HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: william@natimuk.acci.com.au (William Lo)
Subject: Re: Traditional vs Simplified Characters
Organization: IBM Australia/ACCI 
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 06:51:08 GMT

In article <9228521.24121@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby) writes:
>I personally think Traditional Characters are better, not
>just because I've been using it all my life; but the Simplified
>version loses a lot of the meanings of the words.  For example:
>
>the word "Love".  In the Traditional version, there is a "heart"
>in the middle of the word; unfortunately, the people from
>Mainland took the "heart" out of the word "love".  Which really
>destroys the meaning of the word.
	    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Yep, this one is interesting! The traditional "love" char
	depicts a "Sum"(heart) lying between the parts of a "Sau"
	(receive) which seems to be saying that "love" involves
	"receiving" a "heart". Funny! Hmhmhm. 

[..Stuff(2 good examples) deleted...(so as to save some bandwidth)]

>
>To me, this change is extremely stupid.  I mean, if they want
>to simplify, fair enough, I'm for it.... but by taking the
>heart out of the word "love" is pure stupidity.
>
>Can someone tell me who is responsible for all these changes?

	Our beloved Chairman Mao.
	He brought forward the very idea, made the very decision, 
	and designed(simplified)the very strokes of some chars(you note 
	note that not every char was simplified, don't you?).

>Note that, I am NOT against simplification, but I think how
>it's done.  I think a lot of the changes that Mainland has
>done is silly... it simply kills the word's meaning in the
>symbol, like taking the "heart" out of "love".

	Aha, I agree with you.

	I often tend to prefer to write using traditional characters  
	and sometimes simplified. I use traditional chars coz to me
	they still sound a little more familiar and they're what
	I was actually taught to write in Primary years. I use 
	simplified chars mostly when I'm writing letters to friends
	who can read them. There still aren't very many Hongkongers who
	can read(fewer can write) or even recognise your writing if
	you use all simiplified chars.

	I've often wondered why there're so many Chinese who can't read 
	and write...and I now suddenly have all the answers - because
	writing with those complicated strokes is in no way easy, I 
	also heard someone say that writing in Latin Pinyin has been
	advocated in Mainland... Good or bad???  
	 
---Cheers,
	Bill
<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>
<> Baby Elvis                  ) "I don't know anything     <>
<> William W. Lo              (   about music. In my line   <> 
<> william@natimuk.acci.com.au )  you don't have to."       <>
<>^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v(                             <>
<> Welcome to William's World! )         : Elvis Presley    <>
<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
From: fran@cs.washington.edu (Francis Pang)
Subject: Re: Better off under Japanese? (Was Re: Oct. 1 or Oct. 10)
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 22:13:45 GMT


>
>Then, in your opinion, does Hong Kong people have any of what you called
>'dignity'. Or, Hong Kong people will have it after PRC take it back ?
>Then, in your opinion should Hong Kong people be more eager to have their
>dignity to go back PRC or not to have their dignity to be ruled by British ?
>When Chinese was ruled by Ching emperor, do Chinese have dignity or not ?
>If not, will that imply that Chinese won't have it forever ?
>If Taiwan was returned to Japan, will that prove Taiwanese will never be
>on their own forever ? Why your brain is so simple ? 
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                    my mind perheps is simple, 
                 yours is too complicated and materialistic 
>
>People may lost their dignity at one time, but as long as they respect 
>themselves they will be dignified eventually, such as Israelis. The only 
>hopeless people is that they thought they have their dignity, but in fact 
>they are almost trash if they have ever compared with other people around
>the world instead of closed their door at home.  
>
      you are not going to lose your dignity if you are just 
      ruled by some other foreign countries. it is your intention
      to give up your homeland and be ruled by other countries  
      that costs your dignity. 
      People of Israel never lose their dignity because they never
      give up their land or nation voluntarily.   
      Do you think most of the Chinese people thought they were better
      off under Ching Dynasty? Neither did they prefer to be ruled
      by Ching Dynasty, otherwise, the Ching Dynasty would not have
      been overthrown.
      Hong Kong people don't have a choice to select who they would
      like to govern them. The dignity of Hong Kong people comes
      from themselves and their achievement through the years. 
      
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: deng@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Zhong Deng)
Subject: Test
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana,  IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:32:55 GMT

This is a test, also to let my friends know my email address.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: ykhsu@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (yung-kao.hsu)
Subject: Re: ROC vs PRC
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:10:47 GMT

In article <BvvBK6.DGu@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> utingli@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Tingli Pan) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.171502.4456@cbfsb.cb.att.com> ykhsu@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (yung-kao.hsu) writes:
>>
>>	KMT government should also be questioned for how those 30% of
>>	educational budget is spent and be hold the responsibility for
>>	further reforms on the education systems. I admire China
>>	government for doing such a good job to students everywhere in
>>	China; she does not seem to have such problems.
>
>I believe the 30% educational budget is great. But if anyone try to use
>something like that to be little other people, then it will be sure to
>get some reponse like mine soon or later. Sorry, if I offend any other
>people.

	You need not get down to the same level of argument as that of
	your opponent's to counter a dispute.

	Your opponent has already made a fool of himself, you don't have
	to join him.

Yung-Kao Hsu

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: jyw@phys.psu.edu (Jin-Yuan Wu)
Subject: Re: Tuition from Parents (was Re: Fax to Mr. Bush ...)
Organization: Penn State, Department of Physics
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:33:43 GMT

In article <92Oct16.035841.14065@acs.ucalgary.ca> zhangy@enel.ucalgary.ca (Yuejin Zhang) writes:
>Are you sure about this? As I know, there are specific amounts of money
>or prices, maybe different in each provinces, for bailing out a PhD,
>MSc, BSc. What you mean by "fact"? BTW, I have payed off everything as
>asked, even it's "up to me".

	That's bad of course. Using the way of collecting money to eliminate
	"brain drain" has many negative effects.

>This seems a different can of worms. I need the "fact" that universities
>actully make money by doing researches.

	Part of the reason your "boss" gets money from NSF or whatever places 
	is because you do research for him (her).

>Using your own logic, CSS have definitely covered their cost in China
>"Fact": similar quality of researches and lower pays.

	Exactly, starting from his (her) MSc study, the student becomes a
	contributer toward the people in China when he (she) is involed in
	research works. We respect the contribution done by these MSc, PhD,
	PostDr etc.



Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: xc17@quads.uchicago.edu (xiaoyong  chai)
Subject: Re: Improve your English
Reply-To: xc17@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa,soc
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:02:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.110611.15279@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> dhsy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>xc17@quads.uchicago.edu (xiaoyong  chai) writes: 
>>>nothing to be alarmed about. But obvious grammatical errors are irritable
>>                                                                  ?????????
>> 
>> Look like you are writing something for yourself, :-)  I doubt if
>> anyone else cares about your "grammatical erros". Take it easy, pal!
>
>Your pal said spelling errors don't matter, "grammatical errors" do.  And 
>only "obvious grammatical errors" matter,  those that aren't so obvious don't.
>
>dhsy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
>

Well, my impression is just that 'my pal's error is not so "obvious" to 
you.  Thank you for indirectly defending my friend and saving our
---
endangered friendship.  Isn't it wonderful to see so many do care? 

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: mvdvalk@cs.utwente.nl (Martijn van der Valk)
Subject: Re: Traditional vs Simplified Characters
Organization: University of Twente, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 10:44:31 GMT

Dear netters,

Six million Chinese in Hong Kong and 20+ million Chinese in Taiwan can't be
wrong. I mean, if 26+ million people can learn traditional characters, why
can't the people in PRC. I heard that the simplified characters are simpler to
learn. Does this mean that PRC citizens are actually too stupid to learn the
traditional characters? I can't believe this!

I think Chinese should be proud of the heritage and not dispose of it so easily
as other countries. Traditional characters are beautiful, simplified ones are
REALLY UGLY!

Regards
--
Martijn van der Valk                |          e-mail: mvdvalk@cs.utwente.nl
Faculty of Computer Science / SPA   |                      phone: +53-893795
University of Twente, P.O. Box 217  | BROADCAST BRA
7500 AE Enschede, The Nederlands    | Pegasus; Esprit BRA 6865
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: cyc@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang)
Subject: Re: Oct 10, Our National Day
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 20:10:06 GMT

>The Subject says it all.  Just a reminder to all Chinese in the
>world that Oct 10 is our real National Day.  Oct 1 is merely a
>day where the communist party "celebrates" the removal of
>capitalism; and is only observed in mainland.
>
>I badly miss those days in Hong Kong primary and secondary
>schools when everyone is handed a ROC flag on 10 Oct every year.
>(Blue Sky, White Sun, Bloody Earth).
>I wonder if Singaporeans do the same thing - i.e. celebrate
>10 Oct.
>

Thought Oct. 10 national day is only observed in Taiwan, no ?

Yi-Chieh
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: ping@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Shiping Zhang)
Subject: Re: Oct 1, our National Day
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 02:10:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.011419.110867@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> mj05@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (MO JIANCHENG) writes:
>>>D-fighters will win on the point of 6/4 killing.
>>>D-fighters will win on the point of democracy,
>>>D-fighters will win on the point of free market,
>>>D-fighters will win on the point of diplomacy.
>
>Who are the D-fighters? The Garbage? I do have a question why someone
>is always shouting "6.4". I took pat in the whole thing in that time,
>but by now, I don't have anythng to say. I understand  our
>government, it made some mistakes, but it did the right thing in 6.4.

  Can imagine why and how you took part in 6.4.

>Blood came out of our bodies, only we have the right to say!

  Really?  What can those thousands of dead say?  What can those in jail
  say?  Let's hear some heroric story of your own.  How much blood came
  out from your body?  Did your government do the right thing in 6.4
  because it gave people the right to say (many can only use the right in
  graves) by shedding their blood?
  
>                                                              Think
>about it, the killing was done by two groups, the first is the D-fighters.
>Personally, I hate the D-frighters, they sold us, all the pure students,
>to get some .....? Anyone fires at me?

  Of course not.  Otherwise, it would've been one more mistake of your
  government. A great son/daughter of your government could've been lost.
  Does that imply that the loss of your blood, if ever, was caused by
  Beijing citizens on street?  I do believe Beijing citizens attacked
  somebody during 6.4, and know whom and why they attacked.

>                                        If you were in hundreds of
>thousand miles away in that time, please shut up!

  Fortunately so far your government, though tried very hard, has not
  achieved that goal yet. 

-ping
From: wub@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bin Wu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Please FAX this letter to George Bush
Date: 9 Oct 1992 04:20:19 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Reply-To: wub@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bin Wu)
NNTP-Posting-Host: yellow.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <2AD3D8CA.4721@news.service.uci.edu> yeh@netix.com (Mr Shannon  
Yeh) writes:
> To: President George Bush
> RE: Bill S1216
> (Print your name here)
> **Please check with your Chinese speaking consultant about the meaning  
of
>   Bu4Xue2Wu2Shu4.


What is his fax number ? (1-800-FAX-BUSH ???)
Just kidding .

Go White-Sox, Da Bulls, Cubs Win, Cubs Win.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: jim@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: test
Date: 10 Oct 92 16:16:29 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Just a test

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
From: ping@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Shiping Zhang)
Subject: Re: Oct. 1 or Oct. 10, which is the more important day for China?
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:46:27 GMT

In article <!C6-WBB@engin.umich.edu> chen@caen.engin.umich.edu (Jian Chen) writes:
>There have been many posts about Oct. 1 or Oct. 10 as the national
>days of China. Let me raise a question. From the point of view as
>Chinese people, disregard any political party, which day is more
>important to China for us to celebrate?

  Certainly not the day that marks the beginning of China division.

>Oct. 10 is the day for Chinese people to overthrow Qing dynasty and 
>the Emperor and founded a republic, Republic of China. Under the
>leadership of Jiang(Chiang), China won WWII and regained the territory
>taken by Japan, including Taiwan.
>
>Oct. 1 is the day PRC founded. Although CCP praised highly for
>the founding of PRC, it is just a dynasty replacing another one 
>from the point of view of history and Chinese people.

  Then it should be the same for 10.10.
 
>The good thing about PRC is that it completely kicked out foreign
>powers out of China which suppressed China in last 200 years.

  Really?  What about Hong Kong and Macao?

>With the iron will of the most powerful man in China in this
>century, Mao, no foreign power dares to invade China.

  Didn't India and Russia invade China when Mao was alive? What
  happened to Outer Mongolia?  What about U.S. forces in Taiwan?
  Were they welcome by Mao?  Did he kick them out?

>                                                      As the
>most powerful nation in the world, United States learnt two
>bitter lessons in Korea and Vietnam in confrontation with China.
>This is a great and remarkable point in modern history of China.

  Don't read too much into CCP's textbooks.  U.S. never confronted
  China alone.  Did U.S. lose Vietnam war to China?  And how many
  Chinese died in Korea war?

>On the opposite, the founding of PRC divided China into two parts,
>Mainland and Taiwan. The mismanagement of PRC government under
>Mao made many Chinese people suffered a great difficulty of life
>for many years.

  Just suffer difficulty of life?

>                Today, under the leadership of Deng, China is on
>the right road and enjoying the highest economic growth rate in
>the world. The living standard has been improved greatly in 
>last 14 years. However, the unification of China still have a
>long way to go.

  So today, still under the leadership of Deng.
  
>Which day is more important to Chinese people? I would like
>to hear the opinions of netters.

  Seems should be the day when Deng came to the leadership, because
  seems China cannot survive without him.
 
>J Chen
>Department of Chemistry
>University of Michigan

-ping

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi)
Subject: Re: ROC VS. PROC
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell Computer Science
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:50:57 GMT

In article <lduf3fINNrvt@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> stlin@stevelin.Eng.Sun.COM (Steven Lin) writes:
>In article <Bw86JK.5A8@cs.psu.edu> jyw@phys.psu.edu (Jin-Yuan Wu) writes:
>>>According to CCTV news Monday, the Beijing subway has been extended,
>>>from Fusinmem to Xidan, "1.81 KM". It was descrided as a major
>>>technical break-through.
>>a sub-way is built under a crowed city without disturbing the normal
>>city operation through messy city tube, cable net system, the 
>>problem is non-trivial.
>>
>The subway tunnel is way below all the utility pipe, cable, ...etc.
>The subway construction in Shanghai under a French company is using modern
>equipments that is more efficient. The 1.81 KM tunnel according to French 
>is just peanuts. Beijing is not the first city in the world built with
>subway, but Beijing likes man power than machine.:-) 
>
>The hidden message of difficult part might be: they had to prevent the
>collapse of Mao's tunnel which was intended for nuclear shelter.:-)
>Note: Mao challenged the US in 1965 for a nuclear war. Again, Mao tried
>to put 50% of Chinese people into sleep in his strategy.:-)

Beijing kicked YangRen butts, Taibei kissed them!
From: yndst2+@pitt.edu (Yong Duan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Fax to Mr. Bush ...
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:12:19 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <92286.014434WXG101@psuvm.psu.edu> WXG101@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
 >
 >
 >
 >>   Please be reminded
 >>   that ALL those Chinese students were sponsored by the Chinese government
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 >>   when they were at colleges in China.

 Disgusting and foolish point. I just simply can not believe that you
 guys still believe in this.

 Don't try to fool others.

 Y.Duan

 >>
 >   GUESS WHERE THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT GOT THE MONEY TO SPONSOR THESE STUDENTS
 >FOR COLLEGE EDUCATION???
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: cw@orion.uucp (C.W. Chung)
Subject: Re: "Get out of the way :-)"    (Was: Re: SURVEY)
Organization: Objectivity Inc.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 18:43:43 GMT

In article <Bw5Fss.Is3@acsu.buffalo.edu> chchang@acsu.buffalo.edu (Chun-Shi Chang) writes:

>Talking about "get out of the way", please remember my question was
>directed to someone else, not to you, Mr/s. Chung.

>Now would you, Mr/s. Chung, "get out of the way" please? :-)

I'll get out of the way as soon as you get out of the way of a 
meaningful survey, how's that :-).   

My comment is directed to anyone who is not taking the initiative to 
take on a meaninful project but getting in the way in a negative fashion.
What I am interested to see is the result of this survey, and not who
is doing it.  Constructive criticism in making sure the survey is conducted
in a fair and accurate manner should be welcome, but I don't see any of
those in your posting.   

I have no preference in who is conducting the survey, as long as the 
survey is done.  For that matter, if Mr. Chang would like to conduct
the survey, I'll gladly send in my 'vote' to you too.  If you suggest
the netter when they 'vote', send one email to Matloff and send another
email to another person (say, Mr. Chang), I'll go along with that idea too!

Perhaps we should separate the two issues here:
1. Is the survery of interest to the netters?  

   If the answer is no, then there is no need to go further.  My take is
   yes, this survey is of interest to the netters.

2. Is Matloff the right person to do it?

   Based on the feedback posted so far, I suspect the answer is no.  
   No matter what Matloff said, I couldn't think anything he says could
   change the suspicion mind that Mr. Chang and other have.
   So I would suggest Mr. Chang and others nominate another person
   to conduct the survey.

-cw-
P.S. I don't want to give the wrong impression that I am defending Matloff
or get in the way of the exchange between you and Matloff.  That's certainly
is not my intention.  BTW, you may want to send a email to Matloff of your
posting too.  I am not sure if he is actively reading this newsgroup, and
he did request the survey to be email to him.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: wuz@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Zhong Wu,229W Old Main, 268 7707,,)
Subject: Re: TEST TRY!
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:13:34 GMT

From article <zhangey.719117453@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, by news@news.clarkson.edu:
> This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:27714 soc.culture.taiwan:14321
From: jchang@cedrick.asc.slb.com
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: To President Bush.
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:51:59 GMT
Organization: Schlumberger Austin Systems Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: cedrick.asc.slb.com

In article <BvEqoI.AxM@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li) writes:
|> 
|> Dear President Bush:
|> 
|> Do you know how many eyes are watching you? They are so many
|> and they are full of wishes, wishing miracle would happen. Oh,
|> you are the messenger of lord; you can send them to heaven; 
|> you can send them to hell. All between your "Y" and "N".
|> 
|> Your mighty God, Amen!
|> 
|> A Christian.

This is the most shameless, spineless and self-denigratory statement 
ever posted by a Chinese that I've seen. 

A Chinese.
From: yding+@pitt.edu (Yijun Ding)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
Subject: Re: Traditional vs Simplified Characters
Date: 12 Oct 92 13:39:23 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.china
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <9228521.24121@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby) writes:
>
>Note that, I am NOT against simplification, but I think how
>it's done.  I think a lot of the changes that Mainland has
>done is silly... it simply kills the word's meaning in the
>symbol, like taking the "heart" out of "love".

As I understood, many simplified characters are taken from "hand
writing".  Most of simplified characters were already widely used in
people's hand writing before officially adopted.

Symbol doesn't always tell.  In mainland, lover (ai ren) means
husband/wife.  We all know what a lover means here, right?  BTW, sweetheart
(with a heart) or wife, which word sounds better :-)

-- 
//Yijun Ding, Pittsburgh //Go your way, be happy.
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Improving One's English...
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:45:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

It seems that the most urgent thing for scc'ers to improve is their PINYIN.
Some of the PINYINs posted are not just inaccurate bug downright
embarrasing.

Scott Horne and Shannon Yeh at least got their pinyins straight :)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china