From: cqu@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Chang-ning Qu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Help! Burning!(Re: Protection Bill)
Date: 29 Aug 92 05:07:39 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <29226@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU> eshen@.stern.nyu.edu (Eileen Shen) writes:
>In article <27AUG199210003418@phobos.ucc.umass.edu> s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194) writes:
>>How? I can not understand the logic here. Under someone's PROTECTION
>>makes you stronger? Are you someone's Puppy? The word "protection"
>>makes me sick!!! 
>
>Since you, Daniel, degrade a serious discussion into a personal
>attack, you are nothing but an asshole. I suggest you for goodness
>sake read some of the news.* groups and learn how to behave yourself
>before you make your next post. Also read again what you just said.
>They suggest you do not use your brain, or it's faulty.
>
>>Are you sure you summarized it RIGHT? I do not know any Adam Smith.
>>Do not fool me.
>
>If you don't know who is Adam Smith, the grand daddy of classical
>economics, and don't care to learn a little bit of economic theory,
>then keep your mouth zipped. No one's fooling you. You're making a
>fool of yourself by showing your ignorance and stupidity.
>
>>>In a society, each individual should be able to pursuit what he/she
>>>wants with minimum constraints. This is what made America great. At
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>So, you do agreee that there shall be some "Constraint". Then, how do you
>>define minimum or excessive? Is there a clear, universal cut? I believe
>>the line here should be a country's constitution, the law and the order
>>of a particular country, not some body else's.
>
>Chinese law has no jurisdiction in US, and no one is charging the
>lobbying of the bill unlawful, so what is your point?
>
>>>theory of sacrifice notwithstanding. We are after all human beings,
>>					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>I read it as "We are all animals." After all what is the fundamental
>>difference between human being and animals??
>
>Those who can tell the difference between human beings and animals are
>human beings. Those who can't, including you, are animals.
>
>>>world. We need a free, democratic China whose full potentials can be
>>		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Can somebody give me a defination here? What do you mean by free? Free of
>>what? I can freely walk on the street of Beijing anytime I want (may
>>be not on June 4) but I would be afraid of walking in the street of Mahattan
>>after dust everynight. 
>>Daniel
>
>If you don't know what it means by a free democratic country, my short
>answer for you, Daniel, is that you probably don't need one. Nor need
>you worry about it. It does not mean, though, that other people don't
>deserve one.
>
>No one will be afraid of, or sick of, any "protection bill" which will
>protect you from being forced to walk or live in Manhattan. This
>proves Manhattan is a more desired place. There are millions of New
>Yorkers enjoying their lives in the one of the greatest cities in the
>world, including its night life. If you don't like it, we will take
>it. (For the record I got robbed twice in NYC and logged the cases with
>the police. So exercise your vigilance while you are here.)
>
>>>the bill. It is heterogeneity, not homogeneity, of opinions that makes
>>	   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>nations great. In fact, I dare venture to say that SCCers make a fine
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Not so absolute. Heterogeniety also can divide a country. We saw it last
>>year in USSR.
>>Daniel
>
>It's their choice, none of your business.
>
>>>example for all Chinese by asserting themselves and pushing a stubborn
>>						     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>regime change for the good. It's not a flawless tactic, and it will
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>You are pretty cocky here. CCP only will make changes towards its own
>>interest. It will not bend to outside pressure. After all, 1972 and 1978
>>Daniel
>
>It's CCP's own interest to treat students nicely ONLY AFTER they
>demand for it WITH FULL STRENGTH. Not so long ago they got harassed
>very time they went back home and had a visit, you idiot.
>
>Seriously, Daniel, I do not enjoy reply to you at all. Your posts are
>so thoughtless that they are unworthy of my attention. It's not my style
>to flame on the net, but since you started it, it can only be fair
>that I finish it. Don't bother to talk to me again. My best response to
>you will be silence.


   Dear Mr. (or Ms.) Eileen Shen:

       Are you expressing yourself opinion by body language (zi1 ti3 yu3
  yan2--fashionally used in Taiwan politics) with Daniel? Why too angery
  to control yourself? Angery is acceptable but violent is not acceptale
  in this group. Well, just take a break and relax.
 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.hongkong,soc.culture.taiwan