HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: UFDZ@UFPINE.BITNET
Subject:      $.0.48/min. to China?
Reply-To: UFDZ@UFPINE.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:45:00 GMT

After I posted "where may IFCSS get self support money?", several netters asked
the China calls. As I know AT&T, MCT and .... provide a reach world program $.49
to Taiwan and Hongkong, if IFCSS works out China on the list too that benifit IF
CSS. Dawei
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "Ignatius Ding" <ding@HPSMTC1.CUP.HP.COM>
Subject:      Re: Re: IFCSS NR-4042:  Senator Gorton's Speech on S1216
Reply-To: "Ignatius Ding" <ding@HPSMTC1.CUP.HP.COM>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:53:44 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

/ hpsmtc1:talk.politics.china / ding@hpsmtc1.cup.hp.com (Ignatius Ding) /  2:50
 pm  Oct  2, 1992 /
> / hpsmtc1:talk.politics.china / echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng) /
> In article <BvEMwn.56I@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> "Ignatius Y. Ding"
 <ding@HPSMTC1.CUP.HP.COM> writes:
>>> How about a sample of thanks letter ?
>>
>>How's the following grab you???
>      It qualifies as the most shameless post I have ever seen for a long
> while!
>
>
>      Eddie
> ----------

Well, I was trying to help those who want a sample letter, not help lie about
anything for anyone.  Mr. Cheng's sharp attack seems to reflect his opinion
against the passage of the bill.  I am certain that he is fully aware that
people like myself don't get benefitted by legislations like S1216.  I can
say with a straight face that everything said in the sample letter could happen
to many people.  I have a friend here (you see, we are old geeks in 50's, 60's,
and 70's) who took the CCP's words for their face value and went back to China
in early 1950's.  He was a graduate of U.C. Berkeley and wanted to make his
contribution to the new republic.  Guess what, he ended up in forced labor
 campsin Ningxia Province in 1957.  Crime?  Rightist, of course.  His education
 in the
west automatically qualified him for the title.  The years of mental and
physical tortures left a lot of scars on him.  In these days, he can't travel
for more than 30 minutes without a break and he can only sleep on hard wood
floor because his bad back and old injuries.

He was made once to stand in sub-zero temperature outside, frozen to near death.
Another time, he was order to stand inside a 18-inch diameter circle without
anyone watching over but warned that he would find out the consequences if he
dared to step outside the circle.  He was left there standing up for days.
That was the gift the CCP gave to the homecoming intellectuals then, and later
in late 60's again to the returning overseas Chinese from Indonesia and
Malaysia.  Who's to say that it won't happen to one of the CSS "deported"?
I hope that you can assure them to be FEARLESS rather than accuse anybody
shameless.

I am NOT SHAMED of stating facts but I am NOT encouraging others to lie about
your loving party officials either.  I merely wish you luck when you, Mr. Cheng,
decide to go back to deal with them in person.  Lots of luck.  Send me a
nastygram every once awhile from your working unit to keep things in check.  Oh,
I am sorry that I forgot to ask you whether you plan to go back or not.
Shouldn't have taken you for granted, should I?  This is, nevertheless, a free
country.  You CAN choose to stay at will.  Almost?!


Ignatius Ding
----------
From: tang@riemann.math.purdue.edu (Puqi Tang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Senate failed to override MFN bill
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:09:35 GMT
Organization: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind.

CNN reported it just a minute ago.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re:  Is it ok to post low profile lobby activity on net?
Reply-To: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 04:47:00 GMT
Comments: To: ccnl <ccnl@UTARLVM1.BITNET>, china-nt <china-nt@UGA.BITNET>

-------------------------TEXT-OF-FORWARDED-MAIL--------------------------------

From: IFCSS HQ <ifcss@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 10:36:48 -0400
To: EDT2LRF@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU, ifcss@WAM.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re:  Is it ok to post low profile lobby activity on net?
Cc: sma@PHYSICS.UCLA.EDU

Kevin and Sifeng,

I saw the report about lobby activities in Southern LA yesterday.
I am glad that your group reacted promptly. I am going to send
a copy to our legal advisers who are monitoring the whole
process.

It is perfectly O.K. to report the activities.

Thanks for the good work.

Qingsong
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "(Xiaowen Li)" <lix@CRSA.BU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Please Don't Bash but Respect Group B
Reply-To: "(Xiaowen Li)" <lix@CRSA.BU.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:51:51 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

>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.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha)
Subject: Re: forward to the net:  one more important points
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:23:40 GMT

In article <BvA4o7.66M@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BIT
NET> writes:
>Following is a mail I received about the safe-return-ratio statistic
>discussion. I think its another important point. So, I forward it to
>the net for potiential use in the lobby.
>
>Kevin
>
>-------------------------TEXT-OF-FORWARDED-MAIL-------------------------------
-
>Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 18:15:32 HST
>From: XXX-XXXX TXXX  <xxxxxxx@UHUNIX.BITNET>
>To: edt2lrf@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU
>Subject: re:Two important points
>
>I would like to add one point, that is, for safety reason, ALMOST ALL of those
>who went back China after 6.4 DID NOT do anything, at least PUBLICALLY, for
>democracy and human rights of China, during their stay in China. It is not sur
pr
>surprising that even those who were actively involved in the Democratic Moveme
nt
>in US could be back safely.  The message from the CCP is very clear: Whatever
>you HAVE DONE in the past, the CCP will welcome you as long as you can forget
>your previous mental illness, and you want to be a "good guy" of the CCP.
>However, if you still can not recover from your illness, still can not forget
>those who died in 6.4 and those who are still in the CCP's prison, and even
>dare to do something again in China, Sheng Tong is a very good example.

While all this is true, it does not make the Chinese in the U.S. any different
from the Chinese in China, and that is the crux of the situation. *Anybody*
who speaks out for democracy, whether they were in the U.S. or not, will be
in trouble. Therefore, most of the Chinese in the U.S. do not qualify for
political asylum. Only those who may be arrested for what they have done in
the past deserve it.
From: zg11@ellis.uchicago.edu (zening  ge)
Subject: Re: A letter of urging President to veto the bill
Reply-To: zg11@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:54:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.120744.10765@pt.com> mliu@pt.com (Fred Liu) writes:

... Blah, blah, blah,...

>**some lines deleted**
>
>>
>The bill does not mean the unqualified people does not need protection.  It
>just protects some of the people who need protection.  The bill sets this
>quota because US can not just give everybody a green card here.  Once you
>understand this, you would not be mad.

Set aside the political issues, but accoding what the U.S. governement will
give a green card to a foreigner? based on their arrival date? This bill will
only benifit those people who are not capable to compete equally in the
labour market. So they have to seek some other aid, including using the 
Tiananmen blood and telling lies.

>>The bill will also put the late arrivals in a disadvantageous situation whey
>>they try to stay by finding employment.  Suddenly they have to compete with a
>>increased population of permanent residents.  It is obvious that employers are
>>more willing to hire permanent residents than foreigners.  I believe many
>>Americans' job or potentials will be negatively influenced by this bill, too.
>>
>This is true and I agree with it.  But, are you JUST competing with CHINESE
>in this United States of America?  If you do think so, you are one of the
>most ugly Chinese in this country.  I have heard so many stories that some
>Chinse only fight to their brothers and sisters and bend to foreingers!

OK, but for those who take the advantage of this bill, they are not even
fighting with their brothers and sisters, they trade the latters for their
stays. Isn't this uglier?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: test
From: Charlie Shen <I90LG@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 29 Sep 1992 01:03:39 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

Just a Test.
From: EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET (UCLA K.Y.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re:  Should we fail ...
Date: 6 Oct 92 07:12:00 GMT
Reply-To: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Organization: Indiana University
Comments: To: ccnl <ccnl@UTARLVM1.BITNET>, china-nt <china-nt@UGA.BITNET>

-------------------------TEXT-OF-FORWARDED-MAIL--------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:33:59 -0500
Reply-To:     5546YUJ@VMS.CSD.MU.EDU
From:         5546YUJ@VMS.CSD.MU.EDU
Subject:      should we fail
To:           Multiple recipients of list CCNL <CCNL@UTARLVM1.BITNET>

 Read Mr. Li Chengjian's comments, I agree.

   Should our bill fail to become law, we have no body to blame.
   We can only pick up and carry on. Not only in this issue but many others.

   Many people will leave after this job is done. The rest will have to be
   more united under IFCSS. This is the only organization we've got.
   Through which we can and have shown our strength.

   Let me cite some words by Zhao Haiqin:

   "IFCSS is our baby..."

   "Ask NOT what IFCSS can do for you! Ask YOU what you can do for IFCSS!"
    .... from Zhao Haiqin's ifcss president inauguration speech.

    We'll have strength if we unite.


JY, marquette u
From: yunson@lpf.umd.edu (Yunson Du)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:01:48 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

Two cents of mine:

* Tibetan people and Han people are not hating each other.
  I remember near my home back in china (Chongqing), there 
  is a school solely for Tibetan people (from western Sichuan).
  The students there are really treated BETTER than Han. They
  are permitted many priviliges which, in CCP's propangda, 
  are necessary because of their religion. We sometime trade
  some knives with them (they have many beautiful small knives).
 
* It is the Tibet Independence advocates that spread the hatred.
  They exaggerate the problem to get support, and reach their
  personal gain. See the conflicts in former Soviet and Yugoslavia?
  Don't believe politicians, from china, from western (read 
  "civilized") world, and Dalai.

* Economically speaking, Independence of Tibet is not a good
  idea. Politically speaking, only Dalai and small number of 
  people around him will benefit. Do you think Dalai treats
  their people better? I really doubt it. He loves slavery. 

* There are some people go to find gold, but not really in Tibet.
  It is in North Sichuan, which Han has been majority for a long 
  time.

* Compared to what Whites has done to Indian, China is doing
  a unbelievably good job. I really think it is better to enhance
  people's exchange, not killing the minority, like whites did.

* What the majority of Tibetan people think? GO to see for 
  yourself. 

Yunson

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha)
Subject: Re: Two important points
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:19:02 GMT

     You give absolutely no evidence (here or later in your message) that
the two situations are different. Your proclaiming it is not evidence. And
you have no "statistics". The absence of a statistic (eg, the number of
Chinese who returned home permanently and were not persecuted) does not
constitute proof of anything.

>
>  The bottom line is that if you want return to China in the near future, the
>first thing is to shut up your mouth,forget your belief forget 3 freedom,
>forget democracy, read People's Daily only, listen to Raido Beijing only,
>watch CCTV only, ...  This fact itself is enough for political prosecution, 
>let alone you may involve in some political trouble ACCIDENTALY. Since we have
>lived in the West for several years, many became a 80+% believer of freedom an
d
>democracy, many of us would take basic human rights as granted. We will not
>tolerate those obvious human rights violations, Bingo, we are in trouble.
>
>  It is potentially dangerous for CSS to live and work in China permanently,
>at least it will be the case for the near future. As long as CCP is in power
>and refuse to carry out thorough political reform,  Chinese people in China
>are in danger of political trouble. Returning CSS  will very likely
>be the first victm.
>
> Further protection of Chinese nationals in US is really needed. There should
>be no doubt on that. It is still unsafe for CSS to return permenantly.
>                                                          ============
>The statistics will show very few of CSS who stayed here longer than two or
>three years returned permenantly.   However, the statistics might show it
>                     ============
>is safe to pay a short term home visit, and it only shows that, any 
>
>generalization or analogy will turn out invalid.
>
>
>
>Z. You
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: Tue, 29 Sep 92 00:31:05 GMT

In article <BvAxp9.AI2@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:
>In article <1a7bg0INN4ml@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> txt15@po.CWRU.Edu (Tao Tao) writes:
>>
>>If Tibet does become an independent country, who will guarantee its soverenty?
>>I guess it will end up being annexed by India, the chief rival of China in
>>that region.
>
>Why should that be the case?  Nepal and Bhutan are sovereign states?
>
> 
>-- 
>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
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.

J Su


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: math1pf@elroy.uh.edu (Zheng, Ping)
Subject: Re:  Tibet
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:53:00 GMT

>I think it's better off for Chinese to face
>the fact and to think of PEACEFULL means to resolve the issue while
>bargaining the Chinese interest to the maximum.  Chinese have better
>chance now because Dalai Lama is far more flexible than the other
>Tibetans, close to the flexibility of Mr. Wang1 Jing1Wei4.  He knew
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>the possible consequences and did not fight the Japanese.

I don't know who you are,and I don't care about your opinion about Tibet.
You want to talk about fact? The following will be the fact,and you don't
take it personally cause I'm only telling you the FACT :

	If you are talking about problems as serious as Tibet with real
chinese people and using Mr.Wang1 Jing1Wei4 as your support for your argument,
you will be beaten and fucked a million times.
From: xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li)
Subject: Re: the 9201 letter
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 02:57:43 GMT

In article <2AC511B6.7431@news.service.uci.edu> yeh@netix.com (Mr Shannon Yeh) writes:
>
>Please sign this letter and FAX it to: 202-456-2461.  You can also get your
>9201 opinion recorded on the phone at: 202-456-1111.  Thank you.
>
>	Action 9201 Committee
>	PO Box 3544
>	Beverly Hills, CA 90212-0544
>
>Committee Members
>
>Yeh, Shannon	 Netix Communications, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA.
>Zhang, Shuren 	 Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
>Xie, Jinya	 Stuttgart University, Germany.
>Zuo, Zhiqi	 Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.
>Chen, Jian	 University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.
>Horne, Scott	 Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
>Zhou, Shenxue	 University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA.
>Ge, Zening	 University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
>

Let us give some analysis to these Committee Members.

Yeh Shannon: A Chinese American who always favors Chinese Communist
government. He has continuously post his ultra-Maoist articles in
the network soc.culture.china in the last five years. His record:
vigorous defender of 6/4 Massacre, advocate of Mao's communist
revolution, against any international pressure on China's human right
condition. His stance: Shen Tong's arrest is justified.

Horne Scott: An American expert in Chinese culture. Upholding his
Maoist banner throughout his history in SCC. He has been continously
criticizing Bush and American as imperielist. Although he conceded that
6/4 was not smart on the Chinese government side, he was a strong
supporter of the government supression on the democratic movement.

Zuo Zhiqi: Leader of some government controlled Chinese student
organization. He was the organizer of the partition letter in
favor of giving China Most Favored Nation regardless of China's
human right condition.

Chen Jian: Decendent of a high ranking Chinese communist official.
Conservative and defender of China's Premire Li Peng on his role
in 89 6/4 Massacre. He claim himself as the fifth generation leader
of the Chinese communist government.

Can anyone in the net give more about others? Please fax this to
the above number too.
From: yangze@acf3.nyu.edu (Ze Yang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Date: 4 Oct 92 19:17:47 GMT
Organization: New York University

wendong@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Wen-Dong Tang) writes:

[stuff deleted]
>>Mr. Tang says "the fate of a group of people should be ONLY
>>determined by THEMSELF", then why so many SCC are waiting for
>>Gorge Bush's decision instead of their owns. What's a country
>>for after all? 
>>
>>CCP did nothing more wrong than establishing a utopia China and
>>educated a generation of utopian.
>>
>>Ze Yang

>So many CCS are waiting for Bush's decision. Why are they waiting? Let me tell you, just because in China we fail to overthrow the government we do not want, just because we have to separate from the government, and because we can not build another country on the Earth, so we have to ask a democratic country to receive us. Is this our fault?  Should I still point out to you that we already made our dicision?

I didn't say this is your fault, I just want to say your statement "
the fate of a group of people should be ONLY determined by THEMSELF" is
wrong, my argument is simlpe enough, if this is true, then why cann't
those CSS determine their future by their will, instead they wait for Gorge
Bush's decision? You said you made your desicion already, does that
mean your decision doesn't count? That's really sad.

>It is not a utopia, guy.  Free voting has been carried out in so many countries for so long.  Of course each country has their own problem in carrying out free voting.  But that is already a great step in people's self-determination.  And it is much better than the government the poor Chinese have to choose.

Self-determination can only be applied to colony, free voting is
different from self-determination, Abraham Lincoln was elected as
president of USA, but he denied the self-determination rights of
the Southern States. 

I ignored many arguments made by Mr. Tang, that doen't mean I agree
with what he said.
 

Ze Yang
From: UFDZ@UFPINE.BITNET
Subject:      6 days left for a pocket veto, Zhao, please find out ASAP!
Reply-To: UFDZ@UFPINE.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 14:31:00 GMT

HaiQing, only 6 days left for him to pocket veto S1216 very quietly, even not
too many American people will know what is happening. haiqing, you need find out
his intension ASAP, and before too late we need Americans's and Media support.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: xc17@quads.uchicago.edu (xiaoyong  chai)
Subject: Re: Please Don't Bash but Respect Group B
Reply-To: xc17@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:20:13 GMT

In article <6592@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> yndst2+@pitt.edu (Yong Duan) writes:
>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
>
I agree all of you and I see the possitive sense of our community.

However, I feel that Group A should be blamed for bringing 
up this topic too late on this net. (I know insiders have been talking
about the issue all along). Group B has a reason to be contentious.

There should be mutual support and mutual understanding. 
A and B are on the same boat. It is not enough for just
explain the possible benefit of the bill to B, there should be real      
committment from A.  When I see the above post, I finaly realize that 
people in A have the basic conscience. Maybe not every one in A group
feel obligated, I hope the majority of them will make the committment
to not only B but C , D ,E.......

Only with this mutual understanding and firm committment, we can tell 
the hypocritical faces from who really feel hurt. Some con-bill guys 
happen to be A+, A++, A++++, what do they care about A or B, 
put it this way, how can you trust them, 
even there is a protect bill covers all A B C D E... , they will 
against it! they just do not like anyone else follow them, and make 
their current high status less conspicuous.
   
God bless the unity of the Chiness community,( it happen to be the
best interests of many other things.)

Xiaoyong Chai
From U of Chicago

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china