HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: unregistered@newcastle.ac.uk (brandeis)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Xiangqi e-mail formats
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:26:53 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.korean,soc.culture.hongkong
Organization: compthink

In article <Bu9p3u.Knx@newcastle.ac.uk>, S.L.F.Cheng@newcastle.ac.uk (S.
Cheng) wrote:
> 
> PS. Can somebody display some classical openings or mating
> positions please? Xiangqi novice.
>                                                          

The Kamasutra is quite a good book for positions. Personally I prefer
the American edition of Playboy.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao)
Subject: Devide & Conquer (Re: F-16's fear?)
Organization: MITRE
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:48:13 GMT

> American certainly didn't oppose the unification of Germany when East
> German disappeared. But, American will definitely against North Korea's
> version of unification but not the South Korea's version. 
> So, you see the point. This is an era to think about each individual's
> warefare, not a big, huge country any more. However, if Chinese insist on
> building its big and huge country its fine, Taiwanese will certainly not
> dance with wolf. If parents can take better care of fewer children why
> bother to give birth to a dozen ? Big is not necessarily better. no to
> mention getting bigger.
> 
> Yi-Chieh
> 
"Devide and Conquer your enemy" is the most important political doctrin in
the western world since Caesar.  It is similar to Japanese policy - use
Chinese against Chinese (I3 Hua2 Zhi4 Hua2).  The unification of Germany is
definitely not good for the U.S.in the long term, but she CAN NOT oppose
it.  I think British and French have the problem, they CAN NOT oppose the
unification of Germany.  The unified Germany did show her national strength
(for example, in Yugoslavia civil war and higher interest rate) which
against U.S. interest.
From: yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , )
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: F-16's fear?
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:43:00 GMT
Organization: New York University

WHO@austlcm.sps.mot.com writes:
>In article <65500095@acf3.NYU.EDU> yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , ) writes:
>
>>Taiwan is a piece of land got back by China after we defeated Japan, I don't 
                                                   ?? Who are those we? Chinese
>never defeated Japan.


>>understand why Mr. Chang says it is a country, if it is a country as
>>Mr. Chang claimed, there must be very few people know this.
>>
>>By the way, when those asian countries were fighting Japan's invasion,
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  You were not included either,
> boy(or girl) !

Note that Mr. WHO says that China never defeated Japan, is that
because his loyalty to his master makes him cannot accept the smple
fact that China defeated Japan.

>>where were those taiwanese boys and girls, they were not defending
>>"their own country", I am sure some of them are serving their Japanese 
>>masters, how did they become so tough in recent years?

>How can you be so sure that your father/mother or grandfather/grandmother
>has not served Japanese masters in mainland?

Surely you can ask me this question, but the fact is that so many
Chinese lost their lifes when we fought Japan's invasion, how about
taiwan? Mr. WHO. Let me also tell you, none of my ancestors served
Japan in WWII.

>
>>They don't have the right to say taiwan is a independent country now, 
>>it's a piece of land owned by Chinese.

>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. Fell no shame is
>the worst shame.

That's fairplay, Mr. WhO.

> 
>>>Yi-Chieh
>
>>Ze Yang

Ze Yang
From: cyc@z.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: F-16's fear?
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:47:10 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor

>>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.
>

That's because the stupid and stubborn KMT who think they are the only 
legitimate government of China and KMT still dreams to fight back the
mainland China. So, KMT must not let Taiwan to be independent from China.
If Taiwanese ever decide to go for independent this world will surely
accept it, but the problem is KMT don't want to do it.

Yi-Chieh
From: yunson@lpf.umd.edu (Yunson Du)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: WHAT REAL TIBETANS THINK?
Date: 6 Sep 92 02:46:57 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <0002@tia.lhasa.tb> Real_Tibetans@tia.lhasa.tb writes:
>In article 86472 from zhuh@athena.mit.edu (Hui Zhu):
> 
>>Hi, you, faked-tibetan, listen:
>>
>>whoever you are, whatever your name is. I don't care. :)
>>
>>But by posting from a faked "Real_Tibetans@tia.lhasa.tb" won't qualify you
>>as a real Tibetan, and what you said is therefore NONSENSE.  :)
> 
> 
>Do you think the UPI report is nonsense?  It comes from a recent issue of 
>China News Digest.
> 
>Tibetans want independence!   China out!
> 
> 
>A committee of real Tibetans.

You coward! By keeping anonymous, you already lose the debate, 
especially with emotional gabbage.

Netters want discussion!    Anonymous out!

Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:24966 soc.culture.taiwan:12941 soc.culture.hongkong:10528
From: li@sicvax.enet.dec.com (Tong-Kang Li)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
Subject: Re: News readers from ROT(Re: Hello from news reader in China)
Date: 7 Sep 92 16:06:00 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <liqiang.715634372@kramden>, liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li) writes...
>li@sicvax.enet.dec.com (Tong-Kang Li) writes:
> 
> 
>>In article <1992Sep4.152707.3933@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, ghe@nyx.cs.du.edu (George He) writes...
>>> 
>>>will fight to my last breath to resist invasion from China.
> 
>>Military take-over? Many mainlanders will fight to the last breath as you,
>>dont worry.
> 
>>Tom
> 
> 
>Wait a second, gentlemen! Please save your last breaths. In Chinese history, 
>most war victims have died innocent deaths. Usually people either prevail
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>or surrender. Besides, you never know what a war is really about.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
>- Li, Qiang

It is certainly true sometimes, that is why CCP still rules China and 
Mainland Chinese still have to bear with. Sad!
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
From: dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby)
Subject: Territory of Ancient China : Han Dynasty
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:28:30 GMT

**Period:

206 B.C. -> 9 A.D. Han (West).
25 A.D. -> 208 A.D. Han (East).

**Dynasty:

Han Dynasty

**Area under Central Control:

North:  modern North Korea is under Han control.
South:  modern Northern Vietnam is under Han control.
SouthWest:  modern GuiZhou and YunNan are under Han control.
West:  went as far as the Western edge of modern China occupying
modern XinJiang Uygur Autonomous Region and GanSu.

However, during the Han (East), additional area was gained in
modern Northern Burma, whereas far NorthWestern area was lost and
became a small, seperate country.

And control over part of modern North Korea was lost.

**Area under Central Influence:

Trade was established as far as India, Persia, Syria, and Rome (East).

**Neighbouring States/Tribes/Civilizations:

Major surrounding Civilizations are:

Machuria in the NorthEast.
Mongolia in the North.
Tibet in the SouthWest.

All were threats to Han, occupying areas similar to
the size of that of Han, minors XinJiang area.

there was a civilization in the SouthWest (modern Northern Burma)
but was conquested by Han (East).

-- 
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,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
From: dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby)
Subject: Territory of Ancient China : Song Dynasty
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:40:25 GMT

**Period:

960 -> 1127 A.D. Song (North) Dynasty
1127 -> 1279 A.D. Song (South) Dynasty

**Dynasty:

Song Dynasty

**Area under Central Control:

1111 A.D.
Song only occupied what was left over from the Five Dynasties and
Ten Kingdom Period.  Being surrounded by Eight countries.

1142 A.D.
Jin Dynasty (from Manchuria) has taken over Manchuria, large part
of Siberia, parts of Mongolia, and areas surrounding Yellow River.
Song (South) occupied the remaining part of China in the South.

**Area under Central Influence:

Manchuria and parts of Inner Mongolia and GanSu, although not
under Central Control, were subject to major influences from
Song.

**Neighbouring States/Tribes/Civilizations:

Surrounded by Eight countries, major threat is Manchuria
and Tibet during Song (North).

Surrounding Nations are all growing rapidly, in particularly
Mongolia and Tibet.

-- 
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,soc.culture.taiwan
From: xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:46:18 GMT

In article <lb1ko4INNd4g@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> stlin@stevelin.Eng.Sun.COM (Steven Lin) writes:

>That is the point why CCP reacted badly. ROC was that CCP stole power from.
>As long as ROC lives strong, CCP has no way to sleep well in the night.
>Though 150 F-16 just provide ROC air superiority, none of CCP could live
>without disturbance of life threat.

At least KMT was stupid. I read several books describing the civil
war. It is very pity some to see KMT's war strategy. They were very
stupid. They had much stronger forces but were divided into pieces
and swept one by one. Historically, there is no glory on the KMT
side. The economy was bad, poor people was poorer, government was
corruptive and millitary was stupid. What can you say? You were
supposed to loss.

Even CCP clapse, it will still take long time, if not forever for
the KMT to regain political influence in mainland. If Taiwan went
for independence, we have to wave "Bye bye".

>The deal indicates that ROC has high skill of diplomatic negotiation,
>in the contrtast, CCP can only yell mad like a crazy dog.

I view it differently. If CCP behaves like a crazy dog, ROC
certainly looks like a normal dog. 

>Nobody in the world supports this claim. It is clear that CCP stole
>something from KMT. While KMT is still living strong, CCP should shut
>up to prevent from bandit insulting.

I hope you are not saying that mainlanders stole something from KMT.
We certainly don't owe you anything. I guess you stole many valuable
things from Beijing Forbiden City. If you want independence, you
are supposed to return them back. They belong to China and the Chinese
history.

>Da Yeh has money, what you can do about it? Da Yeh is buying Shanghai
>streets, what you can do about it?

I bet you cannot buy Shanghai street. I don't have to do anything about it.


Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25304 soc.culture.taiwan:13166
From: stlin@stevelin.Eng.Sun.COM (Steven Lin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:10:28 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: stevelin

In article <10SEP199215495996@deimos.ucc.umass.edu> (s9874194) writes:
>In article <BuCEr5.JB9@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> (xiao-lin li) writes...
>> Why should mainland risk so much for this
>>island? Mainland people will not live better with the
>>"liberation" of Taiwan. After five years, these plans
>>may be nothing but toys. 
>> 
That is the point why CCP reacted badly. ROC was that CCP stole power from.
As long as ROC lives strong, CCP has no way to sleep well in the night.
Though 150 F-16 just provide ROC air superiority, none of CCP could live
without disturbance of life threat.
>> 
>>I think the Chinese government is over worried and the
>>Taiwanese is over joyed. What a big deal!
>>Xiao Li
>
The deal indicates that ROC has high skill of diplomatic negotiation,
in the contrtast, CCP can only yell mad like a crazy dog.

>1. Selling weapons to Taiwan is an invasion to Beijing's
>
Nobody in the world supports this claim. It is clear that CCP stole
something from KMT. While KMT is still living strong, CCP should shut
up to prevent from bandit insulting.

>2. If the door for weapon sale is open, then, French can sell
>Mirage 2000, Russian can sell Mig-29, Dustch can sell sub....
>Everybody can sell anything they want. The next day you will
>find that somebody may sell something more dangerous at more
>attractive price and the Straight will be a very dangerous 
>place.
>
That is the current sistuation now of ROC position. ROC has every
possible resource to get weapon to meet its need.

Da Yeh has money, what you can do about it? Da Yeh is buying Shanghai
streets, what you can do about it?
From: YXZ100@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: To Those pro Shen Tong guys
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:27:04 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

Did I play in TAM square as ST did ? so-called student leader?  Was I a
















so-called D-fighter?  Am I crying for "democracy" like ST?  Did I

advocate "revolution"? :)

If Not, what/why should I take that responsibility?  Give me your "logic" here.











Listen, still the old rules: If you want to play, take your responsibility.
If you do not have the courage, just do not play.  Fleeing and begging for
foreign interference won't do you any good.  Uncle Sam never did/will bring
democracy to anywhere!
You want the logic?  Here it is:
If Shen Tong called himself a D-fighter, if he cried for ``democratic", then

he did take his responsibility by going back to China.  If he took the respon-
sibility, then he did have the courage.
Let's look at your side:

If you claimed that to have a courage is to take a responsibility, then going
25^
24^
25^

back to China, which shows a responsibility, is a courageous behavior. If you
say that this isn't courageous, then where is your logic?
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: gang@ms.uky.edu (Gang Li)
Subject: Re: The smartest way to be the #1 (RE:Coup Rumors in Moscow(I))
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:25:30 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

Let every country else in world have wars, civil wars, coups, demons, strikes,
fights, tumult, etc.......
From: yidao@cae.wisc.edu (Yidao Cai)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: How to Kill articles by name of sender ?
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:37:37 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering

Hi, Every:
	Sometimes I just don't want to read articles posted by a particular
netter because he/she made too much noise/posted too many articles in a short
time so that I have no time to follow, is there a way to kill these articles
BY THE NAME OF THE SENDER ?
	Thanks in advance. 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: li@sicvax.enet.dec.com (Tong-Kang Li)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 02:52:54 GMT


In article <79658@ut-emx.uucp>, joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang) writes...
>In article <1992Sep11.174825.20736@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> jqtan@northstar60 (Jian-Qi Tan) writes:
> 
>The F-16's are "just in case."  I don't see any reason to be overly
>concerned about them.  (Yes, I know that the United States violated
>its 1982 agreements, but don't trust politicians too much.)
> 

"Taiwan Relations Act" passed by the U.S. Congress indicates the U.S. will 
provide needed defense weapons to Taiwan.

After all, Taiwan is just a buyer, she buys anything needed for defending 
her security and interest. That's all. 

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: gang@ms.uky.edu (Gang Li)
Subject: Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view. (Was: Who Cares 150 F-16s.)
    <1992Sep14.223741.8686@news.acns.nwu.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:51:52 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

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

>Now if majority of people in Taiwan select not suffering, are you going to stop  
>them. Do you agree that we are now suffering. Do you like more people join us  
>and suffer together? Is this your point?

I heard that there was a survey in taiwan that majority of people answerd not
to independent. Of cause you can explain it your way. The answer is that some
people do suffer from the seperation. If you have a better way to solve this
problem, then put it for vote. I am not the leader of the country, but I have
my opinion. Right now, your "if" is not clear. That might be a prove of whether
people like seperation. But if they did select your way, I still think that is
not a better way, and let history to be the judge.

>Carl
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby)
Subject: Territory of Ancient China : Qing Dynasty
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:45:20 GMT

**Period:

1636 A.D. -> 1919 A.D.

**Dynasty:

Qing Dynasty (the last Imperial Dynasty of China)

**Area under Central Control:

1820 A.D.
It covered what is now the modern China, plus a large
part of Siberia to the northeast.
It covered what is now Mongolia, and plus a large area
to West which has been taken by Russia until today.

1908 A.D.
It covered what is now the modern China, and Mongolia,
plus the area to the west which was taken by Russia.

**Area under Central Influence:

Trade with Central Asian and southeast Asian nations.
It also had influence over Korea, and other part of
Asia to the West and to the South.

**Neighbouring States/Tribes/Civilizations:

Russia is to the north.
Japan is to the east.
European invasions.

Tibet and Mongolia ceased to be threats and were both
absorbed by China.

-- 
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: Real_Tibetans@tia.lhasa.tb
Subject: Re: WHAT REAL TIBETANS THINK?
Originator: Real_Tibetans@tia.lhasa.tb
 
 
Organization: Tibetan Information Agency
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 20:45:21 GMT

In article 86472 from zhuh@athena.mit.edu (Hui Zhu):
 
>Hi, you, faked-tibetan, listen:
>
>whoever you are, whatever your name is. I don't care. :)
>
>But by posting from a faked "Real_Tibetans@tia.lhasa.tb" won't qualify you
>as a real Tibetan, and what you said is therefore NONSENSE.  :)
 
 
Do you think the UPI report is nonsense?  It comes from a recent issue of 
China News Digest.
 
Tibetans want independence!   China out!
 
 
A committee of real Tibetans.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: shchen@eos.ncsu.edu 
Subject: Re: When does a Chinese become an American?
Originator: shchen@c00535-106ps.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: shchen@eos.ncsu.edu 
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:33:23 GMT


In article <Bu8zJE.1Ln@rlyeh.multisys.com>, rot@rlyeh.multisys.com (Republic of Taiwan) writes:
|>
|>Since Chinese loves to be an American, why don't you make
|>China as part of America, then everyone in China automately
|>skip H-1, F-1, B-1, green card... steps and become American 
|>citizen.   :-)
|>

You seemed to be confused with Chinese's love for living a good 
life with their love to be an American.  Chinese don't really give
a shit about becoming an American citizen.
  
|>No more jumpping of ships, jumpping of airplanes or smugglling
|>in through US borders. Let everyone has same chance to taste
|>the 'evil' of Capitalism.  ;-)
|>

It's high time to reclaim the some of the wealth that has been robbed 
from China in the past.
From: bwang@csa.bu.edu (Biao Wang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: F-16's fear?
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:32:43 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

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. Fell 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
 in Taiwan right now are lived on "robbed" land, are you saying they have
 no shame at all:)
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Thursday, 10 Sep 1992 15:02:06 EDT
From: <IO11043@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Anyone want an ASCII file copy of USA constitution?

You can find whole documents about the constitution at the ftp site
PO.CWRU.EDU ether. The directory is /freenet/freedom-shrine.
===================================
Robert Pan               Telephone: (207) 581-2298 Office
                                    (207) 827-8823 Home
Apt B, 1 Hayes St.       Internet: io11043@maine.maine.edu
Old Town, ME 04468-1117    Bitnet: io11043@maine
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25233 soc.culture.japan:7912 soc.history:8161