Another day, another thread

Before you comment, please check out Gordon’s letter to the editor on censorship and democracy in China….and also Martyn’s very first post as Gordon’s guest blogger. Also, the state of China’s air quality is obviously a subject dear to the heart of Laowai, and he’s written a thorough (and thoroughly depressing, though with glimmers of hope) post about it.

Okay, so who will be first to comment?

The Discussion: 161 Comments

I will!

July 4, 2005 @ 7:47 pm | Comment

Thanks for linking to my virgin blog post!

It’s about Japan’s Ministry of Trade’s recent government paper calling for Japanese companies to invest in other countries in Asia apart from China, the reasons and possible effects as well as some China figures that might surprise people.

Past similar papers have proved very influential so I’m not expecting the paper to be ignored.

July 4, 2005 @ 8:02 pm | Comment

I wondered if I should bother posting this response, but I think I will, if only for the “squeal factor”. You know, little boys can’t resist poking ants’ nests with sticks, just to see them scurry all over the place.

Dear Anne, or Ann, (for an example of someone who can’t spell a name correctly? ๐Ÿ˜‰ ).

Firstly … I’m not surprised you didn’t like my response. It’s entirely too accurate, and to even dare to contemplate it, would be to trivialise all that you believe about yourself. Unfortunately (for you) it doesn’t make it any less true.

Secondly … the first two paragraphs of my response were quite genuine. I really did have that reaction to the post. I still find it laughable, but it was only much later that I realised that you did in fact mean it seriously. Because I was rather busy at the time, I wasn’t able to write a response immediately, and had half a day to mull it over. It was only in that time that I came to realise that you really do believe in this out-moded tripe. Your defense of it as up-to-date and relevant for today … well, I really shudder to think what you’re teaching your students (and thank the good lord (that I don’t believe in) that you’ve never been entrusted with any real patients). I don’t need to marginalise you, since you marginalise yourself with this kind of nonsense. The attempt to marginalise someone on the basis of gender, is your domain Anne (or Ann), not mine. When it came time to write my response to you, I chose to take a bet both ways. Firstly I would record my first response. Then I would respond to it seriously. Frankly, I still suspect that you’re really a rather brilliant person doing an experiment to see how we all react to this rubbish … but as time passes, I’m less inclined to give you that benefit of the doubt.

Oh, and thirdly. Do you REALLY have a PHD? I suspect not, since you seem not to have the faintest idea of what or who a PhD examiner is, or the significance of what they say. Or perhaps that’s the only way you could get your own qualification? By some shonky in-house assessment process?

As for the “superiority complex” … nah, I think you’ve got that one covered pretty well, and I’d hate to intrude on your territory.

Well, my chuckling continues, but with a marked note of irony. You really do believe your own ****.

As for the attempt to prove your accusations about me being some kind of racist … a) you’ve completely missed the point of what I said, and b) you haven’t been reading Peking Duck for all that long (or have a very selective memory.) Sure, I’ve been very condescending to certain commentators on this blog (and elsewhere), but as I said, there’s no particular trend based on nationality, race, gender etc. This is conspicuously not true about yourself, but it doesn’t really matter, since my pointing it out won’t help you see it. You’re too convinced of your own intellectual superiority to actually consider anyone else’s views, much less those of a man. Damn filthy superior non-womb possessing racist woman-hating stinker that I am. ***cough*** Who was it that was being infantile? Hahahahahaha. (Text laughter reflects my true reaction to you.)

Cheers to you Ann (or Anne). I think I’ve wasted enough time on your two-bit analysis. I think I’ll limit myself to … what was your phrase? “stocatto comments” in future. You were good for a couple of days amusement, but your comedy value is wearing thin.

PS. Freud had a lot of good ideas, for his age. And yes, his work does provide a foundation for much of modern psychology. You’re not the only one here to have studied that subject Dr Myers. It’s your two-bit misapplication of it that I take issue with. No wonder you never got a real job in the professional world. I know, I know … I’m marginalising you … but in fact, you’ve been marginalised all your life, by the look of your career. You can’t blame me for that. You remind me very strongly of certain other people I run into around campus … they’re convinced that they never got where they deserved because of some reason (gender, age, etc.) … but usually the main reason is the massive chip on their shoulder. They get a reputation for it, and no one is ever going to give them the promotion they feel they so richly deserve. Of course, this only makes their psychosis worse … and you’ve had a life-time of it. I’d feel pity for you, if you weren’t so self-righteous into the bargain. I would wish you a nice life, but you’re your own worst enemy in this respect.

*** Was that the sound of grinding teeth I hear floating over the ocean from southern China? *** ๐Ÿ™‚

July 4, 2005 @ 8:03 pm | Comment

She’s 64 and has been in China the past 12 years. So she probably doesn’t have any teeth to grind.

July 4, 2005 @ 8:24 pm | Comment

“As for the “superiority complex” … nah, I think you’ve got that one covered pretty well, and I’d hate to intrude on your territory.”

Haha.

I was just thinking that if one of us emailed Richard a couple of months ago and told him that ‘in a few weeks time there’d be a sixty-three year-old English lady writing on something called a “Peking Duck Open Thread” about how she enjoy’s being slapped about during coitus and how she “wanted” both a returned-Mark Anthony Jones and Conrad both”………..I wonder what his reaction would have been?

Probably would have blocked our email address from his Inbox and banned our IP address from Peking Duck.

Truth is indeed stranger than fiction sometimes…………….haha

July 4, 2005 @ 8:30 pm | Comment

Dear Filfthy Stinking No.9,

I can certainly understand your reaction to the comments of Dr. Myers, but I think it only fair to warn you here that you are in fact wrong about Dr. Myers not having a career as a professional practising psychologist. She spent most of her career working as a psychologist, in the London Borough of Westminster, in fact. She has, without naming names, discussed with me, though only in very general terms, numerous case studies of hers based upon her treatment of actual past patients.

Also, I think you may have misread her comments to some considerable degree. I see no evidence that she regards you as a “racist” for example. And she has criticised Shulan (a female) – she hasn’t seemed to have reserved her attacks for men alone, as you imply.

I shall leave it up to her to challenge you on all of this – she’s more than capable of doing that herself. But I just thought I should let you know that Dr. Anne Myers was indeed a practising clinical psychologist. She is retired now though.

She maintains her membership though of the British Psychological Society, and continues to occasionally have research papers of her own published in the very prestigious British Journal of Social Psychology.

I can tell you too (I don’t think she would mind too much now that she is drawing her research to a close) that the entire reason why she has been reading Peking Duck is because she is working on a paper that explores the collective psychological behavioural traits of blog communities. She is particularly interested in the way that superiority complexes are revealed on the pages of blog sites dominated by expat communities – she tells me in fact, that she sees a link between ethnocentricty and superiority complexes, in that the ethnocentric attitudes of foreigners living or visiting another country act to reinforce a subject’s own superiority complex. She will be comparing Peking Duck contributors for example, with the way that entire nations, through their discourse, have exhibited superiority complexes, often in very destructive ways. She talked to me at length, for example, about how she thinks that the Americans, Germans, English, and French in particular have all traditionally been afflicted with very conspicuous and destructive superiority complexes that are distinctive facets of their national characters. The Japanese, she says, also harbour a superiority complex that is as strong if not stronger than that of most other nationalities. But in the case of the Japanese, she says, their national character is far more complicated because they are also subject at the same time to an intense inferiority complex. I think the same applies to the South Koreans.

The core of the traditional Japanese superiority complex she argues, probably derived from the ancient mythological theme that Japan was created by divine beings and that the Japanese themselves, however indirectly, were descendants of these same superior creatures. (A concept, she adds, that has long since disappeared in post-feudal generations.)

Of course, Dr. Myers appreciates the fact that the peoples of all cultures and societies probably develop superiority complexes, but her paper will focus on the way that expats express their own nation’s superiority complexes when immersed in China, and through such forums as the media, and blog sites like Peking Duck.

I can’t wait to read the final product!

Best regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 4, 2005 @ 8:38 pm | Comment

Thanks for the link Richard!

Make sure you take a look in the comment section. I’ve copied all the responses from the newspapers website that my letter was published in and posted them to my blog.

July 4, 2005 @ 8:39 pm | Comment

Have MAJ or that Doctor ever found any links between long, boring, tedious posts and superiority complexes?
That is an area of research that I am considering pursuing… I don’t have a PhD, but who cares?
And I also can’t wait to read the final product!

July 4, 2005 @ 8:51 pm | Comment

Point taken Kevin, But Dr. Myers and I are certainly not the only contributors to Peking Duck who often write very long posts – Filthy Stinking No.9 often writes very long contributions as well (like the one on this thread for example) but unlike me, he is never criticised for it.

Mind you, I enjoy reading (usually) Filthy Stinking No.9s contributions. I often disgree with his views, but it is always worthwhile having your own views challenged.

Best regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 4, 2005 @ 8:58 pm | Comment

Dear Mark Anthony Jones,
Alas, I shall continue my research on the Peking Duck. I think there has been a lot of reification of sublimation, mixed in with some verbal masturbation, leading to a little aggravation, in your and that old lady’s posts.
I shall continue my research, and the world shall await the final results of my psychoanalysis of verbal masturbation and tedious posts with bated breath (as well as my onion breath from the pizza I am planning to eat at lunch, oh how utterly fabulous!)
Whoop-dee-doo!
Best Regards,
Kevin Joseph Carrico

July 4, 2005 @ 9:07 pm | Comment

Dear Mark Anthony Jones,

I suspect the reason Filthy Stinking No. 9 is never criticized for contributing lengthy posts to the Peking Duck is because while they may be long, they do not come across as boring.

With all due respect, I have tried to follow your posts, but they are often so boring that I end up contemplating suicide before I am ever able to finish reading it. I’m sure you are a very nice guy and you might even be an interesting person to be around, but your Dear Richard letters seem to suggest someone that has a deep fascination with hearing themselves talk.

For some reason I picture you with a monotone voice.

Cheers!

Gordon

July 4, 2005 @ 9:10 pm | Comment

Dear Filthy Stinking No.9.,

I can also tell you here I think, that I know a few other secrets about Dr. Anne Myers, but I am not prepared to reveal any of those secrets to you at this stage. Not until she has fully completed her paper, and it has been published. It will be published later this year, in the British Journal of Social Psychology. In Novemebr, she expect. I will then share with you a few other very insightful facts about Dr. Anne Myers, which I know will surprise you immensely.

Regards again,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 4, 2005 @ 9:13 pm | Comment

A bit strong that Gordon mate.

July 4, 2005 @ 9:15 pm | Comment

Dear Gordon,

I’m sorry you feel that way, but then look, nobody forces you to read my posts, right? Some regulars here enjoy reading them, they have emailed and have told me so, some even correespond with me via email. Others, like yourself, I know, find my posts to verbose and boring. That’s fine. I can’t please everybody!

When you see my posts, just scroll down past them. I certainly wont mind.

Cheers!

Mark Anthony Jones

P.S. And Kevin – I appreciate the humour in your last comment above, even though I am aware of its intention to sting!

July 4, 2005 @ 9:18 pm | Comment

Dear Mark Anthony Jones,

Be sure to take my comments with a grain of salt. While I do often find your comments to be long and boring, my response was not meant as a personal attack…I was just interjecting a little of my own twisted humor.

July 4, 2005 @ 9:25 pm | Comment

But on the other hand, MAJ, please do consider the near-universal complaint that your comments are too long. I have received some very angry emails from people a bit too timid to compain in the comments, asking me to do something about the length of your comments. I am simply asking you to think about it, and to consider the feelings of others. I just got one hell of an email about this, that I’d be glad to forward to you (with name deleted, of course).

July 4, 2005 @ 9:29 pm | Comment

Dear Richard,

My response to such criticisms is this: if people can’t be bothered reading lengthy comments, fine. Don’t read them!

I am not interested in reading a series of short comments that don’t really say anything. The value (for me) of this site is that there numerous people who do engage with my arguments at length. I am not always correct in my views (Conrad for example, successfully challenged my arguments about the legality of the US occupation of Guanantamo Bay – destroying two out of my three arguments). I appreciated that – that’s how one learns afterall – through debate!

By posting comments on threads, rather than directly via email, others can also join in, and contribute to the discussion. Often though, when the topic has nothing to do with China or with US politics, I do indeed carry on lengthy discussion via email, rather than on this site.

As I said, if people don’t want to reads my comments then fine! I’m not offended by that. Everybody has different interests, in this site is used differently by different people. I respect other peoples’ right to make short comments of a more fickle and less serious nature. I normally just scroll past them. I don;t complain that they are clogging up space with comments that don’t interest me. This site wasn’t set up for me, to serve my interests only.

Best regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 4, 2005 @ 9:40 pm | Comment

She will be comparing Peking Duck contributors for example, with the way that entire nations, through their discourse, have exhibited superiority complexes, often in very destructive ways.

Etc.

I have no comment on the idea presented, but does this raise the question of research ethics? I could be wrong (I don’t work in the psychology field), but I don’t think I could gain permission to do this kind of project in the social sciences because the ethics committee here (at CityU) would have reservations. Or maybe they wouldn’t. I really don’t know. Maybe it is okay to use people’s responses; after all, this is a public domain (sort of…). So maybe it’s like analysing letters to the editor. But I wonder if it really is the same.

Curious to know what others think.

July 4, 2005 @ 9:49 pm | Comment

to speak up for MAJ, there is nothing wrong with long posts Richard. If other readers cannot abide them, it speaks more of their attention spans than Mr. Jone’s posts. They can always scroll past them or better yet make use of their eyes and read. I swear to god Richard, the duck now has enough drama queens as is, no need to censure someone mearly to sate the “delicate sensitivites” of those who don’t even have the fortitude of character to make express themselves publically.

July 4, 2005 @ 9:49 pm | Comment

While I respect everyone’s equal right to an opinion, I’m nonetheless surprised that some would write to the owner of a website complaining that a regular commenter’s posts are too long! It appears ludicrous, to me anyway. I’m surely missing something here I think.

Otherwise, they can just scroll straight through the posts of the commenter(s) who offend(s) them so. Isn’t it as simple as that?

I mean, why would the length of someone’s comments offend? Racist views or personal attacks might easily offend, now that I can understand but the “length” of comments? Never.

Maybe I’m wrong here but suffice to say that I’m very, very surprised.

July 4, 2005 @ 9:50 pm | Comment

“I swear to god Richard, the duck now has enough drama queens as is, no need to censure someone mearly to sate the “delicate sensitivites” of those who don’t even have the fortitude of character to make express themselves publically.”

Agree 100%. I wish I could be so eloquent.

July 4, 2005 @ 9:51 pm | Comment

Martyn, you’ve got mail.

July 4, 2005 @ 9:55 pm | Comment

Dear Jing and Martyn,

Yes! Thank you both for your common sense and support on this “issue”. If think the three of us are in agreement that everybody is different, that everybody has different interests, and that different people use this site for different reasons. If people don’t like lengthy commetns, or they just don’t like my commetns in particular because they find what I have to say boring, then fine. Don’t read my comments.

I don’t like many of the very short posts that very often have nothing to say. But I don’t complain about them, because I appreciate and respect that fact that Peking Duck does not exist for me. Nor does it exist for any one particular individual. It might be privately owned and run, but it is a public forum, a community service of Richard’s, in effect.

Regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 4, 2005 @ 9:58 pm | Comment

Jing, Martyn, MAJ, it’s just something I’ve heard from readers, and there are time when I agree — MAJ and I have had this discussion before. I don’t mind detailed comments, but when nearly every one is a massive wall of text it can be intimidating. This is a blog and this is the Internet – pithiness is always recommended, as any authority of blog etiquette will tell you. This is not a rule; sometimes I will go on at great lengths myself. But in general, commenters would be wise to keep readers’ attention span in mind; after too many long comments, people might just give up and skip them altogether.

July 4, 2005 @ 10:00 pm | Comment

Dear Stephen Frost,

You have indeed raised a very interesting question, regarding the ethics of using blog comments as qualitative research data.

I personally am of the opinion that it is little different from drawing on the contents of “letters to the editor” sections of newspapers – as you suggest might be the case. Dr. Anne Myers assures me that she will not be naming names when quoting us all. But drawing on our comments here certainly doesn’t violate any ethical codes as far as I am aware. I guess a lot depends on how uses our comments.

Best regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 4, 2005 @ 10:04 pm | Comment

Interesting question, Stephen (and by the way, I cannot access CSR!). I would think blog comments are fair game and she wouldn’t run into an ethical issue. On the other hand, such a paper could be compromised by the fact that most of us here are anonymous, and she has no way of knowing whether one poster is putting up comments under multiple aliases. (I know that’s very rare here, since I can see everyone’s IP address. But it certainly does happen.)

July 4, 2005 @ 10:05 pm | Comment

I wonder if Dr. Anne Myers will be publishing anything at all. I have a few PhDs in the family, some of whom haven’t published for 20 years, yet when I google them their work is out there. Try googling Dr. Anne Myers and you won’t get anything.
And while it wouldn’t be completely unheard of for the British Journal of Social Psych to publish an unknown, the level of writing would have to be a lot higher than what I saw in her comments.

July 4, 2005 @ 10:18 pm | Comment

Dear Al Wheeler,

I know the answer to your queries, as to why you can’t track down any of her papers using Google, but I just can’t let on just now. November perhaps!

Her more polished writings are of course, of much greater quality than what she bashes out on her computer here on the pages of the Duck – she’s merely amusing herself I suspect, now that she has from us all everything that she wants.

Be guarded with your comments about her – you’d be surprised if you knew what I now know about her.

Regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 4, 2005 @ 10:25 pm | Comment

Sorry to burst into to this interesting conversation but my first ever blog-post “Hi China, Bye China?” on the Horse’s Mouth just made it into Simonworld’s Daily Linklets!!!!

I’m over the moon about that, it’s made my day!

Luchtime beer I think…….

July 4, 2005 @ 10:26 pm | Comment

Congratlulations Martyn! I’m about to head out for lunch too, and so I shall have a beer for you!

And I shall read your post this afternoon too.

Cheers to you!

Mark Anthony Jones

July 4, 2005 @ 10:31 pm | Comment

And Al – one other hint! If you go to the pages of the British Journal of Social Psychology, you won’t find her name their either, even though she has had many papers published there.

You wont even find her name used to identify her email address.

I shall not say anything more….

Regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 4, 2005 @ 10:35 pm | Comment

What the hell is going on in here? This is starting to feel like an episode of “The Facts of Life.” I can figure out who Mrs. Garrett is, but which one of you is Tootie?

July 4, 2005 @ 10:49 pm | Comment

Martyn, now that you’re famous, want to write a guest post on ShenzhenRen? The only requirement is that you can’t be too serious.

July 4, 2005 @ 11:45 pm | Comment

Ha! I’ve just started reading SZR actually. Ever since it got blog-rolled here.

One must be extremely serious when writing about the exciting official government reports that come out of the Japanese Ministry of Trade and Industry!

Anyway, The China Herald picked up the METI report as well so I’m not as boring as everyone seems to think you know!

July 4, 2005 @ 11:52 pm | Comment

Richard: mabye they’ve banned CSR Asia in the US! “Microsoft colludes with Bush regime to censor criticisms of US companies operating in China.”

I think you and Mark are probably correct on the Dr Myers article. I was just wondering about it from a research perspective.

July 4, 2005 @ 11:52 pm | Comment

Hey, I thought Martyn was going to guest blog for me about his murky past!

July 4, 2005 @ 11:54 pm | Comment

MAJ is she not the same lady who according to Amazon co-authored a book on psychology?
anyway I have to admire your loyalty in keeping details of her private correspondance secret.

July 4, 2005 @ 11:58 pm | Comment

she’s published a lot of papers too, but if you look up her name you won’t find it, and no one can know why until november.
personally i’d prefer to stop playing these childish games and change the topic. i personally don’t believe in this “anne myers” thing.

July 5, 2005 @ 12:14 am | Comment

Bid nature……Life Hypostasis….Waterscape Feeling…..

July 5, 2005 @ 12:19 am | Comment

in fact, just a final thought on the doctor.
in the light of MAJ’s information about her, I think it’s even more interestesting that she chose to start commenting after MAJ wrote about phalluses and buildings, ie touched on her special subject area.
that’s to say, if a scientist is observing how laboratory mice interact, run around mazes etc, and then suddenly the mice start to do some observation work themselves (maybe observe behavioural patterns of fleas), that perhaps will prompt the scientist to step in and explain to the mice how really he is the one in charge, he knows more than they, that he is superior and is not about to be usurped by the object of his studies.

and by extension …. and I don’t want to be accused of Peking Duck bashing …. there is definitely I think in some places a tendency to tell the Chinese how, if they are going to copy certain ‘western’ traits (democracy, wealth, plumbing, middle classes, fast food &c &c) — well, to tell them that they’re doing it wrong and wrong-headedly and that we (the west) knows best.

which serpent tail-like brings us round again to the doctor’s paper on superiority complexes on western blogs about china … which I like MAJ am looking forward to reading about (not that I’ll understand one 20th of the thing).

July 5, 2005 @ 12:21 am | Comment

My neighbors have a dead guy in their living room. He has been there for 3 days now.It’s a Chinese funeral deal.Wouldn’t he be a bit stinky by now?

July 5, 2005 @ 12:27 am | Comment

thanks for coming back american man, from a fellow american man, this whole “secret doctor” thing is getting way too ridiculous.
almost as ridiculous as my own american waistline…

July 5, 2005 @ 12:33 am | Comment

Kevin,Thanks for the Welcome back.I have been busy movin’ house.WHAT a pain in the ass! EVERYTHING went wrong.I guess I missed this “Secret Doctor” thing.Is it interesting at all?

July 5, 2005 @ 12:36 am | Comment

I’m just curious to see how she overcomes a) personal bias of knowing one (or more) of the subjects outside the comments area, b) finds out definetively where the posters are from (some might have said, some not, some might be lying…). (richard, I do hope you don’t give out people’s ip addresses/locations….) and c) figures out who’s tongue in cheek, who’s straight up, who’s just commenting to get a rise out of people/playing devil’s advocate, etc. even if the woman lives in here, the internet is not exactly conducive to clear communication or easy comprehension of underlying motives.

but what do I know, I’m no psychologist.

July 5, 2005 @ 12:40 am | Comment

no, it’s pretty wacko.
moving sucks, especially when the people helping you move drop and break everything.

July 5, 2005 @ 12:40 am | Comment

In China you do very little actual work.The problem is stealing.You have to watch them ALL the time.Add on monsoon like conditions and drunk movers…….Anyway let the “sexy hate machine” begin. BTW,The Chinese food is tasty.The Chinese are starting to look like fat bovine American’s.

July 5, 2005 @ 12:46 am | Comment

KLS

We can even your comments into a historical perspective! A few centuries ago, it was the other way around. I.e. China was economically and culturally more advanced than the west, which was only of course ‘Europe’ at the time.

Europe used to baulk at China’s arts, crafts, silk and other technologies (e.g. gunpowder, which our Chinese friends often remind us).

Obviously, China was extremely arrogant at the, which was, as everyone knows, part of her downfall.

Nowadays, the west is (generally speaking) far more advanced than China. Therefore, the flow of technology, ideas, ideologies, prejudices etc is now the other way around. Modern methods of transport and communication als serve to make this interaction far more efficient.

Therefore again, it’s also inevitable that part of the arrogance that was evident in pre-“national humiliation” China exists today amongst the western nations and western people.

July 5, 2005 @ 1:03 am | Comment

Echo, you might not be a psychologist but all that above sounds like solid common sense to me.

July 5, 2005 @ 1:06 am | Comment

CONFESSIONS OF A PSYCHOLOGIST

I have decided, and for various reason, to cease making contributions to the pages of this website, Peking Duck, as from this evening, for I have now had my little bit of fun, and, despite being a woman of my age, my days are nearly always busy and full. I have far more pressing things to be getting on with, and so I have decided that it is now time for me to be moving on from these pages of “dilettantish punditry”.

I have now, for more than a year, been copying and pasting entire threads from this site into word documents, and believe me, I have enough material here saved on my computer for an entire conference! I have also been copying and pasting from other similar sites, most notably from Conrad’s now defunct Gwailo Diaries, and more recently, from The Horse’s Mouth.

Mr Jones has let slip the fact that I have a paper due for publication later this November, and he has alerted you all to the name of the exact journal. I regret that he has done so, though I harbour no ill feelings towards him, in appreciation of the fact that I did not earlier express my wishes to him clearly enough on this matter. I trust though, that he will honour his promise not to divulge my true identity to you all, yet I understand and accept the fact that some of you who have access to the British Journal of Social Psychology will be able to figure out who I am later in the year, once my paper has been published, simply by checking the title and contents of all the articles published. I shall not be naming names in my paper, though most of you will for sure be able to recognise your own words, as I intend to quote many of you, and have already done so in fact, in draft form.

The Peking Duck though, has for me, been the most entertaining of all of the China blog sites that I have come across and read; the diversity of opinion here, as well as the flamboyance of some of its regulars, rarely fails to leave me unentertained.

Some of this site’s contributors I really do truly admire, and I have made no secret of the fact that I admire and respect Mr Jones considerably more than most, which is why I decided to make him privy to so much privileged information, despite my fame, and I certainly do hope that he will continue to correspond with me. I am especially interested in what he has to say about the superiority/inferiority complexes of the South Koreans, and how this, as he suggests, can be traced back to the Korean creation mythology, that all humans were created from the mythical Tang’un. I eagerly await for more from him on this fascinating line of investigation.

Some contributors earlier today on this thread have also complained that they find Mr Jones’ contributions to the pages of Peking Duck to be too long and dry and boring. Well, in defence of Mr Jones, I can say that I have never found any of his contributions to be boring, and having read some of his travelogues, I know too that he is also a very talented and skilful creative writer, and with a wonderful sense of humour. I read his “Four Days In Jilin” with absolute delight, and I laughed and agonised with him all the way through it. He ought to have it published in fact, along with some of his other travel writings. He is not, I can assure you all, always the serious, dry academic that many of you may like to think of him as.

I shall not comment any further on Filthy, other than to say that his attempts to research my identity failed miserably, and that his assumption that I was some other “Anne” who spells her name as “Ann” together with the fact the he was so cocky enough to even think that he could launch into a personal attack on the person he thought I was, simply demonstrates very clearly what I have been saying about him all along: and that is that he is an arrogant, condescending fool with a small penis who often thinks that he knows more than he really does. I set him up for a fall, and he took the bait, launching himself into flights of both fantasy and defence, only to fall back down again, face first in the dirt.

I mean, just take a look at the way Filth presents himself intellectually: “I’m not surprised you didn’t like my response,” he wrote. “It’s entirely too accurate, and to even dare to contemplate it, would be to trivialise all that you believe about yourself. Unfortunately (for you) it doesn’t make it any less true.” I mean, really? How juvenile! These sound to me to be more like the words of an adolescent rather than an adult.

Over the last few days I have been entertaining myself a little on these pages, stirring the pot up if you like, and with most interesting results. Mr Jones has confirmed himself as the most impressive intellect, Conrad has been disappointing in his silence, which I find very suggestive, and Filthy has also, as I just said, confirmed what I have thought about him all along. And Laowai, you need not worry about me quoting you in my paper, as I have no intentions of doing so, and that’s simply because I do not find you to be in the least bit interesting. So stop rambling on like a silly child about “disclaimers” will you. And if I wanted to quote you I would – I don’t need your permission to do so, nor do I need to worry about silly disclaimers as such. What utter nonsense! There is no need to be so hysterically nervous my child. I really don’t know why you feel so threatened? Perhaps you have a small thingy, and that’s what’s bothering you so?

I shall end my confessions here by stating simply that yes, I am a doctor of psychology, yes, I did spend a good twenty six years of my life as a professional clinical psychologist, yes, I am now formally retired, yes, I am a member of the British Psychological Society, yes, I have had many research papers published, and in numerous journals, as well as six books, two of them being works of literature, and yes, I am now aged 64, and am living in Guangzhou.

No, my real name is not Anne Myers, but that’s really none of your concern, and my real name is none of your business unless I choose to make it so.

Farewell my ducklings. It’s been great fun studying you all.

Dr. Anne Myers

P.S. Some commentators above have suugested that my use of your comments might be compromised by the fact that some of you may have been writing under different names (like I have been doing myself) or that some of you may have been making comments simply in order to play the role of Devil’s Advocate, and so on. I am, of course, aware of the limitations, but I will be focussing on a number of certain themes that continually appear, not only on the pages of the Duck, but also on all of the other China blogs – similar themes that I can find on Japan blogs, South Korean blogs, almost universally in fact, as well as in the popular Western print and television media. Your comments do indeed provide both quantitative, as well as qualitative evidence, and I shall of course be very cautious in my use of them.

P.S.S. And one other thing that I find admirable about Mr Jones, is that, despite his controversial views on some subjects, he never writes under a fake identity. He his open and honest in sharing his opinions with the world, and is never afraid to write under his own true name. Anybody can email him, and anybody can track him down. He hides nothing. Not even his penis! (And I mean that not only metaphorically, but also literally, as he has shared with me, upon request, a number of revealing photographs – photos which themsleves reveal a full public exposure on open nudist beaches.) Not everybody who contributes to this site is quite so confident.

July 5, 2005 @ 1:48 am | Comment

Why do I get the feeling I missed something VERY twisted?

July 5, 2005 @ 1:55 am | Comment

Good god. I’m speechless. And that rarely happens…

July 5, 2005 @ 1:55 am | Comment

Ok, Anne, I’m still not comfortable with your personal attacks and tirades against certain commenters, most of which I find unnecessary and petty, particularly the way you accuse many of those who cross you as having small penises. This might be some kind of pychologist’s style or even your idea of having a laugh, but to me it’s simply crude and, again, unnecessary.

However, I do wish you luck with your paper and I hope that Guangzhou and China continue to treat you well.

I’ll be sure and say hello should our paths cross in Guangzhou as there aren’t too many retired pychologists in this city and, as you know, it’s a small-ish foreign community.

BTW, in case you are a member of the Guangzhou Foreign Wimmin’s Club, you may well see me at the bar when the Club have their monthly slap-up buffet at the Paddy Field.

See-ya.

July 5, 2005 @ 2:01 am | Comment

It’s like some mid 70’s B-movie pyscho-thriller.I’m seeing Angie Dickinson as “Dr.Meyers””Filthy” played by Mr.Steve Buscemi.”MAJ” is portrayed by Jack Scalia.It’s a Golem and Globus production.Curtis Mayfield does the score.The scene will have to be moved to Malibu.Straight to DVD.

July 5, 2005 @ 2:02 am | Comment

Ooookay.

Dr. Ann/Anne, I have to say that I don’t entirely believe you. I don’t think that a serious academic writing for a serious academic publication would reveal herself in this way and would write the sorts of things you’ve written about your so-called subjects. It shows a bias that would undermine your research results. Academics in general don’t attack their research subjects, question their intelligence, morals and the size of their dicks. Or if they do so, they tend to do it much more neutral, careful, academic language. Can you imagine the kinds of letters this journal would get if such a paper were really published? All any of us would have to do is copy some of Dr. Ann’s comments and post them to said journal. Unless I’m seriously misunderstanding the state of current psychological scholarship, I think the editors would seriously flip.

So yes, AM, twisted and entertaining it has been. But I’m taking bets that it’s not what Dr. Ann claims it to be.

July 5, 2005 @ 2:02 am | Comment

excuse me, that would be “undermine the credibility of your research results.” It’s late.

July 5, 2005 @ 2:03 am | Comment

An elaborate ruse?

July 5, 2005 @ 2:06 am | Comment

Lisa, I’ve missed you!

July 5, 2005 @ 2:07 am | Comment

AM, I think “elaborate ruse,” yep.

Glad to hear your move went okay…

Tonight I had Red Hook IPA…yummy…

July 5, 2005 @ 2:09 am | Comment

i heard dr. anne also had a small penis.
sorry, that just came to mind and i had to toss it in.

July 5, 2005 @ 2:10 am | Comment

yeah, the entire time i have been pretty sure this dr. ann is just MAJ in high heels

July 5, 2005 @ 2:11 am | Comment

*SNORT*!

I keep thinking of Norman Bates’ mother…

July 5, 2005 @ 2:13 am | Comment

Maybe he has a multiple personality disorder.Like “Dressed to Kill”Angie Dickinson was in that.What’s wrong with having a small penis anyway?Chinese guys seem to get by alright.

July 5, 2005 @ 2:15 am | Comment

Lisa,I’m worried about your drinking.Don’t make us do an intervention on you.They always end in tears.

July 5, 2005 @ 2:17 am | Comment

“Mother,…………………BLOOD!”

July 5, 2005 @ 2:20 am | Comment

Guess I’d better not mention the Sierra Nevada Summerfest then…

July 5, 2005 @ 2:21 am | Comment

If you can afford the good stuff you ain’t got a problem.If your rich alcoholism is glamorous.

July 5, 2005 @ 2:23 am | Comment

I did write an essay on Hitchcock’s Pyscho once, for my 2nd year film studies class back in 89. It was a Freudian analysis – Hitchcok was deliberately, very consciously Freudian in fact, hence his careful attention to detail in throwing into the background scenes an entire plethora of classic Freudian sexual symbols.

I do feel very guilty though, I must admit, alerting you all to the exact journal in which her paper will be published. As the Other Lisa has said, this wonderful woman, and she is quite famous too you know, does indeed risk having her reputation tarnished – and all because of a harmless prank, or bit of fun. Well, arguably, all because I have released a little too much information to you all. Perhaps she will publish in an alternative journal? I’ve suggested to her already that she do so.

Anyhow, I guess we can all move on now, and focus on different topics.

Regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 5, 2005 @ 2:24 am | Comment

Hence the name HitchCOCK.

July 5, 2005 @ 2:26 am | Comment

are their IP addresses the same? hehe

July 5, 2005 @ 2:27 am | Comment

Yes! Very funny American Man!

(I mean that genuinely, I’m not being sarcastic – I really do find your comment amusing…)

Cheers!

Mark Anthony Jones

July 5, 2005 @ 2:28 am | Comment

i wish i could get 40 oz.’s in china. maybe i will talk to someone at a 40 oz. company about that. i think colt 45 could make a killing in this market. it tastes better than baijiu at least…

July 5, 2005 @ 2:28 am | Comment

Come on Kevin! Give me a break!

Mark Anthony Jones

July 5, 2005 @ 2:29 am | Comment

” Mom, He likes me, he REALLY likes me!”

July 5, 2005 @ 2:32 am | Comment

Please don’t feel too bad Mark, what’s done is done now.

Anyway, even if we still remember “Anne Myers” come the end of this year, which I doubt, I still don’t see how she could possibly have her reputation tarnished.

If she is who she claims and publishes the afforementioned paper then good for her. No harm done I think.

July 5, 2005 @ 2:38 am | Comment

BTW, MAj, I’ve always had a weak spot for men in uniform.It’s nothing to be ashamed of.Gender can be sooooooo very limiting.

July 5, 2005 @ 2:43 am | Comment

Hi Kevin,

Yes, well I sincerely do hope you are right in saying that, as it was most certainly not my intention to damage her professional reputation by exposing her real identity.

I guess even the most serious and professional of academics are only human too, and like everybody, they sometimes like to entertain themselves through pranks – and I guess her cheeky analysis of us all was largely produced and posted with the purpose of seeing how we would all respond – it was for her a little entertainment, even though her analysis was actually “three quaters serious” (her words). I suppose that’s why she went a little overboard with the penis remarks – to stir!

I hope she proceeds to have her research paper published, regardless of whether she changes journal or not. I really am looking forwards to reading.

Best regards Martyn,

Mark Anthony Jones

July 5, 2005 @ 2:48 am | Comment

It’s easy to fake an IP address…anyway, judging from the writing style, this is my mental image of Dr. Anne.

Which also happens to be my mental image of another prominent poster who has the same undergraduate writing style.

July 5, 2005 @ 2:50 am | Comment

Sorry! I am a little upset with myself at the moment, and so I am not thinking very clearly – hence all of the typing errors above.

And I meant to address the above comment to Martyn, not to Kevin.

Forgive me for my carelessness.

Regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 5, 2005 @ 2:50 am | Comment

that’s ok dr. anne
oops, sorry, my mistake! or maybe not…?

July 5, 2005 @ 3:00 am | Comment

Thank you Al, and thank you Kevin.

Your cynicism is humouress, I must admit, though it pains me a little too.

Regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 5, 2005 @ 3:07 am | Comment

Kevin, M.P.D. is NOT a laughing matter.It’s a disease like any other.Through treatment it can be contained but NEVER cured.In the old days it was considered a character issue.Today we know that M.P.D. is often inherited.So as you can see it’s no joke.

July 5, 2005 @ 3:08 am | Comment

“Release the hounds”

July 5, 2005 @ 3:11 am | Comment

Al and Kevin,

Sorry, I mean “humourous” not “humourless” mistyped as “humouress”.

Mark Anthony Jones

July 5, 2005 @ 3:16 am | Comment

Oh, well, thank god for that. I’m not interesting.

Good to be supported in my endeavors.

July 5, 2005 @ 3:18 am | Comment

Alas, I continue my research! Your posts are getting shorter, MAJ.

July 5, 2005 @ 3:21 am | Comment

Unfortunately, I think that was Anne’s way of having a bit of fun. Still, as I said above, I don’t consider hurting people’s feelings anything near to being “fun”.

Pay no attention Laowai, it’s all just too wierd for words. Hey, at least you got picked out! I didn’t even warrant a mention by the good doctor.

Totally ignored as usual. God, it’s like being at home.

July 5, 2005 @ 3:24 am | Comment

it’s cause you’re british, perhaps….?

July 5, 2005 @ 3:29 am | Comment

Haha, she didn’t know that though. Unless she noticed the spellings I suppose.

July 5, 2005 @ 3:34 am | Comment

Anyway, what’s being British got to do with anything?

July 5, 2005 @ 3:35 am | Comment

Other Lisa:
As to your question on the 4th of July thread, I did not get that far North this time. Out to the East on the coast.

July 5, 2005 @ 3:41 am | Comment

O.K. Kevin – no need to be quite so spiteful and acerbic, or asinine too for that matter. I don’t mind you and Al joking around a little with your suggestions that Dr. Myers and me may be one and the same person, but don’t push the line too hard, or I will indeed respond with an essay!

The idea is ridiculous, though I can see and appreciate the humour in your comments. But don’t play on it for more than its worth, you may excite my wrath.

Thank you.

Kindest regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 5, 2005 @ 3:42 am | Comment

i think the idea makes perfect sense, and i hold to my statement. it is not a joke. you were losing arguments so created some other person to “back you up,” and then took low blows at a bunch of people on the site.
anyway, i’m done with work and going home, where my internet connection is too miserable to even consider getting online. hopefully there will be something else to discuss tomorrow, instead of silly games like this.

July 5, 2005 @ 4:07 am | Comment

Mark, I think Kevin is still (quite rightly) a bit pissed off at Anne’s invective yesterday. It was quite nasty, tongue-in-cheek or no.

July 5, 2005 @ 4:07 am | Comment

Still, no need to threaten to write him a long essay. Let’s not go mad here! Ha ha.

July 5, 2005 @ 4:08 am | Comment

Hannibal Lector?

July 5, 2005 @ 4:19 am | Comment

Yes Martyn, I agree. You are quite right. His theory may convince some perhaps, and that’s fine, but there is no point in me wasting my time in arguing about it, especially when there are far more interesting topics to discuss.

Although I feel bad about having exposed Dr. Myers to future possible embarrassment, it has to be said that she has also humiliated me by mentioning certain things that I passed on and revealed to her via our email correspondence, and which I passed on to her in confidence.

Still, once bitten, twice shy – as they say. I will certainly be more careful with what I send to people in future, that’s for sure.

Best regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 5, 2005 @ 4:20 am | Comment

“Are the lambs still screaming?”

July 5, 2005 @ 4:25 am | Comment

I’m obviously coming into to this a little late, but to me “Dr. Anne’s” research seems to be a very clear breach of each of the blogger’s copyright and/or other rights reserved under a Creative Commons licence. Richard, I’m sure you could get the American Depatment of Justice to launch an IPR case on your behalf.

Has Mark Anthony Jones thought of following what several other frequent commenters on these pages have already done – set up his own blog? He can write to his heart’s content, clogging up his own bandwidth while posting blissfully short links to his verbosity on these pages instead. Blogger offers a free service, MAJ. It will take you all of 3 minutes to get started.

Lastly, maybe I’ve missed a thread or two but who is this Dr. Anne and what’s it all about? These open threads are like soap operas – you miss one or two and you’ve got no idea what’s happening. Maybe Richard or someone can post an opening “previously on this site…” so us latecomers can catch up.

July 5, 2005 @ 4:27 am | Comment

“Fava beans and a nice Chianti”

July 5, 2005 @ 4:28 am | Comment

And Kevin – what arguments were I losing? I never lose arguments, I simply learn from them. I do not argue to “win” I argue to test the validity and strength of my own viewpoints. When somebody effectively destroys or weakens one of my arguments, when they seriously challenge my views, then I am happy! That’s what makes the entire exercise so worthwhile.

I think I have made my motivations for contributing to this site well known on numerous occasions already.

Still, if you insist, I will be Anne Myers or Horman Bates’ mother or Filthy Stinknig No.9 (he writes similarly in style to me as well doesn’t he?) or whoever else you want to imagine me to be!

Regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 5, 2005 @ 4:29 am | Comment

Filthy stinknig is a racist term.

July 5, 2005 @ 4:38 am | Comment

Yes, moving on to more interesting topics sounds good.

I think everyone agrees (Sam_S actually commented on it) that it was very poor form indeed to reveal such personal details from what was obviously private correspondence on this site. It’s never pleasant when someone breaches the trust one places in them.

Still, no one here, to my knowledge, has raised a single comment about those details or made an issue about them so no harm done.

Today’s news, tomorrow’s newspaper!

July 5, 2005 @ 4:38 am | Comment

I’ve got Filthy stinknig fever.

July 5, 2005 @ 4:39 am | Comment

Dear Simon,

I may indeed decide to follow your suggestion at some point in the not too distant future, in which case I will definitely arrange for a Noncommerical Creative Commons license for the site.

Thanks for the tips.

Mark Anthony Jones

July 5, 2005 @ 4:42 am | Comment

Anyway, if you need a more interesting topic then I can shamelessly point you in the direction of my post on Horse’s Mouth!

I’m actually worse than the Daily Dancer Gordon!

If anybody missed the recent post on HM about the “Daily Dancer” it is well worth checking out if you want a cringy laugh:

http://tinyurl.com/7u6gh

July 5, 2005 @ 4:43 am | Comment

Hmmm, re Simon’s comment’s about breach of copyright, Conrad would be the man most likely to know about this sort of thing I reckon.

July 5, 2005 @ 4:47 am | Comment

Martyn are you instigating something?

July 5, 2005 @ 4:50 am | Comment

Simon, I wasn’t going to say anything, but you spit it out.

I made a mental note of Dr. Anne’s comments and just figured I’d wait to see what she wrote. If she publishes any of the material from my site, she will very quickly discover my real identity. I assure you of that.

July 5, 2005 @ 4:54 am | Comment

Lawsuits are very exciting.

July 5, 2005 @ 4:57 am | Comment

Can we get back to pseduo-philosophy, dilettantish punditry etc? Simon: Dr. Anne (not her real name, but she finds it permissible to interact with her test subjects and publish on them without their knowing her name…? I’m uncomfortable with this. But then, I’m hysterical) Myers has made for a nice spectacle, and insulted many of us with kinds of aggressive and self-righteous indignation, passed on as above-the-board unsolicited psychoanalysis, as well as found two potential lovers, one of whom has shown her how well endowed he is, one of whom has not.

I’m hysterical, apparently, but continue to be a bit uncomfortable with the mix of official researcher and personal opinion-giver that Dr. Anne-not-my-real-name-but-I’ll-be-publishing-on-this-Myers has taken up.

I’m interested to know, however, how Dr. Myers can be assured of being published in the journal she has named. Either she has already submitted an article and it has been accepted, which is very possible, or she is on the editorial board and can publish with impunity.

July 5, 2005 @ 4:58 am | Comment

I’m sure that Dr. Myers and her publishers would be well aware of any copyright issues regarding her use of blogsites for research purposes. It depends very much on how she uses the material, I would assume.

Regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 5, 2005 @ 5:00 am | Comment

Oops! Forgot to add..

My name will be located right beside hers which will of course be listed under “defendant”.

July 5, 2005 @ 5:04 am | Comment

Actually, Mark, according to the specifications of my Copyright as well as my Creative Commons License, she doesn’t have my permission to use ANYTHING.

July 5, 2005 @ 5:05 am | Comment

Dear Richard – while we’re on the subject, I notice too that Peking Duck is not licensed under a Creative Commons license. It might be a good idea, given the present controversy, to license your site in this way – just to provide us all with a little more peace of mind when sharing ideas on your site!

Best regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 5, 2005 @ 5:05 am | Comment

Ya’ll know what happens to ya in the pokey dontcha?

July 5, 2005 @ 5:07 am | Comment

BTW MAJ,

I want to thank you for exposing her identity.

It will make it so much easier to find her now if she steals any of the material from our sites.

If I ever meet you, I’ll buy you a beer!

July 5, 2005 @ 5:14 am | Comment

Gordon is it soup yet?

July 5, 2005 @ 5:16 am | Comment

Dear Gordon,

I need to be very careful with my remarks here, as I certainly do not wish to offend Dr. Myers, whom I have been having some extremely interesting and conversations with via email over the past few days, and I’m hoping this will continue – but I would be more than happy to take you up on your offer of a beer! I’m sure we’d find many things to chat about, and to drink over.

Best regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 5, 2005 @ 5:17 am | Comment

What are the ethics here? Most people have become test subjects in an academic study without their approval. That seems a clear breach. Likewise the breach of copyright. I also take Laowai’s point that it seems unusual that the good Doctor already knows she’s getting published…unless the article has been accepted and peer reviewed already.

Let’s pre-emptively sue! We can call it the TPD Doctrine.

July 5, 2005 @ 5:22 am | Comment

I don’t know how it works with psych journals, but that’s how it works with biology journals – there’s a normal track and a fast track.

I suspect she’s already submitted, since it’s already july, and I can’t find anyone on the editorial board that seems like it would be her.

If anyone is concerned, I’m sure an email from the owners of the websites to the british psycho society would be helpful.

mail@bpsjournals.co.uk

July 5, 2005 @ 5:27 am | Comment

I meant “psychological” and not “psycho” of course.

July 5, 2005 @ 5:28 am | Comment

AM my soup works miracles.

I made homemade chicken noodle soup for my wife and an hour later she was back to her silly self.

July 5, 2005 @ 5:29 am | Comment

Dear Gordon,

How does the referring to of a body of blog entries differ from the similar use of say, letters to the editor of a newspaper? I ask, because this issue was raised earlier today, on this thread.

Mark Anthony Jones

July 5, 2005 @ 5:29 am | Comment

Must have been those mushrooms I used….I still swear some of those mushrooms I buy at the market are hallucinogenic sometimes…

July 5, 2005 @ 5:31 am | Comment

Mark,

I’m about 4 beers into the evening. Could you make your inquiry a little more clear?

I’m not quite at a vegetative state for the evening..but I’m working on it.

July 5, 2005 @ 5:32 am | Comment

Sorry, I meant to address my questions above to Simon – not to Gordon.

Mark Anthony Jones

July 5, 2005 @ 5:34 am | Comment

But Gordon, you can of course answer too. My question is this: it’s generally accepted practice to be able to quote from newspaper articles, or from letters to the editor, so why is it not then also acceptable to quote from blog comments? This issue, as I said, was raised earlier on this thread, and Richard and I both assumed that the two practices were similar in law. Perhaps we are wrong?

Regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 5, 2005 @ 5:38 am | Comment

Thanks so much Laowai, I copied you on my email to the journal mentioned.

July 5, 2005 @ 5:47 am | Comment

Gordon’s other personality is that of an elderly Jewish Grandma from Brooklyn.Her name is Zelda.

July 5, 2005 @ 5:48 am | Comment

Mark,

Being that I hang out on the Free Republic from time to time, I refer you to the following cases:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/705427/posts

Of course there are many more examples such as, The Free Republic vs. Washington Times,
The Free Republic vs

Regards!

July 5, 2005 @ 5:49 am | Comment

AM,

Don’t you know I hate Jews?

Okay, that’s a lie, but anytime I question any of Israel’s actions that’s what they say about me on the Free Republic.

I guess I’m not a conservative since I don’t support Israel’s sale of technology to China and I don’t believe in God.

July 5, 2005 @ 5:52 am | Comment

Maybe I should change my blog name to “The Blacksheep” ?

July 5, 2005 @ 5:52 am | Comment

Hey,

I could even call myself the Ugly Duckling.

Richard doesn’t like my politics and neither do other ‘Conservatives’.

Damn…I’m the bastard duckling!

July 5, 2005 @ 5:54 am | Comment

But you make damn good soup.The “Soup Nazi” is already taken. Mengele’s Mulligatawny perhaps?Himmler’s hot and sour?

July 5, 2005 @ 6:14 am | Comment

Goebels GASpacho?

July 5, 2005 @ 7:04 am | Comment

This story became even better! (Soap oprea is a nice description, Simon) I feel extremly good entertaint.
So we all were white mice under Dr. Myers microscope. Interesting new feeling, although I doubt the quality of my comments was high enough to pass the Doctors high criteria (sorry my inferiority complex).

Don’t panic dear ducks, as we all know in the end it’s the mice who analyse the doctors.

MAJ: I’m male (admittedly with an unusual big womb envy). And I am quite curious what ground-breaking results the doctor will present in her article.

July 5, 2005 @ 7:40 am | Comment

“Don’t panic dear ducks, as we all know in the end it’s the mice who analyse the doctors.”

Sorry I think that must have been the superiority complex. Allways plays tricks with me.

July 5, 2005 @ 7:45 am | Comment

Maybe I should change my blog name to “The Blacksheep” ?

I think the best name is already taken for your situation, Gordon:
Shot by both sides

July 5, 2005 @ 7:48 am | Comment

Damn! You’ve nailed me, Sam.

July 5, 2005 @ 7:55 am | Comment

How about “stuck in the middle” or “lost in between”?

Maybe I’ll just start a post called “name this blog”.

LOL!

July 5, 2005 @ 7:56 am | Comment

oooooh..I know..

Stick in the mud?

July 5, 2005 @ 7:57 am | Comment

Man … (sorry for the use of a gender-based term, Dr Meyers/myers, Ann, Anne whateveryourname is)

Apologies to the many commenters who have posted above … I’ve not had time to more than skim through them. I tried to look at them, but just don’t have time to give them a thorough reading today. I didn’t even bother with the good doctor’s latest spiel … the first time you hear a joke it’s hilarious … the second time mildly amusing … after that, it just gets tiring.

MAJ … thanks for the information about the good doctor. Well … I guess it may help explain why there are a lot of totally ******-up people wandering around in London. Frankly though, I am appalled. To imagine that someone like this was out there for years working with vulnerable people … quite shocking.

I’m not a lawyer (though I did spend a couple of years in law school before I decided it wasn’t for me), so I’ve no idea about law-suits and the like, and frankly am not interested in such topics. On the other hand, as an academic, I’m troubled by an aspect of the good doctor’s research. I hope that she will only be writing about goings on at the Duck BEFORE her intrusion into the discussion, otherwise she has polluted her study, and rendered it academically flawed. Really, she should have never joined in at all, but I guess her ego doesn’t allow for being anonymous.

*** yawn *** I think I’ve had about as much amusement as I’m going to get out of the doctor. Now, the new series of Doctor Who on the other hand … I’m rather impressed. OK ok, I’m a sci-fi nerd too. (Guess that’ll help in your paper, Anne? ๐Ÿ˜‰ )

Hmmm … in other news: I’ll be heading off for a couple of weeks in New Zealand on Saturday, so I’m afraid my postings with be brief and irregular. I guess that good doctor will see this as a sign of my “superiority complex”, but I consider it to be basic human politeness to let people know, since I know my presence will be missed (dillusions of grandeur). Chuckle. OK, I guess I’m not quite done with the two-bit psycho-analysis.

July 5, 2005 @ 8:13 am | Comment

WOW! This whole thing is really getting nutso!

I guess we should all be on the lookout for an article about blog commenters in November’s issue of the British Journal of Social Psychology. Psychology is such a bore…ugh.

July 5, 2005 @ 8:47 am | Comment

ahem. anyway….

I’ve been seeing a lot of what may or may not be propaganda about millions of farmers who won’t have to pay agriculture taxes this year. I’ve heard it in the past and it was a load of crap. naively hoping this time it’ll be the real deal. anyone heard anything from the field? (as it were. ouch, unnecessary punnage)

July 5, 2005 @ 9:35 am | Comment

Interesting idea echo … if it happens, it’ll remind me of occasional relief measures the Han Dynasty used to use for their peasants …

July 5, 2005 @ 9:37 am | Comment

Would you like a message board, Richard? They’re extremely easy to install… and free.

July 5, 2005 @ 9:39 am | Comment

May I direct you to Jeremy’s recent post at Danwei?

I think he is on the ball!

http://www.danwei.org/archives/001939.html

July 5, 2005 @ 10:19 am | Comment

echo -I’m pretty sure it’s true. although 800 million is like all the peasants there are that aren’t in the migrant worker profession!

July 5, 2005 @ 10:33 am | Comment

laowai – not to sound like an arse, but how do you know it’s true? I want to do a thing on it if it is, but thus far what few farmers I know have avoided talking about the issue (language barrior might very well be part of the problem)

how odd is it that I feel that posting a reference to it without getting confirmation from the horse’s mouth would somehow help the propaganda machine…I need a chinese speaking cohort with a lot of time on their hands. but then that’d rather make me something of a journalist, wouldn’t it….sigh.

btw, sorry I haven’t been over to public enemy dao discussion in a while. haven’t forgotten you, it’s just my valient if likely doomed attempt to think before I speak ๐Ÿ˜‰

July 5, 2005 @ 10:50 am | Comment

Like I said wayyyy up thread – I don’t believe it. If Dr. Ann/Anne Gannon/Gluckert…OOPS. I mean “myers/meyers” really were writing such a paper, I don’t think she would come on to the site and insult her research subjects. Unless….hmmmm…it was part of the experiment!!!!! BWAH HAH HAH!!!!!!

July 5, 2005 @ 10:55 am | Comment

Oh, sorry. We’ve moved on. Thank god…

July 5, 2005 @ 10:56 am | Comment

Echo:
This is from ESWN (http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20050705_1.htm)

“There is no commercial tax in the cities, so why should there be agricultural taxes in the peasant villages? It makes no sense.” Chen said that Premier Wen Jiabao had formally proposed that all agricultural taxes be abolished by 2008. Previously the peasants bore a total tax burden of 90 billion yuan each year.

Last year, the central government began an experiment to eliminate agricultural taxes in Heilongjiang and Jilin provinces. But this year, many provinces and municipalities voluntarily offered to eliminate agricultural taxes as well. Chen Xiwen said that agricultural taxes now exist only in Shandong, Hebei, Guangxi and Yunnan provinces. In practice, Premier Wen’s goal will be realized by next year. The abolition of the agricultural taxes is made possible by the central government spending 64 billion yuan per year to make up for the lost revenue to the local governments.

July 5, 2005 @ 11:11 am | Comment

shulan – huge thanks, I managed to miss that, even though I was on eswn for half an hour earlier

so that accounts for the central govermnent tax, yes?…but I’ve been reading some studies that suggest that that tax accounts for only part of the farmer’s burden, the rest seems to be ‘extra fees’ of an undefined nature…

July 5, 2005 @ 11:27 am | Comment

I’m sure she could quote anyone here if she wanted to and not have legal problems — if academics aren’t allowed to cite primary sources (be they fiction or commentary or whatever) then where would we all be?

you know, I enjoy reading the comments here but if I had to plough through a whole years’s worth of them — for work, not for fun — I’m sure I’d soon enough get annoyed with the commenters and eventually build up enough of a head of steam to let loose on the unsuspecting little blighters.

anyway, like the Gannon/Gluckert Lisa (even if I had to google it first..)!

July 5, 2005 @ 11:35 am | Comment

Echo:
Heard about that too, but have no information.

July 5, 2005 @ 11:39 am | Comment

glukert/gannon? I don’t get it.

Echo – you’re very right to question it. The only stuff I’ve seen about it are in state sponsored stuff, your right. Saw something in people daily about a month ago. anyway, I think it’s legit, because the people who write “Survey of Chinese Peasantry” make reference to the tax reformation in their book, which was published 1.5 years ago. I think it’s been in the works a while, and was hailed (by the authors of the survey I mentioned, at least) as the biggest reform for peasants since land reform and farm reform in the 60’s and 70’s. If I have my translations right. which I might not.

July 5, 2005 @ 1:00 pm | Comment

I think the tax reform is, in part, meant to empower peasants – that is, I think the extra fees aren’t really CCP sanctioned, and therefore the idea, in part, behind getting rid of taxes was to be able to show the peasants that there are NO requirements of extra fees etc. on them, and that they don’t have to listen to the local official’s claims of there being such fees, which are all BS.

I think. again, might be wrong.

July 5, 2005 @ 1:03 pm | Comment

Laowai, bad joke, not worth rehashing.

July 5, 2005 @ 1:11 pm | Comment

laowai – thanks. truly hope you’re right. not holding my breath or anything, but really truly hope. wouldn’t that be a potentially interesting way to stop corruption…

assume for a minute that the central govermnent cares a little (yes, that’s a prety big assumption, but this is just theory so bear with me. you could also look at it as another measure of control, if they don’t keep the lower ducks in a row they’ll get toppled sooner or later, so best to keep the people at least partly happy). you can’t stop corruption individually on such a large scale. so what do you do? you teach the people their rights and let them do the lower level housecleaning. couple that with a freer press (note I did not say completely free, just more. well, I tried to, it’s too early to figure out the more version of free, a bizarre concept in its own right) and the judicial reform Ive been seeing articles about (notably trial by jury) you’ve got the beginnings of a check and balance system….hmm.

course, that leaves me with the question : how can they afford to lose 90 billion a year in tax revenue?

July 5, 2005 @ 6:10 pm | Comment

Interesting discussion. I do enjoy the way you constantly search for solutions to things Echo. Quite inspiring really.

I’m aware of my own limitations, which is exactly why I just wrote the above! Ha ha.

July 5, 2005 @ 6:33 pm | Comment

If you don’t mind, I’m shutting this bloated thread. Please use the new one. Thanks.

July 5, 2005 @ 6:57 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.