HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dnmao%mich.hepnet@LBL.BITNET
Subject:      To Mr. Huang Guyang
Reply-To: dnmao%mich.hepnet@LBL.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:51:49 GMT

Mr. Huan Guyang,

I have been kicked out by this netter without being told why.
I demand you, the key person of the management board of this net,
explain to me why my right to access this net has been deprived.
Is this your so called freedom of speech? Is this your so called
democracy? Can any one expect the people like you will concern
about the democracy in China once you have power in hand?
Even in the US, you could shut up anyone's mouth by your little
previlige. This proves that all the beautiful words you have said
are totally sham, phony lies.

Of course if you called this net your sallon, instead of using
IFCSS name, it would be fine (or I would not join in at all)
because I never expect I can present my opinion on the People's
Daily. But because you are using IfCSS's name. this should not be
allowed. You have responsibility to clear this.

I also appeal to all netters on this net for speaking out on this
matter if people think this net is a real place for freely speaking.

Dongning Mao
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "BRIAN H. ZHANG" <hzhang@ECN.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject:      CSSU at Purdue Signs the open letter
Reply-To: "BRIAN H. ZHANG" <hzhang@ECN.PURDUE.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:34:09 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU

        IFCSS Headquarter:

             We, the  Chinese Student and Scholar  Solidarity  Union
        at  Purdue  University,  sign the open letter written by the
        IFCSS to the Chinese Government, demanding the  safe  return
        of Mr. Shen Tong, a student at Boston University.

             We are ashamed of, though not surprised  at,  the  fact
        that  the  Beijing Regime again broke its own promise of the
        safe return of the students  abroad.  This  incident  demon-
        strates  that  basic  human  rights  is still far from being
        respected.

             At the same time we salute Mr. Shen Tong for his  dedi-
        cation  to the lofty course of Freedom and Democracy, we are
        greatly concerned about his safety. There is  no  reason  to
        unlawfully detain Mr. Shen Tong.

             On behalf of the Chinese Student and Scholars at Purdue
        University, the CSSU sign this letter.



        The Executive Committee Of CSSU
        Chenjian Li, President
        (signed)




Posted to China-NT by
H. Zhang
Purdue University
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: zhu@cs.UAlberta.CA (Eric Y. Zhu)
Subject: Re: Crocodile's Tears - by Wang Ruowang
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:57:34 GMT

"Ignatius Ding" <ding@HPSMTC1.CUP.HP.COM> writes:

>	Since when have the Chinese Communists become so charitable and
>benevolent?  On August 13th, the delegate from China, one of the five permanent
>members on the U.N.  Security Council, abstained his vote on the resolution to
>authorize use of force in Bosnia, 
[...]
We have seen China abstained its votes on UN resolutions several times.
I personally don't like to see this happens repeatedly.
IMHO, as one of the major nations in UN Security Council,  China should
either go for or against a bill. If China doesn't like the one proposed
by other countries, go propose its own. However, as Chairman Mao taught
us `everything is of two sides'. :-) Nothing is perfectly good.
--

===
Zhu Yuchen, Edmonton
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: grad student Weihua Liu <whliu@EE.UMN.EDU>
Subject: (none)
Reply-To: grad student Weihua Liu <whliu@EE.UMN.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:14:34 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

The New Passport policy Has No Thing New!

We knew for some time before the People's Daily published the No.44
document of the State Council that the Chinese Embassies in the West
countries prefered people have already obtained PR change their passport
to private business passport as long as they pay back the money they
received when they came out of China.   But the processing of paper work
is very long and they have to solve any dispute with their working unit in
China before the new passport is issued.   For people do not have PR yet,
they need three documents if they want to change their passports: (1)  a
proof from the working unit saying the employment relation has been terminated
(2) a proof from the working unit saying any financial dispute has been settled
(3) a application form.

After the "new" no.44 policy was published, one of my friend thought that any
one did not received any financial support from the Chinese government could
now freely change their passport.   He has a written notice from his working
unit saying he did not receive any financial support in any form from the
working unit.  He got this notice when he came out of China because the working
unit
worried that he might seek financial support from the unit as he was asked to
sent by the unit.

He called the Chinese Embassy in Wasshington and he was told that the new
policy is just for those have a PR already.  Since he does not have PR,
he can not change his passport even he has a proof that he did not receive
a penny from the Chinese government or the working unit.  If he really want
to change his passport from "Public Affair" to "Private Affair", he still need
the three documents listed above.

We believe that the new document has no thing new.  It is just formalizing the
practice that Chinese Embassy has carried alreay or it has some thing to do
with the lobby.   Because few working units are going to issue the proofs for
 you unless your dad is the Secratary of the CCP at the working unit.

Z. Wu
From: txt15@po.CWRU.Edu (Tao Tao)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: To Mr. Huang Guyang
Date: 11 Sep 1992 19:01:10 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


I guess the best way to treat the messages you don't want to see is neglect
them.  Yan bu jian wei jing!  To those real nasty ones, you guys would know
the nasty way, such as kill command without provoke the "right" arguement!

My opinion is one person will have no right to talk about right if s/he does
not respect other's rights!

Tao
-- 
p
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: XIAOJIAN@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject:      Russia: Chaos or back to dictatorship?
Reply-To: XIAOJIAN@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 22:34:00 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

A little more than one year after the failed coup, Russia has come to the
edge of chaos, or, a new dictatorship, just as what I had predicted.

"Shock therapy" only have made the bad economy even worse. Free most prices
overnight only dramatically lowered people's buying power and made life time
deposit some waste paper, but did not increase the production. Yelsin blamed
the congress for that the congress did not cooperate with him and the congress
were elected before he became the president. But Yelsin doesn't want to
disband the old congress to have a new congress, because he is so smart that
he needs the old congress to share his responsibility when his economic
policy eventually totally fail.

As a matter of fact, Yelsin has setup a five person committee to carry his
orders and ignore the congress, behaves as a semi-dictator, if not a real
dictator. But there is not even a sign that situation will be better in the
near future. Yelsin himself admited that the situation in fall will be
worse than last year. And he has confidence to keep his position for quite
a while, because even though the majority of Russia are worse-off economically,
they don't know who to hate and blame. They had tried socialism and autocracy,
didn't work. Now they are tring "capitalism" and democracy, doesn't work either.
There is nothing new to be tried, the only thing to do is to be desperate until
someday when they cannot stand anymore, go to chaos or back to dicatorship.

Today's Russia has less capitalism color than China has. Russia's privatization
just can't be implemented because Yelsin doesn't want to risk his position
and Russia's fate. State firms are still the overwhelming force in the economy,
while the related old mechanism is severe damaged. It would be a miracle that
this kind a funny mixture can work well.

Yelsin is not stupid. he is waiting for the better time, when the situation
turns worse so that people want a real change, to be the real dictator. Indeed
he is moving along this direction now. But whether he will make Russians richer
after he becomes the dicator is another question.

But the alternative that Russians just get bored of Yelsin and pick up another
guy to be the dictator also exists.

Russia is inevitably falling into the rank of third world countries. It's
distance from China will be widened in the forseeable future. But a third
world country with state-of-art military might is very unpredictable, and so,
dangerous. May God bless the peace of the world.


William Deng


P.S. I don't have any obligation to answer all questions, especially some
childish ones. You have the right to ask, I have the right to be silent. :-)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: eleea4f@rosie.uh.edu (Zhuang, Wei)
Subject: Re:      Three Goals
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 03:58:00 GMT

In article <Bu4uLD.Jxp@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, XIAOJIAN@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU writes...
> 
>The origin of most debates comes from different views on whether there
>is a sequence between the second goal and the third goal. It is ideal
>that these two goals can be achieved at the same time. But in reality
>this ideal has never been realized.
Really? What about the United States.
> 
>In those developing countries with democracy, corruption is terrible and
>economy is sluggish (such as India). Some even go back and forth
>between democracy and autocracy (such as Peru). Some even fell into
>tragic civil war. These countries have little hope to be a member of
>developed countries someday.
> 
Their problem is with economy, not democracy.
>On the contrary, countries following the sequence that economic development
>first and democracy second have quite a few successful examples, such as
>Taiwan (a area, though functioning as acountry) and south Korea. Both are
>closing to be developed countries, and progress to democracy is going
>smoothly. Interestingly, KMT, the once autocracy party, is much more
>popular than its rival DPP (Democractic Progress Party).
> 
O.K. Let's talk Taiwan and Korea. The democracy avtivity has never
stopped. Democracy grows with economy, not after. Without 
corresponding democracy development, their success could not be
achieved.

One thing important: both Taiwan and Korea support free economy,
not the half-free economy in China. Can you imagine a free economy
under communism?

Come on, it's time to push democracy. Shen Tong's return is in about
the right time. Don't wait until the economy comes to a deadlock.
Look into the future.

And, Chinese people really deserve basic human rights.
>I share the point that there is a sequence between two goals because of
>, partly, above facts I see.
> 
Can you see into the future? Can you try? 
The transition from communism to a new type of society is a new 
task. No example to follow. What you have is the tested values.
Economic development is not everything. Without human rights,
basic values, China is never going to be a developed country.
>Spirit of freedom is also important. The deadlock is that the interpersonal
>utility comparison is impossible. So, for somebody who prefer to stay in
>Somalia to enjoy freedom of expression and organization though hunger
>and civil war are prevail, rather than stay in China, I have nothing
>to say.
> 
>But, I believe, for most people,(not just those elite) the desire of avoid
>hunger goes ahead of the desire of free expression.
> 
Bullshit.
> 
> 
>William Deng
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: John Cornett <library@SUNSPOT.SUNSPOT.NOAO.EDU>
Subject:      Re:  Bush's Logic and IFCSS's Independency
Reply-To: John Cornett <library@SUNSPOT.SUNSPOT.NOAO.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:42:02 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu, jli@amsc01.engr.udayton.edu

One of the first things I remember about our political process is from
my father, many years ago, saying at the dinner table how he was going
to vote against all the leadership currently in office, because they
were not doing a good job.

I believe this is deeply ingrained into our (U.S. voting public) nature.
If we do not feel satisfied, we vote against those who are currently
in office, especially the President. There arises a mood to "fire"
the leadership.

I believe President Bush senses this, and it explains much of his behavior.
The economy is falling (perhaps more our own fault than the President's), yet
he is the one who will be held accountable. I believe he is desperately trying
to get the economy going.

I am sorry to see consistency or good principles compromised for economy,
and this may make an uncertain period for the next few weeks. Whoever wins,
I believe there will then be a sense of renewal, and of new opportunities.

John Cornett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re:      Russia: Chaos or back to dictatorship?
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:35:44 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <1992Sep7.231543.23612@ulowell.ulowell.edu> cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi) writes:
>  1. Yeltsin's "Shock therapy" was engineered by a professor from Harward
>University, It was a cover story in Time magazine when He did it and was
>praised by the magazine for his "talent";

I saw an interview with the inventor of "shock therapy," and his point was
that the Russian economy was in such bad shape that "shock therapy" was
the only option.  Without it, the economy would completely collapse.
"Shock therapy" seems to have improved the situation in Poland.  True,
there are problems with distribution of wealth, but the economic situation
there is no longer critical.

>  3. Russians thought they can be like West Europeans get aid from U.S. and 
>other West nations, They were so naive. U.S.'s Marshal Plan was to build up
>Europe against Soviet. There is no free lunch;  

I think the main difference between now and the post-world war II
situation is the economic situation of the United States.  Right after
World War II, the United States had the economic strength to undertake
the Marshall Plan.  Today, the United States doesn't have the spare money
to help bail out the ex-Soviet Union.

>   4. The direction of Russia is not clear, but there is tremendous sentment
>among general population and many elites that Yeltsin's bowing West policy
>should be stopped, going China's way.

One problem is with this, is that Russia has, since at least the time
of Peter the Great, tried to think of itself as a Western country and
has always wanted to look westward toward Europe rather than eastward
toward China, Japan, and the Islamic states.  Perhaps one of the many
reasons that Yeltsin was so willing to let go of the former Soviet
republics is that once the Baltic states and the Ukarine left, what
remained (the southern Turkic states) would have tended to pull Russia
away from Europe.

I think it would be very difficult for Russia to make the psychological
shift needed to look toward China rather than the West.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: 3011_6470@UWOVAX.UWO.CA
Subject:      Re: Whose fault is it anyway?
Reply-To: 3011_6470@UWOVAX.UWO.CA
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 18:28:44 GMT
Comments: cc: China-net <china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu>

  A netter just pointed out to me that I made a mistake in my last
post.  The country I referred to should be "Algeria" rather than
"Nigeria".  I apologize for the error and thank the netter for
his correction.

Dave Sheng
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: utingli@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Tingli Pan)
Subject: Re: Crocodile's Tears - by Wang Ruowang
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:21:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.212352.11463@ulowell.ulowell.edu> cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi) writes:
>In article <zhu.716068654@menaik> zhu@cs.UAlberta.CA (Eric Y. Zhu) writes:
>>"Ignatius Ding" <ding@HPSMTC1.CUP.HP.COM> writes:
>>
>>>	Since when have the Chinese Communists become so charitable and
>>>benevolent?  On August 13th, the delegate from China, one of the five permanent
>>>members on the U.N.  Security Council, abstained his vote on the resolution to
>>>authorize use of force in Bosnia, 
>>[...]
>>We have seen China abstained its votes on UN resolutions several times.
>>I personally don't like to see this happens repeatedly.
>>IMHO, as one of the major nations in UN Security Council,  China should
>>either go for or against a bill. If China doesn't like the one proposed
>>by other countries, go propose its own. However, as Chairman Mao taught
>>us `everything is of two sides'. :-) Nothing is perfectly good.
>>--
>>
>>===
>>Zhu Yuchen, Edmonton
>China only vetoed twice since 1972 assumed the seat. That is all because of 
>Taiwan. West played Taiwan card to tie China up on international politics.
>
What Mr. Wang said might be the least offensive to CCP while still show
a high profile. That is his tactic in handling the reports. Yet I don't
agree with him. The abstain is the best way China can deal with the
situation. Even China is agree with US heartily the abstain is the good
way. Your cann't be too cheap. 
>
Tingli Pan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: George Zhu <zhu@RISKY.ECS.UMASS.EDU>
Subject:      US Sale of F-16s to Taiwan
Reply-To: George Zhu <zhu@RISKY.ECS.UMASS.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:05:52 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

Bush's decision to sell 150 F-16 fighter planes to Taiwan has caused
the Chinese government very angry, but it's unlikely that China would
take any significant steps to downgrade or even sever the Sino-US
relationship, mainly for economical and strategical reasons.  Aware of
this, the Bush administration would go ahead with the sales despite
strong Chinese protest.

Nevertheless, it's conceivable that President Bush would take some
damage control measures to calm the Chinese down, such as to veto
the Chinese Student Protection Act among others.  In fact the Bush
Administration has already waived a three-year long congressional
restriction and authorized to sell communication satellites to China.
But the Chinese government brushed off the move, saying the U.S.
should have done so mush earlier [See today's CND-Global for more
details].  Therefore more steps are expected from the Bush administration
to ease the tension.

Of course, the most important reason for the arms sale is to help
Bush get re-elected, which some GOP campaign officials acknowledged.
Another important reason, I suspect, is the U.S. strategic interest
in Asia.  With South Korea normalizing its relation with China and
growing Korean resentment towards U.S. military presence in its territory,
the United States has begun to realize that its role and influence
on the Far East are diminishing.  And Taiwan seems to be an ideal
alternative for the U.S. to regain its influence, given that the
independence movement in the island is having its way.

Just some random observations,

George
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Far Right version of Bill of Rights
Date: Sat,  5 Sep 92 16:07:32 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>     From rec.humor.funny:
>
>maven@hercules.lerc.nasa.gov (Larry Fishbach) writes:
>|>
>|> 
>|>            Far Right's Proposed New "Bill of Rights"...
>|>
>|>                          Amendment 4
>|>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
>|>papers. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,
>|>shall be violated under the excuse of being for the public good,
>|>and no warrants shall need to be issued, but upon probable cause
>|>supported by anonymous sources, any place shall be subject to
>|>search and persons or things seized.

Imagine my surprise. The Internal Revenue Service has conducted "civil
audits" for decades, beginning well before
the Reagan-Bush "war on drugs", in the name of the "public good" (as
defined by the opponents of "social Darwinism").  Now the Far Right
has gotten into it too.  Goodness gracious.

>|>
>|>                          Amendment 5
>|>Any person who refuses to testify in court about his involvement
>|>in a crime, shall automatically be judged guilty.  His property
>|>may be seized upon the governments determination that he must be
>|>guilty.

Imagine my surprise.  The Internal Revenue Service has conducted
"jeopardy assessments" for decades, also in the name of the "public
good", as defined by the same "compassionate", "progressive",
"liberal" elite.  Now the Far Right has picked up on it as well.

You know, every time the Left comes up with a really good idea, like
trashing due process for the "public good", or building a system of
gulags, right-wingers like Reagan and Hitler come along and copy them.
Which is a shame, because everyone knows that when the Left does it
it's good, but when the Right does it it's bad.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.activism
From: madden@deja-vu.aiss.uiuc.edu (Paul Q Madden)
Subject: Re: Civil Forfeiture -- A letter to the local paper
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 14:09:05 GMT

lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:

>In article <1992Sep4.042817.22253@ddsw1.mcs.com>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>We'll see if the Trib has the guts to publish this.
>[...]
>A Hearst newspaper will probably not blink an eye over this unsupported
>statement.  They were the original purveyors of the racist "marihuana"
>hysteria.

The Tribune is not a Hearst paper. It was founded by McCormick.

Cheers,
paul

-- 
|  Paul Madden * PO Box 2827 Champaign, IL 61825  |
|   University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign    |
| National Center for Supercomputing Applications | 
| pmadden@ncsa.uiuc.edu * Bitnet: UNETUS2@UICMVSA |