HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: Territory of Ancient China : Ming Dynasty
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 02:15:36 GMT

In article <9225200.21875@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby) writes:
>**Period:
>
>1368 -> 1662 A.D.
>
>**Dynasty:
>
>Ming Dynasty
>
>**Area under Central Control:
>
>1433 A.D.
>It occupies what's now the modern China; plus eastern part of Siberia;
>except Outer Mongolia, and XinJiang Uygur.

Huh?  No way.  Manchurians were tributary states to Ming, but no way were
they "controlled."  Besides, not even they controlled eastern Siberia.

And I haven't even read one credible source that listed Xin Jiang among Ming
territory.  In fact, western Gan Su was not part of Ming either.
>
>**Area under Central Influence:
>
>XiZang (formally called Tibet / Tu Fan) could be argued whether
>it was under Central Control, or Central Influence; as was
>Manchuria.

Huh?  I don't think Ming had any control over Tibet.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25306 soc.culture.taiwan:13168
From: tao@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Eric Yihching Tao)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:27:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.140232.23653@tamsun.tamu.edu> x0y3510@tamuts.tamu.edu (Xuejun Yang) writes:
[Deleted]
>I think people in Taiwan are not yet wealthy by any standards:
>They only appear to be rich in mainland. They pay too much for daily
>necessities in Taiwan. They don't yet have all the nice public works
>like Libraries, Clean air and other infrastructures. The industry
>is merely copies from US or Japan when they dumped. That's why the
>Taiwan government is in a six-year infrastructure campaign. Taiwan
>is totally at mercy of big countries like US. It is merely a card to
>play by the US. Now do you feel better?
>Regards!
>
Just for your information, Republic Of China (or Taiwan, whatever you want to 
call it) income per capita is over $10.000 this year, rank 27 among 175 nations,
her total sum of trading ranked 14 in the world, althought the people and the
government (KMT, hated by many, still is legitimate ruling party, she has 70%
of vote!) is far from satisfied with the current state.

There is a poor man's symdrome going on here (which is rather unhealthy),
let me remind you again, we are the SAME people, living under two different 
governments, reunification is almost undeniable if mainland start to show any
solid sign of democratic development. So, for you, that best thing you can do
is help bring down the dictator or change it. Putting down Taiwan won't get us
anywhere.

Eric

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: yu@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Fan Yu)
Subject: Re: English Usage
Organization: Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, McMaster University
Distribution: soc
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:12:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.134151.14770@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> dhsy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>wang@math.psu.edu (Feng Wang) writes: 
>> yu@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Fan Yu) writes:
>>>xiaofei@einstein.physics.buffalo.edu (XiaoFei Wang) writes:
>>>>*>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.
>>>
>>>Is it? I didn't know that English native speakers were so mathematical:-)
>>>
>>>	Fan
>> 
>> I think XiaoFei's right.  To be a little serious: in most people's mind,
>> mathematics is far far from real life.  It is not.  It is in everyday life.
>
>
>    Well, XiaoFei's formula is worng!  Ask your math teacher.  :-)  
>
>    On another thought, if you are are a Ph.D. student, ask your roommate 
>instead.  Your advisor may fire you if you ask himer this question!
>
>    By the way, XiaoFei seems to be the one spead most number of rumors 
>on scc about grammar, math and physics.  :-)   Einstein may have had invented
>many weird things, but he didn't spead rumors.  :-)
>
>dhsy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
>

To clear up this mess, dhsy@cornell is correct. 1 meter is a unit
and x meters(x<>1) are measured against the unit and therefore are
pluralized. I think Xiaofei was posting a joke and I might have overestimated
netters' grammar knowledge and senses of humour.:-)

If you have any question about grammar, just ask the janitor when he
comes in to clean your office. :-)

					Fan
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: liao@milton.u.washington.edu (shiquan liao)
Subject: Re: To those pro-Shen Tong guys
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:42:06 GMT


To all those guys that attack Shen Tong:


You guys are always saying that if these D-fighters want to help China, they
should go back there to do something instead of promoting democracy of China
in the U.S.A., now there is a real Shen Tong, he went back to the very place
(Beijing) and pursue his course, now look what you guys are saying? He deserves
the arrest, he deserves any punishment the Chinese government might place to him.
You guys are jerks, you guys are real danger to China because you have no real
logic or goal at all.


Shen Tong is at least better than you and me, he has guts to do what he wants to
do. Do you think that any American organization has the power to "protect" him? If
you think so, you are real naive, there are a lot of cases that American 
government was unable to "protect" its own people.


If you don't like what he is doing, you can be critical, you should not be that
happy because one more person might be in jail soon due to his political view.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: 6.4@TianAnMen.Beijing.China
Subject: another test
Organization: 6.4@Beijing.TianAnMen.China
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:25:03 GMT
Originator: 6.4@TianAnMen.Beijing.China

test, sorry to bother you again.
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Monday, 7 Sep 1992 12:19:43 EDT
From: <CHENJC@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Seng Tong and Chinese Politics

In article <1992Sep7.075530.16330@mariner.amc.edu.au>, lwang@mariner.amc.edu.au
(Lou  Wang) says:
> the other admiration stuff on ST deleted.
The whole China will benefit from Seng Tongs' actions.
>..............
   Don't bother, and no interest to comment your whole shit, but can't help
   feel funny to see your above words. You over-emphasized ST's showdown, man!

   JC
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194)
Subject: Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view. (Was: Who Cares 150 F-16s.)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 15:14:00 GMT

In article <BuF5Lq.CvI@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li) writes...
>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.
> 
> 
Please read my earlier post. Did I ever say that I prefer......

I have been posting since the second day after Bush's announcement.
I have been keep saying that selling weapons to Taiwan is a violation
to PRC's sovereignty, just like selling weapons to IRA (Irish Republican
Army). It is not an issue between Beijing and Taipei. It is an issue
between Beijing and Washington. 

I agree with the rest part of your post.

BTW, to my knowledge, F-16 is not a defensive weapon. It can cross
the straight within a minute. It will be used as a counter threat,
not as a defence.

c.q.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: yzhou@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Joe Y. Zhou)
Subject: Re: Michael Chang in US Open Semi-Final!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 03:33:56 GMT

cqu@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Chang-ning Qu) writes:

>In article <1992Sep11.212947.2196@objy.com> cw@orion.uucp (C.W. Chung) writes:
>>
>>Another interesting notes: the US top men tennis players are either
>>first or second generation immigrants:
>>	Agassi:		second generation Iranian
>>	Chang:		second generation Chinese
>>	Courier:	from Australia(?)
>>	Lendl:		first generation Czech.
>>	Sampras:	second generation from Greek
>>

>     Does Lendl become a citizen of US?
>    I guess he is still keeping Czech citizenship
>    even though he lives here over 10 years. Patriot?

     Yes, he just became a US citizen one month ago.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
From: dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby)
Subject: Territory of Ancient China : Introduction
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:19:26 GMT

I've done a bit of research into the Chinese teritory of Ancient
Times.

I consulted two sets of books.  One published in Mainland China, and
one published in Taiwan.  I compare both sets of books, and look for
consistance as well as inconsistence.

The main noticable area of disagreement is the teritory of Ming and
Qing dynasties.  The Taiwan version included Tibet as Central Influenced,
whereas the Mainland version included it as Central Controlled.  The
Taiwan version also included North Vietnam as Central Controlled,
whereas the Mainland version did not include Vietnam at all.  Both
versions included Mongolia as centrally controlled.

Also, the Taiwan version has included Taiwan Island as under central
control since the Qin (Chin) Dynasty; whereas the Mainland version
only included Taiwan Island as central influenced until Ming/Qing.

Anyway, the Mainland version seems to be more comprehensive all round;
so, when I have to pick one to trust, I picked the Mainland version.

It's sometimes hard to judge whether an area is controlled by
the Middle Government, or simply influenced strongely by it politically
(especially when it's hundred and thousand years ago).
Historians are probably still arguing about lots of things.  :-)

Otherwise, the two versions are pretty consistent.

If you found any mistakes, like typos, grammars, spellings, timings,
or even incorrectnesses, please feel free to correct me; no personal
attacks please.  :-)

Enjoy!!!!!!!

-- 
1)-----------------------Rev 6:8 "... They were given authority over a quarter
of the Earth, to kill by the sword, by famine, by plague, and wild beasts."
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: scc53091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve C. Chen)
Subject: Re: F-16,pilots.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:21:02 GMT

elelyc@nuscc.nus.sg (Y.C. Liang) writes:

>In article <1992Sep11.150258.119257@marshall.wvnet.edu> mth015@marshall.wvnet.edu writes:
>>One of my Tawanese friends tald me the quality of Tawanese pilot and said
>>" If the way break someday, most of F-16 pilot will dispear or be called
>>back to there home by there parents or wife."
>>I am wonding is it that bad? Welcome your answers.

>I think your friend was making a joke or something.  Pilots are treated
>differently in Taiwanese Air Force, much better life.  This is mainly to
>encourage quality system and more confidence.  I was in the air force. 

>Don't worry !  

From what I read in this "Top Gun" book, the ROC pilots are considered some of 
the best in the world...  All the ROC pilots who were trained there in Mirmar
received exceptionally good "grades".  Dunno how many were there tho...
Maybe only a few.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
From: dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby)
Subject: Territory of Ancient China : Sixteen Kingdoms and South/North Periods
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:33:11 GMT

**Period:

This period was very massive.  China was basically divied into North and
South.

North:

304 -> 439 A.D. 16 Kingdoms Period.
493 -> 581 A.D. Northern Dynasties.
493 -> 534 A.D. Wei Dynasty
534 A.D. Wei Dynasty was splited into East and West.
557 A.D. East Wei became Zhou Dynasty, and
550 A.D. West Wei became Qi Dynasty (North),
577 A.D. Qi was conquested by Zhou,
581 A.D. Zhou became Sui Dynasty.

South:

317 -> 420 A.D. Jin Dynasty continued to rule.
420 -> 479 A.D. Song Dynasty
479 -> 502 A.D. Qi Dynasty (South)
502 -> 587 A.D. Liang Dynasty which was conquested by Sui.
557 -> 589 A.D. Chen Dynasty which was conquested by Sui.

**Dynasty:

See above.

**Area under Central Control:

Same as Jin Dynasty except, North Korea was lost to Mongolians.
However, Inner Mongolia, and southern half of modern Outter Mongolia
was gained by the North; and far West was lost.

As the situation in China became unstable, Mongolia took back Outter
Mongolia, and western part of Inner Mongolia; but was later taken
back by Wei.

around 490 -> 500 A.D.
Tibet took modern area of QingHai.
Mongolia was divided into East and West, East being Manchuria, and
West being Monoglia.

around 500 -> 530 A.D.
Then, Tibet took a large part of far West, and was divided into
two States (North and South).  Mongolia continued to gain in the
North.

And the situation continued until Sui re-united China.

**Area under Central Influence:

none, except Taiwan and HaiNan.

**Neighbouring States/Tribes/Civilizations:

Manchuria, Mongolia, Tibet, and the two States in the far West.

All were major threats, considering the instability of China
at the time.

-- 
1)-----------------------Rev 6:8 "... They were given authority over a quarter
of the Earth, to kill by the sword, by famine, by plague, and wild beasts."
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25258 soc.culture.taiwan:13123
From: li@sicvax.enet.dec.com (Tong-Kang Li)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:48:07 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <10SEP199215495996@deimos.ucc.umass.edu>, s9874194@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194) writes...
> 
>Some people on the net (including me) has been arguing about
>TI or Unification. I do not think it really relavent here. 
>As long as Taiwan is not an independent country (does not mean
>you can not try but just be ready to be kicked), the issue
>is really a matter between Beijing and Washington, the
>two LEGITIMATE, SOVEREIGN government. 

Is CCP regime LEGITIMATE, SOVEREIGN government of China? SOVEREIGN, maybe,
LEGITIMATE, I doubt it. 

CCP has been brutally ruling China for 40 years and still claims she is the 
only political party and will rule China forever. You call this LEGITIMACY? 
If you think so, then good luck.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: s9874194@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194)
Subject: test
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:28:00 GMT


test

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 15:48:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.231050.11687@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> cqu@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Chang-ning Qu) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.152707.3933@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> ghe@nyx.cs.du.edu (George He) writes:
>>
>>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.
>
>  
>    Look, you are warning or threating the Chinese in
>mainland. You take the mainland Chinese as enimies, why?

My promise to defend my home land shall never be taken as threat 
to mainlanders. You should learn the difference between defence and offence.
We Taiwanese (except some KMT stone  heads) don't want to invade mainland.

However, you may take the promise as a warning to big Chinese chauvinists.
If there is a war, both side have to pay big price in the war
and prepare for forever hatred between each other.

>We have to spend a huge amount of money to
>buy F-16 or Su-27, and their economy and employment would be     
>improved built on the death of Chinese if Chinese civil war
>again! 

Obviously you never read the very famous military strategy bible -
"Swen1-Tze3 Bing1 Fa3." In this book,  the author praised that
the supreme wisdom of using military force is 
"the wisdom to prevent using military force."

Buying F-16 is to preventing mainlanders from making military mistakes.

>    BTW, please remember, Chinese will only fight with those
>Taiwan seperatists and could extinguish them there definitely,
>no matter how many breaths they have.

If Taiwanese declare independence, that will be majority Taiwaneses'  choice.
Using military force to change Taiwaneses' decision is INVASION.
From: yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , )
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: F-16's fear?
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:35:00 GMT
Organization: New York University

cyc@z.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang) writes:
>>
>>>But, do you know that PRC refused to pay back ROC's war debt borrowed from
>>>the USA during the Civil war at 1949 ?
>>
>>No matter what, most countries and the UN acknoledge that PRC is the
>>legal seccesor of ROC.
>>

>Totally wrong. CCP won and KMT lost China thats it. Did any rule said that
>a loser must give up everything he owned to the winner ?

I just want to repeat my statement: Most countries (including
the United Stated of America, and Japan--which are your goingtobe
masters if you secede from China) and the United Union acknowledge
that People's Republic of China is the legal seccesor of ROC.

Don't break your house's ceiling when you read my statement.

Mr. Chang seems to be a WSR, wht are you so active in selling
away Taiwan? You are afraid of BSR kick you out?

>Yi-Chieh

Ze Yang
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: xyang@bcars279.UUCP (Sherry Yang)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Reply-To: xyang@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:52:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.231936.1@max.u.washington.edu>, cangyuan@max.u.washington.edu writes:
|> In article <BuCEr5.JB9@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
|> writes (on the US' sale of F-16s to Taiwan).
|> > 
|> > I think the Chinese government is over worried and the
|> > Taiwanese is over joyed. What a big deal!

I don't think Chinese government is worried about the capacity of
those F-16s, rather the sale is a signal that U.S. government wants
to cause trouble between the Strait, which worried the Chinese
government a bit as what China needed most now is a stable
political environment to re-build CCP's strength and China's
economy.

|> > 
|> > Xiao Li
|> 
|> I think the Chinese government has reasons to worry.  The combat power of
|> the 150 F-16s is not the major concern.  However, this sale signals that 
|> the US "cares" about Taiwan's security.  

Are you kidding? How come US cares about Taiwan's security? Is US
Taiwan's mother/protector or what? What US
really cares is divide and weaken China, which, BTW, is reasonable 
strategy for any government at this position, so that China will not
become a potential threat (politically and economically) in
a near future. Taiwan is merely a card in US's hand to play
with Chinese government in mainland. The sale is more a political
signal/move than anything else.

Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:24897 talk.politics.china:1016
From: saito@sakura.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp (Saito Tsuneo)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,talk.politics.china
Subject: Re:W.Deng,you should go back to china,not be in U.S
Date: 7 Sep 92 02:32:04 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.china

You said CCP is great and right. Here I want to ask you a
question why you stay in U.S. Many chinese people oversea and I
love china but we did not,do not, and will not love CCP and CG.


An angry man after reading you news
From: usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu (Usenet on news.acns)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Insensitive mainland chauvinist view. (Was: Who Cares 150 F-16s.)
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:43:18 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA

>     Suppose Guangdong wants to be indepedent some day and pass
> a referendum, is that O.K. ? Then maybe other Provinces will follow.
> There will be some thirty countries on mainland, is that what you want ?
> 

Ask people in Guangdong whether they want independence. Ask them! Let them  
vote! If most people in Guangdong want to be independent, let them go! Again,  
let people choose their future! If most people in Guangdong or Fujian or Yunan,  
etc. want to be independent, you just can't stop them even you have troops of  
10 million.

Economy is not the only concern. People leave not only because of the poor  
economy. There were quite a few American Jews went to Israel years ago to  
develop that country. Nobody forced them to go and the living standard were not  
as good. Why they went there? Ask yourself?


Carl
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china