HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zhang@csgrad.cs.vt.edu (Yaoen Zhang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Science History of China
Date: 5 Jan 93 21:33:17 GMT
Organization: VPI&SU Computer Science Department, Blacksburg, VA



>In article <1993Jan4> leung@DSG.Tandem.COM (Steven Leung) writes:
>4. Newsfeature: Study Says Math Easier in Chinese ......... 78

>>COLUMBIA, Mo. U.S.A. -- Little Johnny can't add as quickly as students in
>>China because his language has more tongue-tying arithmetic words, a new
>>study suggests.
>> 
>>And even the slight difference between the pronunciation of the Chinese word
>>"yi" and its English translation "one" contributes to a math gap that the
>>study says puts China's elementary school students ahead of those in the
>>United States.
>> 

I have a question about the Math history of China.  I read a
book called  "The Main Stream of World Civilization" a couple years
back.  I remembered it mentioned that it was a milestone in
science in Western Civilization to change from hexadecimal system 
(base is 16) to decimal system (base 10).  The decimal system
use Arab numbers (such as "0 1 2 ",which is actually invented in India).

Recently I have been reading some ancient Chines articles.  I
have found that people use decimal system in around 330 B.C.
(about 2200 years back).  For example, fifty five (in Chinese,
i.e., wu2 shi2 wu2).   

The question is wether our ancesters were using decimal system
through out the known history of our civilization.

Yaoen Zhang
zhang@csgrad.cs.vt.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: joy@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Chien-Chung Chen)
Subject: Re: China(was More than 50% support TI)
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:13:23 GMT

In article <C0C2n9.Lq@ulowell.ulowell.edu> cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi) writes:
>>From the numbers I've seen, it's always been my impression that the Great
>>Plains area in central United States has always been the most productive.
>
>One of my major was economic geography. Please trust me on those, they are
>facts and  can be easily verified. Unfortunately I do not have figure handy.
>If you realy have doubt and curious enough, any extensive geography book or
>economic statistics book will help.

I'm not an economic geography major, so I don't have any extensive geography
book or economic statistics book at hand. Since you are, you must have easy
access to these books. Could you take the trouble to check the figure and
post it on SCT? It's hard for me to trust these "facts" simply because you
say they are facts.

Even though China does have the most fertile land on earth, it doesn't
mean Taiwan's land is as fertile as Mainland. (Lee Hong-Zhang said Taiwan
is a place where "birds don't sing and flowers don't give fragrance.")
Why do other countries (like US in your theory) want to take over Taiwan
where the land is not fertile? Whether China's land is fertile seems
irrelevant to the intention of Western countries to take over Taiwan.

On the other hand, if Taiwanese people prefer to become part of US instead
of China (just an assumption), shouldn't China government feel ashamed of
itself for not being able to provide Taiwanese people better life? Ignoring
Taiwanese people's own will, you insist that Taiwanese are stupid and
manipulated by western countries and China has right to send troop to
liberate Taiwan. This really pisses me off.

Think for yourself what's wrong with China government. If China continues
to ignore human right and refuse democracy, more and more Taiwanese will
give up their hope for China and support Taiwan's independence.

Stop supporting CCP's totalitarian government. Tell folks in China about
human right and democracy. Without China being a democratic country,
peaceful unification is impossible.

-- Chien-Chung Chen
Xref: sparky soc.culture.taiwan:16925 soc.culture.china:34372
From: stsai@acsu.buffalo.edu (Shuoh-Ren Tsai)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Any experience of discrimination in school?  HELP!!
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:11:44 GMT
Organization: UB

From: hongbin@leland.Stanford.EDU (Hongbin Isaac Liu)

>What kind of discrimination is it? Is it related to his grades? research?
>Does he have evidence to support that? 
>If your friend thinks the grade is not fair because he is a Chinese, I suggest 
>him to talk to the prof. first, tell him what he thinks. If that's not enough,
>and your friend has enough evidence for discrimination, he should talk to
>his department graduate advisor, the department chairman, then the Ass. Dean
>for student affairs, the Studnet Body, the University and local NAACP office,
>and hire a lawyer, maybe he can help your friend to win some money.
>Be careful when precedd to next level, I suggest him to stop as soon as he gets
>what he want, such as a fair grade.He should stand up for his right. Isaac

Hi,
  No one wants to do that until he/she is graduated. And no one would like
to spend so much time to do it. Everyone just thinks about how to survive.
Usually it is hard to collect evidences to prove the discrimination. Even you
go to court, it is hard to win. My suggestion is to keep away from those people
who discriminates Taiwanese/Chinese. You still have other chances to show your
capability. Thanks.
 
--
Shuoh-Ren Tsai
stsai@acsu.buffalo.edu
Graduate student, Dept.of Elec.& Comp.Eng, Univ. at Buffalo
From: tsen+@MM.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Chung Kang Tsen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: [dead line]applying for graduate school
Date: 9 Jan 93 10:48:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0L20s.BML.1
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Originator: tsen@MM.GP.CS.CMU.EDU

I am now applying for graduate school in the States,
the info I need is as follows :

 1) Phone No. f the Admission Office or Graduate School of:

     Auburn U.(Alabama)
     California State U. at Northridge
     Oregon State U.

 2) Fax No. & 3) E-mail address
     

 Your kindness would be greatly appreciated.

 ----------------------------------------------Jerry .C. Wang--0110,1846,'93---
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi)
Subject: Re: Is TI so rossy?
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell Computer Science
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:44:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.021355.4984@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> li@sicvax.enet.dec.com (Tom Li) writes:
>
>In article <C0B4y7.CHt@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi) writes...
>>In article <V-c=hsA@engin.umich.edu> echang@engin.umich.edu writes:
>>>
>>>In article <C0AJ4q.3qr@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi) writes:
>>>
>>>Reading your articles is like reading stories written by someone from the Mars. Furthermore, it seems to me that Martians are going to conquer the Earth!
>>>
>>Just want to wake somebody up, want conquer nobody, too much mess.
>
>We also want to wake you up, that is, understand who is really causing the 
>China/Taiwan problem. CCP.
Who caused the problem is not as important as how to solve the problem.

Taiwan is holding unification as hostage, in excuse of CCP, and refuses 
contact with mainland. This may cause  Chinese people disaster, if not managed
carefully, given some nation are taking advantage of the situation.

Xref: sparky soc.culture.taiwan:16998 soc.culture.china:34453
From: jfeng@vax.cns.muskingum.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Why mainlanders are so mixed up?
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:33:50 -0500
Distribution: na
Organization: Muskingum College

.
>>Finally I have found the reason why the CCP keeps killing but stays. With people
>>having minds as above, the CCP will keep suppressing and killing to eliminate
>>the different voices.
>>
> 
> It is surprising to see that you attack people by misinterpretation. The 
> original sentence was talking about irrational discussions, not about 
> differences. It is too easy foy you to attack people by labeling others by
> CCP or CCG. I hope that you will allow others to have their opinions as 
> much as you want to youself. I am sorry to say that I cannot see that your
> post is rational labeling others by CCP supporters because they have different
> jugements on KMT.
> 
> -KZ

	*** I don't find it surprising at all.  If you look at his articles
over time, you will find unreasonably accusing, illogically attacking, and
irrationally bashing is his typical behavior pattern.  His irrationality is
really sickening.  
Xref: sparky soc.culture.taiwan:16921 soc.culture.china:34353
From: stlin@stevelin.Eng.Sun.COM (Steven Lin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.china
Subject: Why mainlanders are so mixed up?
Date: 11 Jan 1993 20:15:07 GMT
Organization: Sun
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: stevelin

In article <1993Jan11.171150.26968@oakhill.sps.mot.com> (Jack Wu) writes:
>In article <C0JIAJ.Ap@ulowell.ulowell.edu> cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi) writes: 
>>Who caused the problem is not as important as how to solve the problem.

Oh yeah? So who killed Chinese people is not important, who can take control
Chinese people is more important, hunh?

>>Taiwan is holding unification as hostage, in excuse of CCP, and refuses
>>contact with mainland. This may cause  Chinese people disaster, if not managed
>>carefully, given some nation are taking advantage of the situation.

ROC has no will to unify under the CCP, don't you guys get it?
Taiwan has no intention to unify with mainland under CCP ruling, don't you know?
Taiwan is the hope of Chinese in moving toward democracy, don't you get it?
If it was not CCP, who would have caused millions of Chinese people killed for
no reasons? It it is not CCP, who is that stupid to push China backward for
30-40 years? If it is not CCP, how come a properious Shanghai became a humble
old-man like city? If it is not CCP, why all Chinese became blue uniform
citizens (don't you know blue class under the CCP is slave?)?
>                  -----------
>Sounds like a CCP's propaganda. I guess your SOME NATION is implying
>the Red China. Wake up, jerk. Only the CCP wants to take advantage from
>both Hong-Kong and Taiwan. Tell your CCP the unification is already dead
>after Tianman Square Massacre. Only jerks like you will believe them.
>
You may wish to unify Taiwan under CCP, but the free world has no wish
to do so. If Taiwan ever comes the time under CCP, Chinese is dead of hope
on democracy forever! Not even think of it!


Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: changhp@engin.umich.edu (Hsiou-Ping Chang)
Subject: Re: President Lee's Speech (News from UPI)
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 04:27:21 EST
Organization: The University of Michigan
Reply-To: echang@engin.umich.edu
Originator: changhp@fijan.engin.umich.edu


In article <1i8up2INNbac@aludra.usc.edu>, hsiwang@usc.edu (Hsi-Chun Wang) writes:
> Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international
> Subject: Taiwan leader calls for reform, democracy in China
> Date: 4 Jan 93 07:15:09 GMT
> 
> 
> 	``At present there exist two equal political entities,'' Lee
> said.  ``Any position not based on this fact is not realistic.''
	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
	Agree.
> 
> 	Both Beijing and Taipei claim sovereignty over all China,
> Taiwan included.

	This is not very realistic, isn't it?
Xref: sparky soc.culture.taiwan:16857 soc.culture.china:34222
From: chen@digital.sps.mot.com (Jinfu Chen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: See far enough?
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:14:20 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.taiwan
Distribution: usa
Organization: Motorola, LICD, SPS, Mesa, AZ

In article <1idml8INN5g4@pollux.usc.edu> cheng@pollux.usc.edu (Chien-Ming Cheng) writes:
>Guys, please be more reasonable!!!
>
>The ability of Mr. See Far is to predict what is going to happen in
>two or three years at least. 

That's your expectation, not See Far himself, see his following prediction:

--
What is the Final Outcome for China's current 	situation? 
In China, 1992, (Lee Huan of) Taiwan will liberate Mainland!
--a prediction appearing in Usenet since Sept 1989.-----


Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: liaohen@cbnews.cb.att.com (Heng-Hsin Liao)
Subject: Re: Is TI so rossy?
Organization: AT&T Bell Lab
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:35:31 GMT

From article <1993Jan5.130624.13172@topaz.ucq.edu.au>, by huangz@topaz.ucq.edu.au:
> 	The point is: today we are lucky to have relatively steady
> political and economical situation to have a chance to work together.
> The main Chinese parties, KMT and CCP are becoming mature after long
> time growing. But today some people intend to break this peaceful
> moment, bring kind of revolutionary mood into the society. They don't
> realise the huge uncertainty and risk, like you. History has the rule 
> of "locality" too, similar things happen, then happen again. How
> do you get so certain that TI will be an exception??? You never
> convience me a bit.        

If people in China still want to treat China and Taiwan as one single
society and apply one kind of rules to both, things will be very hard
to work out.

Who intend to break the peaceful moment? People in Taiwan that support
TI using their votes or CCP that threaten to supress TI by force?

I am glad to see that "revolution" is gradually replaced by "evolution"
in China. I can imagine your response to a smell of "revolutionary"
mood. But who define that someone is generating this mood? It is CCP and
some people in China. Hey, we treat it as an evolution in Taiwan! Please
stop throwing China's rules and definitions to Taiwan. We are two
societies.

You believe in history. Fine. Some people like me believe in people in
Taiwan. They have their wisdom to do the right thing.

How about tell us the story of 1683 between China and Taiwan (Qing and
Zheng Family) and tell us will the "locality" rule apply again.

Heng-Hsin

Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: tsen+@cs.cmu.edu (Chung Kang Tsen)
Subject: Re: email in Taiwan?
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
   
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:11:16 GMT

Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: jackw@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Jack Wu)
Subject: Re: Is TI so rossy?
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:59:36 GMT

Sounds like a CCP's propaganda. I guess your SOME NATION is implying
the Red China. Wake up, jerk. Only the CCP wants to take advantage from
both Hong-Kong and Taiwan. Tell your CCP fellows the unification is already
dead after Tianman Square Massacre. Only jerks like you will believe it.




Jack Wu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: zliao@engin.umich.edu (Canhai Lai)
Subject: Please be nice when you find mistakes in other's posting.
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 00:57:16 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: usa

In article <C0AIrG.3p6@ulowell.ulowell.edu> <1993Jan3.221529.6807@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> <C0B1ns.AI3@ulowell.ulowell.edu>
From: nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu), Mr. Lu wrote:

>>China has land that can produce  three harvests of rice and one harvest of
>>weeds for fertilizer.

>Hmmm...  Why do you want to produce weeds?  Or do you mean seaweed?  Yum!

>(Sorry; I know that you meant "wheat," but I just can't resist it.)

 Whenever I see this kind of argument, I feel sad. For example,
a gentleman laugh at another gentleman "same a file" when he did
know that meant "save a file".

 Unfortunately, for this case, I do know "why do you want to produce weeds".
I grew up from countryside, where the farms did grow a kind of weed called
'Zi3 Wen2 Yin1' (That's Mainland Chinese Pinyin, the pronunciation maybe wrong)
in winter, the weed has very beautiful flower(this is not important), 
and can fertilize the land(this is the purpose of producing the weed).
This kind of weeds is no longer grown in my hometown because
more efficient chemical fertilizer is available.

 Actually, from logic, Mr. Lu shall have known that ">>weeds for fertilizer."
can not mean wheat.                                              ^^^^^^^^^^

 My English is very poor, and my arguments may be wrong,
welcome any criticize. But please do not 
laugh at me when you find mistakes in my posting. Thanks!


Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: China(was More than 50% support TI)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:12:31 GMT

In article <C0pp2E.1no@ulowell.ulowell.edu> cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi) writes:

>>Please do explain "again."  You haven't explained anything yet.
>OK! last time I hope this will turn you to "Unificationist"(Just kiding).
>
>Let me try from another angle.
>Why China possesed richest land?
>
Is it a trick question?

My point has been, that China does, and did, not possess the richest land
in the world.  You, of course, have continued to evade my evidences that
question that assertion of yours.  And that topic really isn't relevant to
unification.

I am an unificationist, if you define one as one who favors unification, but
I *don't* advocate unification under the present instance of the Chinese
Communist Party, and I definitely view it as atrocious aggression if mainland
attacks Taiwan by force, under *any* circumstances (save perhaps the case
where Taiwan attacks mainland first, which is rather unlikely).

I am against Taiwanese independence, but I am for the *right* for Taiwanese
independence.  The Taiwanese people, with all facts considered, should have
the right to determine if they want to be reunified to China, independent, or
even be in some other political struction (e. g., a rather unlikely
confederation with the Phillippines and ASEAN countries).  No one should
be allowed to make that choice for the people.

I think that unification, due to the fact that Taiwan lacks natural and labor
resources and that mainland lacks certain technology and manufacturing
expertise, would benefit both parts.  However, that is *no* excuse for anyone
to be attacking anyone else militarily.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi)
Subject: Re: Is TI so rossy?
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell Computer Science
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:52:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.054639.10712@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.044726.29075@zip.eecs.umich.edu> joy@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Chien-Chung Chen) writes:
>
>>Do you mean CCP is just bluffing? So Taiwan won't be attacked by China?
>>Or you are just fooling "stupid" Taiwanese?
>
>No, he's just inheriting Gannedy Yaneyev's bold talks.  (If you still remember
>Yaneyev, he was the vice president of the Soviet Union when the failed coup,
>of which he was a party, happened.  A Soviet expert at the time said, "To
>compare Gannedy Yaneyev to Dan Quayle is an insult to Dan Quayle.")
>
>Just as Yaneyev boldly (well, his hands were shaking when he read those
>documents, but...) announced that the reforms would be reversed and that the
>Soviet Union would not fall apart, so now Mr. Shi is boldly announcing that
>China would be conquering everyone when it becomes strong enough.
Push me into river in order to accuse me wet.

Xref: sparky soc.culture.taiwan:16994 soc.culture.china:34450
From: jfeng@vax.cns.muskingum.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Why mainlanders are so mixed up?
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:07:52 -0500
Distribution: na
Organization: Muskingum College

In article <ll62v8INN5gq@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, stlin@stevelin.Eng.Sun.COM (Steven Lin) writes:
> In article <1993Jan12.103401.4262@vax.cns.muskingum.edu> jfeng@vax.cns.muskingum.edu writes:
>>In article <1itilpINN8oj@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>, utingli@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Tingli Pan) writes:
>>> 
>>> stronger and stronger. And if Mr. Lin is still hanging on with KMT, then
>>> KMT's days are countable. Sign.....
>>>>>                  -----------
>>I agree with you.  If he is not capable of 
>>rational discussions, he'd better stay out of the way.  
>>
> To Pan's unfounded accusation, I have to ignore it as what Pan's ignored TAM.
> Finally I have found the reason why the CCP keeps killing but stays. With people
> having minds as above, the CCP will keep suppressing and killing to eliminate
> the different voices.
> 

	*** I am sickened by the way you reacted.  When someone expresses an
opinion different from yours, you accuse him/her of being a CCP supporter. 
Frankly, I am not a CCP supporter at all. I am just trying to have meaningful
conversations on topics of interest with netters out there.  Every time when
you disagree, you simply attack people who do not agree with you, offereing no
rational explanations whatsoever.  We are here to discuss, to exchange
opinions, and to try to reach common understandings, but not to accuse, or to
attack, or to bash one another.  The kind of attitude you have is real
sickening. (so, how do you like this little "attack"?)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan
From: cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi)
Subject: Re: Is TI so rossy?
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell Computer Science
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:58:33 GMT

In article <C0C0LJ.Ktv@ecf.toronto.edu> huangs@ecf.toronto.edu (HUANG SUNG CHING) writes:
>In article <C0AJ4q.3qr@ulowell.ulowell.edu> cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi) writes:
>>   2. Hostility will not be limited aournd the straight. mainland is now
>>possesing the capacity the do or not do somethind in the world which will
>>have major impact on potential interventionists. And if they do intervene, 
>>they better succeed, or they will have more to lose. If China have military
>>build up, say from current 3% of GNP to 60% of GNP, we will not limit the 
>>conflict to Taiwan, that for sure.
>
>    Does that mean that Mainland China will be first to launch a nuclear strike
>on U. S.?
>
You see, again. People are used to use inference to reason: apply "golden" rules
to instance. Never quetioned those rules. Before British found reason by
induction, those were prevailing way of reason. It is still only or major way
to reason for people who are religious, superstitious. 

Xref: sparky soc.culture.taiwan:16963 soc.culture.china:34415
From: jfeng@vax.cns.muskingum.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Why mainlanders are so mixed up?
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:34:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Muskingum College

In article <1itilpINN8oj@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>, utingli@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Tingli Pan) writes:
> In article <ll3labINNki@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> stlin@stevelin.Eng.Sun.COM (Steven Lin) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan11.171150.26968@oakhill.sps.mot.com> (Jack Wu) writes:
>>>In article <C0JIAJ.Ap@ulowell.ulowell.edu> cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi) writes: 
>>
> .....
> 
>>ROC has no will to unify under the CCP, don't you guys get it?
>>Taiwan has no intention to unify with mainland under CCP ruling, don't you know?
>>Taiwan is the hope of Chinese in moving toward democracy, don't you get it?
>>If it was not CCP, who would have caused millions of Chinese people killed for
>>no reasons? It it is not CCP, who is that stupid to push China backward for
>>30-40 years? If it is not CCP, how come a properious Shanghai became a humble
>>old-man like city? If it is not CCP, why all Chinese became blue uniform
>>citizens (don't you know blue class under the CCP is slave?)?
> 
> Having being in the net for more than one year, I've read many many
> articles from different point. ... ... But only Mr. Lin
> with his work supporting KMT brings trouble to KMT. No doubt there are
> many people over here holding the opinion as KMT, but with Mr. Lin's
> involvement, I believe fewer and fewer people dare to stand up in showing
> their sympathy to KMT.  
>  
> I don't know what happens to KMT, is it so desperate that they can
> tolerate the person as Mr. Lin as its front end in scc. Or might be it
> is KMT's nature which causes its losing China. (We all know that KMT's
> propaganda department before 1949 was a joke) No wonder that DPP becomes
> stronger and stronger. And if Mr. Lin is still hanging on with KMT, then
> KMT's days are countable. Sign.....
>>>                  -----------
> Tingli Pan    


	*** Eh, Tingli, you got some good points there, especially in regard to 
some Lin's irrational behavior.  I agree with you.  If he is not capable of 
rational discussions, he'd better stay out of the way.