HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yndst2+@pitt.edu (Yong Duan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Oct 1, our National Day
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:18:41 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <BvLx2M.MxA@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> hqian@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (haibo qian) writes:
>In article <6789@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> yndst2+@pitt.edu (Yong Duan) writes:
>
>	I agree with your viewpoint but disagree with the above
>        assertion that US can crush China in a relatively short 
>	time if they want. 
>
>	USA is and was indeed strong enough, but USA failed to crush the 
>	Vietnam and didn't win the Korea war. 

          Don't you know that American people did not support Vietnam
          war? If you believe that American did not win Korea war, I
          believe that you may need to examine the history carefully.
          And this time forget about what you were taught in China.
          Even you still believe that American did not win Korea war,
          do you think that American war machine was fully loaded?
          For instance, American was the only owner of A-bomb. Did
          American use it? Why A-bomb was not used? I guess this is
          just one of the points that I was trying to raise, American
          was not crazy. Let me make it clear again. The Chinese
          military force can stand at most a year, if American decided
          to crash it and the whole nation supports the opperation.And
          I don't like this fact.
          On the other hand, I agree that I overstated the economic
          power of American.

>
>	It is much difficult to crush a nation than to crush a regime.
>	History says so.

          Yes, no doubt about this. So what?
Y.Duan
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: yidao@cae.wisc.edu (Yidao Cai)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Oct 1, our National Day
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:29:04 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering

In article <1992Oct5.144430.27532@news.acns.nwu.edu> usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu 
(Usenet on news.acns) writes:
  
>> 
>Don't forget that Mao awarded so called "mather heros" in late 1950s for
> having  
>more than 7 children. Many Chinese were as stupid as you still are now. They  
>simply did not question the authoritis. They simply followed their "great  
>leeader".
>
>Carl

 I am just wondering WHY they did not follow their "great leader" in the 
late 60's and early 70's.  I remember that he instructed them to have fewer
children.
From: yding+@pitt.edu (Yijun Ding)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Oct 1, our National Day
Date: 5 Oct 92 03:54:10 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <BvLssx.Juz@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li) writes:
>>Green card!
>
>Yijun is too indifferent to green card. Let me raise a personal
>question here: what happen if your wife gets green card and you
>are iligible to get with her?

Xiaolin:

My answer should not be very different from yours ;^) I am indifferent
on green, or bill...  I can get it if most can. I don't mind without it
if most don't.

>You are too sensitive to the green card issue that you consider
>green card is a privilege. Green card is only a minor issue of
>life. Life is much more than that. Just like Chinese citizenship
>is for everyone, but still it does not mean everyone is equal in
>China.

Why I become sensitive from indifferent? Whether it is a minor issue or
not, maybe we can count how often 'green/PR' appear in d-fighter's
postings (including yours if you are still an amateur d-fighter as you
claimed in one of your post).  

>Try to change your attitude and be more objective.

I am objective since I only speak for myself, and I am not a d-fighter
either professionally or amateurly.  I do hope that your attitude could
be more stable since some of your postings shortly after the Democratic 
Convention seems not the same tone as here.  Can we repost?

-- 
//Yijun Ding, Pittsburgh //Go your way, be happy.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: ROC vs PRC
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Distribution: na
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:31:17 GMT

In article <BvD4rG.8tz@wilber.rich.nt.com> zing@wilber.rich.nt.com (Leon Z. Lee) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.230841.18389@odin.corp.sgi.com> yu@chang.asd.sgi.com (Yu Chang) writes:
>[...]
>>Exactly.
[.....] 
>
>It was no surprise that droves of Chinese soldiers surrendered to UN forces 
>during the UN retreat from the Chosin Resevior.  Although some fanatical
>supporters of the PLA points out to the "great defeat of the American
>forces since the Battle of the Buldge"....it should be noted that 6
>Red Chinese Divisions encircled only 2 US Marine Divisions at the
>Chosin Resevior.
>
No the Americans said it themselves, as I recall in the "Forgoten War"
documentary, an American general commented that at the wake of the
frontline collapse.  

[......] 
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Leon Z. Lee                          Internet: zing@nt.rich.com
>  Dallas Area Information Systems      Bitnet: SMTP%"zing@nt.rich.com"
>  Meridian Service Systems/Support     NT/BNR e-mail: zing@zeta
>  Northern Telecom Private Networks    COCOS ID: Leon (L.Z.) Lee
>  Richardson, Texas                    Phone: (214) 684-4680


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li)
Subject: Re: Oct 1, our National Day
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:00:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.204200.19269@ms.uky.edu> gang@ms.uky.edu (Gang Li) writes:
>
>>Blind patriotism will cause you loss sense of justice. Be objective.
>
>Remains of Yue4 Fei1 and Qin2 Hui4.

What have this to do with Yue Fei and Qin Hui? I guess modern China
needs neither of them.
From: bihkyan@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Yang Yuanxin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: ROC vs PRC
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:36:57 GMT
Organization: Educational Computing Network

In article <1992Oct2.180816.17639@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> tylee@austin.ibm.com (Ter-Yuan Lee) writes:
>
>In article <BvGqD5.HuC@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>, bihkyan@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Yang Yuanxin) writes:
>                                                             
>> 
>>  I borrowed 4 books about Korean war from Chicago public library monthes
>> ago, at least two of them mentioned the POW incident, very very close to
>> what I heared in China. Also, I found that books published after 1980
>> are more reliable, less propaganda. 
>>  If you wanto know the books names I borrowed, I can give you next week,
>>  According to these books written by American, I can say, CCP is too
>> honest on this issue, they could have gain much more if they have 1/10
>> of the propaganda/brain wash ability as KMT has. If they had 1/100 of
>> the courage of lying as KMT has, I can't imagine...
>> 
>> YY
>> 
>
>I was not talking to you but CongZong. He said in China he saw certain
>reports on the Korean war. Then, I asked him to provide me the reference.
>OK, since you volunteered, send the titles to me. I will check them out,
>and, maybe give a summary.

  I was talking to everyone who was on the net. 
  I will provide the titles and summary to the net very soon.
>   
>As I said if CongZong could provide me the reference from China, I would
>gladly consent your point that communist Chinese is "too" honest according
>to communist Chinese side of view. But, don't imply that I was brainwashed
>by CNP. Because, by saying so, the ground and bottom line for this debate
>will be shattered. How could you claim that CNP was lying? Have you read the
>the publications from communist China and CNP about this? Or, you only believe
>what "American" said?
>
>
>-- 
>/* The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of IBM's.         *\
> * Take care and have a nice day.                                            *
>\* Ter-Yuan Lee                                                              */
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu (Usenet on news.acns)
Subject: Re: Vote for our future
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:05:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.215122.5993@cmcl2.nyu.edu> yangze@acf3.nyu.edu (Ze Yang)  
writes:
> Mr. Carl hasn't apeared on the net for a long time. Is he
> trying to organize a voting procedure for the bill s1216? 
> 
> By his logic, people can always "vote for their future".
> 
> We miss you, Mr. Carl!
> 
> Ze Yang

I took several days off to have a good vacation in Yellowstone with my wife. In  
fact, I did not even notice the heated debate about s1216 until I am back.

Good luck!

Carl
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: hsue@ellis.uchicago.edu (marc jacobson)
Subject: Help Wanted: The Problems
Reply-To: hsue@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: none to speak of
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 21:17:40 GMT

\documentstyle[12pt]{article} 
\topmargin -0.2in 
\textheight 8.0in 
\textwidth 5.8in 
\oddsidemargin 0.20in 
\def\baselinestretch{1.55} 
\begin{document} 
\underline{\bf Probelm 1 \rm} \\
\\The agent maximizes the expected discounted utility 
$$E_{0}\sum_{t=0}^{\tilde{T}}    \beta^{t}U(c_{t}),$$
( where $ \tilde{T}\sim[T,
\sigma_{T}^{2}]$,is normaly distributed.)
\\
\\subject to budget constraints:
$$	c_{t} + p^{s}_{t} s_{t}  + 
    p^{b}_{t} b_{t}
   =  s_{t-1} ( p^{s}_{t}  +  d_{t}  ) +  
    b_{t-1} + l_{t}  ;  $$  
where $ s_{t} ,   p^{s}_{t} ,  b_{t} ,    p^{b}_{t},  $ represent, 
respectively, holding and price of one share of stock, and 
holding and price of a riskless real government
 bond, $ d_{t} $ is dividend of the stock, and $ l_{t}$  is the wage
 received by the agent at period t. $d_{t}$ and $l_{t}$ are stochastic processes to
be specified, possibly, as Markov processes. $ E_{0}$  denotes the conditional expectation 
operator given all information available to the agent in time 0.\\

\underline{\bf Problem 2\rm}
\\
\\The agent maximizes the expected discounted utility 
$$E_{0}\sum_{t=0}^{\infty}    \beta^{t}U(c_{t})     $$
subject to budget constraints:
$$	c_{t} + p^{s}_{t} s_{t}  +  
    p^{b}_{t} b_{t}
   =  s_{t-1} ( p^{s}_{t}  +  d_{t}  ) +  
    b_{t-1} + l_{t} - \xi p^{s}_{t} \mid s_{t}-s_{t-1}\mid  ; $$ 
where $\xi$ is a constant, and  all other notations have the same meanings 
as in the previous model. The term $ \xi  p^{s}_{t} \mid s_{t}-s_{t-1}\mid $ represents
transaction cost incurred in trading stock.
\end{document}
 
 
 
 



Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: wing@pegasus.com (Wing Ng)
Subject: Re: [WSJ report]
Organization: The Ohio State University; Department of Phyiscs
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 10:12:51 GMT

lau@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu writes:
>
> [1] Re: Re: [WSJ report]
> Date: Tue Sep 22 07:15:55 HST 1992
> Human Rights is certainly more basic a right to all people.
> While Democracy is a higher level of human activity on society level.
>
>         My not-so-good example would be Singapore.  People
> there enjoys a lot more Human Rights than comrades in PRC, however,
> I won't say they are practicing any significant degree of democracy
> there.  Sigh!
 
I think it's just the other way around:  Singapore has 100% directly
elected parliament, and head of the majority party becomes prime
minister etc., just like K., Canada, etc.  Quite properly a
democratic form of government.
 
It just turns out People's Action Party gets > 90% (? exact
percentage) of the seats at every election, and it governs without
checks and balances.
 
But then it has fairly poor human rights:  political opponents are
harassed and jailed on trumped up charges, opposition media, press
are summarily closed down, foreign publications are restricted
entry, chewing gum is prohibited, and there is a fine if you do
not flush the urinals.
 
Wing
From: stlin@stevelin.Eng.Sun.COM (Steven Lin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Mailing address for Mr. Steve Lin
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:49:34 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: stevelin

>
>>>>Please make your check payable to:
>>>>China SOS Education Fund
>
Do not mail your check to Steve!
Do not follow up with this subject!

Please provide more information what kind of children need help?`
What kind of help needed?

I thought to adopt some children, but I worry that they become CCP. :-)
From: byab345@chpc.utexas.edu (Da Kuang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Dui Lian
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:58:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: chpc.1992Oct6.185859.20579
Organization: The University of Texas System - CHPC

In article <9210061725.AA04677@phloem.uoregon.edu> Tuya@ccmail.uoregon.edu writes:
>          PL asks about dui4 lian2 in wu3 hou2 ci2.  Aside from the
>          one that guy mentioned, here is another that left me pretty
>          good impression:
>
>          Liang3 biao3 chou2 san3 gu4
>          yi2 dui4 zu2 qian1 qiu1
>
This reminds me another one about Zhuge Lian, of which I can only remember
the first half (Shang Liang):

Bu4 8 Gua4, Qu3 2 Zhou1, 7 Qin2 Meng4Huo4, 6 Chu1 Qi2Shan1, 5 Zhang4 Yuan1
Zhen3 49 Zhan3 Min2 Deng1, 1 Shen1 Zhi3 Wei4 Chou2 3 Gu4.

Can someone please tell me the second hafl? Thank you. -- DK
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:26550 soc.culture.taiwan:14043
From: stlin@stevelin.Eng.Sun.COM (Steven Lin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Date: 28 Sep 1992 18:00:31 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: stevelin

In article <92Sep23.154131edt.55@orasis.vis.toronto.edu>  (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>Yes we do know.  
>
>Sure they are free to talk, walk, and FIGHT.  Do you know why?  Jiang
>can't control Li ZongRen or Bei CongXi, if he arrest them, GuangXi(Gui)
>armies will up in revolt.  Li hated Jiang, that's why he would return
>to Beijing in the 60s rather than go to Taiwan. 

Then why Li was poisioned after he returned? (by CCP)

>


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha)
Subject: Re: What abbreviation is ALOHA?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:02:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.162105.880@unine.ch> Congzhong.Wang@info.unine.ch writes:
>In article <BvpCv2.3GI@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>, utingli@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Tingli Pan) writes:
>> In article <BvoFqz.1Dt@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li) writes:
>>>
>>>For network expert: What is the abbreviation of the word ALOHA.
>>>I don't need analysis, only the origin of the abbreviation. Thanks.
>>>
>> I remember reading it from textbook many years ago. Some protocol of
>> network. Seems it died away.
>
>  Additive Link On-line HAwaii system
>  Random access technonoly, developped in Hawaii Uni. in 70s.
>
>

Thank you, thank you, thank you! You win the grand prize. It amazes me how
many people "answered" the original question without answering it...




Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: mece2az@rosie.uh.edu (Sun, Xiaohua)
Subject: Re: Oct 1, our National Day
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 14:09:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.202924.11416@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, chenwei@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Chenwei Yan) writes...
>In article <1992Oct2.144332.103@en.ecn.purdue.edu> chenwei@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Chenwei Yan) writes:
>>In article <BvGqGx.3AF@cs.psu.edu> jyw@phys.psu.edu (Jin-Yuan Wu) writes:
>>>Dear Chinese Friend:
>>>
>>>
>>>Today is our National Day.
>>>
>>>
>>>What China won 43 years ago was a real INDEPENDENCE which China had not been
>>>having for about 100 years. Nothing can be more valuable than
>>>independence to a country.
>>>
>>>
>>>However, neither US nor USSR were willing to see China becomes a strong 
>>>country. They sent their armies to the countries around China. They tried
>>>to isolate China in the world. They tried to control China via thousands of 
>>>ways. When China was trying to improve the relationship with either US or USSR,
>>>USSR or US would attempt to stem via their KGB or CIA.
>>>
>>>
>>>That was history. That was the environment in which China was standing up.
>>>China then had atomic bomb, hydrogen bomb, satellites etc all by 
>>>herself--developing technologies nearly without external help, accumulating
>>>money primarily in the internal markets and meanwhile, producing food
>>>so that the huge population had something to eat.
>>>Mao Ze-Dong had many mistakes, but he and his comrades left us a strong 
>>>country, an independent country.
>>>
>>>
>>>Every Chinese benefits from his/her homeland by being respected because China
>>>has stood up.
>>>
>>>
>>>Just a remind, today is our National Day. Nothing can be more valuable
>>>than independence. US could be a friend, but China is our country.
>>
>>I agree with you 100%.
>>Chinese people can only depend on themselves to make the country better and
>>stronger. On the other hand, we should learn from the other countries for good
>>expertise and good experiences for one reason: becoming the strongest nation
>>in the world and crush all the opponents!
>                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>21st CENTURY WILL BE THE CENTURY OF THE GREATER CHINA!!!!
>>
>>Let's all work for that goal!
>>
> 
>Since I posted this followup. I received some criticism concerning the high-
>lighted line.
>Here is the clarification: I didn't mean to destroy the world. I only wanted
>China to be able to defend itself and destroy all the possible opponents it
>will have in the future.
> 
>Sorry about the bad word choices.
> 
>Chenwei Yan
> 
You are apple juice now, but you can be apple cider if you want to.
From: lix@yangtze.bu.edu (Xiaowen Li)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Oct 1, our National Day
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:18:58 GMT
Organization: Boston University

In article <BvLssx.Juz@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li) writes:
<In article <6784@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> yding+@pitt.edu (Yijun Ding) writes:
<(deleted)
<You are too sensitive to the green card issue that you consider
<green card is a privilege. Green card is only a minor issue of
<life. Life is much more than that. Just like Chinese citizenship
<is for everyone, but still it does not mean everyone is equal in
<China.
<
<Try to change your attitude and be more objective.

That is right, Ms. Miao Yu said:

Zong You Qian Zhang G Reen Card,
Zhong1 Gui Yi Ge Tu Man Tou. :-)
-- 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: gang@ms.uky.edu (Gang Li)
Subject: Re: Oct 1, our National Day
    <1992Oct6.220438.26658@news.acns.nwu.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:40:02 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

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

>In article <1992Oct6.171507.29459@ms.uky.edu> gang@ms.uky.edu (Gang Li) writes:
>> xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li) writes:
>> 
>> >>Remains of Yue4 Fei1 and Qin2 Hui4.
>> 
>> >What have this to do with Yue Fei and Qin Hui? I guess modern China
>> >needs neither of them.
>> 
>> Unfortunately you always have these kind of people.

>Yes, there are always these two kinds of people, ultra-leftests and  
>ultra-rightests, just like there are always beggars, prostitutes and  
>religiously crazy people in a society. But this does not mean these people are  
>the treasure of a society.

>Carl

Then go back to China and turn down the temple of Yue Fei.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: hlu@eecs.wsu.edu (H.J. Lu)
Subject: Re: Oct 1, our National Day
Organization: School of EECS, Washington State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 15:41:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.144332.103@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, chenwei@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Chenwei Yan) writes:
|> In article <BvGqGx.3AF@cs.psu.edu> jyw@phys.psu.edu (Jin-Yuan Wu) writes:
|> >Dear Chinese Friend:
|> >
|> >
|> >Today is our National Day.
|> >
|> >
|> >What China won 43 years ago was a real INDEPENDENCE which China had not been
|> >having for about 100 years. Nothing can be more valuable than
|> >independence to a country.
|> >

It depends .......


|> >
|> >However, neither US nor USSR were willing to see China becomes a strong 
|> >country. They sent their armies to the countries around China. They tried
|> >to isolate China in the world. They tried to control China via thousands of 
|> >ways. When China was trying to improve the relationship with either US or USSR,
|> >USSR or US would attempt to stem via their KGB or CIA.
|> >

Very serious.

|> >
|> >That was history. That was the environment in which China was standing up.
|> >China then had atomic bomb, hydrogen bomb, satellites etc all by 

Oh, boy. Warlord?

|> >herself--developing technologies nearly without external help, accumulating
|> >money primarily in the internal markets and meanwhile, producing food
|> >so that the huge population had something to eat.

		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Whose fault?

|> >Mao Ze-Dong had many mistakes, but he and his comrades left us a strong 
|> >country, an independent country.


Strong? In which sense? huge population? atomic bomb? hydrogen bomb? 

|> >
|> >
|> >Every Chinese benefits from his/her homeland by being respected because China
|> >has stood up.
|> >

It depends. Think about some ABCs here.

|> >
|> >Just a remind, today is our National Day. Nothing can be more valuable
|> >than independence. US could be a friend, but China is our country.
|> 
|> I agree with you 100%.
|> Chinese people can only depend on themselves to make the country better and
|> stronger. On the other hand, we should learn from the other countries for good
|> expertise and good experiences for one reason: becoming the strongest nation
|> in the world and crush all the opponents!
		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Where is peace?

|> 
|> 21st CENTURY WILL BE THE CENTURY OF THE GREATER CHINA!!!!

I don't want to see this. No wonder our neighbors are afraid of China.

|> 
|> Let's all work for that goal!
|> 

H.J.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao)
Subject: Re: Oct 1, our National Day
Organization: MITRE
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:04:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.144430.27532@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu (Usenet on news.acns) writes:
> 
> In article <BvJyv1.1DC@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> bihkyan@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Yang Yuanxin)  
> writes:
> > In article <1992Oct2.183440.13380@news.acns.nwu.edu> usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu  
> (Usenet on news.acns) writes:
> > >
> > >Mao is very stupid (or crazy). Even in late 1960s, he still proudly told  
> > >foreign diplomates that he could summon a 100 million soldier army to  
> "defend"  
> > >China. I believe it was militarily motive that push Mao to encourage fast  
> > >growth of population. 
> > >
> >   Then you are truly stupid.
> >   Go to some country side of China, ask one of the woman on the street,
> >   why does she want 12 children, she answers:" I want to build a strong
> >   family army".
> > 
> > 
> 
> Don't forget that Mao awarded so called "mather heros" in late 1950s for having  
> more than 7 children. Many Chinese were as stupid as you still are now. They  
> simply did not question the authoritis. They simply followed their "great  
> leeader".
> 
> Carl
> 
I remember Chiang Kai-shek and Sun Yat-sen said and/or did the same thing
as Mao did.  Who is right or who is wrong is not the problem.  The problem
is Chinese territory is too small, and people have to immigrate to other
countries to reduce population pressure.  Discover a "NEW
World"!!
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china