God’s in his heaven, all’s right with the world

I went back to work today after three whole days in bed. There’s nothing quite like being sick to make you appreciate life and all the things you take for granted (like being able to walk across the room). It’s good to be back.

China is still here in all its strangeness. I love the place, and it drives me insane. Things I found infuriating four years ago are now amusing. Well, some things, anyway. There’s still a lot to be infuriated with, but you can’t be consumed with outrage all the time, at least not if you want to get any pleasure out of life.

I’m still not up to heavy-duty blogging, so let me wrap this up by drawing your attention to a handy new list of do’s and don’ts the government is offering to Chinese tourists traveling overseas. It’s priceless.

China’s advice to its citizens who travel abroad: No fighting, no shouting and, please, no extortion.

The new guidelines for Chinese tourists, posted on the Foreign Ministry’s Web site Tuesday, cover a wide range of dangerous or problem behavior to help head off trouble.

Travelers are told to avoid drawing attention to themselves, respect local customs, and keep a wary eye on strangers.

“Keep peaceful in public places, don’t talk loud and avoid sticking out,” the guidelines said.

“Don’t get involved in other people’s quarrels in public places,” it added, a nod to the Chinese habit of gathering in large crowds to observe or even take part in others’ arguments and fights.

The suggestions also urged Chinese to respect local laws and not to try to cut corners or make threats.

“When your legal rights are violated, avoid making things worse and resolve the problem through upright channels, not through extortion or other illegal methods,” the guidelines said.

So remember, the next time you travel outside of China try not to practice extortion. If you feel you absolutely must extort somebody, try at least to keep it to a minimum.

Thanks for sticking around despite the paucity of new material.

______________

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: 38 Comments

Conversely, these rules imply (correctly) that extortion WITHIN China is perfectly acceptable.

August 22, 2007 @ 10:32 pm | Comment

If you’re going to extort, don’t talk loudly about it.

August 23, 2007 @ 1:31 am | Comment

Richard,

Nice to hear you have recovered. Now you probably will have some time to restart your study of Chinese, so next time you do not have to rely upon second hand souces to do your talktalkchina job. Hear’s the link to the original document issued by the Chinese Foreign Ministry:

http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/chn/lsfw/cgtbtx/t353596.htm

Go to Section 2. Sorry if the Chinese text is too difficult for you, but as smart a person as you are, you may have the spirit to challenge yourself to provide a better translation. You can take this as your homework for today. More specifically, try to figure out what this sentence says:

您的合法权益受到侵害时,应循正当途径解决,不要采取贿赂等不合法方式,以免问题复杂化。

Have a nice day.

August 23, 2007 @ 4:09 am | Comment

Wow, such bad translation, even Babelfish from AltaVista translated semi-correctly. It should be translated as “garuding against been blackmailed or distorted.”

Giggles…

August 23, 2007 @ 10:43 am | Comment

“….keep a wary eye on strangers”

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to the meaning behind this?

August 23, 2007 @ 2:38 pm | Comment

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to the meaning behind this?

Just go read the original Chinese government version, it looks absolutely fine. That exact phrase actually doesn’t exist other than don’t open your door for strangers, don’t let strangers get on your car, and don’t follow a stranger to places that you don’t know etc.

I thought most of the readers on this blog at least have some kind of Chinese proficiency.

August 23, 2007 @ 3:37 pm | Comment

I thought most of the readers on this blog at least have some kind of Chinese proficiency. – Arty

I thought the same, because many of them talked like they were real China experts. Maybe they are not as good as I thought, but I still believe they are good enough to find a job at places like the Associated Press. There are many such news vendors in what is known as the free media, and their credentials are perfect for them.

August 23, 2007 @ 4:52 pm | Comment

There is no doubt that this AP report is a misrepresentation of the original Chinese Foreign Ministry Travel Guide. The way the AP report links this document to the behaviour of Chinese tourists overseas is, to say the least, misleading.

Brgyags seems to be particularly concerned about the mispresentations of that particularly sentence in the document. So I thought I might have a go translating it into English to facilitate further discussions. Fat Cat’s translation reads:

When your legal rights are violated, (you) should follow proper avenues to resolve (the issue). Avoid using illegal measures, such as bribery, because they will further complicate the problem.

Brgyags, judging from my translation, do you agree that I am qualified to make some “informed” comment about this “Travel Guide”?

August 23, 2007 @ 5:17 pm | Comment

I agree with Fat Cat. Whilst the article is misrepresentative, perhaps there is no need to have a go at Richard, who put it up in good faith, and adopt such a holier than thou attitude.

My translation of the sentence is

When your legal rights and interests are violated, you should follow proper channels to resolve the problem. Do not use bribery or other illegal methods, as this will complicate the problem.

Can I now join the impressive and amazing Chinese speakers club?

Please?

Pretty please?

I’ll be your best friend……………….

August 23, 2007 @ 5:28 pm | Comment

Don’t worry, Si, I can deal with it. I cut and pasted some copy that I found amusing. I did not read the Chinese; there was no link in the article to the CHinese. While I probably could have read portions of the Chinese, my reading skills are very, very limited. I am working on them every day as best I can considering my schedule. I make no claims to being a master of anything at all here – not China, not the US, not anything. I state very clearly in the legend above that I am a pseudo-philosopher and a cipher, and this blog exists solely for me to mumble to myself. If someone feels he needs to come on and take cheap shots, that’s his privilege. I just hope he understands it says more about him than about me.

August 23, 2007 @ 11:07 pm | Comment

“If someone feels he needs to come on and take cheap shots, that’s his privilege. I just hope he understands it says more about him than about me.”

Absolutely. And thanks to Si and Fat Cat for their counter punches.

August 23, 2007 @ 11:50 pm | Comment

Yes, big thanks to both. I truly appreciate it.

August 23, 2007 @ 11:52 pm | Comment

Don’t worry, Si, I can deal with it. I cut and pasted some copy that I found amusing. I did not read the Chinese; there was no link in the article to the CHinese. While I probably could have read portions of the Chinese, my reading skills are very, very limited. I am working on them every day as best I can considering my schedule. I make no claims to being a master of anything at all here – not China, not the US, not anything. I state very clearly in the legend above that I am a pseudo-philosopher and a cipher, and this blog exists solely for me to mumble to myself. If someone feels he needs to come on and take cheap shots, that’s his privilege. I just hope he understands it says more about him than about me.

Richard,

I am not arguing whether this says more about me or about other guys here, and I am not sure how you measure that. But I think you should blame yourself for having given me a good chance to fire some “cheap shots”. I don’t go check the Chinese original every time I see a translation by the Western media. I did it this time because I detected there is something fishy here. Common sense told me that the Chinese government, although authoritarian and bureaucratic in many ways, is smart enough not to publish stupid words like that. However, you quickly jumped on it and started your cheap shots. You, Ivan, otherlisa, the AP journalist and editors of the many English-language newspapers that used this piece of news seem to not have the necessary common sense about China. If I had not posted my comment soon enough, many frequenters of this blog would have also jumped on it already and had their fun. It is okay to poke fun at the Chinese government, but do not let whatever your motivation is prevent you from developing your common sense about China.

August 23, 2007 @ 11:57 pm | Comment

Thanks Brgyags. Poke away.

August 24, 2007 @ 12:00 am | Comment

This is a great idea actually, more than it is amusing. Iraq should issue one of these to visitors, as well.

1) Avoid bombing cities, killing thousands and leaving millions homeless without access to food or clean water.
2) Avoid turning our nation into a auto-cannibalistic theocracy that murders homosexuals, women, and ethnic/religious minorities despite your personal favor for murdering minorities and advocating theocratic police-states.
3) Avoid stealing all our oil to lower the costs of filling one SUV on the way to McDonald’s.
4) Try not to, if possible, make billions of cash just disappear.
5) Don’t gang rape little girls and murder their entire families.
6) Don’t barge in and disrespect our culture, machine gun people at roadblocks, and disparage our basic sense of human dignity by making youtube.com videos of wholesale slaughter of unwitting civilians.

August 24, 2007 @ 7:58 am | Comment

So it is still ok for Chinese tour groups to expell their body fluids all over the place?

What are the guidelines for being confronted by Taiwanese? Japanese?

August 24, 2007 @ 11:46 am | Comment

“Common sense told me that the Chinese government, although authoritarian and bureaucratic in many ways, is smart enough not to publish stupid words like that.”

Yes, their track record over at China Daily is an example to all of us.

August 24, 2007 @ 12:18 pm | Comment

blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=9178714977491572811&postID=3261247413434158934

“A Blueprint for the Permanent Deconstruction of China”
3 Comments – Hide Original Post Collapse comments
I’ve been pondering this question for a while “what to do about the possible failure of China?”. It is too big to just allow to careen wildly and it has a full suite of NBC weapons technology. We certainly wouldn’t want certain stateless organizations getting their hands on that stuff now would we?
And we should take a close look at China as a potential failed state. Outside of Beijing, China is run by a vast collection of political and military warlords and many outside (and quite a few inside) of China barely eek out a meager existence. Though the country is not involved in a civil war, banditry is common outside of major metro areas and the national government needs the constant menace of Taiwan’s independence and Japan’s existence to keep the people supporting the party, as the thrill of shopping has begun to wane, people are smothered by the pollution and are getting sick of chronically defective products.

Then I read this snippet from a well known authority on China:
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-8-20/58863.html

And here is more from an up and coming China journalist:
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/69-29056.aspx

And because you never plan to fail, only fail to plan; one must come up with such a plan regarding how to deal with the remnants of China AND the expat population to boot.

posted by nanheyangrouchuan at 4:51 AM on Aug 24, 2007

nanheyangrouchuan said…

The first subject to deal with is China’s non-conventional arsenal. Well, the answer is simpler than you think. China is bordered by two nuclear powers, Russia and India. It would not be impossible for these two countries to divide China’s fixed, mobile and submarine nuclear missiles and secure them within their own borders. The Russians have a far more advanced missile system and far greater numbers of warheads, the Indians would benefit from an increase in warheads and possibly make some technical improvements to their arsenal, but the balance of nuclear power would be maintained and no new nuclear powers would be created. Other neighbors such as central Asian nations, S. Korea and Japan as well as the UN would be invited as official observers and to provide additional security.

Next, what to do about China’s conventional military forces? Well, there would be new countries formed from the remains of China, and those with coastal exposure (which would constitute the majority of what is left of China) would have the option of keeping a fairly divided number of naval assets. New countries that did not have coastal exposure would receive a portion of equally divided air and land military assets. Territories that would be returned to their rightful governments (think: “Inner Mongolia”) would have the option of taking said military assets or selling them.
We’ll get back to the orderly breakup of the newly independent states.

24/8/07 5:12 AM
Delete
nanheyangrouchuan said…

Now in the midst of this restructuring of Asia lies a wild card: the ex-patriot population.

Some came to China because of their job (and the subsequent lifestyle of a minor diety), some came for the cultural experience, some to chase girls and drink, some came to put “China” on their resume and some are wanted for some fairly serious crimes back home.

The expat population has come to have an impact, both good and bad, on the local population where they live, especially in Shanghai, Beijing, Hong Kong and Shenzhen.

Well, in order to facilitate a proper reconstruction the influence of this population will have to be removed. Asia and the international community simply cannot allow crimminals, perverts, substance abusers and self-serving demigods to influence the new governments or the newly liberated society.

Now, internationally recognized aid groups and the media will certainly have their place as objective observers AND facilitators for the new liberated press in each new nation. However, those who are not part of this group (executives, teachers, entrepreneurs, lounge-abouts) WERE in China doing business and/or working with/for China, which no longer exists. To best benefit the new nations and respect their individual sovereignty, all of those parties associated with commerce and education will have to leave and return to the new countries and negotiate new contracts and licenses. There should be no carryovers or special arrangements made. The large populations of each country (representing potential customers and workers) as well as each country’s need for developmental assistance will ensure their return. Former citizens of China with foreign spouses and their children will be provided with legal entry into their foreign spouses’ home country as political refugees.

Companies that were formerly within China should be associated with their corporate headquarters to determine whether they are foreign in domestic in each new country. The foreign or domestic status of China SOEs will also fall within these guidelines. Formerly Chinese private companies and SOEs with assets outside of their new countries will have to negotiate with the hosting country(ies) regarding the sale of those assets or maintaining them as a foreign entity.

Regarding fugitives, other nations who suspect that someone of interest was residing in China will be given full access to “sweep” individuals from these new countries and from existing countries that have absorbed territories from what was known as China. These properly authorized and diplomatically recognized representatives will only need to provide an official arrest warrant and matching passport information to confirm the identification of the suspects. Any issues of dual citizenship/dual arrest warrants will need to be settled at the diplomatic level between the two relevant nations. The Reconstruction Authority (consisting of the US and the neighbors of the country formerly known as China as well as invited observers and monitors).

24/8/07 5:41 AM
Delete
nanheyangrouchuan said…

Territorial division will be the thorniest issue, however, the Reconstruction Authority can look back at history as well as relying on current political, cultural and economic boundaries for guidelines. Special exception will be given to areas of the former China that are environmental unsustainable. Residents of these areas will be given the opportunity to emigrate as environmental refugees to nations that will accept them or to remain on their homelands and fend for themselves. The world and these people need to recognize that the world cannot and should not expend valuable resources supporting people who choose to live in wastelands that lack sufficient food and water.
The Hui people of Ningxia and Gansu provinces come to mind.

I see the rest of the partitioning occuring along the following lines:

Xinjiang is officially recognized as E. Turkestan and can be recognized as an independent nation or enter into reunification

Inner Mongolia is returned to Mongolia.

Tibet is liberated.

Taiwan is welcomed back into the UN, Fujian province, being culturally related to Taiwan is allowed to enter into unification negotiations with Taipei.

Hong Kong and Macau would be allowed to decide their own fate as independent city states, forming a “supercity” or entering into negotiations with mainland provinces.

The remaining provinces and metropolitan areas (such as Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Chongqing) would be allowed to negotiate their own political arrangements, with conventional military and other former PRC assets divided among them equally (with the exception of naval assets for nations without coastlines).

All new nations would have to accept democratic governments, with the Aligned Asian Democracies providing guidance and consultation. These new nations would have to sign non-aggression pacts to politically recognize that there is no “mandate of heaven” to forcefully unite all of them as in the past.

To give these new nations a financial boost, the foreign debt formerly held by China would be divided up according to each new nation’s population. Likewise, the newly reunited Mongolia, Tibet and any country that united with E. Turkestan would also receive a percentage of China’s former debt in proportional to the repatriated population.

24/8/07 6:04 AM

August 24, 2007 @ 2:12 pm | Comment

“A Blueprint for the Permanent Deconstruction of China”
3 Comments – Hide Original Post Collapse comments
I’ve been pondering this question for a while “what to do about the possible failure of China?”. It is too big to just allow to careen wildly and it has a full suite of NBC weapons technology. We certainly wouldn’t want certain stateless organizations getting their hands on that stuff now would we?
And we should take a close look at China as a potential failed state. Outside of Beijing, China is run by a vast collection of political and military warlords and many outside (and quite a few inside) of China barely eek out a meager existence. Though the country is not involved in a civil war, banditry is common outside of major metro areas and the national government needs the constant menace of Taiwan’s independence and Japan’s existence to keep the people supporting the party, as the thrill of shopping has begun to wane, people are smothered by the pollution and are getting sick of chronically defective products.

Then I read this snippet from a well known authority on China:
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-8-20/58863.html

And here is more from an up and coming China journalist:
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/69-29056.aspx

And because you never plan to fail, only fail to plan; one must come up with such a plan regarding how to deal with the remnants of China AND the expat population to boot.

posted by nanheyangrouchuan at 4:51 AM on Aug 24, 2007

nanheyangrouchuan said…

The first subject to deal with is China’s non-conventional arsenal. Well, the answer is simpler than you think. China is bordered by two nuclear powers, Russia and India. It would not be impossible for these two countries to divide China’s fixed, mobile and submarine nuclear missiles and secure them within their own borders. The Russians have a far more advanced missile system and far greater numbers of warheads, the Indians would benefit from an increase in warheads and possibly make some technical improvements to their arsenal, but the balance of nuclear power would be maintained and no new nuclear powers would be created. Other neighbors such as central Asian nations, S. Korea and Japan as well as the UN would be invited as official observers and to provide additional security.

Next, what to do about China’s conventional military forces? Well, there would be new countries formed from the remains of China, and those with coastal exposure (which would constitute the majority of what is left of China) would have the option of keeping a fairly divided number of naval assets. New countries that did not have coastal exposure would receive a portion of equally divided air and land military assets. Territories that would be returned to their rightful governments (think: “Inner Mongolia”) would have the option of taking said military assets or selling them.
We’ll get back to the orderly breakup of the newly independent states.

24/8/07 5:12 AM
Delete
nanheyangrouchuan said…

Now in the midst of this restructuring of Asia lies a wild card: the ex-patriot population.

Some came to China because of their job (and the subsequent lifestyle of a minor diety), some came for the cultural experience, some to chase girls and drink, some came to put “China” on their resume and some are wanted for some fairly serious crimes back home.

The expat population has come to have an impact, both good and bad, on the local population where they live, especially in Shanghai, Beijing, Hong Kong and Shenzhen.

Well, in order to facilitate a proper reconstruction the influence of this population will have to be removed. Asia and the international community simply cannot allow crimminals, perverts, substance abusers and self-serving demigods to influence the new governments or the newly liberated society.

Now, internationally recognized aid groups and the media will certainly have their place as objective observers AND facilitators for the new liberated press in each new nation. However, those who are not part of this group (executives, teachers, entrepreneurs, lounge-abouts) WERE in China doing business and/or working with/for China, which no longer exists. To best benefit the new nations and respect their individual sovereignty, all of those parties associated with commerce and education will have to leave and return to the new countries and negotiate new contracts and licenses. There should be no carryovers or special arrangements made. The large populations of each country (representing potential customers and workers) as well as each country’s need for developmental assistance will ensure their return. Former citizens of China with foreign spouses and their children will be provided with legal entry into their foreign spouses’ home country as political refugees.

Companies that were formerly within China should be associated with their corporate headquarters to determine whether they are foreign in domestic in each new country. The foreign or domestic status of China SOEs will also fall within these guidelines. Formerly Chinese private companies and SOEs with assets outside of their new countries will have to negotiate with the hosting country(ies) regarding the sale of those assets or maintaining them as a foreign entity.

Regarding fugitives, other nations who suspect that someone of interest was residing in China will be given full access to “sweep” individuals from these new countries and from existing countries that have absorbed territories from what was known as China. These properly authorized and diplomatically recognized representatives will only need to provide an official arrest warrant and matching passport information to confirm the identification of the suspects. Any issues of dual citizenship/dual arrest warrants will need to be settled at the diplomatic level between the two relevant nations. The Reconstruction Authority (consisting of the US and the neighbors of the country formerly known as China as well as invited observers and monitors).

24/8/07 5:41 AM
Delete
nanheyangrouchuan said…

Territorial division will be the thorniest issue, however, the Reconstruction Authority can look back at history as well as relying on current political, cultural and economic boundaries for guidelines. Special exception will be given to areas of the former China that are environmental unsustainable. Residents of these areas will be given the opportunity to emigrate as environmental refugees to nations that will accept them or to remain on their homelands and fend for themselves. The world and these people need to recognize that the world cannot and should not expend valuable resources supporting people who choose to live in wastelands that lack sufficient food and water.
The Hui people of Ningxia and Gansu provinces come to mind.

I see the rest of the partitioning occuring along the following lines:

Xinjiang is officially recognized as E. Turkestan and can be recognized as an independent nation or enter into reunification

Inner Mongolia is returned to Mongolia.

Tibet is liberated.

Taiwan is welcomed back into the UN, Fujian province, being culturally related to Taiwan is allowed to enter into unification negotiations with Taipei.

Hong Kong and Macau would be allowed to decide their own fate as independent city states, forming a “supercity” or entering into negotiations with mainland provinces.

The remaining provinces and metropolitan areas (such as Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Chongqing) would be allowed to negotiate their own political arrangements, with conventional military and other former PRC assets divided among them equally (with the exception of naval assets for nations without coastlines).

All new nations would have to accept democratic governments, with the Aligned Asian Democracies providing guidance and consultation. These new nations would have to sign non-aggression pacts to politically recognize that there is no “mandate of heaven” to forcefully unite all of them as in the past.

To give these new nations a financial boost, the foreign debt formerly held by China would be divided up according to each new nation’s population. Likewise, the newly reunited Mongolia, Tibet and any country that united with E. Turkestan would also receive a percentage of China’s former debt in proportional to the repatriated population.

24/8/07 6:04 AM

August 24, 2007 @ 2:12 pm | Comment

“Common sense told me that the Chinese government, although authoritarian and bureaucratic in many ways, is smart enough not to publish stupid words like that.”

So then, your idea of “common sense” resembles what? The Communist Party requiring all Buddhas to refrain from reincarnating without government permission?

The Chinese Communist Party is now a model of common sense?

What?

August 24, 2007 @ 3:04 pm | Comment

Can’t see what’s wrong with the translation, myself. It’s not particularly literal, but then, translation doesn’t have to be.
The article is maybe misleading in that I’m sure the British and American foreign offices have similar text on their websites, so it’s not something that’s particular to China. But that’s how news works, whaddya going to do about it?
On the August thread in Sinocidal, Fish was just pasting this page http://view.news.qq.com/a/20070822/000032.htm, which came up in a discussion about whether Chinese people are more uncouth than westerners. Both the Chinese and foreign press will one day get over this “rude Chinese” story, but at the moment it’s doing the rounds.

August 24, 2007 @ 6:38 pm | Comment

“Both the Chinese and foreign press will one day get over this “rude Chinese” story…”

But, Sir, I’ve never needed any journalists to tell me about Mainland Chinese rudeness. My personal experience taught me all I need to know about Mainland Chinese rudeness.

Wouldn’t a more effective way to “get over” this, um, TRUE story, be for the Mainland Chinese to clean up their act? And wouldn’t a good start be for the CCP to strike at the root of the problem, ie, stop brainwashing the Mainland Chinese into thinking they represent “5,000 years of continuous civilisation”, and instead, really tell them the truth about China? The truth being, that Mao and the Communists destroyed the manners and the traditional customs and culture of the people?

If, as I believe, a dose of humility is the foundation of all good manners, then the CCP isn’t helping the situation by whipping the Chinese up into a frenzy of mythologised Han-Chinese nationalist chauvinism mixed with enforced ignorance about all civilisations, including their own.

August 24, 2007 @ 8:18 pm | Comment

Yes, their track record over at China Daily is an example to all of us. – stuart

Common Sense 101: China Daily is a newspaper and they have to turn out reports fast, so their chances of screwing up are much higher than the central government ministries, which always check their documents many times and at many levels before they publish them. For the same reason, it seemed more likely to me that this time the Associated Press, with or without an intention, provided distorted translation than the Chinese government published something stupid.

It’s not particularly literal, but then, translation doesn’t have to be. The article is maybe misleading in that I’m sure the British and American foreign offices have similar text on their websites, so it’s not something that’s particular to China. But that’s how news works, whaddya going to do about it? – Phil

Thank you for being honest about what the Western media is really about.

@Ivan and nanhe,
How about a pair of scooters for the coming Xmas? I will make sure they are made in the Maldives.

August 24, 2007 @ 11:48 pm | Comment

Glad to hear you’re feeling better, Richard. Stay healthy, you!

August 25, 2007 @ 12:22 am | Comment

“Xinjiang is officially recognized as E. Turkestan and can be recognized as an independent nation or enter into reunification

Inner Mongolia is returned to Mongolia.

Tibet is liberated.”

Nope. Everything (land, reserves, assets) would and should go to the Republic of China.

August 25, 2007 @ 11:13 am | Comment

ferins:

That old KMT banner waving is passe, the young Taiwanese college students i’ve talked to in the US just want “Taiwan” and that is it.

August 25, 2007 @ 1:50 pm | Comment

That’s only in the scenario nanhe is describing. If China were to break down totally, it would be best for everyone in China if they were put under ROC jurisdiction.

Taiwan has a good chance of exerting a positive influence in China in realistic political and economic measures.

August 25, 2007 @ 2:26 pm | Comment

Brgyags wrote, “@Ivan and nanhe,
How about a pair of scooters for the coming Xmas? I will make sure they are made in the Maldives.”

Well I’ve got some reliable locally made handgun ammunition to unwrap for any uninvited Santa Claus who would try to deliver your gift.

August 25, 2007 @ 6:43 pm | Comment

like the mailman? IVE GOT A SHOTGUN AND IM NOT AFRAID TO SHOOT IT RANDOMLY IN THE DARK, AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!!!

August 26, 2007 @ 5:26 am | Comment

I think the most Uncivilized Thing about Chinese people is Licking Foreigner’s Anus

Recently there have been many attacks against the Chinese people, according to this thread, the poster suggested that the Chinese people like to behave rudely in public, cheat in public, bribe in public, practice extortion in public, etc.

So, how about the the American people? After Hurricane Katrina, how was the the behavior of the people of New Orleans, compared to the united efforts and mutual-help that the Chinese people gave each other during the great flood of 1998, the New Orleans peoples’ behavior looked almost like animals. Now, of course you may say, “Math! Why do you choose to look at only New Olreans’ people! Most of them are poor people and blacks! Not a fair comparison!” Ok, then let’s look at George Bush. Did Bush not lie about the WMD in Iraq? Even if millions of people in China cheat and swindle, the damage is not even comparable to what George Bush has done to the world by his cheating and swindling. And the American people elected George Bush two times, clearly the American people agree with his cheating and swindling as well.

Of course, these days, there are too many pro-Americans and elites inside the Chinese government. Even the Foreign Ministry is infected by these people, and as a result, they published this “guide” to help the Chinese people be more “civilized” in foreign countries. I think publishing this guide is the most uncivilized thing a Chinese person can do.

August 26, 2007 @ 5:29 am | Comment

“I think the most Uncivilized Thing about Chinese people is Licking Foreigner’s Anus”

haha.

August 26, 2007 @ 5:39 am | Comment

Ministry is infected by these people, and as a result, they published this “guide” to help the Chinese people be more “civilized” in foreign countries. I think publishing this guide is the most uncivilized thing a Chinese person can do.

Now I know Math doesn’t read Chinese or an wacky lazy ABC who didn’t bother to read the Chinese link. It is not a guide to be more “civilized.”

August 26, 2007 @ 9:44 am | Comment

@ ferins, I don’t use shotguns. I’m a marksman and there’s nothing random about my aim.

But back to the original topic, isn’t the Chinese Communist Party
telling people how to be “civilised” analogous to George Bush correcting people’s grammar?

August 26, 2007 @ 7:25 pm | Comment

So when you butcher the mailman it’ll be precise and deliberate, okay then.

August 27, 2007 @ 11:07 am | Comment

ferins, I said I would shoot “uninvited” visitors.
Mailmen are always welcome to deliver mail at my house. But you aren’t welcome to deliver anything to me, ferins. Ever.

And I’m not a butcher; I’m a marksman. I’ve never shot without immediately killing.

August 27, 2007 @ 10:05 pm | Comment

Ferins, your disruptive irrational rants remind me of an infamous ghost that’s been haunting this blog. Are you in anyway related to it?

P.S. of all the possible false identity that you can take on, why do you want to defame the pan-blue Taiwanese? I wonder.

August 27, 2007 @ 10:10 pm | Comment

But you aren’t welcome to deliver anything to me, ferins. Ever.

Okay then, Mr. E-thug. You responded to someone else’s post with juvenile internet threats and gunwaving. I simply mentioned the mailman because, obviously, it isn’t going to be that guy delivering the goods to you.

But we can’t mess around with you, you are a badass and you shoot to kill.

Does the knuckle dragging ever impede with your typing ability?

disruptive irrational rants

They make sense to people who aren’t in cry-in-my-tea-at-my-tea-party princess mode, yes.

August 30, 2007 @ 10:25 pm | Comment

my terrible morning grammar aside

August 30, 2007 @ 10:28 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.