🚀 go-pugleaf

Byambaa Garid wrote:
>
> In <5j3m4h$1...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> Tony Tant <tt...@IDT.NET> writes:
> >
> >In talk.politics.tibet Jonathan Lin <Jon...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >: Tony Tant wrote:
> >: >
> >: > Taiwan + Mainland = One China
> >: > ROC and PRC two seperate governments of China ...
> >: >
> >: I do not understand your math here, Tony. Is Mongolia part of Mainland?
> >: Where is the boundary of this Mainland?
> >
> >Outer Mongolia should be settled after the Taiwan-Mainland
> unification.
>
> Mongolia is already settled by Mongolians!!! Mongolia is an independent
> country!!! If you try to "settle" us, remember that Mongols have not
> forgotten how to fight! During the last Mongol-China war in 14 century
> 40 million chinese were killed. How many  do you want to die this time?
           I won't worry. It's only a matter of time before union will
occur between Mongolia and China. There are only a few million
Mongolians living in Mongolia but there are hundreds of thousands of Han
Chinese living in China. And as we all know borders are not solid and as
population congestion continuosly take place in mainland China,
immigration pressures from China will only build up as time passes.
Also, the world, including China, will not allow this barbaric Mongolian
method of genocide to occur again.

John Hsien Wang wrote:
>
> Byambaa Garid wrote:
> >
> > In <5j3m4h$1...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> Tony Tant <tt...@IDT.NET> writes:
> > >
> > >In talk.politics.tibet Jonathan Lin <Jon...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >: Tony Tant wrote:
> > >: >
> > >: > Taiwan + Mainland = One China
> > >: > ROC and PRC two seperate governments of China ...
> > >: >
> > >: I do not understand your math here, Tony. Is Mongolia part of Mainland?
> > >: Where is the boundary of this Mainland?
> > >
> > >Outer Mongolia should be settled after the Taiwan-Mainland
> > unification.
> >
> > Mongolia is already settled by Mongolians!!! Mongolia is an independent
> > country!!! If you try to "settle" us, remember that Mongols have not
> > forgotten how to fight! During the last Mongol-China war in 14 century
> > 40 million chinese were killed. How many  do you want to die this time?
>            I won't worry. It's only a matter of time before union will
> occur between Mongolia and China. There are only a few million
> Mongolians living in Mongolia but there are hundreds of thousands of Han
> Chinese living in China. And as we all know borders are not solid and as
> population congestion continuosly take place in mainland China,
> immigration pressures from China will only build up as time passes.
> Also, the world, including China, will not allow this barbaric Mongolian
> method of genocide to occur again.
Note: This is John Hsien Wang again, I made a mistake above. No, there
are not hundreds of thousands of Han Chinese living in China. There are
hundreds of MILLIONS of Han Chinese living in China.

Byambaa Garid wrote:
>
> In <5j3m4h$1...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> Tony Tant <tt...@IDT.NET> writes:
> >
> >In talk.politics.tibet Jonathan Lin <Jon...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >: Tony Tant wrote:
> >: >
> >: > Taiwan + Mainland = One China
> >: > ROC and PRC two seperate governments of China ...
> >: >
> >: I do not understand your math here, Tony. Is Mongolia part of Mainland?
> >: Where is the boundary of this Mainland?
> >
> >Outer Mongolia should be settled after the Taiwan-Mainland
> unification.
>
> Mongolia is already settled by Mongolians!!! Mongolia is an independent
> country!!! If you try to "settle" us, remember that Mongols have not
> forgotten how to fight! During the last Mongol-China war in 14 century
> 40 million chinese were killed. How many  do you want to die this time?

Byambaa Garid <bga...@gse.mq.edu.au> wrote in article
<335574...@gse.mq.edu.au>...

> Mongolia is already settled by Mongolians!!! Mongolia is an independent
> country!!! If you try to "settle" us, remember that Mongols have not
> forgotten how to fight! During the last Mongol-China war in 14 century
> 40 million chinese were killed. How many  do you want to die this time?

Settling such an issue through war is NOT in fashion any more! China did
not have war  with Britain or Portugese to get back Hong Kong and Macau!

Another point is that skills in horse rideing is not useful in modern
warfare anymore!  Mongolians should work hard and build up the economy
instead of trying to show others their prowess which is outdated by almost
1000 years!

In article <335574...@gse.mq.edu.au> bga...@gse.mq.edu.au writes:
>
>In <5j3m4h$1...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> Tony Tant <tt...@IDT.NET> writes:
>>
>>In talk.politics.tibet Jonathan Lin <Jon...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>: Tony Tant wrote:
>>: >
>>: > Taiwan + Mainland = One China
>>: > ROC and PRC two seperate governments of China ...
>>: >
>>: I do not understand your math here, Tony. Is Mongolia part of Mainland?
>>: Where is the boundary of this Mainland?
>>
>>Outer Mongolia should be settled after the Taiwan-Mainland
>unification.
>
>Mongolia is already settled by Mongolians!!! Mongolia is an independent
>country!!! If you try to "settle" us, remember that Mongols have not

OK, you talk history.  Let's talk and see if you really
know Mongol history.

1.  Which country based its claim to independence on
    having been recognized by a man who later died
    of a sexually transmitted disease?


ANS.    When Tibet fell under English control, the puppet Dalai
        Lama XIII initiated a reign of terror against all
        non-Tibetan Chinese in what is now the TAR.  He claimed
        that Tibet had just become independent because it had been
        recognized by the (bogus) Great Mongol Empire, which was
        itself independent because he recognized its independence.

        See the answer to Questions 2 for the identity of the only
        founding "emperor" of a modern state to have died of syphilis
        ~{ C76> ~}.

2.      Who was the number three person in the world of the
        Yellow Hats, after the Dalai Lama and the Panchen
        Erdeni (who were co-equals in the eye of Chinese
        law) in 1911?

ANS.    ~{U\2<Wp5$0M~}

3.      Who was the founding "emperor" of the bogus
        Great Mongol Empire ~{4sCI9E5[9z~} in 1913?

ANS.    ~{U\2<Wp5$0M~}

4.      Who called his "imperial" reign  GongDai ~{924w~} as
        in  Bu Gong Dai Tian ~{2;924wLl~}?

ANS.    ~{U\2<Wp5$0M~}

5.      Who was the person most critical to the Tibet-hypocrites'
        false claim of "Tibetan independence" but whose name was
        messed up by Melvyn C. Goldstein in his big book and
        inconsistently so between text and indices?

ANS.    ~{U\2<Wp5$0M~}

Goldstein calls him Jetsun Dampa in his text page 47-48 but
Jestsun Dampa in the index (page 888), with umlaut for each
instance of 'u'.  Both forms are wrong.  Goldstein's scholarship
thus appears sloppy beyond dispute.

If you know some Chinese and have Chinese-text software you
will be able to identify the syphilitic Separatist.  I will
further identify him in future articles.

Glossary:

    Bu Gong Dai Tian        ~{2;924wLl~}?
    GongDai                 ~{924w~}
    Great Mongol Empire     ~{4sCI9E5[9z~}
    syphilis                ~{ C76> ~}.

Gui wrote:
>
> In article <335574...@gse.mq.edu.au> bga...@gse.mq.edu.au writes:
> >
>         [ELLIPSIS]
> >
> >Mongolia is already settled by Mongolians!!! Mongolia is an independent
> >country!!! If you try to "settle" us, remember that Mongols have not
> >forgotten how to fight! During the last Mongol-China war in 14 century
> >40 million chinese were killed. How many  do you want to die this time?
>
>         Thousands of Europeans were killed during the events of 1900-1901,
>         according to you or your mate.

Read any history book on this subject provided it is not printed in
China or Taiwan. And they were tortured horribly!! European women
especially were sexually abused in terrible ways!!! I could tell you the
details but I am afraid the story suits more to the alt.sex.sadism
newsgroup! It is disgusting!!!

 >Now you claim your side to have
>         killed 40 millions.  Amazing, mate.
>
>         Let's see: 14th century means 1300-1399, give or take a year.
>         I think the remnants of the Yuan regime was on the run most
>         of the time and you are lying when you claimed there was a
>
>                 "last Mongol-China war in 14 century [in which]
>                 40 million" perished.

You never heard about 20 years of war and chaos? About floods and
famine? Do you know what bubonic plague is? Do you know how many people
it killed in 14 century? Can't you connect all this with the war which
was ultimately a war between Mongols and Chinese?

>
>         You math must have remained at an elementary school level
>         despite your advancing age.
>
>         At any rate, it seems to me that all Separaistists tend to
>         lie blatantly when discussing China's territorial integrity,
>         among other things.

Me, separatist? Ha!!! Mongolia is an independent country and I fully
respect her territorial integrity!!

> Yourgoodself is an example _par excellence_.

In article <335574...@gse.mq.edu.au> bga...@gse.mq.edu.au writes:
>
	[ELLIPSIS]
>
>Mongolia is already settled by Mongolians!!! Mongolia is an independent
>country!!! If you try to "settle" us, remember that Mongols have not
>forgotten how to fight! During the last Mongol-China war in 14 century
>40 million chinese were killed. How many  do you want to die this time?

	Thousands of Europeans were killed during the events of 1900-1901,
	according to you or your mate.  Now you claim your side to have
	killed 40 millions.  Amazing, mate.

	Let's see: 14th century means 1300-1399, give or take a year.
	I think the remnants of the Yuan regime was on the run most
	of the time and you are lying when you claimed there was a

		"last Mongol-China war in 14 century [in which]
		40 million" perished.

	You math must have remained at an elementary school level
	despite your advancing age.

	At any rate, it seems to me that all Separaistists tend to
	lie blatantly when discussing China's territorial integrity,
	among other things.  Yourgoodself is an example _par excellence_.

John Hsien Wang wrote:
>
> John Hsien Wang wrote:
> >
> > Byambaa Garid wrote:
> > >
> > > In <5j3m4h$1...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> Tony Tant <tt...@IDT.NET> writes:
> > > >
> > > >In talk.politics.tibet Jonathan Lin <Jon...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > >: Tony Tant wrote:
> > > >: >
> > > >: > Taiwan + Mainland = One China
> > > >: > ROC and PRC two seperate governments of China ...
> > > >: >
> > > >: I do not understand your math here, Tony. Is Mongolia part of Mainland?
> > > >: Where is the boundary of this Mainland?
> > > >
> > > >Outer Mongolia should be settled after the Taiwan-Mainland
> > > unification.
> > >
> > > Mongolia is already settled by Mongolians!!! Mongolia is an independent
> > > country!!! If you try to "settle" us, remember that Mongols have not
> > > forgotten how to fight! During the last Mongol-China war in 14 century
> > > 40 million chinese were killed. How many  do you want to die this time?
> >            I won't worry. It's only a matter of time before union will
> > occur between Mongolia and China. There are only a few million
> > Mongolians living in Mongolia but there are hundreds of thousands of Han
> > Chinese living in China. And as we all know borders are not solid and as
> > population congestion continuosly take place in mainland China,
> > immigration pressures from China will only build up as time passes.
> > Also, the world, including China, will not allow this barbaric Mongolian
> > method of genocide to occur again.
> Note: This is John Hsien Wang again, I made a mistake above. No, there
> are not hundreds of thousands of Han Chinese living in China. There are
> hundreds of MILLIONS of Han Chinese living in China.

Marvelous!!! Our brothers the Han Chinese breed like rats!!! I think it
is our duty to help them contain "population congestion" by various
scientific methods!!!

In article <335629...@gse.mq.edu.au> bga...@gse.mq.edu.au writes:

	       [ELLIPSIS]
>
>Read any history book on this subject provided it is not printed in
>China or Taiwan. And they were tortured horribly!! European women
>especially were sexually abused in terrible ways!!! I could tell you the
>details but I am afraid the story suits more to the alt.sex.sadism
>newsgroup! It is disgusting!!!

	OK, you are trying to do a Speckart, i.e. making
	sensational claims with nothing to back them up.
	I know exactly how to deal with the Speckarts,
	real or ersatz.

	Let's read some details, with appropriate deletions
	and references, SVP.

> > unification.
> >
> > Mongolia is already settled by Mongolians!!! Mongolia is an independent
> > country!!! If you try to "settle" us, remember that Mongols have not
> > forgotten how to fight! During the last Mongol-China war in 14 century
> > 40 million chinese were killed. How many  do you want to die this time?
>            I won't worry. It's only a matter of time before union will
> occur between Mongolia and China. There are only a few million
> Mongolians living in Mongolia but there are hundreds of thousands of Han
> Chinese living in China. And as we all know borders are not solid and as
> population congestion continuosly take place in mainland China,
> immigration pressures from China will only build up as time passes.
> Also, the world, including China, will not allow this barbaric Mongolian
> method of genocide to occur again.

A fantasy of someone who's not even an anthentic CHinese by mainland
Chinese standard.
>

X. Han wrote:
>
> > > unification.
> > >
> > > Mongolia is already settled by Mongolians!!! Mongolia is an independent
> > > country!!! If you try to "settle" us, remember that Mongols have not
> > > forgotten how to fight! During the last Mongol-China war in 14 century
> > > 40 million chinese were killed. How many  do you want to die this time?
> >            I won't worry. It's only a matter of time before union will
> > occur between Mongolia and China. There are only a few million
> > Mongolians living in Mongolia but there are hundreds of thousands of Han
> > Chinese living in China. And as we all know borders are not solid and as
> > population congestion continuosly take place in mainland China,
> > immigration pressures from China will only build up as time passes.
> > Also, the world, including China, will not allow this barbaric Mongolian
> > method of genocide to occur again.
>
> A fantasy of someone who's not even an anthentic CHinese by mainland
> Chinese standard.
> >
              What I am saying is the hard facts. Mainland China's
population in the 21st century will reach 1.7 billion before
stabilizing. As population size increases there is the tendency to dirve
wages down. In fact it's very possible that in the 21st century
Mongolian workers will have relatively higher wages than many parts of
mainland China. If so, there will be the economic incentive for mainland
Chinese workers to work in Mongolia. And, also, there will be the
economic incentive for Mongolian business located in Mongolia to hire
cheap labor. What better place to hire cheap labor than right across the
border!So you see the labor supply is certainly available and the labor
demand is certainly there. Why not consummate it? Everybody will be
happier. Local Mongolian businesses will be able to produce goods at
lower costs thereby lowering the prices of goods. The Mongolian
consumers will certainly benefit. And the laborers from mainland China
will enjoy relatively higher wages than they did before. And if one day
the whole population of Mongolia feel that union with the Chinese
federation is a viable option, then we should let the population's
demand be satisfied.

On Thu, 17 Apr 1997, John Hsien Wang wrote:

> John Hsien Wang wrote:
> >
> > Byambaa Garid wrote:
> > >
> > > In <5j3m4h$1...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> Tony Tant <tt...@IDT.NET> writes:
> > > >
> > > >In talk.politics.tibet Jonathan Lin <Jon...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > >: Tony Tant wrote:
> > > >: >
> > > >: > Taiwan + Mainland = One China
> > > >: > ROC and PRC two seperate governments of China ...
> > > >: >
> > > >: I do not understand your math here, Tony. Is Mongolia part of Mainland?
> > > >: Where is the boundary of this Mainland?
> > > >
> > > >Outer Mongolia should be settled after the Taiwan-Mainland
> > > unification.
> > >
> > > Mongolia is already settled by Mongolians!!! Mongolia is an independent
> > > country!!! If you try to "settle" us, remember that Mongols have not
> > > forgotten how to fight! During the last Mongol-China war in 14 century
> > > 40 million chinese were killed. How many  do you want to die this time?
> >            I won't worry. It's only a matter of time before union will
> > occur between Mongolia and China. There are only a few million
> > Mongolians living in Mongolia but there are hundreds of thousands of Han
> > Chinese living in China. And as we all know borders are not solid and as
> > population congestion continuosly take place in mainland China,
> > immigration pressures from China will only build up as time passes.
> > Also, the world, including China, will not allow this barbaric Mongolian
> > method of genocide to occur again.

> Note: This is John Hsien Wang again, I made a mistake above. No, there
> are not hundreds of thousands of Han Chinese living in China. There are
> hundreds of MILLIONS of Han Chinese living in China.

Go away, fake Chinese. You are in no position to speak for PRCers.

Byambaa Garid wrote:
>
> Marvelous!!! Our brothers the Han Chinese breed like rats!!! I think it
> is our duty to help them contain "population congestion" by various
> scientific methods!!!

This is the one who made a "sincere" apology the other day.
Now his real face is exposed again. How disgusting!

John Hsien Wang (johnw...@sprynet.com) wrote:
: Byambaa Garid wrote:
: >
: > In <5j3m4h$1...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> Tony Tant <tt...@IDT.NET> writes:
: > >
: > >In talk.politics.tibet Jonathan Lin <Jon...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: > >: Tony Tant wrote:
: > >: >
: > >: > Taiwan + Mainland = One China
: > >: > ROC and PRC two seperate governments of China ...
: > >: >
: > >: I do not understand your math here, Tony. Is Mongolia part of Mainland?
: > >: Where is the boundary of this Mainland?
: > >
: > >Outer Mongolia should be settled after the Taiwan-Mainland
: > unification.
: >
: > Mongolia is already settled by Mongolians!!! Mongolia is an independent
: > country!!! If you try to "settle" us, remember that Mongols have not
: > forgotten how to fight! During the last Mongol-China war in 14 century
: > 40 million chinese were killed. How many  do you want to die this time?
:            I won't worry. It's only a matter of time before union will
: occur between Mongolia and China. There are only a few million
: Mongolians living in Mongolia but there are hundreds of thousands of Han
: Chinese living in China. And as we all know borders are not solid and as
: population congestion continuosly take place in mainland China,
: immigration pressures from China will only build up as time passes.
: Also, the world, including China, will not allow this barbaric Mongolian
: method of genocide to occur again.

To follow your logic, China will take over Mongolia soon. After that
take over all newly established central Asian countries and after
that, middle east, and somewhere else, and all over the world. I
suppose the world will become a boring place to live if it is just
dominated by one culture.

What do you mean by "...will not allow this barbaric Mongolian method of
genocide to occur..."  Is there any civilized method of genocide and
if there is, do you allow it to occur again?

I think China is already too big and its territory is beyond the
Han Chinese people's control. I believe it will break up soon and
it is good for both Han-Chinese and the local people.

--Chuluu

Byambaa Garid wrote:
> 
> Tung-chiang Yang wrote:
> >
> > Sigh.  Someone who believes China should "unite" with neighboring
> > countries simply because of her population pressure.  Well, Siberia
> > seems to be the destination for Chinese in your opinion.
> >
> > I believe our Mongolian friend from Australia was somewhat too excited.
> > Nevertheless, your post seems to be too cold.
> 
>  Sorry, I'll try in the future to calm down a little bit before posting.
> But I hope you can understand my feelings.
> >
> > ======================================
> > John Hsien Wang (johnwang01@sprynet.com) wrote:
> >
> > : > Mongolia is already settled by Mongolians!!! Mongolia is an independent
> > : > country!!! If you try to "settle" us, remember that Mongols have not
> > : > forgotten how to fight! During the last Mongol-China war in 14 century
> > : > 40 million chinese were killed. How many  do you want to die this time?
> >
> > :            I won't worry. It's only a matter of time before union will
> > : occur between Mongolia and China. There are only a few million
> > : Mongolians living in Mongolia but there are hundreds of thousands of Han
> > : Chinese living in China. And as we all know borders are not solid and as
> > : population congestion continuosly take place in mainland China,
> > : immigration pressures from China will only build up as time passes.
> > : Also, the world, including China, will not allow this barbaric Mongolian
> > : method of genocide to occur again.
> >
> > --
> > Tung-chiang Yang                       tcyang@netcom.com
> >
> > soc.culture.taiwan, soc.culture.china (by SCC FAQ Team) FAQ's:
> >    http://www.clever.net/tcyang/Taiwan_faq.shtml, China_faq.shtml

                       Vietnam is already too crowded. Besides no one is
advocating killing the people of Mongolia. All I am saying is that just
because people from China want to move to Mongolia does not mean they
are trying to "settle" Mongolia. People should be free to travel where
they want to. They should not be intimidated by lunatics who advocate
genocide against immigrants who want better lives. And if one day people
in Mongolia wants to join the Chinese federation, then their demands
should be satisfied. 
                                     From: Mr. COLDSHOULDER

Tung-chiang Yang wrote:
> 
> Sigh.  Someone who believes China should "unite" with neighboring
> countries simply because of her population pressure.  Well, Siberia
> seems to be the destination for Chinese in your opinion.
> 
> I believe our Mongolian friend from Australia was somewhat too excited.
> Nevertheless, your post seems to be too cold.
> 
> ======================================
> John Hsien Wang (johnwang01@sprynet.com) wrote:
> 
> : > Mongolia is already settled by Mongolians!!! Mongolia is an independent
> : > country!!! If you try to "settle" us, remember that Mongols have not
> : > forgotten how to fight! During the last Mongol-China war in 14 century
> : > 40 million chinese were killed. How many  do you want to die this time?
> 
> :            I won't worry. It's only a matter of time before union will
> : occur between Mongolia and China. There are only a few million
> : Mongolians living in Mongolia but there are hundreds of thousands of Han
> : Chinese living in China. And as we all know borders are not solid and as
> : population congestion continuosly take place in mainland China,
> : immigration pressures from China will only build up as time passes.
> : Also, the world, including China, will not allow this barbaric Mongolian
> : method of genocide to occur again.
> 
> --
> Tung-chiang Yang                       tcyang@netcom.com
> 
> soc.culture.taiwan, soc.culture.china (by SCC FAQ Team) FAQ's:
>    http://www.clever.net/tcyang/Taiwan_faq.shtml, China_faq.shtml
      
              Siberia is too cold for Chinese to travel to. Mongolia is
a better destination.
                                   From, Mr. COLD

Tung-chiang Yang wrote:
> 
> Sigh.  Someone who believes China should "unite" with neighboring
> countries simply because of her population pressure.  Well, Siberia
> seems to be the destination for Chinese in your opinion.
> 
> I believe our Mongolian friend from Australia was somewhat too excited.
> Nevertheless, your post seems to be too cold.

 Sorry, I'll try in the future to calm down a little bit before posting.
But I hope you can understand my feelings.
> 
> ======================================
> John Hsien Wang (johnwang01@sprynet.com) wrote:
> 
> : > Mongolia is already settled by Mongolians!!! Mongolia is an independent
> : > country!!! If you try to "settle" us, remember that Mongols have not
> : > forgotten how to fight! During the last Mongol-China war in 14 century
> : > 40 million chinese were killed. How many  do you want to die this time?
> 
> :            I won't worry. It's only a matter of time before union will
> : occur between Mongolia and China. There are only a few million
> : Mongolians living in Mongolia but there are hundreds of thousands of Han
> : Chinese living in China. And as we all know borders are not solid and as
> : population congestion continuosly take place in mainland China,
> : immigration pressures from China will only build up as time passes.
> : Also, the world, including China, will not allow this barbaric Mongolian
> : method of genocide to occur again.
> 
> --
> Tung-chiang Yang                       tcyang@netcom.com
> 
> soc.culture.taiwan, soc.culture.china (by SCC FAQ Team) FAQ's:
>    http://www.clever.net/tcyang/Taiwan_faq.shtml, China_faq.shtml

On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, qw wrote:

> Byambaa Garid wrote:
> >
> > Marvelous!!! Our brothers the Han Chinese breed like rats!!! I think it
> > is our duty to help them contain "population congestion" by various
> > scientific methods!!!
>
> This is the one who made a "sincere" apology the other day.
> Now his real face is exposed again. How disgusting!
>
>
Not true.  YOu were a little overly excited here and confused two
different individuals.... But the, even if it were the person who
oppologized "the other day," he is justified.  After all, who on your side
appologized accordingly?  As if you guys never did any flaming.

What does this say about sino-chauvinists: that they coundln't tell one
Mongol name from another?

X. Han wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Apr 1997, John Hsien Wang wrote:
>
> > John Hsien Wang wrote:
> > >
> > > Byambaa Garid wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In <5j3m4h$1...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> Tony Tant <tt...@IDT.NET> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > >In talk.politics.tibet Jonathan Lin <Jon...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > > >: Tony Tant wrote:
> > > > >: >
> > > > >: > Taiwan + Mainland = One China
> > > > >: > ROC and PRC two seperate governments of China ...
> > > > >: >
> > > > >: I do not understand your math here, Tony. Is Mongolia part of Mainland?
> > > > >: Where is the boundary of this Mainland?
> > > > >
> > > > >Outer Mongolia should be settled after the Taiwan-Mainland
> > > > unification.
> > > >
> > > > Mongolia is already settled by Mongolians!!! Mongolia is an independent
> > > > country!!! If you try to "settle" us, remember that Mongols have not
> > > > forgotten how to fight! During the last Mongol-China war in 14 century
> > > > 40 million chinese were killed. How many  do you want to die this time?
> > >            I won't worry. It's only a matter of time before union will
> > > occur between Mongolia and China. There are only a few million
> > > Mongolians living in Mongolia but there are hundreds of thousands of Han
> > > Chinese living in China. And as we all know borders are not solid and as
> > > population congestion continuosly take place in mainland China,
> > > immigration pressures from China will only build up as time passes.
> > > Also, the world, including China, will not allow this barbaric Mongolian
> > > method of genocide to occur again.
>
> > Note: This is John Hsien Wang again, I made a mistake above. No, there
> > are not hundreds of thousands of Han Chinese living in China. There are
> > hundreds of MILLIONS of Han Chinese living in China.
>
> Go away, fake Chinese. You are in no position to speak for PRCers.
>
>
fuck the PRCers

John Hsien Wang wrote:
>
> Chaolu Wu wrote:
> >
> > John Hsien Wang (johnw...@sprynet.com) wrote:
> > :            I won't worry. It's only a matter of time before union will
> > : occur between Mongolia and China. There are only a few million
> > : Mongolians living in Mongolia but there are hundreds of thousands of Han
> > : Chinese living in China. And as we all know borders are not solid and as
> > : population congestion continuosly take place in mainland China,
> > : immigration pressures from China will only build up as time passes.
> > : Also, the world, including China, will not allow this barbaric Mongolian
> > : method of genocide to occur again.
> >
> > To follow your logic, China will take over Mongolia soon. After that
> > take over all newly established central Asian countries and after
> > that, middle east, and somewhere else, and all over the world. I
> > suppose the world will become a boring place to live if it is just
> > dominated by one culture.
> >
>                  You are entering into wild exaggerations. Mainland
> China is not going to take over the world just because Mongolia one day
> in the future decides to join a democratically established federalist
> China.(after the communist government ceased to exist)

And this is not �wild exaggeration�?!

> Let me give you one good example. The United States of America, since
> its establishment in 1776, has expanded eastward. In fact, during the
> 1800s, Texas, decided to join the the American union. Did that lead to
> the United States conquering the whole world? No.
>              You see, your argument is just typical of alarmist
> sentiments. Calm down, and think through this carefully. If a country of
> small population siza such as Mongolia is next to a country that
> contains about 25 % of the world's population, it is only natural that
> people, feeling congested by the crowded countryside and cities, will
> move from China to Mongolia.

Many Chinese immigrants have moved from China to US and other countries
too. Does this mean US will soon join this democratically federalist
China?

qw wrote:

> This is the one who made a "sincere" apology the other day.
> Now his real face is exposed again. How disgusting!
Hey, don't accuse the innocent guy, I was the one who apologized. I am
getting tired of all these chinese chauvinistic psychos. Will they ever
shut up and mind their own business? They can't find anything better to
do other than posting stupid and useless messages. Instead of posting
the trash, think what you could use that time for. All those Wing Ng,
David Chens and qws, what are you doing in this newsgroup? The Mongols
didn't start this mess but ugly chauvinists like you started it. I am
disgusted with all of you, I am sure God will find a punishment for all
of you.

qw wrote:
>
> X. Han wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, qw wrote:
> >
> > > Byambaa Garid wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marvelous!!! Our brothers the Han Chinese breed like rats!!! I think it
> > > > is our duty to help them contain "population congestion" by various
> > > > scientific methods!!!
> > >
> > > This is the one who made a "sincere" apology the other day.
> > > Now his real face is exposed again. How disgusting!
> > >
> > >
> > Not true.  YOu were a little overly excited here and confused two
> > different individuals.... But the, even if it were the person who
> > oppologized "the other day," he is justified.  After all, who on your side
> > appologized accordingly?  As if you guys never did any flaming.
> >
> > What does this say about sino-chauvinists: that they coundln't tell one
> > Mongol name from another?
>
> I am sorry to Mr. Zolboo Naranbaatar. Yes, I admit I made
> a big (or laughable) mistake.
>
> I only speak on my behalf. I have no personal communication
> with anyone in this newsgroup. Though I do agree or disagree
> with someone, I don't think I belong to any "side". If anyone
> needs to apologize, it's up to himself.
>
> Though some guys enjoy flaming, I have been trying not to
> flame, though occasionally I had to fight back.

P.S. No racist comment can be justified.

X. Han wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, qw wrote:
>
> > Byambaa Garid wrote:
> > >
> > > Marvelous!!! Our brothers the Han Chinese breed like rats!!! I think it
> > > is our duty to help them contain "population congestion" by various
> > > scientific methods!!!
> >
> > This is the one who made a "sincere" apology the other day.
> > Now his real face is exposed again. How disgusting!
> >
> >
> Not true.  YOu were a little overly excited here and confused two
> different individuals.... But the, even if it were the person who
> oppologized "the other day," he is justified.  After all, who on your side
> appologized accordingly?  As if you guys never did any flaming.
>
> What does this say about sino-chauvinists: that they coundln't tell one
> Mongol name from another?

I am sorry to Mr. Zolboo Naranbaatar. Yes, I admit I made
a big (or laughable) mistake.

I only speak on my behalf. I have no personal communication
with anyone in this newsgroup. Though I do agree or disagree
with someone, I don't think I belong to any "side". If anyone
needs to apologize, it's up to himself.

Though some guys enjoy flaming, I have been trying not to
flame, though occasionally I had to fight back.

Chaolu Wu wrote:
>
> John Hsien Wang (johnw...@sprynet.com) wrote:
> : Byambaa Garid wrote:
> : >
> : > In <5j3m4h$1...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> Tony Tant <tt...@IDT.NET> writes:
> : > >
> : > >In talk.politics.tibet Jonathan Lin <Jon...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> : > >: Tony Tant wrote:
> : > >: >
> : > >: > Taiwan + Mainland = One China
> : > >: > ROC and PRC two seperate governments of China ...
> : > >: >
> : > >: I do not understand your math here, Tony. Is Mongolia part of Mainland?
> : > >: Where is the boundary of this Mainland?
> : > >
> : > >Outer Mongolia should be settled after the Taiwan-Mainland
> : > unification.
> : >
> : > Mongolia is already settled by Mongolians!!! Mongolia is an independent
> : > country!!! If you try to "settle" us, remember that Mongols have not
> : > forgotten how to fight! During the last Mongol-China war in 14 century
> : > 40 million chinese were killed. How many  do you want to die this time?
> :            I won't worry. It's only a matter of time before union will
> : occur between Mongolia and China. There are only a few million
> : Mongolians living in Mongolia but there are hundreds of thousands of Han
> : Chinese living in China. And as we all know borders are not solid and as
> : population congestion continuosly take place in mainland China,
> : immigration pressures from China will only build up as time passes.
> : Also, the world, including China, will not allow this barbaric Mongolian
> : method of genocide to occur again.
>
> To follow your logic, China will take over Mongolia soon. After that
> take over all newly established central Asian countries and after
> that, middle east, and somewhere else, and all over the world. I
> suppose the world will become a boring place to live if it is just
> dominated by one culture.
>
                 You are entering into wild exaggerations. Mainland
China is not going to take over the world just because Mongolia one day
in the future decides to join a democratically established federalist
China.(after the communist government ceased to exist)
Let me give you one good example. The United States of America, since
its establishment in 1776, has expanded eastward. In fact, during the
1800s, Texas, decided to join the the American union. Did that lead to
the United States conquering the whole world? No.
             You see, your argument is just typical of alarmist
sentiments. Calm down, and think through this carefully. If a country of
small population siza such as Mongolia is next to a country that
contains about 25 % of the world's population, it is only natural that
people, feeling congested by the crowded countryside and cities, will
move from China to Mongolia. Also, because the wages are being driven
down by the large population size in China, people will seek to earn the
higher wages in Mongolia. Local Mongolian business people will also be
happy to invite Chinese cheap labor. Mongolia, as I see it, is bound to
receive an increasingly large Chinese population. It's the natural
course of things. The rules of economics and demography will dictate
what will happen, rather than some artificial national boundaries set up
by human beings.

> What do you mean by "...will not allow this barbaric Mongolian method of
> genocide to occur..."  Is there any civilized method of genocide and
> if there is, do you allow it to occur again?
>
                 No. There are no cilvilized way of genocide and I will
not allow genocide of any kind to happen again.
>
I think China is already too big and its territory is beyond the
> Han Chinese people's control. I believe it will break up soon and
> it is good for both Han-Chinese and the local people.
>
> --Chuluu

                "I believe" is but a belief. It is not necessarily
reality. Certainly, mainland China's break-up is always a possibility.
However, it is important to realize that Han Chinese make up 92% of
mainland China's population. The remaining 8% are ethnic minorities. And
there are about 50 minority groups on the mainland. That would mean that
, on average, each minority group is about 0.16% of the total
population. Also, increasingly, the Han populatin is moving westward
into regions once dominated by Tibetans and Huis. I think the odds are
definitely against any attempts by minority groups to separate from
China. Again, economics and simple demography are dictating what is
happening.
               My personal conclusion is that you can't beat economics
and demographic trends.People will move from highly populated places to
sparsely populated places. Even if Tibet, Xinjiang(which, by the way,
according to the New York Times, already has 38% Han Chinese and the
percentage is still rising day by day), and Mongolia(which is already
independent), are independent countries, the trend in the future is that
these nation-states will become increasingly "Chinese". The sentiments
for union with a future democratically-established federalist China will
only increase.

                                  From: John Hsien Wang

Note: I hate to distinguish between Han and other minority groups as
though they are separate peoples.We are all citizens of China. However,
this friend whom I am replying brought the issue up.

In article <5j6487$r9v$1...@newsflash.concordia.ca>,
  g...@cs.concordia.ca (Gui) wrote:
>
> 5.      Who was the person most critical to the Tibet-hypocrites'
>         false claim of "Tibetan independence" but whose name was
>         messed up by Melvyn C. Goldstein in his big book and
>         inconsistently so between text and indices?
>
> ANS.    ~{U\2<Wp5$0M~}
>
> Goldstein calls him Jetsun Dampa in his text page 47-48 but
> Jestsun Dampa in the index (page 888), with umlaut for each
> instance of 'u'.  Both forms are wrong.  Goldstein's scholarship
> thus appears sloppy beyond dispute.

The only thing sloppy beyond dispute here is your attempt to pass
yourself off as knowledgable in Tibetan!

Let me set you straight.  Goldstein's spelling of Jetsun (with umlaut
over the 'u') is widely used and is a correct and accurate
transliteration of the Tibetan words 'rje btsun.'  Please refer to page
863 of Goldstein, section called "Correct Tibetan Spellings" in which he
gives the correct Tibetan spelling for jetsun.	So much for your
blatantly dishonest aspersions on Goldstein's scholarship.

The reason that scholars (I'm not including you here) write 'rje btsun'
as 'jetsun' is because 'jetsun' is the way the word is pronounced.  The
'r' in 'rje' and the 'b' in 'btsun' are silent.  The vowel sound 'u'
followed by an 'n' gives the u an umlaut sound.  Some writers omit the
umlaut.  Goldstein has chosen to include it.

The spelling 'jestun' on page 888 of the index is a typo.

Actually, it is quite amusing that you would pretend to know enough
Tibetan to criticize Goldstein's scholarship -- you who hypocritically
pretends to hold education is such high esteem!  Obviously, you think you
can (once again) pull a fast one and hoodwink readers into thinking
Tibetan is yet another one of your great educational achievements.  How
pathetic!  No doubt your French is just as good as your Tibetan.

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

In article <8616747...@dejanews.com> bi...@iss.nus.sg (Bill Speckart) writes:
>In article <5j6487$r9v$1...@newsflash.concordia.ca>,
>  g...@cs.concordia.ca (Gui) wrote:
>>
>> 5.      Who was the person most critical to the Tibet-hypocrites'
>>         false claim of "Tibetan independence" but whose name was
>>         messed up by Melvyn C. Goldstein in his big book and
>>         inconsistently so between text and indices?
>>
>> ANS.    ~{U\2<Wp5$0M~}
>>
>> Goldstein calls him Jetsun Dampa in his text page 47-48 but
>> Jestsun Dampa in the index (page 888), with umlaut for each
>> instance of 'u'.  Both forms are wrong.  Goldstein's scholarship
>> thus appears sloppy beyond dispute.
>
>The only thing sloppy beyond dispute here is your attempt to pass
>yourself off as knowledgable in Tibetan!

Not at all. I stand by my assessment of Goldstein's claimed
scholarship. I challenge his attempts to make a syphilitic
Soviet puppet into a Sino-Tibetan.

>
>Let me set you straight.  Goldstein's spelling of Jetsun (with umlaut
>over the 'u') is widely used and is a correct and accurate
>transliteration of the Tibetan words 'rje btsun.'  Please refer to page
>863 of Goldstein, section called "Correct Tibetan Spellings" in which he
>gives the correct Tibetan spelling for jetsun.	So much for your
>blatantly dishonest aspersions on Goldstein's scholarship.

I don't know how straight you are, but you are clearly not
qualified to talk Mongol affairs.

The Chinese form of the name is clear:

         ~{U\2<Wp5$0M~}

A top authority on Mongol affairs writing in a French
reference work gives the following form:

        Jebtsundamba

        (with u-Umlaut and with Qutuqtu = ~{:tM<?KM<~}
        postpended).

Thus the need of the _b_ is clear to all but the most stupid
or the people who rely on Goldstein.   You don't seem to realize
that the gentleman (who died of syphilis in 1924) was a Mongol,
not a member of His Holiness the Dalai Lama's "government in
exile".

Goldstein has no right whatsoever to tamper with his name, by
omitting the _b_ in particular.

Unlike you, I don't worship Goldstein.  True, he often provides
Tibet-hypocrites and Tibet-scoundrels like you with a last
refuge.  But there ain't got no free lunch, y'konw.  You take
refuge there, unwittingly inviting others to take a closer look
at his big book.

Sure enough, Goldstein messed up Chinese names, deliberately
I think.  He listed names like Khung and Krang and claimed,
with a proverbial straight face, that they were Chinese
(meaning Han)!

He messed up the names of several prominent statesmen of modern
China.  The syphilitic Hutuktu was treated as Tibetan!   As Mr.
Yu of the U  of Pennsylvania pointed out a year or so ago,
Goldstein's credibility crumbled where it mattered most.  Most
native speakers of Sino-Tibetan languages having any opinion at
all about him think he is a propagandist, far from an even-handed
"scholar" that he would like others to think he is.

>
>The reason that scholars (I'm not including you here) write 'rje btsun'
>as 'jetsun' is because 'jetsun' is the way the word is pronounced.  The
>'r' in 'rje' and the 'b' in 'btsun' are silent.  The vowel sound 'u'
>followed by an 'n' gives the u an umlaut sound.  Some writers omit the
>umlaut.  Goldstein has chosen to include it.

Goldstein has chosen to present Khung and Krang as "Chinese" names.
Kindly defend his practice and entertain the readership.

>
>The spelling 'jestun' on page 888 of the index is a typo.

How do you know?  By your curious logic, some readers should
quit calling you a Tibet-jester.  They should refer to you as
a jetter.  Right?  (I withdraw the question, because I am not
sure you know what a jetter is. given your limited knowledge
of English.)

In article <8616747...@dejanews.com> bi...@iss.nus.sg (Bill Speckart) writes:
>In article <5j6487$r9v$1...@newsflash.concordia.ca>,
>  g...@cs.concordia.ca (Gui) wrote:
>>
>> 5.      Who was the person most critical to the Tibet-hypocrites'
>>         false claim of "Tibetan independence" but whose name was
>>         messed up by Melvyn C. Goldstein in his big book and
>>         inconsistently so between text and indices?
>>
>> ANS.    ~{U\2<Wp5$0M~}
>>
>> Goldstein calls him Jetsun Dampa in his text page 47-48 but
>> Jestsun Dampa in the index (page 888), with umlaut for each
>> instance of 'u'.  Both forms are wrong.  Goldstein's scholarship
>> thus appears sloppy beyond dispute.
>
>The only thing sloppy beyond dispute here is your attempt to pass
>yourself off as knowledgable in Tibetan!
>

I think it is you who have been trying to pass as a native of
North America.  But your written English has betrayed you.

Look, writing skills are hard to acquire and even harder for
an impostor to handle.  You can hire someone to coach you
on diction, but vocabulary is harder.  To turn someone from
Eastern Europe who fled only after 1990, to where the pasture
may be greener, into a native writer of North American English
is well-neigh impossible.

I am sure despite brave denials you will confirm my contention,
from your own personal experience.

In article <8616747...@dejanews.com> bi...@iss.nus.sg (Bill Speckart) writes:
>In article <5j6487$r9v$1...@newsflash.concordia.ca>,
>  g...@cs.concordia.ca (Gui) wrote:
>>
>> 5.      Who was the person most critical to the Tibet-hypocrites'
>>         false claim of "Tibetan independence" but whose name was
>>         messed up by Melvyn C. Goldstein in his big book and
>>         inconsistently so between text and indices?
>>
>> ANS.    ~{U\2<Wp5$0M~}
>>
>> Goldstein calls him Jetsun Dampa in his text page 47-48 but
>> Jestsun Dampa in the index (page 888), with umlaut for each
>> instance of 'u'.  Both forms are wrong.  Goldstein's scholarship
>> thus appears sloppy beyond dispute.
>
>The only thing sloppy beyond dispute here is your attempt to pass
>yourself off as knowledgable in Tibetan!
>
Not at all. I stand by my assessment of Goldstein's claimed
scholarship. I challenge his attempts to make a siphilitic
Soviet puppet into a Sino-Tibetan.

>Let me set you straight.  Goldstein's spelling of Jetsun (with umlaut
>over the 'u') is widely used and is a correct and accurate
>transliteration of the Tibetan words 'rje btsun.'  Please refer to page
>863 of Goldstein, section called "Correct Tibetan Spellings" in which he
>gives the correct Tibetan spelling for jetsun.	So much for your
>blatantly dishonest aspersions on Goldstein's scholarship.
>
I don't know how straight you are, but you are clearly not
qualified to talk Mongol affairs.

The Chinese form of the name is clear:

	  ~{U\2<Wp5$0M~}

A top authority on Mongol affairs writing in a French
reference work gives the following form:

	Jebtsundamba

	(with u-Umlaut and with Qutuqtu = ~{:tM<?KM<~}
	postpended).

Thus the need of the _b_ is clear to all but the most stupid
or the people who rely on Goldstein.   You don't seem to realize
that the gentleman (who died of syphilis in 1924) was a Mongol,
not a member of His Holiness the Dalai Lama's "government in
exile".

Goldstein has no right whatsoever to tamper with his name, by
omitting the _b_ in particular.

Unlike you, I don't worship Goldstein.  True, he often provides
Tibet-hypocrites and Tibet-scoundrels like you with a last
refuge.  But there ain't got no free lunch, y'konw.  You take
refuge there, unwittingly inviting others to take a closer look
at his big book.

Sure enough, Goldstein messed up Chinese names, deliberately
I think.  He listed names like Khung and Krang and claimed,
with a proverbial straight face, that they were Chinese
(meaning Han)!

He messed up the names of several prominent statesmen of modern
China.  The syphilitic Hutuktu was treated as Tibetan!   As Mr.
Yu of the U  of Pennsylvania pointed out a year or so ago,
Goldstein's credibility crumbled where it mattered most.  Most
native speakers of Sino-Tibetan languages having any opinion at
all about him think he is a propagandist, far from an even-handed
"scholar" that he would like others to think he is.

>The reason that scholars (I'm not including you here) write 'rje btsun'
>as 'jetsun' is because 'jetsun' is the way the word is pronounced.  The
>'r' in 'rje' and the 'b' in 'btsun' are silent.  The vowel sound 'u'
>followed by an 'n' gives the u an umlaut sound.  Some writers omit the
>umlaut.  Goldstein has chosen to include it.
>
Goldstein has chosen to present Khung and Krang as "Chinese" names.
Kindly defend his practice and entertain the readership.

>The spelling 'jestun' on page 888 of the index is a typo.
>

How do you know?  By your curious logic, some readers should
quit calling you a Tibet-jester.  They should refer to you as
a jetter.  Right?  (I withdraw the question, because I am not
sure you know what a jetter is. given your limited knowledge
of English.)

> I think it is you who have been trying to pass as a native of
> North America.  But your written English has betrayed you.

A native of North America? In North America, when one uses the name
'native', one refers to the Native Indians. Since you are posting from
Montreal, I think you should also be aware of the fact that North
Americans can also be French-speaking and do not necessarily read and
write American English as fluently as you do.

> Look, writing skills are hard to acquire and even harder
for > an impostor to handle.  You can hire someone to coach you
> on diction, but vocabulary is harder.  To turn someone from
> Eastern Europe who fled only after 1990, to where the pasture
> may be greener, into a native writer of North American English
> is well-neigh impossible.
>
> I am sure despite brave denials you will confirm my contention,
> from your own personal experience.

I don't see why you are so preoccupied with North American English. After
all, English is an international language that originally comes from
Britain, or 'England' as you might call it in your North American usage.

In message <5jilon$c9a$1...@newsflash.concordia.ca> Gui wrote:

>
> I think it is you who have been trying to pass as a native of
> North America.  But your written English has betrayed you.
>
> Look, writing skills are hard to acquire and even harder for
> an impostor to handle.  You can hire someone to coach you
> on diction, but vocabulary is harder.  To turn someone from
> Eastern Europe who fled only after 1990, to where the pasture
> may be greener, into a native writer of North American English
> is well-neigh impossible.

It is a bit rich that Gui should consider himself capable of
judging the standard of other posters' written English when he
is unable to tell the difference between two common words:

"neigh" being the noise horses make, and
"nigh" meaning near

I assume that what Gui meant to write was "wellnigh", meaning
very nearly.

Of course, when caught out in a mistake, Gui will respond that
it was only a typing error.  He seems to be making a lot of these
recently.   Draw your own conclusions ................


--
Glenys
--------

Wally is used to eating grass and hence forget that Gui does NOT have the
same eating habit! Pls forgive him/her !
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Ken!!! <na...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in article
<335E3...@pacific.net.sg>...
> > Maybe it's time for Gui's handlers to put him out to pasture. There he
> > can be a neigh-sayer to his content.
>
> pasture? neighing? is Gui a horse or what?
>

Maybe it's time for Gui's handlers to put him out to pasture. There he
can be a neigh-sayer to his content.

-Wally


In <19970422...@simtec.simtec.demon.co.uk>
gle...@simtec.demon.co.uk (Glenys) writes:
>
>
>In message <5jilon$c9a$1...@newsflash.concordia.ca> Gui wrote:
>
>>
>> I think it is you who have been trying to pass as a native of
>> North America.  But your written English has betrayed you.
>>
>> Look, writing skills are hard to acquire and even harder for
>> an impostor to handle.  You can hire someone to coach you
>> on diction, but vocabulary is harder.  To turn someone from
>> Eastern Europe who fled only after 1990, to where the pasture
>> may be greener, into a native writer of North American English
>> is well-neigh impossible.
>
>It is a bit rich that Gui should consider himself capable of
>judging the standard of other posters' written English when he
>is unable to tell the difference between two common words:
>
>"neigh" being the noise horses make, and
>"nigh" meaning near
>
>I assume that what Gui meant to write was "wellnigh", meaning
>very nearly.
>
>Of course, when caught out in a mistake, Gui will respond that
>it was only a typing error.  He seems to be making a lot of these
>recently.   Draw your own conclusions ................
>
>
>--
>Glenys
>--------

In <01bc4b31$a9654bc0$6f7d74cb@default> "Jigong" <jig...@letterbox.com> writes:

>
>Settling such an issue through war is NOT in fashion any more! China
did
>not have war  with Britain or Portugese to get back Hong Kong and
Macau!

Let's see how long it takes Gui/LS to correct the colonialist spelling
here!

You have 24 hours Gui!

>
>Another point is that skills in horse rideing is not useful in modern
>warfare anymore!  Mongolians should work hard and build up the economy
>instead of trying to show others their prowess which is outdated by
almost
>1000 years!
>

It may not work in warfare but it does wonders keeping neigh-sayers
like Gui/LS in line!  8)

-Wally

On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Zolboo Naranbaatar wrote:

> disgusted with all of you, I am sure God will find a punishment for all
> of you.

I know I'm afraid. I am sure they are as well.


>
>

Don't accuse me of shits that's in your mouth.  I merely reply to the
message about Mongolia and merely sited some historical facts.  If you are
ashame of your country's history that's your business.

So Zolboayiugaodgj Naranlbjlgbjalg, please stop your bullshits.


On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Zolboo Naranbaatar wrote:

> qw wrote:
>
> > This is the one who made a "sincere" apology the other day.
> > Now his real face is exposed again. How disgusting!
> Hey, don't accuse the innocent guy, I was the one who apologized. I am
> getting tired of all these chinese chauvinistic psychos. Will they ever
> shut up and mind their own business? They can't find anything better to
> do other than posting stupid and useless messages. Instead of posting
> the trash, think what you could use that time for. All those Wing Ng,
> David Chens and qws, what are you doing in this newsgroup? The Mongols
> didn't start this mess but ugly chauvinists like you started it. I am
> disgusted with all of you, I am sure God will find a punishment for all
> of you.
>
>

Ken!!! (na...@pacific.net.sg) wrote:
: > Maybe it's time for Gui's handlers to put him out to pasture. There he
: > can be a neigh-sayer to his content.

: pasture? neighing? is Gui a horse or what?

No, it only signals that the participants of that discussion have just
collectively devolved into a lower form of life...

> Maybe it's time for Gui's handlers to put him out to pasture. There he
> can be a neigh-sayer to his content.

pasture? neighing? is Gui a horse or what?

Since Bill Speckart has dragged me into this debate, I would like to
make a comment about a typical propaganda trick of Speckart's.

Bill Speckart wrote in his post dated April 23:

:Is the propaganda campaign in such
:a desperate state?  First Harrer and now Goldstein. Or maybe you need to
:divert attention away from your Harrer debacle?

As most readers remember, whenever Bill Speckart was out of arguments,
he would search his stock of the CCP's propaganda archives trying
to find something that was remotely similar to what his opponent said.
If he succeeded, he would proclaim that his opponent was wrong because
the evil CCP had said a similar thing. A most recent example, I think,
was about the serfdom under the Dalai Lama in old Tibet. Of course,
readers with minimal intelligence were only amused by this simple-
minded propaganda trick of Speckart.

It is thus very interesting to note that Speckart has told us nothing
about how the evil CCP regime thinks of Goldstein and Harrer in his
recent tedious posts. Readers may be curious as to why Speckart has
been so silent on that.

The answer is pretty simple: both men are respected by the Beijing
regime. Goldstein's book has been translated into Chinese and published
with the CCP's permission. And it was also said that Harrer was labeled
as an "international friend of China" by the CCP.

It would be honest of Speckart if he had told us those things. What
I am interested in here, however, is whether Speckart will apply his
own propaganda trick to himself.

Let's just see.

---
-LS

Jigong wrote:
>
> Byambaa Garid <bga...@gse.mq.edu.au> wrote in article


>> Mongolia is already settled by Mongolians!!! Mongolia is an
>> independent country!!! If you try to "settle" us, remember that
>> Mongols have not forgotten how to fight!

> Settling such an issue through war is NOT in fashion any more! China
> did not have war  with Britain or Portugese to get back Hong Kong and > Macau!

Dear Jigong -

	I believe Byambaa-guai's point was that *if* the PRC decides to further
encroach onto territory currently recognized as Mongolia, that
unfortunately bloodshed will occur in tefforts to maintain the borders.

	If you're going to bring up Hong Kong and Macau as peaceful examples of
the return of occupied territories, that's because the British and
Portugues governments realized that it's outdated to encoroach on
others' sovereign territories. Then again, the Brits and Portuguese
never had to ship folk into those occupied terrtiories to ease homeland
population burdens, unlike the PRC.

	Many posts recently have legitimized claims of expansion into other
territories due to burgeoning population problems, as well as currently
existing "majority" of Han ethnics in indigenously non-Han
territories... do you feel the legitimization to be valid? If so, please
explain in a historical as well as contemporarily human rights minded
post.

cheers,
-Patrick

In article <33602D...@hkstar.com> 66D2GO <hap...@hkstar.com> writes:

> 	*********************************************************
>         Background information on THOMAS LAU <la...@vcn.bc.ca> :
>         This ex-Chinese HKer, now on exile in Canada had been posting
>         lies, distortions, untruths and innuendoes in his attacks
>         on China and HK. What is most despicable about this traitor
>         is that he is claiming that he is a "white man" now (because
>         he was born in "BRITISH" Hongkong and now hiding in "BRITISH"
>         Columbia) and acclaim that "West is Best". He is a running
>         dog of the imperialists and colonialists and should be made
>         to kneel in front of his ancestral shrine in China for  49 days.
>
>         In another thread, this bastard accused Singaporeans of
>         being uneducated because they speak Singlish.
>
>         **********************************************************
>
	I have Stadlerized/Jansenized this LAU gent.  Nevertheless,
	I still find your info on him shocking.  Aside from the
	reported bastardy, there's little in him that one would find
	attractive or engaging, as your info has made clear.

	I guess an approprite punishment would be permanent exclusion
	from any part of the Chinese-speaking world in Asia: the
	Chinese Mainland, Hongkong, Macao, and Taiwan, not to mention
	other Chinese communities and the ROS.

THOMAS LAU wrote:
>
> > I think it is you who have been trying to pass as a native of
> > North America.  But your written English has betrayed you.

	This LIAR had been trying to pass himself off as an
	Englishman but his stupidity had betrayed him. See his
	CV below.

> A native of North America? In North America, when one uses the name
> 'native', one refers to the Native Indians. Since you are posting from
> Montreal, I think you should also be aware of the fact that North
> Americans can also be French-speaking and do not necessarily read and
> write American English as fluently as you do.

	Since you had said that you are illiterate in English,
	how do you know what he was writing about?

> I don't see why you are so preoccupied with North American English. After
> all, English is an international language that originally comes from
> Britain, or 'England' as you might call it in your North American usage.

	English as a language originated from England. But an
	English imperialist running dog originated from HK.

	*********************************************************
        Background information on THOMAS LAU <la...@vcn.bc.ca> :
        This ex-Chinese HKer, now on exile in Canada had been posting
        lies, distortions, untruths and innuendoes in his attacks
        on China and HK. What is most despicable about this traitor
        is that he is claiming that he is a "white man" now (because
        he was born in "BRITISH" Hongkong and now hiding in "BRITISH"
        Columbia) and acclaim that "West is Best". He is a running
        dog of the imperialists and colonialists and should be made
        to kneel in front of his ancestral shrine in China for  49 days.

        In another thread, this bastard accused Singaporeans of
        being uneducated because they speak Singlish.

        **********************************************************

Glenys wrote:
>
> In message <5jilon$c9a$1...@newsflash.concordia.ca> Gui wrote:
>
> >
> > I think it is you who have been trying to pass as a native of
> > North America.  But your written English has betrayed you.
> >
> > Look, writing skills are hard to acquire and even harder for
> > an impostor to handle.  You can hire someone to coach you
> > on diction, but vocabulary is harder.  To turn someone from
> > Eastern Europe who fled only after 1990, to where the pasture
> > may be greener, into a native writer of North American English
> > is well-neigh impossible.
>
> It is a bit rich that Gui should consider himself capable of
> judging the standard of other posters' written English when he
> is unable to tell the difference between two common words:
>
> "neigh" being the noise horses make, and
> "nigh" meaning near
>
> I assume that what Gui meant to write was "wellnigh", meaning
> very nearly.
>
> Of course, when caught out in a mistake, Gui will respond that
> it was only a typing error.  He seems to be making a lot of these
> recently.   Draw your own conclusions ................

	"Me European" is certainly good English. You win.

>
> --
> Glenys
> --------

John Hsien Wang wrote in article <335B2F...@sprynet.com>...

>Chaolu Wu wrote:

>>

>                 You are entering into wild exaggerations. Mainland

>China is not going to take over the world just because Mongolia one day

>in the future decides to join a democratically established federalist

>China.(after the communist government ceased to exist)



We will not DO that!!! Understand!!!



>Let me give you one good example. The United States of America, since

>its establishment in 1776, has expanded eastward. In fact, during the

>1800s, Texas, decided to join the the American union. Did that lead to

>the United States conquering the whole world? No.

>             You see, your argument is just typical of alarmist

>sentiments. Calm down, and think through this carefully. If a country of

>small population siza such as Mongolia is next to a country that

>contains about 25 % of the world's population, it is only natural that

>people, feeling congested by the crowded countryside and cities, will

>move from China to Mongolia. Also, because the wages are being driven

>down by the large population size in China, people will seek to earn the

>higher wages in Mongolia. Local Mongolian business people will also be

>happy to invite Chinese cheap labor. Mongolia, as I see it, is bound to

>receive an increasingly large Chinese population. It's the natural

>course of things. The rules of economics and demography will dictate

>what will happen, rather than some artificial national boundaries set up

>by human beings.



You chinese are amazing. The ability to deceive yourselves is .. I just

can't find words.

Why do you think Mongolia is so sparsely populated? Mongolia has harsh and

inhospitable environment. Mongolia can support a population of no more
than

4-5 million people. At current trends Mongolian population will reach that

point around 2020 and stabilize. We don't need any immigrants from China.

Though as a humanitarian gesture I think we should accept Inner Mongolians

and allow them to enjoy fruits of freedom and democracy which have been

denied to them in China.It is the least we could do them for all their

suffering.



>

>> What do you mean by "...will not allow this barbaric Mongolian method

of

>> genocide to occur..."  Is there any civilized method of genocide and

>> if there is, do you allow it to occur again?

>>

>                 No. There are no cilvilized way of genocide and I will

>not allow genocide of any kind to happen again.

If it is in your power then please stop this "Strike Hard" campaign of

genocide.



>                "I believe" is but a belief. It is not necessarily

>reality. Certainly, mainland China's break-up is always a possibility.

>However, it is important to realize that Han Chinese make up 92% of

>mainland China's population. The remaining 8% are ethnic minorities. And

>there are about 50 minority groups on the mainland. That would mean that

>, on average, each minority group is about 0.16% of the total

>population. Also, increasingly, the Han populatin is moving westward

>into regions once dominated by Tibetans and Huis. I think the odds are

>definitely against any attempts by minority groups to separate from

>China. Again, economics and simple demography are dictating what is

>happening.

>               My personal conclusion is that you can't beat economics

>and demographic trends.People will move from highly populated places to

>sparsely populated places.



Why do you think they are so sparsely populated in the first place? I will

tell you, tibet is highland country and just about the most unsuitable

country for the Han chinese to live in, Xinjiang is nothing more than a

desert and the only areas populated are the already overcrowded oases.



> Even if Tibet, Xinjiang(which, by the way,

>according to the New York Times, already has 38% Han Chinese and the

>percentage is still rising day by day), and Mongolia(which is already

>independent), are independent countries, the trend in the future is that

>these nation-states will become increasingly "Chinese".



Nope, Mongolia is not Chinese and there is no such trend. If by chance
some

illegal chinese immigrants happen to sneak in  Mongolian culture is strong

enough to assimilate them, just like it has assimilated 100 thousand

chinese who lived in Mongolia befor 1911.



>The sentiments

>for union with a future democratically-established federalist China will

>only increase.



This non-existent federal China is very suspicious for me. It does not
even

exist yet and it already has designs to annex independent countries. And

how can anyone beleive that it will be democratic if you advocate

assimilation and population transfer.





>

>                                  From: John Hsien Wang

>

>Note: I hate to distinguish between Han and other minority groups as

>though they are separate peoples.We are all citizens of China. However,

>this friend whom I am replying brought the issue up.



Minority? Tibetans, Inner Mongolians and Uighurs are PEOPLES! Go and speak

your New-speak somewhere else.



Byambaa Garid, Mongolian in Australia

John Hsien Wang wrote in article <335B2F...@sprynet.com>...

>Chaolu Wu wrote:

>>

>                 You are entering into wild exaggerations. Mainland

>China is not going to take over the world just because Mongolia one day

>in the future decides to join a democratically established federalist

>China.(after the communist government ceased to exist)



We will not DO that!!! Understand!!!



>Let me give you one good example. The United States of America, since

>its establishment in 1776, has expanded eastward. In fact, during the

>1800s, Texas, decided to join the the American union. Did that lead to

>the United States conquering the whole world? No.

>             You see, your argument is just typical of alarmist

>sentiments. Calm down, and think through this carefully. If a country of

>small population siza such as Mongolia is next to a country that

>contains about 25 % of the world's population, it is only natural that

>people, feeling congested by the crowded countryside and cities, will

>move from China to Mongolia. Also, because the wages are being driven

>down by the large population size in China, people will seek to earn the

>higher wages in Mongolia. Local Mongolian business people will also be

>happy to invite Chinese cheap labor. Mongolia, as I see it, is bound to

>receive an increasingly large Chinese population. It's the natural

>course of things. The rules of economics and demography will dictate

>what will happen, rather than some artificial national boundaries set up

>by human beings.



You chinese are amazing. The ability to deceive yourselves is .. I just

can't find words.

Why do you think Mongolia is so sparsely populated? Mongolia has harsh and

inhospitable environment. Mongolia can support a population of no more
than

4-5 million people. At current trends Mongolian population will reach that

point around 2020 and stabilize. We don't need any immigrants from China.

Though as a humanitarian gesture I think we should accept Inner Mongolians

and allow them to enjoy fruits of freedom and democracy which have been

denied to them in China.It is the least we could do them for all their

suffering.



>

>> What do you mean by "...will not allow this barbaric Mongolian method

of

>> genocide to occur..."  Is there any civilized method of genocide and

>> if there is, do you allow it to occur again?

>>

>                 No. There are no cilvilized way of genocide and I will

>not allow genocide of any kind to happen again.

If it is in your power then please stop this "Strike Hard" campaign of

genocide.



>                "I believe" is but a belief. It is not necessarily

>reality. Certainly, mainland China's break-up is always a possibility.

>However, it is important to realize that Han Chinese make up 92% of

>mainland China's population. The remaining 8% are ethnic minorities. And

>there are about 50 minority groups on the mainland. That would mean that

>, on average, each minority group is about 0.16% of the total

>population. Also, increasingly, the Han populatin is moving westward

>into regions once dominated by Tibetans and Huis. I think the odds are

>definitely against any attempts by minority groups to separate from

>China. Again, economics and simple demography are dictating what is

>happening.

>               My personal conclusion is that you can't beat economics

>and demographic trends.People will move from highly populated places to

>sparsely populated places.



Why do you think they are so sparsely populated in the first place? I will

tell you, tibet is highland country and just about the most unsuitable

country for the Han chinese to live in, Xinjiang is nothing more than a

desert and the only areas populated are the already overcrowded oases.



> Even if Tibet, Xinjiang(which, by the way,

>according to the New York Times, already has 38% Han Chinese and the

>percentage is still rising day by day), and Mongolia(which is already

>independent), are independent countries, the trend in the future is that

>these nation-states will become increasingly "Chinese".



Nope, Mongolia is not Chinese and there is no such trend. If by chance
some

illegal chinese immigrants happen to sneak in  Mongolian culture is strong

enough to assimilate them, just like it has assimilated 100 thousand

chinese who lived in Mongolia befor 1911.



>The sentiments

>for union with a future democratically-established federalist China will

>only increase.



This non-existent federal China is very suspicious for me. It does not
even

exist yet and it already has designs to annex independent countries. And

how can anyone beleive that it will be democratic if you advocate

assimilation and population transfer.





>

>                                  From: John Hsien Wang

>

>Note: I hate to distinguish between Han and other minority groups as

>though they are separate peoples.We are all citizens of China. However,

>this friend whom I am replying brought the issue up.



Minority? Tibetans, Inner Mongolians and Uighurs are PEOPLES! Go and speak

your New-speak somewhere else.



Byambaa Garid, Mongolian in Australia