HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , )
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: 150 F-16 to Taiwan
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:17:00 GMT
Organization: New York University

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, 
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.

>Yi-Chieh

Ze Yang
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: gang@ms.uky.edu (Gang Li)
Subject: Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view. (Was: Who Cares 150 F-16s.)
    <1992Sep11.184049.5470@news.acns.nwu.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:21:47 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

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

>Yes! I am the guy who asked Chinese to build a strong China. The point is,  
>through what kind of path. I think the most important issures are still  
>democracy and realistic economic policy. Without them, you really can not  
>realize your goal to build a strong China. I don't think Guangdong or Fujian or  
>Yunan or Heilongjiang will ask for independence at the mount (hopefully never)  
>because people there still won't choose to be independent. If China doesn't  
>change it's current system, sooner or later, there will be more and more people  
>want to leave. Then CG will not be able to stop them. The reason why people  
>still choose to stay there is because the situation is still tolerable. If the  
>countries around us continue developing while we are still further left behind  
>using so-called "China's special situation" as an excuse, if CG continues it's  
>oppressing policy, then I bet more and more people will choose to break away.

>Don't blame others. 

>Carl

Are you sure after getting democracy, ex-Soviet prople like to get together?
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
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?
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.
Use the brain when speaking.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li)
Subject: Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view. (Was: Who Cares 150 F-16s.)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:58:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.133443.5656@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> ghe@nyx.cs.du.edu (George He) writes:

>My dear fellow Taiwanese, prepare yourself  for the worst.
>I don't how many mainlanders share the same view as this blood thirsty
>chauvinism pig. As long as these pigs are there, we have to fight them
>whether we get united or independent, because the only thing these pigs
>want is to suck up our hard-earned prosperity.
>

I don't share the view of this "blood thirsty chauvinism pig". However I think
this indeed represents part of the mainlander's view. The problem is
the following: not all Chinese understand the cruelty of the war, not
all of them understand that people have to die in the war.

Always in Chinese movie of war heros, only enemies die. They saw Janpenese
die when they watch "tunnel war" and "mine war". They saw KMT generals
surrender in "fighting north and south". Not many Chinese people understand
that a war is a competition of war machine and race of killing. War is
very expensive and demaging. People live in hell during and after war.
They don't have the feeling that unless one is forced to go to war, one
should never applaude war.

Perhaps some Chinese leaders understand it, but they never tell the people.

As long as Taiwan is not buying weapons for offense, I don't see any
worry about their buying f-16s. By the way, if they are indeed buying plans
for invasion of mainland, remember mainland has nuclear bombs. They
will be in hell.

By the way, I don't like Taiwan independence, but I prefer leave them
alone if they themselves want independence. I have never had any feeling
about this island in my life. No relative there, never been there and
never feel invited to there (I am not a communist, nor my family). I can
visit other countries in the world, but not Taiwan. They don't like
me because I am an ordinary mainlander. 

One netter send me an email claiming that it is Taiwanese investment
in mainland that made the improvement of mainlander's life. I disagree.
I think they went there for money of their own. They should be grateful
to mainlanders for hospitality which they lack in Taiwan to mainlanders.
From: cyc@z.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: F-16's fear?
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:14:24 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor

In article <1992Sep8.185513.26669@bnr.ca> xyang@bnr.ca writes:
>To those who drifted away from the original discussion
>and started arguing about the sovereignty over Taiwan on the 
>F-16 issue: especially those from Mainland, Hong bong, 
>or Taiwan (or for short, let's just call it Great China like British 
>call themselves Great Britain :-) ):
>U.S. government is playing an old game again -- try to create
>as much conflict as possible among Chinese territories so that
>they can gain benefit from there. Any internal fight will
>weaken the country and eventually lead to a loss at negotiation table.
>Selling some arms to one side of the strait, even though they may 
>only be used for defence, is an attempt of creating trouble or 
>fear for the other side. Can you see that? You stupid idiot! 
>
>It is clear after USSR's collapse China becomes the number one
>potential threat to US if mainland keeps growing and Taiwan
>and Hong Kong join mainland with their economic power. Just like
>China played Soviet card with US before, US is trying to play
>Chinese (basically Taiwan and Mainland cards as Hong Kong is 
>politically too weak) cards now. I won't blame US for doing so as 
>any government at such position will do the same: find a scapegoat to 
>save her own skin. Chinese are famous for internal fights: is it the 
>number one ugly side of Chinese according to Mr. Bei, Yang's book "Ugly
>Chinese"? BTW, Chairman Mao was the best in such thing -- how many 
>innocent citizens died during Culture Revolution in the hands of other 
>citizens? Please note that only very few (or close to none) died 
>under the army or government suppression in that period.
>
>If together, we're stronger just as the old idiom says: One
>chop stick is easy to bent(break) but ten chop sticks is very hard
>to break. Every country has its problems and differences,
>like the ILA in Ireland, TI's existence is not a surprise to
>anyone in China due to various historical or present reasons.
>However, as long as Taiwan is not recognized as an independent
>country, let's work together for a Great China and don't fell into
>those traps which intend to create conflicts among Chinese.
>And leave the TI alone to fulfill their independence dream: time passes
>by so fast and things change everyday who knows what will happen
>tomorrow.

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
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: zliu@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Zhong Liu)
Subject: Protection Bill Passed in Senate, Additional Confirmation Needed
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:44:22 GMT

Hi, there; Here is a forwarding from my friend, could any of you
confirm it, including those working for CND?

Z. Liu

-------------------------------------------------

The Chinese Student Bill was passed last week.
And the only step is the president's signature.
And from World Journal (Chinese Newspaper), it said that Bush unofficially
expressed that he will sign the bill.
We will know the result just these days (10 days for President's decision).

The lawyer here (NYC) have begun to send their known Chinese students letter
about $500 fee for changing status according to the Bill.
From: yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , )
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: 150 F-16 to Taiwan (Stop Stereotypes)
Date: 7 Sep 92 17:55:00 GMT
Organization: New York University

v999qx29@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu writes:
>In article <65500096@acf3.NYU.EDU>, yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , ) writes...
>>Don't you think the USA fed up Taiwan, Taiwan benefited from the cold
>>war.
>>I said this because some Taiwanese posted a few posts recently saying
>>how much surplus they have, etc.

>If you say Taiwan was fed up by USA, you will also imply that mainland is
>being fed up by USA right now. If Taiwan had not have to put so much on
>defending itself from the threat of mainland, it might have became as rich
>as Japan now.  Don't feel insulted when you see the posting of Taiwan's
>surplus, you can also do it if you choose the right system.

We get presure from the USA when our surplus reach the same level, 
but that amount of money won't help China much, this is very simple, 
say if taiwan has a surplus of 20 billion, USA won't let China
has a surplus of 1000 billion.
In the cold war, because taiwan is the frontier, USA helped it
develope economy.
If there were not a cold war between Mainland and Taiwan, we were
all friends of the western countries, Taiwan won't have any
advantage than other provinces, if Taiwan has been as rich as Japan, 
how about other provinces, say Guangdong and Fujiang?

Ze Yang
From: yong@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Science in China 18 (final)
Date: 10 Sep 92 08:37:15 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Science in China (Part 18, final)

In 1500 a Chinese scientist Wan Hu ties 47 gunpowder rockets to the back
of a chair about this time in an effort to build a flying machine; the
device explodes during testing, killing Wan, who acted as pilot.

In 1520 the Pruguese import the orange tree from south China.

In 1530 there are reports of matches being used in Europe, almost a
thousand years after their invention in China.

In 1566 Camillo Torello patents the first seed drill known in Europe,
nearly 1700 years after its invention in China.

In 1584 a Chinese Chu Tsai-Yu invents equal temperament in music.

In 1591 English mathematician Thomas Harriot (1560 - ?) is the first
European known to note that snowflakes are either six-pointed or
six-sided, but he does not publish this observation; the hexagonal
nature of snowflakes was well-known in China from at least the 2nd
century BC.

In 1593 the first description of a modern Chinese abacus appears in
China.

In 1596 a Chinese Li Shih-Chen's The Greate pharmacopoeia gives one of
the clearest descriptions of how to distill wine into spirits, a
technique known to the Chinese since the 7th century AD.

NB. This series of "Science in China" (total 18 parts) is compiled by me
but the source is not mine. The series ends in the last period of Ming Dynasty.

sources: 
"The Timetables of Science" by Alexander Hellemans and Bryan Bynch, 
Simon and Schuster Inc., New York, USA, 1988. 

"Science and Civilization of China", J. Needham, Cambridge University
Press.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: 150 F-16 to Taiwan
From: Tao Yao <TAYAO@MTUS5.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 5 Sep 1992 13:02:11 EST
 <65500087@acf3.NYU.EDU><1992Sep5.024735.20710@unixg.ubc.ca><1992Sep5.035350.18711@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
Organization: Computing Technology Services, Michigan Technological Univ.


So what, can Taiwan spend all her $90 billion on buying F-16, as TIer's day
dream? don't you think one country can win a war only depend on inported
arms? Isreal can win Mid-East was, Isreal can make hi-tech fighters and tanks.
Can taiwan do that? Don't you think USA will still sell F-16 to taiwan
after the war break someday?
From: lix@yangtze.bu.edu (Xiaowen Li)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Shall we support CCP use force to TI?
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:13:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Boston University

In article <1992Sep15.142612.1@news.duc.auburn.edu> haiqiu@news.duc.auburn.edu writes:
>(deleted)
>  I think CCP and KMT should have the third cooperation against the TIers.
>Just like the second CCP-KMT cooperation against Japs.
>
>--HAMLET

I think CCP and KMT should have the third cooperation against nobody, just
learn how two-party system works in China, without using N-bomb and F-16 to
fight (or threaten) each other.

As soon as a democratic system really works and economy is on right road,
TI-1, TI-2, SI-1, SI-2, ZI, will stop being a problem.

So the urgent task is to learn and to construct, not to fight- unless we
are forced into corner. China never had better chance to learn and to
construct in the past 100 years.
-- 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: cyc@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang)
Subject: Re: 150 F-16 to Taiwan
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 19:46:21 GMT

>>Actually, American are also rebels from England. In fact, if one can trace
>
>America is different. 
>1) Before its independence, this land was only a conlony 
>of the Great Britan, people lived here paid taxes to the English 
>government but could not enjoy the right of British citizens.
>2) A lot of people were from countries other than England. 
>3) A lot of people came here because of religious conflicts in
>their old land.(I guess that's why Lincoln said "...A new nation,
>conceived in liberty...).
>4) The now USA is far away from England, it's also larger than 
>England.
>We can see that USA was born to be different. People came here
>with different ideals, and the undeveloped continent gave
>them a good place to form a kind of new culture.
>

As a summary, when people don't like their government or the government
that governs them, people have the choice to build their own country.
Then, what's the different between TIers adn American ?
Of cause, if there wasn't 1940 civil war among CCP and KMT, TIers may not
exist. Similarly, if Great Britain had treated American fairly, there may
not be the USA, isn't it ? It is the bad guys and bad governments that forced
people to become rebel and eventually, build something new and better.
That's the whole idea about TI. Hadn't have Ching dynasty, there may not be
CCP and KMT, now the rise of TIers is just a clear sign to declare the end
of two evil parties CCP and KMT. Bad and old thigs will be gone eventually, 
new and good things will prevail in the end.

Yi-Chieh
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao)
Subject: Re: Specification of F-16, SU-27 (I)
Organization: MITRE
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:13:17 GMT


> >> >>   PROC(Mainland)
> >> >>     1). purchased about 24 SU-27 fighters last year.
> >> >>     2). bought 72 SU-27 and 24 MIG-31 interceptors early this year.
> >> >>     3). acquired the right to license-production of 200+ MIG-31
> >> >
> >> >Why they want to acquire the right to license-production of 200+ MIG-31
> >> >instead of MiG-29 or Su-27??  MiG-31 is not an air-superiority fighter.  It
> >> >is only a interceptor with surveillance cappability. 
> >> >
>  Maybe they are much more concerned about develop interceptors to defend its own
>  airspace rather than carpeting bombing Taiwan or others like lots of people 
>  would like you to believe.  
>  
> > I still can not understand the logic even they want to "develop
> >interceptors to defend its own airspace rather than carpeting bombing
> >Taiwan."  Usually, four MiG-31's in formation can cover an area equivalent
> >to a US AWACS does.  Finding enemy warplanes, the MiG-31 will conduct
> >air-superiority fighters (MiG-29 or Su-27) to approach and attack them. 
> >Without enough air-superiority fighters how to control (defend) their own
> >airspace?
> 
> I don't know much about airplanes, but are you saying the Mig-31 cannot
> fight a dog-fight at all?   
> The biggest disadvantage with soviet fighters is their inferior radar
> /electronics equipment in comparisons to US planes.  It might not
> be a bad idea to have MIGs that have more electronic gadges than the
> average ones.  
> 
MiG 31 is an improved interceptor based on MiG-25.  It is not design for
dog-fight because of its poor pilot visibility.  You can see the periscope
in the rear cockpit from the MiG-31 photo.  In dog-fight situation, you
really do not want to use a periscope.  That is one of the reasons why a
lot of pilots love F-16.  Flying F-16, you are not sit "in" a plane; you
are sit "on" a plane.  You have a very good visibility, and do not even
need a rear-mirror.  Well, I heard of that Islaeli pilots still like to
stick a rear-mirror in their F-16, but it is not the original
design.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: tzung@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (tzung-i.lin)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:43:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.045400.17609@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> smw@siegfried.chm.msu.edu (S.M. Wu) writes:
>
>I have this question because Avaition Weeks mentioned briefly a few weeks
>ago that Russia has formally offered to sale Mig-29 to Taiwan. Probably 
>Bush knows that Taiwan will get hi-tech fighter one way or the other. If he
>does not make an offer now, the business will go to someone else.

That's the point, since French and Russia are offering advanced fighters,
Bush is no stupid to let go this chance ... (for votes and $$$)

>
>By the way, does anyone has information on the new fighters designed by 
>Taiwan? One of them looks like a cross between F-16 and F-18.

Well, it IS a mixture of F-16 and F-18, but the engine is the main problem 
preventing it to become the advanced fighters it had promised.
Combine the two enginges (TFE1042), it has only 16,000 lb of thrust.
The more advanced engines (with combined thrust of 24,000 lb) has been canceled
(according to AW&ST) due to F-16 deal.  This all indicates that IDF has its 
problem and that it is inferior to F-16A/B, otherwise why Taiwan buys F-16A/B 
if they can produce equivalent or superior fighters?  Of course,
one can always argue that it's more political than technical ...

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: honglin@apmaths.uwo.ca (Honglin Ye)
Subject: ~{N'Fe3LPr~}
Organization: Applied Mathematics, U.W.O
Distribution: all
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:04:00 GMT
Summary: no summary



Does anyone have any computer go-game (wei2 qi2 cheng2 xyu4)?

About four years ago, I heard some very good computer go-game

program ( be equivilent to ~{6~6N~})

 had been avaliable. I have been looking for such software

for a long time. I played with two go-games, it seems that they are

still far from ~{3u6N~}. Can anyone tell  me where to get such

programs?  Thank you in advance.
 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: WHO@austlcm.sps.mot.com 
Subject: Re: F-16's fear?
Organization: Texas
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:28:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.212559.16033@news.acns.nwu.edu> zdlin@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (ZhongDong Lin) writes:
>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 
>

Mr., Please don't get too excited. 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: zhang@cs.rochester.edu (Zhang Ju)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 00:57:50 GMT


As long as those fighter jets are not used in a war among Chinese, we
should feel happy that the military might of Chinese is increased by
150 F-16 and 60 Mirrage jets.

In the minds of oversea Chinese, there is a de facto Commonwealth of
China, consisting of China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau and Singarpore. 
May it be prosperous and strengthful.

Unfortunately, the fate of every Chinese is more or less tied to it.

Ju Zhang