欢迎! 登陆 注册


Part XIV: A 24K Pure Evil (4543 查看)

February 17, 2013 07:28PM
Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature
──An Open Letter to Nature (Part XIV)

Xin Ge, Ph. D.

Columbia, SC, USA

A 24K Pure Evil*

Undoubtedly, the biggest enemy Fang was facing in his defending Liu Juhua campaign was Dr. Sun Haifeng, an associate professor of communication studies at Shenzhen University. And from their fight, we can see clearly Fang’s shamelessness, viciousness, and evilness.

Main characters: Fang and Sun Haifeng and Fang Zhouzi
Left: Fang Zhouzi on the cover of Beijing Youth weekly. 8 days after its publication, Fang commented: “Published on March 17? That’s the date when the Hammer Professor came out of jail. I used my hand as a pistol.”[1] Middle: Dr. Sun Haifeng, who was framed and charged by Fang as a plagiarizer. Right: Fang Zhouzi was debating with a group of TCM doctor in Sichuan in 2007.

Sun: From a Resolute Supporter to a Serious Doubter of Fang’s

According to Dr. Sun himself, as late as Jan. 12, 2011, he was still a “resolute supporter” of Fang’s academic and social fraud busting[2]. When Fang was hammered in late August, 2010, Dr. Sun reposted many of Fang’s and Fang’s buddy Fang Xuancang’s posts on his own microblog, and made his comments, to show his support to Fang[3]. On Sept 21, 2010, when Dr. Xiao Chuanguo was arrested as the suspect of the mastermind of the attack, Dr. Sun again showed his support to Fang, by scolding at Dr. Xiao[4]. On Sept. 22, 2010, in responding to a comment that Fang had made a serious mistake in transgenic food, Sun defended Fang:

“None of us are supernatural beings, we are all limited by our own vision and nature. Fang’s viewpoints on transgenic food, TCM, and religions reflect his thinking flaw as a believer of scientism. However, that does not preclude him from being an upright intellectual.”[5]

In January, 2011, Dr. Sun made several comments on Fang’s scientism preaching[6]. Fang didn’t respond to Sun directly, but he blocked Sun’s right to directly commenting his posts. It was during this unilateral debate, Sun first called Fang a “hierarch.”

On Feb. 25, 2011, Shenzhen Economic Daily reported one of Fang’s plagiarism cases he committed in 2002 against Harvard Professor Stephen Jay Gould and Canadian mathematician Alexander Keewatin Dewdney[7]. The news was widely circulated on the internet after the newspaper report. For example, City Times, a newspaper based in Kunming, Yunnan, posted the following post on its official microblog:

“Fang Zhouzi Embarrassed: ‘It’s finally Fang’s turn to be busted as a fraud.’ His article, Misreading of IQ, published on the 4th issue of 2002’s Newton-Science magazine, is alleged plagiarism, stealing a deceased Harvard professor and a Canadian professor, in a large amount. Fang Zhouzi has not responded yet.”[8]

48 minutes later, Fang posted the following in response:

Shenzhen Economic Daily reporter Zheng Jianyang played dumb, claiming he had been watching my microblog, but he didn’t know why ‘Dr. Xin Ge who lives in the U. S. would care about Fang’s article,’ didn’t know that so called Xin Ge was the Fang expert Yi Ming who had written more than a million characters slandering me and supporting Xiao Chuanguo? He didn’t know I had responded several times to his plagiarism allegations against me on me microblog and blog? This person ‘has demonstrated’ many of my articles were ‘plagiarized,’ you keep reporting.”[9]

On the post by City Times, Sun commented:

“Waiting for Hierarch Fang’s new version of ‘A List of China’s Bad Journalists.’”[10]

Of course, Mr. Zheng Jianyang was “listed,” and his crime was “spreading rumors.”[11]

On Fang’s response to City Times’ post, Sun commented:

“As expected, he played his old trick, avoiding key issues, ‘too tired to pay attention to.”[12]

On March 3, Sun posted a post, saying:

“【Guangming Net: Original Writing, Translation, Compilation, or Plagiarism】Fang Zhouzi has always been advocating scientific spirit, however, except for smearing and scolding his critics repeatedly, he has not provided credible explanations to overthrow their allegations. Hoping that Mr. Fang could refute the article scientifically, please don’t keep using the terms of ‘bad rumor-spreading media’ to insult your fans’ IQ.”[13]

So far, Fang has yet to accept Dr. Sun’s challenge.

Direct confrontation

One of the tricks Fang has been playing on his microblogs is, he seldom fights back if someone touched his sore spots. He would simply delete the comments, and then block the commentators’ access to his posts so they won’t be able to make further comments on his microblogs. And before Liu Juhua’s case, Fang never responded to Sun’s comments on him. What he did was having Sun blocked.

On April 27, 2011, when Legal Weekly reported Liu Juhua’s scandal, Fang was punching a person who had tried to raise money for a crime victim’s family. Fang accused him of cheating[14]. Most people thought Fang excoriated the person, and Sun commented:

“If you have too much time, I suggest you pay attention to Comrade Liu Juhua’s plagiarism problem.”[15]

22 hours later, in responding to a comment from one of Fang’s followers saying Sun didn’t provide evidence to show Liu indeed plagiarized, Sun said:

“I have downloaded and examined a few related papers, and there is indeed a lot of plagiarism. Take a look yourself, don’t tell me you don’t see these articles, or you don’t know how to read.”[16]

Apparently because the above comments were posted on Sun’s own microblog, they didn’t draw Fang’s attention. On April 28, Fang posted Liu’s No Shame At All on his blog, and announced the posting on his microblog. Sun forwarded Fang’s post, and commented:

“She was not ashamed, rather, she felt proud. This is the worst chicanery I have even seen. She didn’t mention the many large paragraphs which are identical [to others’ articles] but without notes at all, instead, she just put her emphasis on the few pitiful dozens of notes, and then stealthily changed the subject, smearing the whistleblowers──It is really birds of a feather flock together. She has indeed got Hierarch Fang’s essence.”[17]

About 4 hours later, Fang solicited Sun’s theses, as mentioned in the previous part of this letter. Sun showed no sign of frightening after Fang’s public threat, he responded to Fang:

“Both my Master’s thesis, ‘Nature, Self, Freedom,’ and my Ph.D. dissertation, ‘Aesthetic Reflection on Network Culture,’ can be found on any university’s academic resource network. Don’t tell me you don’t know where to download them. I’m waiting for your research achievement after your muckraking, and comparing my theses with your wife’s masterpiece.”[18]

“Because of my recent comments on Liu Juhua’s plagiarism in her Master’s thesis, her husband Fang Zhouzi is very angry at me, he has issued a warrant for my degree theses. I guess he is now leading a bunch of illiterates concocting black materials overnight. I heard that Dr. Fang has the first class skill in fraud busting, let’s watch where his academic conscience and academic norms are.”[19]

Plagiarism Allegations against Sun’s Ph.D. Dissertation

In less than 24 hours after issuing the warrant, Fang announced his judgment, without any evidence:

“Sun Haifeng of the journalism department at Shenzhen University, his Master’s thesis has not been found yet, but his Ph. D. dissertation can be identified as plagiarism.”[20]

Apparently in responding to the above post, Sun issued a statement:

“Fang Zhouzi thinks that people’s criticism against Liu Juhua’s plagiarism is equivalent to attacking his wife, declaring he will not forgive any of those in the rest of his life. He also announced that my Ph. D. dissertation is suspected of plagiarism. I hereby declare that if Fang Zhouzi can show me the portions involved in plagiarism in my dissertation, no matter it was intentional plagiarism or unintentional lack of norms, I’ll publicly apologize after confirmation. If the extent of the ‘plagiarism’ reaches the standard recognized by academic community, I’ll voluntarily give up my Ph. D. degree. Social supervision is welcome.”[21]

Nearly 26 hours after convicting Sun, Fang revealed his evidence at 18:54 on April 29, 2011:

“The Master’s thesis of Sun Haifeng, vice chairman of the journalism department at Shenzhen University, has not been found, but his Ph. D. dissertation was also plagiarism: although he noted the source, he didn’t paraphrase or use quotation marks, therefore, according to the international academic standard they used to accuse my wife, it certainly belongs to wording plagiarism. Furthermore, Sun’s [plagiarism] was in a Ph. D. dissertation, which should be measured against even stricter standard. Comparison: [t.cn]”[22]

Fang’s evidence was a paragraph containing about 400 Chinese characters on page 18 of Sun’s dissertation. The paragraph started with this sentence: “Huang Mingfen summarized seven major aspects in the relationships between the internet and cultural activities:”[23] and he then mainly copied what Huang wrote, but inserting seven numerals in it.

It is an open question for scholars to discuss whether Sun’s writing constitutes plagiarism, the funny thing is, however, just six months before Fang’s above post, on October 19, 2010, Fang altered his webpage of What Is Science on his New Threads, inserting “according to American scholar Robert Root-Bernstein’s summary” in front the portions he verbatim translated from “American scholar Robert Root-Bernstein,” apparently in an attempt to destroy the evidence of plagiarism[24]. So, if Fang truly believed what he did in the October of 2010 was enough to correct his wrong, which lasted more than 15 years, then how could he accuse Sun of plagiarism six months later for what Sun did, which was exactly the same thing as he did to cover up a plagiarism? Or, put it in another way: if Fang truly believed what Sun did was plagiarism, why did he modified his webpage six months ago by inserting “according to American scholar Robert Root-Bernstein” to conceal a plagiarism? Of course, it is a dilemma Fang could never solve, even though he has a book entitled “Fang Zhouzi Solves World Mysteries.” Therefore, the only reason Fang put himself in this awkward position was to convict Sun of plagiarism so he could save his wife’s plagiarism. That why he used the word ALSO when he was convicting Sun Haifeng.

To Fang’s allegation, or conviction, Sun responded in several posts, and two of them are:

“Fang Zhouzi dares not allow me to comment his posts by blocking me, and at the same time, he uses ‘Yi Ming’s way’ (don’t know who this guy is) to ‘examine’ my Ph. D. dissertation, adjudging the citation with acknowledged source as plagiarism, then spreading rumors saying I used the same standard to examine Liu Juhua’s plagiarism. In fact, Liu’s problem was not unstandardized citations, rather, it was a large number of plagiarism without citing their sources. Fang blended the two things together on purpose, trying to fish in troubled water.”[25]

“Even if measured with the most lenient standard in the past, Liu’s thesis is plagiarism. Fang tries to use ‘other people plagiarized also’ as an evidence to demonstrate that her plagiarism is glorious, is this the logic he has been using in his fraud busting?”[26]

In the morning of May 1, 2011, Fang made yet another allegation against Sun’s dissertation:

“There was a large paragraph in the Ph. D. dissertation (2003) of Sun Haifeng, the vice chairman of the communication studies department at Shenzhen University, which was almost completely copied from The Heterogeneity in Cyberspace by Ye Ping and Luo Zhixin (2001), without attribution, therefore it is severe plagiarism. ‘Even if measured with the most lenient standard in the past,’ according to Sun Haifeng, it is undoubtedly plagiarism. Sun Haifeng, please honor your promise, voluntarily give up your Ph. D. degree. Comparison: [t.cn]”[27]

The fact is, Fang’s finding itself was stolen from other person: right before Fang revealed his new finding, a person posted the same finding on the forum of the New Threads, and based on Fang’s stupidity, ignorance, and his pattern of behavior, it can be concluded without any doubt that Fang must have plagiarized that finding[28].

The alleged note in Sun’s dissertation was about the terms invented by William Gibson, such as cyberpunk and cyberspace. It was about 400 Chinese characters long. Sun issued a “Public Apology Statement” in about 12 hours after Fang made his allegation, apologizing for the omission of the original source. Sun also thanked Fang for finding his oversights, and reiterated his promise that once his dissertation is found by an academic committee as plagiarism, he would give up his degree[29].

Sun’s apology won him broad praise from public, but not from Fang, because he wanted Sun to be out of his job. On May 2, 2011, Fang made another allegation:

“Associate Professor Sun Haifeng of communication studies at Shenzhen University summarized the four distinctive characteristics of narrative structure in network hypertext, and he added the English terms of these characteristics, respectively, therefore they must have be translated from English (and there are English works long time ago which dealt with similar problems). However, Sun didn’t note his sources, which is okay for popular science articles, but it’s not okay for academic papers, because which could mislead readers to think he was the first person who summarized the features, hence it is plagiarism.”[30]

Like the last one, Fang’s this “finding” was also stolen from one of his followers[31]. However, unlike the last one, this “finding” was completely wrong.

First, Fang’s notion that if a Chinese term is followed by a corresponding English term, then the entire statement or sentence must have be translated from English, is stupid and ignorant, to say the least, and it indicates clearly that Fang knows almost nothing about “academic papers.” The fact is, it is a common practice in Chinese academic papers to attach an English term to a Chinese term, especially a less frequently used term, to clarify, or define, the meaning, or specify his own translation, and almost no one cites a reference when he does so. For example, Xiao Ying, an aesthetics professor at Tsinghua University, who was Sun Haifeng’s Master’s degree advisor at Shantou University for one year, and is a fanatical follower of Fang Zhouzi[32], published an academic paper in 2006, in which he attached foreign terms or phrases to Chinese terms at least five times to clarify their meanings, and he didn’t use a single note to acknowledge his “sources.”[33] Of course, Fang would not accuse Xiao Ying of plagiarism had he known the existence of his paper; and of course, Professor Xiao Ying haven’t stood up for his ex-student to refute Fang’s fallacy. As a matter of fact, Professor Xiao would threaten his ex-student to stop busting Fang’s evilness, and because Sun didn’t obey him, Xiao made private letter public[34].

Xiao Ying
An “aesthetician” who defended for Liu Juhua’s plagiarism and a professor who framed his own student.

Second, even if Fang’s notion was right, it won’t hurt Dr. Sun, because he did cite references when he narrated his ideas. For example, he cited two references each when discussing the “Nonlinearaity” [sic] and “Intertextuality,” and he cited one reference each when discussing “Polysemy” and “Decentered.” Furthermore, Dr. Sun listed George Paul Landow’s Hypertext: the convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology, which was obviously considered by Fang as Sun’s source[31], as one of his key references[35].

Third, Fang’s notion that it is okay for popular science writers not to acknowledge their sources, but not okay for academic paper authors to do so, is another shamelessly self-invented rule, which, of course, was specifically designed to exonerate himself in many of ongoing allegations against him.

In summary, after combing Sun’s Ph. D. dissertation for 4 days, Fang and his followers, tens or hundreds of them[36], found only one loophole, involving about 400 Chinese characters among 120,000 characters, or about 0.3% of the entire text. Dr. Sun apologized for his mistake, but Fang, who had made two false allegations against Dr. Sun, and his wife plagiarized 90% of her thesis, not only refused to apologize, but continued asking Sun to give up his doctoral degree, and would continue his attack on Dr. Sun.

Plagiarism Allegations against Sun’s Master’s Thesis

About two hours after making the above allegation against Dr. Sun’s doctoral dissertation, Fang turned his eyes to Dr. Sun’s Master’s thesis:

“Doctor-to-be-given-up Sun, please keep your promise, send you Master’s thesis to me (smfang@yahoo.com), I’ll let you become Master-to-be-given-up Sun.”[37]

At 11:59 pm, May 2, 2011, Dr. Sun, after depositing his thesis in Baidu Library, responded:

“Fang Zhouzi, the dependent of Xinhua News Agency reporter Liu Juhua, threatened to examine my Master’s thesis, he also raved that he would turn me into ‘Master-to-be-given-up Sun.’ Here is the downloading address, welcome Fang Zhouzi’s careful examination and the release of the result. It’s better that he could publish Liu Juhua’s Master’s thesis which is a suspect of a large number of plagiarism, as an appendix for the whole nation to watch. [t.cn]”[38]

22 hours later, Fang revealed his research result:

“Before Associate Professor Sun Haifeng of communication studies at Shenzhen University providing his Master’s thesis online, Beijing’s e-friend Brother Long had already sent it to me. Its plagiarism was so obvious that I knew it at the first sight, because he confessed voluntarily in its postscript: ‘In the article, I took advantage of being their student, borrowed several viewpoints from my advisors, which were not noted explicitly one by one.’ Not noting other people’s viewpoints one by one in a paper is plagiarism, and his was multiple plagiarisms. Now, Sun becomes Master-to-be-given-up.”[39]

Any people with a common sense can tell that what Sun said was out of politeness and humbleness (Sun later would call the sentence “kind words.”) However, Fang, after working diligently for one day and one night, with the help of countless frenetic followers[36], which yielded no evidence of plagiarism at all, actually used this one sentence, 30 Chinese characters, to make his allegation, and he even thought his evidence was enough to invalidate Sun’s Master’s degree. No wonder Dr. Sun cried that Fang “created an unique Fang’s plagiarism standard in human history.”[40] Even Fang’s followers were deeply disappointed: Fang’s post drew more than 1,000 comments, many of them were negative, and no one forwarded his post.

The fact is, Sun not only listed his advisors’ books as his general references, he also put a footnote when he specifically cited a viewpoint from Xiao Ying’s paper[41]. So, Fang did know he was making a baseless allegation against Sun.

The fact is, in 1995, Fang made a similar statement in the acknowledge session of his Ph. D. dissertation to thank his advisor Dr. Zachary Burton: “His contribution to this work has been invaluable.” So, if his allegation against Sun was valid, he himself must have been a plagiarizer, convicted by himself. Furthermore, what Fang wrote was exactly the same as his predecessor in Dr. Zachary Burton’s lab, Dr. Wang Bo Qing, so Fang might have plagiarized Dr. Wang as well[42].

A tale of three doctors
Both Wang Bo Qing and Fang were Dr. Z. Burton’s graduate students at Michigan State University in 1990s. Dr. Wang graduated in 1994, Fang in 1995. On the left are the acknowledgements of Dr. Wang (upper) and Dr. Fang (lower) in their Ph. D. dissertations, respectively. Both acknowledgements contained the exactly the same sentence, “His contribution to this work has been invaluable” (red boxes) to honor their advisor Dr. Burton. On the right is the postscript in Dr. Sun Haifeng’s Master’s thesis, in which a sentence, “In the article, I took advantage of being their student, borrowed several viewpoints from my advisors, which were not noted explicitly one by one” (red box) was used by Fang as an evidence for Dr. Sun’s plagiarism.

A Published Paper

Sun’s “acknowledgment” was the only “evidence” of plagiarism Fang could found in Dr. Sun’s Master’s thesis. It backfired badly, so Fang needed a new breakthrough urgently. On May 5, 2011, Fang accomplished that. Briefly, Fang alleged that Sun, in one of his papers published in 2007, The Idea of Nature in Traditional Chinese Aesthetics, plagiarized a paper by Fang Bo and Ji Hongli, two teachers in Yuxi Teachers' College, which was published in 2004[43].

Dr. Sun responded in 3 hours, claiming that the published paper was finished in 2002 while he was a doctoral graduate student at Shandong University. The manuscript was submitted to three journals, but was rejected by all of them. It was modified in 2007 and finally published. Sun also claimed that he had the original computer file, and he reported the case to police[44]. In 85 minutes, Fang announced he would formally report the case to the academic committee of Shenzhen University[45].

Next day, May 6, 2012, Sun issued a statement, saying that his manuscript was posted online in 2002, and he had contacted Fang Bo and Ji Hongli, the supposed victims, and they admitted their wrong doings. Sun thanked the two teachers for their admission, and excused them. However, Sun asked Fang Zhouzi to apologize to him for his defamatory remarks[46].

Three hours after Sun’s statement, on May 6, 2011, Fang announced that he had formally reported to Shenzhen University that Sun was a suspect of plagiarizer:

“Formally report to the academic committee of Shenzhen University that Sun Haifeng is suspected of plagiarism: please investigate the case. If Sun Haifeng plagiarized Fang Bo, Ji Hongli (or other people), then you should punish him severely for his misconduct. If Sun Haifeng’s paper was stolen, then the stealers’ responsibility should be investigated, rather than letting them settle the matter privately.”[47]

Why did Fang rush to report Sun to Shenzhen University, while the truth was gradually revealing? As a Chinese saying goes: “Villains usually sling accusations first.” The reason for that is, in Chinese tradition, “guilty until proven innocent” is a conventional believing, so a plaintiff has an advantage in the court. Fang grew up in a lawless age, while his father was a local court judge, used to hear cases at his own home. So Fang is a natural shyster. Of course he wanted to take the advantage by seizing the moral high ground, forcing his opponent on the defensive. Also, Fang knew very well that his time was running out, because Sun was gathering all the evidence to demonstrate his innocence. Once the process is finished, Fang would have no reason to sue. That’s why Fang was in such a hurry. Nine months later, Sun would recall the episode this way:

“Even though he knew the complete truth, he still wrote to the leaders of Shenzhen University to frame me as a plagiarizer. Such evil-mindedness of trying to destroy me by letting me lose my job made me realized that his fraud busting was not for the sake of truth and goodness.”[48]

On Feb. 13, 2012, Sun Hafeng denounced Fang Zhouzi on Shenzhen TV

As a matter of fact, three hours after his reporting to Shenzhen University, Fang revealed, voluntarily and exultingly, his intention:

“[Sun Haifeng] is a provocative buzzing fly, striking him meant to strike the fly as a warning to the tiger.”[49]

In other words, Fang hoped that by destroying Sun Haifeng, he could frighten other people away from exposing/confronting his evilness. The thing is, although Fang’s tactic had worked most of the time, it didn’t work in Sun’s case. To some extent, fighting Dr. Sun Haifeng was one of Fang’s career-ending disasters.

Keep Fighting

On May 9, 2011, China Netizen News published a front page article, The Backyard of “Fraud Busting Specialized Household” on Fire, Fang Zhouzi Accused of Playing with Double Standards, here is its first paragraph:

“Fang Zhouzi, the specialized household in fraud busting, was exposed that his wife was suspected committing plagiarism in her Master’s thesis. Fang, in the spirit of having no breakfast until their elimination, and forgiving no one, engaged in a tooth for a tooth retaliatory counter-investigations, dirty secret revelations, and even issuing fatwas on those enemies who had been sentenced by him as ‘bad journalists’ and ‘Fang-haters,’ such as the media, websites, overseas scholars, university professors, microbloggers who had exposed and commented on the scandal.……However, the double standards adopted in Fang’s crackdown are criticized by more and more people, ‘the specialized household in fraud busting’ has plunged into an unprecedented crisis of confidence.”[50]

Fang Zhouzi was accused of playing with double standards by a newspaper

In the next several days, Fang alleviated his attack on Dr. Sun, instead, he aimed his rifle at traditional Chinese medicine, for the Nth time[51], and, at a robot research team at Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT), accusing them of cheating[52], to fill his time slot on sina.com and to draw, or divert, people’s attention.

On May 16, 2011, Dr. Sun made public a notarial certificate, showing that his paper existed in his email box as early as March 7, 2003[53]. Fang countered Sun by saying Sun cheated, altered his computer files. Fang also demonstrated that he could do the trick by posting an image of fake email file[54]. Sun asked Fang to showed the header of that fake email[55], Fang showed, by reposting a follower’s post, that an email’s header could be altered also[56]. In other words, Fang and his gangsters are fraud masters.

Realizing that he could never prove his innocence in the eyes of Fang’s, Sun changed his strategy. On May 17, 2011, at 21:40, Beijing time, Sun posted the following image with a comment:

“Biochemistry doctor Fang’s English is really first class, experienced and knowledgeable, even his plagiarism was so innovative.”[57]

The image which defeated the invincible Fang
On the left is an image published in a paper in Biology Letters[58]. Fang stole the image and put it in one of his books, Why Elephants Don’t Have Hairs? but he translated the terms “light” and “dark,” meaning the color of skin, into “day” and “night” in Chinese. This incidence, which was reported by numerous newspapers and TV stations, showed unequivocally that Fang not only was a thief, but also a cheater, a liar, and an ignorant.

Since that very moment, Fang stopped his attack on, or responding to, Sun Haifeng, until 78 days later, when Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein’s An Open Letter to Shi-min Fang, accusing him of plagiarism, became national news. In this sense, Fang is not totally shameless.


Fang’s credit as a fraud fighter was essentially bankrupted after Liu Juhua scandal. With his own scandals mounting, Fang had become one of the most hateful and obnoxious people in China by the mid of 2012. However, these are the stories for the later parts of this letter. For now, let me finish the story between Dr. Sun and fraud fighter Fang.

As mentioned above, after posting the image of East Indians (day) and Caucasian (night), Dr, Sun turned the situation from the defensive to the offensive: He has been blasting Fang on his microblog almost daily, or at least weekly, but Fang, like “all the imposters when their frauds are brought to light,” adopted his “last strategy,” play dumb, remain silent, and pretend nothing has happened[59].

On Dec. 8, 2011, Dr. Sun published an article in Time Weekly, Rogue-style Fraud Busting Is a Social Plague. Its first paragraph:

“In the era when the social immunity is extremely low, the popularity of charlatans and power brokers is extremely high, they pose as science cops and moral judges to swindle and deceive people. When the public and even the intellectuals give naive applause to the rogue-style fraud busting by internet bullies such as Fang Zhouzi, the mob philosophy based on social hatred has swept through China like a plaque. The so called ‘rogue-style fraud busting,’ as a cultural freak produced by the speculative copulation between totalitarianism and populism, is basically an anti-civilization violence of public opinion. It has four characteristics:……”[60]

Fang’s response? Of course “rogue-style:”

“Does anybody know which rogue is in charge of Time Weekly now? Is that Lu Hui, the ex-Executive Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Southern Metropolis Daily in charge? Isn’t he afraid that other people will human flesh search and scold his wife?”[61]

In February, 2012, Dr. Sun made multiple appearances on television, exposing Fang’s evilness, including issue an ultimatum on Shenzhen TV[62].

Fang’s response? Of course “rogue-style:” He hid himself behind the scenes and instigated his followers to harass the administration of Shenzhen University by calling or writing, asking for dismissal of Sun Haifeng[63].

On March 26, 2012, Dr. Sun initiated an internet survey: What’s Fang Zhouzi’s real job? So far, nearly 26,000 people have voted, less than 5% of the voters think positively of him, many people believe he is a faker, a beggar, an extortionist, or a thug[64].

And on November 6, 2012, this generally recognized faker, beggar, extortionist, and thug, by Chinese people, was awarded by three British organizations, including the prestigious journal Nature, with John Maddox Prize. Are you going to tell Chinese people WHY?


* The subtitle is derived from an article, A Demon Whose Identity Can Only Be Found Out by the Security Sector, by Mr. Li Beifang, the editor of South Wind. In the article, there is a sentence: “Fang Zhouzi’s soul is filled with 24K pure evilness.” (Original Chinese: “方舟子是一个难以描述更难以复制的特例,他的灵魂深处充盈着24k的也就是纯粹的邪恶”. (See: 李北方:《一个安全部门才能查清的恶魔》).

[1] Fang’s original Chinese: “3月17日出版?那是锤子教授出狱的日子。我以手为枪。” (See: 2011-3-25 01:10).

[2] Sun’s original Chinese: “在学术与社会打假方面,我是坚决的支持者。” (See: 2011-1-12 00:14).

[3] For examples, see: 2010-8-29 23:37, 2010-8-29 23:43, 2010-8-29 23:44, 2010-8-30 00:12.

[4] See: 2010-9-21 11:07, 2010-9-21 11:21, 2010-9-21 12:09, 2010-9-21 13:57, 2010-9-21 14:05, 2010-9-21 21:21.

[5] Sun’s original Chinese: “谁都不是神仙,都有个人视野和性格上的局限。方在转基因、中医和宗教等问题上的认知,都体现了一个科学主义者的思维缺陷,但这不妨碍他是一个正直的知识分子。” (See: 2010-9-22 19:29).

[6] Sun’s comments are: 2011-1-11 10:02, 2011-1-11 10:24, 2011-1-11 10:33, 2011-1-11 10:40, 2011-1-11 11:07, 2011-1-11 11:14, 2011-1-11 11:19, 2011-1-11 11:29.

[7] The case was discovered by Xin Ge, and his article, Original Writing, Translation, Compilation, or Plagiarism: Comment on Fang Zhouzi’s Misreading of IQ, was first published on Academic Criticism Net on January 22, 2011 (葛莘:《究竟是创作、翻译、编译,还是抄袭?——评方舟子的〈“智商”的误区〉》). It was published on Guangming Net, a governmental website, 4 days later. Shenzhen Economic Daily didn’t publish the article, instead, it reported it as a piece of news. (Zheng Jianyang. Famous Fraud Fighter Fang Zhouzi Was Exposed Stealing Others’ Works. Shenzhen Economic Daily. Feb. 25, 2011.郑健阳:《“打假”名人方舟子被曝剽窃他人著作》).

[8] Original Chinese: “【@方舟子尴尬了】‘打假也终于轮到方舟子’,方舟子发表于2002年第4期《牛顿-科学杂志》上的《“智商”的误区》一文,被指抄袭已故哈佛教授及加拿大教授文章,并且“篇幅比较大”。对此,方舟子没有作出回应。” (See: 2011-2-25 13:31).

[9] Fang’s original Chinese: “《深圳商报》记者郑健阳装聋作哑,号称关注我的微博,却不知‘葛莘博士为何会远在美国而特意关心方舟子的文章’,不知所谓葛莘就是写了上百万文字诽谤我、 支持肖传国的‘方学家’亦明?不知道我对其指控我抄袭一事已在微博和博客上回应过几次了?此人已‘证明’我许多篇文章都是‘抄’的,你继续报。” (See: 2011-2-25 14:19).

[10] Sun’s original Chinese: “准备围观方教主发布新版无良媒体黑名单。” (See: 2011-2-25 23:51).

[11] Original Chinese: “《深圳商报》郑健阳【造谣】”.

[12] Sun’s original Chinese: “果然又是故伎重演,避实就虚‘懒于理会’。” (See: 2011-2-26 08:29).

[13] Sun’s original Chinese: “【光明网:创作、翻译、编译、还是抄袭?】一向鼓吹科学精神的方舟子,除了对批评者反复抹黑谩骂之外,并未拿出可信理由推翻对方的质疑。期待方先生对此文作出‘科学’的反驳,不要继续用‘无良造谣媒体’等字眼侮辱粉丝们的智商。[t.cn]” (See: 2011-3-3 11:40).

[14] That person’s name was Fu Weigang (傅蔚冈), who promised that he would donate one Yuan RMB for each forward of his post. Finally, his post was forwarded more than 360,000 times, and Mr. Fu apologized, saying he could only afford 50,000 Yuan RMB. Fang made numerous comments on the matter, accusing him of advertising himself in the name of donation. (Original Chinese: “你打着捐款的名义骗转载为自己打广告啊?” See: 2011-4-26 14:48).

[15] Sun’s original Chinese: “建议在闲得蛋疼的时候,关心一下刘菊花同志论文抄袭问题吧。” (See: 211-4-27 00:03).

[16] Sun’s original Chinese: “我下载几篇相关论文验证过,确有大量抄袭。自己看吧,别告诉我你没发现这些文章,或者干脆不认识字。” (See: 2011-4-27 22:40).

[17] Sun’s original Chinese: “不以为耻反不为荣,这是我见过的最恶劣的狡辩。对大段大段没有注释的雷同绝口不提,只强调那可怜的几十个注释,进而偷换话题抹黑质疑者。——真物以类聚,深得方教主精髓啊。” (See: 2011-4-28 12:49).

[18] Sun’s original Chinese: “本人硕士论文《自然•自我•自由》和博士论文《网络文化的审美反思》都可以在各大学术资源网上找到,别告诉我你不知从哪下载。等着看你扒粪后和尊夫人大作对比研究的成果哦!” (See: 2011-4-29 00:00).

[19] Sun’s original Chinese: “最近关注刘菊花硕士论文抄袭,结果惹恼其夫@方舟子,发了江湖通缉令征求本人的学位论文,估计现正在带领一帮文盲连夜炮制黑材料。传说方博士打假功夫一流,我倒要领教一下他的学术良知和学术规范到底在哪里。” (See: 2011-4-29 00:48).

[20] Fang’s original Chinese: “深圳大学新闻系孙海峰,其硕士论文还未找到,但博士论文已可认定抄袭”. (See: 2011-4-29 16:45. Note: Fang’s warrant was issued at 2011-4-28 17:08).

[21] Sun’s original Chinese: “方舟子认定人们批评刘菊花抄袭就是攻击她老婆,扬言后半生一个都不放过,并宣判我的博士论文涉嫌抄袭。本人在此声明:方舟子若能指出本人博士论文的抄袭之处(不管是有意的剽窃还是无意的不规范),本人将在逐条验证后公开道歉;若达到学界认定的‘抄袭’标准,本人将自愿放弃博士学位,欢迎社会监督。” (See: 2011-4-29 19:16).

[22] Fang’s original Chinese: “深圳大学新闻系副主任孙海峰硕士论文未找到,但其博士论文也抄袭:虽然注明了出处,但未作转述或加引号,按照他们用来指责我妻子的国际学术规范标准,当然属于文字抄袭。而且孙海峰是博士学位论文,理应用比硕士学位论文更严格的标准来衡量。比对见:[t.cn]”. (See: 2011-4-29 18:54).
Note: Fang late gave a little more details on how he found Sun’s plagiarism: “《法治周末》根据亦明(真名葛莘)的黑材料指控我妻子写于2002年的硕士学位论文抄袭,有一部分是亦明式的捕风捉影,一部分是引用别人的资料时虽然注明了出处但是没有用转述的方式改写,也没有使用引号表示是直接引用。后者是国内缺乏学术规范教育和训练造成的,国内的学生几乎没人可幸免,很多教师也存在这个问题。我本来对审核国内硕士、博士论文毫无兴趣,但如果我妻子的硕士文凭因此出事,我就把下半生贡献给为中国清理硕士、博士文凭,从相关人员开始清理。比如以前因为别的事情与我有过争执、现在又一再跳出来攻击我妻子抄袭的深圳大学传播系副主任孙海峰,其硕士论文还未找到,但其博士论文只粗粗一看,已可认定也是抄袭。认定起来很简单,就是采用亦明的方式,根据注释去找原文,做个比对。” (See: [blog.sina.com.cn]).

[23] Sun’s original Chinese: “黄鸣奋将网络与文艺活动的关系归结为七个主要方面:” (See page 18 of Sun’s Ph. D. dissertation,《网络文化的审美反思》).

[24] For detail, see: Xin Ge. A Brief History of Fang Zhouzi’s Plagiarism of MSU Professor Dr. Root-Bernstein.

[25] Sun’s original Chinese: “方舟子一边拉黑我不敢让评论,一边‘采用亦明的方式’(不何何方神圣?)‘审核’我的博士论文,将标明出处的引用也宣判为抄袭,然后造谣说我查刘菊花抄袭也是采用了同样的标准。——其实刘菊花的问题不是引用不规范,而是无标注地大量剽窃他人文字。方故意把二者胡搅为一谈,完全是浑水摸鱼的狡辩。” (See: 2011-4-30 08:40).

[26] Sun’s original Chinese: “即便用过去的最宽松标准看刘无疑也是抄袭。方舟子竟用‘别人也抄袭’来证明她抄袭光荣,这就是他学术打假的逻辑?” (See: 2011-4-30 09:36).

[27] Fang’s original Chinese: “深圳大学传播系副主任孙海峰的博士学位论文(2003年)有一大段文字几乎全盘照抄叶平、罗治馨《赛伯空间的异类》(2001年),却没有注明出处,属于严重的剽窃。‘即便用过去的最宽松标准看’(孙海峰语),这无疑是抄袭。请孙海峰遵守诺言,自愿放弃博士学位。比对见:[t.cn]”. (See: 2011-5-1 07:05).

[28] On April 30, 2011, at 16:52:01 (PST), a person with a web ID “gang” posted the following on the forum of the New Threads:

“There is another place in Sun Haifeng’s doctoral dissertation containing plagiarism: page 11, note 3: Young Gibson merged into such cultural atmosphere naturally…combined with computer hackers, intelligent robot to form… Copied from: The Heterogeneity in Cyberspace, Authors: Ye Ping, Luo Zhixin (2001), Publishing time: 2001-9-1. [youa.baidu.com]”.

Original Chinese: “孙海峰的博士论文还有其它抄袭的地方:第11页注释3:年轻的吉布森自然而然融入到这种文化氛围中。。。与电脑黑客、智能机器人等组合成。。抄自:《赛伯空间的异类》,作者:叶平,罗治馨,出版时间:2001-9-1 [youa.baidu.com]”. (See: [www.xys.org]).

[29] See: 2011-5-1 19:16. Also see: [www.rainbowplan.org].

[30] Fang’s original Chinese: “深圳大学传播系副教授@孙海峰 的博士学位论文第三章第二节总结网络超文本在叙事结构上有四个鲜明的特征,并分别加注英文原词,可见是从英文文献翻译的(也早有英文著作研究过类似问题),却没有注明来源,这对科普文章可以,对学术论文却不可以,会让人误以为是他首先总结出来的,属于剽窃。” (See: 2011-5-2 15:08).

[31] On May 1, 2011, at 10:56:15 (PST), a person with a web ID “fujita” posted the following on the forum of the New Threads:

“Sun Haifeng says that the arguments and evidence in his doctoral dissertation are original, however, when he summarized the features of hypertext (Chapter 3, section 2), he obviously referenced the book by George Paul Landow, Hypertext:The convergence of critial theory and contemparary technology, [www.cyberartsweb.org]. I’m not sure whether such arguments are original or not.”

Original Chinese: “孙海峰说自己博士论文的论点和证据属于原创,但归纳超文本的几个特征时(第三章,第二节),明显参考了George Paul Landow的书,Hypertext:The convergence of critial theory and contemparary technology, [www.cyberartsweb.org]。这样的论点不知能不能算原创。” (See: [www.xys.org]).

[32] There are numerous evidences showing Xiao Ying is Fang’s follower, and the most convincing one is that he had published many articles on the New Threads criticizing other people’s plagiarism, yet he frenziedly opposes to the publication of An Open Letter to the Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Regarding the Alleged Plagiarism Case of Its Graduate Ms. Liu Juhua, which was signed by 240 Chinese scholars around the world. For detail, see: Yi Ming. Unworthy the Title of Professor: Comment on the Shameless Performance by Tsinghua University Professor Xiao Ying (亦明:《枉为人师——评清华大学教授肖鹰的无耻表演》); Yang Yusheng. Sacrifice for “Fang Zhouzi’s Wife:” Comment on Tsinghua Aesthetics Professor Xiao Ying’s Related Words and Deeds (杨玉圣:《为“方舟子妻”殉葬——评“清华美学教授”肖鹰的有关言行》); Ludi. An Open Letter to Within-the-country Scholar Xiao Ying (芦笛:《致海内学者肖鹰的公开信》); Yi. Ming. The Most Shameless Person: Comment on Tsinghua University Professor Xiao Ying’s Absurd Article “Fraud Busting or Fraudulently Busting” (亦明:《无耻之尤──评清华大学教授肖鹰的奇文〈打假还是假打〉》).

[33] Xiao Ying. Aesthetics and Literary Theory: Reflection on Some Popular Ideas. Literature and Art Studies 2006 (10):12-22. (肖鹰:《美学与文学理论》,《文艺研究》2006年10期12-22页). The five terms and their corresponding foreign terms are: 社会学美学(soziologische Aesthetik); 显露(in-den-Vorschein-Kommen); 二分法(inside/outside dichotomies); 共生因素(concomitants); “无之无性”(nothing-ing of nothing).

[34] On Feb. 23, 2012, Xiao made public a private letter he sent to Sun Haifeng, in which he expressed his “public anger” at Sun’s criticism of Fang, and threatened Sun that if he doesn’t stop the criticism, he would tell the public that Professor Xiao was only Sun’s advisor for his first year’s study, not Sun’s thesis advisor. Yes, Professor Xiao thought, and probably still thinks, that Sun’s public acknowledgment of his apprenticeship under Professor Xiao was a fraud. That’s how evil and shameless a Fang’s follower can be. Xiao’s post has been deleted by himself, but its screen image is preserved and shown below.

[35] Sun Haifeng. Aesthetic Reflection on Network Culture. Ph. D. Dissertation, Shandong University, 2003. Sun discussed the four characteristics on pages 117-120; and he listed his English references on page 139. (孙海峰:《网络文化的审美反思》,山东大学博士论文,2003. 140 pages.)

[36] On May 1, 2011, Fang claimed complacently that many people were examining Sun’s dissertation, the number of Sun’s readers in the past few days was hundred and thousand times of that in the past eight years. (Original Chinese: “应该还有很多人正捏着鼻子读孙海峰的论文,这几天其论文的阅读人数是8年来的成百上倍。” See: 2011-5-1 16:53).

[37] Fang’s original Chinese: “请孙候弃博士守诺言把硕士论文发给我(smfang@yahoo.com),我要让你变成孙候弃硕士。” (See: 2011-5-2 17:29).

[38] Sun’s original Chinese: “新华社记者刘菊花的家属@方舟子,扬言要审查本人的硕士学位论文,并放出狂言要将本人变成‘孙候弃硕士’。在此提供下载,欢迎方舟子仔细研读并公布成果报告,最好将刘菊花涉嫌大面积抄袭的硕士论文作为附件发布,以供全民围观。 [t.cn]”. (See: 2011-5-2 23:59).

[39] Fang’s original Chinese: “在深圳大学传播系副主任孙海峰提供其硕士学位论文下载之前,网友北京的龙哥已寄给我了。一见可知是剽窃之作,因为孙在论文后记中不打自招:‘文章中多处引用了导师们的观点,未能一一注明,算是乘一点弟子之便吧。’在论文中不一一注明所引用的别人观点,就是剽窃,而且是多处剽窃。孙又成候弃硕士了。” (See: 2011-5-3 22:24).

[40] Sun’s original Chinese: “居然把后记致谢里边的客套话,当成了我剽窃的证据,创造了前无古人后无来者的‘方氏剽窃标准’。” (See: 2011-5-3 23:01).

[41] See: Sun Haifeng. Nature, Self, Freedom. Master’s degree thesis, Shantou University, 2000. p. 20 and p. 42. (孙海峰:《自然•自我•自由》,汕头大学硕士论文,2000年。第20、42页。)

[42] There is an indication that Fang might have stolen from Dr. Wang before: in his JBC paper (JBC 271, 11703-11709), almost all the RAP74 clones, which were the bases of the paper, were made by Dr. Wang, yet Dr. Wang was not listed as one of the authors of that paper, and no acknowledgement of this fact was found in the paper. See: Xin Ge. A few comments on Dr. Zachary Burton’s “Support for Dr. Shi-min Fang” (Part II).

[43] Fang’s original Chinese: “深圳大学传播系副主任孙海峰《略论传统美学中的‘自然’观念》与方波、季红丽《由‘自然’之道和‘虚静’说看〈文心雕龙〉中的道家存在》大量雷同,从发表时间看,是孙候弃博士抄别人,还抄出不通的错别字,‘远荣辱’变‘达荣辱’,‘三才’变‘二才’,‘天地万物’变‘大地万物’、‘之’变‘主’。” (See: 2011-5-5 18:05). “孙海峰当时是深圳大学文学院讲师,被抄的两位是玉溪师范学院助教。讲师抄助教,深圳大学的抄玉溪师范学院的,抄得好不威武。” (See: 2011-5-5 19:29).

[44] Sun’s original Chinese: “看来戏是越来越精彩了,希望你能对今天的言行负责。这篇文章是我02年读博期间的一篇作业,并投稿到三家杂志社但未刊出(本人保有原始文档)。07年修改完善后拿出来发表,之前一直不知竟在04年被盗用,谢谢@方舟子今天告知。本人已经向公安部门举报,被盗途径正在侦查中。” (See: 2011-5-5 21:05).

[45] Fang’s original Chinese: “孙海峰喊冤,说是他2002年投稿而未发表的论文被盗用,还连夜报案,公安局还当成要案连夜立案侦查, 真是深圳速度啊。盗用者太敬业了,只在一篇专论《文心雕龙》的论文中盗用了孙文无关紧要的几段,而且还更正了原文几处误抄。我就和孙配合一下,举报到深圳 大学学术委员会,让公安侦查得更卖力一些吧。” (See: 2011-5-5 22:30).

[46] Sun’s original Chinese: “本人作品《略论传统美学中的‘自然’观念》,乃本人2002年在山东大学读博期间的一篇作业,原题为《‘自然’本义探》,当时除了作为作业上交并放在网上与同学交流,并向杂志社投稿但未刊出。……本人已向这两位作者求证,他们向本人承认是写作期间参考过网上资料但由于一时疏忽没有注明。……本人对他们的失误表示谅解,也真诚地希望不要因为本人和方舟子的论争而给这二位老师的学习、工作和生活造成影响。……对方舟子的污言秽语和造谣中伤等行为,本人要求其公开道歉,并保留追究其法律责任的权利。…最后,感谢方波、季红丽两位老师勇于承认他们的失误。” (See: 《就本人作品被网络流氓方舟子诬陷为抄袭的声明》, 2011-5-6 15:37).

[47] Fang’s original Chinese: “正式向深圳大学学术委员会举报孙海峰涉嫌抄袭论文:敬请贵委员会对此进行调查。如果是孙海峰抄袭方波、季红丽(或抄袭了别人),那么应该对其学术不端行为做出严肃处理。如果是孙海峰的论文被盗用,则应该反过来追究盗用者的责任,不能任其私了。” (See: 2011-5-6 18:59). “孙海峰的说法前后矛盾。如果是他自己放在网上交流的,‘被盗途径’已很显然,为何还要公安部门侦查?一开始把盗用论文视为犯罪行为报案,为何又突然对盗用者如此宽宏大量,反而要请求盗用者的谅解?孙海峰究竟是否真的向公安部门报案并被立案侦查?当年他把‘作业’放在哪个网上?向哪三家杂志社投稿?方波、季红丽是否真的向其承认参考过孙海峰的‘作业’(‘参考过网上资料’不等于参考过孙的‘作业’。玉溪师院中文系办公室工作人员称方波未回应过此事)?”(See:《向深圳大学学术委员会举报孙海峰涉嫌抄袭论文》).

[48] Sun’s original Chinese: “他仍然在明知道事情真相大白的情况下,仍然写信给我们深大的领导,来构陷我抄袭,这种砸掉我饭碗致人于死地的恶毒,使我深刻地体会到这个人的打假,不是求真向善的。” (Seeconfused smileyhenzhen TV. The Birth of a Fraud Buster. Feb. 13, 2012.)

[49] Fang’s original Chinese: “这是一只嗡嗡嗡来挑衅的苍蝇,打他叫做打苍蝇儆老虎。//@魏五会编:老方为打只苍蝇,发射了枚战斧,太浪费了。不过真钦佩老方要么不做,做则求精的态度”. (See: 2011-5-6 22:07).

[50] Original Chinese: “‘打假专业户’方舟子被曝夫人硕士论文涉嫌抄袭。方氏以灭此朝食、一个也不宽恕的精神,先后对曝光和评论这一事件的媒体、网站、海外学人、大学教授、微博博主等他所宣判的‘不良记者’、‘方黑’等‘仇家’展开以牙还牙的反调查、揭老底,甚至发出‘追杀令’……但‘方氏打假’所采取的双重标准却受到越来越多人的诟病,‘打假专业户’也陷入前所未有的信用危机。” (See: 《“打假专业户”后院着火 方舟子被指玩弄双重标准》).

[51] On May 10, 2011, alone, Fang posted at least 10 posts attacking TCM.

[52] From May 12 to May 14, 2011, Fang posted at least 21 posts attacking the HIT group.

[53] See: 2011-5-16 23:01 and [blog.sina.com.cn].

[54] Fang’s original Chinese: “深圳大学传播系副主任@孙海峰 用了这么多天的时间,终于学会了更改发信时间,还花钱去做公证,证明其论文曾在2003-03-07存在发信邮箱中。他要是来找我,我几分钟就给他搞定。 我今天也在网易信箱放了一个2003-03-07的邮件备份,如图。他不是说曾把论文放在网上交流吗,原来是在其信箱交流的?” (See: 2011-5-17 09:02).

[55] Sun’s original Chinese: “真搞笑,假打斗士@方舟子 居然不知世上有种叫邮件头的东西。每封邮件都一套时间戳,详细记录了经过每道网关的时间。无论本地时间如何伪造,服务器时间都不可能任意篡改的。你敢不敢把那封伪造邮件的邮件头贴出来晒晒?收钩之前先给你科普一下吧,省得你再连夜奋战苦练自掴神掌:[t.cn]”. (See: 2011-5-17 13:58).

[56] Fang’s original Chinese: “用的还是Win95的Netscape,想得真周到,@孙海峰不如把业务外包给你来做,把黑客打入其信箱盗取珍贵的未发表论文卖给某人的证据都包了,省得深圳公安破案。对了,深圳公安当天连夜立案的证据呢?这个可不好造。” (See: 2011-5-17 18:08).

[57] Sun’s original Chinese: “方生化博士果然英文一流、见多识广,抄也抄得这么有创意。[t.cn]”. (See: 2011-5-17 21:40). Note: the image has been deleted from the original source.

[58] Changizi MA, Zhang Q, Shimojo S. Bare skin, blood and the evolution of primate colour vision. Biol Lett. 2006 Jun 22;2(2):217-21. Note: the stealing was first revealed in this article by Zhiyan-le: There Are Massive Plagiarism and Piracy in Fang Zhouzi’s Award Winning Book Why Elephants Don’t Have Hairs. (直言了:《方舟子的年度获奖书〈大象为什么不长毛〉有海量剽窃盗版》).

[59] As of Feb. 17, 2013, there are nearly 2,000 posts on Sun Haifeng’s sina microblog containing “Fang Zhouzi,” and on Fang Zhouzi’s sina microblog and sohu microblog, there are a grand total of 119 posts containing “Sun Haifeng.”

[60] Original Chinese: “在这个社会免疫力极度低下的年代,江湖术士和权力掮客大行其道,冒充科学警察与道德法官招摇撞骗。当公众乃至知识界,对网络城管方舟子们的流氓式打假,发出幼稚的叫好声时,基于社会仇恨的暴民哲学已如瘟疫一般席卷中国。所谓‘流氓式打假’,作为极权与民粹投机媾合而产生的一个文化怪胎,本质上是一种反文明的舆论暴力。其特征可归结为四个方面:” (See: 孙海峰:《流氓式打假是一场社会瘟疫》,《时代周报》2011年12月8日。)

[61] Fang’s original Chinese: “有谁知道现在时代周报是哪个流氓在当总编?还是原《南方都市报》的陆晖作为执行副总编在管事?就不怕别人也顺带人肉骂他老婆?” (See: 2011-12-8 18:37).

[62] See: Sun Haifeng. Fang Zhouzi: Repent and be saved! (《孙海峰——方舟子 回头是岸!》).

[63] On Feb. 28, 2012, Sun posted the following on his microblog:

“On the first day of school in 2012, the leaders of my school, Shenzhen University, and many offices received anonymous phone harassment from Fang’s followers, report and demand that I be dismissed.”

Original Chinese: “2012年开学第一天,我所在学校——深圳大学的领导和多个部门便收到方舟子水军的匿名电话骚扰,‘举报’并要求单位开除我。” (See: 2012-2-28 10:18).

[64] See: 2012-3-26 14:17.

被编辑2次。最后被亦明编辑于08/05/2013 07:16AM。
打开 | 下载 - Shamelessness shouldn\'t be anyone\'s Nature XIV.pdf (1.34 MB)
主题 发布者 已发表

Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature ──An Open Letter to Nature (Part I) (6551 查看) 附件

亦明 November 09, 2012 08:46AM

Part II: Shameless “standing-up” (3944 查看) 附件

亦明 November 09, 2012 12:05PM

Part III: Shameless make-up (4369 查看) 附件

亦明 November 11, 2012 10:06PM

Part IV: Fact distortion and mess-up (3516 查看) 附件

亦明 November 13, 2012 11:57PM

Part V: Shameless, fraudulent, and malicious fighter (5093 查看) 附件

亦明 November 18, 2012 12:10PM

Part VI: A fake scientist’s fight against science (4173 查看) 附件

亦明 November 23, 2012 06:28AM

Part VII: A fraudulent fighter’s fight for fraud (4001 查看) 附件

亦明 November 28, 2012 09:46AM

Part VIII: A fighting dog for commercial and political forces (3483 查看) 附件

亦明 December 03, 2012 05:21PM

Part IX: An evil villain's fight for his career (3956 查看) 附件

亦明 December 09, 2012 05:36PM

Part X: A congenital liar has Nature as his amplifier (3465 查看) 附件

亦明 December 16, 2012 11:51AM

Part XI: Fang’s Law (4823 查看) 附件

亦明 January 29, 2013 12:16AM

Part XII: Fang’s Law-II (4696 查看) 附件

亦明 February 04, 2013 10:40AM

Part XIII: A Thief Couple (4557 查看) 附件

亦明 February 10, 2013 06:14PM

Part XIV: A 24K Pure Evil (4543 查看) 附件

亦明 February 17, 2013 07:28PM

Part XV: An Unprecedented Professional Literary Thief (4616 查看) 附件

亦明 February 24, 2013 08:00PM

Part XVI: The Science Case (2716 查看) 附件

亦明 March 03, 2013 07:31PM

Part XVII: The Nature-Science Case (3194 查看) 附件

亦明 March 10, 2013 06:41PM

Part XVIII: The Harvard Case (I) (3193 查看) 附件

亦明 March 17, 2013 06:36PM

Part XIX: The Harvard Case (II) (4343 查看) 附件

亦明 March 24, 2013 02:40PM

Part XX: The Longevity Case (6929 查看) 附件

亦明 March 31, 2013 03:55PM

Part XXI: The Naked Mole-Rat Case (10786 查看) 附件

亦明 April 07, 2013 06:05PM



2250s.com does not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of communications posted by users.

This forum powered by Phorum.