On May 1, 11:13=A0am, "OD" <Ya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 10:04 pm, "OD" <Ya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>> On Apr 30, 2:07 pm, "OD" <Ya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>> ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>>> On Apr 30, 11:58 am, "OD" <Ya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>> ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Apr 30, 7:40 am, "OD" <Ya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 30, 7:04 am, "OD" <Ya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 11:48 pm, "OD" <Ya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 12:29 pm, "OD" <Ya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 11:36 am, "OD" <Ya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 9:54 am, "OD" <Ya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 6:02 am, "OD" <Ya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CharlesLiu wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 28, 7:25 pm, Raymond <ni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:37:37 -0700 (PDT),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bmo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 28, 3:30?pm, "ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 28, 1:31?am, Lproud...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 27, 7:03?pm, CharlesLiu
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chliu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It happened agin. First it was petite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> children's TV show host Konnie Huq ?in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> London, then it's crippled paralympian Jin
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jin - now a 17 year old Japanese table
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tennis olympian Ai Fukuhara, who trains in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> China and has been a good will ambassador
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for Japan and China, was jumpped by a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tibetan from Taiwan:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/cn/thread-38991-1-=
1.html
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you people pick on someone yor own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> size, instead of going after little girls?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One legged little girles too?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Man, you people must fee real brave.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you expect from the spokeman of Voice
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Tibet. Attacking handicap girl in wheel
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chair is FANTASTIC.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dd9Amlz2Jvro
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A lot of these Tibetan exiles are misguided.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many of these folks have never been in Tibet.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Tibet on their mind is the real Tibet. Yet
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they think they are better than the millions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of real Tibetans in Tibet. Their means is also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> odd.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recently, I begin to think they are not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding to the needs of the real Tibetans.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These exiles are a frustrated bunch. And they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are responding to what have bappened in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> west. ?Since China ba****ng is becoming
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fahsionable, they just want to be at the center
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this China and Chinese ba****ng party. Hence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they will do all sorts of strange things to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attract attention. Luckily, they can also get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some money from westrn countries.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the spokeman of Vocie of Tibet siad is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revealing. His calculation is not about Tibet.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His primarily concern is about international
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publicity. However, the Tibet problem is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinese problem. The solution may go through
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Chinese poeple. However, these exiles's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protest and Chinese ba****ng are carried out to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enrage the Chinese poeple ?and make their goal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further and further away. A new development in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> China is that some now said it openly "Anyone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who negotiates with the DL clique is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traitor."
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that even the poor one-legged fencer is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now being branded a traitor by many Chinese.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how people on this NG talk a lot about how
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean a few people in France were to her but keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quiet about what Chinese are doing to her. You
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guys sure have a lot of double standards...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Someone goes to France once and thinks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> she's French. Jin Jing speaks with the voice of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an utterly brainless evil-eyed wolf traitor."
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing but the disinformation service of your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> western propaganda
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You bet. There was a minority voice critical to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jin Jin, but the majority voice of reason in China
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blogsphere has came out in sup****t of her.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course China hater like BO would rather ignore
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.google.com/search?q=3D%E9%87%91%E6%99%B6+%=
E6%B1%89%E5%A5%B8
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =93Jin Jin does not sup****t Carfore boycott=94
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =93If Jin Jin can be labeled HJ, who can=92t?=94
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =93Why call Jin Jin HJ?=94
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =93Nationalist =93Boxers=94 call Jin Jin HJ=94
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =93Shocked to see Jin Jin labeled HJ=94
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =93Jin Jin=92s one sentence turning her into HJ,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sending chill up readers spine=94
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =93Calling Jin Jing HJ is the first sign of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world gone wrong.=94 =93Jin Jin from hero to
zero(HJ=
)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - a Chinese farce=94 =93defaming [Jin Jin] is not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patriotism=94 =93Jin Jin from hero to zero -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patriotism has lost its wit=94
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proves China haters like to twist the facts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to suit their anti- Chinese agenda. When they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attack the ordinary Chinese netters as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrational, rabid - it is no longer about the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinese government is it?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's the agenda of those that claim pro-Tibetans
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are cowards who only attack little girls?- Hide
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are comparing apples and oranges.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Free Tibet" is a movement sup****ted by CIA/NED an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dother quasi government agencies money. The Tibetan
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exiles' activities are goal directed. Concerning the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attack, another netter had point out, the spoken
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persion stating in public that such attack the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defenseless girl was good. That is, good for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publicity. Hence, the attack was a mean to an end
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subordinated to thier pay masters' wish.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The bigger issue, attacking the girl as well as the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overall effort to disrupt the Olympic torch relay or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Olympic games do not in anyway benefit the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tibetans in Tibet. China will not give up their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate claim on Tibet simply because of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theartics peformed by a small number of people.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can you even say apples and oranges when you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely fail to grasp what is being compared. It's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the posters bmoore and CharlesLiu and their agendas.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If CharlesLiu thinks bmoore has an agenda of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonizing Chinese then by the same standard he is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously guilty of demonizing Tibetans.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, Lui and BM are not comparable because the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence they used are of different. In one case, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attack of the defenseless girl is lauded by the Vocie
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Tibet spokeperson as something good because such
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attack promote international publicity. Implaction:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The attack is part of the plan and/or the attack
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conform to their overall goal to gain publicity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no comparable spokeperson and comparable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plan for the verbal attack on the same girl by netter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who may or may not be Chinese or pro-China.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are not going to address the obvious attempt at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonization of Tibetans by Charlesliu with the words,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Pro-Tibet cowards only attack little girls" then there
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is nothing further to discuss.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If one has problem with the post by Charles Liu, he or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> she should feel free to criticize him.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is what I did!
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not true. Your first post of this thread is the following.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "What's the agenda of those that claim pro-Tibetans are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cowards who only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> attack little girls?"
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are respoinding to Liu saying those who verbal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> attacked Jin are having an agenda.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, that's not what I said. I'm accusing Charles of having
> >>>>>>>>>>>> an agenda.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My previous post simply pointed out one cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare the attack by Tibetans and the verbal attack by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bloggers from Chinese websites.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then what you said had nothing to do with what I said,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you're wasting my time.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the above question from the first post
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is not a way to compare the pro-Tibetans attack little
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> girl and netters verbally attack Jin?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's what I have been saying.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Not true. You are comparing the two. In case your memory
> >>>>>>>>>>> fails it. Here it is:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "It's the posters bmoore and CharlesLiu and their agendas.
> >>>>>>>>>>> If CharlesLiu thinks bmoore has an agenda of demonizing
> >>>>>>>>>>> Chinese then by the same standard he is obviously guilty of
> >>>>>>>>>>> demonizing Tibetans."
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but you simply just don't have a clue what is being
> >>>>>>>>>> said here. I finished with this.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Something you seem to also be willing to take part
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on, even when you claim others are doing it to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinese.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> China ba****ng or anything ba****ng is a matter of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether the criticism is from a position of fact and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Let me lay out my case against the "free
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tibet" sup****ters.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People can use "facts" and "logic" to demonize others.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know it, since you try to do it all the time.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How so?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> See your words below.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't agree with something, please be specific.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I specifically don't agree with any of it.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I see. I wrote most pro-tibetans, including the exciles, had
> >>>>>>>>>>> not set foot in tibet. And you don't agree with it. I wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>> they the Tibet on their minds was not the real Tibet and the
> >>>>>>>>>>> same conlcusion had been reached by Orveill Schell. And you
> >>>>>>>>>>> don't agree with it. It is fine that you don't disagree.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Please explain why you don't agree.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> You're forgetting the Tibetans living in China.
>
> >>>>>>>>> What about them?
>
> >>>>>>>> Do you think they have unrealistic views of Tibet?
>
> >>>>>>> They will have a realistic view of Tibet. But they did not
> >>>>>>> attack the Olympic or other silly stunts to garner international
> >>>>>>> publicity. All pubicity stunts were done by pro-Tibetans outside
> >>>>>>> of Tibet, not from inside.
>
> >>>>>> Why didn't you mention the events within Tibet that have taken
> >>>>>> place over the last couple of months? What do these events say to
> >>>>>> you about how Tibetans feel?
>
> >>>>> The event that one couldl be sure because there were ample
> >>>>> evidences was a two-day riots targeting the Han and Hui business
> >>>>> people in Lhasa. All other supposed events were unsubstantiated
> >>>>> and unsibstantiable. Yes. You mentioned a Canadian had mentioned
> >>>>> some protests. But I doubt he had observed anything himself. Else
> >>>>> there would not be any "may be" in his statement. In comparison,
> >>>>> the pro- Tibetans outside Tibet waged a more extensive campaign
> >>>>> filled with silly stunts aiming to attract international
> >>>>> publicity.
>
> >>>> I MAY HAVE BEEN of the opinion you were here for honest discussion
> >>>> when I first posted to SCC, but I see now you are not.
>
> >>>> Do you see how language works and how the Canadian tourist could
> >>>> use "may be" without calling into question the peacefulness or
> >>>> existence of the earlier protests?
>
> >>> Well, if one was present during a protest, either the protest is
> >>> peaceful or not peaceful. There would not be any "may be." One,
> >>> however, would use may be if he did not really see the protest but
> >>> assumed one. Anyway, the vague statement is quite meaningless
> >>> without the minimal information on who was protesting against whom
> >>> and for what reasons and other collaberating evidence.
>
> >> The words were "may have been" and you don't understand how they
> >> were used. Not going to argue semantics with you. I'm finished with
> >> this.
>
> > How do you use "MAY HAVE BEEN?" Read your own words from your previous
> > post.
>
> > "I MAY HAVE BEEN of the opinion you were here for honest discussion
> > when I first posted to SCC, but I see now you are not."
>
> > "MAY HAVE BEEN" was used because what follows the "MAY HAVE BEEN" was
> > about things in your head. It did not have reality unless proven to be
> > so later. "MAY HAVE BEEN" this and "MAY HAVE BEEN' that are all
> > assumptions. You don't have to use "MAY HAVE BEEN" if you know me. The
> > same, if the guy really saw a protest. It was either peaceful or not
> > peaceful to him. Of course, he could say "MAY BE DESCRIBED AS" if he
> > wanted to accomodate other people's view.
>
> >>>>> How do they feel? Who are the "they"? The rioters, the victims of
> >>>>> the riots? All Tibetans? Please feel free to answer your own
> >>>>> question and substantiate it.
>
> >>>> You're the one that making the claim to know who the "pro-Tibetans"
> >>>> are and where they live, you substantiate it. If you know that
> >>>> Tibetans living in Tibet are not "pro-Tibet" then substantiate it.
>
> >>> No. I do not include the real Tibetans, ie, those who had spent a
> >>> large chunk of their lives in Tibet. As a matter of fact, they do
> >>> not generate much news although Xinhua news agency re****t
> >>> statements made by their political and religious leaders. Those who
> >>> generte news to garner international publicity are invarible
> >>> outside of Tibet.
>
> >> You don't include real Tibetans because they are not re****ted on by
> >> Xinhua? You do know they exist don't you? Do you think any of them
> >> are pro-Tibetan?
>
> Do you think any of them are pro-Tibetan?
Do you call human pro-human? Anyway, I am following the usage of the
beginning post. I believe Clarles Liu used pro-Tibetans to describe
all those outsider of Tibet.
|
