HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: binlee@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (L. D. ROPER)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Another call for Nankai Alumni Address
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:25:00 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41




***********           *************            **********         ***********


Hi,all you guys:

   I will edit a Nankai Alumni Address Book for Oversea Nankai Alumni,including:
Nankai University,Nankai Middle School,Chongqing Nankai Middle School,
Southwest Unified University(Kunming). If you are Nankai Alumni or you know
any of your friends are Nankai Alumni,would you please or ask your friends
send me a short message if you or your friends are willing to have their name 
list on the Nankai Alumni Address Book(Oversea worldwide).

   In the short message,please including the years and major studied in
Nankai,your current position and your address,phone number,email address
I will post all I got on soc.culture.china and I will send each Alumni
a email message and mail if possible.

   Please contact me at:

     binlee@vtcc1.bitnet
or   binlee@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu

     my phone number are:   (703)231-5575 (office)
                            (703)951-3067 (home)

     Mailing Address:

     Bin Lee
     Physics Dept
     Virginia Tech
     Blacksburg,VA 24061

Your assistance will be highly appreciated!


Best regard to every one!

Bin Lee
From: bihkyan@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Yang Yuanxin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: ROC vs PRC
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:58:16 GMT
Organization: Educational Computing Network

In article <1992Sep30.225329.11654@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> tylee@austin.ibm.com (Ter-Yuan Lee) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep30.191822.874@unine.ch>, Congzhong.Wang@info.unine.ch writes:
>> 
>>  I don't know exactly what happened. But I can't agree with you that "most" of
>> POWs wanted to go to Taiwan. Didn't they care about their families still in
>> mainland or be afraid of CCP's punishments? According to one article I
>> mentioned above,
>
>I am confused by your message. I couldn't find any reference cited "above".
>Perhaps my English comprehension is limited. Or maybe I didn't follow the
>thread from the beginning. But, please provide me a reference (accessible
>publication) describing this incidence. It is always good for having third party
>references besides the ones involved, preferrably from UN or USA. The source
>from communist China is OK, too. For that, we can have an overall picture
>of what was happening at that time.
>
>> some KMT's agents were sent to Korea and they FORCED   POWs
>> to go to Taiwan, and they treated those who wouldn't and some PLA and CCP
>> members very cruely. I would rather not mention the details.
>
>
>At that time those POWs were under internment by UN troops. How could those
>CNP (TM *) agents approach those PLA and CCP members "cruelly"?
>
>
>>  Those who did come back to mainland hadn't been treated very well for a long
>> time, because if captured and not killed, CCP would still consider him a
>> traitor(like KMT's "bu4 cheng2 gong1, ze2 cheng2 ren2 ?). It is really very
>> sad.
>
>*: Chinese Nationalist Party. For KMT was only a transliteration of the
>nationalist party. There are many countries which have nationalist party.
>It is misleading and a misrepresentation by using KMT. I could be the only
>one using CNP. So, I am gladly claiming that term as my trade mark. 8=)
>
>Or, is there a Taiwanese Nationalist Party? 8=)
>
>
>-- 
>/* The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of IBM's.         *\
> * Take care and have a nice day.                                            *
>\* Ter-Yuan Lee                                                              */

 I borrowed 4 books about Korean war from Chicago public library monthes
ago, at least two of them mentioned the POW incident, very very close to
what I heared in China. Also, I found that books published after 1980
are more reliable, less propaganda. 
 If you wanto know the books names I borrowed, I can give you next week,
 According to these books written by American, I can say, CCP is too
honest on this issue, they could have gain much more if they have 1/10
of the propaganda/brain wash ability as KMT has. If they had 1/100 of
the courage of lying as KMT has, I can't imagine...

YY
From: slqmt@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Help Wanted
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:09:06 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

Hi,
Would you please send me an email address of chinese
student who study in University of Taxes at Austin now.

Thanks
Liu Jianzhao
slqmt@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: lieqiu@ccs.carleton.ca (Liebin Qiu)
Subject: Looking for acquaintance
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 21:33:15 GMT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

Ladies and Gentlemen who know Mr. Qiu Liebin, a Chinese student coming
from PRC now studying in Ottawa, Canada, are welcome to contact with
me.
Mail Address: Qiu Liebin
              36E-1411 Morisset Ave.
              Ottawa, Ontario
              Canada K1Z 8H3
Tel: (613)728-4166 (for the moment, will be disconnected by middle of
                    next month)
Email: Lieqiu@ccs.carleton.ca
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: s075198@mercury.carleton.ca (Jun Liu)
Subject: Re: Mailing address for Mr. Steve Lin
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:49:06 GMT

In <97589@bu.edu> lix@yangtze.bu.edu (Xiaowen Li) writes:

>Thank Mr. Lin for his promise. Here is the mailing address
>for donation to school kids in rural China:

>Ms. Jie Kang
>2610 E. 5 pl, Apt.1,
>TULSA, OK 74104

>Please make your check payable to:

>China SOS Education Fund

Applaud for your efforts!

However, have we thought of the following facts: in 1991, when
all major millitary powers were enjoying the peace dividend, the 
Chinses millitary expenses increased more than 12% and education
and research increased less than 5%? University enrollment was 
kept unchanged! You may say I am cynical, but with a good reason.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:26758 talk.politics.china:1548
From: stlin@stevelin.Eng.Sun.COM (Steven Lin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: China's Best Is Always the Elder and Past, Therefore No Hope.
Date: 2 Oct 1992 18:48:19 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: stevelin

In article <BvI187.84u@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>  (xiao-lin li) writes:
>
>China's governing elite "strove to imitate and emulate
>the best, but the best was always the past."
>
>Does China have any hope? Looking at so many young people
>scorn their motherland and their aging leaders who would do
>anything to resist changes. We are certainly disappointed.
>
That was called Culture Revolution.

>The best that the country can do is to kill their young,
>supress their thought. One of the best example is the government's
>treatment of Zhang Yimo. Tiananmen Massacre is another one.
>
I believe that Chang Yimo can direct and produce a much better
movie than that showed to the world on June 4, 1989.
But, he is not able to play a war game movie like 6/4.
From: stlin@stevelin.Eng.Sun.COM (Steven Lin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Oct 1, our National Day
Date: 2 Oct 1992 20:57:16 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: stevelin

In article <1992Oct2.181733.18741@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  (Zhong Liu) writes:
>
>Why China was able to build atomic and hydrogen bombs in an almost
>close door environment but can not build her own economy? I think
>the CCP finally realises military power cannot be built on poor
>economy unless the military power is used to invade/liberate
>her neighbors, such as Iraq invaded Kuwait and grabed almost everything
>to pay for the weapons. But history proves such use of power will
>always fail. Back to the question, today's China economy really
>failed in comparison with  the great a-bomb and h-bomb achievements.
>Look at our government how to operate its economy, it's not
>difficult to conclude the the CCP only knows how to kill its own
>people and never knows how to build economy. The a-bomb and h-bomb
>achievements were under the pressure of US and former Soviet Unions.

>Today, the CCP is under no pressure except how to keep its communist
>regime. All I can say, China is dying in the hands of the CCP. And
>who wants such indenpendce?
>
One correction: Now CCP is under pressure of ROC competition on economy.
A small Taiwan with very limited resources has developed economy to a 
stage that even the US has to set limit for trade with Taiwan. The total
annual trade amount of a small Taiwan is almost the same amount of a 
hugh land, mainland. It is shame for CCP to waste resources, to waste
human inteligence to develop weapons just to kill its own people. Many
of CCP made weapons are not tested, unlike US made weapons, in the real
war sistuation. A sophisticated killing machine needs a knowlegeable
operator to use it. CCP ignore the common people benefits for 43 years.

Now, the counter part, ROC, has invested a huge capital on mainland.
If CCP doesn't know how to compete with them, the mainland industry
will soon become the source of illness in the political game. The
corruption has started from CCP regional officials who use power
and relationship to gain money, from so-called company (CCP move
state own company to so-called civilian own, but in fact CCP officials
are the presidents, the managing forces). The illness comes inside.
When it is too ill, CCP will soon notice that the time is gone!
From: stlin@stevelin.Eng.Sun.COM (Steven Lin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Oct 1, our National Day
Summary: heart breaking day
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:41:42 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: stevelin

In article <1992Oct5.123602.1@ducvax.auburn.edu> haiqiu@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
>
>  Yes, the American people can always give a damn shit to anything from LAPD
>to weak countries like Iraq. People in other countries can never give a damn
>shit to whatever Americans do. 

Mao cared so much, he was not able to shut his eyes without a nuclear war with 
MeiDi, without blood-wash Taiwan at his dealth. Mao always thought Taiwan was 
colonized by the MeiDi. But, he never thought his country was nothing better 
under treatment of Soviet. If Mao lived longer, you guys will never come out
of China, in particular study in the schools of MeiDi (USA).

>Just like President Bush said in a campaign
>speech in PennState: "We Americans are always right. We never retreat. We 
>always win. We are always supported by the whole world." 

Well, it is familiar as what Mao and his comrades said. We are supported by
the people. We are...... Even sent million people to be killed, those deads did
not tell the truth to their grand children that in fact Mao indirectly killed
them. Their grand children now are supporting CCP, and think Mao is great.:-(

>  The CCP receives many damn shits from all over the world for it's 6.4 killing
>as it deserves it. But the USA never reveive a damn for its killing so many
>civilians in Iraq. That's the difference, a very solid difference.
>
What US did in Irag was a war. Besides, it was not only the US involved, British
and French too. The 6/4 incident was a poor management, and a brutality character
of tiger CCP (looking for blood to lick). There is no comparision in the world
that a People's Government ordered its People's Army to kill its own PEOPLE.

The fact from TIers demonstration proved that TAM killing was not necessary. The
students had no thought to overthrow CCP. The students had no weapons, no violent
actions. The students did not march out square going on streets. Unlike the TIers
marched out over all Taipei streets and intended to break in presidential hall.

The TI movements could be talked over without a single gun, why the TAM "sit-on"
students could not be talked over? Isn't that a management skill problem? Isn't 
that an indication that People's government is not served for people, rather
the people's government serves as the emperor of the people's roc. Didn't Li Peng
indicate that you people should behave? Or else,........
From: cyang@masada.Eng.Sandy.Novell.COM (Cheng Yang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Protection Bill Vetoed By Bush?
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:10:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Novell, Inc.


Just heard that Bush vetoed the "Protection Bill".  Can anyone confirm
this and provide more detailed info?




~!@#$%^&*()_+{}|:"<>?/.,';\][=-~!@#$%^&*()_+{}|:"<>?/.,';\][=-~!@#$%^&*()_+{
*       Ho capito, signor, si!........                                     *
*                                                                          *
*       Cheng Yang                                                         *
*       NetWare for UNIX.  Novell, Inc., Sandy, Utah                       *
*       E-Mail Address: cheng_yang@npd.novell.com                          *
From: muyu@beam.Princeton.EDU (Muyu Guo)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Oct 1, our National Day
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:36:41 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

From article <BvI3G9.As0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, by xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li):
> In article <1992Oct2.144332.103@en.ecn.purdue.edu> chenwei@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Chenwei Yan) 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 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!
>>
> 
> I am not meant to discourage you. People in the world don't believe so.
> The majority American believe Japan will be the best in the next century. 
> While China will have to struggle against its own problems. The biggest
> 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.

  Muyu

-- 
Muyu Guo
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: ting@paintbrush.egr.uh.edu (Yubo  Ting)
Subject: test
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:05:20 GMT

test
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu (Usenet on news.acns)
Subject: Re: Oct 1, our National Day
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:39:34 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.


Sound so familar. The above article reminds me of the "CCP History" class I had  
many years ago. Kind of funny.

Carl
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: gang@ms.uky.edu (Gang Li)
Subject: Re: Oct 1, our National Day
    <1992Oct6.220438.26658@news.acns.nwu.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:43:58 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

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

>In article <1992Oct6.171507.29459@ms.uky.edu> gang@ms.uky.edu (Gang Li) writes:
>> xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li) writes:
>> 
>> >>Remains of Yue4 Fei1 and Qin2 Hui4.
>> 
>> >What have this to do with Yue Fei and Qin Hui? I guess modern China
>> >needs neither of them.
>> 
>> Unfortunately you always have these kind of people.

>Yes, there are always these two kinds of people, ultra-leftests and  
>ultra-rightests, just like there are always beggars, prostitutes and  
>religiously crazy people in a society. But this does not mean these people are  
>the treasure of a society.

>Carl
I wonder what is Mr. Carl's oppinion about abortion?

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: esh1@cec2.wustl.edu (Edmond Siu-kei Hui)
Subject: Re: Mailing address for Mr. Steve Lin
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:25:26 GMT

In article <s075198.718292946@cunews> s075198@mercury.carleton.ca (Jun Liu) writes:
>all major millitary powers were enjoying the peace dividend, the 
>Chinses millitary expenses increased more than 12% and education
>and research increased less than 5%? University enrollment was 
>kept unchanged! You may say I am cynical, but with a good reason.

Still China does not have as many nuclear head as the US or Russia.
China did not spend 6-billion to  buy 150 f-15 while most her 
neithors increase at least  3% average in millitary expenses.
I doubt your 12% is a correct figure since China is reducing its
4 millions army to 2 million according to its original plan.
Consider the spending before the Soviet collepse, China's buget
is too small to even defend itself, 200% of its own GNP for Soviet 
and 20-28% of GNP for the US. May be it is time to catch up the
huge difference. Beside, mind to tell me how much other Asian nation
spend on its education. Don't try S.Korea or Japan which bascially
the government has no say on its own defence.
From: jdc@cs.purdue.EDU (Jindon Chen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Looking for Jiang JieCheng
Date: 6 Oct 92 04:51:39 GMT
Organization: Purdue University


I am looking for my friend Jiang JieCheng,
who came from CS department of BeiDa and was
studying in the CS department of University of
British Conlumbia.

Thanks for your concern.

Jindon

jdc@purdue
From: pwu@oreo.ai.mit.edu (Peng Wu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Why it is easier to encourage more children than require less
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:36:49 GMT
In-reply-to: yidao@cae.wisc.edu's message of 5 Oct 92 15:29:04 GMT


    In article <1992Oct5.144430.27532@news.acns.nwu.edu> usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu 
    (Usenet on news.acns) writes:
      
    >> 
    >Don't forget that Mao awarded so called "mather heros" in late 1950s for
    > having  
    >more than 7 children. Many Chinese were as stupid as you still are now. They  
    >simply did not question the authoritis. They simply followed their "great  
    >leeader".
    >
    >Carl
    
I have found lots of bogus reasonings in political debates (please take notice
where I am posting this message).  The most striking format was and still is:

Promise:    If A then B
Fact:                 B
-----------------------
Conclusion:           A

Carl's paragraph seems to have the following rationale (proclaim: I said
"seems" but not "does".  It is likely that it "doesn't" but I just want to use
it to make a point.  So I won't bother if anyone argues it really "doesn't"):

Promise:    If "X is stupid" then "X will do such"
Fact:                             "X did such"
--------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:                       "X is stupid"

Often the advocate would drum about the truthfulness of the promise and the
fact, then slip in the conclusion with surprisingly little resistance.  I
think it would be much more productive if we require both debaters and
listeners meet a minimum requirement in formal logic.

Of course, there are cases where the truthfulness of the promise and the fact
is in question.  But we should at least try to eliminate or reduce format
errors in short order.

     I am just wondering WHY they did not follow their "great leader" in the 
    late 60's and early 70's.  I remember that he instructed them to have fewer
    children.

Right on!  A good way to refute such bogus reasonings as "A=>B, and B, then
A", that is, find "not B" and ask why.  A suitable response from the original
reasoner should be "I withdraw the original line of reasoning", not defending
it.

In case anyone really wants to know why (follow and not follow both happened),
I have one hypothesis to offer:

The "more children" policy or regulation was optional, while the "fewer
children" was obligatory.  I would prefer this hypothesis to Carl's in
explaining the difference between the resistances to the two policies or
whatever you call them.  There are other differences that may need different
hypotheses to explain, and each may apply to only certain individual cases but
not others.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: ping@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Shiping Zhang)
Subject: Re: Blood Card Lottery
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:06:01 GMT

In article <2ACB9A41.29790@news.service.uci.edu> yeh@netix.com (Mr Shannon Yeh) writes:

>[...]
>to control George Bush.  So, how about playing a Blood Card Lottery?
>[...]
>
>shannon
>-------
>
>PS: this idea was contributed by a friend.

  That's a real way to make money out of other people's blood.
  You can also play a lottery on Shen Tong's fate.

-ping

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao)
Subject: Re: BASIC DECENCY
Organization: MITRE
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:27:07 GMT


> 
> >**************************   Cut by this line  ****************************
> > 
> >Dear Later comers (later than April 11, 1990):
> > 
 >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.
>
> >The bill will also put the late arrivals in a disadvantageous situation when
> >they try to stay by finding employment.  Suddenly they have to compete with a
> >increased population of permanent residents.  It is obvious that employers are
> >more willing to hire permanent residents than foreigners.  I believe many
> >American people's jobs or potentials will be negatively influenced by this
> >bill, too.
> >
> 
> Don't try to threaten people. There are hundreds of thousands of 
> graduates coming out of college plus around 800,000 new PR's to this country
> each year,why these CSS can make so much difference ? Besides, these additional 
> PR's will be balanced gradually according to S1216 which again may not hurt you
> that much but still makes you worried.
> 
> So,after noticing so many wrong logics in this petition letter,I strongly
> urge you to withdraw it(if you know how ),or rewrite a more convincing one.
> After all this is a letter to the president of USA representing some of CSS,
> it has to be at least a decent one. 

============
 
Another example of D(Dog)-fighter? Two dogs fight over one bone.  Guess
which dog will win?  What I can say - a miserable
tragedy.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china