[ATimes] Letter - Sangkancil

Message from discussion [ATimes] Letter
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of g...@pc.jaring.my designates 61.6.32.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=61.6.32.43;
Message-ID: <48107D45.3080504@pc.jaring.my>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:29:57 +0800
From: gnh <g...@pc.jaring.my>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sangkancil@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [sangkancil] Re: [ATimes] Letter
References: <638084.18723.qm@web26309.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <638084.18723.qm@web26309.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------010602070501010406060301"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010602070501010406060301
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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-claim-that.html>
>
> 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-claim-that.html>
>
>
> <http://bp0.blogger.com/_VXQinw7KBZE/RdwVvdYlw1I/AAAAAAAAAI8/3UXxT8zd4RA/s1600-h/Map_Tang.jpg>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_chinese_historian_ge_jia.php> 
> 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
>
>
>


--------------010602070501010406060301
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hey G V<br>
<br>
Now Malaysia also part of China, yes ?<br>
<br>
Because if China no buy, Malaysia die ........<br>
<br>
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<br>
<br>
G V wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:638084.18723...@web26309.mail.ukl.yahoo.com"
 type="cite">
  <style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style>
  <div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">
  <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">
  <div
 style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;">
  <h2 class="date-header"><font color="#956839"><a
 moz-do-not-send="true"
 href="http://granitestudio.blogspot.com/2007/02/chinese-historian-disputes-claim-that.html">花
崗齋文集 Collected Writings from the Granite Studio</a></font></h2>
  <p class="date-header">Wednesday, February 21, 2007</p>
  <h2 class="date-header"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
 name="1441469579672549348"></a><a moz-do-not-send="true"
 href="http://granitestudio.blogspot.com/2007/02/chinese-historian-disputes-claim-that.html"><font
 color="#956839">Chinese historian: "To exaggerate the size of China's
historical territory is not patriotic" - Full Text</font></a> </h2>
  <div class="post uncustomized-post-template">
  <div class="post-body">
  <p><a moz-do-not-send="true"
 onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"
 href="http://bp0.blogger.com/_VXQinw7KBZE/RdwVvdYlw1I/AAAAAAAAAI8/3UXxT8zd4RA/s1600-h/Map_Tang.jpg"><img
 moz-do-not-send="true" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5033922388579173202"
 style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;"
 alt=""
 src="http://bp0.blogger.com/_VXQinw7KBZE/RdwVvdYlw1I/AAAAAAAAAI8/3UXxT8zd4RA/s200/Map_Tang.jpg"
 border="0"></a>Via <a moz-do-not-send="true"
 href="http://chinadigitaltimes.net/"><font color="#956839">CDT</font></a>:
The blog <a moz-do-not-send="true"
 href="http://voyage.typepad.com/china/2007/02/tibet_not_alway.html"><font
 color="#956839">Letters from China</font></a> has a post about an <a
 moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.quanheng.cn/xzj.asp?id=8758"><font
 color="#956839">article in the magazine <span
 style="font-style: italic;">China Review</span></font></a> by Fudan
University professor Ge Jianxiong. <a moz-do-not-send="true"
 href="http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2007/02/tibet_not_always_part_of_china_chinese_historian_ge_jia.php"><font
 color="#473624">The CDT brief</font></a> 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</p>
  </div>
  </div>
  </div>
  </div>
  </div>
  <br>
  <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>

--------------010602070501010406060301--