HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yzhao@cs.uh.edu (Yi Zhao)
Subject: ?????? (Was Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view.)
Organization: Computer Science dept.,  Univ. of Houston (Main Campus)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 02:38:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.005955.19975@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> yewang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Yenwen Wang) writes:
>
>ROC was once a government of the entire China, then lost
>the civil war, and then lost the recognitions from other
>countries. IRA started as a minority group asking for
>independence, then resorted to terrorism. People in
>Taiwan see their country humiliated year after year, few
>mainland Chinese understand that. They only think the whole
>thing as a zero-sum game between CCP and KMT.
>
>Yes, insisting PRC's sovereignty may satisfy your nationalistic
>appetite, but from Taiwan's viewpoint, it's chauvinistic. You
>do not get anything constructive done.
>
>

I am sorry to say that I fail to understand that why insisting PRC's
sovereignty only satisfy the nationalistic appetite, nevertheless why
it's chauvinistic from Taiwan's viewpoint. Just because people in
Taiwan see their country humiliated year after year, so any other country
recognized by other countries as "China" deserves to be humiliated?

The deal of F-16 itself is not a concern for me. Actually I would like
to see that Taiwan makes these F-16's or equivalents itself. The
existence of an economically prosperous and politically stable Taiwan is a
positive stimulus to China's modernization and democratization.

The dirtiest player in this show is the Bush administration. To my surprise,
while many mainlanders are accused to be chauvinistic pigs, no body points
his finger to the biggest chauvinistic pig, George Bush. Recently, Bush also
authorized the sale of 75(?) F-15 to Saudi Arabia, while also pledged to
maintain Israel's military superiority in Mid East. What a good deal!
Of course, he can claim he "won" the cold war, but his weapons have to be
sold somewhere else.
From: jia@hcx.rockefeller.edu (Ran Jia)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: test
Keywords: test
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:47:30 GMT
Reply-To: jia@hcx (Ran Jia)
Organization: Rockefeller Univ.,N.Y.C 10021


Due to the Protection Bill, Chinese government recently announced new policy
to overseas CSS. This includes that people with for public affairs passports
can change to for private affairs passports.  Five of us went to Chinese 
Consulate in New York on 9/8 to change.  Mr. Zhang Xiang-yang who is 
in charge of CSS of New York City told us that their procedure is we still
have to show approval letter from our working units in China (the letter
must be from Si/Ju Ji).  We told him the new policy in the People's 
Daily does not require this letter. He answered that this is our way to carry
the new policy.  Later we learned the Chinese Embassy in DC does make change
according to the People's Daily.  I then called the Education Section of NY
Consulate, they answered different consulate can do things differently.
If different representitives of the same government carry out the same 
policy in different way, how can we trust them?  We can only conclude
this new policy is not really reinforced (at least under the NY 
Consulate), it may be withdrawn if the protection bill fails.  To protect
our own rights, we must unite and push the Protection Bill.
CSS from Rockefeller Univ., Cornell Med College, Mt. Sinai School of Med.
Columbia Univ. College of P & S, Sloan-Kettering Cancer Inst. Howard
Hughes Med Inst.
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: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 00:03:11 GMT

In article 86481 from zhuh@athena.mit.edu (Hui Zhu):
 
>|> Do you think the UPI report is nonsense?  It comes from a recent issue of 
>|> China News Digest.
>
>1st. UPI does/did make false report. VOA is another big liar.
 
Can you prove that UPI "did make false report"?  Or, is it that you 
don't want to believe it?  
 
 
Tibetans want independence!   China out!
 
 
A committee of real Tibetans.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: cyc@z.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: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:38:46 GMT

>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 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: gang@ms.uky.edu (Gang Li)
Subject: Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view. (Was: Who Cares 150 F-16s.)
    <1992Sep11.225319.9934@news.acns.nwu.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:27:10 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

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

>> Are you sure there were a lot of warlords in early 20th was not because that
>> Sun Zhong Shan wanted to build democracy, and he even let one of them got
>> the position of President, who later declared to be an emperor? Are you sure

>There were a lot of warlords in the 1920s not because of Mr. Sun's policy  
>towards democracy,  but because of the ancient tradition of Chinese culture. If  
>you are afraid of this, then China will have no hope!
	It is not the problem of afraid or not, it is the history, fact.
	Democracy is not equal to seperation. 

>> Bei3 Fa2 (operation of north atack) was a democratic election campion?
>> Are you telling us at that time Chinese should have elected their
>> representitive? What would happen if they did not elect the warlord?
					     ^^^^^^^
					Read carefully.
				and I am talking about the history.
>If they elect warlords, then let the warlords be the representitive. Why do you  
>think that Chinese people will elect warlords? Trust them. Put confidence on  
>Chinese people. If a warlord is elected by a REAL election, then this warlord  
>has something that people trust.
> 
>> Are you sure US also has this 'China's special situation'?
>> Are you sure during US civil war, South did not vote for independent? Why  
>they
>> wanted to? I bet you will say Lincoln did not respect the people of South.

>If you had let all the black people in the south vote at that time, you would  
>see that the majority of the southern population would support Lincoln. 
	History is history, you can learn from it, you can't change it.
	And I am not sure at that time black people were majority.
>> Use the brain when speaking.

>Use you brain please!


>Carl
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
From: ghe@nyx.cs.du.edu (George He)
Subject: Re: News readers from ROT(Re: Hello from news reader in China)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 15:26:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.181438.12080@engage.pko.dec.com> li@sicvax.enet.dec.com (Tong-Kang Li) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep4.170937.6409@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, ghe@nyx.cs.du.edu (George He) writes...
>>In article <1992Sep4.162012.7728@engage.pko.dec.com> 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...
>>>> 
>>>>I guess the following will be more appropriate:
>>>> 
>>>>Long live China unificationists.
>>>>Because you have to live at least 80 more years to see this happen peacefully.
>>>>Currently, unification with the obnoxious China is against the will
>>>>of more than 80% Taiwanese.
>>>
>>>CURRENTLY, yes, unification with the obnoxious China is also against the will 
>>>of more than 79% Mainlanders, in my opinion. After all, TI and re-unification 
>>>are just two of options. I think CURRENTLY majority people on Taiwan prefer
>>>"maintain status-quo but keeping TI and re-unification options open".
>>>
>>>>If commies use military force, I probably  won't be able to  see the 
>>>>brutal unification happen because I (I believe a lot more Taiwanese as well) 
>>>>will fight to my last breath to resist invasion from China.
>>>>And I guess mainlanders have to sleep more carefully after 
>>>>military take-over, because we, our son, our grandgrand son 
>>>>will be foe forever.
>>>
>>>Military take-over? Many mainlanders will fight to the last breath as you,
>>>dont worry.
>>>
>>>Tom
>> 
>>I felt that Tom misunderstood my words, somehow.
>> 
>>*Mainlanders* in my term are "citizens of PRC",
>>not WSR in Taiwan - a stupid acronym I avoid using.
>> 
>>*Taiwanese* in my term are "people who currently live in Taiwan or is born in
>>Taiwan." That, of course, includes WSR (I have try my best to avoid using 
>>this acronym. However, in order to communicate, I can't but use some
>>commonly used acronyms.)
>
>YES, we are all in a happy family after all, right? :-)
>
>I believe many citizens of PRC have no interest fighting with people on 
>Taiwan except under CCP's order. I dont believe CCP can last long if she 
>resists the changes. 
>
>Tom

I hope CCP crash without bringing China  major dissorder as soon as possible.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25104 soc.culture.taiwan:13031 soc.culture.hongkong:10587
From: lix@xanadu.bu.edu (Xiaowen Li)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
Subject: Re: Territory of Ancient China : Tang Dynasty
Date: 9 Sep 92 00:53:47 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.china
Organization: Boston University

In article <92Sep8.190719edt.134@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>(deleted)
>politics.  Li ShiMing (deleted)
>the middle kingdom before until his reign.   I don't see any Chinese
>Emperor surpassed him.    

I think there were at least two surpassed him, Han Wen Di and KangXi.

Besides other things, Han Wen Di's order to ban "Rou Xin" was almost
a 2,000 years' earlier "Human Right Declaration". Also, he is the first
emperor to question: Why it is me here to rule? Unfortunately, nobody
at that time could think of, no mention could answer this question.

Similarly, KangXi is another surprise in Chinese history. No other
emperors ever understood and taught his offsprings:

Emperor is to manage the country,
not the country to serve the emperor.

KangXi also showed great talent and interest in science. He personally
wrote a academic paper on earthquake, he even tried to teach his ministers
algebra and geometry. He built the first experimental farm which kept
weather record....

Their political successes are roughly equivalent to Li Shiming, but their
intuitive awareness of humanright, democracy, and science, are no comparable
in Chinese history.
-- 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: WHO@austlcm.sps.mot.com 
Subject: Re: 150 F-16 to Taiwan
Keywords: F16
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:41:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.162408.8984@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> zliu@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Zhong Liu) writes:
>So far, no countries have been successful to sell high-tech
>weapons to Taiwan. I wonder what the serious consequences claimed
>by CG will be. I think this time CG must feel to be betrayed by
>President Bush. For Bush, the winning of the election is more
>important than any other things.
>
>Z. Liu

It looks like you can not think straight.

Which one is more improtant to Bush - to be re-elected or to write letters
to remind deng they were good friends after becoming a former president?

I just wonder how Bush is feeling now. He probably feel being betrayed by chinese.
What a friendship! You won't even help him to be re-elected. Just think about
how much he has been helping you guys. Help Bush to be re-elected and he will
help you more _:).
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: F-16's fear?
Date: 12 Sep 92 23:00:28 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <1992Sep9.223832.24909@news.acns.nwu.edu> zdlin@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (ZhongDong Lin) writes:
>They made this deal out of pure political reason in a    
>clear violation of 1982 Sino-America treaties.

One minor point.  The 1982 agreement was not a treaty, it was an
executive agreement (which the U.S. Senate does not have to ratify).
An executive agreement can be revoked by the President anytime he
feels like it.
From: xiaofei@einstein.physics.buffalo.edu (XiaoFei Wang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: English Usage
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:48:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: einstein.9209042248.AA14516
Organization: UB

* >  The discussion reminds me of this most stupid thing (I think) in English.
* >You say 1 meter, 2 meters, 10 meters, 0.5 meters, 0.001 meters, and you
* >even have to say -72 meters, -0.975 meters, and of course, ZERO METERS!  
* >Everything except 1 is plural.  Now what about -1?  Is it singular? :-)
* 
* >dhsy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
  
The correct usage is for | X | <= 1, we say X meter, otherwise X meters.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: hel@vccnorthd.its.rpi.edu (Lida He)
Subject: Looking for Jiang Zhiping
Reply-To: hel@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 17:52:31 GMT

Hi,netters:

I am looking for a friend whose name is Jiang Zhiping. He's from Changsha,
Hunan province. He is probably in Canada. If you happen to know him please
tell him my address. Your help would be deeply appreciated. 

Thank you. 

 

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: yung@r-node.gts.org (Amos Yung)
Subject: Re: 150 F-16 to Taiwan
Organization: Public Access UNIX Information System
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 14:05:59 GMT

In article <65500087@acf3.NYU.EDU> yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , ) writes:
>cyc@z.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang) writes:
>
>>I think the selling of F-16 is a good news to Taiwanese, especially TIers,
>>but definitely bad news for Chinese. Arm race is a bad thing for sure, but
>>when the bad guys got the gun what you can do about it ? You can either
>>unarm them or arm yourselves if you don't want to get killed.
>>Taiwan's buying F-16 is only a sign that all Chinese should learn and
>>remember forever that Taiwanese have every intention to make their own 
>>decision on their own future. Taiwan is Taiwanese business none of Chinese'
>>business. 
>
>TIers are rebels, they betraied their motherland just for fried 
>chicken legs, all the Chinese should defend our motherland's integrity, 

A different opinion: I am a Chinese and I say people should have a choice.
Opinion of the people should be (and must be) respected. Chinese *territory*
integrity has no meaning if it must be maintained by suppressing her own
citizens. 

>because that will benefit all the Chinese in a long run, as long
>as there is such a thing called country, we should protect our country's
>property, seperatist should be tried, rebels should be prosecuted.
>

Separatist, rebels, democrats, freedom fighter: They all share the same
name in Chinese politics. Prosecuted and persecuted spells the same in
China too.

>>Yi-Chieh
>
>Ze Yang


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amos Yung          | Macintosh Jr.: The power to crush the other kid.
yung@r-node.gts.org| 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , )
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: F-16's fear?
Date: 6 Sep 92 21:25:00 GMT
Organization: New York University

v999qx29@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu 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
>>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,
>>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?  
>> 
>>They don't have the right to say taiwan is a independent country now, 
>>it's a piece of land owned by Chinese.
>> 
>> 
>>Ze Yang

>Lets not talk about history in this matter. Or , how can you explain
>that taiwan defended China against Japanese invasion in the Sino-Japanese
>war but deserted by China . Where were mainland boys and girls when
>Taiwanese succesfully stopped Japanese landing on the island. Probably
>sucking Opium pipe on the bed then sold their brothers in Taiwan to
>Japanese so that they can keep sucking their pipes. The wound Taiwanese
>have suffered is painful enough and dosen't need anybody to worsen it.

Brave man cut off his wounded arm to survive himself, no
matter what we do, there is only one purpose: survive and being strong.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: ping@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Shiping Zhang)
Subject: Re: [News] PRC Announces Further Loosened Policies on Overseas Students
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:24:51 GMT

In article <31AUG199210140519@phobos.ucc.umass.edu> s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194) writes:
>In article <BtoMK1.4KK@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, xiong@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Bo Xiong) writes...
>>[...]
>> 
>>Please don't tell me that it's because of the "reform" in China or "support
>>Deng for his reform", that kind of garbage doesn't make your visa changed
>>from J-1 to H-1/F-1/greencard/be able to stay overseas :-)
>> 
>>And, it's really amazing to see some CSS raising their right hands to grab
>>green card, and raising their left hands to ass kiss CCP/support "Deng's
>>reform"/paint Deng as an "innocent old man" in June 4th Beijing Massacre.
>> 
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>>Bo Xiong in Chicago
>=============================================================================
>I agree with you that your J-1 visa can be changed to H-1/F-1 was not the
>result of the "Reform" policy of China. But, do not fool yourself. Chinese
>government has totally no control of your visa at all. What made your
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>visa CONVERTABLE was the blood of your brothers and sisters, as well as
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the power struggle between the US Congress and the Administration.
>CORC (A Conservative Old-fashion Republican Communist, sounds wierd?)

  Does that mean that one's visa is convertable if he/she has brothers
  and/or sisters (they surely have blood)?

-ping

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: yewang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Yenwen Wang)
Subject: Re: ?????? (Was Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view.)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:59:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.023814.25453@menudo.uh.edu> yzhao@cs.uh.edu (Yi Zhao) writes:

>
>I am sorry to say that I fail to understand that why insisting PRC's
>sovereignty only satisfy the nationalistic appetite, nevertheless why
>it's chauvinistic from Taiwan's viewpoint. Just because people in
>Taiwan see their country humiliated year after year, so any other country
>recognized by other countries as "China" deserves to be humiliated?
>

>
>The dirtiest player in this show is the Bush administration. To my surprise,
>while many mainlanders are accused to be chauvinistic pigs, no body points
>his finger to the biggest chauvinistic pig, George Bush. Recently, Bush also

People in Taiwan know about this. But our view is that CCP makes this
thing happen. That is, to force ROC to seek help from Washington.
(Don't accuse us of being cowards, as one netter put it, Chinese
students are seeking the same kind of support from Washington after
TAM crackdown...).

We need to realize that there is not a zero-sum game between Beijing
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Yenwen Wang                        wangy@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu
  The Ohio State University          yewang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: zdlin@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (ZhongDong Lin)
Subject: Re: F-16's fear?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:25:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.165229.8038@oakhill.sps.mot.com> WHO@austlcm.sps.mot.com  writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.223832.24909@news.acns.nwu.edu> zdlin@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (ZhongDong Lin) writes:
>>
>>
>>     I donot think Taiwan or China should be the main issues of F-16 deal.
>>Taiwan should not be blamed for its fear of security, and PRC should not be
>>blamed for its protest (pretend or not).  The real guilty part is George Bush
>>and his government.  They made this deal out of pure political reason in a    
>>clear violation of 1982 Sino-America treaties. His government then tried to
>       ^^^^^^^^^
>If the US government can violate its previous treaties with the kmt government to
>establish its relationship with the ccp government in 1982, then what is the big
>deal about violating the so-called "1982 Sino-America treaties?"
>  
>>justify its wrongdoing by overriding a international law by a domestic law. 
>
>What are the international law and the domestic law you are talking about?
>  
>>This just proves that politicans anywhere are the same, it is not the
>>interests of people they care about, it is their personal gains.  If selling 
>
>Does the ccp government care about the interests of people living in Taiwan?
> 
>>weapons is for the purpose of stabilizing a region, why they objected the     
>>Chinese arm sales to the third world countries? 
>>
>>
>
>
  This is the last time I would debate with someone who jumped into an
arguement without any idea of what other people are talking about and any
knowlege of what is going on.  For those of you who still didnot get it, my   
point in my previous post is that politicians all over the world are the same 
(U.S, China, etc.), and this time U.S. government showed its side of it.  The 
fact that U.S. government broke tie with Taiwan to make China its ally against 
C.C.C.P is just another prove.  Why do you think U.S would eat their words not
too long after the collapse of Soviet Union?  About what is international law 
and domestic law, GET SOME BACKGROUNDS!  About ccp care about what, first it is
neither here nor there.  Second if it proves anything, it proves my point.    
Here is something for you to think: does U.S. government really care about the
interest of Taiwan?  If so, why it broke with Taiwan years ago, and why it only
agrees to sell F-16's after the finish of C.C.C.P. at the year of election
before the layout of thousands of workers who could vote against George? 

Brian 

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china