HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:      Interview by LA Times reporter (forwarded CCNL posting)
Reply-To: "UCLA K.Y." <EDT2LRF@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 08:54:00 GMT

This is a report posted on the CCNL net, I forward it for those who
subscribe only China-nt. If you also subscribe CCNL, you already
have it.

Kevin

P.S.
Please notice that the reporter who conducted the interview does not have
the final say on whether the L.A. Times will make an editorial or not.
The decision will be made by the editor at higher level and based on the
story written from the interview.


-------------------------TEXT-OF-FORWARDED-MAIL--------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:28:00 PDT
From:         "MA, SIFENG" <sma@PHYSICS.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Interview by LA Times reporter
To:           Multiple recipients of list CCNL <CCNL@UTARLVM1.BITNET>

The interview by LA Times held at UCLA earlier this afternoon was
very successful. About 20 from UCLA, USC and Caltech attended it.
Whithin the two hours of interview, we were able to make the issues
very clear: Promote human rights in China; Exert pressure on Chinese
government; Release Shen Tong and others immediately; We deserve
freedom. Many used their own or friends' stories and experience
to get the points across. An editorial is under way (of consideration).

We feel it is very important to learn how to use the media and to keep
a close relationship with it. Although we'll have to wait to see what
actually appears, none of us feels it'll hurt.

We'd like to take this opportunity to thank those from USC and Caltech
who attended the interview. It wasn't easy for them to drive twenty
miles to UCLA, because the traffic in LA is incredibly terrible!

UCLA Lobby Task Force
From: phsj@marlin.jcu.edu.au (su jianfeng)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: James Cook University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 10:14:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.051936.7604@news.Hawaii.Edu> wendong@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Wen-Dong Tang) writes:
>Why people in Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang are seeking independence? they feel being treated unequally. Just like in a big family with 3 or 4 generations together, if you think you are mistreated by the other members of the family and nothing can change your situation in the family (because you do not want to sacrifice you belief, your money, etc), what will you do?

If you feel being treated unequally and being mistreated by the other
members of the family, you can leave the family and forget the property.
The same answer to those seeking Tibet independence.  I suggest them to
leave Tibet.

>Why European countries are seeking unification? because they have the NEED to do so and this is based on equality of EVERY country!
>
>>
>>Mr. Tang says "the fate of a group of people should be ONLY
>>determined by THEMSELF", then why so many SCC are waiting for
>>Gorge Bush's decision instead of their owns. What's a country
>>for after all? 
>>
>>CCP did nothing more wrong than establishing a utopia China and
>>educated a generation of utopian.
>>
>>Ze Yang
>
>So many CCS are waiting for Bush's decision. Why are they waiting? Let me tell you, just because in China we fail to overthrow the government we do not want, just because we have to separate from the government, and because we can not build another country on the Earth, so we have to ask a democratic country to receive us. Is this our fault?  Should I still point out to you that we already made our dicision?

Why did you use 'we' instead of 'I'.  Would you please give a further
explanation to make clean the boundary.

>
>It is not a utopia, guy.  Free voting has been carried out in so many countries for so long.  Of course each country has their own problem in carrying out free voting.  But that is already a great step in people's self-determination.  And it is much better than the government the poor Chinese have to choose.
>
People's self-determination =?= freely migration

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: yjj@neptune.ctr.columbia.edu (Yuan Jiang)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 05:10:12 GMT
X-Posted-From: neptune.ctr.columbia.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct3.170809.9365@cmcl2.nyu.edu> yangze@acf3.nyu.edu (Ze Yang) writes:
>yjj@neptune.ctr.columbia.edu (Yuan Jiang) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct3.030008.29321@cmcl2.nyu.edu> yangze@acf3.nyu.edu (Ze Yang) writes:
>>>wendong@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Wen-Dong Tang) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>Division increases hostality,
>>>mideast, former Sovit Union and Yogslava are good examples. Division
>>>do harm to ecnomic intercourse, while eroupean is unifying, I cann't
>>>understand why Mr. Tang encourage independence movement here.
>
>>There is a saying "good fence makes good neighbors."  So division
>>does not neccessarily increase hostality.  Peace is maintained when
>
>I have my examples here, what's yours, Mr. Jiang? I don't object the

Your examples only prove what I stated.  Peoples are antangeled in
Yogoslavia.  Where the fences should be are not clear.  Now they
are fighting over how to draw the lines.  It's caused by historical
wrongs by the Wars and Tito.  Maybe many Chinese students think
Tito is a nice from CCP's education.  but he was a butcher just
like Stalin and Mao.  What's happening in former Soviet is similar.
Also, they have not got out of the communist habbit of using force.

>race round them. Also you assertion sounds racism. 
>
>South Africa Government is glad to hear "people with blood relations
>tend to live together better".

I don't you give me a HAT.  People do live better with people who
are related by blood, have similar culture, tradition and way
of living.  Is New York a melting pot?  Each people has their
own community.
>
>>There were so many times when Europe was tried to be united by force.
>>There were 1st and 2nd world wars and many wars before.  After 2nd WW,
>
>There is no comparison here, Tibet is part of China for a long history.
>We inherited that land legally and peacefully, how can you compare this 
>with those bloody annexing.  We are palying the game under the rule most 

1959 was equally bloody if not more.

>people accept. Most important, I object TI because I think that will hurt 
>our interest.
I think this is the heart of the problem: interest and the pride of BIG CHINA.
I did not say TI will not hurt your and Chinese interest.  But how about
Tibetans' interests?  Interests can be negociated abd bargained on the table.

>
>The western Europe and U.S. and Japan are united as tight as eastern
>Europe, the only difference is free market economy.
>
Were they forced to be united.  They chose to colaborate.

>How is it reduced. Why don't you mention the Civil War and Mecxian War?
>Without those wars, U.S. cannot be a country you see today.

As I said, when you see a devil, do you want to be a devil too?

>Why so many deathes every day?
Because of the injustice and conflicts left over from yesterday.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "X. Jiang" <43JIANG@CUA.BITNET>
Subject:      About CNN news
Reply-To: "X. Jiang" <43JIANG@CUA.BITNET>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 04:03:55 GMT

I have been watching CNN headline news. CNN did report Bush's veto on
the CMFN bill but did not mention S1216. Anyhow we need to watch out.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Yuan M Jiang <ymj1@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Reply-To: Yuan M Jiang <ymj1@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 06:24:42 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.bitnet

will be held on 10/5-10/6, at Freedom Forum, Arlington, Virginia.
It's organized by Tibet Forum and Center for Modern China.  It is
partly sponsored by National Endowment for Democracy.

Speakers include scholars, leading  and individual members from
Chinese and Tibetan communities.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "(Junwei W. Hou)" <jwh3@PO.CWRU.EDU>
Subject:      some non-instruction
Reply-To: "(Junwei W. Hou)" <jwh3@po.CWRU.Edu>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:24:35 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

(9-29-92)
*****************************
Hi, Netters:

     Please be rational.  We are ok, no matter whose instruction we
follow.

     At this stage, trying to express our concerns about the bill
is perfectly ok.  It doesn't matter to whom we express, the
senators or the President.  The operation of the three branches of
the U.S. government has been running for well over 200 years.  Give
some credits to the U.S. government.  The government of this nation
is mature enough to know the principles and values the bill stands
for.  The government of this nation is smart enough to handle the
phone-call pressure from the CSS.  And surely the government of
this nation is wise enough to spot those who may be thinking that
their phone-call "trick" by-passing the White House can fool the
President.

     Just give the President some credits.  He knows the principles
underlying the bill.  He knows his INS does not oppose the measures
proposed by the bill.  He knows his Republican Senators, including
his buddy Simpson, do not oppose the bill.  He knows that the bill
is very well written.  He knows how important the bill means to the
CSS.   He knows he can do something, by using his pen, to help the
CSS.

     The President knows how to act, regardless to whom we call.

     As Luo Ning's comment suggested, there are common messages in
the instructions released by IFCSS and IFCSS's CCSA.  Please, use
your own judgement, trust your own judgment.  At this stage, you
may want to express your own feelings about the bill to the one you
consider needs most to hear.  Believe me, your guys are absolutely
good enough to make that judgment.  You don't need some wise-guy's
smart idea.  Just trust yourself at this final stage of the
process.

     And we should know the outcome any moment from now.


                                   Junwei
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Yuhe Liu <liu@ATMOS.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Follow-up: Impact of S1216 on jobs and quota
Reply-To: Yuhe Liu <liu@ATMOS.UMD.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:37:24 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

Dear Fellows:

     Based on the general thinking I posted last night, I am try to talk
about the impact of protection of CSS on jobs and quota. Let's simply
review the basic points of the general thinking:

     * CSS in the US need to protect.
     * The protection bill cannot be provided to all CSS, so we have to
       have Group B.

     Now let's discuss the schemes of the protection. There are two
extreme schemes:

     1. All covered people become PR automatically without any changes
of quota. It must severely influence the immigration policy to protect
nearly 10,000 Chinese nationals. The US Congress would definitely adjust
the immigration quota. This scheme has no any chance to pass the
Congress. We have to forget it.

     2. All covered people may stay in the US without PR status. The US
would not force them back to China, but not provide "Green Card" as
well. For example, extend the protection provided by the President's
Executive Order to another four years, and another another four years.
In this scheme, people in Group A can stay America, anyway.
But they have to find jobs without PR requirement and be patient
to wait on a long waiting line to get PR. People in Group B, in
general, should graduate from schools later than Group A and have
to follow the regular procedure to get jobs after graduatin if they
want to stay in the US, while Group A can have working permission
even before graduation which provides more opportunities and
convenient than Group B to find a job. In this scheme, Group B has to
unequably compete with Group A in the same job markets. That definitely
would sharply decrease chances for either Group A or B. Well, anyway I
think we have to avoid this scheme.

    Now, we have to look for the third scheme which should most benefit
all CSS either Group A or B, at least avoid more damages, as well as
is practically possible. In my opinion, S1216, if not the best, should
be a better one.

    After post last mail to the net, I have received many positive
responses both from Group A and B. I hope both Group A and B can pay
more attention to IFCSS's work. There is no perfect in this world. But
if we CSS all concern IFCSS and contribute to her, we can make our IFCSS
the best.

     Thank you for your attention.


                                                Sincerely,

                                                Yuhe Liu

                                                University of Maryland
                                                at College Park

===========================================================================
  From:  Yuhe Liu
  IFCSS Council Member
  Department of Meteorology                Telephone: (301) 405-8045 (O)
  University of Maryland                              (301) 779-0350 (H)
  College Park, MD 20742                   Email:     liu@atmos.umd.edu
===========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:19:00 GMT

In article <BvAxp9.AI2@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:
>In article <1a7bg0INN4ml@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> txt15@po.CWRU.Edu (Tao Tao) writes:
>>
>>If Tibet does become an independent country, who will guarantee its soverenty?
>>I guess it will end up being annexed by India, the chief rival of China in
>>that region.
>
>Why should that be the case?  Nepal and Bhutan are sovereign states?

hmmm, Nepal, maybe as long as they don't buy some military trucks and
anticraft guns from China to "Threaten" India!  and India will swing
its fat ass to start a total trade embargo to that poor land locked
country.  Bhutan, I am not so sure, isn't the Indian Army there?  
There is one more small kingdom between China & India, can't think
of the name, had been all but annexed by India.  Come to regional
terriorism/imperialism, you have to say that India is far ahead of
China, behaving like a total bully in South Asian sub-continent.   
>
> 
>-- 
>Conrad Richter                     richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca
>Richters Herbs                     71550.3411@compuserve.com
>Goodwood, ON L0C 1AO Canada        Tel 416-640-6677 / Fax 416-640-6641
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: test
From: Charlie Shen <I90LG@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 29 Sep 1992 00:57:23 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

Just a test
From: binxiong@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Bin Xiong)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: A test
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:52:26 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

This is a test. Please ignore it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: yeh@netix.com (Mr Shannon Yeh)
Subject: Action-9201.appendix
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Organization: Netix Communications, Inc.
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:28:07 GMT

I thought that many Chinese people in China did not understand what was 
cooking here.  But I am wrong!  Whenever I arbitrarily talk with any friend 
of mine in China, they know who those CSS are, and they know what those CSS 
are trying to do.

However, the situation is a little bit "confusing" this time: the US government
is quiet on this blood card bill; and the Chinese government is quiet, too,
on this blood card bill.  The only party who is angry toward this blood card
bill is the Chinese people such as Shannon Yeh.  The reason for the White
House to be quiet is so that they cannot see any direct benefit from granting
this bill; the reason for the Chinese government to be quiet is so that they
feel "losing-face" if they over-react to this "Chinese-sell-Chinese" case.
The reason for the Chinese people to be angry is so that they feel the justice
has been raped by those CSS, and the facts has been twisted by those CSS.

Regardless this bill will be passed or not, most of the CSS, including those
CSS, will go home someday.  By then, the Chinese PEOPLE will hate the blood
carders.  If the regular CSS do not distinct themselves from those CSS, they
will suffer when they return to China someday: who knows you did not work on 
the blood card in 1992?

So, if you did not directly support the blood card petition, I strongly 
recommend you to sign up at "blood-card@netix.com".  If you do not speak out 
your standing, you may be misunderstood in the future.

Obviuosly, upon your own discretion.

shannon
-------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: ZHOU@MSG.UCSF.EDU
Subject:      We still need work hard
Reply-To: ZHOU@MSG.UCSF.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:54:34 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

	The massege from IFCSS/CCSA seems encourage.  However, this is
the States.  Before we really got the written offer, anything can happen.
so, please work hard and do the final push.  We still have 6 more days
to push President Bush to sign.

	According to IFCSS's instruction, the UCSF lobby group contact
with the Chancellor last thursday.  We prepared a letter to Chancellor
to inform him what happened, and what is the history, and we urge him to
ask President to sign the bill S1216.

	After he reviewed the petition, he transfered our letter to
Senior Vice Chancellor and asked him to handel it.  The Vice Chancellor
hasn't received our letter.  We'll keep in touch with it. We don't know
what the result will be, but, we'll try our best.

	We have made request to meet the Senator Seymour.  His secretary
in SF is connecting with his DC office now. We hope to have chance to meet
hime before Oct. 12.

	We had sent a letter to President Bush to asked him to sign the
Bill, with about 37 signature ( We didn't have too many benifited people
in this campus).  We'll sent a letter to Governor Wilson with so many
signature to ask him to call President to sign the Bill.

	The House is adjourned, but our battle is still a week long.
Don't relax by the message from IFCSS.  We need keep our pressure on
the White House. Work hard for the worst situation.  We have six days.
We can do a lot within these six days.

	We prefer the strategy as IFCSS/CCSA pointed:  Keep pressure
on the White House.  Generate the pressure by our fellow students
and by our american friends.  However, don't awake the general american
publically.  Guys; Work Hard for last push.

	Do something,  do something you can think to help to keep
the pressure on.  You can imagine that President has the pressure from
CCP,  so we need keep our pressure on.

	WORK HARD UNTIL WE GET THE OFFER!!!

UCSF lobby group
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: wendong@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Wen-Dong Tang)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:55:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.101438.8508@marlin.jcu.edu.au> phsj@marlin.jcu.edu.au (su jianfeng) writes:
>
>If you feel being treated unequally and being mistreated by the other
>members of the family, you can leave the family and forget the property.
>The same answer to those seeking Tibet independence.  I suggest them to
>leave Tibet.

I am so sorry to read your statement here! Do you REALLY understand what you were talking about?  All the architactors will definately praise you: you don't like the way I slave you guys? just get out of here.  Hiltler did that, you want to do that again?  No, you can not do that, but the CCP will like to do further, they already did a lot.

>
>>
>>So many CCS are waiting for Bush's decision. Why are they waiting? Let me tell you, just because in China we fail to overthrow the government we do not want, just because we have to separate from the government, and because we can not build another count
>ry on the Earth, so we have to ask a democratic country to receive us. Is this our fault?  Should I still point out to you that we already made our dicision?
>
>Why did you use 'we' instead of 'I'.  Would you please give a further
>explanation to make clean the boundary.

>
>>
>>It is not a utopia, guy.  Free voting has been carried out in so many countries for so long.  Of course each country has their own problem in carrying out free voting.  But that is already a great step in people's self-determination.  And it is much bett
>er than the government the poor Chinese have to choose.
>>
>People's self-determination =?= freely migration
>
Guy, people's self-dertermination is the basic human rights.  Although we can not fully achieve that now. Free-voting is the best way NOW to carry it out.  In an arbitory kingdom, CAN you? 

In trm of freely migration, I suggest you read what you have written: if you don't like your family, you can just go!  As I wrote above, it is wrong for the fate of whole people; however, it could be right for a small nomber of people who temperorily can not get rid of the blood government.  Please, guy, distinguish these two.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: phsj@marlin.jcu.edu.au (su jianfeng)
Subject: Re:  Tibet
Organization: James Cook University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 08:10:44 GMT

Do you want to be an international "Lei Feng"?
Why don't you ask the Great British government to give up Northern
Ireland?

In article <9210021527.AA28498@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu> ymj1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Yuan M Jiang) writes:
>>or right of self determination, but on characteristics of such indepent
>>movement and its possible consequence.
>
>I'm not sure what you refer to when saying the "characteristics"
>of Tibetan Independence movement.
>
>About possible consequences of TI, it's certainly not good for Han
>Chinese because we will lose a large piece of living space,
>possible natural resources, tourist income and, of course,
>the very pride of enchanted LARGE CHINA.
>
>To Tibetans, I think it's up to them to judge the consequences.
>Remember, they have their own national pride too, just like the
>Chinese.  What would the Chinese think if others had warned
>them about the consequences of
>full independence from the Japanese 50 years ago: the corruption
>of KMT, civial war, brutal commies, loss of Japanese injection
>of industrial technology and capital.  Chinese would certainly have
>been much better off economically to stay in the East Asian Common
>Wealth Ring.
>
>Of course, the characteristics of the anti-Japanese forces were
>terrible: potentially corrupted KMT, tricky sneaky brutal CCP who
>had kill many of their own kind, local thugs and gangsters (Red
>Sorgam).
>
>From the Tibetans I've met, I believe they are just as determined
>to achieve their goal as the Chinese were 50 years ago.  I don't think
>they will listen if you tell them the consequences, just as the
>Chinese 50 years ago.
>
>I think it's better off for Chinese to face
>the fact and to think of PEACEFULL means to resolve the issue while
>bargaining the Chinese interest to the maximum.  Chinese have better
>chance now because Dalai Lama is far more flexible than the other
>Tibetans, close to the flexibility of Mr. Wang1 Jing1Wei4.  He knew
>the possible consequences and did not fight the Japanese. 


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: usenet@msdhsv.ingr.com (USENET)
Subject: test
Keywords: test
Organization: Intergraph
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:37:58 GMT

this is a test


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: jinxiong@cs.ucf.edu (Chen Jinxiong)
Subject: Re: Desperate U.S. President might do anything insane
Organization: University of Central Florida, Orlando
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 03:04:00 GMT

>>May God bless CSS
>>May God bless the United States of America
>How about none-CSS chinese, how about China?

May God bless everybody. He is mighty. He is gentle. He is Load.

:-).
>
>
>


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china