Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RealMuLan who wrote (8591)	5/16/1999 3:08:00 AM
From: JBL	Respond to of 17770

<<so the wise thing for me to do is to keep my mouth shut.>> That's a great idea. Until you decide to adopt a more conciliatory tone in your dissent, people won't be so eager to rip you to shreds. Some people on this thread defended China's outrage and did not get the treatment you did. You may want to learn from them.

To: RealMuLan who wrote (8591)	5/16/1999 9:28:00 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

In a free country you have the right to express your convictions, but that also means that you must be prepared to defend your position. In an atmosphere of free intercourse, where everyone can express their ideas, it takes more than bald assertions like "Taiwan belongs to China" to make your point. Persuasion and argumentation is the art of democracy. That means you must base your argumentation in terms that are mutually intelligible and agreable, which means facts from reputable and as much as possible, objective sources. Several people on this thread posted historical facts from several sources which did not agree with your interpretation of Chinese political dogma, and you dismissed it as Eurocentrism. If you can't take the heat, the saying goes, stay out of the kitchen.

To: RealMuLan who wrote (8591)	5/16/1999 10:00:00 AM
From: lin huan chen	Respond to of 17770

Yiwu: if I stood up to say something different than what the US media said about China because I think those reports were clearly biased, incorrect, and untrue No, I don't think so. Some of them are biased incorrect, and untrue. But some of them are impartial, correct, and true. That is the nature of free journalism. On the other hand, your view are mostly based on communist China's propaganda. Moreover, your tone doesn't reveal any concern about human's lives other than your owns. Been in America for 10 years has not taught you much about human rights. Everybody likes freedom, wealth, and a safe place to live, otherwise, you won't be in the states. Why you deny other people to pursuit the same? China and Taiwan are like two brothers in the same family. So what if they cannot resolve the difference by peaceful means? Then let's fight, just like the Civil war here in the US. And this has nothing to do with any other nations. This is family fight. Do you know how many people will die in this so-called "family fight"? Can you ask yourself a honest question :"Do I care other people's lives?" How much have I contributed to humanity. If you don't you are no different from Milosevic. Years ago, I lived in the dorm of UC berkeley. I have a neighbor from mainland. This soon-to-be Ph.D has a nasty habit to beat up his wife. We could not do much since his wife refused to sue him. He always claimed: "It is family business." Well, not in states. Anyway this incident doesn't represent all the mindset of Chinese. But how could anyone forget this? Yiwu, you are representing China now ,like it or not. regards Lin

To: RealMuLan who wrote (8591)	5/16/1999 12:09:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17770

Yiwu, I think Lin made the best response to some of the things you have stated out here. techstocks.com Personally, I'm happy that you have an avenue to present your opinions. No one has to agree or disagree with them for you to excercise your right to express them here. But the freedom to express opinions is not the same as the freedom not to be criticized for them. You have criticized the bombing and implied it was intentional, DESPITE all the logic that would dictate we have nothing to gain from deliberately killing or injuring Chinese journalists or diplomats. If you look at the bombing of the Chinese Embassy as a single incidence, you are perhaps right to get the that conclusion. Here you try to make a case for US intimidation of China, while completely ignoring the fact that China has provided nuclear technology to Pakistan (hardly the most stable nation), possibly N. Korea, while there head of military intelligence (equivalent to our director of the CIA) providing monies to be used to influence US policy makers in their political campaigns. I could mention the spying incident in Sandia, but in truth, spying is what nations do. Were we behind it in nuclear technology, we'd be spying from China as well. However, it has been the assertions on your part that certain geographical regions "belong" to China simply because at some point in history a Chinese based gov't had temporary control over that region. Are you familiar with the work Kamikaze? It means divine wind. The Japanese really like this word, because it denotes the wind that devasted the Mongol invasion fleet that was destroyed by a Typhoon in the mid-13th century. Now had the Mongol invasion succeeded, Japan been conquered, then liberated with the fall of the Mongol empire, would China still have a claim upon Japan. And since the Mongols conquered HUGE TERRITORIES extending into Europe, can China make the same claim upon those territories as well?? But the most interesting question is... Can Mongolia now lay official claim to all of China and these regions since they conquered the Chin and Sung warlords?? For reference I found this really spiffy site: koreanhistoryproject.org Regards, Ron