HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Re: IFCSS NR-4042:  Senator Gorton's Speech on S1216
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:57:33 GMT

In article <BvnLyM.KBr@cs.psu.edu> echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng) writes:
>blood green-card bill.  If I choose to immigrate, it will be done
>through my own effort.  Otherwise, I will return to China.  Or, in 
>
 
     Eddie, it will never be your OWN effort. It never is. Whatever rights and
opportunities we Chinese enjoy now came not only through the progress of 
time, but also from many many generations' struggle. Eddie, in your own 
self-rightoues or your apparently cynicall view, if you immigrate through 
today's available opportunities to you, you can be abusing the blood of the
the thousands of Chinese railroad workers, miners and many many others.
 
>	You may not know that there are still quite a few CSS here who hold
>some least-level moral standards.
>
        No, Eddie, you have no right to accuse those many who work hard toward
the better of themselves and others. You are , in fact, benefitting from many 
who came before you, many who struggled, failed or succeeded, many who brought
the progress in many aspects of our lives.  You may not appreciate that.

   It is ironic and sad to see people like you who think a world of yourselves
accuse those many others who try hard as selfish and shameless. In your narrow
minds, you are the cleanest, the proudest, the most able and the best of all 
us "ugly" Chinese.  Have it ever occured to you that you yourselves may be the
most selfish, selfish of the most cruel kind ?
 
      Sorry I have to use these very strong words. Admittedly, some of us are 
those who "made it" in America, living a relatively easy life, enjoying
everything this land provides us. Many of us also have very strong confidence
in ourselves, always proud to be what we are, always believing we are the best,
anywhere we are. But your attitude is SICK to me, if you don't want to help 
others, that's fine, if you can't help others, that fine, if you vainly think 
you are really above everyone else, take a REAL look into the mirror at yourself!

>	 Eddie
>
>


Regards
 
Joe
jingyao@columbia.eng.ohio-state.edu
From: zyou@phakt.usc.edu (Zhongbai You)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Likelihood of Bush's pocket veto
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:11:38 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: phakt.usc.edu

In article <1a4k1kINNrdl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> txt15@po.CWRU.Edu (Tao Tao) writes:
>they will take away jobs from American
  ====================================
  Chinese American has a good reputation of self employment.

>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

  Korean community is right in the riot area(south central LA), white and
other Ansian community is very far away and well guarded. Virtually all 
the small business in riot area were destroyed, regardless the ethnic
background. If white dare to open business there, they will be destroyed
first. The korean tragedy is only a side effects

  During the riots, white dare not show up at all. Even in peace time,
they avoid those areas by all possible means. Any non-locals will also
do the same.
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: ZW's group A and group B theory
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:13:47 GMT

In article <BvEv9r.GM5@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> UFDZ@UFPINE.BITNET writes:
>Dear Mr. Wang, Would you please count another point, many CSS came early will
>actively help CSS who came late by many ways,helping to find job, financial help
>,and many? Who said chinese just like sand? I do not believe it! D.Zhou

    Very good point.   The stronger the whole Chinese community, the better
off each individual including the new comers will be.  I hope everyone see
this.
From: wendong@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Wen-Dong Tang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Date: 4 Oct 92 05:19:36 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

>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.

Please respect history! Those peoples in former USSR and Yogslava have their own conflicts for centuries, it is the Communists who unified them together and increased hostality among the people! Democracy brought them the right to separate from the nightmare. Although now these peoples have a lot of problems to solve, but, it is NOT the fault of democracy. It is the result of the Communists!

Why people in Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang are seeking independence? they feel being treated unequally. Just like in a big family with 3 or 4 generations together, if you think you are mistreated by the other members of the family and nothing can change your situation in the family (because you do not want to sacrifice you belief, your money, etc), what will you do?

Why European countries are seeking unification? because they have the NEED to do so and this is based on equality of EVERY country!

>
>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?

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.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:      Forwarded mail
Reply-To: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 20:56:00 GMT
Comments: To: ccnl <ccnl@UTARLVM1.BITNET>, china-nt <china-nt@UGA.BITNET>

Thanks for your attention and response. Though I think what I said is
ture: the sample used by the US State Department to calculate the safe-
return-ratio is a biased one, (because the home visiters consists of a
smaller proportion of "ring leaders" than the general CSS population,)
you have given a more important factor to be considered when evaluating the
safety degree of returning home for CSS actively participated the
activities during and after the 6.4 period. If not alread included in
their list of arguments, I suggest IFCSS (HQ and CSSA) consider this
important point in the next step of lobbying President Bush.

Kevin


Date:  Sun, 27 Sep 92 12:53:20 -0700
From: XXX@XXXXXXX.EDU
To: EDT2LRF@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU, mail@EECS.BITNET

Hi Kevin,

I think what you guys said may not be true: the number of home-visits
may not be smaller than the same number before ``6.4'', and the number
of incidents (persecutions) might not have increased after ``6.4''
(Yang Wei vs. Shen Tong). Your argument may not convince anyone,
especially the presidet.

You have missed most important point: the reason that the majority of
home-visiting students were not persecuted is simply because of the
PROTECTION POLICY OF WESTERN COUNTRIES. When there was not J-1 waiver
before 1989, the consulates always threatened CSS that they would be
counted for signatures campaigns (etc.) after their (forced) return.
They would defintely be treated equally as our fellow students inside
China. But ever since western protection become effective, CG knew
such threats and persicutions will only backfire CG because such
incidents would not only make oversea CSS choose not go back, but also
cause oversea CSS campaign against CG. IT IS THE PRETECTION THAT STOPS
MOST THREATS AND PERSICUTIONS TO HOME-VISITING STUDENTS!

Our point is that State Department statistics is absolutely right, but
it does not indicate the CG is any better now than before, it only suggests
that protection is effetive, and further protection (bill) is important.

I don't mind if you choose to post this message (only ANONYMOUSLY) on
net.

Regards,
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: liu@ENOS2.UCDAVIS.EDU
Subject:      Re:  ZW's posting
Reply-To: liu@ENOS2.UCDAVIS.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:12:24 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

Something is seriously wrong here ---

Who divided us into groups? O.K., let's borrow the group concept here
for a moment.

1.  ADVANTAGE or DISADVANTAGE
    Story from both side are of its reason.  We need to consider the
net result.  Suppose that the bill were vetoed by Bush, then people
from group A will surely compete with those in group B.  With years
experience in every account(group A people come earlier), how could
you be so sure you will be a winner?  Not mention that the waiting queue
does not take school grades into account.

2.  UNFAIRNESS
    To whom?  Just like the old story about Chinese, other people can't
be better off.  No one ever heard any cry of unfairness when U.S. granted
protection to people from other country.  Why?

3.  EQUALITY
    This time the benefit goes to group A.  How can you be so sure that
there is nothing left for group B?  Just in case if you need help from
groups A and C, what do you expect?  I am sure they will help you but
at the same time something will pop up in his/her mind.


4.  CONCLUSION
    I don't like the book written by "Be(3) Yang(2)" titled "The Ugly
Chinese".  I don't want to prove he is right.  Unfortunately, he may be
right. Or I should say that he is at least partially right!


Signed:
(In between group A and C, not B)
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 23:51:46 GMT

In article 1440 <mhe.717803446@pv031c.vincent.iastate.edu> mhe@iastate.edu 
(Min He) writes:
 
>Wait a minute! Could you please tell me when China invaded Tibet? 1950?
>Ok, was Tibet a sovereign country then? Which countries recognised Tibet
>as a sovereign country then? How many country had diplomatic relationship
>with Tibet then? Before you claim that Tibet used to be a sovereign country,
>at least think of these questions.
 
Def'n: invasion: Entering with hostile intentions; to enter as an enemy, 
with a view to conquest or plunder; to enter by force;..(Webster's Dict.)
 
China invaded Tibet starting in 1950.  Chinese forces attacked the 
Potala in 1959.  
 
>The natives in Canada have almost distinguished. What is the Tibetan
>population in China? Is it more or less then that of 1950?
 
The population of virtually every country on the earth grew by a factor 
of two between 1950 and now, except Tibet as I think you want to say. 
 
>>Inner Mongolia is now >95% Han.  Tibet (=Xizang+Qinghai+parts of Gansu, 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Give the source please!!! If it is true, I really have learned something
>from you.
 
The book _The Forgotten Tribes of China_.  
 

-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Montana State U. Co-signing the IFCSS Open Letter
Reply-To: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 12:06:00 GMT

Thank you, friends at MSU, for making your co-signing message public on
the net so that general people (like me) can observe how things are going
and who's doing that.

When IFCSS/HQ called to send "Public Opinion Telegram", a lot of messages
posted on the net telling what and how they did it.

In fact, many CSSAs, lobby teams and task forces posted their faxing
activites, donation contributions, constructive suggestions ... on
China-net and/or CCNL during the past several weeks. These self-reporting
news have been helping exchange our lobby experiences each other and, most
importantly, encourage the CSS community to work together on the human
rights issues.

I really wish to see more self-reporting post appear on the net, not only
strategies lobbying the Protection Bill for CSS in U.S., but also other
human rights issues relating China, such as the current IFCSS open letter
co-signing campaign.

Kevin at UCLA

-------------------------TEXT-OF-ORIGINAL-MAIL--------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 25 Sep 1992 20:56:32 -0600
From:         "(ZUYIN YANG)" <icmgr071%birds.dnet@TERRA.OSCS.MONTANA.EDU>
Subject:      RE: IFCSS HQ NR-4037: 56 CSS Organizations Signed Open Letter

IFCSS:
I, the vice president of CSSA at Montana State University, on behalf of
CSS at MSU, sign the open letter for asking release of Shen Tong and
his friends. My phone number is 406-585-8468 and my address is Department
of Chemical Engineering, Montana State University,Bozeman,MT 59717.

Truly yours,
Zuyin Yang
From: zhangw@chert.CS.ORST.EDU
Subject:      Re: more concern on protection bill
Reply-To: zhangw@chert.CS.ORST.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:07:22 GMT
Comments: cc: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

>Hi,

>	As a "Group A" individual, I do appreciate the
>understanding of the "Group B" and "Group C (those who
>have obtained PR)", not to mention that some of them
>even actively supported the campaign, as shown in the follow article
>which was posted on net.  If you have read it before, please
>discard it.

>	I hope that S1216 would not divide CSS.  And I have
>reason to believe that most of us are mature enough to achieve that.
>Of course, there are always some persons who consider that they
>have too much stake in S1216 so that they could not tolerate
>any criticism to or even question on S1216.

>			Luo Ning


>==============================================================
>	Would S1216 Hurt Those Who Came After 4/11/90 ?
>        --- On immigration quota allocations and job market competition

>                     Luo Ning
>
>		... ... ... (skip) ...
>

Hi, there,

If you really don't want to divide CSS, how about discuss these
questions: "why S1216 can/does not cover Group-B? Does Gruop-A people
like to add Group-B people to share the same benefit? Why Group-B
people did not strongly argue the bill? ..."

Don't say more on "S1216 will also benefit Group-B". Peolpe are not so
easy to be fooled!

BTW, using "Group-A/B" is just for simplification of expression. Don't
be so sensative.

Thanks,

--ZW
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 07:05:38 GMT

>In article 1449 <liqiang.717806030@kramden> liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li)
>writes:
>>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?
> 
>Tibetans do not want Chinese to keep the peace for them.  The Chinese 
>government could show some maturity and let Tibetans decide for 
>themselves, just as the Canadian government is letting Quebeckers and 
>all Canadians decide for themselves in the coming referendum on 
>October 26th. 
> 
> 
>
>-- 
>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
Aboriginals in Canada do not want other people to organise the country
for them. The Canada government should show some maturity and let the
Aboriginals decide for themself.  All Canadians except for the
aboriginals should leave the country immediately and leave the whole
Canada to the aboriginals.

J Su 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:22:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.003105.12208@marlin.jcu.edu.au> phsj@marlin.jcu.edu.au (su jianfeng) writes:
>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.
When Indians were majority at the beginning of U.S.A, Whites had a more
"efficient" solution--"good indians are dead indians".
>
>J Su
From: ningluo@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU ((Ning Luo))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: > comment about luo ning's article
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:20:54 GMT
Reply-To: "(Ning Luo)" <ningluo@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

In article <1992Sep30.220919.1622@news.iastate.edu> txa95@isuvax.iastate.edu
 writes:
>The key for normal CSS to get greencard is job. As I know, if you have a
>job which matches your education background and the salary is fair, it is
>quite easy to get a green card. 2 or 3 years at most. Mr. Luo tried to
>convince people that S1216 could leave people coming after 4/11/90 with
>relatively more quota, but what he did not say is, if you can not have a
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>job, you can not even get into the waiting list. No matter how long the
>

I hate to re-iterate my words in the article which is supposed to
be commented on by the owner of txa95@isuvax.iastate.edu, but it seems
what I have to do  ---- some people just don't look when they "read" :-)
(excerpt from the article being "commented")
"...One assumption underlying his conclusion is that those who have PR
would compete in the SAME job market as those who have not.  Now,
this is an obvious fallacy to anyone who has any real experience of
looking for jobs after graduation.   If you scan through the job
advertisement pages of various journals, you can see that a significant
portion of job openings are "FOR AMERICAN CITIZEN OR PR ONLY".

        S1216 would enable the 40,000 CSS covered by it to shift to
the much larger job market and reduce the competition in those
job markets which are available to foreign students and scholars."

I would like to read the rebuttal by the owner of txa95@isuvax.iastate.edu
to the above analysis.

>So while you are cheating the American Congress and public, do not cheat
>your fellow CSS.

You don't have to talk offensively to show your strength.
Show your points.

Sincerely,

Luo Ning
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:      (COPY)      Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for
Reply-To: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 09:05:00 GMT

If one believes that every nation/country will eventually realize the
"communism heaven" in the future, then I think it wound not matter
whether Tibetan reachches that heaven under the name of a province
of a country called PRC or through a country/region by its own,
because, finally when the whole human being reaches that heaven there
will be no country boundary exists any more, as I understand
from the Maxism-Leninism-Mao Thought taught by my middle school teacher.

Kevin

By the way, is this the first posting of William since the debate of the
motive of ST's home visit and being arrested? I hope I did not miss any of
his posting about the S1216 lobby campaign.

-------------------------TEXT-OF-ORIGINAL-MAIL--------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 00:17:53 -0700
From:         XIAOJIAN@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject:      Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future

Sino-Tibetan relations? When Tibet turned to be an independent country?
Or the majority of CSS regard Tibet as a country occupied by China?
Or it's just a typo? Could Mr.Jiang or someone else kindly clarify this?
Thanks.


William Deng
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby)
Subject: Re: PRC nationals from Aust. need your help
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:38:48 GMT

89P2820@CSDVAX.CSD.UNSW.EDU.AU writes:

>Dear friends and colleage,
>Many people have responsed for the call of "Collection of the document about
>the humn right abuse in China". We sincerely appreciate such support for our
>course here in Australia. Some politicians of Australia are trying very hard
>to convincethe Governmetn and public that "Majority of the PRC nationals will
>be safe if they are repatriate back to china" because "eventhough there are
>some cases of human right absuse, but that does not indicate that the fate of
>majority PRC nationals here will be in jaopardy".
>Please help us by sending the materials relavent to that argument and proof to
>us.
>Liaison Officer Yaming Zhang
>Special Committee for Chinese Student

C'mon, there will be no human right abuses towards Chinese students when
they get back.  China needs the students to help build the bombing economy,
the government will not do anything to harm the students.

Most of the students in Australia just want to stay in Australia because
Australia is an easy country, easy life, you can get tons of social
welfare if you don't work, etc, etc... rather than worried about the
non-existence "human right abuses".  Don't lie to me, I live here, I
know!

If you think Australia is such a good (easy) country, you should apply
like other immigrants, rather than lie to the Aus Gov about human
rights abuses in China which 1) does not apply to you 2) creates a even
worse image of China in the eyes of always-very-racist Australians.

Go and find a million dollars and apply as a business migrant, or go
and obtain a skill that Australia needs... rather than lie to the Aus
Gov at the expense of the face and image of all Chinese in the world.

Don't be selfish!!!

-- 
1)-----------------------Rev 6:8 "... They were given authority over a quarter
of the Earth, to kill by the sword, by famine, by plague, and wild beasts."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china