欢迎! 登陆 注册


Part XXV: The Michigan State University Case (2331 查看)

May 19, 2013 10:47AM
【Due to the webpage capacity,only one quarter of the article is posted here. The full-length article is attached as a PDF file.】

Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature
──An Open Letter to Nature (Part XXV)

Xin Ge, Ph. D.

Columbia, SC, USA

【Summary】In 1995, Fang Zhouzi, as a biochemistry Ph.D. student at Michigan State University (MSU), posted his first article on philosophy of science, What Is Science, on the internet. In the article, Fang defined science with a 4-category theory which contained 13 sub-standards. Between 2000 and 2008, Fang publish the theory at least 6 times in his books and newspaper column, plus countless reposts on the internet, oral presentations, and over the radio broadcasting. It was discovered in 2010 that the theory was plagiarized from a paper published in 1984 by Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein, a professor at MSU. The case was reported to MSU administration, and the university refused to investigate the case on the base of technicality. The case was later reviewed by an independent panel organized by China Academic Integrity Review, and Fang was unanimously convicted of plagiarism in April 2011. Four months later, Dr. Root-Bernstein publicly alleged Fang of plagiarism, which constitutes the first ever such case in China’s five-thousand-year history. Fang not only attacked Dr. Root-Bernstein back, he published Dr. Root-Bernstein’s theory again in 2012, without attribution. The possible link between Fang’s habitual stealing and his education at MSU is discussed.


Fang’s Plagiarism History: The Michigan State University Case

An Ongoing Stealing Lasted for More Than a Decade
1. In 1984, Dr. Root-Bernstein Published His On Defining a Scientific Theory
2. In 1995, Fang Stole Dr. Root-Bernstein’s Theory to Write his What Is Science
A Complete Comparison between Fang Zhouzi’s What Is Science and Dr. Root-Bernstein’s On Defining a Scientific Theory
3. Showing off the Stolen Goods
4. Regaining Conscience or Hiding Ignorance?
5. In 2005, Fang Stole Dr. Root-Bernstein’s Theory Again
A Comparison between a portion of Fang’s Pseudoscience in the Scientific Era and Dr. Root-Bernstein’s On Defining a Scientific Theory
6. Wrongful Appropriation
7. Attributing or Scifooling?

Fang’s Achilles’ Heel
1. Mental Collapse
2. The Fatal Flaw
3. Spiritual Collapse

The Michigan State University
1. The Allegation
2. The Additional Submission
3. The Preliminary Assessment Report
4. The Challenge to RIO
5. The Appeal to VPRGS
6. The Decision by the Review Panel
7. A Tricky Closure

The Chinese Scholars

The Fraudulent Fraud Fighter Fought Back
1. February 2011: Threat and Slander
2. March 2011: Threat, Self-slap, and Slander
3. A New Level of Shamelessness
4. The Stupid Counselors’ Counsel
5. A Malicious Supporter’s Support

Seeking for Justice: Dr. Root-Bernstein’s Open Accusation
1. Fang’s Insincere “Apology” Received Blunt Rejection
2. Dr. Burton’s Support to his Protégé Generated Unanswered Questions
3. Fang’s Second Response Fetched in a Slap in Face

The Nature of Evilness
1. The Awakened Serpent Bites
2. The Convicted Thief Robs

An Institutional Defect? - Concluding Remarks


Appendix: A Few Comments on Dr. Zachary Burton’s “Support for Dr. Shi-min Fang”


Major Characters
Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein, a professor at Michigan State University, the victim; Michigan State University, the employer of the victim, the educator of the thief; and Fang Zhouzi, an ex-graduate student at and Ph. D. degree recipient from Michigan State University, the thief.

A stolen article published in print media at least seven times: The covers of the plunders
From left: Fangzhou Online (Beijing Institute of Technology Press, 2000); Inquiry into Life (Tianjin Education Press, 2001); China Youth Daily (Nov. 9, 2005); Fang Zhouzi Solves World Mysteries (Shan’xi Normal University Press, 2007); Criticizing Traditional Chinese Medicine (Chinese Peking Union Medical College Press, 2007); Drug? Poison? (Bafen Cultural Business Ltd., Taiwan, 2008); Mysterious Phenomena Are not Mysterious (Guangxi Science & Technology Press, 2012).

The publishers of Fang’s stolen article
From left: Mr. Su Qing (苏青), the president of Beijing Institute of Technology Press; Mr. Hu Zhentai (胡振泰), the president of Tianjin Education Press; Mr. Chen Xiaochuan (陈小川), the editor-in-chief of China Youth Daily;
Mr. Liu Dongfeng (刘东风), the president of Shan’xi Normal University Press; Mr. Yuan Zhong (袁钟), the president of Chinese Peking Union Medical College Press; The logo of Bafen Cultural Business Ltd., Taiwan; and Mr. He Xing (何醒), the president of Guangxi Science and Technology Press.

Fang’s literary thief career began in early 1980s, when he was a high school student (See Part XV of this letter). It took him more than 10 years to stretch his dirty hands to the English world: our record shows that the earliest plagiarism of an English article committed by Fang occurred in 1995, when he was a graduate student at Michigan States University, and the victim was Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein, a professor of physiology in the same school. To a certain extent, the exposure of this plagiarism case was the last straw that broke Fang’s spine, and it was also the last wind to blow away the fig leaf which had been used to cover the hypocritical face of an American academic institution. That’s why I have saved this case for the finale of “Fang’s Plagiarism History.”

An Ongoing Stealing Lasted for More Than a Decade

1. In 1984, Dr. Root-Bernstein Published His On Defining a Scientific Theory

In the field of philosophy of science, demarcation between science and non-science is one of the fundamental problems, if not THE problem[1]. With the rising of Scientific Creationism in the United States in the 1960s, the problem gained more practical and realistic significance, which culminated in early 1980s in the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education case[2]. In 1984, Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein published a paper entitled “On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered,” trying to demonstrate philosophically that Scientific Creationism is not scientific[3]. To this end, Dr. Root-Bernstein integrated almost all the criteria used for characterizing scientific theories up to that time into a new, four-category theory, and presented it in the following particular order:

A. Logical Criteria

(1) Simple, without unnecessary postulations (Occam's Razor);
(2) Internally consistent;
(3) Falsifiable;
(4) With defined boundary conditions.

B. Empirical Criteria

(1) Testable;
(2) Making verified predictions and/or retrodictions;
(3) Concerning reproducible results;
(4) With criteria for interpreting data.

C. Sociological Criteria

(1) Resolving problems unresolvable by preexisting scientific theories;
(2) Raising a new set of problems
(3) Creating a paradigm;
(4) Providing definitions of concepts.

D. Historical Criteria of Scientific Theories

(1) Superior to earlier theories;
(2) Being able to explain all of previous data;
(3) Being compatible with preexisting ancillary scientific theories.

Generally speaking, the uniqueness of Dr. Root-Bernstein’s theory is his synthesis, because all 15 substandards were proposed by other philosophers or scientists, which he cited. However, it seems that the uniqueness makes the theory less valid. The renowned British philosopher of science Dr. Philip Kitcher commented: “Robert Root-Bernstein tries to resolve the Creationism controversy with some muddled philosophy of science, apparently fashioned from trying to synthesize incompatible points of view.”[4] Before 1995, Dr. Root-Bernstein’s paper was cited 11 times. As of May 2013, the paper has been cited 25 times (based on Google Scholar). In other words, Dr. Root-Bernstein’s theory was one of many science demarcation theories[5].

2. In 1995, Fang Stole Dr. Root-Bernstein’s Theory to Write his What Is Science

In 1990, Fang enrolled in the graduate school at Michigan State University, majoring biochemistry under the mentorship of Dr. Zachary Burton. Beginning in August 1993, Fang became indulged in the internet, first posting his Chinese poems, then his Chinese historical writings, and finally, purely doing “chatting fights” (掐架). As a matter of fact, Fang didn’t show much interest in science, let alone philosophy of science, during that period[6]. However, in May 1995, out of nowhere, Fang wrote an article entitled What Is Science? in which he answered his own question solely with Dr. Root-Bernstein’s 4-category theory, in the exactly the same order, but he didn’t mention Dr. Root-Bernstein’s name, as a matter of fact, any philosophers of science’s names, at all[7]. Instead, he claimed that the theory was the currant consensus in “science of science,” a term for philosophy of science very popular among Chinese people in 1980s[8]. It is very obvious that Fang didn’t know anything about philosophy of science at that time, he found Dr. Root-Bernstein’s paper by accident, and thought the theory was generally accepted.

Indeed, Fang’s ignorance even showed in his translation of Dr. Root-Bernstein’s theory. For example, according to Dr. Root-Bernstein, the first standard for a scientific theory in the empirical category was “be empirically testable itself or lead to predictions or retrodictions that are testable,” which seems self-explanatory enough, but Fang translated it into “it must have a prediction testable with experiment or observation, rather than a fantasy.” It is obvious that Fang was unable to differentiate the testability of a theory itself and the prediction the theory made. The most stupid translation was the next standard: According to Dr. Root-Bernstein, a scientific theory must “actually make verified predictions and/or retrodictions,” and Fang’s translation:

“It must ……actually have predictions which had already been verified, that is, a scientific theory should not be only falsified, but has never been verified; otherwise, the theory is invalid.”

Yes, in 1995, Fang believed that a scientific theory must have been falsified as well as verified. Apparently, he didn’t understand Sir Karl Popper’s falsifiability theory. (Fang finally got it five or ten years later, and he would repeatedly tell people the difference between being falsifiable and being actually falsified. See below.)

The thing is, Fang not only didn’t know Karl Popper’s falsifiability theory, arguably the most influential theory in philosophy of science, he seemed also not aware of Thomas Kuhn’s Scientific Revolution theory, arguably the most famous theory in history of science. According to Dr. Root-Bernstein, the sociological criteria for a scientific theory are:

“A theory must (3.a) resolve recognized problems, paradoxes, and/or anomalies, irresolvable on the basis of preexisting scientific theories; (3.b) pose a new set of scientific problems upon which scientists may work; (3.c) posit a ‘paradigm’ or problem-solving model by which these new problems may be expected to be resolved; (3.d) provide definitions of concepts or operations beneficial to the problem-solving abilities of other scientists.

And Fang’s translation:

“Sociologically, a theory must 1) be able to resolve already known problems. If it could not do that, then it has no reason to exist; 2) pose a new set of problems, and propose models for scientists to solve these problems, i. e. not only it should have explanations, but also could provide predictions. Otherwise, it is useless; 3) provide definitions of concepts which must be operable, not like the fake concepts such as ‘Qigong field’, ‘Nature-human responsiveness’, which are not beneficial to the problem-solving abilities of other scientists.”

It is obvious that Fang didn’t understand that the “recognized problems, paradoxes, and/or anomalies” are those “irresolvable on the basis of preexisting scientific theories,” and their existence is the precondition of a Scientific Revolution, so he translated them into “already known problems,” which sound like a nonsense. Also because he didn’t know the meaning of “paradigm,” arguably one of the fanciest concepts in philosophy and history of science, he simply skipped it.

Near perfect match
Not only Fang’s 4-category criteria match Dr. Bernstein’s 4-category criteria perfectly, Fang’s 13 subcriteria also match Dr. Root-Bernstein’s 15 subcriteria near-perfectly (r=0.994). The only thing which prevented the perfect match was Fang’s ignorance: due to his unawareness of Thomas Kuhn’s Scientific Revolution theory, he combined two subcriteria in sociological category into one (red oval on the left), and two subcriteria in historical category into another one (red oval on the right).

3. Showing off the Stolen Goods

What Is Science was Fang’s first ever article on philosophy of science, and he was extremely proud of it, mentioning it repeatedly, periodically.

The cream of the crop
In Fang Zhouzi’ Science Writings, the Philosophy of Science is the largest section, containing nearly 200 items, including Liu Juhua’s The internet phenomenal Fang Zhouzi, and Jiang Xiaoyuan’s We Need Such a Science Cop. What Is Science is on the top of these “Philosophy of (junk)Science.”

In November 1995, six months after its original posting on the internet, Fang bragged to a person:

“To let you believe that I am not as stupid as you think, I’m re-posting an article which I posted several months ago, in which I mentioned Karl Popper and positivism simultaneously: ……My article ‘What is Science’ is in fact a mixture of popular opinions in the realm of philosophy of science (logical empiricism, falsifiability theory, historicism, the methodology of scientific research programmes), so combined together, it basically covers everything.”[9]

In December 1997, Fang reposted the article on the internet, saying:

“Below is an article I wrote three years ago, how prosperous the alt.chinese.text was at that time.”[10]

On March 1, 2000, in an article entitled “A few questions about Anti-pseudoscience,” Fang wrote:

“Literally, pseudoscience means pretending to be science but violating scientific method standard. Is there a standard for scientific methods? Of course there is. Such a standard is not set by a certain master, rather, it is a consensus among scientific community emerged after several hundred years of evolution. There is not written form of the standard, but everyone who engages in scientific research knows it, consciously or unconsciously. I have previously summed up these criteria into a dozen or so items, but actually, they are mainly the following three: logically self-consistent, evidentially reliable, and predictively testable. They should also be coupled with honest attitude.”[11] (The bold font is added by me.)

Self-proclaimed achievement
On March 1, 2000, at 11:52 AM, Fang claimed that he was the person who summarized the 4-criterion theory (red underline): “I have previously summed up these criteria into a dozen or so items.”

In 2004, Fang told a reporter:

“I have never believed that science cannot be questioned. In What Is Science, which I wrote in 1995, I pointed out, science must be ‘falsifiable, it should not be always right under any circumstances without any modification,’ ‘Science admits she won’t be always right. She could make mistakes, but she could correct the mistakes once she knows them.’”[12]

The original version of What Is Science was saved permanently on the New Threads website from 1998 to October 19, 2010, one day after I reported the plagiarism case to Michigan State University, when Fang secretly modified the webpage by inserting a phrase attributing the theory to Dr. Root-Bernstein (see below).

4. Regaining Conscience or Hiding Ignorance?

In 2000, after his persistent effort, Dr. Liu Huajie of Peking University finally found a publisher for Fang’s “Fangzhou Online,” a collection of self-selected articles. Of course, his first philosophy of science article, What Is Science, was selected, and the only modification Fang made to the article was an insertion of a phrase: “According to Root-Bernstein’s summary,” and a deletion of the sentence: “Currently, the science of science generally believes.”[13] One year later, the same article appeared in Fang’s another book, Inquiry into Life[14].

However, Fang has never let this modified version appear on the internet, even though he had many opportunities and more than ten years to do so. For example, in May 2002, Fang authorized [www.oursci.org] to publish What Is Science on its website. In June 2006, Fang authorized www.kaiwind.com, a website controlled by the Ministry of Public Security but pretending to be nongovernmental[15], to publish the article. In both cases, Fang offered the original, without attribution version of the article to the websites.

So, why did Fang make such a modification in his books around 2000? According to Fang’s own explanation, it was because the original article was a casual writing for an internet debate, and when the article was to be formally published, he made some modifications, and added the attribution[16]. The problem to the explanation is, if it is believable, then why didn’t he correct his online versions until he was alleged of plagiarism? Why did he keep authorizing other websites publishing the original casual version? And why didn’t he attribute Dr. Root-Bernstein in his Pseudoscience in Science Era published since 2005 (see below), and why did he keep telling people that the theory was summed up by himself (see above), and letting his followers attribute the theory to him (see below)? Therefore, Fang was obviously lying. The question is, why?

Conscience regained?
When his books Fangzhou Online (upper panel) and Inquiry into Life (lower panel) were published in 2000 and 2001, respectively, Fang modified his What Is Science by replacing “Currently, the science of science generally believes” with “According to Root-Bernstein’s summary” (red boxes). The rest parts, including what he translated from Dr. Root-Bernstein’s paper directly (highlighted in yellow) remained same.

According to my analysis, the reason Fang attributed Dr. Root-Bernstein in 2000-2001 was as following. When he wrote What Is Science in 1995, Fang was extremely ignorant of philosophy of science, so he thought the 4-category theory was what “the science of science generally believes.” However, in 1999, when he stole Dr. Mayr’s This Is Biology to write his What Is Life, the first section of the New Chapter of Evolution Theory, which was published in 2000 (See Part XVIII of this letter), he must have found that Dr. Mayr cited John Alexander Moore’s eight criteria for science, which differ from Dr. Root-Bernstein’s theory greatly[17]. Therefore, it was obvious to Fang by then that “the science of science” does not “generally believes” the 4-category theory. And that’s why Fang made the insertion and deletion in 2000/2001.

However, Fang really likes the 4-category theory, because with which he could label almost anything he dislikes as “pseudoscience,” and he does want Chinese people, especially his followers, who mainly read his articles online, to believe he knows everything, and the criteria he uses are certified by “the mainstream of international scientific community,” so he kept disseminating the original “casual” version on the internet.

5. In 2005, Fang Stole Dr. Root-Bernstein’s Theory Again

During the second half of 2004, under the behind-the-scene manipulations by his backing, Fang completed his transformation from “the internet phenomenal” to “the favorite son of Chinese media,” and he became a quasi-official science cop in China[18]. In March 2005, Fang gave a seminar in Beijing, the title of his talk was “Pseudoscience in the Scientific Era,” which contained 4 parts: 1). what is science; 2). what is scientific spirit? 3). what is pseudoscience; and 4). misunderstandings[19]. You can imagine that the first part was a reiteration of Dr. Root-Bernstein’s 4-category theory, and of course Dr. Root-Bernstein was not attributed. The strange thing is, in Pseudoscience in the Scientific Era, the 4-category theory once again became “generally believed” by scientific community (see the comparison table below).

No conscience at all!
On June 20, and June 7, 2006 (see red boxes), www.kaiwind.com, an anti-cult religion website owned by Office 610, a secret Chinese government agency, published Fang’s What Is Science (left) and Pseudoscience in Science Era (right). Both articles state that the 4-category science demarcation theory synthesized by Dr. Root-Bernstein in 1984, as the consensus of scientific community (red underlines), and describe the criteria in detail, in the exactly the same order as Dr. Root-Bernstein did (blue boxes), but Dr. Root-Bernstein’s name was never mentioned in either article. Note: the webpage images were saved on May 17, 2013.

6. Wrongful Appropriation

Pseudoscience in the Scientific Era had a much wider distribution and bigger influence than What Is Science, simply because Fang was much more influential in 2005 than in 1995. According to Fang, he gave the talk of “Pseudoscience in the Scientific Era” on multiple occasions in 2005[20], and in November, 2005, the transcript was published in China Youth Daily in two installments[21]. In 2007, the article was published in two of his books almost simultaneously: in Fang Zhouzi Solves World Mysteries in January; and in Criticizing Traditional Chinese Medicine in February. In 2008, it appeared in Drug? Poison?, a book published in Taiwan. Besides these print media, the article was even broadcasted over the radio[22] and widely re-posted on the internet[23].

Influenced by Fang’s repeated efforts, most Fang’s followers believed that he was the person who summarized the 4-category theory, and Fang seemed deliberately trying to strengthen their misperceptions. For example, in January 2007, Mr. Liu Su, a graduate of Peking University and an ardent follower of Fang’s, who was also a philosophy lover which is extremely rare among Fang’s followers because of Fang’s contempt for humanities, wrote in one of his blog articles:

“Fang Zhouzi has already summarized 4 sets of criteria for science in his Pseudoscience in Science Era: logical criteria, empirical criteria, sociological criteria, and historical criteria. Those friends who are interested should read it.”[24]

Somehow Fang found the article right after its posting on Liu’s blog, which has accumulated only about three hundred hits in the last six year, and immediately he published the article on his New Threads, without any comments[25].

On Dec. 17, 2007, a person wrote the following in his blog article:

“All scientific knowledge is built on the foundation of empirical observation, and tested by empiric and practice, not by any artificial imagination. As for whether a theory is scientific, Fang Zhouzi in his What Is Science states explicitly: ‘if a theory is scientific, it must be comply with the four sets of criteria: logical, empirical, sociological and historical, none of them is dispensable.’”[26]

Again, Fang managed to find a way to locate the article, and immediately published the article on his New Threads, without any comments[27].

Fang has repeatedly claimed that it is not necessary to attribute in popular science writings, simply because readers won’t confuse the popular science writer with the scientists who made the original inventions or discoveries. For example, in 2007, Fang taught “China Youth”:

“What you must attribute is those relatively novel, forefront ideas, if you don’t attribute, you might be considered the originator of the ideas. For the common knowledge in academic community, and the ideas which do not have authorship problem even without attribution, then it is not necessary to attribute.”[28]

On April 1, 2011, two days after his plagiarism of Dr. Root-Bernstein was exposed by Legal Weekly, Fang justified his plagiarism this way:

“[Academic] paper, once published, other people will think those parts without attributions are your results. However, science popularization articles are different. It is unlikely that if I write an article about atomic bomb, other people would think that atomic bomb was invented by me.”[29]

On April 12, 2011, in his litigation against Legal Daily, Fang wrote:

“The plaintiff has consistently advocated that the standards for popular science writings and academic papers are completely different: the purpose of popular science writing is to popularize scientific knowledge, introducing the academic achievements of scientific community; even if there are not explicit attributions in popular science writings, the readers won’t mistakenly believe that the achievements belong to the popular science writer. Therefore, it is not necessary to strictly specify the source of the academic achievements. In practice, popular science articles are generally written this way, at home and abroad.”[30]

Obviously, Fang’s “consistent advocacy” is for his own sake; and his followers’ consistent misbelief that Fang was the originator of the 4-category theory is a resounding slap in Fang’s face, thus falsifies Fang’s validation of his double-standard theory resolutely.

The fact that Fang deliberately allows and encourages his followers to attribute the 4-category theory to him, and the fact that he involves himself actively in the dissemination of such misbelief, which in turn served as approval and verification of the misbelief, demonstrate explicitly that Fang’s stealing was intentional.

7. Attributing or Scifooling?

Admittedly, Fang did attribute Dr. Root-Bernstein in 2007, for the second time. In Criticizing Traditional Chinese Medicine, the first section of the first chapter was entitled What Is Science, which is more than 8 pages long, and differs significantly in content from the article with the same title he wrote 12 years ago. In the section, Dr. Root-Bernstein’s 4-category theory was introduced in the same format as in the Pseudoscience in the Scientific Era, and he did cite Dr. Root-Bernstein’s paper.

The question is: Why did he attribute?

Unlike most of his books, Fang cited many references in his Criticizing Traditional Chinese Medicine, he even cited encyclopedia and dictionary[31]. The reason for that is very simple: Because the book was published in a series called “The Great Debate about Traditional Chinese Medicine in the New Century,” and the other three books in the series were authored by two TCM experts. As mentioned numerous times before, Fang’s ignorance is beyond imagination, and he had minimal knowledge in TCM, therefore, he had to cite as many English literatures as possible to scifool his readers, or, to scare off his opponents.

On the other hand, it seemed that Fang purposely cited Dr. Root-Bernstein in a way that even though he attributed Dr. Root-Bernstein, he was still able to steal from him: He first mentioned that “there are well recognized criteria for science in the scientific community, and they are followed by scientists consciously or unconsciously,” then he cited Dr. Root-Bernstein at the end of “The criteria mainly contain 4 sets: logical criteria, empirical criteria, sociological criteria, and historical criteria.” After that, he spent nearly two pages, about one thousand Chinese characters, to elaborate on the criteria, in exactly the same order as Dr. Root-Bernstein did in his paper in 1984. To most Chinese readers, it seems that Fang made the elaboration independent of Dr. Root-Bernstein.

Stealing in Fang’s style
In his Criticizing Traditional Chinese Medicine (pp.6-8), although Fang attributed the framework of the 4-category theory to Dr. Root-Bernstein (red boxes), he did it in a way that looked like the details (portions highlighted in yellow) of the theory was summed up by himself.

Did Fang do that deliberately? It seems so, because Fang had accused other people of plagiarism for the exact reason that they did exactly the same thing:

“If [you] noted the sources in unimportant places in your paper, but you didn’t note the sources in important places, then it still can be regarded as plagiarism.”[32] (September 2001)

“It is the same as plagiarism if a person uses entire paragraphs of translated words as his own article.”[33] (July 2003)

“Even if the sources were acknowledged, such verbatim copying or copying with little modification still should be considered plagiarism.”[34] (November 2005)

“The second misunderstanding [about plagiarism] is, believing that as long as the source is noted, you can copy other people’s wordings directly.”[35] (January 2007)

As a matter of fact, one year after the publication of Criticizing Traditional Chinese Medicine, Fang still maintained the same position:

“Such a large quantity of direct copying, even if you had cited the source, it still should be considered plagiarism.”[36] (February 2008)

As I have said many times before, Fang does know the rule of law; he just thinks the rule of law is for the people other than his wife and himself. Furthermore, Fang thinks that he has the power to make the law, that’s why he cited his own opinion as the basis for suing Legal Daily[30].


被编辑2次。最后被亦明编辑于08/04/2013 02:58PM。
打开 | 下载 - Shamelessness shouldn\'t be anyone\'s Nature XXV.pdf (6.63 MB)
主题 发布者 已发表

Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature ──An Open Letter to Nature (Part XXII) (5068 查看) 附件

亦明 April 14, 2013 03:16PM

Part XXIII: The Bt Corn Case (4956 查看) 附件

亦明 April 21, 2013 05:29PM

Part XXIV: The U. S. President Case (5508 查看) 附件

亦明 April 28, 2013 03:16PM

Part XXV: The Michigan State University Case (2331 查看) 附件

亦明 May 19, 2013 10:47AM

Part XXVI: David Cyranoski’s “Brawl in Beijing” Is a Fraudulent and Malicious News Report (4004 查看)

亦明 July 28, 2013 03:36PM

Part XXVII: Albert Yuan’s Nomination Is Filled with Lies and Malice (3910 查看)

亦明 July 28, 2013 04:55PM

Part XXVIII: Who Is Albert Yuan the Nominator? (4525 查看) 附件

亦明 August 04, 2013 02:49PM

Part XXIX: Why Did Albert Yuan Nominate Fang by Lying? (3326 查看) 附件

亦明 August 12, 2013 12:36PM

Part XXX: Why Was Albert Yuan Invited to Nominate Fang? (9194 查看) 附件

亦明 August 20, 2013 04:28PM

Part XXXI: Fangangsters (I): Yu Guangyuan, the God Father (7310 查看) 附件

亦明 September 25, 2013 08:01PM



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

This forum powered by Phorum.