HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong,soc.culture.japan
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: An open letter to the Emperor Akihito of Japan
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:00:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.141750.8856@merlin.hgc.edu> sala8864@hgc.edu (gustavo salas) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.33034.27688@ms.uky.edu> borders@ms.uky.edu (Johnny Borders) writes:
>>rchoy@clarify.com (Raymond Choy) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Aug16.211822.5261@leland.Stanford.EDU> claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>>
>>
>>Whilst Japan was the most powerful Navy ever to sail the Pacific. It's really
>
>Hmmm.... I don't know where you got the idea that Japan was the most 
>powerful Navy EVER to sail the Pacific, let me correct you, Mr. Choy.
>Your statement may be true for the Japanese Navy after 19 century, but
>do you know why they failed the invasion of Korea at 1592? Because their
>Navy was defeated by Korean Navy so that they didn't have enough supplies

The Japanesed did capture half of Korea during the late 16th century,
a combined Chinese/Korean army pushed them back to the sea.  In the final
naval battle both the Chinese general(Deng ZiSong ?) and the Korean
Admiral(don't remember the name, the guy that invented the "turtle ship")
was killed in action although Japanese fleet was destoried.

The Ming Dynasty was already in its last days, the Manchurians are already
restless, but it took the Japanese threat seriously because they knew
Korea is going to be a beach head for the invasion of China, as it is
proved 300 years later.   

>from thier island. Mongols failed to invade the Japan not because they
>had great naval power to stop Mongols, but because they were just lucky
>to have Typoon at that time. They call it the "Holly Wind" - Kamikaje.

also because mongols are excellent horsemen, but lousy sailors, and
their Korean and Chinese subjects had no stomach to fight for them.
From: hl2a@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Haiyan  Liu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Protection bill
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:44:52 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Aug19.172012.58274@cc.usu.edu> ma@cc.usu.edu writes:
>not much difference between staying in China longer and shorter than 90 days.
>(BTW, I just came back from China, and stayed about 40 days, well within the
>90 day limit). But there is a big difference between being and not being 
>covered by the bill. Nobody wants to be treated differently (maybe unfairly).
>I have this (maybe stupid) question. Is it possible now to ask the Congress
>to remove the number "90" ?

Is it possible to ask the Congress to remove the date 1990 also and change into
all Chinese nationals in US or in China or else where in the world included in 
the bill since China is not a safe country to stay and anyone who can sneak
away from CHina, the congressmen would send some boats or planes to pick them
up or they would be persecuted.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha)
Subject: Re: Cannibalism in China
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:00:17 GMT

In article <199208171938.AA10725@thames.bu.edu> lix@BUCRSB.BU.EDU writes:
>
>As one surviving the famine, I feel obligated to say that was simply a lie.
>There was a famine from late 1959 to mid 1963. I know a village where half
>of the population were starved to death. However, there was no such thing
>as cannibalism happened in China in such period, to the best of my knowledge.
>
 

The fact that you survived the famine does not make you an authority on all
of China during that period. Therefore your assertion that the report of
cannibalism is "simply" a lie is unsupported.

I often run across this type of argumentation in this newgroup. It often runs 
together with, "You will never understand (and therefore you cannot contribute
anything intelligent to) XXX because you weren't in China then."


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: luo@lynx.rice.edu (Yuanhui Luo)
Subject: test
Organization: Civil Engineering Department - Rice University
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 23:10:26 GMT

test 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: muyu@burn.Princeton.EDU (Muyu Guo)
Subject: Re: Cannibalism in China - more info
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: soc
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:30:54 GMT

From article <etxmow.714126688@garboc34>, by etxmow@garboc34.ericsson.se (Mats Winberg):
> 
> 
> 
Just a couple of reminders:

In the story of the classic novel ``water margine'' Shu3 Hu3 
shops run by ``pirates'' Qinag2 Dao4 used human meat.

In the short stories of Lu Xun (modern time), there were 
''bread with human blood'', and in `` diary of a mad man''. 
The main aim of the stories is at the dark side of Chinese
history, cir. 1920?  Can that be defined as cannibalism?

Both above are literay in nature. Is there any historian
who has some more ideas? 

If the person writing the comments cannot comprehend what
she has described, I would urge her to try to comprehend why 
Chinese at the time were so poor.

-- 
--
Muyu Guo
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: henryc@panix.com (Henry Chan)
Subject: Re: Why should we demand the "Japs" say SORRY to China?
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 03:29:55 GMT
Distribution: soc
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Aug14.124907.14474@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> dhsy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>
>Well, I don't think you would like to be hold personally resposible for
>the TAMS massacre, for instance.  The US used nuclear bombs to kill almost 
>a million innocent Japanese people who DID NOT kill anyone, and who SUFFERED 

Off hand I remember reading actual deaths from the use of the two nuclear
bombs were somewhere around 2-300,000.

>the WWII.  The US did not bomb Tokyo, where they could at least kill a few
>"war criminals" with a huge "collateral damage", but they chose to kill
>innocent people ONLY for political resons!

Conventional bombings from night raids, towards the end of the war the
Americans were confident enough to initiate day time bombing as well, 
resulted in fires which killed significantly more civilians and destroyed
more property than the release of the two atomics.
The Americans in fire bombing Tokyo did more damage in terms of lives and
property.

The Americans slated many government officials and targeted nearly 1500 
Japanese conglomerate for prosecution and dismantlement after the war.
communist situation in China and Korea forced the Americans to reverse its
plans for democratization of Japan.  The United States prefered a staunch
conservative anti-communist ally than a democratic couterpart where socialists
and *gasp* liberals have voice in running the country.
The reason accepted for Truman approving the bombings was to save a the loss
of a potential 1,000,000 American lives it would have cost to take the
Japanese home islands.  

-- 
My friends, we can and we will, never, never, surrender to what is right.
--Dan Qualye speaking to Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.hongkong,soc.culture.taiwan
From: fstawit@icomp01.lerc.nasa.gov (Tawit Chitsomboon)
Subject: What About Tibet? (Re: What about China done to Korea)
Organization: Institute for Computational Mechanics in Propulsion
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:38:00 GMT

In article <9208200440.AA08937@nero.wustl.edu> 
dickhoff@NERO.WUSTL.EDU writes:
>
>...........................
>From my observation, Chinese people have no mentality to invade other
>nation,.................


I have always been puzzled by the collective behavier of a nation.
Take Japan as an example. Most Japanese I know are extremely
polite and courteous people. But as a nation, Japan was
notorious for her cruelty.

The above argument can, IMO, be applied to just about any nation: USA, 
England, China, etc.

Let's talk about an unpopular event about the recent and current
atrocities that China has been and still is imposing onto Tibet.

Despite all the inhumane things imposed upon them by invaders, the Chinese
and the Korean still have their cultures intact. The Tibetans are not
that fortunate. Their entire culture is destroyed and there is no
hope to gain independence soon since few care about such a 
(materially) deprived, unstrategically-located country like Tibet.
But I and other fair-minded people (and I believe some fair-minded
Chinese) do care.

Before China banned foreign reporters into Tibets, I saw a TV documentary
portraying a line of Tibetan Buddhist monks being herded onto a truck.
The bystanding Chinese soldiers continually punched and kicked the monks
as they walked by them. Then, without any seeming provocation,
, one Chinese soldier approaced a monk and hit the monk's head with
his rifle's butt. The monk collapsed to the ground, body shaking like
a clubed fish, before laying still. I was shocked to see such a lively
(deadly) incident on the TV screen. No wonder the Chinese government
banned foreign reporters in Tibet.

I have also read in a newspaper somewhere (can't remember which one)
that the Chinese soldiers often forced Tibetan monks and nuns to
perform sexual intercourse in public in order to humiliate their
vows of celibacy.

Like I said earlier, I am puzzled at the collective behavior
of a nation. Most of my Chinese friends, like their Japanese counter-
parts, are polite and courteous. I hope some fair-minded Chinese
would sympathize with the Tibetan people and criticize the government
whenever they have chances to do so.

-Tawit

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Help save planet earth ...Dispose your pride properly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ng@moe.optics.rochester.edu (Baldwin Ng)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: REPOST: PRE-MARITAL SEX IN CHINESE SOCITIES
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:34:58 GMT

Hello Everyone,

Me and my friend have been talking about the fact that there is a serious
trend in many chinese societies around the world:

Pre-martical Sex is getting more & more common.

Just wonering what people from Hong Kong, Mainland China as well as Taiwan
think about this issue.  Both os us are pretty traditional and conservative.
So, we are against people to engage sex before marriage.

What I like you all to respond on are:
1) What you think is the trend now in HK, CHina and Taiwan
2) What can we do about it?

PLEASE DO NOT WASTE TIME REPLYING AND ARGUE ABOUT WHETHER IT'S ACCEPTABLE
OR NOT.  WE ALL HAVE FREEDOM OF CHOICE!  I am just interested to see
what exactly is happening these days!!  So, NO FLAMES!!! PLEASE.

Baldwin (ng@moe.optics.rochester.edu)
From: stacc0@quantum.fiu.edu (Ye)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Holst not know own culture either
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:11:18 GMT
Organization: Florida International University, Miami


In article <77428@ut-emx.uucp>joe@astro.as.utexas.edu writes: 
   [informative stuff deleted] 
 
|If you look at Kantian ethics, you will see that it's very, very
|similar to Confucian ethics as interpreted by Mencius.  Mencius says
|that human beings are born with an innate knowledge of right and
|wrong, which is basically what Kant asserts.

You didn't mention that there was another school of thoughts advocated
by Mr. Xun that considered human beings were born as barbaric and selfish
as animals, hence the need of education and law. The Confucian later on
incorporated Mr. Xun's idea and considered that although human beings
were born moral, without education they would become siners (from 'Ren Zi
Cu, Xin Beng Shan...' SanZi Jin).

One thing is clear from either Confucius or Xun or Kant, that is a society
can not function with law and order only. There are needs for custom and
tradition. That probably explains the US, with diversified cultures, has
the largest number of laws but still high crime rates.

I would like to see arguments on the healthy percentage of 'hypothetical'
and 'catagorical' imperitives for a society, and about the benifits of
having a (somewhat) smaller amount of 'catagorical imperitives' but spend
more money on law enforcement.

By the way, did Kant consider the ideal society should be run by 
'catagorical imperitive' only? or the more the better? Maybe Marx got
some hints from Kant?
From: lho@MENTOR.CC.PURDUE.EDU (Your Father)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Cannibalism in China
Date: 18 Aug 92 03:08:54 GMT

In article <92230.213926CHENJC@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, CHENJC@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes:
|> In article <9208180022.AA08936@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, lho@MENTOR.CC.PURDUE.EDU
|> (Your Father) says:
|> >
|> >What an argument!  Do you know everything happened in China?  May be you
|> >should give people more information how you survived? Where did you live and
|> >what do you eat during the famine? That might provide more insight on which
|> >your arguments are based on?
|> >
|> >L Ho
|> Try to be nice/polite, and use your true electronic-ID before you are going to
|> start arguing/discussing.  The way you raised such junk questions to lix just
|> made me sick :-(

Why? Did you eat lobster during the famine?

|> BTW, do you know that sending faked email around is prohibited in USENET,
|> though it is not the first time you forged your garbage in this already not
|> very clean news group.

What are you talking about? :-)

L Ho
From: dhsy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: JFK-THE MOVIE.
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:36:53 EDT
Distribution: soc
Organization: Cornell University

roten@CUBA.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Roten) writes: 
> 
> The only really decent television investigation of the JFK assassination 
> was a NOVA ( !?!?! .. that's right, the PBS science documentary) segment 
> that aired about a decade or so ago.  They came to the conclusion that 
> the most robust hypothesis was that the folks in charge of the forensic 
> investigation simply screwed up.  In simple language, they blew it.  
> Don't be too surprised, it happens all the time, even these days.  And 
> this was almost 30 years ago.  

Yes, I was surprised how people ridicule those "nuclear physicists" who can
explain how one bullet can hit two people with so many wounds.  In JFK the
movie (the film, the motion picture, the electric shadow), the lawyer force
the president and the governor sit in a column like elementary school kids,
straight and upright, then he ridicules how the bullet turns around left and
right and up and down.  But of course they didn't sit like that, and if one
straighten the bullet trajectory to a straight line, their sitting position
is not impossible.

dhsy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: bbs@medsys.rn.com (Public BBS System)
Subject: Re: (none)
Reply-To: bbs@medsys.UUCP (Public BBS System)
Organization: Med-Systems, Kingsport, Tennessee
Date: 18 Aug 1992 13:19:54 GMT

In article <2A8C7EA1.15302@orion.oac.uci.edu> yeh@netix.com (Mr Shannon Yeh) writes:
>
>	2) Some friends of his including Shannon suggested him posting less
>	   articles to the net and keeping distance from those nasty/illogical
>	   guys on SCC.  He has not post articles to the net for a while for
>	   no reason but he is really busy.
>

After Mr. Carlson posted an article saying Scott might have something to
do with Dr. Horn, Mao's doctor, and pointed out Scott's not-so-perfect
Chinese, Scott suddenly became very inactive. I wonder if Carlson's articles
hitted the spot. Or perhaps Scott is hidding in a cave to Ku3 Lian4 Chinese.

Chou1
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: An open letter to the Emperor Akihito of Japan
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:50:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.230148.7780@ms.uky.edu> borders@ms.uky.edu (Johnny Borders) writes:
>lixj@sol.rutgers.edu (Xiao-jian Li) writes:
>
[......] 
>
>BARBAROUS Japanese? Well now.. We get to the heart of the matter at last.
>Far be it from me to claim to be an expert on the matter, but surely there
>must be a REASON the Japanese "barbarians" think they are superior to everyone
>else, but I don't think being barbaric is what they had in mind.
>Would it have to be pointed out that a government that runs over its own
>unarmed students is displaying barbaric, unacceptable behavior also? It's
>funny, but it seems like everyone I know think the Japanese are barbarians.
>Such a comment could only come from antiquated thinking. Besides, what are
>you going to do? *EXTRACT* an apology from the Japanese?
>-- 
You are correct.  Run a tank over some unarmed students is a bararic
action.  But so is the japanese soldiers, from their commanding generals
to the lowest private.  After Capture of the then Chinese Capitol Nanjing,
the entire Japanese Army ran amok for over a month in the Capitol City
of China.  Machine gunning captured soldiers and civilians alike.  Females
were raped and then killed regardless of age, from todlers to grandmothers,
Babies were displayed on top of swords.  Japanese Officers completing 
to see who can kill cut of most heads with their swords only, they
chopped and chopped until their swords are broken.  All this were
done over the consent of the generals, who rewards the fallen city
to their soldiers, and to "break chinese fighting morale".  Over
300,000 people were killed in Nanjing alone, 2-3 times more than
what the 2 nuclear bombs killed in Japan.  Nevermind what the Japanese
Imperial army did in thousands of smaller cities, towns, and villages where
there were no foreign diplomats and reporters.    

I agree with you its quite barbaric to kill a couple of hundred or
perhaps thousands of demostrators.  I am glad you want to compare the
two.  My grandmother lived though the sino-Japanese War, the numerous
civil wars, and under communist rule.  Sure she complain about the
communist a lot, after all, she fell from middle class to dirt poor
like everyone else.  But nothing ever come close to the terror of
the Imperial Japanese Army.   
 
>*******************************************************************************
>* The University of Kentucky is not responsible * AIX: Marketing or lunacy?   *
>* for me, by reason of "Bureaucrats Syndrome,"  * "I never used anything by   *
>* a crippling form of insanity.                 *  IBM that I liked."         *
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Holst not know own culture either
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:59:10 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.china
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <1901@kluge.fiu.edu> stacc0@quantum.fiu.edu (Ye) writes:
>You didn't mention that there was another school of thoughts advocated
>by Mr. Xun that considered human beings were born as barbaric and selfish
>as animals, hence the need of education and law. 

The problem with Xun Zi idea is that if human beings are not born
innately with some basic idea of good or evil, where do ideas of good
and evil come from?

Either:
1. There is no real good and evil, in which case I have no real reason to
listen to Hsun Zi's ideas.  After all, if there is no real good or evil,
what is wrong with barbarism or selfishness, or
2. The ideas of good and evil come from an supernatural external source
(God). 

>One thing is clear from either Confucius or Xun or Kant, that is a society
>can not function with law and order only. 

Yup.  Xun became Han Fei's Legalism, and the Qin dynasty showed how
bad that was.

>By the way, did Kant consider the ideal society should be run by 
>'catagorical imperitive' only? 

It's impossible to have a society run by pure categorical imperative.
Any moral conclusion that you make, that isn't basic is an example of
the hypothetical imperative. 

>Maybe Marx got some hints from Kant?

I don't know enough philosophy to be able to comment on the relation between
Kant and Marx.


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: casey@bradley.bradley.edu (Chris Langston)
Subject: Re: Grage Sale
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 15:37:16 GMT

In <11AUG199223494141@venus.tamu.edu> f0l8973@venus.tamu.edu writes:



>I swear that I can see tear in Cindy's eyes.  When we open the car door, Ben 
>looked back, "These Americans!  They never know how to do business."  This 
>time he shook his head.  "How can they sell things if they are not willing 
>to reduce the price?!"

No I think Ben dosen't know how to do business. I have been in the "Game"
of buying and selling for 20 years now. An I can tell you what went wrong
with the above story. (Deleted for space reasons).

 1. Most sellers will lower the price if it is more than a $1.

     I always build in a 20% "jewing factor" in the price of the items I 
 sell. Most of the other dealers will to. This factor is added to the possible
 profit margen. And is there to be used in case of possible trades and people
 who want to feel like they are getting a bargan. But most dealers will not
 come down on items of a $1 or less. Most figure that a $1 is not going to break anyone up. 

 2. After starting the ritual of price negociations, If either party says
     "And that is the best price I can give you" That means you have reached 
     their min. price. If it seems resonable to you then buy it. If not make
     one final offer. It apears that was done. The seller said "$15 is the least     I could take for it" And the buyer said "would you take $12?" and that 
     price was exepted by the seller. At that time the sale should have been 
     concluded. But insted Ben made an offer of $10 which the sell had already 
     refused. That made the sell very angry. and most likly would not have sold
     the coat to Ben at $12 anyway. That is why she did not run after you to 
     sell the coat. Also most sellers feel "well if you don't take it there
     are other people behind you that will and might pay more." So don't
     automaticlly think that they are hard up and will take anything you offer.
     Because they will not.

 Like I said I have been buying and selling antiques for 20 years at flea
markets and grauge sales. So I know how to dicker on price. If you keep
the above in mind you can get some good deals at these sales.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unknown Indian Chief "Iron Horse bad medicine"                              -
- Unknown Army Scout   "What do you think is good medicine?"                  -
- Unknown Indian Chief "Milk of Magnesia"                                     -
- Chris Langston  casey@bradley.bradley.edu                                   -