ltlee1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On May 1, 11:13 am, "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=d9Amlz2Jvro
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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=%E9%87%91%E6%99%B6+%E6%B1%89%E5%A5%B8
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Jin Jin does not sup****t Carfore boycott”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “If Jin Jin can be labeled HJ, who can’t?”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Why call Jin Jin HJ?”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Nationalist “Boxers” call Jin Jin HJ”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Shocked to see Jin Jin labeled HJ”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Jin Jin’s one sentence turning her into HJ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sending chill up readers spine”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Calling Jin Jing HJ is the first sign of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world gone wrong.” “Jin Jin from hero to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero(HJ) - a Chinese farce” “defaming [Jin Jin]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not patriotism” “Jin Jin from hero to zero -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patriotism has lost its wit”
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
I'd start a new thread and ask you the same question, but bmoore is
absolutely right about you and it would just be a waste of my time.
|
