HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yewang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Yenwen Wang)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 01:09:15 GMT

In article <BuFGy2.C4B@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li) writes:
>
>There is no evidence that Taiwan government cares about mainland's
>human right. When mainland Chinese people need their voice, they were
>coward. Now they are buying F-16s. I don't see any good wishes from
>the Taiwanese government toward mainlanders. They are selfish and it
>is impossible for them to realize their ambition.
>
Selfish? What about the 'Hope Project' for the schoolkids on the
mainland? How about the donations to the flood victims? For
a goverment so looked down on and threatened by CCP, you expect ROC to
do how much? Heaven helps those who help themselves.

>If they still love China and the Chinese culture, the mainland is open
>to them. We have Yellow River, Yangtz River, Taishang Mountain, Great
>Wall, Beijing, Nainjing, Shanghai.... all only in their dream and
>text book. What do they have? Taipei? Never have any idea about it.
>They can come to American alright, but it is not theirs.
>
>We Chinese don't like current government either, but things will change.
>We still love our culture, our mountains and rivers, our stories about
>beautiful woman Yang Guifei.
>
Who doesn't want that? But first we need to learn to treat different voices
and different people with respect.

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Yenwen Wang                        wangy@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu
  The Ohio State University          yewang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25559 soc.culture.taiwan:13372
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view. (Was: Who Cares 150 F-16s.)
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:55:42 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.china
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <1992Sep14.140247.28585@news.acns.nwu.edu> usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu (Usenet on news.acns) writes:
>If I had power to curse people to death, 
>I would curse hundreds and thousands of times those evil-minded people 
>who promote wars.

me> Do you not see the contradiction in the statement you just made?

>Please enlight me. (In your opinion, people who love peace could not hate  
>Hitler, right?)

I believe in what Socrates said in that no person knowingly does evil.
People only do what is evil when they do not sufficiently understand
what is good.

When a Serb hates and kills a Croat, the Serb does what he or she
thinks is good.  When a Croat hates and kills a Serb, the Serb does
what he or she thinks is good.  But hatred only results in more
hatred, and killing only results in more killing.

It's best to try and reduce the amount of hate and the amount of
killing.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: wcwang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Wei-Chi Wang)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 06:32:28 GMT

In article <BuCEr5.JB9@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li) writes:

>It takes at least five years to deliver all 150 F-16s.
>With 150 F-16s, Taiwanese is still not strong enough to
>attack mainland people. Without F-16s, if Taiwanese want

I really don't think Taiwan will attack mainland.

>"liberation" of Taiwan. After five years, these plans
>may be nothing but toys. After all, the American are not

Toys?  How about MIG-29 after five years?

>than to Taiwan. In that case I would still prefer to use
>the 4 billion for something else instead of buying these
>toys for a few pilots.

Yes, I agree, if there is no threat from mainland.  $4 billion is not a small
potato, but why most people in Taiwan (as I know) like to see this deal?  
Think about it.

>I think the Chinese government is over worried and the
>Taiwanese is over joyed. What a big deal!

I am really not a picky person, but this reminds me to check my dictionary
every time I write something.

Wei-Chi Wang
 


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:11:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.231936.1@max.u.washington.edu> cangyuan@max.u.washington.edu writes:
>
>I also think China has reasons to be upset with the US, which just recently
>pressed China not to sell arms to the middle east.  

There is gain and loss. The US will have less say on China's
arm sale. The Chinese government may say: look, you sell most
advanced jet fighter to someone who has direct threat to me,
why can't I sell arms to someone who have nothing to do with you?

Well, so long as China does not care about business with American.
It is an even deal, at least for what we can see.


Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25524 soc.culture.taiwan:13342 soc.culture.hongkong:10741
From: shanwang@sara.cc.utu.fi
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
Subject: Re: The AutuMid-Autumn Festival ( Lunar Ship )
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:03:13 GMT
Organization: University of Turku, Finland

In article <1992Sep12.175708.13218@dsg.tandem.com>, leung@DSG.Tandem.COM (Steven Leung) writes:
> jamesou@liverbug.hsc.usc.edu (James Ou) writes:
> |> lix@xanadu.bu.edu (Xiaowen Li) wrote:
> |> >Unfotunately, Ms. Chang-O's life is miserable on the Moon.
> |> Yes, Chang-O's life is miserable. She has to live in the wide
> |> and cold palace (Guang3 Han2 Gong1) by herself. Even Tang poets
> |> pitied her. They said:
> |> 
> |>      Chang-O Ying1 Hui3 Tou1 Ling2 Yao4,
> |>      Bi4 Hai3 Qing1 Tian1 Ye4 Ye4 Xin1.
> |>      (Chang-O must be feeling sorry about stealing the immortal
> |>       drug. She is lonely and has only the blue ocean and sky to
> |>       accompany her.)
> 
> Well, I think you two old folks are just spreading old misconceptions :)
> Of course, the old old misconception is that Lady Chang is happy forever
> ever since she has been on the moon. But I think both views are extremes
> and the reality is probably falling somewhere in between. First, Lady
> Chang is not lonely. Alright, Lady Chang and Wu may not know each other
> originally, (and forget who gets there first), but after so many years
> they are still unrelated? I don't believe it! Besides, Lady Chang at least
> has escaped from the possible domestic violence considering Hou Yi's 
> behavior. ... But on the other hand, facing the same person for several
> scores of years is already pretty scary as well as trying, let alone
> thousands of years. So, taking all these into account, I think Lady Chang
> is probably like most of us: sometimes happy and sometimes miserable, but
> most of the time neither happy nor miserable.
> 
> PS. Poets feel miserable more times than non-poets. And when the great
> poet Li felt miserable, he apparently tried to make somebody look more
> miserable than he so as to make his misery bearable. I guess we all do
> that although we don't necessarily make poem. And that is why we all
> like his poem.
> 
\ >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ >>
\ >>	Hmmm... I change the idea now 8-) we can also name that  lunar ship
\ >>	" Wu Gang " rather than " Hou Yi " :) But if there are a twin-craft
\ >>	operation. I perfer another ship named " Hou Yi " rather than "Jade
\ >>	Rabbit " 8-) So we deal now 8) 
\ >>
\ >>	PS. I also like poems and sometimes write some. Sometimes in a poem 
\ >>	the miserable life is more moved than a happy life. Actually Li-Bai
\ >>	don't always write pressive or depress style poem. I haven't read a
\ >>	a lot. At least << Wang Lu Shan >> is such a style . 
\ >>
\ >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Change in spelling of Chinese names
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:09:35 GMT

In article <lbci03INNj9h@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> stlin@stevelin.Eng.Sun.COM (Steven Lin) writes:
>In article <1992Sep15.181038.28892@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> (RRobert M Sanders) writes:
>
>>The pinyin (not 'pin yin') convention for dealing with words in which there 
>>might be ambiguity as to where to parse the syllable is to insert an apostrophe
>>into the boundary separating the two syllables. 
>
>This "Pinyin" system does not give advantage to English speaker. It is a ironclad
>rule to put Chinese word pronounciation to equivalent English alphabetic. Still,

Is is NOT an ironclad rule to put Chinese words' pronounciation to
equivalent English alphabets.  PinYin alphabets are not English alphabets,
they are a latinized form, sure.  The purpose of PinYin is to teach all Chinese,
particularly for kids in school, the proper pronounciation of words in 
Mandarin, that's all.  And use it to unify english translation of Chinese
names and places is probably a good idea, since all the different type
of spelling from dialects are so confusing, even to Chinese.  


>there is no equivalent between Chinese and western pronounication (Chinese is so
>unique in some pronouniciations). In fact it makes English speaking people more
>confusion in learning Chinese. To those interested in learning Chinese have to

I don't think so, a Latinized system is easier for a lot of people to
learn the correct pronounciaton of Chinese words -- I learned it that
way in elementary school, although kids my age(7-8)  already understood and spoke 
Mandarian to a large degree.  

>get down the details of Pinyin system. If you skip that step, you are still not
>able to pronounce Chinese correctly. For instance, He (ho), Shanxi and Shannxi,
>den and deng, cui, cong, zhxxx,...., what sense to make an English speaking 
>person pronounce Chinese correctly?  No, N O .

All languages have their confusion points, it makes every sense to make
it clear.  
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.hongkong,soc.culture.taiwan
From: li@sicvax.enet.dec.com (Tong-Kang Li)
Subject: Re: Why don't you stay ?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 03:03:18 GMT


In article <13SEP199210432939@phobos.ucc.umass.edu>, s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194) writes...
>In article <1992Sep11.091557.11196@nuscc.nus.sg>, elelyc@nuscc.nus.sg (Y.C. Liang) writes...
> 
>None of the above you mentioned represents SOVEREIGNTY. Hong Kong has
>all the above you mentioned, but nobody would say it is a independent
>country. Everybody knows that it is a colony of Great Britain. Most
>of the people in today's world know the problem of Taiwan: it is the
>result of the WWII and the cold war. Most people in this world would 
>not say it is a LEGITIMATE, SOVEREIGN country. 

>None of the above you mentioned represents SOVEREIGNTY. Hong Kong has
>all the above you mentioned, but nobody would say it is a independent
>country. Everybody knows that it is a colony of Great Britain. Most
>of the people in today's world know the problem of Taiwan: it is the
>result of the WWII and the cold war. Most people in this world would 
>not say it is a LEGITIMATE, SOVEREIGN country. 

If based on your theory, PRC was NOT a LEGITIMATE, SOVEREIGN country until 
she entered UN. Do you agree? If so, what was she?

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view. (Was: Who Cares 150 F-16s.)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 06:04:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.030641.14599@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> utingli@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Tingli Pan) writes:

>Think from the point of view from Chinese and British government. They
>will consider Taiwan or IRA as groups against the government. 

Think from the point of view from the Yugoslav government.  They will
consider Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia-Hercegovina as groups against the
government.  Yeah right.

>Someone just mentioned about offence and defence. But usually the winner
>have the last say. I believe the selling of F-16 is more symbolic than a
>military one to both CCP and KMT. Of course to America, it is just a
>matter of money. I guess Bush even wishes to sell more F-16 to China.

But what is so wrong with Bush wanting to sell weapons to Taiwan that you have
to be so against it?

The United States should be selling the weapons for its own benefits; the fact
that China objects should not be a concern, other than possibilities that the
Chinese objections will bring results that are not desirable for the United
States.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: utingli@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Tingli Pan)
Subject: Re: The purpose of a country. (Was: F-16's fear?)
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:49:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.203846.25381@zip.eecs.umich.edu> cyc@z.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang) writes:
>>
......
>>- Allan
>
>Even though, I still don't see why Taiwanese should consider to unite with
>China. To be on your own boss in a small company will always let you make 
>more money than being employed in a big or huge company, isn't it ?
>If you can be a boss in a company and paid more than you are employed,
>will you consider to be employed by other companies ?
>No matter what happened to China, Taiwanese will be absolutely better 
>off if Taiwan stays away from China.
>
But what does the CEO of the larger company think. That's why there are
merges of the companies no matter the president of the smaller
company like it or not. Also they said the trouble with the Taiwan
industry is that it has too many small companies but without large size
companies, it prevents its competence in the world.

>Yi-Chieh 

Tingli Pan
From: pk99nom@pga.ts.com (Pal K.)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: BNN News
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:04:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: pga.1097
Reply-To: pk99nom@pga.ts.com (Pal K.)
Organization: Unknown

In article <liang.715625151@ash.cs.scarolina.edu> liang@cs.scarolina.edu (Da Dong Liang) writes:
>pk99nom@pga.ts.com (Pal K.) writes:
>
>>I know I am in no position to be picky on other people's English.
>>But isn't that silly to fake a piece of "network" news with such
>>an ill-mannered piece of waste? I know the author tried to sound
>>as authentic as he could, but wouldn't it be better to claim the
>>above was a translation from an article of, say, People's Daily?
>>At least that way the author could get a perfect excuse for the
>>numerous grammatical errors. An American news service, of course,
>>may also make those errors, but I gether it would spread them
>>over its lifetime.
>> ........
>
>It seems to me that your grammar is not better than T. Bao's. 
>And you lack of a sense of humor. Hope it won't keep you from
>mainstream for a lifetime.

Well. The point in my previous article was not that Bao should have
a perfect mastery of English before he can post, but it was silly
for him to try to fake an authentic news service. With his language
skill, he could only make a fool of himself. See? I was just trying to
give him a friendly advice. As to my  English grammar, I have never
claimed or tried to claim it was good. And I have never written
an article and then pretended it was from a "network" news agency.

Sense of humor? I know Bao got a sense of humor, the problem
is it is ill-mannered.
From: cyc@z.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: F-16's fear?
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:41:59 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor

In article <65500110@acf3.NYU.EDU> yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , ) writes:
>cyc@z.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang) writes:
>
>>Even so, they only recognized what ROC has lost to PRC, such as mainland
>>China, not what ROC still owned. It's true that PRC is now recognized as
>
>Only a small pecentage of people think there is such a thing called
>ROC, all others think of GMD as a rebel group, but they have control
>over Taiwan, just like Philipine Communist gurrillas have controls
>over part of that country.
>
>>Yi-Chieh
>
>Ze Yang

But, if there are more than 130 countries doing business with the group
of people you called 'rebel', isn't this a strange world ?
In a strange world, you better be careful, don't get your ass kicked by 
strange people.

Yi-Chieh
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby)
Subject: Re: Territory of Ancient China : Qin (Chin) Dynasty
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 08:05:32 GMT

Sanyee_Tang@mindlink.bc.ca (Sanyee Tang) writes:

>    If you consider yourself a nationalist then you should hang yourself :-).

I said NO PERSONAL FLAMES, *X#$*(#$^#$ !

-- 
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: soc.culture.china
From: yhan@ee.tamu.edu (Yong Han)
Subject: Re: test, ignore...
Summary: test
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:12:31 GMT


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: x0y3510@tamuts.tamu.edu (Xuejun Yang)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Organization: ~/lib/organization
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:32:43 GMT

In article <79678@ut-emx.uucp> joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang) writes:
>In article <lb20lpINNegg@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> stlin@stevelin.Eng.Sun.COM (Steven Lin) writes:
>>The collapse of CCP comes from inside, not outside. The facial strong and
>>inner weak CCP is not going to stand long on the earth.
>
>I don't think that the CCP will collapse.  I consider it much more
>likely that it will follow the path of the KMT and carry out internal
>reforms to produce a more open economic system.  Two consecutive party
>general secretaries (Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang) were removed and a
>Politburo member (Hu Qili) was demoted because they believed in a more
>open political system and were too sympathetic to calls for more
>democracy.  It seems extremely unlikely to me that only the highest
>ranking official in the CCP has these views.  It's more likely that
>their views are shared by many party members who are following the old
>Chinese tradition of thinking one thing while saying something else.
>
>I'm pretty sure that after Deng dies, one of the current members of
>the Politburo (perhaps Li Ruihuan, Zhu Rongji, or maybe even Jiang
>Zemin or Zhao Ziyang himself) will turn out to be the Mainland
>equivalent of Chiang Ching Kuo.  
>
>There are a lot resemblances between CCP/PRC-1992 and KMT/ROC-1970.
>One example is the nature of the National People's Congress meetings.
>With each passing year, NPC delegates have been getting bolder at
>challenging measures introduced by the government.  (At the last NPC
>meeting, the Three Gorges project was a matter of intense debate.)  So
>far, the NPC has not challenged the Party on a serious policy issue,
>but the trend is clear.  
>
>In the final analysis, I think the CCP will "KMT-ize" itself, not
>because I trust the CCP (because I don't), but rather because I think
>the CCP will realize what it needs to do to survive.  The people in
>Beijing are not stupid.  They've seen that the CPSU in Moscow is dead
>while the KMT in Taipei is very much alive.  I think the Beijing
>leadership can figure out what it needs to do to stay in power.
>
Agreed. After all, both parties originated from Lenninist ideas and
did the same things with only the names different. What else do you
expect?
>
>
>
>
>
From: jlam@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lord Automato)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: anonymous posting - just a test
Date: 8 Sep 92 00:05:28 GMT
Organization: University of Melbourne


In article <1992Sep07.131226.5110@jho.com>, john@jho.com (John Ho) writes:
|> abc@x.y.z writes:
|> 
|> >Hi, guys,
|> >I know you can track me down.  Could you send me e-mail?
|> 
|> One thing that REALLY bother me in SCC is the vast amount of so call
|> "annoymous" posting. Yes, you can post annoymously and so what? Do you
|> just want to show off what you know? I think these annoymous posters
|> are a whole bunch of cowards who are afraid to stand up by themselves.
|> These posters are a bunch of incompetent, insecure and little confidence 
|> individuals who cannot stand behind what they say. If you mean it, you
|> say it and put your signature down there. 
|> 
|> Say "No" to annoymous posting.
|> -- 
|> John Ho from Dallas, Texas USA. (john@jho.com)           - No news is bad news.


I just don't understand why people make a lot of fuss in opposing anonymous 
posting, people use pen-names everyday, everywhere in the world. It is the
content that counts, don't bother about who says it.

Lin Can
=========================================================================
.-- .... --- . ...- . .-. -.. . -.-. --- -.. . ... - .... .. ...
--. . - ... -. --- - .... .. -. --.        
.-.. .. ..-. . .. ... ... .... --- .-. - .-- --- .-. -.- .... .- .-. -..
                                                   .-.. .. -. -.-. .- -.
=========================================================================
                                          

Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25334 soc.culture.taiwan:13185
From: 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Specification of F-16, SU-27 (I)
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:19:06 GMT
Organization: MITRE

In article <92Sep11.115523edt.121@orasis.vis.toronto.edu>,
liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep11.142630.7956@linus.mitre.org> 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao) writes:
> > 
> >>   PROC(Mainland)
> >>     1). purchased about 24 SU-27 fighters last year.
> >>     2). bought 72 SU-27 and 24 MIG-31 interceptors early this year.
> >>     3). acquired the right to license-production of 200+ MIG-31
> >
> >Why they want to acquire the right to license-production of 200+ MIG-31
> >instead of MiG-29 or Su-27??  MiG-31 is not an air-superiority fighter.  It
> >is only a interceptor with surveillance cappability. 
> >
> Maybe they are much more concerned about develop interceptors to defend its own
> airspace rather than carpeting bombing Taiwan or others like lots of people 
> would like you to believe.  
> 

I still can not understand the logic even they want to "defend its own
airspace rather than carpeting bombing Taiwan."  Usually, four MiG-31s in
formation can cover an area which equivalent to the coverage of U.S. AWACS.
 After finding enemy warplanes, the MiG-31 will conduct air-superiority
fighters (MiG-29 or Su-27) to approach and attack enemy.  Without enough
air-superiority fighters how could them control or defend their own
airspace?
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25356 soc.culture.taiwan:13197