Hacked By AdGhosT & Tayeb TN & bo hmid

 

 

 

 

 

close your eyes and listen Elfen Lied <3

Greets~:AdGhosT-- adel pro tn- Anonback Tnx - A_Ghacker - xvirus -Malousi Foryn - MaxKiller - Nexamos

Hacked By AdGhosT

Hacked By AdGhosT & Tayeb TN & bo hmid

 

 

 

 

 

close your eyes and listen Elfen Lied <3

Greets~:AdGhosT-- adel pro tn- Anonback Tnx - A_Ghacker - xvirus -Malousi Foryn - MaxKiller - Nexamos

The Great Leap Forward on film » The Peking Duck

The Great Leap Forward on film

Not sure how long this video has been around, but I’ve never seen anything like it before and want to recommend it to everyone. I’ve read about every aspect of the GLF but never saw so much of the story captured on film. Don’t watch it if you have high blood pressure.

“It is better to let half the people die so the other half can eat their fill.”

Mao Zedong, 1959. Seventy percent good, indeed.

______________

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: 283 Comments

“Personally, I believe that a leadership that commits atrocities against its own people can’t be a good neighbor to other people. And those who belittle the crimes can be no good neighbors either.”

“Through history, there has been no correlation between the internal freedom of a society and its violence and aggression abroad. For example, England was the freest country in the world in the 19th century, and in India it acted like the Nazis did. The United States is the most open — politically speaking, forget any social issues — and freest society in the world, and it also has the most brutal record of violence and aggression in the world.” – Noam Chomsky

July 1, 2012 @ 11:57 am | Comment

That’s true, RDW – freedom at home hasn’t prevented outbound. But that doesn’t mean that an “elite” which discards the rights of its people at home can be expected to respect the rights of people elsewhere, once it is in a position to dominate them. It seems to me that China’s neighbors are becoming aware of this.

July 1, 2012 @ 12:12 pm | Comment

freedom at home hasn’t prevented outbound aggression.

July 1, 2012 @ 12:13 pm | Comment

Btw, I believe that Chomsky’s suggestion that America is the world’s freest society would require some qualification, apart from the “social” issues. The freest-society assumption may help to make the quote you attribute to Chomsky much catchier, but I believe in more patient research of issues and causes.

July 1, 2012 @ 12:21 pm | Comment

I would like to quote Chomsky somewhat further, from this video:

The [Soviet government] is also a threat. It’s a threat to its own population, it’s a threat to in fact anyone who who is in its reach. But its reach doesn’t happen to be very long. It’s far shorter than what we claim it to be. So, for the population of the Soviet Union, for Eastern Europe, for Afghanistan, the Soviet Union is a real threat […]

July 1, 2012 @ 12:31 pm | Comment

To JR 252:
precisely.

As for the generalizability of the typical CCP apologist mindset, that’s hard to say. It does appear that the typical CCP apologist behaves stereotypically, so their behaviour can (with less trepidation) be generalized to the group. As for whether it is generalizable to Chinese people at large…well, let’s hope not. But it’s impossible to know.

But that’s what makes a discussion of the genesis of said mindset interesting. Is it just the “CCP teaching”, in which case all PRC Chinese are exposed to it and could be similarly susceptible? Or is there much individual variability in the degree to which those teachings are manifested? Again, hopefully the latter.

July 1, 2012 @ 12:32 pm | Comment

I think it isn’t just the CCP teaching, S.K., and the KMT was a nationalist party for a reason. But I think that more recent experience makes a big difference on individual minds within a totalitarian system. The CCP has – and keeps teaching – that Chinese people were victims, and that only the CCP can protect them. In a perverse way, it has added to the Chinese experience of victimhood by itself (this seems to get us somewhat closer to the original discussion, btw).

So I don’t think that every resentment in China can be explained from the CCP-approved history books. But propganda does make a difference.

The stereotypical patterns of an apologist discussing these issues isn’t for domestic use. It requires fenqings, fenlaos, and what have you, with access to international sources, and that makes it different from domestic propaganda. But domestic propaganda is – to put it mildly – very likely to have played a role in shaping this kind of interaction, too.

Basically, I think propaganda can lead to the desired, and to undesired results. During the past four years, it seems to me, it has mostly led to the results deemed desirable by Beijing. But there are exceptions in detail. When Huanqiu Shibao tried to make fun of Chen Guangcheng, much of the thread that followed scorned the author of that article. The propganda department is a learning organization.

July 1, 2012 @ 12:56 pm | Comment

I for one stand behind t_co and feel it is necessary to treat statistics in an evaluation of the event, provided one keeps in mind their questionable accuracy and doesn’t oversimpilfy their import by stressing merely one aspect of the data. The use of statistics obviously should not mean one loses sight of people’s suffering and experience, particularly when it is reported by those who suffered themselves.

I really can’t understand why so many commenters are bothered by the turn the debate took. I don’t get how anyone believes “JAY” has “derailed” the discussion. When he made ridiculously contrived comparisons, he was informed of them by Gil, S.K. Cheung, and me. There are many things to discuss about the event, and statistics don’t need to be the focus, but surely they are part of the discussion. And while JAY erred in focusing on only one aspect of the statistics, and certainly made himself look like a fool by comparing data pertaining to Mao’s reign with retrojections based on one year and with data pertaining to wartime, the arguments he uses require attention, not least because they do represent the typical apologist’s approach to the subject. This too is part of the discussion.

S.K Cheung

“Sure, some links are offered from time to time, but only after an inherent selection bias that ensures that any link offered will of course support the commentator’s point of view (and more importantly, that any contradictory data will be ignored). I wouldn’t consider selective presentation of data to be all that educational. All it basically represents is that at least one other person in the world happens to agree with the commentator’s POV, for what that’s worth.”

I’d like to take a small step to mitigate that bias if I may. T_co and I debated whether it’s reasonable to criticize Dikotter on the basis of not compiling a good data set in light of the CCP’s frequent obstructions. I mentioned that I thought such criticism would be justified if evidence was available that thorough research focused on the impact of the GLF on a single locality was permitted (possible) in the PRC. It seems evidence is available. While the authors of this book

http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=14A1qPQOgQMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=catastrophe+and+contention+in+rural+china&hl=en&sa=X&ei=68_vT8XGGaLNmAXhrrzqDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=catastrophe%20and%20contention%20in%20rural%20china&f=false

do note how much obstruction they ran into in the process of their work, their work is a remarkably comprehensive, well-grounded account of the GLF’s impact on a village. It may be too limited to extrapolate from reasonably, but it is the best account of the GLF I’ve ever read, and it bears noting that the author’s final assessment of the death rate brings it roughly in line with Anhui’s, sometimes considered an extreme case, at 68/1000.

I would also encourage everyone to look into Cormac O’Grada’s 2008 article in the The Economic History Review: “The Ripple That Drowns? Twentieth Century Famines in China and India as Economic History.”

July 1, 2012 @ 1:02 pm | Comment

I don’t get how anyone believes “JAY” has “derailed” the discussion.

I think it has been derailed by the link between the statistics and championing Mao, Handler. It helped, of course, that people took offense from that. I’m not thinking of your and t_co‘ discussion as a derailment. But what can safely be said is that “Mongol Warrior” (that alias is quite an insult to the people of Mongolia, btw) came in under a new name, and with a strategy in which statistics were only an auxiliary function to support a “higher” goal. For some commenters, it was probably also hard to trust the numbers because he didn’t mention his sources. That made the discussion rather destructive. I started searching the internet for arguments that would support his, and found o’Grada’s review of Dikötter’s book.

The point is that a discussion like yours and t_co’s is a discussion, not part of an information war. That is legitimate and helpful. In that regard, I don’t think Wongsuwat should criticize t_co the way he has.

But I fully agree with his criticism of MW’s role, and I recommend not to feed the troll. It’s right to take note of what MW writes, but it helps a thread when one addresses his sources, rather than him personally. The latter approach will only jolly his ego along.

July 1, 2012 @ 1:32 pm | Comment

What JR said.

July 1, 2012 @ 1:45 pm | Comment

@Handler, I dont dismiss the statistics but when they begin to detract from the actual events and the implications of said events then I object. So do we change the judgement on Mao if he caused the deaths of 20 million Chinese instead of 30 million? (IMO) No, the indictment Mao and the system that the CCP has fostered still stands valid. I will leave the actual numbers to historians with more time and better access to relevant materials. But you can see how JAY or MW whatever the name of the apologist above is, how he attempts to exploit a debate over numbers to totally derail an analysis of Mao’s presiding over the events and the CCP’s complicity in the system that allowed such an unprecedented event to take place. Then he goes on about authoritarianism, how quaint, coming from an apologist of one party dictatorship.

American democracy is a mess, actually always has been. But the treatment of people within the system is generally good. The CCP on the other hand reigns over 1/5 of the world’s population so domestic events are on a scale that effects a sizable portion of the world. With Deng’s policy of keeping a low profile going out the foreign policy window I think we are seeing the true(er) face of the CCP’s view on foreign relations.

SKC I have seen plenty of critical analysis from Chinese also, even college students who are willing to bad mouth the party directly to me (a laowai) right in front of their fellows. I have had some tell me of the banality of compulsory Marxist classes or how they only want to join the party for financial/guanxi gains. The Chinese are definitely not all sheep but the fenqing phenomenon is big enough and strong enough to influence PRC FP and is thus worthy of deconstruction. I only wonder if democracy and a more open media landscape where PRC citizens learn the details of the GLF and Mao and the CCP’s complicity will work as a panacea for this belligerence that is a growing trend. The perpetual victim mentality is difficult to maintain when one must confront the fact that one’s own people and own government have in fact been your own biggest victimizer. It would lead to a more diverse conversation and less single minded hatred directed towards constructed western boogeymen and there Asian ‘lackeys’.

July 1, 2012 @ 2:04 pm | Comment

PS JAY, perhaps we can arrange for you and Shintaro Ishihara to have tea so you can both lament how malevolent foreign powers manufacture events that ‘may or may not have happened’? Sounds like a date.

July 1, 2012 @ 2:08 pm | Comment

JR

“I think it has been derailed by the link between the statistics and championing Mao, Handler”

I understand your point, JR, but I see that as part of the larger discussion. What JR is doing is pretty transparent. If the likes of JAY want to turn an analysis of the GLF into a contorted championing of Mao, that says a great deal about their intelligence and callousness. If they insist upon the importance of one metric, one can illustrate the bias or the contradictions of that metric (“During a war different rules apply.”) and proceed from there, should one wish. Also, I don’t think a small number of people who have difficulty ignoring JAY means that others can’t carry on their own dialogue on issues they feel are most critical, or can’t introduce new angles. Perhaps that didn’t happen here, but I don’t see the problem in watching JAY exhaust himself. Hey, it’s Richard’s call (*shrugs*). My apologies if I’ve contributed to it.

“That made the discussion rather destructive.”

Well, of course that made it ugly. However, I don’t think JAY succeeded in destroying anything other than the notion that he can be taken seriously.

Somchai

“But you can see how JAY or MW whatever the name of the apologist above is, how he attempts to exploit a debate over numbers to totally derail an analysis of Mao’s presiding over the events and the CCP’s complicity in the system that allowed such an unprecedented event to take place.”

Yes, we all see what angles he takes. But that’s not stopping anyone from discussing Mao’s stance at the Lushan party conference or China’s insistence on exporting grain, or its rejection of foreign aid.

“The Chinese are definitely not all sheep but the fenqing phenomenon is big enough and strong enough to influence PRC FP and is thus worthy of deconstruction.”

Agreed, but–I’m definitely going to get blasted for saying this– I think one ought to look to where these fenqings come out of the woodwork. It appears to me the majority of those on English-language websites who engage in blind support of China’s authoritarianism (from the WSJ to BearCanada to Stealthy Harmonicas) are overseas Chinese who have found some type of perverse self-inflation in China’s rise. As JR noted of fenqing more generally, there’s really no way to get statistics on this, and any attempt might be construed as “racial profiling,” but we would be fools to overlook it, if only because it might remind us how little they reflect common perspectives in China, and how much they argue out of self-interest alone. I do find persons who become radical apologists for China due to their ethnicity (which is a plausible attribution when their politics are sufficiently flexible) even more disturbing than knee-jerk responses from PRC citizens. It suggests something far more sinister, though perhaps no more threatening, than nationalism.

Now, this is not to say the PRC’s own fenqings are not sufficiently disturbing, particularly as pertains to Chinese FP in SEA.

July 1, 2012 @ 4:24 pm | Comment

Apologies, JR. That should read…What JAY is doing is pretty transparent.

July 1, 2012 @ 4:27 pm | Comment

I don’t think JAY succeeded in destroying anything other than the notion that he can be taken seriously.

That’s true – but to me, this is a pretty sorry spectacle, Handler, and it’s one which will make this discussion hard to track for anyone who might want to join the discussion… right now, for example. I’m certainly trying to make the best of it, and as Somchai said, this can also be a subject of studies. But as you said yourself – that’s only of limited value.

What I advocate is that troll behavior shouldn’t be encouraged. Having fun with poor souls like “MW” is, in my view, some kind of perverse self-inflation, too, and that comes at the cost of real discussion.

July 1, 2012 @ 6:10 pm | Comment

SW, thank you for taking this thread to the right direction. GLF and other campaigns of Mao and CCP from late 50s through 60s, when he killed more people than anyone in the history mankind(Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot all included), must be exposed for what is: worst crime committed against humanity ever by any leader and regime. But discussing this alone is doing only half the work. The other half is the apologists, like JAY who comes with a tag, and closet apologists like t_co who expertly plays a double role that must be publicly identified, exposed and deconstructed. What happened in GLP can’t be undone but this is what we could to ‘serve the justice’. I’m amazed at how t_co skillfully masquerades his apologist side by putting a show of siding with dissidents in denial of their rights and censorship of media by CCP that happen in general almost daily before the eyes of the world, but talk about Tibet, CR, GLP etc that CCP considers taboo and serious it’s quite apparent how he starts becoming defensive! If some of you found his above outbrust at SW ‘surprising’, think again. It’s not consistent with what he usually portrays himself to be. I’m glad to see t_co’s ground beneath his feet cracking up with SW taking the discussion in the right direction where it’s not just crime and propitiator but those who cover up and their continued role must also be discussed and exposed. These all are part and parcel of one.

July 2, 2012 @ 2:16 am | Comment

The last batch of JAY’s comments will not appear, as I am now totally convinced he is MW or a close cousin. Vintage fenqing.

Sangay, maybe you’re being just a bit hard on t_co. And on Mao? I don’t think we can say he “killed” tens of millions during the GLF the way Stalin and Pol Pot and Hitler killed their perceived enemies. His policies allowed it to happen, but he did not kill the farmers with malice and his crimes belong in a different category. Willful ignorance, megalomania, idiocy, radicalism, lack of compassion, and much more, are maybe more how I’d describe Mao’s sins, and I do see them that way, but draw distinctions between one kind of sin and another. Malicious or not, what Mao did to China with the GLF and the CR is unforgivable, not matter how much good he did during his first few years in power. A tragedy.

July 2, 2012 @ 6:21 am | Comment

I’m amazed at how t_co skillfully masquerades his apologist side by putting a show of siding with dissidents in denial of their rights and censorship of media by CCP that happen in general almost daily before the eyes of the world, but talk about Tibet, CR, GLP etc that CCP considers taboo and serious it’s quite apparent how he starts becoming defensive! If some of you found his above outbrust at SW ‘surprising’, think again. It’s not consistent with what he usually portrays himself to be. I’m glad to see t_co’s ground beneath his feet cracking up with SW taking the discussion in the right direction where it’s not just crime and propitiator but those who cover up and their continued role must also be discussed and exposed. These all are part and parcel of one.

That’s a little extreme, don’t you think?

For the record, Richard knows my identity, and should know whether I need “deconstruction and exposure.” I think he recognizes your comment for the personal attack that it is, rather than mistaking it for productive discourse. This comment stems from my respect for him.

Folks like you and Tsarong and MW/HongXing all have the same bad habits when it comes to actually debating topics–you always assume the other side is not only wrong, but knows they are wrong and are still arguing against you because of some ulterior motive(s). I think SKC, Raj, and most others here would agree that’s a common habit that cuts across both sides of the aisle. But that’s not the case if we’re actually just trying to get at the truth behind the matter, rather than accepting prima facie any “sacred cows” that one side or another holds dear.

You and Tsarong (and before, when we were talking the FLG, Snow) have claimed that I am an apologist for actually questioning some of the claims–organ harvesting, the popularity of FLG in China, whether Tibetan independence is feasible absent ethnic cleansing, how much of the GLF can be ascribed to bad policy vs. bad implementation vs. bad weather–each of you has put forth. But if you’d actually look at my comment history, you’d see that I’m just as critical of the CCP when it comes to monumental acts of stupidity like the Cultural Revolution or smaller acts of stupidity like their needless risk-taking in the South China Sea as I am the claims from the prior sentence. If trying to drive at the truth is the crime I am being charged with, then I gladly plead guilty–and I think most of the commenters on this site would, too.

But (and this is to you too, HX) it’s not correct to assume that means we comment here to make China look good or bad. That perception, for the most part, is out of the hands of netizens like you or me or Richard or even pundits like John Garnaut and James Fallows. It rests in the hands of leaders, and the mass behavior of the people itself, on both sides of the Pacific. Once you realize that, then you can reach for the truth. Given your energy and enthusiasm for this blog, I look forward to seeing you take that step.

July 2, 2012 @ 8:18 am | Comment

@ Handler, I attempted to post something earlier but apparently it was lost. My point was that while statistics are important from a human and historical perspective it doesnt really matter if Maos policies contributed to the deaths of 20 million or 40 million; the indictment of him and the CCP system are still the same. Instead of rewritting that I will direct you to a peice recently on NPR that I was just listening to on podcast, I think it serves as a good parable (I dontknow is linking is allowed so I will cut and paste some, anyone interested can google and find it);

NPR [ON THE MEDIA] TWO CAUTIONARY DATA TALES: Data doesn’t always expose and explain, it can also lead us astray. OTM producer Jamie York looks at two time in the recent past when an overreliance on data has had disastrous consequences. Joe Flood, author of The Fires and Dennis Smith, author and veteran firefighter tell the story of the RAND Corporation and the fires in the Bronx in the 1970’s. And Scott Patterson, author of The Quants and Michael Lewis, author of The Big Short, explain how math and science whiz kids nearly destroyed Wall Street.

GUESTS: Joe Flood, Michael Lewis, Scott Patterson and Dennis Smith
HOSTED BY: Jamie York

July 2, 2012 @ 3:04 pm | Comment

Folks like you and Tsarong and MW/HongXing all have the same bad habits when it comes to actually debating topics–you always assume the other side is not only wrong, but knows they are wrong and are still arguing against you because of some ulterior motive(s).
— a nice description of how this mindset works (and how it “propels” discussions).

“Mongol Warrior” signed his name(s) there, Richard.

July 2, 2012 @ 10:05 pm | Comment

JR, how did that get by me? I simply stopped reading his comments after a while and missed that. Well now we all know. We’ve been had; this thread was totally hijacked by our most insidious troll.

July 2, 2012 @ 11:33 pm | Comment

To Handler #258:
I don’t mean to imply that the links, individually and standing on their own, are necessarily without merit. Many of the links you provided earlier in the thread were very useful in advancing the discussion. But ultimately in a forum like this, the links are cherry-picked in order to support and advance a certain point of view, one that the writer already subscribes to. In order for the evidence to be of truly educational value in the way I think T-Co likes to see, however, one would first need an unfettered collection of evidence, from which to formulate and advise one’s opinion.

As Somchai suggests in #269, the precise number will likely be debated till the cows come home. But the precise number does not really add or detract from the principles upon which criticism of Mao’s GLF are based.

July 3, 2012 @ 1:00 am | Comment

We’ve been had; this thread was totally hijacked by our most insidious troll.
“Most insidious” is too much honor for a poor devil, in my view, Richard. But in a way, I found this one of the most interesting threads I’ve participated in this year. It wasn’t funny, but the dynamics were pretty unique.

If we’ve been had, how has “MW” profitted?

July 3, 2012 @ 3:44 am | Comment

He gets to giggle, knowing he fooled people and took over another thread. I should have known the minute he changed the subject to mortality/fertility rates. He has done the exact same thing before. This is usually followed by incredibly evil hate mail to me.

July 3, 2012 @ 3:46 am | Comment

OK – didn’t know about the hate mail, Richard. But as far as I’m concerned as a commenter, I wouldn’t have started a search for sources that might back his argument if he hadn’t shown up here. I think we both agree that he managed to derail the discussion for several days, but not for good. I think it was right that you banned him yesterday, because by then, he had long started repeating himself. But maybe that’s the real challenge for moderation – to know when exactly to pull the plug?

Which might lead to a new policy – of making the CCP’s useful idiots useful to oneself. I know that this is kind of cynical, but it may amount to a constructive approach, too.

July 3, 2012 @ 4:03 am | Comment

t_co, I’m not familiar with “MW” aka “mongol warrior”…but from the couple of comments above he/she seems to be referred as a “ccp troll”. What on earth makes you lump me together with a ccp troll??? Is that your way to discredit whoever disgrees with you by putting him together with pigs so he or she may also look pig to others?

I might be mistaken about what people here actually refer MW as…but if my understanding is correct, then I must say there you go again with your tactic. Do you really believe people who comment here, most of whom I found are well read and smart, are so dumb they can be carried away? Guess what, you re insulting their intellect!

“If trying to drive at the truth is the crime I am being charged with, then I gladly plead guilty…”

– Since CCP came into being and ruled China, they have defined Truth with their own defination and made it “relative”. (I’m not going to years prior to CCP). So dont think it’s only you who’s “trying to drive at the truth” and others not. You go on with your ‘truth’ finding mission and keep jotting down, we will go on with ours. Dont try to put word into anyone’s mouth, people who read it are smarter than you and me (incase you didnt know)and they are capable of deciding for themselves.

And for your kind information, I’m not here to make China look good or bad nor I assume anyone here is for that purpose. Only CCP’s conduct that can make China look bad or good, and the world has the ability to decide if China is bad or good based on their conduct. China began invading Tibet in early 1950s, toppled the country’s central govt in Lhasa in 1959 and took control since; killed tens of millions of its people in the name of CR, GLP; killed 100s in TS; killed 1000s of FLG practioners…all these beside violations of human rights, kidnapping, disappearance of dissidents etc that happen almost daily in China. I’m here to condemn all of these…and by doing so, if you (or anyone) think I’m making China look bad then it’s your problem. Just dont assume only you know how to get to the “truth” and we dont.

July 4, 2012 @ 5:03 am | Comment

“Only CCP’s conduct that can make China look bad or good”
—bingo.

July 4, 2012 @ 6:03 am | Comment

“Only CCP’s conduct that can make China look bad or good”
—bingo.

That’s actually a pretty bad assumption to make–the CCP is barely 6% of the Chinese population. If, on one hand, we state that the Chinese people are not represented by the CCP, then how can we, on the other hand, state that only the CCP has the authority to determine the international perception of Chinese people?

July 4, 2012 @ 6:28 am | Comment

– Since CCP came into being and ruled China, they have defined Truth with their own defination and made it “relative”. (I’m not going to years prior to CCP). So dont think it’s only you who’s “trying to drive at the truth” and others not. You go on with your ‘truth’ finding mission and keep jotting down, we will go on with ours.

I don’t understand you here–are you saying that anyone who relies on factual analysis is a CCP shill, and that in order to actually find out the truth, you have to start with anti-CCP assumptions and find facts that fit them?

If that’s really the case then the real loser from CCP censorship is you, not anyone else–because if censorship forces you to start from assumptions and find facts to fit them, then it is already impossible to actually get anywhere.

I’m here to condemn all of these…and by doing so, if you (or anyone) think I’m making China look bad then it’s your problem. Just dont assume only you know how to get to the “truth” and we dont.

Condemning bad acts that occurred is one thing–all of us on this blog do it, and that’s good. Doing nothing except condemning acts that occurred is another thing entirely. If an entity does things right, and does things wrong, then wouldn’t simply focusing on one half of the story get you only halfway there? And doing what you said you would do a few comments earlier–hunting down and vilifying those who oppose your viewpoints–is yet another. That’s the behavior of a troll. I left my earlier comment on a positive note because I thought you could contribute to this blog. But seeing as how you seem hell-bent on remaining this way, I think this blog would be better off without folks like you (and MW).

July 4, 2012 @ 6:56 am | Comment

t_co, Sangay is certainly opinionated and is being too outspoken in his confrontation with you, but I promise, he is in no way comparable to MW. In case you missed it, MW has gone on obscene rants here, sent out unbelievably evil emails to commenters who disagreed with him, and finally he stole commenters’ identity and began posting under their names, throwing the threads into utter chaos for a couple of days. Sangay may be wrong, or right, but he hasn’t tried to derail the thread.

July 4, 2012 @ 7:23 am | Comment

Richard,

Sangay may be wrong, or right, but he hasn’t tried to derail the thread.

I’m not sure how the below could not be construed as derailing the thread (bolded for emphasis):

The other half is the apologists, like JAY who comes with a tag, and closet apologists like t_co who expertly plays a double role that must be publicly identified, exposed and deconstructed. What happened in GLP can’t be undone but this is what we could to ‘serve the justice’. I’m amazed at how t_co skillfully masquerades his apologist side by putting a show of siding with dissidents in denial of their rights and censorship of media by CCP that happen in general almost daily before the eyes of the world, but talk about Tibet, CR, GLP etc that CCP considers taboo and serious it’s quite apparent how he starts becoming defensive! If some of you found his above outbrust at SW ‘surprising’, think again. It’s not consistent with what he usually portrays himself to be. I’m glad to see t_co’s ground beneath his feet cracking up with SW taking the discussion in the right direction where it’s not just crime and propitiator but those who cover up and their continued role must also be discussed and exposed. These all are part and parcel of one.

That smells like a personal attack, would you not agree?

July 4, 2012 @ 7:50 am | Comment

I don’t think that the CCP controls everything – but I believe your suggestion at #278 that the number of CCP members would define the picture leaves the totalitarian nature of China’s political system out of the account.

I do agree with your view of the way Sangay thinks and argues, t_co, but my view of China’s political system is much closer to Sangay’s, than to yours.

What I disagree with is the way he’s talking to you.

July 4, 2012 @ 9:20 am | Comment

Agreed, JR.

And now, I really AM closing this thread.

July 4, 2012 @ 9:23 am | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.