HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Harold Pritchett <harold@GROUCHO.DEV.UGA.EDU>
Subject:      Test Number 2
Reply-To: Harold Pritchett <harold@GROUCHO.DEV.UGA.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:09:15 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

This is a second test.  Please Ignore this one as well.

--
Harold Pritchett
The University of Georgia
harold@groucho.dev.uga.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "(Qinghong Zhao)" <qxz2@PO.CWRU.EDU>
Subject:      Sign-up
Reply-To: "(Qinghong Zhao)" <qxz2@po.CWRU.Edu>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:16:40 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

To whom it may concern:

I am wondering why I no longer receive any news from China-Net.

Would someone please check on it and put me back to China-net?

Thanks.


Q.H. Zhao
From: yndst2+@pitt.edu (Yong Duan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Please Don't Bash but Respect Group B
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:05:32 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <BvFC6q.Bz6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> "(Xiaowen Li)" <lix@CRSA.BU.EDU> writes:
>>Most important, when and after members of Group A get their
>>dear Greens, don't forget your brothers and sisters of Group B still
>>facing risks of various kinds. Will you help, will you donate to their
>>well-being!
>
>Agreed. The Group A in fact overdraw the quota tens of years later, hence
>it is a moral requirement for those getting green by the bill, to donate
>for future lobby to waive the quota deduction.

Great, constructive suggestion!
As a member of Group-A, I know I owe Group-B a sincere thank. And one
way to express of appreciation is to do what you suggested.
Y.Duan
From: txt15@po.CWRU.Edu (Tao Tao)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Likelihood of Bush's pocket veto
Date: 27 Sep 1992 15:29:56 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


I think under the current situation, I mean the economic condition we all
are enduring now, the grassroot support from the general Americans towards
the Chinese are very thin, next to none.  Remember, at least 50% of the 
CSS population are dependents, they will take away jobs from american.

Waht happenning in LA should tought us something.  THe obvious question to ask
is "why the non-white asian community, represented by Korean, was hit the ha not the white community?"  The public hatred from those not so well off 
community towards other successful new comers are no doubt there!  So don't
be so confident! And be prepared!

Tao
-- 
p
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:33:50 GMT
Organization: New York University

richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:

>If Canada or any single province votes no in the coming referendum, many 
>expect Quebec to leave Canada.  This would be accomplished peaceably, 
>without repression, without bloodshed.  Somehow, I doubt very much that the 
>Chinese leadership would ever consider giving so-called "Autonomous
>regions" like Tibet and Xinjiang a chance to opt out of the Chinese 
>union through a democratic vote.  

>-- 
>Conrad Richter                     richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca
>Richters Herbs                     71550.3411@compuserve.com
>Goodwood, ON L0C 1AO Canada        Tel 416-640-6677 / Fax 416-640-6641

This guy thinks ethnic problems (which in practice no country has ever solved,
though I agree to some extent that America does a better job) are as simple
as "Let them go autonomous!" or "Let them 'vote'!". After you have seen
what has happened to Bosnia, Crotia, Serbia, Georgia, Armenia, Assabajian(?),
etc., you still think these "peaceful" processes are peaceful? Respecting
people's choices doesn't mean creating ethnically pure zones or "countries".
Racial separation was sth S. Africa used to do and abandoned last yr?

- Li, Qiang
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: yjj@neptune.ctr.columbia.edu (Yuan Jiang)
Subject: Prof. Wen YuanKai gave a speech at Columbia U. today
Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 05:25:23 GMT
X-Posted-From: neptune.ctr.columbia.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

He talked about the movement of economic development.  He also mentioned
the degradation of morality, and the rise of corruption and fraudulence.
The society creates the situation that people who cheat and use bad
means win more.  Under this circumstance, what will people do and where
will the society go?  People may have two reactions.
1) You are bad, I have to worst in order to win.  Then the society goes
down hill all the way.  Someone got to be hurt for others to gain.
2) People rise up and say, enough is enough, let's lay out the rules
so that the game is fair.

Occasionally, we see 2) happens (89 democracy movement and the riot of
the ShenZhen stock holders), but more often 1) happens.  What will be
From: liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: New York University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:09:39 GMT

richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:

>In article 1453 yangze@acf3.nyu.edu (Ze Yang) writes:
>>Do you think it is also an invasion that the Union's force 
>>marched to Gorgia? If it is so, than invasions don't mean bad.
> 
>Absolutely.  And if the US South wants independence then the question 
>should be addressed, peaceably by referenda, I would hope.  Do you 
>think the Tibetan people are capable enough to decide for themselves 
  	   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in a referendum?
> 

The use of the term "people" is very confusing and misleading:

Adolf Hitler said, "Die Leute der Deutschland ...";
Chairman Mao said, "The Chinese people ...";
Saddam Hussein said, "The Iraqi people ...";
President Bush said, "The American people ...";
...........................................
Now you are saying, "... the Tibetan people ...". Please clarify or you might
as well just mind your own business.

> 
>>I don't mind to have a vote of national wide in China to determine the
>>future of Tibet and Xinjiang.  The result is quite obvious.
> 
>Why not let each province and autonomous region decide in the same 
>way Canada is deciding?  Are you afraid of the results?
> 

At the present point, it's just a waste of taxpayers' money. 

>-- 
>Conrad Richter                     richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca
>Richters Herbs                     71550.3411@compuserve.com
>Goodwood, ON L0C 1AO Canada        Tel 416-640-6677 / Fax 416-640-6641


- Li, Qiang

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: zzuo@iastate.edu (Zhiqi Zuo)
Subject: Re: If I were the President
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:11:31 GMT

>If I were the President of the United States of America, I would sign
>
>the bill S1216, the Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992.
>
>But I would not sign it until the last day, October 12, the Columbus Day.
>
>Exactly five hundred years before that date, Christopher Columbus,
>a Spanish sailor, discovered the new world.
>
>
>Happy Columbus Day!

This was one of the most shameful days in the human history. Since the 
"discovery", the splendid Indian cultures, which many of conceptions in 
the Constitution  based on, begun their doomed days. The owners of this 
land had to fight desperately for the dear lands that they lived on for 
thousands of years.

If I were forced to sign the bill as the president, I would chose this
day too.
From: yawei@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (~{QG9p~})
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Lobbying Senators Thurmond and D'Amato
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:41:32 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <Bv911t.9x3@cs.psu.edu> echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng) writes:
>|
>|The term limit is probably for state legislatures. The state has no right
>|to impose term limit on federal offices. Even if such term limit is
>|imposed it cannot withstand court challenges.
>
>	How can you be so sure?  If Tom Foley could be as sure as you are, he
>would not have to put on such a fight a couple of years ago in Washington
>state.  :-)  

No one can be sure about things that have not happened, of course. :-)

I think California has already enacted term limit laws though, which
seems to be for the state legislature only.  If they are voting on it
again it might as well be for the federal posts.

I find it enviable that the American people has retained the power to 
pass laws their legislators don't want to pass.  It's such an alien
concept to us Chinese. :-)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: UTCS Public Access
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:21:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.003105.12208@marlin.jcu.edu.au> phsj@marlin.jcu.edu.au (su jianfeng) writes:
>Why should Tibet be allowed to be independent?  Even in western
>countries like USA, UK and Canada, etc, there is no a law to quarantee
>local people to have the right to claim the region they live to be
>independent.

I take it then that you agree that China has "behaved like a bully" by 
invading Tibet, since you do not rebut this point in my previous posting. 
 
As for the rights to self-determination in Western countries, you are 
obviously unaware that Canada is going through the very process right 
now of deciding whether to accept a new constitution that makes new
accommodations to Quebec, a province populated by French-speaking people, 
many of whom have aspirations for independence from the rest of Canada. 
If Canada or any single province votes no in the coming referendum, many 
expect Quebec to leave Canada.  This would be accomplished peaceably, 
without repression, without bloodshed.  Somehow, I doubt very much that the 
Chinese leadership would ever consider giving so-called "Autonomous
regions" like Tibet and Xinjiang a chance to opt out of the Chinese 
union through a democratic vote.  
:w

-- 
Conrad Richter                     richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca
Richters Herbs                     71550.3411@compuserve.com
Goodwood, ON L0C 1AO Canada        Tel 416-640-6677 / Fax 416-640-6641
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 14:04:16 EDT
From: <JXL124@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: IFCSS should use news media

At this point, IFCSS head quater should use public media as much as possible
to present Chinese students' concerns and lobby for public support for the
bill 1216.   Chinese student associations might want to do the same or organize
lobby activities.  "Ge Ming shang wei cheng gong!" Dr. Sun said.  Luo
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Likelihood of Bush's pocket veto
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 19:47:42 GMT

In article <Bv90Ku.9JD@cs.psu.edu> echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.022208.27580@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha) writes:
>	I agree with you that those Americans who are aware of the bill oppose
>it.  But those who are not will be easily misled by politicians to
>overlook the bill itself and felt morally outraged by a Presidential veto.
>
>	Such games have been played numerious times in Clean Air Bill, Civil
>Rights Bill, Family Leave Bill, etc.
>
>
>
>	 Eddie

 
   Not necessary !  I have been involved in the 12th district congressional
campaign (contributing many office equipments), I have sent many related 
information including the text of the bill, opinions and analysis of the
issues to the campaign headquarter and have asked the staff to support the 
bill. Many of them do ! They have sent out faxes, made phone calls and even 
asked other voters to voice their support by making the phone calls. I don't
know where your assumption is based upon. Have you talked with many Americans
in detail about the bill and then arrived with your above assement ? Or was
that just your pure imagnination which resulted from your admitted cynical 
attitude toward the bill ?   
 
   The fact is, most of the to be protected Chinese nationals are highly 
educated, highly intelligent individuals, whose remaining in this country
will greatly benefit the overall Chinese American community, the American
socity and the Chinese homeland. Any open minded people can understand
this.   
   
   Once again, I want to remind you that we need to be positive and 
constructive. Even if you strongly oppose something, being sentimental
or cynical will not acheive anything. 
 

  Joe
  jingyao@columbia.eng.ohio-state.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: UFDZ@UFPINE.BITNET
Subject:      5 days left, CCSA/IFCSS, IFCSS HQ, be concentrated to next step!
Reply-To: UFDZ@UFPINE.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 15:45:00 GMT

5 days left. CCSA/IFCSS, IFCSS HQ, Be concentrated to next step to avoid a
pocket veto. We must be neutral in the US election. UF already got some
American signitures to support S1216. when we shoul send out, CSSA, let us know.
D.Zhou
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: XIAOJIAN@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject:      Re: If I were the President
Reply-To: XIAOJIAN@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:12:11 GMT
Comments: cc: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

Discover the new land? But those native Indians had been living there for
thousands of years when Columbus arrived. I am just wondering who discovered
Tibet, and why not China also has a holiday for this "hero"? Because this
"discovery" failed to cause terrible population decline as what had happen
to native Indians since Columbus' "discovery"? :-)


William Deng
From: hang@thebe.rutgers.edu (Hang Jia)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Would Bush sing the S.2116?
Keywords: politics, bush,
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:27:53 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


There might be millions of points why Bush will veto the Chinese
Protection Bill.   But, I think there will be two factors  that would
push Bush to sing the Bill.

The first one, as you all know, if he vetos the bill. It will become
another target for Governer Clinton. It will hurt Bush's chance for 
re-election.

Secondly,  voters might think Clinton's future attack is a
political game.  They migh ignore these  attacks!
But, how about the thousands chinese students here.
Do you think if Bush veto the Bill, that there might be a
demonstration in DC.  Let's, only 3,000 or 4,000 participants.
It will make enough noise to make the news on big net-work, if the 
demonstatrion is a well-organized one.  I believe that is potential
fear Bush might have.  On the other hand, if Chinese goverment does some stupid
things at this stage. It might hurt Bush's campaign also. 

I personally believe Bush should sign this bill, not for the benefit
of Chinese students, but for the interests of this country in the future.
From what I read, heard and seen, China is going through a "successful economic
reform".  However, the regulations and law to govern the reform is far
from complete and rational.  The corruptions and unfairness which are 
coming with the reform might ignite another "tianman sqaure" in the future.
This country along with other western contries, as well as ourselves,
have to ask Chinese government to start allowing political reform, no
matter what the sacrifice is.  Otherwise, I see a country developing quickly,
but not in a health way at all. If China is unstable, it willnot be
good for anyone.

I personally am willing to contribute for the construction of my
homeland. I like the current economic situations back in China.
But I don't like the political environment. The worst nightmare,
is you  don't know there is another political movement or not,
or when there will be one. 
If you are blamed for something, there is no way you can get out!
I would say, for most of us, we are not facing an imminent risk of
political persecution at this moment. However, if we are back, the 
environment, the soil, the nutrition to lead to 
the possible political persecution in the near future are all there. 
None of them have gone yet! In five or ten years, who
knows what will happen to us. 

I love my country and I love to speak what I believe as well.
Right now, I don't see how i can survive if I go back and still speak
what in my mind. I guess I would not enjoy  that kind freedom for long!

Please don't  respond back! This is a borrowed account!
Thank you for your attention.
If the title is misleading, sorry about that!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: phsj@marlin.jcu.edu.au (su jianfeng)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: James Cook University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 03:16:59 GMT

In article <BvCIoH.39A@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.003105.12208@marlin.jcu.edu.au> phsj@marlin.jcu.edu.au (su jianfeng) writes:
>>Why should Tibet be allowed to be independent?  Even in western
>>countries like USA, UK and Canada, etc, there is no a law to quarantee
>>local people to have the right to claim the region they live to be
>>independent.
>
>I take it then that you agree that China has "behaved like a bully" by 
>invading Tibet, since you do not rebut this point in my previous posting. 
You have made a mistake here.  I didn't make the correpsonding comment
does not mean I agree with your view.  It just means that I was not
interested in giving comments on those words.

> 
>As for the rights to self-determination in Western countries, you are 
>obviously unaware that Canada is going through the very process right 
>now of deciding whether to accept a new constitution that makes new
>accommodations to Quebec, a province populated by French-speaking people, 
>many of whom have aspirations for independence from the rest of Canada. 
>If Canada or any single province votes no in the coming referendum, many 
>expect Quebec to leave Canada.  This would be accomplished peaceably, 
>without repression, without bloodshed.  Somehow, I doubt very much that the 
>Chinese leadership would ever consider giving so-called "Autonomous
>regions" like Tibet and Xinjiang a chance to opt out of the Chinese 
>union through a democratic vote.  
>:w
>
>-- 
>Conrad Richter                     richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca
>Richters Herbs                     71550.3411@compuserve.com
>Goodwood, ON L0C 1AO Canada        Tel 416-640-6677 / Fax 416-640-6641
From my understanding of your words above, Canada (only one of many
Western countries) is going to consider the right of self-determination
in the country. Thus may I ask you to wait until the problem of your
country is fixed and then to teach Chinese what to do.

Would you please explain the sentence 'If Canada or any single province
votes no ........ Canada.'.  Why Canada is at the same level as the
provinces?  Do you mean that the future of Quebec depends on the result
of the vote based on all of the provinces, but not only on people in
Quebec.

I don't mind to have a vote of national wide in China to determine the
future of Tibet and Xinjiang.  The result is quite obvious.

J Su
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:45:18 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <BvEG76.FKt@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:
>Why not let each province and autonomous region decide in the same 
>way Canada is deciding?  Are you afraid of the results?

To be quite blunt, yes, we are SCARED TO DEATH of the results of a
referendum on secession in any part of China, and I think we have
every right to be.

In the back of everyone's mind here is the tremendous suffering that
China went through between 1920 and 1950 when China was divided into
small contending pieces each controlled by different warlords, and of
the 19th century in which China was in serious danger of being carved
into tiny pieces by foreign powers.

The fear that is in everyone's mind here is that if a region of China
had the right to secede then this right would be used by selfish
leaders for their own interest and by foreign powers to divide China
into tiny competing parts and bring back the suffering of the warlord
period.

So yes, WE ARE AFRAID AND TERRIFIED, and if you understand the past
200 years of Chinese history, I think you can understand exactly why
we are afraid, and why we react so emotionally when someone brings up
the idea of secession.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: New York University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:22:00 GMT

yjj@neptune.ctr.columbia.edu (Yuan Jiang) writes:

>In article <1992Oct3.030008.29321@cmcl2.nyu.edu> yangze@acf3.nyu.edu (Ze Yang) writes:
>>wendong@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Wen-Dong Tang) writes:
>>
>>
>>Division increases hostality,
>>mideast, former Sovit Union and Yogslava are good examples. Division
>>do harm to ecnomic intercourse, while eroupean is unifying, I cann't
>>understand why Mr. Tang encourage independence movement here.

>There is a saying "good fence makes good neighbors."  So division
>does not neccessarily increase hostality.  Peace is maintained when
>good fence is built so that people's rights and interests are well
>protected and increasing communication.  people with blood relations
>tend to live together better.

>There were so many times when Europe was tried to be united by force.
>There were 1st and 2nd world wars and many wars before.  After 2nd WW,
>the eastern Europe was basically united under one power by force, whereas
>the western European counties were devided into small countries again.
>However, people's countries' rights and interests were largely respected,
>and it leads to a peaceful and prosperous western Europe.  Now they
>are planning to reduce their fences at certain parts to increase their
>communication and economic strength.

Frankly, this fence story doesn't sound so convincing. Historically, China
has made more contributions to the world when her integrity was maintained
than when she was divided into "republics".

>The US was started with 13 states with high deviding fences.  The fences
>were graduaouly reduced.

I don't know what exactly you are talking about here but China should 
do something to mobilize her citizens, i.e. not to station them in
their birthplace.

>Did democracy and self-determination build up the hatred among eastern
>Europeans?  No, it was the forced unification led to the hatred
>and it was the Stalinist and Tito education that led to the intolerance.
>There are the old communists who try to keep their power and
>prevent people to seek their legitimate interests.  Many of the
>Soviet republics' borders were drown by CCCP to tear apart the ethnic
>minorities.

Irrelavent. Tibet was not "forced" by the CCP to be united with the
rest of China. CCP, however we dislike it, is the legitimate gvnmt legally
eligible to inherit the whole China (incl. Tibet) from its predecessor. 

>Is the breaking up of the former Soviet a bad thing?  I don't
>think so.  Wait 20 years when they finally learn how to respect
>each other.

Nobody thinks it's a bad thing but they have a long way to go.

>I hope Chinese will eventually learn that "the mellon will not
>be sweet if you tear it from the stem with force."  (sorry, if

The complexity of international relations and politics cannot be summed up
just by one Chinese xie1hou4yu3.

Every problem is handled on an individual basis.

- Li, Qiang