HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zyou@phakt.usc.edu (Zhongbai You)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Protection Bill
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:14:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: phakt.1a9vdeINNkg6
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: phakt.usc.edu

In article <1992Sep29.030719.1@cua.edu> chenx@cua.edu writes:
>For the discussion of the protection bill, there is always an assumption
>that Chinese government want these Chinese students go back to China.
>My question is whether or not it is true.
>

  China does need these CSS. 

The CSS in US are right in their prime time (late 20s to middle 30s). They
are brain power. They can bring back knowledge if not immediate profit.
They can at least teach and research at university, if can not make money.
Besides they speak English, understand West, which could make them a good 
representive to the West. The list can be very long.

  Remmember, they are young.

  But China will NOT force CSS return. Neither will U.S.
  CCP will welcome your return if you promise working hard and not making
trouble.

  At individual level, no body in China really cares about weather you
return or not. It is bascilly true.

  We can't return, because it is still unsafe, it is still potentially
dangerous, not because China does not need us.




Z.You
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: jfl@omaha.eel.ufl.edu (Yu-Fung Liu)
Subject: Re: ROC vs PRC
Reply-To: edo@ugrad.ee.ufl.edu
Organization: UF EE Department (Graduate Student)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 19:31:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.182112.1335@news.acns.nwu.edu>, usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu (Usenet on news.acns) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep25.152056.15253@eng.ufl.edu> jfl@pawnee.eel.ufl.edu (Yu-Fung  
|> Liu) writes:
|> > In article <1992Sep24.004250.14432@leland.Stanford.EDU>,  
|> claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
|> > |> God, where would justice have been for the South Koreans had the United  
|> States
|> > 
|> > Don't play with the God if you are not a true believer!
|> > If you dare to use his name, you must ready for consequences, UNDERSTAND!
|> 
|> 
|> What consequences? Just curious.
|> 
|> Carl

You will find out youself in the future.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:26782 talk.politics.china:1558
From: aguo@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (aihua guo)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Do Something For Yourself, Guys--Protection Bill.
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:28:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.BvIE3r.I3
Organization: Indiana University

In article <1992Oct1.155507.20212@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> dh5m@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Donghai  Huangfu) writes:

>> Yes, I will do something for myself, but not by using other people's blood
>>and telling lies. I am against this bill.
>
>If Bush signs the bill and move the date to current, are you still hate the 
>bill? Why don't you call Bush and ask him to do so. That is what to do sth
>for yourself.

You got the right point. This bill does discriminate those who came 
before and after that particular date, set aside the political issues. As
a matter of fact, I came here before April 11, 1990. I did send a fax to
the White house, not asking Bush to change the date but asking him veto 
this bill.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li)
Subject: Re: Oct 1, our National Day
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 04:34:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.193641.24389@Princeton.EDU> muyu@beam.Princeton.EDU (Muyu Guo) writes:

>  The biggest problem for China is her population.  That is the major
>  hurdle for her to become a real powerful and rich country.  Nobody
>  can change that fact easily.  Don't tell me D-fighters can do that.

No, I think no body can change this fact. The only thing we can say
is that the problem was created by the CCP. If there were a free election,
I bet D-fighters would win on this point, just like Clinton will win
on the point of economy.

China has been in bad shape compare to others, that was under the leadership
of communist party. Therefore CCP will have no credit. People need
change. At least it will bear a hope for better.

Let us see on what points D-fighters would win if there were a free
election in China. D-fighters will win on the point of 6/4 killing.
D-fighters will win on the point of democracy, D-fighters will win
on the point of free market, D-fighters will win on the point of
Japanese compensation, D-fighters will win on the point of diplomacy.
What else will D-fighters win?

>
>  Muyu
>
>-- 
>Muyu Guo
From: stlin@stevelin.Eng.Sun.COM (Steven Lin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Oct 1, our National Day
Date: 3 Oct 1992 22:19:08 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: stevelin

In article <1992Oct2.193641.24389@Princeton.EDU> muyu@beam.Princeton.EDU (Muyu Guo) writes:
>> 
>>>Chinese people can only depend on themselves to make the country better and
>>>stronger. On the other hand, we should learn from the other countries for good
>>>expertise 
>>>
Chinese do not need to learn from other country. All Chinese need is not to fight
each other for every 100 year period, or so, to waster resources. What China need
to learn is to rebuild ROC, learn from Taiwan experience, from Chinese people!


>>>21st CENTURY WILL BE THE CENTURY OF THE GREATER CHINA!!!!
>>>
You wish harder and I will pray harder every day until the RED SUN comes up.

>> I am not meant to discourage you. People in the world don't believe so.
...
>> problem for China is communism. If China insists on communism, it will
>> 
>  The biggest problem for China is her population.  That is the major
>  hurdle for her to become a real powerful and rich country.  Nobody
>  can change that fact easily.  Don't tell me D-fighters can do that.
>
________________________:-) :-) :-)___________________________________
I can do it if I have the absolute power like that Mao held.

1. Send 200 million people to Mongo to retake Mongo back. If they got Killed,
   send 200 million people to there again, using people mountain people sea 
   tactics to recover the land lost. At least 10 million will go to see Mao. :-)
2. Send 200 million people to south western part of China to retake the land
   that was TBD but taken by India. Deng can do the job in one week. At least
   10 million will go with Deng to see Mao. :-)
3. Send 100 million to Xingjiang, 100 million to Xizan to balance the density
   of population, to protest west invasion and self independence.

For those do not follow orders, send them to hell. For those can not suffer
the poor living condition, let them go to see Mao. :-)

After all possible thing has done, China population will remain -500% growth.
________________________:-) :-) :-)________________________________________
From: yangze@acf3.nyu.edu (Ze Yang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Vote for our future
Date: 1 Oct 92 04:04:53 GMT
Organization: New York University

usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu (Usenet on news.acns) writes:

>In article <1992Sep29.215122.5993@cmcl2.nyu.edu> yangze@acf3.nyu.edu (Ze Yang)  
>writes:
>> Mr. Carl hasn't apeared on the net for a long time. Is he
>> trying to organize a voting procedure for the bill s1216? 
>> 
>> By his logic, people can always "vote for their future".
>> 
>> We miss you, Mr. Carl!
>> 
>> Ze Yang

>I took several days off to have a good vacation in Yellowstone with my wife. In  
>fact, I did not even notice the heated debate about s1216 until I am back.

Probably your wife has the Green Card? Maybe I should also practice "cu3
xian4 jiu4 guo2", how do you think of this, Mr. Carl?

Even if your wife has the card, and you can get one through that way,
you shouldn't forget your fellow countrymen. You should still manage
a voting procedure, don't you think so? Mr. Carl?

Vote for our future, right?

>Good luck!

>Carl

Ze Yang
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: chenwei@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Chenwei Yan)
Subject: Re: Oct 1, our National Day
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 14:43:32 GMT

In article <BvGqGx.3AF@cs.psu.edu> jyw@phys.psu.edu (Jin-Yuan Wu) writes:
>Dear Chinese Friend:
>
>
>Today is our National Day.
>
>
>What China won 43 years ago was a real INDEPENDENCE which China had not been
>having for about 100 years. Nothing can be more valuable than
>independence to a country.
>
>
>However, neither US nor USSR were willing to see China becomes a strong 
>country. They sent their armies to the countries around China. They tried
>to isolate China in the world. They tried to control China via thousands of 
>ways. When China was trying to improve the relationship with either US or USSR,
>USSR or US would attempt to stem via their KGB or CIA.
>
>
>That was history. That was the environment in which China was standing up.
>China then had atomic bomb, hydrogen bomb, satellites etc all by 
>herself--developing technologies nearly without external help, accumulating
>money primarily in the internal markets and meanwhile, producing food
>so that the huge population had something to eat.
>Mao Ze-Dong had many mistakes, but he and his comrades left us a strong 
>country, an independent country.
>
>
>Every Chinese benefits from his/her homeland by being respected because China
>has stood up.
>
>
>Just a remind, today is our National Day. Nothing can be more valuable
>than independence. US could be a friend, but China is our country.

I agree with you 100%.
Chinese people can only depend on themselves to make the country better and
stronger. On the other hand, we should learn from the other countries for good
expertise and good experiences for one reason: becoming the strongest nation
in the world and crush all the opponents!

21st CENTURY WILL BE THE CENTURY OF THE GREATER CHINA!!!!

Let's all work for that goal!
From: jamesou@liverbug.hsc.usc.edu (James Ou)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Poor Man
Date: 6 Oct 1992 09:01:21 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world,soc
NNTP-Posting-Host: liverbug.hsc.usc.edu


In <97710@bu.edu>, lix@yangtze.bu.edu (Xiaowen Li) writes:

>Well, I have to give another lecture to dhsy. It is OK to read "Pi3"
>as "to match".

This is when it is used as a verb as in "Pi1 Pei4" (match). (I
still like to pronounce it as "Pi1".)  :-)

>Sanyee is also right to point out that at that time, only very poor
>man could have one wife. For example, even a beggar could have two.

Okay, Lix, you beat me to it. I was busy yesterday and was going
to cite the story of "Qi2 Ren2" to Sanyee to show him that a poor
man could also have two wives. I wonder whether it is a crime to
be poor and have two wives. :-)

>So in ancient time, we call
>
>the man with no wife:  Kuang Fu (Open husband)

And the woman with no dates: Yuan4 Nyu3 (depressed woman)  :-)

>the man with only one wife: Pi Fu (single husband)

I still have doubt with this definition. "Pi Fu" does not have to
be married.

>the man with two wives: Qi Ren (name from the beggar story)

That's right. Here is the original sentence from Meng4 Zi3 Qi2
Ren2 chapter:

     Qi2 Ren2 You3 Yi4 Qi1 Yi2 Qie4 Er2 Chu3 Si4 Zhe3.
  (In Qi State, there was a person who had a wife and a concubine
   in his house.)

To the misfortune of ordinary Chinese guys, "Qi2 Ren2 Zhi1 Fu2"
(the happiness of a Qi person) was outlawed after Qing1 dynasty
fell. Of course, QRZF remains to be legal for big shots like
Chairman Mao. :-)

One thing I want to remind netters: if you are enjoying "QRZF",
be careful with your wives. In the story, Qi2 Ren2's wives
eventually divorced their husband.  :-)

*****
The SOS Education Fund reminded me of these sayings:

     Shao4 Nian2 Zhi1 Shi2, Yi2 Yu3 Ming2 Shi1 Ding4 Xue2;

     Zhuang4 Nian2 Zhi1 Shi2, Yi2 Yu3 Ying1 Xiong2 Ding4 Ding3;

     Lao3 Nian2 Zhi1 Shi2, Yi2 Yu3 Fang1 Wai4 Ding4 Jiao1.

     (At youth, one should find a good teacher for learning;
      after one grows up, one should accompany a hero friend to pacify
	the world;
      when one grows old, one should find a taoist friend to
	enjoy the nature.)

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: yang@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Der-Shung Yang)
Subject: Re: ROC vs PRC
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:36:04 GMT

jfl@omaha.eel.ufl.edu (Yu-Fung Liu) writes:

>In article <lc7a6aINN110@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, stlin@stevelin.Eng.Sun.COM (Steven Lin) writes:
>|> In article <1992Sep25.212552.5149@news.acns.nwu.edu>  (Usenet on news.acns) writes:
>|> >In article <92Sep25.144818edt.128@orasis.vis.toronto.edu>  (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>|> Well, that is the government they can find their way to live with. People
>|> seem not to like change to get more freedom, democracy, or better living! :-)

>Can you tell me what is freedom, democracy and better living?
>It is too board. 
>Madonna truly believes that she can do anything including sex in a public 
>performance. She also said that she has the freedom to do so?

Just FYI, the US Supreme Court just struck down a Minn. state law (? not sure)
that prohibits "hate speech" because it violates the consitutional right
of a person to speak freely (First Amendament). I remember that naked dance 
was also once a controversial topic in Supreme Court rulings. I seem to 
remember that the the boss of the naked dance club won, though I'm not sure.

Anyway, there are several fundamental freedoms that are protected by most
modern countries. Speech freedom is one of them. I think the problem with
PRC (ROC as well) is the oppression of speech, esp. political speeches
(or expressions).

As to Madonna's case, if she can really make a big case by going all the
way up to Supreme Court, she might win.

>Some Americans believe that salavy is ok as soon as the majority vote
>to say yes. 

You mean "slavery"? Anyway, if you can convinece the majority to vote
yes and the Supreme Court thinks it's consitutional (assuming there
are people considering it as unconsitutional and resort to Supreme 
Court), then, yes, it's ok. However, the problem is first, the majority
will not vote "yes" (trust them:-), and second, it is unconstituional
because it infringes the slaves' freedom.

Actually, the success of a democracy does not rely solely on the process
of voting. It's very important for everyone to be able to listen to all
the different voices and finally makes his/her own decision while voting.
(Therefore you should be confident that the majority will not vote yes
for slavery nowadays.)
Without a full freedom of speech, there will be no real democracy. And
I think this is the real problem of PRC (ROC as well).

>Some christian and some buddist believe that the way we live is like 
>hell while a lot of us laught at them.
>Those relious people think material world is a living hell but
>some of us think it is the greatest type of civilization ever produced
>by us in human history. 

No comment here. I only know that I like my way of living:-)

>Can you tell me that what is YOU WAY OF FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY AND (BETTER
>OR WORSE, WHATEVER THE HELL IS IT) LIVING?
>May be I would your ideas.
--
DerShung Yang    
yang@cs.uiuc.edu 
Beckman Institute
Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li)
Subject: Re: Oct 1, our National Day
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 04:22:22 GMT

In <1992Oct2.113429.1@ducvax.auburn.edu> haiqiu@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:

>not mean support the communism. But as long as China do not hurt you, you do
>not have to right to consider China as your enemy! Western countries have

Never talk about right. Do you think that communists in China had
right to block non-communist's living right? But it did. I guess
communism has been considered by the world as the potential enemy
to the human society. It is against human right and it is abusive
in power. Also it has potential of initiating world war.

>  That's a prediction of somebody who hate China and dreams of chaos occur in
>China every day and night. He is the one "Wei2 Kong3 Tian1 Xia4 Bu4 Luan4"!

My prediction is an objective prediction. It bears no wishes. There
is a Murphy's law, if something is wrong, it will be wrong. Have you
ever asked the question why should I hate China? Do you believe I
am a normal person? You are only guessing. You cannot say I hate
China because you dislike my prediction.

How about I change my prediction to that communism will prevail in the
world and China will become the leader of communism? It would probably
make you happy, but doesn't sound practical.

>Your predicted "two" possible outcomes. In fact is "One" outcome, "two" steps.
>First the CCP die abruptly, second chaos and civil war occur after CCP die.
>Just like what's happening in the Yugoslavia and USSR. I definitely do not want
>to see such an outcome. A more possible outcome is China will go the same path
>as Taiwan had gone: peaceful transition.

I did mean TWO outcomes instead of one, you are distorting my arguement.
The first one is that communism will die and China will join the world.
The second one is that communism resists to die and there will be a
civil war.

>  You are right that if you are against the world, you are in trouble. The USA
>is not in trouble at all. Not because the USA is not against the world, but
>because the whole world DARE NOT be against the USA.   Just look at today's
>world. When USA is abusing Iraq just like the LA police abuse the black man
>because of a minor guilty, who in the world dares to give a damn shit? Not
>even China who have the veto in the UN.

China has already singled itself as an target of the world because of
its communism and its crime against civillians in 89. Why you are protecting
Iraq? It was the aggressor. I think Iraq deserve to be punished. 

I think American people did give a damn shit to the LA police abuse.
TV and mass medium reported (that is how you knew it). China did not
give a damn shit to the killing of thousands of students and civillians,
no news media dare to give a damn shit on it. That is the difference.
Very solid difference.

>---HAMLET
>


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby)
Subject: Re: BASIC DECENCY
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 10:41:30 GMT

129.83.161.10 (H. Chao) writes:

>> October 2, 1992
>> 
>> To: President George Bush
>> Re: Bill S1216
>> 
>> Please veto this bill.  It is damaging the interests, equal rights, and equal
>> opportunities of Chinese nationals who arrived in this country after April 11
>> 1990.

>This reminds me of an ancient Chinese story - using two peaches to kill
>three persons.  Another story is that throw one bone and watch two dogs
>fight.  Funny?  Interesting?  or just a sad story?  I really don't
>know.

Yes, I sometimes wonder why the USA supplied arms and supports to both
KMT and CCP during the Civil War.

-- 
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."
From: dzhuo@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dongpei Zhuo)
Subject: "Long time no see!" -- Is it Chinese?
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Date: 27 Sep 92 04:55:41 GMT

I have often heard the phrase "long time no see" recently (not by Chinese
people). Has anybody else heard it? It sounds like a
literal translation of Chinese "Duo1 Ri4 Bu2 Jian4" or "Hao2 Jiu3 Bu2 Jian4",
and it does not sound pure English (grammatically). Is it Chinese at all?

Similarly, "no problem" was not taught in any traditional English textbook
either. Chinese say "Mei2 Wen4 Ti2" all the time, although Taiwanese don't.
Does it come from Chinese? Or are they slang?

Dongpei Zhuo
University of California, Irvine
From: tc2u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Tieju Chen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Learn from Lei Feng (Was Re: Oct 1, Our National Day)
Date: 6 Oct 92 07:38:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.4eoPA5600io2AA0F8Z
Distribution: world
Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

you people never learn!!!

Lei Feng was one of the biggest lie that CCP ever invent. It has always
amazed me how people can ever believed such a big lie pushed by the CCP.
I doubted that anyone evev tried to verify the existence of such a
person.

screw Lei Feng, the cold-blood faked model setup by the CCP.

-tie ju
From: yu@chang.asd.sgi.com (Yu Chang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: ROC vs PRC
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:08:41 GMT
Reply-To: yu@chang.asd.sgi.com (Yu Chang)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA

In article <1992Sep28.213259.867@unine.ch>, Congzhong.Wang@info.unine.ch
writes:
|> In article <1992Sep28.175106.8622@odin.corp.sgi.com>,
yu@chang.asd.sgi.com (Yu Chang) writes:
|> > 
|> > I had never been a great student on the subject of history but
|> > was not it n-korea crossed 38th parallel first. CCP+n-korea won
quite a few
|> > battles and captured a few US generals inclding a 2-star before MacArthur
|> > came in. If I remeber it right, even seoul was (or soon-to-be) lost
to n-korea.
|> 
|>   What you said is true and this is now known in mainland. Only 4 or 5 years
|> ago, someone in mainland wrote some bao4 gao4 wen2 xue2 about Korea
war. One's
|> name is "Black Snow", another one is sth. like "Story of Chinese Volountiers
|> Army POW". I heard that in the war some ex-KMT army surrendered to US.
|>  

Exactly.
As a matter of fact, everyone from TAIWAN should remember the origin of
1-2-3 liberty day (January 23rd). Most of the chinese POW during korea war
decided not to go back to mainland and instead go to taiwan.
What KMT did not reveal at the time was majority of those POWs went to taiwan
was ex-KMT army that stayed in mainland after 1949.

CCP applied the "Jay4 Dau1 Sah1 Ren2" (borrow knife to kill a person)
stretegy and used the ex-KMT army to fight US thus the problems caused by
the ex-KMT army disappeared because eventually they are either killed or
captured (probably volunteerly). 

I think I got this from the same source of yours (bao4 gao4 wen2 xue2).
My memory is fuzzy but I also believe it commented that was one of the reason
CCP actively partipated in the korea-war because CCP wanted to get rid of
the still-huge ex-KMT army left in mainland.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,talk.politics.china
From: xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li)
Subject: Why China Missed Its Big Chance?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:18:18 GMT

When Father Matteo Ricci and his fellow Jesuit missionaries visited
Beijing in 1601, they brought two clocks of Italian design as gifts
for the Emperor Wan Li. The larger of the two astounded his courtiers,
Ricci later wrote, because it was "a work the like of which had never
seen, nor heard in Chinese history".

In fact, as historian Daniel J. Boorstin recounted in The Discoveries,
500 years earlier a civil servant named Su Sung had built a remarkably
accurate astronomical clock for his Emperor. But when a new ruler
was crowned in 1094, officials, according to custom, decreed that his
predecessor's calendar had been faulty. Su Sung's 30-ft-tall "heavenly
clock-work" was abandoned. By the 17th century, it was a legend known
to only a few scholars.

Su Sung's clock points to a great historical puzzle. Why did China,
where so many things were invented, exploit its creativity so poorly?
The Chinese discovered paper and movable type, yet the country was
virtually illiterate until 20th century. Gunpowder was also invented
in China, yet its cannons were inferior to those made by Europeans.
China's bustling cities, despite their vitality, never stimulated
the intellectual ferment that in European led to innovation.

Part of the explanation is the dominant role in China's history
played by the bureaucracy, which was intensely conservative, and
by Confucian philosophy, which emphasize order, continuity and
stability. Ricci noted that the Chinese word for their country,
Thienhia (Tian Xia), meant "everything under the heavens." Believing
that China was superior to other nations, officials of the imperial
court were leery of innovation and humiliated to learn that something
had been done better elsewhere. Like its artist, historian J. M.
Robert notes, China's governing elite "strove to imitate and
emulate the best, but the best was always the past."


				-TIME-