HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "UCLA K.Y." <IAAYROS@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Re-Transmit Letter to Akihito
Reply-To: "UCLA K.Y." <IAAYROS@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:30:00 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt <china-nt@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>

 > Date:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 03:03:00 -0700
 > Sender:       "China-Net (The Coordination Network for IFCSS)"
 > From:         XIAOJIAN@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
 > Subject:      Re: Re-Transmit Letter to Akihito

 > After China is wealthier and stronger after 13 years reform, petitions
 > for individual compensation from Japan in society are tolerated and even
 >                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 > enouraged, which is just impossible 13 years ago.
 > ^^^^^^^^^

The CG's extent of tolerating such an un-controled movement is limited.
The latest news is: Authorities in several cities in China have started
detain activitsts who organize petition and collect signitures for such
compensation. For details please see this week's CND-Globle.

Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: fgg8386@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Fangpu Gao)
Subject: Re: Should IFCSS sue Shannon Yeh?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:01:52 GMT

yzhou@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Joe Y. Zhou) writes:

>What Shanoon Yeh has done in misc.jobs.*** is against equal opportunity
>and is prohibited by law. I urge IFCSS to protect CSS's rights and take
>this guy to court.


>joe
Agree.

Also, he used a lot of personal attack word which only a huligan can use
to insult all the CSS.  He threatened a lot of CSS.  We should collect all
his posts and prepare a suecase.  I agree to sue him.


-- 
#+++++++++ Fangpu  Gao  (fgg8386@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) +++++++++++++++++++++++#
| Univ of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign |  461 Freer, 906 S. Goodwin Ave.   |
| Department of Kinesiology           |  Urbana, IL  61801                |
#+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++#
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: $LPAHM0@LUCCPUA.BITNET
Subject:      question: protection bill
Reply-To: $LPAHM0@LUCCPUA.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:29:00 GMT

I have read 'victory' bill. Because English in it is so 'English', that
I couldn't understand what I can do or what I should do. Is there any
general explaination of the bill. The questions I concern are: When
I can apply? What I should do to apply?
From: "(Bo Xiong)" <xiong@BSU-CS.BSU.EDU>
Subject:      [News] Gov't Rejects Clemency Petition from Shen Tong's Mother
Reply-To: "(Bo Xiong)" <xiong@BSU-CS.BSU.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:47:23 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

The following is carried in October 16's CND-Global:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Government Rejects Clemency Petition from Shen Tong's Mother .......... 37
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Y. Zhou, <yzhou@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Source: UPI, 15/10/92

BEIJING  -- Chinese officials have refused to accept a clemency petition
from the mother of Shen Tong, a dissident student leader who has been under
detention since soon after returning from self-exile in the United States.

Li Yixian this week said police told her they could not accept her petition,
partly because they had no record of Shen's case.

The Beijing Public Security Bureau denies jailing Shen, claiming instead that
the 24-year-old remained only "under surveillance and investigation in a
residence," according to Li.

However, Li said she told police that "this was actually imprisonment by a
different name, (and) it was illegal for them to keep him this long."

Under Chinese law, police can technically hold a detainee for just 15 days
before charging him with a crime.

But the law has several loopholes, and authorities have detained many prisoners
for months -- even years -- without charge.

So far, Shen has been held for more than 45 days.

However, Li said that late last month, she attempted to file a petition on
Shen's behalf, after the 15-day detention period lapsed with no word from
either her son or authorities.

In her petition, Li, 51, accused the government of holding Shen illegally, and
also of withholding information regarding his whereabouts.

Authorities have prohibited Shen from corresponding with anyone during his
confinement -- even forbidding him from signing his name for packages sent by
his mother.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|              Executive Editor:      Bo Chi   (Canada)                    |
|           Coordinating Editor:      Zuofeng Li (U.S.A.)                  |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|    China News Digest (CND) offers the following services:                |
|     (1) Global News (Daily)         (2) US Regional News                 |
|     (3) Canada Regional News        (4) Europe & Pacific Regional News   |
|     (5) Hua Xia Wen Zhai (Weekly Chinese Magazine)                       |
|     (6) Several Information Packages                                     |
|    For subscription information,  mail to: CND-INFO@LIBRARY.UTA.EDU      |
|    News contributions should be sent to:  CND-EDITOR@SDSC.EDU            |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Forwarded by Bo Xiong
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha)
Subject: A victory?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 00:53:43 GMT


	In the wake of the passage of the bill, many people here have used
the word "victory". As I see it, at this point it is only a victory for
perhaps 100,000 Chinese invividuals. Whether or not it is a victory for
China depends on what these people do in the future.

	And some seem to be confused about who the victory was won against.
The tone of many of the postings makes it seem like it was the American
legislative system that was beaten, like it was some game to get something
for nothing.

        Would the people who died at the Massacre call this a victory? They
set you free, and you waged your campaign on principles they died for. Has
the victory been realized? Is China any better off due to this new law?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: kzest+@pitt.edu (Ke Zeng)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: question: protection bill
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:39:16 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Dept. of Crystallography

In article <Bw2rKz.8rp@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> $LPAHM0@LUCCPUA.BITNET writes:
>I have read 'victory' bill. Because English in it is so 'English', that
>I couldn't understand what I can do or what I should do. Is there any
>general explaination of the bill. The questions I concern are: When
>I can apply? What I should do to apply?

	I don't think you will get any general explanation in this net.
The bill was just written such that those who do not fully understand it
will not benifit from it and guess who would tell you what those terms
in the bill mean... :-) :-)....
-- 
  K. Zeng University of Pittsburgh (412)624-3219 bitnet: kzest@pittvms
  internet: kzest@unix.cis.pitt.edu  or  kzest@vms.cis.pitt.edu
From: yding+@pitt.edu (Yijun Ding)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: (China Bank)
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:18:33 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

>In article <Bw0t68.BE@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> Weimin Shen <SHEN@JUNO.PHYSICS.WISC.EDU> writes:
>>
>>        What a rubbery!  What a rubbery under sun-light!  I want to use words
>>like greed, ridiculous, inane, illogic, illegitimate ..., but I just feel it is
I can't see much evidence why it is China, not US bank cheated, though I
see lots (I mean lots) emotional words here.

We mail checks to our families every year since 1982.  My father is in
US now, and I just talked to him.  He opened an account in China Bank in
Wuhan.  He will put the check into the account after receiveing it.  He
can cash it after three monthes.  We ususally mail $500, and he said he
will get more than $500 each time since the interest earned will be more
than the process fee.  He (and me) don't know the exactly process fee.

My father said that saving the check to an account directly is not
allowed in Beijing and Shanghai - strange.  I guess each bank has
different policy.  

-- 
//Yijun Ding, Pittsburgh //Go your way, be happy.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: whitaker@eternity.demon.co.uk ("Russell E. Whitaker")
From: FUW@conan.ie.orst.edu
Subject:      Carefull!!!
Reply-To: FUW@conan.ie.orst.edu
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:27:52 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

Dear netters:
    We strongly against the idea to call the president  at Larry King
show.
    Through the net we had a discussion with an Australia scholar at
University of Tasmania at Launceston about the situation of Chinese students
in Australia.  He wrote a 2 to 3 pages letter to us analyzed the reason that
forced Australia government changed its policy towards the Chinese students
over there.  Australia is in recession. Unimployment is about 11%.  The
public is angry. They blam the immigration policy allow immigrants take over
jobs from Australian.  The Chinese students over there then become the
victom of the anger which forced Australia government changed its policy.
    The U.S. is in recession too. People here are angry too. We are afraid
the risk of the negative reaction from both the public and the president, if
we have our bill go to the public and don't handle the public and the
president carefully, which will force the president face the public opinion!
    Be carefull! We don't want to follow the steps of those Chinese students
in Australia!!!


    Lobbying group
    @ Oregon State University
From: ahu@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU (Amy Hu)
Subject: Re: Freedom or persecution
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:09:17 GMT



|>
|>                                                             Since most of
|>you are now probably in the process of obtaining a green card, maybe it's
|>time for you to learn how to accept criticisms, discrimination, and the rest
|>of the package that comes with your card, because those are the realism of
|>democracy believe it or not.
|>
|>If you can't bear what I have just said, perhaps you don't belong in this
|>country afterall.
|>


>Certainly, Amy, you have a point there on the right of FREE SPEACH; but in
>my dictionary, this argument is always a two-edged sword: Y has Y's right
>to speak Y's mind (against A) and A has A's right to object Y's speach.
>As long as both A and Y are not silenced, the balance is maintained.


FYI, in my article I did not restrain anyone from expressing his/her opinion.
I only ask it to be done in a more civilized manner.  Afterall, we all had
some sort of education.


>I agree, it is not a pretty picture when some of our (I mean mine) fellow
>countrymen are "presenting" their cases. The sad truth is, just as you pointed
>out, even though they might not be able to bear your statement, they still
>have the right to stay here in US.

>Please, I appreciate your point of view. I believe that everybody has the
>right to make a fool of him/herself (including myself).

You're right.  But in this case, I believe the image of the Chinese culture,
as a whole, has been damaged.  Please, I still want to be proud of
my Chinese Heritage.

>Sq



Newsgroups: talk.politics.china,soc.culture.china
From: echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng)
Subject: Re: A victory?
Organization: Penn State, Department of Physics
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:16:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.020117.20053@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha) writes:
>In article <Bw0x7F.n2y@apollo.hp.com> zl@apollo.hp.com writes:
>
>>China definitely will be better off due to this new law. Don't believe it?
>>Let's wait and see: china bashing will be reduced to near zero in a year,
>>not even to mention longer term benefits. Ciao.
>
>What? How? Why? What are you talking about? Whose bashing China? (Hope it's
>not me :-)) How are you going to reduce it. What are the long term benefits
>to China?

	Oh Mark, you did miss his point.  :-(

	See, all these China bashing currently going on is more or less
fueled by these people who are desperate enough to do anything to get
their green cards.  (Read Dr. Zhao Haiqing's messages again to see
how he described the difference between "high-profile lobby on CMFN"
and "low-profile lobby on greencard".).  Once they got what they
want, there is no more motivation for continuing this silly and
disgusting game (except for a few would-be politicians, of course).

	In all my sadness on what had happened, I sincerely wish to see
this scenerio to occur as a possible good by-product.  I also hope
to see more CSS to come out and defend China's trade status now that
the green card issue is settled (and some people can now get their
souls back).

	Help China after you have helped yourself, if not before.



	 Eddie
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "Z. Weng" <ZWENG@SBBIOVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Congratulation!
Reply-To: "Z. Weng" <ZWENG@SBBIOVM.BITNET>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:27:47 GMT
Comments: To: ccnl@utarlvm1.BITNET, China-nt@uga.BITNET

     Congratulation, IFCSS and IFCSS/CCSA !  You made history!  Together, we
made history!
                   Z. Weng from SUNY/Stony Brook
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: JUENKUNG@RAMOTH.USC.EDU
Subject:      A remind
Reply-To: JUENKUNG@RAMOTH.USC.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 11:03:00 GMT
Comments: To: ccnl%utarlvm1.uta.edu@USC.EDU, china-nt%uga.cc.uga.edu@USC.EDU,
              ifcss%wam.umd.edu@USC.EDU

	Dear fellow CSS:

	This is just a remind:

	If the US president G.Bush sign the S1216, it's NOT WISE to make any

	noise, just behave like nothing happened, and let's watch and wait

	untill next CCP's birthday.

	If Mr. G.Bush vetoed the S1216 due to whatever reason, it's NOT the

	end of the world, we will be still alive.

	Tru, it's too dark and quiet now, yet the dawn is always coming,

	sooner or later, depending on the season.

	May God bless us.

	J.K.at Los Angeles, California
Xref: sparky talk.politics.china:1990 soc.culture.china:28142
From: zdlin@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (ZhongDong Lin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china,soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Prison Labor Central Part of the Economy?
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:39:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Oct16.163913.13160
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.

In article <Bw82tB.21z@cs.psu.edu> echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng) writes:
>	In an Op-Ed article in today's New York Times, Mr. A. M. Rosenthal
>twice claimed that the "products of the slave labor camps" (commonly
>called prison labor) is the "central part of the Communist economy".
>
>	Just for the record.
>
>
>	 Eddie


  Did he mention where he got his information from?  Just curious?
From: ph279sw@prism.gatech.EDU (FR SIGING WEI)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Freedom or persecution
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:58:39 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <9210160931.aa20882@Bonnie.ics.uci.edu> ahu@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU (Amy Hu) writes:
|>
|>
|>                                                             Since most of
|>you are now probably in the process of obtaining a green card, maybe it's
|>time for you to learn how to accept criticisms, discrimination, and the rest
|>of the package that comes with your card, because those are the realism of
|>democracy believe it or not.
|>
|>If you can't bear what I have just said, perhaps you don't belong in this
|>country afterall.
|>
|>
|>Amy Hu
|

Certainly, Amy, you have a point there on the right of FREE SPEACH; but in
my dictionary, this argument is always a two-edged sword: Y has Y's right
to speak Y's mind (against A) and A has A's right to object Y's speach.
As long as both A and Y are not silenced, the balance is maintained.

I agree, it is not a pretty picture when some of our (I mean mine) fellow
countrymen are "presenting" their cases. The sad truth is, just as you pointed
out, even though they might not be able to bear your statement, they still
have the right to stay here in US.

Please, I appreciate your point of view. I believe that everybody has the
right to make a fool of him/herself (including myself).

Sq
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "J. Cen [404] 727-4676" <PHSJJC@EMRYCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re:  Shen Tong 's arrival:   I watched It On TV
Reply-To: "J. Cen [404] 727-4676" <PHSJJC@EMRYCC.BITNET>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:42:00 GMT

Lian Zheng <LZHENG@IUBACS.BITNET> writes:

>I watched the arrival of Shen Tong on TV in 1989.

>Mr. Shen at that time did show (or pretend to show )
>to the audience that he escaped from China with the help of some
>kind-hearted people.  He looked like that he was very concerned about the
>safety of the people involved in his escape, so that he would not reveal
>any information related.

I am afraid there was not much he could reveal anyway.

>Shen said something like this on TV:  I can not
>tell you anything except to tell you that someone gave me a phone # in US
>so I can get help when I successfully reached the US.   Mr. Shen
>actually read the phone # to the TV reporters there.
>(Can someone with better memory correct me please, in case I tell something
>wrong?)

Does (617) 969-3919 ring a bell?  It's the phone number of the "China
Information Center", based in Newton, Massachusetts.  They gave Shen
Tong the initial big promotion, in return, Shen Tong would do this number
on TV.

>Now, someone on the China-NT and SCC said that Mr. Shen actually went through
>normal procedures to come out, making use of the disorder occured around 6.4.
>Is someone trying to discredit Mr. Shen as a 'Democray fighter', or the
>other way around?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: test, ignore
From: Charlie Shen <I90LG@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Monday, 12 Oct 1992 19:52:12 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

 it is just a test, ignore it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: ping@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Shiping Zhang)
Subject: Re: CSS in USA maybe become SCRAP HEAP in the future China
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:12:02 GMT

In article <CHEN.92Oct8194854@haydn.ee.uec.ac.jp> chen@haydn.ee.uec.ac.jp (Chen Jie) writes:
>
>CSS in the U.S.A are losing a historic chance for China as well as
>for themselves although they maybe reap some profits in short eyes.
>The reason is simple and obvious: historically, Chinese dislike
>those who take advantages by harming others.

  The reason is not simple and obvious, but ridiculous and illogical.
  CSS in USA are losing a historic chance because Chinese dislike
  people who take advantages by harming others, historically?  
  Who, historically or not, LIKE those who take advantages by harming
  others?

>Unfortunately, most CSS in USA are doing so, at least from
>CSS's eyes in Japan.

  Fortunately that's just from the eyes of a CSS in Japan.

>The following is the images given by the CSS in USA:
 
  Distorted in the eyes of a CSS in Japan.

>------They claimed loudly for the democracy and human rights of Chinese people,
>but in fact what they are begging Uncle Sam to protect are themselves
>(see Protection Bill ).

  Should ask U.S. to liberate China or ask U.S. to deport all CSS in U.S.?

>------They claimed loudly for the democracy and human rights of Chinese people,
>but in fact what they are begging Uncle Sam to do brings harm to
>those kind people inside China (see Bill lobbying for CMFC).

  Are those CSS who lobbied against CMFC from outside U.S.?

>------They have not shown any action on what they should do, for example, 
>***********to protest USA's sell of F16's to Taiwan, which is 
>very dangerous to the Chinese people both in mainland China and in Taiwan;

  So there should be protests both in mainland China and Taiwan.  How many
  did we see?  What is people in mainland China really afraid of? And what is
  people in Taiwan really afraid of?  Those F-16s?

>***********to help those poor kids in China to get basic education;

  Question is: Would the CCP government not interfere?  Indeed, who
  deprives those poor kids' basic education?

>*********** .......
>In contrast, recent years the CSS in Japan are impressive for their talent 
>and hard working. It is reported that in the recent two years,
>among the CSS who came back to China to serve their people,
>the members from Japan are more than 40 percent of the total numbers,
>and they have brought many business chances to China. 

  Sounds like good guys all go to Japan, and bad guys all come to U.S.
  Or good guys have gone/will go back to China, and bad guys remain abroad.
  Anyway, who is the source of the report, which is certainly from China?

>In conclusion, the CSS in USA are going far away from China.

  How far away is Japan from China?  :-)

>When people inside China know what happened in this Net.
>they maybe give a more surprising answer than I.

  Wait to see who actually get surprised if they are allowed to
  give their own answers other than being represented by the CCP
  government.

-ping

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: XIAOJIAN@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject:      Re: Re-Transmit Letter to Akihito
Reply-To: XIAOJIAN@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 10:03:00 GMT
Comments: cc: China-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

It's not easy to see a good article like this one sent by Mr.Ding. Maybe
just because Chinese have least disputes on Japan's savage act in China
and other Asia countries in WW II.

But Japan is a democracy. So there is no way for its nominal King to deliver
a real apology if its congressmen and constituents perfer the other way, or
even he will apologize it's meaningless because he doesn't have the
real authority and his apology probably will bring down the current cabinet
and bring about a new cabinet which is more hostile to Chinese and more proud
of Japan's action in WW II.

But don't take me wrong. I support the open letter. What I want to say is
that a apology is not enough to end the bitter memory to most, if not all,
Chinese.

As a matter of fact, Japan had democracy and free press before the Rape of
Nanking, but that shame to all humankinds did happen anyway. I just don't
believe that only several generals are responsible for all war crimes. If
those guys had not be born into this world at all, everything still would
have happened. We all know the degree of freedom media in Japan enjoys,
the change of history in textbooks encounters no serious problem domestically
at all.

In the international community, each nation behaves out of national interests.
The combined national strength is the token in the game. When Sino-US
relation has more trouble, it is more eager for China to improve the relation
with Japan and more unlikely for China to require an aplogy from Japan.
After China is wealthier and stronger after 13 years reform, petitions for
individual compensation from Japan in society are tolerated and even
enouraged, which is just impossible 13 years ago.

The only hope for Japanese to really apologize is that if they don't apologize
they will risk a huge losses, when Japan needs China much more than China needs
Japan, or there is a possiblity that a nuclear bomb will be set off in Tokyo
to balance off the Rape of Nanking. If there is no loss by not apologizing,
why apologize?

So if you really want Japan apologize, help to make China strong economically
and enjoy a good relation with other powerful nations such as USA. Then China
can afford to break up with Japan or even go into war with Japan in order to
force Japan to give the apology and compensation.



William Deng
ABD of economics and political science
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china