The Fantabulist

I will let readers draw their own conclusions about this rather intriguing bit of research started by commenter KLS about fellow commenter MAJ in the last open thread:

MAJ why are you just copying and pasting other people’s work?

for example, your really long comment above, starting “Dear Simon and Conrad, The value of the dollar vs the euro is directly related to…”

this is word-for-word copied from elsewhere.

I took a random line and googled it. the line was:
“the US effectively controls the world oil-market as the”

via google I discovered two websites where a long essay has been posted about euros and dollars and oil.
you copied and pasted over 700 words direct from that!

-see www.thirdworldtraveler.com/ Iraq/Iraq_dollar_vs_euro.html

the only thing you changed was to insert intros such as “Simon, Conrad – also remember that…” at the beginning of one or two of the paragraphs.

or take your next long comment, starting:
“Dear Conrad,
The other argument put forward by political analysists”

you directly copied and pasted 500 words that appear on this website:
see http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html

wouldn’t it have been good manners to acknowledge that these words are not your own? and, rather than filling up a thread, to have provided links to these websites instead?

Posted by KLS at July 11, 2005 11:54 AM .

Oh dear, this is an intriguing development indeed. I was so impressed, I started doing my own investigation.

Here’s what our feckless Marxist said yesterday (scroll to comment placed at 2:19):

More than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions and half of all the world exports are denominated in dollars and US currency accounts for about two-thirds of all official exchange reserves. The fact that billions of dollars worth of oil is priced in dollars ensures the world domination of the dollar. It allows the US to act as the world’s central bank, printing currency acceptable everywhere. The dollar has become an oil-backed, not gold-backed, currency.

Well said. Even brilliant. Only, here’s what Z Magazine had to say on the subject back in February 2004:

More than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions and half of all the world exports are denominated in dollars and U.S. currency accounts for about two-thirds of all official exchange reserves. The fact that billions of dollars worth of oil is priced in dollars ensures the world domination of the dollar. It allows the U.S. to act as the world’s central bank, printing currency acceptable everywhere. The dollar has become an oil-backed, not gold-backed, currency.

Well, well. What are the odds of that being a pure coincidence? And what would the good Dr. Anne Meyers have to say about someone so insecure and eager for attention and approval that he would resort to such nasty tricks, a la Jayson Blair?

A few days earlier, our friend was caught doing the same thing and, as usual, had a sorta-kinda excuse akin to a dog eating one’s homework; that excuse, where he said he had made reference to his source and was rapidly cutting and pasting and blah blah blah – that excuse won’t fly this time because there’s no attribution. Zero. It is literally an act of deception, in which MAJ consciously and consistently led us all to believe he himself was the author. And that is a very serious offense.

Again, I like MAJ. But when you blog, what you write is there for everyone to see, and if you get caught BS’ing, your crediblity is gone for good. This is a matter of lying. Deception. Fraud. And he’s a repeat offender. And not even the good “Dr.” Anne Myers can get him out of this mess. Sorry if this causes you a tad of embarrassment, Mark, but you left yourself wide open. I invite readers to comb the archives and find other instances of MAJ’s creative cut & paste capabilities. There’s a lot more where these few examples came from.

[Note: In reaction to this post, Mark Anthony Jones tried to get this blog banned in China, creating another fantabulistic piece, this time for China Daily, in which he simply makes things up and calls this a "hate site." Obviously, his efforts weren't successful, but he managed to inflict a lot of misery, publishing my undisclosed full name and other personal details all over the web and embarking on a campaign of character assassination. All because readers here pointed out a simple truth: Mark Anthony Jones likes to make things up. Anyway, it's a sad story, and I hope he comes to peace with who he is and learns that you can't make fools of people and expect to get away with it forever.]

Update: I realize this is a very long comment thread. If you don’t have the wherewithal to get through the entire thing, at least be sure to see this comment. But do try to read it all- it’s astonishing. Thanks.

Update, January 26, 2010: I originally had a picture of a crying baby here. I am taking it down. I learned today that Jones is dead, and I am not comfortable with any image making fun of him.

______________

Richard Burger is the author of Behind the Red Door: Sex in China, an exploration of China's sexual revolution and its clash with traditional Chinese values.

The Discussion: 215 Comments

Good point Devi, I take it all back.

Shulan, isn’t that a bit of an understatement — “raises some questions”?! The guy was caught red-handed, and there ain’t no way to sweet-talk his way out.

July 11, 2005 @ 5:45 pm | Comment

Mark, every one of us cites sources and gives links. None of us cuts and pastes WITHOUT QUOTATION MARKS. Two little keystrokes, that’s all you need. This is in no way a vicious attack. I said you’d have an excuse — oh yeah, you mentioned this to Lirelou a year ago, how silly of me to forget!

No Mark, this is weird. I have never, ever seen anyone do it before, here or on any other blog. Only you. And yet you shrug it off as though it’s a common practice. It isn’t. Take responsibility for your actions. Let’s ask Dr. Myers for her diagnosis — seriously. Good doctor, is this normal? Should we all assume that at any time, even in mid-sentence, the speaker might shift from Mark to an unnamed source, though he gives us no indication? Is this standard procedure and an acceptable way to interact? I’ve never heard of such a thing before, but perhaps you can shed some light on the mental machinations of your alter ego….

Sorry if this seems vicious Mark, but I think it is absolutely fair and justified. We all call each other on our respective comments, and in this case you have indeed been called, and so far, no one is standing up for the practice of sneaking in pasted text from others and passing it off as your own. That is a giant no-no, and everyone here knows it.

July 11, 2005 @ 7:02 pm | Comment

Intellectual property belongs to the people! Down with the oppressor’s attributions!

July 11, 2005 @ 5:19 pm | Comment

I was a little reluctant to accuse MAJ to play games here, espacialy what concernes the dear doctor, but KLF’s recent post raises some questions.

July 11, 2005 @ 5:25 pm | Comment

Careful Richard! He’s going to call his lawyers and file a defamation of character lawsuit any second now! If I were you, I’d be shakin’ in me skin.

July 11, 2005 @ 5:37 pm | Comment

Dear All:

Look, this really is a vicious and unfair attack. I have always let it be known that I often copy and paste extracts from other articles – I have discussed this with Lirelou last year, and I have more recently explained this to Conrad. These are only blog comments, knocked up by me in a hurry. I don’t try to pass these arguments off as my own – I always says whose ideas they belong to. I don’t. for example, copy and paste from Clark’s article without making it clear that the views are Clark’s.

Regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 11, 2005 @ 6:46 pm | Comment

Dear Richard,

I usually do, if you check, use quotation marks. I did many times yesterday. I just checked over what I wrote, and there were a few instances, yes, where I failed to do so – but in the majority of cases I did. Remember that these comments are knocked out very quickly – it’s why I also make many careless typing errors. I write these during my work hours, usually whilst trying to do numerous others tasks. I have an enormous amount of email correspondence to attend to all day long.

Yes, I should have taken more care. But as far as I am concerned, these are only a blog entry, and I (like Conrad and Simon) are pushing discourse here! Remember that. These debates are about pushing discourse, and if I find it easier to copy and paste extracts I will. Yes, I should take more care, and be sure to always acknowledge the source. I normally do, I usually do, sometimes I don’t – I sometimes forget to because I’m in such a hurry, my thought running ahead of me too quickly to double back and check what I have just written. O.K. Fair enough. I apologise for that. I will try to take more care in future.

But because I copy and paste, this, surely, doesn’t invalidate the discourse that I’m pushing, does it? There is nothing wrong with copying and pasting, as long as I acknowledge the source – and as I said, 8 out of ten times I do.

But take a careful look at this post that you have baked, with the picture of the baby crying! That to me, is viscious and unnecessary. You are poking fun at me, trivialising me so as to yet further marginalise both me and the discourse that I bring to these pages. The object here is clearly to embarrass.

I’m not going to be deterred by it, though I am offended.

Regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 11, 2005 @ 7:31 pm | Comment

Mark, I felt you were mighty offensive in your interactions with another blogger last night. So offensive that he says he will no longer return to the comments in the foreseeable future. So pardon me if I don’t treat you with kid gloves.

Let’s face it, you’ve been exposed. No one has any way of knowing if they are reading you or some secret source. No one can claim you are brilliant anymore, because they can’t know if you are the one who came up with the words posted in your name. In light of learning this, I don’t want to censor you or delete, but I would like to respectfully ask that you consider placing your comments on someone else’s blog and avoid this one, as I do not like commenters presenting words of others as their own. Maybe other bloggers find that good form, but in all sincerity I do not. So please, consider my request. Because I can assure you, if you stick around this will be thrown back in your face with just about every comment you make. None of us knows who you are, and if you want to know the truth this whole episode is kind of creepy.

July 11, 2005 @ 7:40 pm | Comment

yeah, judging by the amount that you write here, i can’t even imagine how long your e-mails must be. that must keep you busy. i’m sure e-mails can get really long if you cut and paste them too.
i just think it’s funny that once MAJ got in a heated argument again, the psychologist suddenly turned into an economist and backed MAJ up. please, do you think are we all in kindergarten here? it’s painfully obvious that it hurts MAJ’s ego to be refuted for his borderline ridiculous ideas, and when this does happen, he switches to Dr. Anus Magic to pretend that at least someone agrees with him.
frankly, i think mark is a little cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

July 11, 2005 @ 7:41 pm | Comment

In his dog troll, MAJ took care to label material from his trip journal as “EXTRACT”, but the introductory material, where unlike the economics arguments, one would have no reason to expect outside sources to be even necessary, the stuff he lifted from an anti-cruelty website went unattributed:

MAJ text:

The dog meat trade is becoming increasingly industrialised here in China, and is even being promoted by the government in some provinces. Huge dog farms are now being developed and the importation of giant gentle breeds, like the St. Bernard, has already become common place. They are cross bred with local Chinese mongrels to produce a fast growing, docile “meat dog” that can be slaughtered at only four months.

China Cuisine:

The dog meat trade is becoming increasingly industrialized and is even promoted by the government in some provinces. Huge dog farms have been developed and the importation of giant gentle breeds, like the St. Bernard, which is cross bred with the local Chinese mongrel to produce a fast growing, docile “meat dog” that can be slaughtered at 4 months.

Slight differences, so who knows what the actual source is, but obviously the same pedigree, so to speak.

July 11, 2005 @ 7:51 pm | Comment

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Mark is quite the Master Paster.

Heh!

July 11, 2005 @ 7:56 pm | Comment

An article was pasted as a journal entry? Damn, now that’s some real BS.

July 11, 2005 @ 7:58 pm | Comment

Dear Richard,

I will respect your request, and will refrain from posting any further comments on Peking Duck. This will be my last.

But first, please allow me to say a few things.

1. As I just finished pointing out, roughly 8 out of 10 times, when I copy and paste, I take care to acknowledge the source. Sometimes I do not, and for the reasons I just exaplained above.

2. It is not in my interests, contrary to what you and many others might like to think, to promote myself on this site as being somebody who is “brilliant”. I have, on numerous occasions already, explained why I contribute to the site: my purpose is to test the strength and validy of particular discourse, and in order to do this, one must push a view or a line of argument as far as possible, to see how far one can get away with it. That’s how you measure the strength of an argument. I copy and paste quite often to save time, because I am pushing a discourse which requires detail, and I am very contrained by time. Yes, as I just said above, I should take more care to ensure that I ALWAYS acknowledge the source. I agree.

3. The other commentator, as far as I am concerned – the one you are referring to in your comment above, over-reacted to a comment I made, which was in no way a personal attack on him (I did even mention him – in fact, it wasn’t attacking or criticising anybody!) and in doing so, he bombarded me with expletives. He called me a “sad sh*t” and asked me to “fu*k off”. That kind of behaviour is unacceptable on most blogs. It’s antisocial, juvenile, and outright rude and abnoxious. Rather than openly criticising him for that, you instead attack the victim! This other commentator claims that my comments about eating dog meat were offensive. I don’t think there was anything offensive about that comment. His reaction was certainly offensive though, and he ought to grow up and behave a little more maturely. If he wants to refrain voluntarily from placing any further comments on Peking Duck than that’s his decision. I am in no way taking any responsibility for his behaviour in attacking me, for his appalling use of language, or for his decision to no longer contribute to this site.

And on that note, I shall bid you adieu Richard.

Regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 11, 2005 @ 8:01 pm | Comment

Mark (Master Paster) Jones has left the blog ….again.

Richard, after that “last” post by MAJ, I’d say that photo you published along with this post turned out to be dead on.

July 11, 2005 @ 8:06 pm | Comment

Just one more quick comment -

Dear Gordon,

If you read July’s comment carefully enough, you will see that the pasted entry he/she was referring to was not taken from my journal, but from the passage used to introduce the extract on this blog. And that passge was not pasted from that anti-cruelty site – that site has in fact pasted it from another site – a site reporting on a Chinese businessman’s dog meat business – so that anti-cruely website has lifted it from elsewhere.

I actually changed the wording a little, and my purpose for using it was to providee some context for readers in which to view my own travelogue. Yes, once again, I acknowledge that I should take more care to acknowledge my sources – but this is ONLY a blog entry.

Some of the passagers which KLS claims I copied and pasted from also actually came from other sites, from other sources – it is common practice to copy and paste large extracts. Sometimes the source is acknoweldged by these sites, sometimes not.

Regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 11, 2005 @ 8:20 pm | Comment

Thanks Gordon, and it’s just what needed to be done. Sorry, but once again, he was making this the Mark Anthony Jones blog, even though the stuff he was posting wasn’t from Mark Anthony Jones!!

And to that anonymous poster above with the dog meat quotes, I have just two words to say: THANK YOU! That is great work on your part, and really finalizes things. Nothing posted under MAJ’s name can be assumed to be from him. Nothing. What a shame.

Maj, as to your last comment — as Walsh said to Joseph McCarthy in the Army hearings, “Have you no sense of decency?” Can you not respect the fact that you were insensitive and caused a really good person unnecessary anguish? Let’s leave it at that. Now, for once, please keep your word — stop posting.

July 11, 2005 @ 8:23 pm | Comment

Sorry Gordon,

What I meant to say above, is that the passage from the anti-cruelty site was not used by me as part of my journal, but as part of the introduction I used on this site to introduce my extract. And as I said, the source of this information came from a Chinese English language newspaper, reporting on the activities of a particular businessman. The anti-cruelty site has also copied and pasted it, and without acknowledging the source.

Regards again, that this is definitely my last entry. Oh, and by the way Gordon, I’m leaving because Richard has asked me to. No other reason.

Mark Anthony Jones

July 11, 2005 @ 8:24 pm | Comment

Mark,

you and Dr. Anus Myers seem to have something else in common…an obsessive – compulsive disorder.

“She” stated that she would never post again on TPD, but somehow couldn’t resist once she saw that you were in trouble yesterday and how many other times did she say “this is my last comment”, only to return and post more later.

That’s exactly what you keep doing now….

Very interesting.

July 11, 2005 @ 8:37 pm | Comment

Actually Mark, I think you declared that you wouldn’t be posting any more to TPD before Richard every said anything about it.

July 11, 2005 @ 8:38 pm | Comment

Two choices, Mark. Stay and try to recover your credibility, or run off leaving the permanent impression that you’re not a thinker, just an agitator.

You don’t get the choice of whether to have a reputation or not, only what kind of reputation it is. When you chose to “write” so much from other people’s thoughts, you earned the reputation as a second-hand thinker. The “cruelty” is not from the people who caught you with your hand in the cookie-jar, but from the people (if any) who encouraged you to keep the charade up.

July 11, 2005 @ 8:57 pm | Comment

Please Sam, don’t invite him to post again. Please?

July 11, 2005 @ 9:09 pm | Comment

Oh, I don’t think MAJ will be posting again; nor will Dr. Anne Myers:

From MAJ’s comments on what Dr. Anne Myers told him:

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.

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.)

From Asian Business Strategy:

The Japanese also harbor a superiority complex that is as strong if not stronger than that of most other nationalities. But in the case of the Japanese, their national character is far more complicated because they are also subject at the same time to an intense inferiority complex.

The core of the traditional Japanese superiority complex 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, I might add, that has long since disappeared in post-feudal generations.)

(this is just a small sampling; practically the whole comment is lifted from this book excerpt). Is Dr. Anne Myers really Boye Lafayette De Mente, or just a plagiaristic figment of MAJ’s imagination?

Additionally, from prolurker, the blog of Lois Ann Scheidt, a doctoral student at Bloomington, IL:

For researchers, chatrooms are, or were, a ripe field for research on how teens interact with other teens without the strictures imposed by adults.

MAJ on Dr. Anne Myers:

She points out, for example, that for researchers, internet chatrooms are now a ripe field for study on how teens interact with other teens without the strictures imposed by adults.

Sorry for the length and massive quoting, Richard.

July 11, 2005 @ 9:30 pm | Comment

Sorry. I retract the implied invitation.

July 11, 2005 @ 9:32 pm | Comment

Richard, does that ban also extend to “Dr. Anne Myers”?

July 11, 2005 @ 9:34 pm | Comment

Dear Sam,

Gordon and others will no doubt have a field day because I am yet again posting a comment, after I just declared that I will be making no further comments, out of respect for Richard’s wishes.

But since you just addressed a comment to me, and because it was such a thoughtful one, I feel as though I owe you a reply nevertheless. I don’t wish to continue commenting though, out of respect for Richard’s wishes, so I shall be logging off this site as soon as I complete this entry – to avoid any further temptation!

Sam, I really do think that I ought to make this one my last.

Let me address your comment here though. I don’t mind whether or not people think of me as a thinker, or as an agitator. My purpose in making contributions to this website was in fact to push a discourse to test the strengths of particular lines of argument – so yes, I have in fact always used this site to be an agitator. As I said earlier, in order to measure the strength of an argument, one must try pushing it as far as possible, to see how far one can get away with it.

I have never tried to argue that the discourse that I push here is original to me. Never. Nothing I have ever pushed here is new, and I have never pretended otherwise. Always I say that this view is “shared by” or is “endorsed by” or is “argued by” or is “put forward by” so and so – by Gore Vidal, of John Pilger, or Chomsky, or the Wall Street Journal, or so-and-so writing for The Guardian, whoever.

Because I sometimes (roughly 8 out of 10 times) fail to acknowledge my source when I copy and paste, does not mean that I am a second-hand thinker. That I push the views of others at all, regardless of whether I copy and paste or not, does not make me a second-hand thinker. I often used to earn for myself High Distinctions for my university essays, and I have a First Class Honours, etc. I mention this because although such recognition is no big deal, it does show that I do not try to pass off other people’s ideas as my own when writing for different audiences, in different contexts, and because it also shows that I am capable of reading a variety of views, comprehending them, and then sythesising them to come up with slants or positions (conclusions, if you like) of my own.

I do not do that here on Peking Duck though, why would I go to that much trouble? These are only blog entries, after all. My purpose here, as I said, has always been to push a particular discourse, and to see how far I can get away with pushing it – to measure, or to test, its strength. I benefit form that, especially when I’m successfully challenged (by which, of course, I mean when the discourse I’m pushing is successfully challenged).

My credibility has been called into question because it has been revealed that I have, on numerous occasions, copied and pasted extracts without acknowledging the source. O.K. That’s a fair criticism, and yes, I should take more care and make sure that I acknowledge the source 10 out of 10 times, and not just 8 out of 10 times. I accept that.

I am refraining from commenting on this site because Richard has requested that I do so. If I leave readers with the permanent impression that I am an agitator, rather than a thinker, then so be it. As far as I am concerned, I am neither one or the other, but both. If I leave others with a different impression of me, then fine. A little regretable perhaps, yes. Partly my own fault perhaps, yes.

The way I have been presented here today though, with crying baby photo and all, is cruel, because it is designed to humiliate, and it makes my transgressions look far worse and meaningful than they actually are.

Still, I am not running off in protest, but because I have been asked to no longer contribute. That’s probably a good thing for me anyway, in some ways at least, because my work load is increasing, and so not having to continually respond to other peoples’ comments will be a task I no longer need to burden. I’m not suggesting that I haven’t enjoyed delivering such responses, but it does tax my time, and to a degree that I can no longer really afford.

I shall conclude here Sam. As I said, I shall log off this site now, so that I will no longer be tempted to respond to further comments. I have lots of other things to get on with at any rate.

Best regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

July 11, 2005 @ 9:35 pm | Comment

Oh, I don’t think MAJ will be posting again; nor will Dr. Anne Myers:

From MAJ’s comments on what Dr. Anne Myers told him:

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.

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.)

From Asian Business Strategy:

The Japanese also harbor a superiority complex that is as strong if not stronger than that of most other nationalities. But in the case of the Japanese, their national character is far more complicated because they are also subject at the same time to an intense inferiority complex.

The core of the traditional Japanese superiority complex 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, I might add, that has long since disappeared in post-feudal generations.)

(this is just a small sampling; practically the whole comment is lifted from this book excerpt). Is Dr. Anne Myers really Boye Lafayette De Mente, or just a plagiaristic figment of MAJ’s imagination?

July 11, 2005 @ 9:36 pm | Comment

Additionally, from prolurker, the blog of Lois Ann Scheidt, a doctoral student at Bloomington, IL:

For researchers, chatrooms are, or were, a ripe field for research on how teens interact with other teens without the strictures imposed by adults.

MAJ on Dr. Anne Myers:

She points out, for example, that for researchers, internet chatrooms are now a ripe field for study on how teens interact with other teens without the strictures imposed by adults.

Sorry for the length and massive quoting, Richard.

July 11, 2005 @ 9:37 pm | Comment

MAJ, All of this time I thought YOU were smart.First O.J., Robert Blake then Michael Jackson, now MAJ. It’s a dark day at American man’s house.

July 11, 2005 @ 9:43 pm | Comment

So, if Dr. Anne is really Mark and Dr. Anne was asking me to send her pictures of my penis, then . . . EEEWWWW!!!

July 11, 2005 @ 10:04 pm | Comment

Apologies for my inexcusable bad language yesterday everybody, I’m very sorry for losing control. Please forgive.

MAJ is an complete and utter fraud. I went back into the acrchives, April 2005, and the very FIRST sentence I searched for on Google, well take a look for yourselves, you won’t believe it:

http://tinyurl.com/9d9ol

How the hell can MAJ claim that he uses TPD to test out his arguments and try and take his arguments as far as he can go when, for months, all he’s been doing is Google-ing keywords and pasting entire articles onto this site and putting his own name to them?

The wierdo even takes the time to prefix a lot of stolen paragraphs with the words, “Now look Richard….” “Also, please don’t forget Dylan….”.

UTTER FRAUDSTER.

ABSOLUTELY SHAMELESS.

A WALTER MITTY CHARACTER.

GOOD RIDDANCE.

July 11, 2005 @ 10:10 pm | Comment

Conrad,YOU have been violated by MAJ. Run to the shower.

July 11, 2005 @ 10:14 pm | Comment

Maj is a Chinese transexual, PSB spy, fibbin’, pooch eatin’, fake Marxist agitator? “Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio?”Now I have to worship Da Shan.

July 11, 2005 @ 10:22 pm | Comment

Also, FYI, I’ve lived in Guangzhou for 5 long years and I know everybody here as Guangzhou isn’t Beijing or Shanghai.

I know the British Consulate guys as well. If a 64 year-old British woman lived here, then, trust me, I would be able to find out. There are few enough expat ladies here as it is, never mind 64 year-old expat ladies.

I asked my mate, my drinking buddy at the consulate if any old ladies have registered with the consulate, or whether he’s heard of a 64 British woman……the answer was no.

I asked my mate who’s been here for 13 years and knows everybody…….no. I asked him to ask around……..no.

I asked a mate who’s a middle-aged member of the Guangzhou International Wimmins Club……no.

I asked the managers of the 3 biggest expat bars in Guangzhou…..no.

Errrr…..no.

July 11, 2005 @ 10:22 pm | Comment

Martyn, that tinyurl you posted — that is a great find. So he’s been doing this right ffor a long time. I have to say, I’m really disappointed. I had a lot of respect for MAJ’s intellect, only now I see it was someone else’s intellect I was respecting.

July 11, 2005 @ 10:35 pm | Comment

BWAHAHAHAHA!!

The Master Paster who proclaimed that he/she? wouldn’t be posting to the TPD again returned for another helping.

Well thanks to our anonymous poster, we know that Dr. Anne Myers and Mark Anthony Jones are indeed one in the same and that both personalities have a fetish for Conrad’s penis.

Yikes!

July 11, 2005 @ 10:40 pm | Comment

Hey Mark, you’re pants are on fire.

July 11, 2005 @ 10:41 pm | Comment

* your

July 11, 2005 @ 10:42 pm | Comment

By the way, the tinyurl refers to a sentence I Google-ed from one of MAJ’s marathon length comments starting “Dear Dylan” and posted at 11:33pm.

How does it feel Richard to find out that all the time on that thread you were arguing with pasted articles from Goole-ed keywords?

Incidently, that particular thread was the one that ended with MAJ threatening to file a lawsuit and the nutcase actually claimed to have taken legal advice…….and all the time he knew damn well that his “arguments” were nothing more than pasted articles that he found on the Internet. That is seriously, seriously wierd.

No wonder he never wanted to start his own blog. How could he? He was a conman, a fraud. If he had an ounce of intellect then he wouldn’t have Google-ed hundreds of articles and pasted them Verboten on this site and claimed they were “his” well-thought out arguments.

Really, his constant claims to “test” his arguments on this site is utter nonsense as, the fact is, he didn’t have any. He duped everyone into thinking of him as a expert on economics, dieases, anthopology, history, politics, China, Asia, etc. etc.

All the time he was just a fool with access to a Google Search Engine.

The Anne Myers incident is just too wierd for words.

July 11, 2005 @ 10:46 pm | Comment

pete:

Well done for spotting that Anne Myers and MAJ were, indeed, one and the same twisted person.

I doff my hat to you sir. I was completely fooled. Richard did you ever answer pete’s question about the IP addresses of Anne and MAJ?

MAJ, if there’s sone organisation, some charity that help people like you, then be sure to let me know about it, thanks.

July 11, 2005 @ 10:48 pm | Comment

This whole thing is qute beyond belief. I’m not sure who the anonymous poster above is who proved that MAJ and Dr. Anne are one and the same (which I personally doubted until now), but thank you.

Normally I would make jokes about this, but something here isn’t funny. Not at all.

July 11, 2005 @ 10:53 pm | Comment

Just my two cents:

Mark is probably seriously depressed, living in China for 4 years and not speaking the language well enough to read or listen to the news. We’re probably the only community he really has. And he’s pissed most of us off. I feel sorry for him.

His plaigarism is amazingly brash – I’m suprised it took this long given how much he’s done it. Good work KLS.

So – MAJ, you’ve managed to bring yourself to the level of an 18 year old freshman, pasting articles into your first year intro to East Asian studies paper. I recommend you drop the Bohemian crap and learn Chinese, and make an effort to become part of a place that you’ve lived in for 4 years. You’ll be happier.

Re: Anne Myers – it really makes sense now – he probably googled conference and Beijing and got that, then picked Anne Myers up…. it’s really weird. Hence my thought about depression.

July 11, 2005 @ 11:00 pm | Comment

Laowai, you’re quite right. It started off as kind of funny/weird, and then when I saw just a few minutes ago how he had created Dr. Meyers it changed into sad/weird. In retrospect, I might not have done the post like this if I had known, but I at first thought it was just a matter of some reckless copying, not something deeper and very sad.

July 11, 2005 @ 11:04 pm | Comment

Oh my god, this is so totally weird, I just went back and read the comments where MAJ is “quoting” Dr. Anne’s emails to him…..SO Norman Bates! (“Dr. Anne isn’t quite herself today….”)

July 11, 2005 @ 11:10 pm | Comment

Martyn, that tinyurl is amazing.

Mark cut and pasted, and then SCULPTED – by inserting a “This is indeed true, and you are right to draw attention to this.” And then continuing with the source’s paragraph.

This is the clearest evidence of a total disregard for the rules on giving credit to sources. Block quoting is fine, but you can’t easily do what mark did in that post and still give your source credit, because it requires breaking the quotes up into smaller sentences an it’s messy. Anyway, it’s beyond incredible.

does anyone know if Mark Anthony Jones’ name is really Mark Anthony Jones? The whole thing could be a total fraud and we could be dealing with an 18 year old Chinese kid in Shenzhen. I mean, it’s very rare for me to run into western acadmics (mark, the self-claimed historian) that are so incredible bad about plaigarising.

July 11, 2005 @ 11:10 pm | Comment

Holy moly….

July 11, 2005 @ 11:15 pm | Comment

So much makes sense now, remember all that stuff about how Anne Myers has to go to the airport but kept coming back with comment after comment? That’s typical MAJ.

Also, the way she promised to stop commenting and then, bang! she reappeared last night to back up MAJ’s arguments. That’s typical MAJ.

As Richard said above, perhaps this all started off as exposing someone who’s been caught pasting articles off the Net but now I think it’s proved to be a lot more than that. We’ve got to feel sorry for the guy.

Perhaps the baby photo could be taken down as recognition of this? Just a suggestion.

Btw, dawanr, nice to see you talktalkchina guys over here. You’re right, the Norman Bates stuff is seriously creepy.

July 11, 2005 @ 11:24 pm | Comment

All of this speculation about Mark Anthony Jones’ plagiarism seems to me to have developed into a real storm in a teacup. He has, I have noticed, apologised for not always acknowledging his sources, and he has, I have noticed, accepted the criticisms as fair and valid.

He acknowledges that he ought to draw attention to his sources ALL the time, not just “roughly 7 or 8 times out of 10.”

His points, as outlined in his address to Sam, earlier up on this thread, are valid, I think, and ought to be read by all with both care and consideration.

Respectfully,
Mark Anthony James

July 11, 2005 @ 11:29 pm | Comment

Damn, I thought he meant it this time and was really leaving. Dr. Anus, please just go already.

July 11, 2005 @ 11:30 pm | Comment

Mark, now that you’re back, please take the time to learn Chinese. You’ll be happier.

July 11, 2005 @ 11:34 pm | Comment

boo – I think you may be confusing me with Mark Anthony Jones. I am, you will notice, Mark Anthony James.

We may both share the same computer, and hence the same IP address, but we write under different names. Even if we suppose that Mark Anthony Jones and me, mark Anthony James are in fact one and the same person, in ACTUALITY, the two different (but admitedly similar) pen names represent different voices, separate discourses, if you like.

Mark Anthony Jones, I suspect, has indeed ceased contributing to this website. Mark Anthony James is just beginning.

Respectfully,
Mark Anthony James

July 11, 2005 @ 11:36 pm | Comment

I’d like everyone to see MAJ’s last two comments. One is signed Mark Anthony Jones, the one prior is signed Mark Anthony JAMES. What the fuck is going on here? No one makes a Freudian slip and gets his name wrong!

July 11, 2005 @ 11:38 pm | Comment

Oh gawd!

As Bugs Bunny would say, “What a Maroon!”

July 11, 2005 @ 11:40 pm | Comment

Yes, thanks for pointing that out to me Richard. I made a careless typing error.

Mark Anthony James

July 11, 2005 @ 11:41 pm | Comment

Richard,

It would appear that Cybil is now speaking in the ‘third person’.

July 11, 2005 @ 11:41 pm | Comment

Yes – thanking for pointing that out to me Richard. I made a rather careless typing error – not a good start to my debut on this site, I admit.

Respectfully,
Mark Anthony James

July 11, 2005 @ 11:42 pm | Comment

Yes- thank you for pointing out my rather careless typing error Richard.

Not a good start to my debut on this site, I admit.

respectfully,
Mark Anthony James

July 11, 2005 @ 11:44 pm | Comment

MAJ, why don’t you go and check what we’re talking about. Storm in a teacup? Not a chance my friend, not a chance. You’re not going to dance your way out of this one.

This tinyurl is of a Google search from one of your marathon posts in April. If you click on the Peking Duck link, look at the 11:33am post “Dear Dylan” you will find 14 long and agonising paragraphs regarding the political structure of Chinese villages.

http://tinyurl.com/9d9ol

HOWEVER, apart from the first paragraph which reads:

“Dear Dylan, you are absolutely correct in pointing out the fact that the elected village committee competes in most villages with the CPC village branch office.”

and the final paragraph which reads:

“It is on this basis that I rested my earlier comment, cautioning people from assuming that all, or that most villages here in China, suffer from [the] same kind of [political] dysfunctionalism as Huankantou village. I’m not aware of any statistical research into this issue either Dylan, and so my comment was based not on quantitative research, but on what qualitative analysis there is available.”

…I’m sorry? Your 12-paragraph comment was based on “what qualitative analysis was available” and not on quantitative research?

No it wasn’t, your entire comment was cut+pasted from cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad or tinyurl:

http://tinyurl.com/bdhy2

Not only that but, as Laowai points out, you took the time to sculpt the stolen words to make it sound as if you were specifically addressing Dylan.

None of that post was your own argument, not a single word and then you have the gaul to put a little disclaimer at the end saying that your argument was based on what “qualitative analysis was available”. No it wasn’t, it was completely stolen from an academic resource website.

July 11, 2005 @ 11:44 pm | Comment

hold on guys, i think the mark anthony james thing is a joke, like a parody or something.
at least i hope so!

July 11, 2005 @ 11:49 pm | Comment

Martyn, a little French bashing?

“have the gaul….” haha!

Mark, I also have a second recommendation: Drop the f*cking pretentiousness. Just be Mark. Don’t start out “Dear…” Don’t sign off with a full (and fricking FALSE) name or “persona” or whatever you want to call it. Just be a person. Your plaigarism is insulting, but your pretense doubly so. You’re going to have to work hard if you want respect and credibility again, I suspect. Might as well start off by being a person first and a concept last, and not the other way around.

July 11, 2005 @ 11:52 pm | Comment

By the way, Mark, if you “reject” the accusation that you are not Anne Myers (never mind all that Mark Anthony JAmes rubbish above) then we can easily sort it out right here and right now. After all, if we’re wrong we’re massively wrong.

Bearing in mind the enormity of our accusation, I trust you can ask Ms Myers to:

- Ask her to Email Richard and I will provide my Guangzhou home phone number, ask her to ring me?

- Or, failing that, I know Guangzhou like the back of my hand, she claims to live in Tianhe, where I used to work. Let me ask her a few questions that only Tianhe residents would know?

Problem solved.

July 11, 2005 @ 11:59 pm | Comment

waaah, I’m feeling rather guilty this morning. ignorance is bliss and all.
MAJ the trouble with pasting stuff and not acknowledging that you’ve done it is the implied dishonesty.
it also makes us (or me at least) feel stupid for reading what you’ve written and taking the time to respond ourselves, when you have just been cutting and pasting. I guess this is just a pride thing.
and in the light of all the criticism for ages about how long your comments are, which you generally disregarded, it seems doubly cheecky now that we know all you needed to do was post a link to your source.

that said I’ve enjoyed some of your shorter comments in the recent past and feel guilty if I’ve helped chase you outta town.

July 12, 2005 @ 12:02 am | Comment

Dear Laowai – Why can’t either Mark Anthony Jones or myself, Mark Anthony James, be a concept? What is fundamentally wrong with presenting oneself as a concept, or as an enigma even? This is, afterall, cyberspace! I am not socialising with people or exchanging ideas with people in the flesh. Nobody on this website that I communicate with falls within my actual line of space. I am separated from you all in both terms of time and space, and that is one of the beauties of the world wide web – I can be whoever I want to be. I can be enigmatic, or I can present myself as a concept – as a joker, as an academic, as a doctor, as a paranoid schizophrenic, as a man, as a woman, as an androgenous playboy – I can be anything or anyone I want to be. That is what makes cyberspace so liberating, so entertaining.

I couldn’t care less whether or not one of my personas is well respected or seen to be credible or not. It doesn’t matter to me in the slightest.

Kevin – speaking as Mark Anthony James here (I should clarify for you here who I am) your perceptive comment above wins you my praise! Not that my praise will mean anything to you, I’m sure! But you are right about my use of parody – in that parody is the face of cyberspace, just as kitsch is the face of consumerism (the commodity aesthetic).

Respectfully,
Mark Anthony James

July 12, 2005 @ 12:08 am | Comment

KLS – no need to feel guilty my friend. By helping to destroy Mark Anthony Jones, yuo have helped to give birth to yours truly, Mark Anthony James!

I really can’t thank you enough for that!

Respectfully,
Mark Anthony James

July 12, 2005 @ 12:12 am | Comment

Ban him…and ban him everytime he posts on another computer or in a Internet cafe.

Ban him.

July 12, 2005 @ 12:16 am | Comment

KLS…and to think you actually felt guilty for him.

July 12, 2005 @ 12:17 am | Comment

Brain…hurt.

July 12, 2005 @ 12:19 am | Comment

Dear Mark Anthony James,
I quite concur with you, my dear. Now send me a pic of your wiener. I find it truly aesthetically pleasing.
I also concur with your comment on the commodity aesthetic. That was certainly not a careless typo, to say the least!
Now I must be off, I missed that plane last week, and am still in the airport psychoanalyzing the workers at the KFC in terminal 5. I realized that KFC actually refers to their castration desire, namely Kastration For Cleanliness.
Alas, I concur. Long live careless typos and the consumer aesthetic. Pay for your gas in Euros, boyz…

Respectfully yours,
Dr. Anus McMickey

July 12, 2005 @ 12:22 am | Comment

Mark, it seems to me that this lightness of being that you describe is what got you in trouble in the first place. You were so light and airy in being MAJ that you managed also to be many other things – all the intellectual work of other people. This is why I think you’d be better suited to being just yourself, instead of being so fluid with identity. Because you’ve done that before, and created a concept that spouts google searches. Be yourself man! You are good enough, you know, just to be yourself.

You have to realise how bad it looks, Mark, to say

“I can be whoever I want to be. I can be enigmatic, or I can present myself as a concept – as a joker, as an academic, as a doctor, as a paranoid schizophrenic, as a man, as a woman, as an androgenous playboy – I can be anything or anyone I want to be. That is what makes cyberspace so liberating, so entertaining.”

Because we didn’t realise that you were looking at this as a game, a form of entertainment at our expense, to validate your multiple identities, your whims and desires. You have a remarkable lack of self-reflection, given your ability to create multiple selves.

I’m happy to talk to Mark. But this Mark Anthony James/Jones stuff is too much. Please, just be yourself.

July 12, 2005 @ 12:26 am | Comment

Martyn,

Mark Anthony Jones was far more gracious towards you than you have shown yourself to be towards him. He specifically asked Richard NOT to ban you, I noticed, and he stated explicitly that he did not want to see you banned, despite the vehemence of your attack, and your use of expletives. Now think about it, all he did to elicit that attack was to introduce the topic of eating dog meat. It may, in hindsight, have been a little inappropriate of him to have done so at the precise time that he did, but that hardly warrants the flow of such bile does it?

And at any rate Martyn, Mark Anthony Jones no longer contributes to this site, does he? In accordance with Richard’s request, he has voluntarily refrained from making any further comments.

Respectfully yours,
Mark Anthony James

July 12, 2005 @ 12:26 am | Comment

All I can say is…

Every day and every way, we’re getting meta and meta…

July 12, 2005 @ 12:29 am | Comment

all he’s done is need to argue and “win” far too much, I’m sure we can give him a break now.

July 12, 2005 @ 12:30 am | Comment

oh wierd, maybe it isn’t a joke. the anus mcmickey thing above was me. that was a joke. maybe this james thing isn’t?

July 12, 2005 @ 12:33 am | Comment

Mark, I sincerely apologise for the bad language yesterday and I mean that. It was inexcusable, no excuses. I’m sorry and I feel ashamed.

To see that you can at least comprehend a little that it was insensitive makes me feel a whole lot better for me and for you.

However, please drop this MAJames stuff, you’re doing yourself no favours mate.

Please read Laowai’s comment above. He is more articulate than I.

July 12, 2005 @ 12:37 am | Comment

MAJ,

Being the sad little man that you seem to be, you must have one hell of a boring life if all you have to entertain yourself is a few false identities on TPD.

Richard,

Every village has their resident idiot, it would appear that Peking has found theirs.

July 12, 2005 @ 12:38 am | Comment

I second Martyn on nominating Laowai’s comment to represent my sentiments.

July 12, 2005 @ 12:39 am | Comment

Dear Laowai,

If you ever meet “Mark” in the flesh, assuming that the creator of all of these fluid identies are in fact, in actuality, the product of a person who is actually named “Mark”, then I’m sure he or she would be more than happy to be “Mark” – in that he/she will not be separated from you in real times, and in terms of space.

The relationship would take on a genuine, material, human form. It would exist concretely, in actuality. To live out fluid identities in such conditions would be almost impossible – and any attempts to do so would seem unconvincing, if not outright dysfunctional and unnreal. It would be seen to be hyperreal in fact – beyond real.

But here, on the pages of this website, we are communicating through cyberspace, and if the actual material person creating these fluid identities does so for entertainment, then what is fundamentally wrong with that? How is it any different from engaging in role-play? It’s no different, except that the role-player is more free to experiment, and to play out roles that may normally be too inhibitive, too far removed from societal norms or contraints.

Respectfully,
Mark Anthony James

July 12, 2005 @ 12:41 am | Comment

Ban his arse.

July 12, 2005 @ 12:44 am | Comment

Ermm, the rest of us were not aware that we were engaging in a Chinese-themed version of EVERQUEST, quite frankly.

July 12, 2005 @ 12:49 am | Comment

MAJ, we’ve made your point. So just shout up or keep it brief. Don’t push your luck.

July 12, 2005 @ 12:50 am | Comment

Mark, I’ve just read that post from “Anne Myers” that you wrote last night mate.

OMG, you need help sunshine.

July 12, 2005 @ 12:52 am | Comment

You need help too Martyn, if you’re really taking all of this so seriously….

Mark Anthony James

July 12, 2005 @ 12:54 am | Comment

Where’s my sword of power and anti-demon armor, dammit?

Lady Lycra of the Yoga-lates Cohort.

July 12, 2005 @ 12:57 am | Comment

Very seriously Mark. It’s not some game you know. Some people on here I speak to on the phone. It’s real, they’re real, I’m real. Cyberspace is full of real people. Not a place for your mind games and full of figments of you rimagination for your twisted entertainment. Go away please.

July 12, 2005 @ 12:58 am | Comment

Mark,

you are obviously entitled to your own opinion, and will continue to act as you please. My request was as one person to another.

You are free to play as you like. But I think if you go and re-read your comments and reflect a bit, you might see why others will henceforth take you at your word – as a concept, a man/woman/eater-of-strange-and-interesting-things/a bohemian/a man who cannot speak Chinese, despite living there for 4 years. An unreliable narrator, more than anything else.

If you want to play, that’s great. Have fun playing with us.

July 12, 2005 @ 1:03 am | Comment

Though I was trying to make light of this whole thing, I have to echo what Martyn just said. It’s only cool to role-play if everyone else is in on that decision. Now I could go on with some deconstructionist type argument about how we all present false selves in a setting like this, but, well…you know, most of us are trying to be honest and straight-forward and communicate with some degree of honesty.

July 12, 2005 @ 1:03 am | Comment

And Laowai, yes…unreliable narrators are a lot more fun when confined to the pages of a novel.

July 12, 2005 @ 1:04 am | Comment

Other Lisa – yes, I rather suspect, very strongly in fact, that my creator was once, in his/her high school days, a regular role-player of Dungeons and Dragons. He/she was also, I think, during his/her university days, a member of the Newcastle branch of the Society of Creative Anachronisms.

Though I of course exist for him/her not as a psychic warrior, a spell thief, or a warlock, but as a mostmodern deconstructionist cyber junky – quite different from Mark Anthony James, who was a Marxist academic agitator from the Frankfurt School.

Respectfully,
Mark Anthony James

July 12, 2005 @ 1:05 am | Comment

Sorry Other Lisa – I meant to sat that it was Mark Anthony Jones who was a Marxist academic agitaotr of the Frankfurt School. My creator hasn’t quite mastered the typing of his new creation yet!

Mark Anthony James

July 12, 2005 @ 1:06 am | Comment

Okay, I’m done.

Good night all.

July 12, 2005 @ 1:07 am | Comment

I agree with Laowai, Other Lisa and Martyn. Even though I have to say that I quite enjoy reading all these.

July 12, 2005 @ 1:11 am | Comment

But Laowai, Other Lisa,

This Peking Duck site does read like a script, does it not? – a spontaneously written one, not at all unlike the Dada movement.

And I’m quite sure that not all contributors to this site are who they claim to be, or would say the same thing to all people they new, or have newly met, that they say here on this site. American Man and Ivan both spring to mind for starters. Other Lisa, you are right – we do all present false selves, whether we want to believe or accept that or not.

Mark Anthony James

July 12, 2005 @ 1:13 am | Comment

damn, this is some real f’ed-up stuff.

July 12, 2005 @ 1:14 am | Comment

The first “new” above should read “know”. Thanks.

And Fat Cat admits that this Dada-like performance is entertaining and enjoyable! – even though he or she may not agree with the practice.

Mark Anthony James

July 12, 2005 @ 1:16 am | Comment

Mark, mate, the above post but one from Laowai was an attempt to get through to you. It failed. You’re still so wrapped up with yourself and your alta egos that you just can’t see it, can you?

Just thinking back to the posts you wrote from “Anne” talking about the 20 photos you send “her” including one on a nudist beach with two Vietnamese girls with their arms wrapped round your shoulders and how confident “she” thought you were (never mind that stuff about Conrad’s penis)….and how you argued with yourself about how “she” shouldn’t have revealed so much about “you” and you arguing back about how “you” shouldn’t have revealed personal stuff about “her” paper for the “British Social Psychology Society” etc……..

Anyway, I’m finished with this thread and I’m finished with you. Whatever else you’ve got to say, I’ll be ignoring it, as I suspect a lot of others will as well.

I don’t think Richard or any of us ever imagined just what would come out when he started this thread.

July 12, 2005 @ 1:19 am | Comment

Martyn,

Your role in this Dada-like performance, here in cyberspace, as the revengeful, spiteful, anti-Mark Anthony Jones campaigner, has provided us all with some good soap-opera type drama, which has certainly been entertaining. Unfortunately, Mark Anthony Jones left these pages earlier this morning, and I really don’t think he has been back since.

I on the other hand, really can’t thank you enough for your contributions to this thread’s performance. Perhaps we can exchange roles next time – I will be the drama queen, and you can be the decontructionist postmodern cyber nerd. Being a drama queen looks to be far more fun! What do you say Martyn, is it a deal? I only want to switch places with you for one day, that’s all.

Mark Anthony James

July 12, 2005 @ 1:30 am | Comment

MAJ,

You’ve lost sense of your identities again. You referred to MAJames as the Marxist academic instead of MAJones.

Dumb ass.

July 12, 2005 @ 1:40 am | Comment

Ivan is not my real name.
My REAL name is:
“Ivan The Avenging Cyborg”

July 12, 2005 @ 1:59 am | Comment

Actually I am a Japanese anime superhero (specialty: destroying radioactive Sea Monsters), but I must keep my identity secret because, well, you know some posters here might not like the Japanese….

July 12, 2005 @ 2:02 am | Comment

Pretty cute work Mark Anthoney. I can’t find it meaningful however. It is a lot like the old days of fish stories and babe tales. Hot air to make the teller look good. If that is your thing fine with me, but now we know what you are. I suspect all your subsequent stealthy iterations at this blog will be equally disclosed. But many here will not be as gullible as the first time.

July 12, 2005 @ 2:29 am | Comment

Pete,
If you’re referring to my two above posts as being MAJ’s, no. Get real.
Don’t start going crazy and seeing MAJ’s hand behind every other name.

July 12, 2005 @ 2:38 am | Comment

Hm, now I wonder, if Dr Anne Myers and Anne Coulter were in a mud wrestling match, who would win? And which one would look better in a bikini?

July 12, 2005 @ 2:47 am | Comment

First MAJ fantasizing about my penis and now Anne Coulter in a bikini. Jesus I’m gonna have nightmares tonight.

July 12, 2005 @ 2:59 am | Comment

I guess I ought to introduce myself to you all a little more formally shouldn’t I?

I would like to briefly introduce myself to you all, as a new contributor to Peking Duck, and to share with you all a little of my cyberspace philosophy, which I hope to explore with you all on the pages of this site.

I have a particularly keen interest in exploring the psychological aspects of environments that are created by online social networks, like this Peking Duck site for example. Specifically, I want to understanding and appreciate just how it is that people react to and behave within the realms of cyberspace.

Readers, have any of you ever asked yourselves the question: who are you in cyberspace? I wonder? Are you the same character you are in person or are you somebody a little or quite different? An interesting aspect regarding the internet I think, is that it provides an opportunity for people to present themselves in many different ways. You can alter your style of being slightly or indulge in wild experiments by changing your age, personality, appearance, even your gender.

Identity is a very complex aspect of human nature, isn’t it? Each of us have identites which embody an entire multiplicity. You own many different aspects within your own personality and we all play numerous roles in our lives – such as child, parent, student, employee, neighbour, friend, whatever. Now Cyberspace I think offers a niche for each of these very specific facets of selfhood. Some people even talk about how we can “deconstruct” ourselves online. We don’t have to present ourselves in totality of course – how we look, talk, move, our thoughts, our emotions, and personality, all in one supersized package. In different environments, we can divide ourselves up and present our characteristics in packets of various sizes and content. And what’s more, we can completely invent ourselves as others, as imaginaries.

The desire to remain anonymous reflects the need to eliminate those critical features of our identity that we really do not want to display in that particular environment or group. Our desire to lurk, or sometimes to hide completely, is indicative of our individual need to split off our entire personal identity from our observing of those around us.

I look forward to using my contributions to this site, and the ways in which I am able to interact with you all, to deconstruct myself, and others too perhaps, both in the interests of entertainment, as well as for the sociological purpose of discovering more about the social psychology of cyberspace, and as an exercise in existential self-discovery.

I can’t thank Richard enough for providing me with this valuable space – this precious little stage in cyberspace. Thanks Richy!

Respectfully yours,

Mark Anthony James

P.S. I shall not be reappearing on Peking Duck as Mark Anthony James. My creator has decided, I think, to start again fresh, as somebody completely different, and with a completely different IP address, and in such a way that nobody will be able to guess that he/she was once me, or Mark Anthony Jones, or Dr. Myers, etc. [Not all of my creator's covers have been blown yet! - his main one has though.]

Respectfully,
Mark Anthony James/Jones/Myers et.al.

July 12, 2005 @ 3:02 am | Comment

P.S. Martyn,

As the cureent spokesperson for the creator of myself and the above mentioned personas, I would like to sincerely apologise to you if you really did take such great offense to Mark Anthony Jones’ comments about dog meat. I know, for certain, that he genuinely did not deliberately mean to offend or even to provoke in fact.

Being the longest-running persona of my creator’s, it is rather sad that he has been effectively forced into demise, but, it does free up time and energy for a rebirth.

Again, and for the last time perhaps,
Respectfully yours,
Mark Anthony James

July 12, 2005 @ 3:12 am | Comment

is this a remake of that movie the matrix or something? goddam, i thought the mark anthony james was a joke, like someone was imitating him for fun. instead it was just mark being a freekin psycho again. that’s it, this is just too silly.
and mark, if you’re reading, it must be embarrassing that i knew you were anne myers all along.

July 12, 2005 @ 3:19 am | Comment

WTF? So you’re John Suler now?

Who are you in cyberspace? Am I the same John Suler I am in-person or someone a bit different? One of the interesting things about the internet is the opportunity if offers people to present themselves in a variety of different ways. You can alter your style of being just slightly or indulge in wild experiments with your identity by changing your age, history, personality, physical appearance, even your gender.

Mark Anthony James:

Readers, have any of you ever asked yourselves the question: who are you in cyberspace? I wonder? Are you the same character you are in person or are you somebody a little or quite different? An interesting aspect regarding the internet I think, is that it provides an opportunity for people to present themselves in many different ways. You can alter your style of being slightly or indulge in wild experiments by changing your age, personality, appearance, even your gender.

Try again.

July 12, 2005 @ 3:26 am | Comment

Yes, anon (alias Conrad) my creator can mould me into anybody he likes, borrowing bits and pieces from many sources, always creating new hybrids.

That’s the beauty of cyberspace!

Respectfully yours,
Mark Anthonu James

July 12, 2005 @ 3:30 am | Comment

This is fucked.

Martyn, please tell me you aren’t just another figment of Mark. That would be truly awful – a man arguing with himself. Too many paranoid possibilities here – dog meat, perhaps? Schizophrenia rampant. Mark, please take you and your roleplaying PC’s off to Everquest. Richard, please do some minimal research to figure out who Mark is. He’s made a total sham of your comments section, and I don’t know who to trust beyond Gordon, Richard, Richard W and Shulan, all of whom I’ve had conversations with over email and/or met in person. I suspect all IP addresses he uses must be in Shenzhen – is this correct? Or is there a way around it? I’m off the duck until this is rectified. Mark/Anne/James/etc. , you’re an ass. Way to ruin an experience.

July 12, 2005 @ 3:39 am | Comment

Ha, he’s been exposed as nothing more that a sad loser, a harmless mental patient and he’s STILL cutting and pasting!!!!!

This really is too much. Hiding behind an “I’m so clever, I can do what I want, I can be whoever I want to be” kind of mental-problem arrogance.

Mark, I LOVE the way you tried to cover your tracks by changing many of the words that you cut and pasted. So, my sad, mentally disabled friend, even after all that’s been said and done, you STILL can’t be yourself. That above cut+paste wasn’t you at all.

Do you have any idea how freaky how are? Do you have any control whatsoever?

Enjoy your make believe world but just remember, it aint real.

July 12, 2005 @ 3:42 am | Comment

Mark, why don’t you just go away?

I think it has been made abundantly clear that nobody is really interested in anything you have to say anymore.

July 12, 2005 @ 3:45 am | Comment

MAJ, You were a beautiful child. Now look atcha! No good lying, thieving ,fake Marxist ,canine culinarian.I’m done widya.

July 12, 2005 @ 3:45 am | Comment

Laowai – calm down! Mark Anthony Jones, Mark Anthony Jones, Dr. Myers and myself will rarely, if ever, be presenting ourselves on Peking Duck again after today. My creators other, already existing personas will continue to though (until such time that they are exposed as personas, or until my creator becomes too bored with them. Martyn, incidentally, is not one of my creator’s personas! I’m sure he wil lbe able to verify that to you somehow.

My creator regularly needs to visit three other cities in China, and so it will be difficult, I suspect, to prevent him from posting under other personas, and from other cities. He will present his new personas as subtly as possible, on your site as well as this one, and not until things have quietened down here.

respectfully,
Mark Anthony James

July 12, 2005 @ 3:46 am | Comment

yeah, this whole “i can be whoever i want to be” thing seems to be mark’s last attempt to have an effect on this site after our general dismissal of him as a total loser who probably dresses as a 64-year old women and talks to himself.
anyway, it has failed miserably. get a life, mark.

July 12, 2005 @ 3:50 am | Comment

Why bother Mark? I mean, why? What doya get out of it?

July 12, 2005 @ 3:53 am | Comment

Whoever he is, that guy has a serious problem.
It seems that my first assumption was right, that this is some sort of weird experiment, although I wasn’t sure at that time.

Though I enjoyed the Dr. Myers story, I take it as disrespect (and it seems I’m not the only one) by this guy to engage others in discussions they took serious which in fact were fake.

So, for me MAJ is dead, even if some weird reincarnation will start to haunt arund on this site again.

July 12, 2005 @ 4:08 am | Comment

I would not get too cocky if I were you Mark. Some of us know who you are and where you go.

Nobody likes to be exposed to his employer and friends. No employer likes to be confronted with reams of Internet posts from his multi-personality employee. No friend likes to hear that the guy they thought they knew likes to impersonate women and make up other personas and argue with themselves on some Internet site.

However, if you continue to persue this ridiculous charade, I promise you I will do everything in my power to make you suffer.

This has got waaaaay out of hand. Back off, or face the consequences.

If, at any time in the future, I even suspect you are back here causing trouble to the good people on this site I will do what I have to do. I promise you.

Back off.

July 12, 2005 @ 4:10 am | Comment

He kinda reminds me of the Buffalo Bill character from Silence of the Lambs.

July 12, 2005 @ 4:10 am | Comment

No, no, no. This is a good thing. If the poster formerly known as MAJ “present[s] his new personas as subtly as possible,” so that “nobody will be able to guess that he/she was once [him], or Mark Anthony Jones, or Dr. Myers, etc,” then we can expect the following:

- original expressions of ideas
- concise, well reasoned comments
- a complete absence of wacked-in-the-head drama

All in all, if we can’t recognize MAJ, then why not welcome him back?

The problem is not with what happens on Peking Duck in the future, but rather that comments that genuinely contributed to the site (like his comments about racism in Korea) can no longer be taken at face value. Play games, and no one can take you seriously.

July 12, 2005 @ 4:13 am | Comment

You really are one BIG drama queen, aren’t you Martyn?

First you shower Mark Anthony Jones with expletives, and now you’re threatening me, Mark Anthony James (or my creator) with words like, “we know where you go.”

Come and meet me there then. I’d be more than happy to buy you a drink. I mean that sincerely too, I’m not being sarcastic. Or would you rather send the heavies around to beat me or my creator up?

Respectfully,
Mark Anthony James

July 12, 2005 @ 4:17 am | Comment

Sam S. is the one you have to watch out for. He has his little minions working for him all the time….

July 12, 2005 @ 4:25 am | Comment

Tune in to “As the stomach turns” tonight on WTPD. WTPD… we put Fox to shame.On tonights episode. MAJ has sex with the ENTIRE P.L.A. It’s gonna be one for the ages folks.

July 12, 2005 @ 4:28 am | Comment

Folks, in the grand history of wasted breath this is one of the all-time monuments. Some interesting statistics on the Great Unmasking of MAJ:

Approximately 300 comments (give or take, I had to make an arbitrary judgment about where this all began, with the dollar/euro debate of a couple days ago).

36,933 words.

A Word document of the three main threads (single space 12 point Times New Roman) is 113 pages long.

This entire episode has been wierd and creepy and brought out the worst in us. We’ve burned the witch. Now, can we get on with something else, and try not to fixate about which new poster might be MAJ’s next secret identity? Richard’s open threads started out pretty cool. They won’t be much fun if they degenerate into an online version of “Who Goes There?”

July 12, 2005 @ 4:35 am | Comment

To the person whose comments above begin with the words “No, no, no.”

Yes, well my creator’s Mark Anthony Jones persona did start off pretty much as you say – and I’m assuming here that you are most likely Lirelou – but the transformation of the Mark Anthony Jones persona came about gradually, largely as a result of a certain dialectic: his interaction with a number of commentators, including this site’s owner, Richard, encouraged a certain shift in both character and behavioural traits.

A kind of power struggle emerged early on in the experiment, but constant attempts to marginalise through trivialisation merely accelerated this struggle, and brought about a functional need in role-play to counter these tactics. The emerging result was of a character increasingly radical, and as a result, of a charcter increasingly marginalised.

The creator of Mark Anthony Jones eventually tried to rescue his oldest and most fond of personas, by introducing Dr Myers as a kind of adjudicator who would lend to him support – who would end this marginalisation.

The problem, is that my creator became too enthused by Dr Myers, whose behaviours actually aroused suspicion of Mark Anthony Jones, and increased his problems rather than alleviating them, as originally intended.

It became, for my creator, fun and entertaining for Dr Myers to even join in with the Mark Anthony Jones bashing. His creator’s switch to Dr Myers sealed Mark Anthony Jones’ fate really.

But she was always an unsustainable character, Dr Myers, and I myself have been created merely to parody the situation and to entertain for a day. Nothing more. Hence the reason why I have been given a name so similar to the fallen persona!

So the experiment is over, or it will be, after today. Unless my creator does indeed decide to invent yet more personas, but I think for the experiment to go on producing results of any value, my creator will need to abandon this site all together, and find an alternative that few here ever use.

Respectfully,
Mark Anthony James

July 12, 2005 @ 4:52 am | Comment

Wrong guy Mark, I said I was finished with this thread and I meant it.

July 12, 2005 @ 5:01 am | Comment

Isn’t it interesting too, how Martyn displays such a cruel and sadistic streak, thirsty for revenge. “…I will do everything in my power to make you suffer” he warns, so “back off”, etc.

Who is he threatening I wonder? Mark Anthony Jones, me, Mark Anthony James, Dr Myers, or one of my creator’s other personas? Or is he threatening the creator of me and these other personas?

How does he know that my creator isn’t actually a nice, gentle person? In cyberspace, role-play personas are not real, as characters they don’t actually exist – not in actuality.

Martyn might like to hold the creator of these personas responsible for the bahaviours of his/her creations, but then that does beg the question of how somebody real can take responsibility for others who exist only in cyberspace, who exist only as fictional creations, who in actuality do not even exist in other words?

Perhaps my creator has womb envy, and shouldn’t be playing Frankenstein? That’s what Dr Myers would say, I’m sure.

Respectfully,
Mark Anthony James

July 12, 2005 @ 5:08 am | Comment

I admit that it is bad practice to copy and paste significant passages from other peoples’ articles without acknowledging the source. What I do really, is little different from what any journalist or academic writer does when they’re putting together an essay or a polemic, except that I do not take the time and the care to acknowledge my sources. And why should I? I have far better things to do. It really makes no difference.

I’m not the big fraud that Richard makes me out to be. I believe most bloggers and even most commenters here cut and paste most of their material, which is written by someone else. Everyone does it.

O.K. I accept the criticism though. It is bad practice. And I cannot hide the fact that I adopted various and disparate personas for my posting on Peking Duck, as I explained. My strategy was to present myself merely as a creation, as a persona, no different from Dr Myers. Well, I did create Dr Myers, and the Mark Anthony Jones that I present on Peking Duck is in many ways not the Mark Anthony Jones that I present to my friends and colleagues, who is altogether different again from the Mark Anthony Jones that I present to say, my grandparents for example. We all alter our behavioural patterns quite automatically, depending on the social scene we’re in. So what’s wrong with pretending to be different people and having a little fun along the way? Don’t we all have multiple personalities?

So why did I create Dr Myers, and why has the Mark Anthony Jones Peking Duck persona changed over time? Well, that really is an easy question to answer. I’m bored!

I work as the Academic Director for GAC, a Chinese company licensed to manage training centres that deliver a university foundations program. I’m paid adequately, but we have no training centres open yet, and I have been here in this job for just over one year. This is my fourth year in China though.

So basically, for the last 13 months, I have been paid to sit in a nice air conditioned luxury office, in front of this computer, but with absolutely no work to do! I’m not exaggerating when I say that. I sit here from 9 to 5 each week day, in front of this computer. I’m the only foreigner here in this office, and normally the only other person here is the secretary. So reading Peking Duck is one of the ways I entertain myself while at work.

So, in my boredom, I decided to experiment on Richard and his readers, who would be unknowing guineau pigs as I tried to manipulate and predict their reactions. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it did not. I was surprised, frankly, that Richard never posted photographs of me that I sent him unsolicited. I predicted he would try to embarrass me with them, and it was an interesting test. I also admit I may have gone a bit far, dwelling on the private parts of several male commenters while I was being Dr Myers and even requesting photos of their genitalia. But what of it? I was bored and it offered me amusement.

There is no need to smear me as a cutter and paster or as an adopter of various personas. I freely admit these things. But these were very small matters and they have been blown out of all proportion by the Peking Duck henchmen.

Best regards,
Mark Anthony James

July 12, 2005 @ 5:12 am | Comment

I KNEW IT! :-0

I wrote earlier that I suspected MAJ was Dr. Myers, noting the similarities in style, including the double signature. I didn’t have anything more solid to go on, but in my gut I was certain.

Now that MAJ has been “unmasked”, I would like to add another revelation: MAJ sent a bunch of personal photos to me, too.

When I received the photos, I thought it truly odd, and I really began to suspect something. However, since it was a personal email, I decided not to mention it. Now that he has been revealed to be a low-down slandering plagiarist, I see no reason to conceal it any longer.

- – -

It seems to me MAJ owes the most humbling of apologies to a number of people, including:

* Richard – for sullying his blog and clogging his bandwidth

* Filthy Stinking No. 9 – for some truly nasty, personal attacks

* Conrad – for slandering his name and making personal insults about his manhood

* Martyn – another nasty, personal attack, clearly aimed with malice

* Everyone else “Dr. Myers” insulted by name

… and maybe all the rest of us for the wear and tear on our wrist joints from scrolling through endless, numbingly boring *PLAGIARIZED* posts.

Mr. Jones, or whoever you are, you may begin kowtowing at any time. And you better make those kowtows deep and heartfelt…

July 12, 2005 @ 5:12 am | Comment

Shanghai Slim,
I see your point, but realistically does is there any point in getting an apology from an (apparently) sociopathic psychotic? You’re assuming he has some kind of a conscience.

July 12, 2005 @ 5:17 am | Comment

As always, well said Slim. I was wondering where you were today. Your jaw must have dropped as you ploughed through all this.

July 12, 2005 @ 5:23 am | Comment

“She tries not to shatter, kaleidoscope style.

Personality changes behind her red smile.

Every new problem brings a stranger inside,

Helplessly forcing one more new disguise.

(…)

Disintegrating …

… 22 faces…disintegrating. ”

– “Christine”, Siouxise and the Banshees

July 12, 2005 @ 5:24 am | Comment

Ivan, no apology expected, but the request needed to be made.

Martyn, my jaw is still in pieces on the floor. My gut, however, is aching from belly laughs! :-)

Now, if only Karl Rove would get his as well, my day would be well and truly made! :-D

July 12, 2005 @ 5:28 am | Comment

Shanghai Slim, and ALL Peking Duck readers:

Very well. I would like to express for my creator, his/her sincere apologises to all who have been defamed, attacked, insulted, etc, by any of his personas, be they Mark Anthony Jones, Dr. Myers, myself, or a combination of all three of us.

The experiment is over, as of today, and I do hope that you will all accept and appreciate that no long-term harm or damage was ever intended. The behaviours of these personas, though not always ethical or polite, were at times though, brought about by their interactions with other contributors. This is no excuse for offended people of course, but it needs nevertheless to be appreciated that the development and use of these characters occured in cyberspace, and through their interactions with others.

These exchanges have also brought out the worst in some of you, as Will has noted, and for this I especially apologise. This was in fact, deliberately encouraged and provoked at times, as part of the experiment – which is why I sent not only Shanghai Slim but also Richard various photos. Neither took the bait, although Shanghai Slim has now, but in a qualified way, and on the realisation that the experiment is now over, having been exposed.

It is a credit to both Shanghai Slim and Richard, that they were both able to bite their lips for so long about the photos. Richard especially, surpassed my expectations on this.

The Other Lisa has impressed me, in that unlike most, she has always remained polite, balanced, and level-headed towards all of my creator’s personas, though I need to qualify this by adding that none of my personas ever really got around to attacking her in any way.

This really does conclude the experiment then. No more from me, or from any of my creator’s other personas. Once again, my creator, speaking through me, sincerely apologises to all of you.

Adieu!

Mark Anthony James
(On behalf of his creator)

July 12, 2005 @ 5:30 am | Comment

He said goodbye AGAIN? Reminds me of the Groucho Marx song, “Hooray for Captain Spaulding”, where Groucho keeps singing,
“I really must be going – I’ll even stay! – but I must be going”
over and over and over

July 12, 2005 @ 5:38 am | Comment

He’ll be back. His created “persona’s” are in fact a personification of his own personality.

Very strange.

July 12, 2005 @ 6:37 am | Comment

Gordon,
Hm, you mention his “personas”.
I think you’re right. But the further – ah, dunno if this is relevant, but your remark made me think further:
The old Latin word “persona” refers to the masks that the ancient Roman actors used on stage. It literally means “speaking through”,
“per” means “through” and “sona” means “sound” It means speaking through a mask.
So, metaphorically, you’re right.
No matter what “persona” he takes on, he will always have the same voice coming through.

July 12, 2005 @ 6:51 am | Comment

PS,
More about “persona”. What I wrote above, about the Roman word “persona”, is NOT the same as a user name or a pseudonym. Some of us here post with pseudonyms, but most of us have presented their own genuine characters consistently.
Most of us here, do not really wear masks or pretend to be characters other than who we are. “Filthy Stinking Number Nine” and others with pseudonyms, have consistent voices and identities here. “American Man” is always identifiable, because no one else in the world can write in quite the same weird way as he does. :-)
A pseudonym is one thing. A mask is another – and a series of masks is just f—ed up.

July 12, 2005 @ 7:04 am | Comment

MAJ, if you went to my university, you would have earned yourself an expulsion and no refund.

Pretentiously yours,

JAK

July 12, 2005 @ 7:07 am | Comment

The Bukowski of trolls.

July 12, 2005 @ 7:09 am | Comment

Dear Ivan,

(ha! fooled you, didn’t I?)

I have had the fortunate pleasure of meeting American Man, just as I have Will and I can tell you that he is an outstanding person and I have nothing but appreciation for his cynical, yet humorous comments.

He doesn’t really hate Chinese people – his wife is Chinese (although from his stories that may be a good reason to hate them). It’s just that in the many years that he has lived in China, he has seen the lows Chinese people will go to in order to steal, cheat and lie to make a yuan off of a foreigner.

He is well traveled, well educated and find his tongue-n-cheek comments to be an uplifting experience to my day.

He really cracks me up.

July 12, 2005 @ 8:52 am | Comment

If teachers have direct experience of “how low” some local people will go to lie, cheat etc, imagine what it’s like for those working in joint ventures. I could tell you stories that would make your nose bleed Gordon.

In fact, I just might at that!

July 12, 2005 @ 8:56 am | Comment

Gordon, thank you for your kind words. BTW,I called in a priest to do an exorcism on my wife.She’s all better now.”Caste you out!” Should be OK for a day or two.

July 12, 2005 @ 9:06 am | Comment

If not, send her to the Hotel California.

July 12, 2005 @ 9:29 am | Comment

“The great gig in the sky”

July 12, 2005 @ 9:30 am | Comment

I gotta go.I’ve got a date with my sex dojo.

July 12, 2005 @ 9:33 am | Comment

Hey Gordon,
Yeah, I hear you, about American Man. When I called him “weird” here, it was intended as the HIGHEST compliment from me!
Actually just a few hours ago I sent an email to Richard, and among other things I told him he should be proud to have such a character like American Man in this community! :-)
I ask all friends here (meaning, most of us here) always to remember that half of my remarks are intended ironically.
“American Man” happens to be my favorite character here, although I don’t want to turn this into a circle jerk. :-)
To me, “weird” is the OPPOSITE of “sick psycho sociopath.” I say American Man is weird (Hurrah!) and in contrast, MAJ is a sick sack of shit.
Wishing many Wonderfully Weird blessings to everyone here! Now that I assume MAJ is gone, of course…

July 12, 2005 @ 9:42 am | Comment

Gordon, as a friend, I just thought I’d better warn you, as a friend, that I wasn’t sure if that was MAJ talking or yourself just there mate, as a friend of course (!).

July 12, 2005 @ 9:45 am | Comment

It is certainly a strange thing to wake up to a thread like this. I knew it was getting odd when I turned in last night, right after M.A. “James” introduced himself. At that point I didn’t think it could get much loonier, but apparently I was totally wrong. I actually went to the thread in which he commented here for the very first time, and soon discovered that nearly every phrase was pasted from existing articles. In his very first comment! And I think of the hours Patrick and FSN9 and I spent engaging, and I have to wonder what kind of person can just sit back and know they are making idiots of others, and then peacefully go to bed and live with himself?

Let’s forget about MAJ for a second. There is no MAJ. He is a bizarre concoction of a very disturbed and sociopathic individual. It’s his threats I want to address, his promises to show up in other guises. I’ve worked on building this site for a few years now, and I don’t want to see MAJ ruin it. If we are all looking over one another’s shoulders wondering if our interlocutor is actually a psychotic kiwi in Shenzhen, it may put a damper on things.

I’ve gotten several interesting emails today. Some have said they plan to leave the site altogether for now because they can never know who they’re dealing with. First, that is always a danger due to the nature of the Internet. If we let him implant such fears in our heads, then he comes out the true winner. So please, don’t give him the upper hand. He is here to make mischief, to get a rise out of you. If you go, he succeeds.

Someone else has suggested I register all commenters. It’s something I’ll consider, but even then, if he’s determined to get in, he could probably simply register with false information, so I’m not sure it would work. But I am considering it. One problem it would eliminate is commenters using the names of other commenters, but thathas been a very rare occurence..

I want to keep welcoming newcomers. Please understand that over the next few weeks, however, I’ll be looking carefully at all comments from new names, and their IP addresses, and will do whatever I can to block abusers. These are the latest IP address MAJ has used, but remember, it’s easy to change them:

61.141.198.126
219.133.244.222
218.17.203.162
218.17.203.80

This has been a really interesting episode, but also a very depressing one. As Will said above, let’s wash our hands of it and move on. To do otherwise will just give our friend the little surge of glee he is looking for, playing right into his hands. Thanks.

July 12, 2005 @ 9:57 am | Comment

You lost me on that one Martyn.

July 12, 2005 @ 9:58 am | Comment

Martyn,
You also lost me with your last remark.

July 12, 2005 @ 10:01 am | Comment

Thanks for that last tidbit of info Richard, now I can do an IP search through my own blog.

July 12, 2005 @ 10:03 am | Comment

Well, I’m back.

None of those IP addresses on my blog. If he commented then he used other IP addresses.

July 12, 2005 @ 10:36 am | Comment

Amazing. Every comment where he sounds smart is actually lifted material. Everything.

http://tinyurl.com/br9ef

July 12, 2005 @ 11:06 am | Comment

LW, keep in mind that statcounter only keeps track of the last 100 visitors to your site.

July 12, 2005 @ 11:11 am | Comment

Yeah, I was actually just checking the comments on my blog, not the visitors. He’s probably visited, but not yet commented.

July 12, 2005 @ 11:13 am | Comment

Oh, sorry for confusing you, poor choice of words. I just thought that ‘Dear Ivan’ comment was MAJ until I got to the bottom.

July 12, 2005 @ 11:13 am | Comment

Yeah, there must be hundreds of those boo. It’s funny, now looking back at his well-written and academic-sounding cut+pastes about everything from SARS to the World Oil Market, it seems obvious that they are too long and well written to be from an ordinary poster. Amazing that he got away with it for months.

July 12, 2005 @ 11:18 am | Comment

The mystery continues…

http://tinyurl.com/7lcaq

July 12, 2005 @ 11:42 am | Comment

“Amazing that he got away with it for months.”
Yeah, the world wants to be fooled.

Nice find Laowai. See you in Berlin. You come at the right time, summer finaly arrived :)

July 12, 2005 @ 11:56 am | Comment

“Appears on 0 members friends lists”

Probably talks them all to death.

July 12, 2005 @ 12:01 pm | Comment

Yes yes, I’ll be there bright and early on Wednesday morning. I’ll ring you up on Thursday midday sometime to see when you are free for a Weissbier or however you spell it.

July 12, 2005 @ 12:08 pm | Comment

Weissbier is only how the bavarians call it. The others call it Weizen (wheat). Anyway I will have one now :)

July 12, 2005 @ 12:34 pm | Comment

Shulan,
You say BIER? Or Beer? NOW you’re talkin! :-)
Here, have some beer! Go to:
http://www.coolmen.ch/biergarten/biershooter.htm
And please be careful NOT to spill any beer! :-)

July 12, 2005 @ 12:45 pm | Comment

I say Bier.
Yeah, those bavarians are crasy people. Allways finding new ways to have fun with bier.

July 12, 2005 @ 12:53 pm | Comment

I hate to close down such an interesting thread, but I think it would be the smart thing to do. Let’s migrate to the current open thread, which I am hoping we can keep relatively MAJ-free. Of course, I do want those commenters who missed out on yesterday’s action, like FSN9, to share their thoughts about this little caper. As for the rest of us, I think we’ve said all we possibly can, and I would really like to forget about it as soon as possible.

Update: Comments Open!!

July 12, 2005 @ 1:16 pm | Comment

Fascinating dysfunctional stuff.

I encountered MAJ after he penned his egregious China Daily article, when he was haunting the China Daily online site. He was trying — with meagre success — to promote his personal website.

I had assumed that MAJ was a naive apologist for the Beijing apparatchiks, but this lurid exchange reveals him in a far sadder light.

Hilarious though.

January 11, 2006 @ 5:02 am | Comment

Tremendous! I always felt jilted arriving at the tpd too late to take part in this immortal thread. Brilliant idea, especially having the thread hilighted on the left. Really has come in useful to provide a quick response to all those who have suffered from his unwelcome presence….

January 11, 2006 @ 6:30 am | Comment

If you want to laugh so hard that you wet your pants, check this link from Google’s cache.

It’s his email address and personal details, so, unless one of you put it up there, its definitely him.

January 11, 2006 @ 7:03 am | Comment

Not only is this guy obsessed, but he doesn’t even bother to read the articles that he critisises.

He once spent ages denouncing my blog for being anti-ccp, only the funny thing is that I have never actually blogged on the CCP, not once. I don’t comment on it, report on it, or even think about it.

After that he had to drop the subject rather rapidly.

January 11, 2006 @ 7:07 am | Comment

Good one, ACB!

He evidently scored (unless his trawling for a “romantic encounter” is a vey recent phenomenon).

He set up a website late last year replete with pictures of his nubile Chinese babe, but the photo page has unfortunately been removed. along with his “erudite” political diatribes.

January 11, 2006 @ 9:30 am | Comment

The only thing this needs is the link to the original Dr. Ann thread, or is that here somewhere?

January 11, 2006 @ 10:32 am | Comment

This is one paranoid guy. He seems to “love” China so much that he jumps at shadows and/or takes it upon himself to defend China like some DC Comics superhero.

“Introducing…..SUPER-MAJ! A 21st century crusader against criticism of the PRC.

Defender of the autocrat
Scourge of the weak and victimised

This man will stop at nothing to defend HIS CHINA!”

January 11, 2006 @ 12:25 pm | Comment

The sad thing is that MAJ lives an ivory tower in one of China’s richest cities, far from all of the ‘different’ bits of China that the rest of us see on a daily basis. He might actually believe what he see’s there is ‘the real China’.

It’s like he’s walking around in Disneyland and thinking that he’s seeing the real America.

On the other hand, he might just be a sick egotist who laps up all of the attention that he gets for being ‘the white guy who sticks up for China’, and gets some kind of perverted pleasure from seeing Chinese rally round him and his argument against us.

January 11, 2006 @ 2:05 pm | Comment

Mark Anthony Jones
John Wilkes Booth
Lee Harvey Oswald
James Earl Ray
Let’s start a thread and continue this…..

January 11, 2006 @ 2:58 pm | Comment

To do a googlebomb, you just type the name of the person/thing you want to bomb, and hyper-link it to the site you want the searcher to be directed to. For example, you type ‘Mark Anthony Jones‘ and surround it with html that sends the searcher to this thread (which I just in fact did in this sentence). Email me if you have questions.

Kevin, yes, you were one of the very first to spot that Dr Anne and Madge were one and the same. Cuckoo for cocoa puffs. Perfect.

January 12, 2006 @ 1:03 am | Comment

Lisa, one of the best Dr. Myers threads is this one.

Then there’s this, where our friend says:

Dear Gordon, Laowai, Simon, et.al.,

I have just received an email from Dr. Anne Myers, answering a few questions that I put to her yesterday evening regarding the legality of using our comments for research purposes.

She dismisses our concerns as “laughable” and points out that she has every right to use them under “fair use” laws and that it is in fact becoming increasingly common for researchers to use blog comments for such purposes. She points out, for example, that for researchers, internet chatrooms are now a ripe field for study on how teens interact with other teens without the strictures imposed by adults. Sex researchers, as she says, are now even drawing upon blog comments, which are often very explicit, and are quoting them in their research papers.

She says (and please don’t shoot me here, I’m only the messenger!) – but she says that we all “possess the intellectual and emotional equivalencies of twelve year olds” and that as far as she is concerned, we can all go and “play with one another’s appendages if comforting one another is what we all need.”

She also says that she is no longer prepared to waste any more of her precious time in dealing with such “silly nonsense.”

Regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

Posted by: Mark Anthony Jones at July 6, 2005 12:02 AM

Of course, most of that BS is cut/pasted from other people’s writings. There’s lots of good Anne Myers stuff in both threads. In the former there is also this classic:

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 is 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..
Posted by: Anne Myers at July 5, 2005 01:48 AM

Vintage Madge, talking about himself as another person, praising himself, obsessing on men’s genitals. And delighting in making fools of all of us. There is definitely a book waiting to be written about him.

January 11, 2006 @ 5:16 pm | Comment

Richard- Could you direct me to the comment where MAJ asked commenters to send him pictures of their John Thomases? I’ve been hunting that one down for a while with no luck.

January 11, 2006 @ 8:03 pm | Comment

I do wonder whether the Mark Anthony James guy who appeared in the end is actually Mark Anthony Jones himself, or some impostor. Seems to have somewhat different writing style (the impostor’s more, ah, ironic).

January 11, 2006 @ 8:28 pm | Comment

Reading this thread as a newcomer, from beginning to end (and what a bemusing hour that was!), what struck me most was MAJ’s desperate need for validation — evidence of marked low self-esteem.

When Richard posted the pic of the blubbing babe, he responded with genuine hurt outrage.

And then when his multiple identity was exposed (“Anne Myer’s” praise of him for sending her photos of his todger was revealing in more ways than one), and the facade could no longer be sustained, rather than scurrying from the site, his tail between his legs, he tried to salvage himself by indulging in sophomoric poststructuralist psychobabble.

You know, all that shite about the “multiple identities”of the human psyche, the fictive myth of the essential “unified self”, the internet as the site for free-floating construction of identity.

Bah, humbug.

January 11, 2006 @ 8:54 pm | Comment

Sojourner, a perfect comment. You hit the nail on the head. Thanks.

January 11, 2006 @ 9:23 pm | Comment

It wasn’t madge who asked, it was “Dr. Myers.” I’ll look for it.

January 11, 2006 @ 9:24 pm | Comment

I like this prescient comment from this earlier, pre-Fantabulist thread.

Doctor whoever is just a hoax perpetrated by Mark Anthony Jones IMO. The way I look at it is Mark Anthony couldn’t take the heat on this blog a few months ago and in great a dramatic flury took in effect “his ball” and ran away because we people were so mean to him.

I suspect he has conjured this up with a friend, Doc Anne or his alter-ego, to give him cover to blast some of you people who disagreed with him, i.e., who were mean to him.

Is there any proof that Doc Anne really exists other than Mark Anthony’s word or the email of the “Doc”?

Look at who the Doc picks on. It seems it is the commenters who have challenged Mark Anthony, either for his being wrong fatually, his fixation on penises, particularly his own, general disbelief in Mark Anthony’s schtick, wandering, self- gratifying pieces and Richard, who tries to assert control over this blog to keep it on track while Mark Anthony tries to keep control.

Mark anthony is not a guy I would like to go to dinner with and have to listen to his BS without interuption.

Mark anthony has intimate familiarity with the Doc. Who in their right mind would send nude photos to an allegedly, highly educated and successful professional, unless he know the professional or was invited to send them.

I think Mark anthony is not only pulling our legs, but is trying to imply she can do harm to anyone she chooses. This is a veiled threat and is like voodoo.

Put up of shut up Mark anthony. Prove Doc exists and prove you have not created her yoursefl or put someone up to this silliness.
Posted by: pete at July 6, 2005 12:51 AM

January 11, 2006 @ 9:45 pm | Comment

Cheers, Richard.

Ironically, it was MAJ’s vitriol against you on the China Daily website that alerted me to your fine site.

January 11, 2006 @ 9:53 pm | Comment

Funny, sojourner, rich in irony. Maybe you can go back to the China Daily bbs where he’s currently howling at the moon and tell him so.

January 11, 2006 @ 11:00 pm | Comment

Can someone tell me how I can ‘googlebomb’ that link ACB provided? I’d love to add that link to a working page so I could add photos and the like; possibly stills from The League of Gentlemen or a slew of Gumbies from Python.

January 11, 2006 @ 11:24 pm | Comment

I still remember the first time I encountered Dr. Anne Meyers. It was right after I blasted MAJ for praising the Chinese media’s coverage of corruption (he doesn’t even speak Chinese). I can’t find the exact response, but it was from Dr. Meyers, telling me to “buck up” and stop allowing complaints about China to flow from my mouth like feces, or something like that.
At that moment, I was pretty sure she was just MAJ.
I thought it was kind of funny at the time, but now that you look at it, you really have to feel kinda sorry for a guy with such a lack of intellect that he has to invent other people to engage in personal attacks and then praise his ideas (particularly an old lady, cuz who is mean enough to argue with an old lady, right?). It’s also sad to see someone with such a low sense of self esteem that they need to create 70 year old women to praise their “package.” I’m sure that has some real psychoanalytical meaning, but I’ll leave that up to experts, like Dr. Anne.
And in conclusion, I must say that this guy is like a jilted lover who just keeps hoping for our attention… his inane ramblings on China Daily (which continue to this day) prove that much… and what’s more, this guy is definitely cuckoo for cocoa puffs.
Sincerely,
Kevin
PS- Watch out for any commenters who sign their names like in a letter (I just did it as a joke), or who put full names in comment’s “Name” section. These past few days this guy has seemed to be craving attention. And I thought he had important things to do, hehe?

January 12, 2006 @ 12:41 am | Comment

For those of you pining for our good friend Mark Anthony Jones, this one of his recent posts on the China Daily Site (in his own thread entitled “On the immorality of English-language bloggers in China”. He evidently is still in a sulk:

[Sojourner, this is Richard; don't be upset, but I am cutting out the extended quote from Madge. If people want to read his latest rants they can go to China Daily, but I don't want my blog to ever again serve as a platform for his insanity. Please understand my policy, and thanks for joining us.]

January 12, 2006 @ 1:26 am | Comment

Richard, that’s cool. :)

January 12, 2006 @ 2:01 am | Comment

Incidentally, Madge is lurking here, as he’s just outed my Peking Duck handle on the China Daily site.

January 12, 2006 @ 2:57 am | Comment

He’s always lurking here. Like any lover, he can’t bear to be away from the object of his obsession.

January 12, 2006 @ 3:14 am | Comment

Have to copy and paste this summary of the paranoid-delusional schizophrenic world of MAJ from Tingbudong at http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?tid=499946&extra=page%3D1&page=7:

Checklist

Hmmm, let’s see. MAJ admits that he:

1. Pretends to be an old woman doctor, and multiple other personalities. Check.

2. Writes blog comments and posts using these fake identities, and then praises his own intellect and carries on conversations with himself. Check.

3. Cuts and pastes from other people’s works and passes it off as his own. Check.

4. Carried on a detailed dialogue with Dr. Ann Myers – i.e., himself – about his penis, and the sex organs of other men. Check.

5. Puts out false information on a regular basis about his name, his career and many other topics. Check.

6. Enjoys making things up (i.e., lying) to see how people will react. Check.

7. Consider those he interacts with as “guinea pigs” for him to play with. Check.

8. Creates incredibly detailed scenarios, like Dr. Myers’ medical history, complete with dates and itsy-bitsy details – every single one of them a total fantasy (i.e., a lie). Check!

9. Is nothing but a “prankster” whose goal is to cause “mischief.” Check.

10. Sees all of this as “entertainment” because he is bored with his life. Check.

And yet he presents pompous articles self-righteously denouncing blogs that don’t welcome his comments (comments which are, as he admits, all mischievous concoctions). So why and how can we believe a single word he says, ever? I don’t know anything about claims that he contacted Gordon’s or Richard’s employer or that he sends them emails. You’ll have to ask them that. but I do know that neither Horse’s Mouth or Peking Duck have ever been accused of spreading lies. Jonesy, on the other hand, gleefully admits it is all he does. So Jonesy, let’s just say you have a bit of a credibility problem, and any reader who faces the choice of believing them or you will really have no choice at all: when it comes to Madge, there is nothing to believe. He’s just a big, psychotic pseudo-person, a hollow, empty, lonely shell that exists to crank out lies and fake personalities.

January 12, 2006 @ 5:51 pm | Comment

Hey, I think I am serious competition for Kevin’s “first to spot Dr. Ann” prize. Actually, I think he wins for figuring out that Dr. Ann = MAJ. But I’m pretty sure I was the first person to say that Dr. Ann was a fraud.

January 12, 2006 @ 11:51 pm | Comment

Sorry, Lisa. I can’t keep track of all the Madge nonsense.

Keir, thanks. He is trying to bait me with his new article but I learned long ago there is no victory in engaging with him. He always has the last word, and nothing that he says has any sincerity. The polite tone and ingratiating style is a gimmick; there is only one goal, to humiliate and hurt, all under a guise of polite discourse. Interesting, how literally everyone in the forum agreed he’s unhinged, one of them referring to his obsession with me as a “fetish.” Now, of course, he’ll paste this comment on the CD thread and expound on it. As if he has a leg to stand on. Good. Let him wallow in his own self-created universe.

Oh, and he just got caught cutting and pasting again. He’s still doing it! See page 9 of the CD thread.

January 13, 2006 @ 12:20 am | Comment

No apologies necessary, Richard! It’s just that I can be very literal – nay, gullible – I WANT to believe, you know? But I knew right away that Dr. Ann was a fake. Just because of stuff like informed consent, and not insulting your research subjects, basic things like that.

January 13, 2006 @ 12:40 am | Comment

“Keir, thanks. He is trying to bait me with his new article but I learned long ago there is no victory in engaging with him. He always has the last word, and nothing that he says has any sincerity.”

Too right, Richard. I have foolishly been engaging with him on the CD site, and it’s exactly as you say.

He’s the master of Orwellian doublethink and black/white.

January 13, 2006 @ 2:10 am | Comment

An important reminder of what makes madge tick.

How many narcissists does it take to change a light bulb?

(a) Just one — but he has to wait for the whole world to revolve around him.

(b) None at all — he hires menials for work that’s beneath him….

First, narcissists lack empathy, so they don’t know what you want or like and, evidently, they don’t care either; second, they think their opinions are better and more important than anyone else’s….

It’s very hard to have a simple, uncomplicated good time with a narcissist. Except for odd spells of heady euphoria unrelated to anything you can see, their affective range is mediocre-fake-normal to hell-on-Earth. They will sometimes lie low and be quiet, actually passive and dependent — this is as good as it gets with narcissists. They are incapable of loving conduct towards anyone or anything, so they do not have the capacity for simple pleasure, beyond the satisfaction of bodily needs. There is only one way to please a narcissist (and it won’t please you): that is to indulge their every whim, cater to their tiniest impulses, bend to their views on every little thing. There’s only one way to get decent treatment from narcissists: keep your distance. They can be pretty nice, even charming, flirtatious, and seductive, to strangers, and will flatter you shamelessly if they want something from you. When you attempt to get close to them in a normal way, they feel you are putting emotional pressure on them and they withdraw because you’re too demanding. They can be positively fawning and solicitous as long as they’re afraid of you, which is not most people’s idea of a real fun relationship.

The politeness thing, always saying Dear Richard and signing with Sincerely and being nauseatingly fawning….these are the classic signs of the narcissistic personality disorder. Steering clear is definitely the best advice.

January 13, 2006 @ 4:01 am | Comment

Richard, I dunno if it’s anything to do with you, but there’s a sublime spoof of Madje’s blog at
http://flowingwaters.blog.com/

January 13, 2006 @ 5:26 am | Comment

Well… Umm, I came to this site and wrote about the weather and ski conditions. I then saw the Anniversary post and I’m somewhat, umm… Wow, I can’t even describe it… I think if you watch the movie Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas, you’ll somewhat understand the feeling I’m trying to convey – a type of sadness, loss and deep confusion as well as Fear & Loathing, I suppose…

Glad I wasn’t there when all that happened.

If you’re wondering whether I’m real or not, check my url…

January 13, 2006 @ 9:16 am | Comment

I couldn’t understand why anyone would feel the need to suddenly appear and, after making an incoherent statement, challenge to see if he’s real. Sure enough, his URL is invalid.
What’s the point? Unless he’s jealous of the contempt MAJ enjoys and hopes to have some rub off on himself….

January 13, 2006 @ 10:48 pm | Comment

Keir, I think dangfingers is for real. I was able to access his blog earlier today, but I can’t now.

January 14, 2006 @ 12:29 am | Comment

Keir, I just saw Madge’s response to you at china Daily, and I think it would be best not to interact with him, because with your every reply he bombards readers with yet more attacks against me and incredibly blatant lies. Which I’ll address here, but never over there. (Any interaction at all with madge gets him excited, as he can use it to divert the spotlight back on himself.)

His big claim now, which he has been hammering on again and again, is that there’s “nothing personal” about his posts. “This only had to do with Peking Duck, never with Richard.”

This is akin to a “big lie,” so obscene and untrue in every way that responding to it is painful. But I’ll do it, not for madge, who of course knows he is lying, but for newcomers who might get sucked into Madge’s crapola.

I blog anonymously. I do not use my last name, only “richard.” One very obscure site called EV asked me more than a year ago for their permission to reprint one of my posts on their site, and they asked for my last name. I agreed, because I knew it was an obscure site with miniscule google ratings, and besides, what were the chances of someone trying to use the Internet to hurt me? That is the only time, ever, that I have used my last name in connection with Peking Duck. Simon is a friend of mine and he never once used my last name on his site – a rather bold lie on Madge’s part (made today over at his China Daily soap opera). The only other time my full name ever appeared linked with the Peking Duck was when another site “outed” me in a series of rampaging posts taking on Joseph Bosco, Adam Morris, Xiao Qiang (China Digital Ties), Orville Schell, Brendan O’Kane and others. He got my name from register.com; I since made it inaccessible. It was from this bizarro site that Madge got my last name, and I am sure it made him giddy as a little kid.

After Madge was banned, he posted his first China Daily article, with my full name featured prominently. I asked him to have it removed and he refused. He has since posted comments using my full name on countless sites (this one is the latest) So we now know, this isn’t at all about Peking Duck; if it were just about that, he would focus on my blog and not me. No, he knew, correctly, that by posting my last name everywhere it would cause me considerable pain. And I admit it, he succeeded. If that makes him happy and proud, there’s not much I can do.

But this was just the beginning. He googled relentlessly, digging up the most obscure crap he could to make a guess at my age and other personal details. (Remember, this was “nothing personal” – and yet he spends good amounts of time googling my name, looking for something, anything he can use to humiliate me.) He then began an entire series of comments over at Simon World and Bingfeng where he kept referring to me not only by my full name but by my age as well (even though he was wrong about it). Just because he knew I keep details of my personal life private.) You can see the insanity over at this thread, which caused Simon to write (same link):

MAJ,

Your beef is primarily with Richard. If you want to take it further, set up your own site and go for it. You certainly have the time.

I’m happy to leave your comment here despite you engaging in the very personal attacks you pretend disgust you on TPD. You’ve always had the right not to read Richard’s site, yet you choose to anyway. It is Richard’s site, not yours. He can delete your comments and block you (and others) if he sees fit. That’s up to him.

Sometimes the threads at Richard’s site are frivilous. That’s not a crime. If you don’t like it, or find it juvenile, skip it. There’s plenty of other posts and sites.

.. Again, you always have the choice to not read those comments. The internet is a big place. You can go and find someone “mature” enough for you to spend your idle days.
posted by: Simon on 07.18.05 at 06:47 PM [permalink]

Emphasis added.

No one observing this strange phenomenon could doubt by now that this was not only a totally personal crusade, but a dangerous obsession in which the perpetrator would go to any length to embarrass me personally — repeat, personally — by posting personal things about me that he knew I wished to keep private.

I used to like Mark, and if you go back to the first thread in which he commented, you can see the respect I was willing to give him. How sad, then, to learn later that literally every word of these very intelligent comments was cut and pasted, written by others. How sad, to learn you’ve been played the fool and the sucker. But my point is, I tried to be fair and respectful, and everyone here knows what followed.

This is just a snapshot into the grief Jones has tried to cause me. As he insists there was absolutely nothing personal, ever, in his deeds, the reader is invited to examine the actual record, replete with episode of mishief such as this one:

Now, why has the Mark Anthony Jones persona changed over the last 13 months? Well, not merely because I am bored, that I seek entertainment. The change also reflects my changing attitude towards Peking Duck. I simply don’t take the site seriously. I don’t take Richard seriously either.

For the first three months, I seriously thought that Richard was somebody aged in his early to mid twenties. I got this impression from his writings – from his hysterical rants, etc. From the way he interacted with me, often in ways I found to be irrational and juvenile. It came as a real surprise to discover, after doing some research on him online, that he is aged about **. He may even be **.

He is definitely lacking in the maturity one might expect from a man of his age – he is emotionally volatile, and is prone to hysteria.

But mind you, he has never, ever said anything personal about Richard.

Luckily, my friend Bingfeng was a gentleman and censored Jones’ comments, and like Simon he was eventually pushed by Jones into closing his (Jones’) threads and deleting his comments. I appreciate both Simon and Bingfeng for their support, even though we disagree with one another about so many things. But mature people can disagree and still be friends.

What Madge did with the information he collected is yet another story. All I will say here is that he went on an email spree of such vehemence and malice that I am still working to repair the damage. But remember, there was never anything personal here.

Let me give an example. A few weeks ago, I gave a Webinar presentation to my company’s various offices throughout Asia on blogging. The very next day, one of my employees actually wrote on her own MSN Spaces blog an item about me, saying she googled my name, and she excerpted portions of Mark’s China Daily article on her blog. (When I asked her about this – it is against my company policy to ever include reference to the company and its staff in personal blogs – she insisted on closing her blog down. You can still find the listing with its headline, including my last name, on technorati if you don’t believe me; this happened about 6 or 8 weeks ago.) She had no context, and she took Jones’ article at face value, not knowing the ugly story behind it. Perhaps for the rest of my life, I will have to deal with the fact that anyone who googles my name will see Jones’ articles and blog comments about me, and all I can do is hope they read the comments about mark himself, so they understand the source. But it was nothing personal. Mark never meant to cause me any harm.

So when you see Madge proclaiming in his pompous and grandiose manner how he only wants to pursue intelligent inquiry and he has no ulterior motives and there is nothing personal, please remember just how this diseased mind works. Everything he does can be rationalized. He can find an obscure link that literally no one ever saw, and uses it to justify spreading my name all over the Web, in highly negative and abusive comments. He always has an excuse, something to hide behind. And he’s always so cloyingly gracious. Well, it’s all a lot of fun from his side of things, where his identity is unknown. But thanks to him, my own identity is known to the world and I just have to deal with it.

I try to keep discourse here serious and polite, but one thing needs to be said, and that is that I truly hate and despise Madge. For him to see this as a humorous and impersonal little spat is so easy, while I have to deal with its implications in my everyday life.

Oh, and I know how his mind works. He will love this, as it will give him yet more excuses to argue and pontificate and attack me, always under the cover of polite niceties and fawning phrases. Well, like everything else he’s wrought, I just have to deal with it. I weighed very carefully whether or not to open this thread and whether to post this. I have no choice; the log of his misdeeds must be part of the record as long as he is practicing cyber-terrorism on me. It’s nice to see that not a single person has come to his defense, either in this thread or at China Daily (I guess Amanda Liu is having her period and Allison Bridgestone is backpacking in Yunnan). But that makes this whole episode even scarier, as it underscores how one lonely man in Shenzhen with no life and no friends can, from half-way around the world, inflict so much personal damage and cause so much grief. And he will insist yet again there’s nothing personal here. And he will keep doing it. When I am silent, and politely ignore him, he still sends me the emails and he still posts articles about me. Maybe I should be flattered, but after what I’ve been through, I only feel betrayed, disappointed and uttery disdainful of someone I once respected who turned out to be lower and filthier than dirt.

January 14, 2006 @ 1:40 am | Comment

Thank you so much for having the patience and fortitude to put all that down, Richard. For me, this guy is only a pathetic joke; the kind of guy who no doubt got beaten up at school regularly had to flee Australia to some armpit of the world to try to forget his shame and be something ‘big’ simply by being a foreigner in a strange land. Without any life, he has to create a soap opera where he is the star, bu without any friends or aquaintances, must pick on one guy and make him the cause that justifies his existence.
To see how he lives to hurt you and destroy your life in whatever petty way he can is frightening and deplorable. I promise that I shall never try to reason with him again or give him the sexual excitement of knowing someone is actually acknowledging his worthless existence.
Anyone who wishes to join me in not trying to reason with him, please email me.

January 14, 2006 @ 2:34 am | Comment

For the last couple of days I have been trying to engage him in debate, just out of a desire to see what makes him tick, but — yes, of course — he merely used his replies for more narcissistic ramblings about Richard.

I too won’t be giving him the oxygen of publicity any more.

January 14, 2006 @ 3:50 am | Comment

Well, he’s gone and deleted half of the comments and his article on China Daily, due to my comment above, or so he says. If so, I’ll say Thank You. The proof of the sincerity behind the gesture will be simple enough: Can he leave me alone? That’s an extremely small thing to ask. His track record say no, he cannot. But I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

January 14, 2006 @ 5:07 am | Comment

surely you two — Richard and Madge — can engage in some nuclear disarmanent. you know, gradually remove personal references and suchforth, refrain from mentioning one another, remove some more references, Richard can ask people to hold off googlebombing or whatever for the time being, until there’s little left on the web to cause unpleasantesses in the future (while reserving of course the right to republish old material if the other crosses the line of control), I’m not saying delete all the descriptions of Madge’s nonsense but eventually take offline the threads which discuss nothing else, reciprocated by China Daily postings deleted….
not that I’m saying in anyway you two share blame for the past, of course.
that’d be the best result, no?

January 14, 2006 @ 9:20 am | Comment

I will certainly consider it, after I see that the gesture is sincere. I never wanted to go this route, and my blog was free of references to Madge for months. He insisted on reigniting things, once more blasting my full name across the blogosphere, unprovoked. This is what he wanted, despite my pleas not to use my name. But it was nothing personal.

January 14, 2006 @ 9:27 am | Comment

SALT I is the common name for the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks Agreement. SALT I froze the number of strategic ballistic missile launchers at existing levels, and provided for the addition of new submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers only after the same number of older intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and SLBM launchers had been dismantled.

SALT II was a second round of talks from 1972-1979 between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which sought to curtail the manufacture of strategic nuclear weapons. It was a continuation of progress made during the SALT I talks.

..

When President Carter signed the SALT II treaty in June 1979, he gave Brezhnev a kiss on the cheek.

(all ctrl+v Wikipedia)

January 14, 2006 @ 9:42 am | Comment

Trust but verify, as Reagan famously said.

January 14, 2006 @ 9:54 am | Comment

Hi guys,

Been away for a while, as I’m on holiday. But for now, three observations about the last few comments here:

1. Carter kissed Brezhnev because in Russia it’s a sign of trust, NOT as a sign of personal affection. It’s more a sign of trust than of intimacy, although in Russia the two are closely linked. (Among Russian men, a mere handshake seems cold and distant. Carter was advised of this. A Russian man will not entirely trust another man unless they kiss each other. In fact it’s considered effeminate for a man to avoid kissing other men; it’s taken as a sign of a weak, cold spirit.) And,

2. Brezhnev was ruthless, but he wasn’t Cuckoo For Cocoa Puffs and he didn’t go around the world making up multiple identities for himself to confuse other World Leaders.

3. Brezhnev never sent photos of his penis to any other world leaders.

January 15, 2006 @ 4:16 am | Comment

Richard, you need to update this page now with MAJ’s attempts to submit self-pitying nonsense and self-aggrandisement under another reader’s name.

February 23, 2006 @ 4:34 am | Comment

In a conversation with negotiators beginning at 2:45 p.m., Koresh agreed to send Mark Anthony Jones, age 12, out of the compound as soon as Koresh completed his “Bible study” with the negotiators. Koresh launched into his monologue at 2:48 p.m., and continued without interruption until 3:51 p.m. This “Bible study,” as with Koresh’s other preaching and sermonizing, rambled and made little sense, except perhaps to his followers. As always, the focus was on “unlocking” the Seven Seals and interpreting God’s intentions about the end of the world. At the end of the “Bible study,” at 4:26 p.m., the child came out of the compound with a bag containing the puppies.
http://www.usdoj.gov/05publications/waco/wacotwo.html

June 27, 2006 @ 5:29 am | Comment

[...] below a worthwhile caution concerning the author of the essay referenced above. Having checked the damning evidence provided, it appears that Mark Anthony Jones has been caught consistently plagiarizing others in [...]

May 10, 2009 @ 5:00 pm | Pingback

A link was given in a reply at CNreviews where MAJ trashes this site and you, Richard. Commenting on that, Kai wrote:

“Hm, interesting link. Seems like there’s an age-old feud going on surrounding MAJ and Richard that many of us were completely unaware of. Thanks CnInDC for sharing the link. It presents another side of the whole MAJ credibility issue. That said, I do personally wish the comments on this post can actually focus on the points regarding Tiananmen brought up by MAJ’s article, instead of becoming a proxy battlefield for the credibility of the author or those of his detractors.”

In response to which I offered:

“Interesting, indeed. I would say, however, that the article and its author’s credibility are not so easily separated when discussing the contents of said article. Further, the link expresses opinions about Richard and his site that I doubt would be shared by any of the bloggers that you respect (and at least one of those that you don’t).”

The above reply was deleted for reasons that pass understanding. Therefore, if you’ll forgive me, I place it here where it also has some relevance. I do this because the comment was valid and appropriate.

May 11, 2009 @ 6:42 pm | Comment

@Stuart – Mate, I don’t know who that Kai Pan is, but I think that’s a pretty atrocious way to run a blog.

May 11, 2009 @ 11:32 pm | Comment

[...] to later learn that literally all of his comments were cut and pasted from articles he found using Google searches. My apologies for all of those who were made fools of. Baked by Richard @ 6:32 pm, Filed under: [...]

January 27, 2010 @ 1:53 am | Pingback

[...] I learned what he was doing, I put up the post that resulted in the most remarkable comment thread I’ve ever seen, anywhere. This set in motion a feud that included Jones writing two separate [...]

January 27, 2010 @ 2:06 am | Pingback

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.