HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re:  What the HK governor is doing?  Why?
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:53:41 GMT
Organization: Penn State, Department of Physics

In article <By1uCz.GA9@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> yawei@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (~{QG9p~}) writes:
>
>Why do people in Hong Kong all of a sudden want democracy, while
>they did not demand it during the past 150 years?  Interesting
>thought, after all, CCP represents their "motherland", right?

	No, you got it wrong.  The "people" in Hong Kong had been
demanding democracy for over a century now.  Their efforts have been
consistently surpressed by the British government, sometimes very
brutally.  In its news report on this affair, New York Times has
said that "for over a century, British government has done whatever
they can to surpress democracy in Hong Kong."

	What strikes me the most is, at the day Patton's plan was
announced, NYT quoted an extremely famous Hong Kong d-fighter (also
a legislater in HK) saying:  "this is too good to be true for us,
I still can not believe it is true".

	Shouldn't this tell something?

>Patriotism sucks.

	So does a lot of other things, some may even sound more noble
than patriotism.  But the common feature is blind enthusiasm.



	 Eddie
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "Ignatius Y. Ding" <ding@HPSMTC1.CUP.HP.COM>
Subject:      Re:  55th Anniversary of The Nanjing Massacre
Reply-To: "Ignatius Y. Ding" <ding@HPSMTC1.CUP.HP.COM>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:45:04 GMT
Comments: cc: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

Shunde Shi writes:

> Please do not forget to mention that Japanese Army's military machine
> was fuled by U.S. and Dutch oil until after NanJin, without the oil,
> Japan could not move a inch into China with modern Weapon which was
> built with U.S. steel!!!
> Right now there is attempt in U.S. to alienate Sino-Japanese relation.
> And relationship between China and other neighbors.
> The above Organization certainly did a timely job.

What you mentioned above was true indeed.  The western merchants did have a
share of the moral responsibility to have better judgment at the time.  The
self-serving interests blinded the greedy western businessmen and politicians,
that goes without saying.  They were quilty of selling the goods to aggressors.

But the Japanese did even far far beyond anybody's nightmare.  Do you think
that we should forget about murderers if we did not condemn to death the petty
thief who sold the knife to the murderer?  That is a complete cope-out for
excusing the Chinese government to betray the Chinese people!

By the same token, Chinese communists must share the historic backlash for
supplying Serbians more than a half BILLION dollars worth of oil and arms in
carrying out the aggression in the Balkan republics and the "ethnic cleansing",
a doublespeaking term for genocide!!!  What do you have to say to that end? Huh


Ignatius Ding
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: bihkyan@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Yang Yuanxin)
Subject: Re: Setting the Record Straight
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 15:06:14 GMT

In article <By22wu.44H@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> B118789@VAX.CSC.CUHK.HK writes:
>Thanks, Avron Boretz, for the compliment. I am not speaking for
>the people of Hong Kong, however, and I am sure you knew that; I speak
>for myself only.
>
>My objective was merely to set the record straight. I sense that
>Britain is getting a bad rap on China-nt for pressing ahead on
>democratic reforms, and I don't understand why. People who attack
>the British government on this question should keep the matter
>in perspective, and there is no better contrast for the success of
>British rule than what one sees in China.
>
>People say the Brits are hypocritical for seeking democratization now,
>but I think the move is purely pragmatic: Britain has a lot of money
>invested here, and thousands of British citizens will seek to remain
>in Hong Kong after 1997. If Britain does not guarantee the safety of
>these citizens and British assets, the Conservative Party will
>experience a strong political setback at home. I should add that it's
>not just a "British" problem, as many other Westerners will seek to
>remain here after 1997. At present there are more Americans here
>(18,000) than Brits (12,000). The safety of American citizens and
>American assets would be assured by democracy as well, so the problem
>has international implications.
>
>These are the reasons for implementing democracy now. Previously, the
>British courts and legal system were in place, the military had a
>strong presence here, and democracy was considered unnecessary for
>social order.
>
>Mak
>Hong Kon
>       |-g

 First time heared that "...democracy was considered unnecessory..",
 even the "hardliners" in Beijing never made such comment.

 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: wshi@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Weiping Shi)
Subject: Re: What the HK governor is doing? Why?
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:15:02 GMT

In <By0vAs.7sr@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> C0370@UNIVSCVM.BITNET writes:

>From the history of notorious British colonism
>we can draw a bottom line: the British strategy was, and still is divide and
>conquer. Here, democracy is again used for their best benifit.

I guess it's time for China to promote democracy and independent
of Northern Ireland.  How does a democratic and independent
Ireland sound?

Wonder why China didn't invite some prominent leaders of
Quebec Independent when Canada greeted Dala Lama.

Chinese are nice, always.
From: lwang@mariner.amc.edu.au (Luo Wang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Dai Qing's cheap talk
Date: 15 Nov 92 22:29:36 GMT
Organization: Australian Maritime College

In article <1dlql4INNlp7@vttux1.vtt.fi>, yu@bilbo.gra.vtt.fi (Xiaohan Yu) writes:
>
>In article <92313.133642LXH108@psuvm.psu.edu> LXH108@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>>I suppport Dai Qing on MFN issue. I care the vast majority ordinary people
>>more than Wei Jingsheng and other fighters.  Notice that the government
>>owned enterprises hire most "ordinary workers". Cheap democratic fighter!
>
>You are right! absolutely right!
>
>

Dai Qing's talk is really cheap. It was as cheap as your guy's nonsense.

Luo Wang

Australia


Australia
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha)
Subject: Re: CMFN
Keywords: China
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:35:17 GMT

In article <Bxxsv8.5JK@math.uwaterloo.ca> yma@neumann.uwaterloo.ca (William Yan Ma) writes:
>

[section deleted]

>Democracy is nothing if you live in deep poverty. For China, the most
>important thing is encouraging the government, the people to concerntrate
>on economy development. Indeed, the economy development has become the
>primary task of CCP. Don't you think it's a real revolution in China?
>It is more important than the abstract human rights problems. Actually,
>the right of living better is one aspect of human rights problem. And it
>is realistic.

Human rights is not an abstract problem if you or someone you know is in
prison or has just been executed for a political "crime".

[section deleted]

Mark
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi)
Subject: Re:  What the HK governor is doing?  Why?
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell Computer Science
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:02:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.234000.3946@usl.edu> kxd5425@usl.edu (Du Kaisheng) writes:
>In article <By1uCz.GA9@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> yawei@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (~{QG9p~}) writes:
>>
>this net said that the people of Hongkong do not deserve democracy. We 
>are questioning the motives of the  British goverment. How can you a colonist
>so much? Are they really for the interest of the Hongkong people? 
When ever Brits leat it's colonies, it used devide and conqure trick to get
as much as possible. It divided arabs in middle east, it devided india, it
signed a treaty with Tibet regional government on border issue wich was the 
direct reason for Sino-India border conflict in 1962. and more.
HongKong Basic Law was signed under the shadow of Cold War, at the time
West need China. But right now they do not need China as much and,
Brits could distract World attention from it attemp to rip HonKong off,
by seeking and over duely publisize "Democracy" issue, which was an obvious
in contradiction with what Brits agreed upon with China.
The problem is not wheather HongKong should have a democracy, I belive it
should, given it will be guaranteed to be part of China. The problem is
Brits breached the agreement with China, with might be in cordination with
U.S.'s breaching agreement on Arm sale to Taiwan, that is the reason
for Chinese Government to call it "interantional consparicy".
It was ment to "probe"(as in a congressman word) China's nerve, if China does
not response properly, China may call for further and bigger gression from them.
>
>
>Du
>
>
>
>


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Xiaowen Li <lix@CRSA.BU.EDU>
Subject:      Re:  What the HK governor is doing?  Why?
Reply-To: Xiaowen Li <lix@CRSA.BU.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:53:19 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

Shizhong Chen wrote:
>(deleted) The main criticism
>I have towards the British Government is not that they promote more democracy
>now, but why they did not do that earlier. It is indeed very disgraceful of
>them to disallow Chinese people in Hong Kong their rights until now when the
>British control is no more than five years.

Agreed. There is no problem that HK people deserve more democracy. The problem
is how to get more. The following is what I posted on SCC as a reply to
Mr. Wing Ng. this morning:

In article <1992Nov19.083756.19372@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu> wing@pegasus.com
 (Wing Ng) writes:
>(deleted)
>Two women both claim a baby belongs to them, and the case went to
>King Solomon.  The King took out a sword, and proceeded to cut the
>baby in two, so that each woman can have 1/2.  One of the women
>cried: "stop".  The King said, "you must be the true mother, you
>care about the baby's well-being."
>
>Sorry, the foreigner U.K. cares about our well-being (to some extent),

Sorry for our HK D-friends' such understanding. I sincerely doubt
British are your true mother, they did not bring Britich Democracy
to HK in the past 100+ years. Could you please tell me why?

My understanding is, British used to keep a practically workable
system in their colonies, convenient to themselves. But right before
they leave, they may do something looking beautiful but problematic
such as India-Pakistan division, Irag-Q8 division etc. The ones were
satisfied when British leave, will shed blood later - and that is
no longer British's business.

China agrees not to Change HK's system in 50 years. Why? Because
Deng XiaoPing realized HK's system has been proven workable in the
past 100+ years. So China made such a promise in 1984. Now British
wants to change the system before 1997, and hand such a system to
China. This system may be better, more democracy. It may be workable.
But this system has not been proven better and workable. Do you
think China's promise in 1984 is still valid? If there were anything
wrong in such a new system, should China change it?

>(deleted)
>Wing

I hope you could have more democracy. But please be calm, don't trust
British too much as true mother. They are not. Find you own way to get
the best results.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: yawei@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (~{QG9p~})
Subject: Re:  What the HK governor is doing?  Why?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 04:41:22 GMT


It really sickens me that more and more oversea Chinese students
are becoming "echo bugs" of the CCP government, and simply repeats
what CCP says on whatever issues (and make it sound like that
they are so "patriotic" blah blablah.)

What do the people of Hong Kong want?  And what do Chinese
people think about democratization in Hong Kong?

According to a Newsweek report, 59% of the people in Hong Kong
thinks HK should press ahead with democratization even if CCP
objects.

The South China Morning Post did a servey in Guangzhou and Shen-
Zhen (CCP territory, mind you), and 56% of those surveyed 
favored Patten's reform proposals.

Why do people in Hong Kong all of a sudden want democracy, while
they did not demand it during the past 150 years?  Interesting
thought, after all, CCP represents their "motherland", right?
I think the people of HK have some very legitimate fear that
their freedom may be taken away once they are returned to their
"mother", from whom many of them escaped not so long ago.

What do our patriotic network friends think about these?

Patriotism sucks.

  
  Ya-Gui Wei

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "IAAYROS@MVS.oac.ucla.edu" <IAAYROS@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Hitler has been dropped while Khroschoff stays
Reply-To: "IAAYROS@MVS.oac.ucla.edu" <IAAYROS@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:02:00 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt <china-nt@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>

  > Date:      Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:36:47 -0500
  > Sender:    "China-Net (The Coordination Network for IFCSS)"
  > From:      "(Xiaowen Li)" <lix@CRSA.BU.EDU>
  > Subject:   Re: Posibility of a practical bill to get positive response
  >
  > Kevin wrote:
  > >Though the analogies between the pro-CMFN faction of CSS and
  > >Hitler/Khroschoff are not very good,
  >
  > Well, Khroschoff is the same example of yours:-)

In my 11-8-92 post, the example I used is late President Kennedy's action and
challenge-taking spirit involved in the Cuba crisis. I wrote:

  Almost all American people, both Democratic and Republic, are proud of
  JF Kennedy, then President during the Cuba crisis against USSR, for his
  couragious decision and action taken for the "interest of America".

  Was he "sure what will be the response from the other side and final
  consequence"? I believe the answer is no. As a matter of fact, high rank
  USSR military leaders had pressed Kroschoff very hard to take a hard and
  even confrontational attitude/measure toward the US.

  What happened later?  JFK did what he considered necessary and earned his
  role in the US history.  Did he "Yi Xiang Qin Yuan" and win just by luck?
  I don't think so. He and his administration must have done a lot homework,
  in addition to the willingness of taking risk for their interest and value.

However, Xiaowen Li considers this example is the same as his/hers of the
miscalculation of Khroschoff.

But anyway, it's a big progress that Hitler is droped from the analogy made in
Xiaowen Li's 11-8-92 post and I hope this did not affect his/her "great fun:-)".


  > >I agree that a thoughtful estimation is one of the key issues of current
  > >debate about a likely CMFN bill next spring in the US Congress.
  >
  > So we do have a lot of common ground.

Yes, we did have common ground even earlier than this. Xiaowen Li had written:

  > Basically I agree on the subject line.

when responding to my previous post that called "Let's do some homework
before next CMFN bill appears in US congress".

Kevin
From: jeh49415@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: LEGALization
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:46:24 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati


Phil,
I am new to internet, and can't get mail to send this to you. So I putting this
in politics.talk.drugs.  Hope you read this.

I don't the idea of restricting advertising either, but you have to give in a
democracy.  Besides, which is the most damaging to restrict, advertising about
drugs, or the drugs themselves?  People will still know about drugs, and just
because there would be no electronic advertising, doesn't mean there would be
any, unless that is the  only kind available down the road and then the whole
matter would need to be reconsidered. 

I do not see a 'no advertising' as an end in itself, but rather a means to
legalization.  One of the principle weaknesses of the legalization movement is
that there is likely to be a sudden increases in usage following legailzation.
Proponents of legalization have said in the past that this surge would only be
those who already use 'coming out of the closet.'  Anti-legalization forces
respond to this by pointing out that in a capitalistic system, the number of
users would go up because ofthe new drug industries user recruitment efforts
(advertising).  I think this is what would happen.  Consider alcohol. 76% use
it now.  But As Terence McKenna said in his new book FOOD OF THE GODS, the best 
arguement for legaization is that alcohol is already legal.

Thanks for your comments.

Jim Healy
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: YYYEEEEESSSSSSS!!!
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:03:04 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Nov15.131133.13260@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>
>What "infrastructure" can't be financed by tolls?  Roads and bridges can.

How are you going to collect tolls on all the little surface streets?
What is wrong with taxing gasoline for the purpose?

Why isnt this in sci.econ?


	 George Tucker        tucker@shiva.hac.com
	Signature line awaiting FDA approval.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
From: maxwell@deep-13.gizmo.com
Subject: Wanted: DPF conference reports?
Organization: Gizmonics Institute Inc.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 06:36:40 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalo.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Anyone care to clue the net about the DPF conference recently held in D.C.?
Any good rumors? Any reasons for hope? 

curious.max
From: dab@ism.isc.com (Dave Butterfield)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Walter Jacobsen's a Fool; WOD reporting on Chicago's CBS News.
Date: 18 Nov 1992 19:47:27 GMT
Organization: x
Distribution: chi
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>Most drug users' first drug was alcohol.

Mine was caffeine.

>And there are still
>far more users of alcohol in the US than any other drug.

More than caffeine?
More than asprin?

-- 
Drug education means knowing what you're taking and what its effects are.
From: jones@fred.cis.udel.edu (Mark Jones)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Pittsburgh Press Article
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:24:16 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark

In article <CWEYAND.92Nov13092831@hpbs721.boi.hp.com> cweyand@boi.hp.com (Chris Weyand) writes:
>Could someone post or mail me information on how to get a reprint of the
>Pittsburgh Press article regarding Civil Forfeiture from a year ago or so.
>
>Thanks

Pittsburgh Press information:

   34 Boulevard of the Allies
   Pittsburgh, PA  15230

   phone:  (412)263-1100
   Madelyn Ross, Managing Editor (send requests for copies to her)

I called them a while ago.
They connected me to Linda in Mr. McEachran's
office, she took my name and address and
said she would send the reprints "as a
public service".

-Mark (jones@udel.edu)
"All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation."
                        -- Thomas Paine, _Rights of Man_
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:7526 alt.drugs:18692
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Adopt a highway program
Date: 21 Nov 1992 13:32:13 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, rjl+@pitt.edu (Richard J. Loether) says:

>In article <1992Nov20.210553.8234@dsd.es.com> rthomson@dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson) writes:
>:In article <1992Nov18.150550.2427@cnsvax.uwec.edu:
>:	drumm@cnsvax.uwec.edu (Danny) writes:
>::My highway adoption was turned down because "the group is political..."
>::in nature.  The only reference to the group was the name "Marijuana 
>::legalizers."
>:
>:Well the Libertarian Party of Utah has an adopted section of I-15 that
>:runs N-S through the state and they are certainly a political
>:organization.  Of course, the administration of "adopt a highway" may
>:be done on a state-by-state basis; I don't know.
>:
>:						-- Rich
>The Pittsburgh Chapter of the Libertarian party has also adopted a section of
>local highway.  It's gotta be your local rules, or your local rule interpreters.
>
>RJL
>
>
>-- 
>Rich Loether (rjl@unix.cis.pitt.edu)
>Computing and Info Services (Systems & Networks)
>(412) 624-6429 / FAX (412) 624-6436
>
And if they just refuse to let you adopt a highway, you should be able to get
some good local political mileage out of the whole affair.  Call a press
conference and explain the situation.  Send out press releases to all the
media.  Hold a demonstration.  If all else fails, write letters to the editor.
You should get *some* coverage, all about how maintaining their political
dogma is more important than controlling litter along the highways.


-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
From: fehlers@cs.utexas.edu (Todd Ehlers)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: LEGALization
Date: 23 Nov 1992 19:41:09 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: langtry.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Nov23.144624.2162@ucbeh.san.uc.edu> jeh49415@ucbeh.san.uc.edu writes:
>
>I don't the idea of restricting advertising either, but you have to give in a
>democracy.  Besides, which is the most damaging to restrict, advertising about
>drugs, or the drugs themselves?  People will still know about drugs, and just
>because there would be no electronic advertising, doesn't mean there would be
>any, unless that is the  only kind available down the road and then the whole
>matter would need to be reconsidered. 
>
>I do not see a 'no advertising' as an end in itself, but rather a means to
>legalization. 

I think it would depend on the drug.  Advertising is supposed to allow companies
to help educate the public why there product is a better choice (ie: less calories,
more for your money, better for you etc.).  I realize this is not always the case.
Anyway certain drugs need no competition.  Like coke, heroin, LSD, etc. If the quality
of LSD is regulated there is no reason the by brand X over brand Y, thus no benefit
possible from allowing advertising.  These could be dispenced by the state. Marijuanna,
I would argue, would be different.  I feel there could be enough variation in taste,
pesticides used, potency, etc to warrent allowing advertising to take place.

In summary, if there is no reason to suspect that brand competition would help the
consumer get more information and/or better products, when it comes to drugs I don't
feel the advertisement need be allowed.

Advertised: Marijuanna, hash, cocaine soft drinks, etc.
NOT advertised: pure Cocaine HCL, LSD, MDMA, etc.

just a thought.


-- 
-tod ehlers
 fehlers@cs.utexas.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs