HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194)
Subject: Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view. (Was: Who Cares 150 F-16s.)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 15:05:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.133443.5656@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, ghe@nyx.cs.du.edu (George He) writes...
>In article <1992Sep10.221622.10037@cs.yale.edu> yang-allan@CS.YALE.EDU (J. Allan Yang) writes:
>>
>> > From: s9874194@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194)
>> > Sender: usenet@nic.umass.edu (USENET News System)
>> > References: <BuCEr5.JB9@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
>> > .....
> 
>I want to add one point. This big China chauvinism pig 
>can not  tell the difference between defence and offence.
> 
>Weapons in Taiwaneses'  hands are for defence.
>Weapons in mainlanders' hands are for offence.
> 
>To sell weapons to Taiwan is to increase the stability of the Strait.
> 
>If mainlanders don't want to invade Taiwan, why should they worry 
>about this F-16 sale?
> 
>My dear fellow Taiwanese, prepare yourself  for the worst.
>I don't how many mainlanders share the same view as this blood thirsty
>chauvinism pig. As long as these pigs are there, we have to fight them
>whether we get united or independent, because the only thing these pigs
>want is to suck up our hard-earned prosperity.
> 
> 

I think that this netter never read the posts before s/he wrote the above
garbage. Nobody has ever implied that he like to attack Taiwan and destroy
the prosperity of Taiwan. The unification is really a matter of time.
As even Allen Yang pointed out that once Mainland becomes more open, more
democratic and economically more developed, the unification would be much
more easier.

However, Taiwan independence is not acceptable to most of the Chinese
people on both side of the Taiwan Straight. Even the Taipei government
does not agree with Taiwan independence.

The issue here is that Wshington is violating its agreement with Beijing,
violating the sovereignty of PRC. It is an argument between Beijing
and Washington, not between Beijing and Taipei. I do not know why you
jumped out to throw those garbage. I feel sorry that your mother
did not wash your mouth before she give your birth. If all of the
people from Taiwan are like you, life would be much easier.

c.q.
From: yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , )
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: 150 F-16 to Taiwan (Stop Stereotypes)
Date: 7 Sep 92 17:58:00 GMT
Organization: New York University

cyc@z.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang) writes:

>they get those weapons ? As far as this is concerned, Taiwanese are smarter 
>than Isreal, because we only consider to buy 150 F-16s not 600 of them.

That's because Taiwanese know that those planes won't put in
use, they are only for show, 150 is enough. don't you think so?

>Yi-Chieh

Ze Yang
From: yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , )
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: F-16's fear?
Date: 7 Sep 92 23:50:00 GMT
Organization: New York University

cyc@z.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang) writes:

>But, do you know that PRC refused to pay back ROC's war debt borrowed from
>the USA during the Civil war at 1949 ?

No matter what, most countries and the UN acknoledge that PRC is the
legal seccesor of ROC.

>BTW, how could you claim to inherit your parent's fortune before they died ? 

Mr. Chang, talking this way is your islanders common character or
just because your parents died too early and you don't have a good
education? No matter what, you should learn to behave yourself, 
give me logic arguments to defend your views.

>Yi-Chieh

Ze Yang
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: cyc@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang)
Subject: Re: The purpose of a country. (Was: F-16's fear?)
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:37:39 GMT

>>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.
>

That's definitely correct and is exactly the points I like to let Chinese
people understand Taiwanese. What most Taiwanese want is just to become a
boss in his own small company and making some decent money, that's all.
Taiwanese don't want to become the giant in this world, it's definitely
different than most of the aggressive Chinese. So, Taiwanese have really
developed different culture from Chinese culture after being isolated from
mainland China for almost 100 years. 
It's really the separation that makes Taiwanese want to be independent from
China.


Yi-Chieh
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:20:00 EDT
From: <QXF1@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: test, ignore...

test
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
From: cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi)
Subject: Re: News readers from ROT(Republic of TooLate(Tai4Wan3) Re: Hello from news reader in China)
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell Computer Science
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 22:44:07 GMT

>Subject says it all. News readers from Republic of Taiwan.
>
>


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: yewang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Yenwen Wang)
Subject: Re: F-16,pilots.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:14:56 GMT

In article <BuMqv3.5K6@news.cso.uiuc.edu> scc53091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve C. Chen) writes:

>
>From what I read in this "Top Gun" book, the ROC pilots are considered some of 
>the best in the world...  All the ROC pilots who were trained there in Mirmar
>received exceptionally good "grades".  Dunno how many were there tho...
>Maybe only a few.

I read from somewhere that last year an ROC pilot, flying his
F-5E, "shot down" an F-15 in a mock air combat in the US.
USAF was so surpised that they conducted an investigation...
Any comments?
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Yenwen Wang                        wangy@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu
  The Ohio State University          yewang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: WHO@austlcm.sps.mot.com 
Subject: Re: F-16's fear?
Organization: Texas
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:28:19 GMT

In article <95543@bu.edu> bwang@csa.bu.edu (Biao Wang) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.192015.20871@oakhill.sps.mot.com> WHO@austlcm.sps.mot.com writes:
>
>>
>>I just wonder how your guys can have such a short memory. The place which
>>you guys call china now was a land robbed from the KMT. Feel no shame is 
>>the worst shame.
>>
> the piece of land called Taiwan is recognized by most of the nation in the
> world as owned by the Chinese government which is the CCP. So people lived 

  So what! The so-called chinese government which you say is the ccp was not
recognized by most of the nations in the world just fifteen or so years ago. 

> in Taiwan right now are lived on "robbed" land, are you saying they have
> no shame at all:)
>
>
>

This reminds me an old Taiwanese saying - he who has beaten others crys for help.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25245 soc.culture.taiwan:13112
From: minzhi@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Min-Zhi Shao)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:46:15 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.china
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <mvtnt0f.kemnitz@netcom.com> kemnitz@netcom.com (Greg Kemnitz) writes:
]Another factor behind Bush's (I suspect it is more likely Jim Baker's)
]decision to sell the F-16's is that Bush is percieved by many Americans as
]being too close to the PRC leadership, given his stance on MFN and his tepid
]response to Tiananmen Square.
]
]Beijing is certainly aiding Bush's cause by making loud noises in the press;
]attempts by the Democrats to portray Bush as "kowtowing to the Butchers of
]Beijing" (as they did in the Democratic Convention) are currently blunted.

No.  From what I read in the recent People's Daily, I have never seen the
Chinese government is so angry to the Bush administration, or any one since
Mr. Nixon.  They finally realized that they are dealing with a government
which has no credit, both politically and financially, and with a man who
can sacrifice his nation's long term interests just for saving his own job.

I think Chinese should realize this at least 15 years earlier when the U.S.
government finally abandoned its so called long term ally, old friend, KMT.
At that time, I was a kid.  But I still remember, from what I read in the
newspapaer, how angry the Taiwanese were.  They bought lots of white sheet
to sign their names in front of the then U.S. embassy.  I believe folks such
as Steven Lin should have more vivid memory than me, a mainlander.  How
could 150 F-16s made you feel that happy now?


Min-Zhi

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: jwu@ee.tamu.edu (Jian Xiang Wu)
Subject: Re:  None
Keywords:  none
 This is just a test, please ignore it.
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:22:05 GMT


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: gang@ms.uky.edu (Gang Li)
Subject: Re: Change in spelling of Chinese names
    <1992Sep11.043816.8853@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:37:42 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

rsanders@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (RRobert M Sanders) writes:

>have the Boston car sound, as used in the word for truck.  The question I would
>like to ask any Chinese reader who has taken the trouble to read this (maybe 
>one or two of you actually got this far) is, given China's insistence that 
>foreigners change their way of spelling Chinese names, does China have an 
>obligation for modernizing the way it renders the pronunciation of foreign 
>place names?

Hi, just want to show there is one here.
Your question can be interprated in two ways, one, as my understanding, you mean
that China SHOULD 
>modernizing the way it renders the pronunciation of foreign 
>place names?
That means, you think that China should do all the work, Chinese names and
foreign names.
The other, you mean that China SHOULD ASKS OTHER COUNTRIES
>modernizing the way it renders the pronunciation of foreign 
>place names?
Then, that is the jobs for foreigners. They provide the STANDARD CHINESE name
for them self.
Any comment?

>Robert Sanders
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: Territory of Ancient China : Sui Dynasty
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 02:05:26 GMT

In article <9225200.21317@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby) writes:
>**Period:
>
>581 -> 618 A.D.
>
>**Dynasty:
>
>Sui Dynasty, formed in 581AD, re-unite China in 589 AD

>**Area under Central Influence:
>
>none, except Taiwan.

Please cite your source on this one.  In fact, Sui had more contact with
Japan than with Taiwan at this time.
>
>**Neighbouring States/Tribes/Civilizations:
>
>Mongolia was expanding rapidly to the north.
>An Central Asian country stretching from West of China to the Middle East
>was quite powerful.

The Arabian Empire?  If so, it stretched from Persia all the way to Spain.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu (Usenet on news.acns)
Subject: Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view. (Was: Who Cares 150 F-16s.)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:48:43 GMT

In article <18qo6rINNant@stanley.cis.Brown.EDU> xzh@eddy.NoSubdomain.NoDomain  
(Xiang Zhou) writes:
> In article <1992Sep11.164318.3341@news.acns.nwu.edu>,  
usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu (Usenet on news.acns) writes:
> |> >     Suppose Guangdong wants to be indepedent some day and pass
> |> > a referendum, is that O.K. ? Then maybe other Provinces will follow.
> |> > There will be some thirty countries on mainland, is that what you want ?
> |> > 
> |> 
> |> Ask people in Guangdong whether they want independence. Ask them! Let them  
> |> vote! If most people in Guangdong want to be independent, let them go!  
Again,  
> |> let people choose their future! If most people in Guangdong or Fujian or  
Yunan,  
> |> etc. want to be independent, you just can't stop them even you have troops  
of  
> |> 10 million.
> |> 
> 
>     I must admit that I have to try very hard to hold my anger and not to be
> rude.  But I must ask: who the hell are you ?  If you are a Chinese, you must
> be the first to sell your conutry and friends for your own good whenever
> you have a chance. If you are not a Chinese, you must be someone who wants
> to gain benefits from a chaotic China. Hostile forces had beaten the Chinese  
for
> more than 100 years under the name of the Chinese people. You want to follow
> them?  Whatever you are going to say, I will not response. It is shameful,
> wasteful and stupid to argue with someone like you. I just hope that someday
> you will grow up and get out of your Utopia. 
> 
>  
> 
> |> Economy is not the only concern. People leave not only because of the poor  
> |> economy. There were quite a few American Jews went to Israel years ago to  
> |> develop that country. Nobody forced them to go and the living standard  
were not  
> |> as good. Why they went there? Ask yourself?
> |> 
> |> 
> |> Carl



You still don't get it! God! Are you capable of reasoning?  Did I promote the  
provinces in China to get independence? My point is if CG don't change it's  
oppressing policy, sooner or later, more and more people will choose to vote  
for leaving (if they have a chance to vote). This has nothing to do with  
western hostile force. This will be the choice of Chinese people themselve.

Carl
From: cyc@z.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: 150 F-16 to Taiwan
Date: 7 Sep 92 16:19:56 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor

>   You are not as smart as Jewish people. They don't spend huge
>money to buy killing weapons. Instead they buy land, bank, mine
>and industry, you name it. So they manage to present powerfully
>on the USA political stage and everywhere. Which president could
>hesitate to Isreal? A lot of weapons were, are and will be freely
>dedicated or loaned by US to there. But you have to pay higher
>price to get used weapons and you pretend not to see your lost
>in this weapon deal and Ah-Q-like shout "Lao3 zi1 you3 qian2!"
>(I am rich). You are not Isreal and you are not facing Arabic,
>You are challenging powerful China (maybe current Taiwan govern-
>ment too) and all Chinese in everywhere.
>  Oh, your are not too fool. You have certainly bought a house
>or citizenship in tha States, so you could tout your TI ideal
>remotedly instead of ready to fight till last breath in Taiwan
>now. Come on, don't be too reserved, enlight Taiwan government
>with your experience: buy land but weapon, may use for emergency.

I agree with you that Jewish people are smart in doing business and making
money, but that can trace back to thousands year ago, while Taiwanese just
started no more than 20 years ago. Giving time, Taiwanese will become
smarter and smarter. Appreciate your reminds.
BTW, Isreal has 600+ F-16/F-15 fighters and 1000+ M1 tanks, how do you think 
they get those weapons ? As far as this is concerned, Taiwanese are smarter 
than Isreal, because we only consider to buy 150 F-16s not 600 of them.

Yi-Chieh
From: bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Change in spelling of Chinese names
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:20:48 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <yzhou.716268159@void> yzhou@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Joe Y. Zhou) writes:
>yy7085@meibm10.cen.uiuc.edu () writes:
>
>>Now ShanXI is for Shan1Xi1 and ShaanXi (yes 2 a's ) is for Shan3Xi1. This
>                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
>>was started more than five years ago to avoid the confusion.
>
>
>  Can anybody out there confirm this?  Seems like I need to take some Chinese
>  class again. :-)
>

Some background: The old Guoyeu Romatzyh system,
which was published in the 1920s, coded the tones
as spelling variations. Thus, fen1, fen2, fen3, 
fen4 were written fen, fern, feen, fenn. Doubling
of the vowel indicated 3rd tone. Since (on maps
and such) Hanyu Pinyin frequently dispenses with
tone markings, problems arise because then (for
example) Shanxi and Shaanxi would be spelled alike and
no tone mark would distinguish them. It is virtually
certain that the form Shaanxi was adopted from Guoyeu
Romatzyh.

Lu Xun opposed Guoyeu Romatzyh because he thought
that its system of indicating tones was too complex
and would be hard to learn. 

Writing reform has always had political as well as
practical overtones in China. Thus, Taiwan uses
BoPoMoFo and the mainland uses Hanyu Pinyin. An
interesting insight to all these issues can be
found in John de Francis' book, _The Chinese
Language: Fact and Fantasy_ (U. Hawaii Press,
ISBN 0-8248-0866-5). Chapter 15 discusses the
various attempts at writing reform.

Bill
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: The purpose of a country. (Was: F-16's fear?)
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:48:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

In article <1992Sep9.222245.24336@news.acns.nwu.edu> zdlin@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (ZhongDong Lin) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.203846.25381@zip.eecs.umich.edu> cyc@z.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang) writes:
>>>There will no problem for Taiwan to unite with China someday when
>>>Chinese in the US are as willing as the Taiwanese to go back to
>>>their homeland. After all, we are of the same race and speak the
>>>same language. No Taiwanese is going to fight against uniting with a
>>>truly democratic China that takes good care of her own people.
>>>
>>>Regards.
>>>
>>>- 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.
>>
>>Yi-Chieh 
>  Interesting point.  I would guess you are a strong supporter for Taiwan
>independence.  By your logic reasoning, not only Taiwan should stay away from
>China, but the richer part of Taiwan should declare its independence from
>other poorer parts of Taiwan.  Following this logic, Taiwan would become a
>United Nation consisting of thousands of small countries, is that what you
>want?
>
>  Brian 
>
>
>

That reminds me of a "Saturday Night Live" weekend report joke:
(I think it was Kevin Nealane, in his "news anchor tone")  
"Yesterday ex-Soviet citizens have decided that instead of having 
15 independent republics or federations, durrr, they will have 
240 million "Individual Republics", so that everyone will have 
complete democracy and freedom, and unite and separate with 
other "republics" at will ..." 

I paraphrased him, I was rolling on the floor and almost died of laughter
when I heard the joke ...
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: ejliu@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (none)
Subject: soc.culture.china
Organization: Nanyang Technological University - Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 09:20:47 GMT


Hi, we are looking for a few of professors/researchers in the
area of communication and networking from China to be
keynote speakers/invited speakers for an internation conference in
1993. 

If you know someone in China and he/she is well known in the area,
please send the name and address to the following, thank you for your help!

ejliu@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg

With best regards!

Bob  

Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25287 soc.culture.taiwan:13157
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Specification of F-16, SU-27 (I)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:55:38 GMT

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.  

 


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
From: dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby)
Subject: Territory of Ancient China : Ming Dynasty
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:43:22 GMT

**Period:

1368 -> 1662 A.D.

**Dynasty:

Ming Dynasty

**Area under Central Control:

1433 A.D.
It occupies what's now the modern China; plus eastern part of Siberia;
except Outer Mongolia, and XinJiang Uygur.

1582 A.D.
Mongolia striked again, taking Inner Mongolia, northern part of
HeBei.
Control over northern part of GanSu was also lost.

**Area under Central Influence:

XiZang (formally called Tibet / Tu Fan) could be argued whether
it was under Central Control, or Central Influence; as was
Manchuria.

Northern Vietnam is also under Central Influence.

**Neighbouring States/Tribes/Civilizations:

Mongolia and other northern Countries.

-- 
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
Subject: Re: test
From: Tao Yao <TAYAO@MTUS5.BITNET>
Date: Sunday, 6 Sep 1992 01:14:30 EST
Organization: Computing Technology Services, Michigan Technological Univ.

hahaha
From: shi6@chaos.uchicago.edu (Sheldon Shi)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: F-16's fear?
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:35:41 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1992Sep8.182117.12617@zip.eecs.umich.edu> cyc@z.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang) writes:
>>(stuff deleted)
>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
>China, but since ROC is still there, PRC has to destroy ROC to claim what
>still belonged to ROC, don't you ?
>A loser lost whatever he lost in a war, but unless it is eliminated, he
>will surely hold on what still left to him. Taiwan belong to ROC, there is
>no doubt of it. If PRC want it, come to get it. But, be careful don't be 
>kicked by the whole world to condemn PRC as an invader. 
>
>Yi-Chieh

You still don't get the logic right. The UN (and most countries in the world)
recognizes:
1. Taiwan is part of China;
2. PRC is the only legitimate government of China;
Therefore, Taiwan should be under PRC's administrative control;
Whether or not it is really the case is out of the diplomatic question.

The bottom line is: Taiwan, exists as an entity independent of
PRC only in economic sense, not in diplomatic sense. It doesn't
matter what you think you are, it only matters what others think you are.