From: yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , )
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Sources on Tibet
Date: 31 Aug 92 03:03:00 GMT
Organization: New York University

mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha) writes:

>Ze Yang:

>This is the last time I will respond to one of your postings. In fact, I
>will not even read another of your postings. It's not your boorish attitude 
>that puts me off, it's the complete absence of information or ideas.

Look at this guy, Why does he get so angry? 
He put my name on the list, I didn't get angry? 

Look at this narrow minded guy! He thinks my post is "complete 
absence of information or ideas". Can that be the reason he 
"especislly want contribtion from" me? 
This post says enough about his motivation of his previous post.

>I included your name in my request because I have not read many Chinese
>accounts of recent Tibetan history, but I would like to. I thought you'd
>have some sources at your fingertips. If you are not willing to provide 
>me with that information, so be it.

I could not see your purpose is friendly when I read your post, 
this post just COMFIRMED that your post is NOT friendly, because you
said very clearly that my posts are "complete absence of information
or ideas". 

>I do not know the answer to your Abraham Lincoln question, but I do think

As I said above, I COULD NOT SEE YOUR PURPOSE IS FRIENDLY, that's why
I ask you something about American history. I just want an answer
from you, I even don't want you cite the name of the book, it's a much
more easier job than what you have asked me to do. 
I was also intented to tell you that I am not speak blindly on history
subject, when I read your previous post, it seemed that you doubt 
if my statemet is rootless.

>it is absurd to imply that one need be an expert on one's own nation's
>history before one can have a legitimate interest in another nation's
>history. Your paranoid and juvenille sense of tactics amazes me.

My original post only says " I would think ` this guy even doesn't know 
American history, why should I bother to teach him Chinese stuff'." 
The lauguage style says that THIS IS ONLY A VERY PERSONAL VIEW, I 
won't force anyone accept it. I am only telling you what I shall
do, this makes sense to ME because if you don't know those things
closely related to you, I will not tell you something less related
to you, this is a personal phylosophy only. This is different from 
what you said above, if you havn't put my name  on the list at the 
first place. I wouldn't have botherd what interest you have.

>I do not support Tibetan Independence and I am not with U.S. intelligence.
>I'm an average U.S. citizen with an interest in China, and an admittedly
>skeptical eye on any information which has been filtered by the CCP
>propaganda machine. However, I try to keep an open mind, and that's why
>I made my original request.

Thank you for your so kind mind.

>So, fare thee well, Ze Yang, and whatever you do, don't release over the
>net any information the CIA might get ahold of! Heavens, no!

What I said is based on FACT, Keep you mind open, don't break 
your house's ceiling when you hear some critisism.

Ze Yang
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china