.uchicago.edu (Sheldon Shi)
Subject: Re: 150 F-16 to Taiwan
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 21:35:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.200857.7460@zip.eecs.umich.edu> cyc@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang) writes:
>>I don't think $90b can buy a win of war. How many people in the world
>>are sharing your TI's dream? You may think *MAYBE* USA will support you,
>>but remember, there is no long-live-friendship between countries, the only
>>thing is long-live-interests, right? don't count on the *MAYBE* support in a
>>war.
>>Kuwait is rich, right? but she can do nothing if USA don't help
>>Kuwait drive Iraq away. A huge country DO means something in a war if both
>>side can use similar arms.
>
>If Taiwanese really get serious about defending their own future, we are
>talking about $1000 billions here. $90 billions is the trade surplus,
>it's only hair out of 9 cows. Kuwait is rich, but Taiwan's wealth can buy 
>10 times of Kuwait's oil, do you know that ? As long as Taiwanese can make
>Taiwan become an international interest to do business and make profit. 
>I doubt any of those countries will let any other aggressive country to
>destroy their business opportunity. 
>
>Yi-Chieh

White men can't jump, TIers can't fight (in the battle field, not in the
congress though).

Given the size and geographic position of Taiwan, China can always manage to
make it unattractive in the business sense. Cheap labors, rich resources,
apparently China is in advantage. Even in terms of tech, don't you see
China is catching up? Besides, do you think other countries like
trade deficits with Taiwan that much? One example, don't you see
more and more goods in US made in China or Korea or Mexico instead of Taiwan?

Sheldon
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 11:44:59 EDT
From: <YXZ100@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: To those pro Shen Tong guys


>Sir, You know me when I was in TAM?  Did I made any irresponsible
>claim on TAM?  I don't think so.
>


>Here is sth you should learn in US first:
>
>1. If you want to play, you get to pay.
>2. If you cannot pay full, pay at least the minimum.
>3. If you cannot pay the minimum, do NOT play.
>
>Understand?   Are you on TAM during that time? If NOT, shut up. Sir.

Then, if I have played with your game rule, why don't you stay in TAM with your
claim about courage? Why do you have to make such a claim in U.S.? Once again,
I have no interest to ask you to do so. Simply these are just logical questions
following your rule.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25268 soc.culture.taiwan:13132
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:09:28 EDT
From: <ZQH@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject:    Specification of F-16, SU-27 & MIG-31 (II)

Some additional features of F-16, SU-27 and MIG-31

F-16: multi-role fighter
      four-channel digital fly-by-wire flying-control
      AN/APG-66 coherent pulse Doppler radar (search 74km)
      FLIR (Forward-Looking Infra-Red) pod with helmet-mounted display
       (designed for the night-bombing mission)
    Air-Superiority (CAP) mission:
      four Sidewinder (AIM-9) and two Sparrow (AIM-7) air-to-air missile
    Ground-Attack (CAS) mission:
      two Sidewinder (AIM-9) and four 2000lb bombs

SU-27: long-range air-superiority fighter
       four-channel analog fly-by-wire flying-control
       Track-while-scan coherent pulse Doppler radar (search 240km)
       IRST (Infra-Red Search/Track) sensor and laser rangefinder
        (designed as ECCM and for off-bore firing of short-range AAM)
       integrated fire-control with the radar, IRST and
        laser rangefinder slaved to the pilot's helmet-mounted
        target designator
     Air-Superiority (CAP) mission:
       six AA-10(Alamo) and four AA-11(Archer) or AA-8(Aphid)
     Long-Range Intercept mission:
       six AA-9(Amos) and four AA-11(Archer) or AA-8(Aphid)

MIG-31: two-seat strategic interceptor
        (like U.S. F-14's AN/APG-65) pulse Doppler radar (search 305km)
         capable of tracking 10 targets and attacking 4 simultaneously
        (F-14's       ..     24   ..     .     ..     6       ..      )
      Long-Range Intercept mission:
        four AA-9(Amos) and four AA-8(Aphid)
     or eight AA-9(Amos) only


Some features of U.S. and Russian air-to-air missiles

                     Weight  Range   Speed         Guidance
Sidewinder(AIM-9M)    87kg     6km  Mach2.9     Infra-Red
Sparrow(AIM-7M)      227kg    45km  Mach4.0     Semi-active Radar
Phoenix(AIM-54C)     454kg   180km  Mach4.6     Semi-active & Active Radar*
AMRAAM(AIM-120)      160kg    72km  Mach4.2     Command/Inertial & Active Radar

AA-8(Aphid)           65kg     5km  (unknown)   Infra-Red
AA-9(Amos)           450kg   150km  Mach6.0     Semi-active & Active Radar*
AA-10(Alamo)         200kg    30km  (unknown)   Semi-active Radar
AA-11(Archer)          (unknown, to replace AA-8)

* Phoenix, AMRAAM (AMRAAM stands for `Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air
  Missile') and AA-9 have a radar in their missile head for the terminal
  active-radar search/guidance, which signifantly increases their ECCM
  (Electronic Counter Counter-Measure) capacities, e.g., just `burning
  through' the jamming, since the return signal of their target from
  the radar in the missile head increases with the 4th power as distance
  decreases while the jamming signal incrases with the 2nd power.

James Huang
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: A@B.C.D
Subject: test
Orginator: A@B.C.D
Organization: nothing
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:15:46 GMT

This is a test
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25461 soc.culture.taiwan:13282
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Question about TI
Date: 13 Sep 92 19:18:14 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.china
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <BuCwpL.8pv@rlyeh.multisys.com> rot@rlyeh.multisys.com (Republic of Taiwan) writes:
>What do you expect from politicians? Taiwanese politicians are
>no better than Bush and Clinton. That's why people has to whach
>tose politicians closely and minimize their power as small as
>possibe, because government and politicians are born to be evil.

I don't think that politicians are inherently evil.  The problem is
as follows.  If you believe that governments are bad things, you are
less likely to go into government and more likely to go into something
like business or academics.  The result of this is that the people
in government tend to think that more government is a good thing, even
when it is not.

>This is what I always said, let people decide their own future.

That sounds quite familiar.  

>Taiwanese need not KMT, CCP, DDP or whatever tell them what
>to do. 

The problem is that you can't have a group of more than 5 people
decide something without some sort of structure and organization.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: test
From: Tao Yao <TAYAO@MTUS5.BITNET>
Date: Sunday, 6 Sep 1992 01:07:06 EST
Organization: Computing Technology Services, Michigan Technological Univ.

JUST A TEST.
JUST A TEST.
JUST A TEST.
From: H.Wang@bradford.ac.uk (H WANG)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: mid-autumn day's moon
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:26:12 GMT
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: 90908648@ccw206


    |       ----   |      /      --+----
+---+---+  --+--- \|/  --+----- ---+----
|   |   |   /| \   |    / +--+     |
+---+---+  / |  \ / \  /  |--| / |  \    \
    |        |   /   \   / --|    \_____\




Q: Foreign Moon is fuller - Why?


A: It's because of the time difference.  In east Asia, 
   the moon is not full until the 16th or 17th of the 
   lunar calendar. What we see in west europe and america
   is the moon of 16th. So, it is fuller than in China
   on the mid-autumn day.

   IMHO, BTW, IAA, keep a scientific mind is important,
   yet difficult.
From: ahsiung@bbn.com (Anita Hsiung)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: When does a Chinese become an American?
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:47:04 GMT
Reply-To: ahsiung@labs-n.bbn.com (Anita Hsiung)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

Mark A Libucha writes:
>	Suppose the U.S. Green Card Bill becomes law. Every Chinese who
>applies for a green card does so (at least officially) with the intent of
>becoming a U.S. citizen. If a Chinese becomes a U.S. citizen does he or
>she then share the blame and glory of America?
>	For instance, will he or she share the blame for the Vietnam War,
>for the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, the bullying of China, the 
>extermination of Native Americans, etc.?
>	Can he or she take credit for the first moon walk, the first actor
>president :-), etc.?
>	I personally am a second generation American. Yet because I have
>white skin and speak fluent English I feel that American history is somehow
>partly my responsibility. Will the new Chinese U.S. citizens (or their 
>children) feel the same way? Should they? Should I?

Yes and no.  This is a very good question!

My opinion follows:  First of all, no one is "responsible" for
anyone's history.  The Germans of today are not responsible for what
their parents did to the Jews, the Japanese of today are not
responsible for what their parents did to the Chinese.  They have a
responsibility to _learn_ from their history and make sure atrocities
do not happen again, so in that sense, they are responsible, but,
directly, no.

Thus, is a new American responsible for the Vietnam War or the walk on
the moon?  No.  But, the naturalization certificate says clearly that
this new American has ALL the rights and privileges granted
natural-born Americans.  That is a profound statement.  That means
that in the eyes of the U.S. government, I am NO DIFFERENT from an
American.  I am subject to the same laws, I owe my country my vote,
and I am now part caretaker to this country.  I did not take part in
the moon walk, but it is mine to cherish as it is mine to worry about
how the Indians are treated on the reserves.

How does this generation thing work?  My parents and I immigrated
here, am I first or second?  Whatever I am, I am now an American.
This is my country, for whose Constitution I will defend to the best
of my ability, as I have sworn in my oath.

	-- Anita --

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Anita Hsiung       | "See how easy life can be?" -- Johnathan Raven     |
| ahsiung@bbn.com    |                                                    |
| BBN Canoga Park    | "Someday we'll look back on this moment...and      |
| California, USA    |  run smack into the car in front of us."  -- Ski   |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hiebeler@think.com (Dave Hiebeler)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Change in spelling of Chinese names
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:45:16
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation
	<1992Sep11.043816.8853@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
	<liqiang.716225391@kramden> <yy7085.716242800@meibm10>
	<yzhou.716268159@void>
NNTP-Posting-Host: custard.think.com
In-reply-to: yzhou@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu's message of Sat, 12 Sep 1992 03:22:39 GMT


  There are still sometimes confusions even when using pin yin.
Besides the obvious one of "Shanxi" and "Shaanxi", another one I
noticed recently was "Xian".  I think probably it is actually "Xi An".
"Xian" is a valid pin yin sound for one character, but "Xi An" is 2
characters, and something completely different.  I guess many people
may think it is a pain to always separate the characters though, e.g.
write "Bei Jing" rather than "Beijing".

--
Dave Hiebeler                  | hiebeler@think.com
Thinking Machines Corporation  | (617) 234-4070
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: kemnitz@netcom.com (Greg Kemnitz)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 17:22:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Another factor behind Bush's (I suspect it is more likely Jim Baker's)
decision to sell the F-16's is that Bush is percieved by many Americans as
being too close to the PRC leadership, given his stance on MFN and his tepid
response to Tiananmen Square.

Beijing is certainly aiding Bush's cause by making loud noises in the press;
attempts by the Democrats to portray Bush as "kowtowing to the Butchers of
Beijing" (as they did in the Democratic Convention) are currently blunted.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: yewang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Yenwen Wang)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 01:00:33 GMT

In article <11SEP199213305227@phobos.ucc.umass.edu> s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194) writes:
>
>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:
>
>RECOGNIZE:
Meaning of words deleted.....

>
>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.
>

You are a studious guy, my brother!
The difference of these two words are mainly a legal one.
I mean you have to put them in the context of legal documents.
I agree, ordinary people won't tell the difference.

In the Communique between PRC and ROK, the word used is RESPECT 
rather than RECOGNIZE. To see the original text, I suggest your school 
library under the section of government documents. 

It's sad to see people from mainland and Taiwan bickering against
each other. I think this comes from a misunderstanding on the
personal level and misinformation by the governemnts. 

When mainland people accuse us of being a puppet of the U.S., why
don't they ask why? Why HongKong people want to get the hell out of 
the small colony? 

About the sovereignty thing, remember ROC lost its recognitions
from other countries, one by one. Can any of you mainland 
Chinese understand the pain, the
humiliation, the uncertainties our people endure? ROC was the one
of the co-founders of U.N. and now CCP wants ROC to become a 
special territory? We can tolerate this kind of chauvinism?
We are not like minorities in other countries asking for independence. 
We are a country asking for respect! Mainlanders can dismiss this request
as whatever they want. But then again, Chinese people never learn
to tolerate different voice. Look at TAM incident.
Before people on Taiwan get the respect they deserve, you can expect
more call for TI and more bickering between the both sides.
And of course, more disasters for our Chinese people.

Yenwen Wang


ps. Before you criticise, think if you have been influenced by CCP
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Yenwen Wang                        wangy@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu
  The Ohio State University          yewang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: yewang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Yenwen Wang)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:18:07 GMT

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. After all, Washington recognized that Beijing
>is the only legitimate government of whole China and Taiwan
>is only a province of China. So, selling weapons to Taiwan 
>is difinitely a violation of the communique and is obviously
>unacceptable to Beijing.
>

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
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25563 soc.culture.taiwan:13374
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view. (Was: Who Cares 150 F-16s.)
Date: 15 Sep 92 01:09:38 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.china
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <3119@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU> jlam@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lord Automato) writes:
>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.

Shall we then let each individual decide whether or not to secede from
a government?  Why do we have governments in the first place?  

Incidentally, my personal feeling is that there are no likely
scenarios in which force would improve Mainland-Taiwan relations, and
that even in the face of a "declaration of independence" that the PRC
ought to keep calm and refrain from using force.  "Economic sanctions"
may, however, be appropriate under those circumstances.

What I am arguing against is the idea that there are no circumstances
under which a government has the right to use force to prevent
secession.  Under SOME circumstances, (the Civil War and the Northern
Expedition), the use of force is justified, but I don't think any of
the circumstances apply to any likely happening in Mainland-Taiwan
relations.
From: yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , )
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Mainland, Taiwan Island, Hong Kong, NOT U.S.A.
Date: 7 Sep 92 18:11:00 GMT
Organization: New York University

dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby) writes:

>Reading through various articles in these three newsgroups, I'm
>getting pretty sick of people saying things as if USA is the
>ruler of the Chinese speaking world.

When I say what we shall do, I say, "you see, the USA did this
before, Abraham Lincoln did this.", what can I do? They
learned new words from American newspapers, it seems that this
is the only way to convince them something is correct.

Ze Yang
From:  tiv@gov.chel.su (Tambovtsev Ilya)
Subject: I am looking for China internet addresses...
Reply-To: tiv@gov.chel.su
Organization: Region Government
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 12:24:58 +0500 


 Hi!

 Does somebody know?

 I am looking for any China internet E-mail addresses.
 It would be excellent if somebody could help me.

 Ilya Tambovtsev.

 Send me messages here and Cc: ilya@rich.chel.su


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: cyc@z.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang)
Subject: Re: 150 F-16 to Taiwan
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 17:24:25 GMT

>
>>China will cancel its $6b airplane order with the US.
>
>
>China should spend $6b in other countries.  Yunkee is not trustable at all.
>
>Frank

You certainly cannot trust Yunkee to support an aggressive attack on
another country. Forget about it.

Yi-Chieh
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: s9874203@titan.ucc.umass.edu (s9874203)
Subject: Re: Change in spelling of Chinese names
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:00:50 GMT

In article <HIEBELER.92Sep15134516@custard.think.com> hiebeler@think.com (Dave Hiebeler) writes:
>
>  There are still sometimes confusions even when using pin yin.
>Besides the obvious one of "Shanxi" and "Shaanxi", another one I
>noticed recently was "Xian".  I think probably it is actually "Xi An".
>"Xian" is a valid pin yin sound for one character, but "Xi An" is 2
>characters, and something completely different.  I guess many people
>may think it is a pain to always separate the characters though, e.g.
>write "Bei Jing" rather than "Beijing".
>

The correct spelling is Xi'an if you mean the capital of Shaanxi
province.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: huettenb@gmd.de (Anna Huettenbach)
Subject: Liming middle school or Tongji university
Reply-To: huettenb@gmd.de
Organization: GMD St. Augustin (FRG)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 07:45:21 GMT




Hi news reader,


My name was Shi Xinwei. I want to contact my old classmates or friends of 
university Tongji and middle school Liming.

From 1974 to 1978, I attended Liming middle school in Shanghai. Then from 1978
to 1983, Computer Science and 1986 to 1988 Technical German at Tongji university. 


Old classmates and friends please contact me.  Anyone who knows about such 
persons please send me an Email.


My Email: Anna Huettenbach@gmd.de

My address: Anna Huettenbach, Combahnstr. 52, 5300 Bonn 3, Germany. 



Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: gang@ms.uky.edu (Gang Li)
Subject: Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view. (Was: Who Cares 150 F-16s.)
    <1992Sep11.182147.6618@ms.uky.edu> <3122@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 03:14:14 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

jlam@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lord Automato) writes:

>The world has changed unless you don't want changes. 

All people want to change some thing, changes may be better may be not.
What should we believe? "READ MY LIPS" or learn some history fact?

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