HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194)
Subject: Re: Chinese culture
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:35:00 GMT

In article <194chaINN4n3@frigate.doc.ic.ac.uk>, rap@doc.ic.ac.uk writes...
>From article <14SEP199222351358@deimos.ucc.umass.edu>, by s9874194@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194, YANG, Changqing):
>> China's being poor today is not necessarily the result of Chinese
>> culture. Look at the history of past two hundred years we should
>> know that. One of the reason for China's being poor is those
>> people with so-called superio culture. 
> 
>The Westerners certainly did a lot of nasty things, and the welfare of
>China was not among their concerns.  But are you suggesting that they
>made China poorer than it was before, or poorer than it would have been
>if there had been no Western presence in China?  Surely the evidence
>points in the opposite direction: productivity had shown little change
>for the preceding couple of centuries, and continued unchanged in those
>areas with no contact with the West.  Which were the most productive
>regions of China during this century?
> 
>I'm not suggesting that it has anything to do with Chinese culture;
>the usual explanations speak of a "high-level equilibrium trap" --
>the agricultural economy had been optimized to such a point that no
>incremental change could improve it.

I think that we all agree that imperialists did a lot of nasty
things to China. Those nasty things did not help China getting
rich. Contact, exchange etc. would not be regarded as nasty.
From: yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , )
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: F-16's fear?
Date: 6 Sep 92 05:06:00 GMT
Organization: New York University

cyc@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang) writes:

>As I have pointed out before, TIers only want to defend themselves from 
>the attack of any other aggressive countries. Considering the island

Taiwan is a piece of land got back by China after we defeated Japan, I don't
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,
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?  

They don't have the right to say taiwan is a independent country now, 
it's a piece of land owned by Chinese.
 
>Yi-Chieh

Ze Yang
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25590 soc.culture.taiwan:13391
From: hlu@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (H.J. Lu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Speek freelin in China (Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.)
Date: 15 Sep 92 05:31:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: serval.1992Sep15.053155.24811
Organization: Washington State University

In article <14SEP199217025857@deimos.ucc.umass.edu> s9874194@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.130955.2999@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, li@sicvax.enet.dec.com (Tong-Kang Li) writes...
>> 
>>In article <1992Sep13.010033.24246@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, yewang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Yenwen Wang) writes...
>>>In article <11SEP199213305227@phobos.ucc.umass.edu> s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194) writes:
>>> 
>>>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. 
>>> 
>>>ps. Before you criticise, think if you have been influenced by CCP
>> 
>>I dont know how many Mainland Chinese in the US can speak freely when
>>they have family in China and may go home someday. I am pretty sure 
>>someone is watching over. Those Mainland Chinese who have independent 
>>thinking may have to stay silence. As a result, what we read may not 
>>represent majority opinion of Mainland Chinese in the US.
>> 
>
>Almost all the students here have relatives in China and most of them
>do have direct relatives in China. My parents and two brothers are
>in China as well as all the other relatives. I have been speaking
>straight all the time, even when I was in China (you may not beleive
>it but it was a fact.) Am I afraid of anything? I do not.
>
>

You are one or more of the followings:

1. You are very naive.
2. What you though was what you were taught by CCP.
3. You have some background.
4. You didn't speak straignt in public, like TAM, in China.
5. You are very brave.

Some people inc China have been suffering a lot, even lost their
lives, just because they said what they though. I think you should
have seen/heard some of them. You may be very lucky. But don't
expect everybody is as lucky as you. You didn't agree with those
victims doesn't mean they don't have the right to do what you
did, i.e., `speaking staight' in China.

H.J.

P.S. If you have a 386/486 and want to run FREE unix with uucp,
X11, TCP/IP, ......, read comp.os.linux or comp.os.bsd. It is more
fun than scc to me. Hope people in China can also read the other
news groups beside scc.
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 17:19:41 GMT

>>As I have pointed out before, TIers only want to defend themselves from 
>>the attack of any other aggressive countries. Considering the island
>
>Taiwan is a piece of land got back by China after we defeated Japan, I don't
>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.
>

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
China now. If CCP really want it, it must fight it back, then other people
surely have the right to defend it. So, it is not so called 'historical
reason', its just 'aggressive' and 'invasion', isn't it ? Think of CCP trys
to fight back Mongolia, what would that be called ?

Yi-Chieh
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: kai@unix.cie.rpi.edu (Kai Yang)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 04:23:29 GMT


  For those of you who're interested and haven't learned it
already, China scored first in this year's IMO ( International
Mathematical Olympiad ) that was held in Moscow.
The first 5 teams were as follows :

	1. China		240 p ( out of 252 )
	2. USA			178 p
	3. ROMANIA		177 p
	4. Unified Team		176 p
	5. England 		168 p


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: s9874194@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194)
Subject: Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:10:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.001230.15450@shmps.ohio-state.edu>, jchang@shmps.ohio-state.edu writes...
>For all you insensitive, bloody thirsty, chavinistic pigs from mainland,
>go back to hell, that is where you belong.
> 
>For all you scum bags who want to take Taiwan using force, may your
>descendants be cursed and suffer.
> 
>For all you shit face who hate Taiwanese and support CCP's agression
>toward Taiwan, go home and f**k yourself.
> 
I think everybody can clearly see this guy's "democratic" face here.
I seriously doubt that this represent the people from Taiwan. I would 
like to think that this guy is set up by somebody tring to 
discredit the people from Taiwan.

One fundamental principle of democracy is respect while you disagree.
If your democracy is to throw chairs, tomatoes, eggs as well as all
the other garbage to your opponents, I bet while you are having a gun
you can well shot your opponents. If you have power you would hardly
do anything better than CCP did on June 4, 1989. I am sorry that this
is not the democracy the people in China are looking for. You'd
better keep those garbage in your yard. Have your mother wash your
mouth. Behave yourself.

c.q.


Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25526 soc.culture.taiwan:13344
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Specification of F-16, SU-27 (I)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:33:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.152206.4559@linus.mitre.org> 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao) writes:
>
> >>   PROC(Mainland)
>> >>     1). purchased about 24 SU-27 fighters last year.
>> >>     2). bought 72 SU-27 and 24 MIG-31 interceptors early this year.
>> >>     3). acquired the right to license-production of 200+ MIG-31
>> >>
>> >Why they want to acquire the right to license-production of 200+ MIG-31
>> >instead of MiG-29 or Su-27??  MiG-31 is not an air-superiority fighter.  It
>> >is only a interceptor with surveillance cappability.
>> >
>> Yes, MIG-31 is only an interceptor (no one expect it can do well in
>> dogfighting), BUT an excellent one.  I guess PROC/Mainland need it
>> to protect her vast air space and control the sky over Nan-Sha/Spratly
>> Islands in the South China Sea for the oil-exploration there.
>> 
>>               (deleted)
>>
>> Shenyang:     J-8 fighters currently, most likely license-production site
>> Chengdu:      J-7 fighters currently, likely license-production site
>> Anshun:       J-7 fighters currently, likely license-production site
>> Shanghai:     McDonnell Douglas MD-82 140-seat passenger planes
>> Xi'an:        H-6/TU-16 bombers/tankers
>>               H-7 (Tornado class) multi-role combat aircrafts (pending)
>>               Y-7/An-24 48-seat passenger planes
>> Chenggu:      Y-8/An-12 (C-130 class) transport aircrafts
>> Nanchang:     Q-5 ground-attack aircrafts
>> Jingdezhen:   Z-8/AS-321(French) helicopters
>> Harbin:       Z-9/AS-365(French) Dolphin helicopters
>>               Y-12 17-seat commuter passenger planes
>> 
>
>1) Even they want to protect their vast air space and control the sky over
>Nan-Sha/Spratly Islands in the South China Sea for the oil-exploration
>there, M-31 is still not a good selection.  It is not designed to protect
>navy/marine force. Su-27 might be better for this purpose.
>
but Nan Sha and Xi Sha are only one of the concerns, there are plenty
of land borders for the Mig-31s to go around.  


>2) I just heard about Q-7 a ground-attack aircraft based on J-7.  Do you
>have any info about that?
>
I believe Q-7 is still under development, and not yet into mass production.

>3) Good work!  You are also a good writer and
>typist.


Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25305 soc.culture.taiwan:13167
From: zzhang@electron.rutgers.edu (ZhiZhong Zhang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:18:39 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.china
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li) writes:
 
>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

This whole thing about the sale of fighters to Taiwan is so stupid. It
is another example of foreigners taking advantage of the division
among Chinese. You see, it is obvious that it is very unlikely that Mainland
will invade Taiwan. Even if the Mainland does invade Taiwan, it would
be a piece of cake to do so. Adding a few planes to its airforce won't 
help too much in Taiwan's defense against Mainland. The Taiwan government
simply has too much money. Instead of using the money to help other Chinese,
Taiwan governmant uses it to purchase weapons- for them, it is a big 
diplomatic victory. Using money to buy diplomtic victory is consistent with
Taiwan's foreign policy-which is very pathetic!  On the part of Mainland
government, the sale of weapons to Taiwan is a big loss of face, thus they
get furious. In my opinion, it is not a big deal at all. If I was Deng 
Xiao-Ping, I would say to Taiwan government: Ok, if you want weapons, buy
them from me! Don't waste money on Americans. Of course, I am only kidding
here. But there is a point in this joke.  The only party that benifits from
this whole thing is Americans. George Bush can claim that, first, he saves
several thousand jobs,(thus saves several thousand or more votes for him).
Second, Bush will say, you see, I am not that soft on Chinese Government.
Therefore he pleases or mutes some Demacrats. Isn't it clear who the winners
are and who the losers are? 



ZZZ

this whole episode is Americans. George Bush can claim that, one, he saves
several thousand jobs. 
D
several thousand jobso ne  part that benifit
from this whole episod is I 
D
D
D
will sell 

With Taiwanfs foreign policy. On the mong Chinese. You see
A
              
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
From: rchoy@clarify.com (Raymond Choy)
Subject: Re: Territory of Ancient China : Zhou Dynasty
Organization: Clarify, San Jose
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:51:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.015203.6113@leland.Stanford.EDU> claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>In article <9225200.20605@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby) writes:
>>**Period:
>>
>>1111 B.C. -> 770 B.C. is known as the West Zhou Dynasty.
>>(770 B.C. -> 256 B.C. is known as East Zhou, but better known as
>>Spring/Autumn Period and Warring States Period, as the Empire
>>has lost central control, with independant States fighting
>>amongst each other.  This will be discussed later.)
>>
>>**Dynasty:
>>
>>Zhou (West) Dynasty
>>
>>**Area under Central Control:
>>
>>North:  to Machuria and south of current Great Wall of China.
>>West:  Most area of modern GanSu is lost.
>>South:  most area in modern China, except the Provinces of
>>GuangDong, GuangXi, and FuJian.
>
>Well, depending on if you consider Chu Chinese or not.  I don't.  (At least
>they still haven't been conformed to the Chinese culture at that time)  And
>I don't think even Chu controlled Jiang1 Xi1 and Hu2 Nan2 either, at least
>not effectively.  Chu mostly controlled the area near the Yangtze, except for
>the east coast, which was controlled by Wu.
>>
>>Three Tribes to the North (Mongolians) were major threats.
>
>Whether if they are the same stock as Mongolians is a big question mark.
>Remember, the Mongolians had not appeared in history until thousands of years
>later.


I don't think they are Mongolians at all (not even a close relatives). Remember
during the days of "five tribes conformed to Han", most of the northern tribes
has conformed into the Han's culture. Also, the Mongolians themselves were
a union of different tribes near that area (which Ganghis Khan defeated). 


-Raymond Choy-
From: Sanyee_Tang@mindlink.bc.ca (Sanyee Tang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Territory of Ancient China : Qin (Chin) Dynasty
Date: 8 Sep 92 05:34:06 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

    In <9225200.20803@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> (7 Sep 1992) Joyous Dave writes,

> Qin Dynasty [221 - 206 B.C.] (also known as Chin Dynasty), Qin is also the
> first "Son of Heaven" or Emperor of China.

    Wrong.  The use of "Son of Heaven" started from Zhou.

> 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.

    If you consider yourself a nationalist then you should hang yourself :-).
It cannot come from your "Sky Book."  How well Qin controlled the area north
of the Great Wall may be a question, but no Chinese historian would think
the Great Wall marks the border for Qin.

> It also occupied modern Taiwan and HaiNan Islands.

    Qin had a Nanhai (Sorth Sea) Jun, which covers the most part of today's
Gangdong province.  But Hainan Island?  I think it became Qiong Zhou only in
the Tang Dynasty.  For Taiwan, people in Qin probably didn't know it at all.

> 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.

    Where were Mongols at that time?  :-)  But those threatened Qin were not
mere tribes, they were sophisticated soldiers led by Roman General Scipio from
the west, and Punic General Hannibal from the southwest :-).
From: guang@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: To those pro-Shen Tong guys
Date: 7 Sep 92 01:29:26 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati

In article <92249.140601CHENJC@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, CHENJC@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes:
> Shen Tong simply plays an idiot role in this international politics
> game, directed by his AMERICAN ADVISOR. That's why many chinese don't
> give a shit on his arrest (or you can call it grabbed/seized, as much
> as you like).  You guys probably enjoyed ST's recent show too much,
> and forgot you are just watching a play/game.
> Unlike three years ago, now few and few people trust those so-called
> D-fighters.

Screw "those so-called D-fighters".  What is interesting, however, is  many
ass-holes don't even HAVE the courage to go back to do whatsoever. All they
can do is try to pretend to be cool and "analyze" whatever goes on.  
Just fuck off.
I don't care who ST is and what role he played, all I care is a PERSON along
with other two is now in prison.  And if you say you don't give shit, you
might really deserve to be sent to Rostock.

Guang Yang  (yangg@acfcluster.NYU.edu)       on my old account
From: pi@spica.bu.edu (GARMARHARD)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Questions about "Shen Tong (grabbed)"
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:38:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: spica.PI.92Sep4183827
	<1992Sep4.144225.388@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: Boston University Space Physics
In-reply-to: zhuh@athena.mit.edu's message of 4 Sep 92 14:42:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.144225.388@athena.mit.edu> zhuh@athena.mit.edu (Hui Zhu) writes:


>   You mean this ST guy is not "protected"?  Then what's the hell US congress 
>   men
>   or many other "foreign devils" shouted loudly after his detention and
>   even went to Beijing directly try to interfer China's legal system?
>                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   Give me a break.

Is there any real "legal system" in China? Give me a lot breaks. 
There is only one related thing which used to be heard every day and night:
Dictatorship of Wu2 Can3 (nothing) class. Since Lao3 Mao2 said CCP is 
the pioneer teem of this Wu2 Can3 class, 

 	Dictatorship of WC class = Dictatorship of CCP.

How dare you distorted our Great Leader Chairman Mao's brilliant thoughts!
You try to replace the dictatorship by this "legal system"?! You will be
convicted to be a conuter-revolutionary! I will report this to Li Peng
tonight. Watch out! You capitalist running dog!
From: yeh@netix.com (Mr Shannon Yeh)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: (none)
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:46:15 GMT
Organization: Netix Communications, Inc.

zeng@mth.msu.edu (Zhonggang Zeng) wrote:

+In article <2AA6AD21.13228@news.service.uci.edu> yeh@netix.com (Mr Shannon Yeh) writes:
+>I do not know who Shen Tong is, but have some simple questions about his/her 
+>arrest:
+>
+>1.  Is Shen Tong the only person visiting China recently?  If not, why the
+>    Chinese government did not arrest others?
+>
+>2.  Do you watch news each night?  If so, how many Americans get arrested per 
+>    day?  Did the Chinese government and the Chinese people get 
+>    Da(big)Jing(surprise)Xiao(small)Guai(starnge) on these American arrests?
+>
+>3.  My brother, for example, stays in CHina.  Why the Chinese government did 
+>    not arrest him?
+>
+>4.  Some of my friends travel back and forth between the US and CHina almost
+>    on monthly basis.  Why the Chinese government did not arrest them?
+>
+>5.  Neither the Chinese government nor the US government likes to arrest me.
+>    Why?  I understand that I may mean nothing to some gocernments.  But to
+>    show you mean something, you do not have to be in custody.
+>
+>6.  Being protected by someone or by some organization or by some governments
+>    is not a hero thing.  Agree?  If those d-fighters are really
+>    Niu(bufflo)Pi(skin)Hong(bomb)Hong(bomg), why didn't they arrest those
+>    CCP guys instead of being arrested by CCP?
+>
+>7.  Being mouth-ly strong only, does not fix anything.  Agree?
+>
+>
+>shannon
+>-------
+
+shannon: When your mother is raped, are you going to ask why your mother-
+in-law isn't?

No, I will not.  But your question here does not prove anything.  My question
may below may serve the purpose:

   If Zeng Zhonggang's mother is a BiaoZi (i.e. selling pussy), when this 
   BiaoZi gets arrested, is Zeng Zhonggang going to ask "why you grab this
   BiaoZi"?
   
	shannon
	-------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: yy7085@meibm10.cen.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Change in spelling of Chinese names
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:20:00 GMT

liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li) writes:

>room for improvement. For example, there are two provinces in China both 
>spelled as Shanxi but if you mark the tones they are different: one is
>Shan1xi1 and the other is Shan3xi1. Even if you do mark the tones, the Chinese`

Now ShanXI is for Shan1Xi1 and ShaanXi (yes 2 a's ) is for Shan3Xi1. This
was started more than five years ago to avoid the confusion.


>- Li, Qiang
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao)
Subject: Re: Specification of F-16, SU-27 (I)
Organization: MITRE
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:22:06 GMT


 >>   PROC(Mainland)
> >>     1). purchased about 24 SU-27 fighters last year.
> >>     2). bought 72 SU-27 and 24 MIG-31 interceptors early this year.
> >>     3). acquired the right to license-production of 200+ MIG-31
> >>
> >Why they want to acquire the right to license-production of 200+ MIG-31
> >instead of MiG-29 or Su-27??  MiG-31 is not an air-superiority fighter.  It
> >is only a interceptor with surveillance cappability.
> >
> Yes, MIG-31 is only an interceptor (no one expect it can do well in
> dogfighting), BUT an excellent one.  I guess PROC/Mainland need it
> to protect her vast air space and control the sky over Nan-Sha/Spratly
> Islands in the South China Sea for the oil-exploration there.
> 
>               (deleted)
>
> Shenyang:     J-8 fighters currently, most likely license-production site
> Chengdu:      J-7 fighters currently, likely license-production site
> Anshun:       J-7 fighters currently, likely license-production site
> Shanghai:     McDonnell Douglas MD-82 140-seat passenger planes
> Xi'an:        H-6/TU-16 bombers/tankers
>               H-7 (Tornado class) multi-role combat aircrafts (pending)
>               Y-7/An-24 48-seat passenger planes
> Chenggu:      Y-8/An-12 (C-130 class) transport aircrafts
> Nanchang:     Q-5 ground-attack aircrafts
> Jingdezhen:   Z-8/AS-321(French) helicopters
> Harbin:       Z-9/AS-365(French) Dolphin helicopters
>               Y-12 17-seat commuter passenger planes
> 

1) Even they want to protect their vast air space and control the sky over
Nan-Sha/Spratly Islands in the South China Sea for the oil-exploration
there, M-31 is still not a good selection.  It is not designed to protect
navy/marine force. Su-27 might be better for this purpose.

2) I just heard about Q-7 a ground-attack aircraft based on J-7.  Do you
have any info about that?

3) Good work!  You are also a good writer and
typist.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan