Google Mail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
Message from discussion [ATimes] Letter
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Follow-up To:
Add Cc | Add Follow-up to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers that you hear
 
gnh  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 24 Apr 2008, 13:29
From: gnh <g...@pc.jaring.my>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:29:57 +0800
Local: Thurs 24 Apr 2008 13:29
Subject: Re: [sangkancil] Re: [ATimes] Letter

Hey G V

Now Malaysia also part of China, yes ?

Because if China no buy, Malaysia die ........

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

G V wrote:

>     花崗齋文集 Collected Writings from the Granite Studio
>     <http://granitestudio.blogspot.com/2007/02/chinese-historian-disputes-...>

> Wednesday, February 21, 2007

>     Chinese historian: "To exaggerate the size of China's historical
>     territory is not patriotic" - Full Text
>     <http://granitestudio.blogspot.com/2007/02/chinese-historian-disputes-...>

> <http://bp0.blogger.com/_VXQinw7KBZE/RdwVvdYlw1I/AAAAAAAAAI8/3UXxT8zd4...>Via
> CDT <http://chinadigitaltimes.net/>: The blog Letters from China
> <http://voyage.typepad.com/china/2007/02/tibet_not_alway.html> has a
> post about an article in the magazine China Review
> <http://www.quanheng.cn/xzj.asp?id=8758> by Fudan University professor
> Ge Jianxiong. The CDT brief
> <http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2007/02/tibet_not_always_part_of_china_c...>
> and the Letters from China post both feature the title "Tibet not
> always a part of China: Chinese Historian." Taken in context,
> Professor Ge's comments are not quite so shocking. While he does
> mention Tibet as not being a part of the Tang Empire, the article
> itself I think is more interesting for the larger argument: When
> discussing what is and, perhaps more importantly, what is not China,
> it's important to


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google