欢迎! 登陆 注册

高级搜索

Part XLVI: The Hanly War (VII): The Pseudoscholar_1 (1203 查看)

January 28, 2015 12:23PM
【The full-length article, including notes,is attached as a PDF file.】


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



Xin Ge, Ph. D.


Columbia, SC, USA


The Hanly War (VII): The Pseudoscholar

【Abstract】

On Jan. 27, 2012, Fang declared that his war against Han Han had entered into a “new season,” in which he would try to be a scholar and use academic, scientific, or scholarly methods to unearth the hard evidence to substantiate his ghostwriting allegation made in the previous season against Han Han. In a time span of 8 days, Fang Zhouzi posted 4 “analytic” articles online, attempting to demonstrate that one of Han Han’s early writings, Seeing a Doctor, was actually written by his father Han Renjun. It turned out that all four of Fang’s analytic articles were just as stupid, ignorant, fraudulent, and evil as his previous writings in the old season, if not more so than them.



【Contents】

Fang’s “Textual Analysis”

1. Tealer Fang Stole Again

(1) The Stupid Original Findings
(2) The Stolen Goods
(3) The Evidence
(4) The Conclusion

2. The Ignorant Arguments

(1) Little Girl
(2) Turgenev and Freud
(3) The Psychopathology of a Pretender

3. The Pseudo-scholarly Research Aided by a Water Army

Fang’s “Medical Analysis”

1. The Fake Medical Expert Credential
2. Fang’s Fake Expert Witnesses

(1) A Psychopath
(2) An Unidentified Fraudulent Organism

3. The Malice Intention

(1) Framing
(2) Selective Blindness

Fang’s Third Attempt

1. School Boarding Custom
2. Chinese Language
3. Chinese Physicians’ Little Trick
4. China’s Hospitals

Fang’s Final Push

1. A Prelude
2. The Medical Record
3. Defy the Evidence

(1) Jinshan Hospital
(2) A Piece of Paper
(3) More Stolen “Discoveries”

Conclusion

Notes


As I have mentioned many times before, Fang announced that he opened his “new season” of the Hanly War on Jan. 27, 2012. So, exactly, what did Fang mean by that? One month later, when interviewed by a reporter of China News Weekly, Fang elaborated it[1]:

CNW: You have said that the process of “identifying” Han Han’s ghostwriting is divided into two phases, the first phase is to look for the conflicts in the talks between the father and son, so, what the major loopholes have you found in this phase?

Fang: The major [findings] are the different stories told by the father and the son about how the Triple Door was written, how the Glimpsing Human’s Nature through a Cup of Water was written; and even the same person, his stories were not consistent. This phase is equivalent to “matching the confessions.”

CNW: So, whether the inconsistent stories can be used as the evidence for Han Han’s using ghostwriters?

Fang: No, they cannot. I pointed out these suspicious points to demonstrate that Han Han and his father had lied, which suggested indirectly that he is a suspect of using ghostwriters.

CNW: But, even if he lied on these things, it cannot be deduced from these lies that he had ghostwriters.

Fang: Yes, they can only demonstrate that he lied in these things. It is the textual analysis which can demonstrate the existence of the ghostwriters. In the first phase, what I did was only to throw out the suspicious points, which were used to paving the way. In the second phase textual analysis, by analyzing his writings, I can demonstrate that he has ghostwriters.

CNW: In the second phase textual analysis, what were the major questionings?

Fang: The few articles published so far are the analyses of Han Han’s two compositions, Seeing a Doctor and Bookstore. After textual analysis, all the suspicions point to a mid-aged man who has the experience of the Cultural Revolution in the 1970s; is a valetudinarian; has a literary skill; and his father has them all. However, his father is only more suspicious than other people; it is possible that there were other ghostwriters. It is easy to demonstrate that there was a ghostwriter; however, it is impossible to demonstrate who the ghostwriter was. I’ll publish more analytical articles; however, I have been interviewed in the last few days by the media continuously, which affected the progress of my writing.



An evil being
In February 2012, Fang claimed in an interview by China News Weekly that the purpose of his malicious attack on Han Han was to expose the fraud committed by Han Han, and he had “actually already proved” that Han Han’s writings were written by ghostwriter(s). Meanwhile, Fang admitted that many people were not convinced by his demonstration[2]. The above image is the first page of the cover article by the magazine (The cover of the issue is shown in the upper right corner). Two months later, the magazine listed Fang as one of ten “Spiritual Tycoons” in China (upper left corner), which generate strong public resentment[3]. The magazine soon deleted the webpage. The magazine had been one of the most vicious new media in China which supported Fang’s evildoings, mainly because of Fang’s buddy Fang Xuanchang’s association with the magazine.


In other words, in his previous writings and postings, such as the “Genius Han Han” series, which I have analyzed extensively in the previous Parts of this Open Letter to Nature, Fang intended only to cast doubt on Han Han’s honesty and integrity; however, in his “new season” against Han Han, what Fang intended to do was to provide hard evidence, by using academic, scientific, and scholarly approaches, to demonstrate that Han Han is a fake writer, his early writings, from which he got his fame, were all written by other people, most likely his father Han Renjun.

Indeed, ever since Fang appeared on the mainstream stage in China in the turn of the centuries, Fang has been claiming that he is a “scholar,” even though he has never published any scholarly papers or articles, besides stealing from other scholars, during the time period. For example, in 2000, the Science Times published Dr. Liu Huajie’s article with a subtitle “Internet Interview of Fang Zhouzi, an Amphibious Scholar of Sciences and Humanities”[4]. Two years later, Tianjin Daily published an article with a title “Transocean Interview: Scholar, Poet, Fighter Fang Zhouzi”[5]. As a matter of fact, before being kicked out of China’s internet on Oct. 21, 2014, by Chinese government, Fang had been introducing himself first as a “scholar,” then a “science popularization writer.”


“Scholar” Fang Zhouzi
Before being eradicated from China’s internet on Oct. 21, 2014, Fang had been introducing himself as a “scholar, science popularization writer” on his microblogs. The above image shows the title portions of Fang’s homepages on weibo.com (upper, captured on Oct. 3, 2012) and on sohu.com (lower, captured on Nov. 25, 2012). The word “scholar” (学者) is highlighted with red underlines.


So, in this part of the Open Letter to Nature, I’ll show you how the “scholar” Fang Zhouzi conducted his scholarly research during the Hanly War.

Fang’s “Textual Analysis”

At 10:58 on Jan. 27, 9 days and 43 minutes after entering into the Hanly War, and after his previous repeated fraudulent and malicious attacks on Han Han, the so called “phase one” campaign which was ending in a disaster, Fang made the following announcement:

“The new season has started: The Analysis of ‘Genius’ Han Han’s Seeing a Doctor. [t.cn]”[6]

1. Tealer Fang Stole Again

(1) The Stupid Original Findings

Here are the first two paragraphs of Fang’s first ever “textual analysis” of Han Han’s writings:

“Starting from this article, I’ll continuously analyze some of Han Han’s writings to demonstrate that these writings couldn’t have been written by Han Han. Let me start from the essay Han Han submitted to the New Concept Writing Competition.

“When he was in the freshman year in his high school, Han Han submitted to the inaugural New Concept Writing Competition two essays, which drew the attention of the judges, therefore he was able to take part in the second round competition especially organized for him, and received the first class award. One of the essays was Seeing a Doctor. In his My Son Han Han, Han Han’s father Han Renjun said that the essay was written by Han Han based on his personal experience of scabies. In the essay, there are sentences such as ‘she looked at the card, recognized my name Han Han,’ indicating the story was a real one. However, the content of the essay indicates that it is impossible that the seeing doctor experience happened on Han Han, and it is even more impossible that the essay was written by Han Han himself.”[7]


If you remember that Fang had framed Han Han as a genius first, and then accused him of a fake genius later[8], you should know that Fang was using the same trick this time again: he first fixed the essay as a real story; then used the assumption as the basis of his “textual analysis.” The fact is, in his My Son Han Han, Han Han’s father Han Renjun clearly stated that the essay was published in Selected Novels and Shanxi Literature magazines after its first appearance in Mengya magazine[9]. Therefore, Fang’s selective blindness clearly demonstrated his malicious intent.

In the article, Fang provided 5 pieces of evidence to substantiate his point. The first evidence is this:

“The essay says: ‘on the second day I went to school’s medical room, because I was a valetudinarian, the school doctor had already known me well, so she put her hand on my shoulder and asked me what was wrong with me.’

“Han Han was a special student with a talent in sports, a 3,000 meter long-distance running champion, and a member of a soccer team; he was not a ‘valetudinarian.’ The person who was valetudinarian was Han Renjun who was forced to quit his school because of hepatitis.”[10]


Fang’s second evidence was a few sentences in Han’s essay describing “two kinds of doctors I have seen”: one writes patients’ case histories eloquently, the other writes briefly. Here is Fang’s “analysis”:

“It is even more like the experience retold by Han Renjun who had contacted so many physicians, rather than the experience of a strong student with a talent in sports.”[11]

(2) The Stolen Goods

Although Fang’s above self-claimed “textual analysis” sounded really stupid, they might be his own original findings. The rest three evidences were all stolen from one of his followers. Let’s read what Fang wrote:

“In the article, it says: ‘Sigmund Freud wrote a book, The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, in which he said that the distorting of names amounts to an insult when done intentionally.’

“Han Han who had failed his English class suddenly cited the English title of the book, and in the title there was also a rare English word, it seems that what he read was the English book, is it possible?

“In the article, it says: ‘In Fathers and Children, there is a paragraph: “The governor invited Kirsanov and Bazarov to his ball, and within a few minutes he invited them a second time, taking them for brothers and calling them Kisarov.” In Turgenev’s Smoke there is a paragraph about Ratmiroff forgetting Litvinoff's name. The mistakes of this kind are excusable, [because that] the names of Russians are like a train, too long, so it is inevitable to be forgotten. However, to forget my name is rather inexcusable.’

“Both Fathers and Children and Smoke are Turgenev’s novels. Russian literature used to be popular among the educated youth generation to which Han Renjun belongs; however, they are not popular among the post-1980 generation. Furthermore, in his little memoir about his life in elementary and middle schools, The Third Person, Han Han said explicitly that he didn’t read Chinese and foreign classics, especially these translated novels: ‘I read everything, but I had a quirk, not reading Chinese and foreign classics. At that time I thought that many of these novels recommended by the others had sluggish styles, and put too much emphasis on ideology, plus some of them were not well translated, so after having read a few of them, I felt that it was a waste of time. Till now, I haven’t finished reading a foreign classic.’ However, in Seeing a Doctor, [Han Han] cited the detailed stories in Turgenev’s two novels, [it seems that these stories] were at his fingertips, not only had he read the books, but also was he very familiar with them, obviously [the essay] was not written by Han Han.

“What more bizarre is, in Seeing a Doctor there is such a sentence: ‘I used to see an intern doctor just fresh out of college. the little girl who had just become a doctor cared about her face very much,……’

“Han Han was 17 years old, and the age of an intern doctor just out of college should be around 23 years old. How could a person at the age of 17 call a person who is 6 years older than himself ‘a little girl’? Only a middle-aged or even older person such as Han Renjun could do that. How could the judges of the New Concept Writing Competition not see the loophole? Let me ask you again, the Mengya editor Hu Weishi who discovered and recommended the essay, editor Li Qigang who assigned the topic for Han Han to write on in the rematch, editor-in-chief Zhao Changtian who led the Competition, is it possible for the 17 years old Han Han to call a doctor who was 6 years older than him a little girl?”[12]


The funny thing is, minutes after Fang posted his season-opening article online, several people found it to be a plagiarism:

“I saw this one yesterday, whom did you plagiarize?”[13]

“Fang Zhouzi is not kind, this article is based on another internet user’s analysis, and that person published [his analysis] earlier than yours, you are supposed to give the citation, otherwise, it is plagiarism.”[14]



The habitual literary thief Fang Zhouzi was caught red-handed
Four minutes after Fang posted his The Analysis of ‘Genius’ Han Han’s Seeing a Doctor online, two internet users pointed out that it was a plagiarism. The above image is a composite screenshot of the three posts, the top one is Fang’s original post posted at 10:58 AM of Jan. 27, 2012; the lower two are comments on Fang’s post (translated above), made 3 and 4 minutes later, respectively.


So, did Tealer Fang steal? If the answer is yes, from whom did he steal?

(3) The Evidence

At 00:17 of Jan. 27, 2012, 10 hours and 47 minutes before Fang opened his new season, a Fang-lover who calls himself “Scientific Law” (法律与科学) posted on his Weibo an article entitled The Bizarre Triple Doors of Han Han’s Fame-establishing Seeing a Doctor: The Second Evidence for Han Han’s Using Ghostwriters[15]. The so called “triple doors” referred to the three suspicious spots in the essay, which were exactly the same as Fang’s last 3 evidences in his new season opener. In other words, more than one half of Fang’s season-opener were stolen from the article by that Scientific Law.


Systemic stealing
The last two thirds of Fang’s The Analysis of ‘Genius’ Han Han’s Seeing a Doctor (right) were basically the duplicate of an article by one “Scientific Law,” entitled The Bizarre Triple Doors of Han Han’s Famous Seeing a Doctor: The Second Evidence for Han Han’s Using Ghostwriters (left). Han Han’s words quoted in these two articles are underlined; the same color of the underlines indicates the identicalness. Fang’s “analyses” of these quoted words are also similar or identical to those by the Scientific Law. To hide his stealing, Fang tried to date his article before the article he had just stolen, however, he marked the month wrong (red box, Fang intended to date the article Jan. 26, 2012).


The question is, had Fang Zhouzi seen the article by the “Scientific Law” before he posted his own article? The answer is yes. The “Scientific Law,” who claimed that he had been a reader of the New Threads for more than ten years[16], notified Fang directly and simultaneously when he posted his article. As a matter of fact, that Fang-lover and Han-hater also notified Ms. Peng Xiaoyun, another major anti-Han figure who had committed multiple plagiarisms before and gained her fame by suggesting China’s judicial system’s using criminal investigation measures on Han Han and his father to force them to confess[17]. Ms. Peng made a comment on Scientific Law's article and forwarded it in 7 minutes[18], at 2012-1-27 00:18, which essentially sent the notification to Fang again. And until 2012-1-27 00:19 Fang was still posting on Weibo, scolding Lu Jinbo[19]. Further, the original post by the “Scientific Law” was reposted for about 300 times before Fang posted his season opener more than 10 hours later, and among the reposters was another famous anti-Han female General Ms. Li Li[20]. In other words, there was absolutely no way for Fang not to see the article by the “Scientific Law.”


Having been served for hundreds of times
Before Fang opened his new season, about 300 internet users had notified him the article written by the Scientific Law by reposting the post which contains the information @Fang Zhouzi (red underline). In total, the article was reposted 946 times (red box).


(4) The Conclusion

Obviously under the pressure of plagiarism allegation, Fang reposted the article by the Scientific Law at 2012-1-27 22:09, more than 11 hours after he opened his “new season,” with the following comment:

“The content duplicates my analysis; however, his analysis on ‘Han Han’s’ quotations of Turgenev’s novels is more detailed than mine, and more convincing.”[21]

Fang’s comment did fool some internet users who thought that Fang was plagiarized by the Scientific Law:

“Is it duplication or plagiarism?”[22]

“Same question. An article with such obvious duplication is not questioned by Old Fang, instead, is recommended by him, it is really not an ordinary ‘double standard’!”[22]


However, Fang’s secret had been known to more people:

“Wasn’t it you who committed plagiarism? How can it be duplication?”[23]

“Based on time sequence, his article appeared first, and yours has too many similarities with his……His is even more detailed. According to your logic, you must have completely plagiarized his?? Sigh…”[24]

“Old Fang, that person’s article was posted before yours, and he notified you, it was unkind of you not citing that person when you posted yours. And now, you are saying something like this, making other people think that he copied yours. No wonder you are unable to stay in the academic circle. Many people support you not because you are better, but because your opponents are worse. ‘Pride goes before, and shame comes after.’ Let it exhort both of us.”[25]

“This one could be used as a strong evidence to demonstrate that Teacher Fang has a team, has gunmen, and has ghostwriters, because even Fang Zhouzi himself admitted that the contents overlap, should be tested with anti-plagiarism software. Fang Zhouzi, please prove your own innocence now!!”[26]



“Fang Zhouzi is a suspect of plagiarism!!”
On the second day of his “new season,” Fang was openly accused of plagiarism. The above image is the screenshot of one of these accusatory posts with the screenshots of both Fang’s and the Scientific Law’s posts. The red ovals highlight the times when these two posts were posted[27].


Guess how did the John Maddox Prize winner respond? Of course by using his “last strategy”!

2. The Ignorant Arguments

Whether Fang’s new season opener is a stolen goods or not, to many people, the following question seemed to be more important: Were the conclusions drawn from the “textual analyses” valid? The answer is absolutely No.

(1) Little Girl

Immediately after the Scientific Law posted his article, many people told him that it is a common practice among Shanghainese, regardless of their ages, to call a young girl, especially those unmarried ones, “a little girl.” For example, 10 minutes after the posting, one person commented:

“When I was a freshman in high school, a bunch of people called our math teacher a little girl, I don’t know what’s bizarre about that?”[28]

One minute later, another person commented:

“Don’t know the meaning of ‘little girl’ in Shanghainese? ‘Put destruction first’ [Chairman Mao’s teaching], the Red Guards of the old days were also so fearless due to their ignorance.”[29]

Fang must be too busy with his plagiarizing to notice these comments, so he stole the argument entirely. Of course he was laughed at just like his victim. However, in more than 20 thousand comments on his fraudulent “textual analysis,” Fang picked up a particular one to comment on. That particular message was:

“A Shanghainese would call a [girl] who is six or seven years older than him an elder sister, it is absolutely impossible to call her a little girl. A very strong article. [It] basically has sentenced that the essay was not written by Han Han.”[30]

Here is Fang’s comment:

“Having seen a group of Han-lovers continuously posting to say that even a Shanghai child is allowed to call an adult a little girl, I thought it was Shanghai’s special custom. It turns out that is not the case.”[30]

The fact is, according to the Dictionary of Shanghai Dialect, compiled by a “Wu Chinese” expert, Professor Qian Nairong et al, and published by Shanghai Dictionary Publishing House in 2007, “little girl” has two meanings: 1, a young girl; 2, an unmarried girl[31].


By definition
The page image of the Dictionary of Shanghai Dialect defining “little girl.”[31]


Therefore, by stealing the argument, Fang made a complete fool of himself. To save his face, Fang cited yet another message from one of his supporters and commented:

“Even if Jinshan County [Han Han’s hometown] has such a custom, it is still difficult to explain other suspicious points. Also, the essay used written language, didn’t use dialect. Overall, it was ghostwritten by a valetudinarian middle-aged educated youth.”[32]

That’s Fang’s unique way of admitting his wrong: even if I am wrong, I am still right!

(2) Turgenev and Freud

When Fang said “it is still difficult to explain other suspicious points,” he was basically talking about the other two arguments made by that Scientific Law. The question is, are they valid, or “difficult to explain”? Of course not.

Two hours after Fang opened his new season, an internet user, vladmier_b0z, made the following comment:

“Actually I think that only the last point has a little merit, the paragraph about Turgenev was from a note in the fifth chapter of Freud’s The Psychopathology of Everyday Life; as for why the book title was in English, it was because that the original titles of these translated psychological works were normally printed on the covers (the Chinese translations of Freud’s books are usually from their English translations rather than from German).”[33]

However, Fang pretended that he didn’t see the comment. Rather, he single out a comment by Mr. Lin Chufang, a well-known journalist and one of Fang’s close friends in the news media, to comment on. Here is Mr. Lin’s comment:

“When I was in the fourth grade [of my elementary school], the class teacher was changed. I told my parents when I got home: ‘We have a new teacher, actually a little girl.’ My dad said, ‘How old are you? Calling a teacher a little girl.’ The assignment given by the new teacher in the fifth grade was to extract beautiful words, proverbs, descriptions, three pages per week. How could a pupil have such a stock of [knowledge]? By copying each other. I had copied Pushkin’s, but I forgot if I had copied Turgenev’s. However, I have never read their books. The above is what happened to me.”[34]

Here is Fang’s reply:

“What you copied at that time was classic literature, copying famous words and famous sentences, rather than detailed descriptions and novel stories like those cited in Seeing a Doctor, which could only be known after having carefully read the books (as a post-1960er, I have read these two novels by Turgenev, but I really could not remember the two stories). Do you think the hole is not big enough?”[35]

What Fang meant by the last sentence was that Mr. Lin was on the verge of falling into the gigantic hole he was digging up to bury Han Han and his followers altogether[17].

However, Fang’s threat didn’t scare any people. Less than 2 hours after Fang’s above comment, another internet user, a Han-hater who called himself “The 98th vivo” (vivo九十八世), apparently inspired by vladmier_b0z’s comment, posted the following message and notified Fang directly:

“Having just solved another puzzle. Han Han had read neither Turgenev’s Fathers and Children, nor his Smoke. However, he might have read the footnote on page 85 of The Psychopathology of Everyday Life translated by Peng Lixin et al. (download [t.cn]). See the image. @Fang Zhouzi.”[36]

In other words, the author of Seeing a Doctor didn’t need to read the English edition of Sigmund Freud’s book to write the title down, nor did he need to “carefully read the books” by Turgenev to quote the two stories, as the fraudulent fraud fighter Fang asserted. All he needed was to read the Chinese translation of The Psychopathology of Everyday Life. And it turned out that was exactly what happened, though Han Han read a different translation, by Dr. Keming Lin (K'o-ming Lin), which was first published in Taiwan in 1970s, and then in mainland China in 1980s. In most of the editions, the English title of the book was also printed on the covers. Here are two posts by Mr. Wang Jiamin, one of Han Han’s close friends:

“【Slap the face! Slap the face!】An internet user has just found on the Used Books Network the cover of The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, published in 1988 by Shanghai Literature Magazine. The cover has the English title! It was also published by a Shanghai press! It is very likely that Han Han read the book and cited the title in his Seeing a Doctor. Is it abnormal for a 17 years old with a normal mind to copy the English title on the cover and cite the words in the book?”[37]

“Han Han has just sent a WeChat message, saying that the book might be still left somewhere at his home. He read the book in the earlier years, copied many good words and sentences, which were actually not intended to be cited in his articles, rather, his articles were written because he wanted to cite these words. My reply was: If you can find the book, hurry up, and take a photo of it with you.”[38]



Invalidation
In The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, Sigmund Freud cited Turgenev to illustrate his points (left, red underlines, translated by A. A. Brill, published by T. Fisher Unwin of London in 1920). The Chinese translation of the book, including its footnotes, by Dr. Keming Lin was first published in Taiwan in 1970s, and then in mainland China in 1980s. The image in the middle is the cover of the book published by Shanghai Literature Magazine in 1988, which was actually read by Han Han. The image on the right shows the page on which Turgenev’s words cited by Sigmund Freud and used by Han Han were translated.


Namely, Fang’s “(more) difficult to explain…suspicious points” against Han Han’s authorship, stolen from the Scientific Law, were invalidated by the single discovery, on the same day when his “new season” was opened! So, what was the John Maddox Prize winner’s response to the new discovery? Of course he has been keeping playing dumb, ignoring the critical evidence against his arguments.

(3) The Psychopathology of a Pretender

The fact is, just one day earlier, Fang forwarded a post by “The 98th vivo,” which says that Han Han might have learned his Latin word Corpusdelieti from the Chinese version of The Complete Works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels[39]. Of course Fang won’t let go of the chance to level a political attack on Han Han, so he made the following comment on the post:

“Han Han needs from now on to add ‘The Complete Works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ to his ‘reading Guan Zhui Bian, The Twenty-Four Histories, The Spirit of the Laws, The Birth of Tragedy all night long’ in high school. Even I read only The Selected Works of Marx and Engels, and he read The Complete Works, and all the way to the 50th volume, and at the same time he remembered a Latin word. You have to say that he is a ‘genius.’”[40]

You have to pay attention to Fang’s following words “Even I read only The Selected Works of Marx and Engels.” They are the same as Fang’s above “I have read these two novels by Turgenev, but I really could not remember the two stories”[35], and his previous “I had to spend seven to eight years to browse through Zhonghua Book Company’s punctuated and annotated edition of The Twenty-Four Histories, and I mainly browsed the biographical parts”[8]. All of them are not only plain lies, just like Fang’s other lies about having read “all the historical works by Guo Moruo” and “all the biological philosophy works by Ernst Mayr”[41], they also revealed Fang’s dirty and evil mental setting: he was, and still is, extremely jealous of other people’s knowledge and success, which constitutes Fang’s ultimate motivation of his fraudulent fraud fighting: bring them down and humiliate them in public - in Fang’s own words, it is his “biggest entertainment on the internet.”[42] Yes, psychologically, Fang believes that everyone he has attacked or will attack is his actual or potential competitor – competing with him for fame and money[43]. Yes, Fang is also extremely greedy and exclusive also. And for that reason and that reason only, Fang carefully selected information on the internet: he would repost whatever absurd or evil messages against Han Han, and turn a blind eye to those which were apparently to Han Han’s advantage.

The fact is, that “The 98th vivo” was one of Fang’s favorite informants; before he found the source of Han Han’s knowledge about Freud and Turgenev, which was completely ignored by Fang, his other messages had been reposted by Fang several times. For example, minutes before Fang made the “Even I read only The Selected Works of Marx and Engels” comment, “The 98th vivo” found a more likely source of Han Han’s Latin knowledge, a Chinese translation of Selected German Poems:

“Based on a further searching, Han Han’s Corpusdelieti was more likely from Selected German Poems, 1. That book is common; 2. It says clearly that the words are Latin; 3. The print quality of the book is poor, therefore c is easily taken as e; 4. 【Oh, an element more dangerous than a traitor//was prisoned by them!// Actually nothing but a weak little woman//she has a lovely ‘sin body.’】The meaning is close to Han Han’s competition writing.”[44]

Fang immediately deleted his previous comment, and made a new one:

“What was read by the author of the Glimpsing Human’s Nature through a Cup of Water should be this one. There are more people who read this book than the Complete Works of Marx and Engels. Also, the book’s explanation of the Latin words is close to that cited in the Glimpsing Human’s Nature through a Cup of Water.”[45]


Self-castration
The above image is the screenshot of Fang’s comment on the discovery by “The 98th vivo,” suggesting that Han Han might have read The Complete Works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Fang used that chance to ridicule Han Han about his reading of Marx’s works, and brag his own creditability by saying “Even I read only The Selected Works of Marx and Engels.” The post was soon deleted by Fang because a new piece of evidence emerged showing that what Han Han read was not Marx’s Works, but the Chinese translation of Selected German Poems. Fang has neither apologized to Han Han, nor offered any explanation for his deletion, yet he keeps claiming that he rarely deletes his posts, and in the rare occasions he did, he would offer explanations[46]. Also, Fang claims that “I despise those who castrate their own microblog posts frequently.”[47]


In other words, Fang only used the information found by his informants if the information could be used by him to attack Han Han. If the information could shake the very foundation of his attempt to topple Han Han, Fang would ignore the evidence, completely. This simple fact alone demonstrates unequivocally that Fang’s attack on Han Han was malicious in nature, despite his repeated denials[48].

3. The Pseudo-scholarly Research Aided by a Water Army

Fang’s new season opener was one of his hottest Weibo posts: before his online postings were completely erased by Chinese government on Oct. 21, 2014, the post had 11,827 comments, and was forwarded for 12,530 times. As anyone could imagine, based on what I have just described and “analyzed,” most of these comments, about 90% of them, were negative. So the question is: who made the rest positive and supportive comments?

As I have introduced repeatedly[17, 49], among Fang’s water army soldiers, there was one who first called himself “Press the whole world with one finger” (一指压天下), then he changed his ID to “Farming and reading in the mountains” (山林耕读). He was arguably the first captured Fang’s water army soldier[50], and probably the hardest working one also. He registered his Weibo account on Jan. 24, 2012, and he stopped working about 3 months later. As of today, the account doesn’t have an avatar, is following 5 accounts, being followed by 5 accounts, and its homepage has a total of 56 posts, all about Han Han and Fang Zhouzi. It is a typical zombie account created by fraud software which was designed specifically for Fang’s fight against Han Han, as revealed by a programmer[49]. And under Fang’s new season opener, this zombie posted a grand total of 282 comments, or 2.4% of the total comments. It seems that at its top speed, this zombie was able to post 4 comments, with exactly the same content, differing only slightly in wording, in a minute. So what did this zombie say? The following message and its variants were posted by this zombie for 65 times:

“I have just found out that Han Han is the greatest ‘genius’ ever since the beginning of the world! The combination of Lu Xun, Ba Jin, Jin Yong, and Li Ao is not as good as he is! He can go up to the heaven, he can go down into the earth, soaring into the sky, pretending to be a god, he can do anything! Strongly demand that Han Han is selected into the Guinness Book of World Records!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”[51]

The following message was posted by the zombie for 61 times:

“There is nothing wrong with Fang Zhouzi’s fraud fighting! If it is eventually proven [that Han Han’s authorship] is real, there will be even more people to support Han! If it is fake! It only restores a real Han Han! It is better to wait for the truth quietly! Scolding can only accentuate that Han Han is even less educated!”[52]

Not only can this “more educated” zombie post comments mechanically, it can also make conversations. The following message to a “care彬,” apparently a Fang-hater or a Han-fan, who has disappeared from Weibo, was posted 13 times in 30 minutes by this zombie:

“My biggest mistake was making you the beast with your mother! Had I known the result, I’d have ejected you into the wall, so that you won’t be able to bite people everywhere like a mad dog.”[53]

Why would a "scholar" and the future John Maddox Prize winner who was supposedly “standing up for science” and “hav[ing] promoted sound science and evidence on a matter of public interest” want to use such a disgusting and evil tactic against his target? On the other hand, do you really think any person who has “evidence” or “truth” in his hands will ever need such a stupid zombie to help him?




Alignment
Fang’s water army zombie “Farming and reading in the mountains” posted 282 comments under Fang’s new season opener, most of them are simple duplicates. The above three blocks show 3 similar messages were repeatedly posted by this zombie. Each line is an individual comment, and the numbers in the parentheses to the right are the times when they were posted (pay attention to how frequently these comments were posted). The similarity in the contents of these comments can be easily detected by looking at the line alignments. Please note that the differences among the posts are usually the punctuations located at the ends of the posts, since weibo.com disallows its users to post identical comment on the same post more than once.



Monopolized by monotone
Fang’s new season opening post generated 11,827 comments, and they were distributed in 592 pages. The 20 comments on page 44 were all by Fang’s zombie “Farming and reading in the mountains” and the contents of the messages were exactly the same, as translated above[51].




被编辑2次。最后被亦明编辑于02/01/2015 12:13PM。
附件:
打开 | 下载 - Part XLVI_The Hanly War (VII)_The Pseudoscholar.pdf (7.02 MB)
主题 发布者 已发表

Open Letter to Nature, Part XL: The Hanly War (I) (2432 查看) 附件

亦明 June 22, 2014 02:30PM

Open Letter to Nature, Part XLI: The Hanly War (II): Fang’s Water Army (I): Introduction_1 (3211 查看)

亦明 September 10, 2014 04:56PM

Open Letter to Nature, Part XLI: The Hanly War (II): Fang’s Water Army (I): Introduction_2 (2059 查看) 附件

亦明 September 10, 2014 05:10PM

Part XLII: The Hanly War (III): Fang’s Water Army (II)_1 (1203 查看)

亦明 October 05, 2014 12:35PM

Part XLII: The Hanly War (III): Fang’s Water Army (II)_2 (2487 查看) 附件

亦明 October 05, 2014 12:37PM

Part XLIII: The Hanly War (IV): The Rumormonger_1 (1312 查看)

亦明 November 04, 2014 02:44PM

Part XLIII: The Hanly War (IV): The Rumormonger_2 (1208 查看) 附件

亦明 November 04, 2014 05:26PM

Part XLIV: The Hanly War (V): The Incriminator_1 (1272 查看)

亦明 November 19, 2014 03:28PM

Part XLIV: The Hanly War (V): The Incriminator_2 (1206 查看)

亦明 November 19, 2014 03:31PM

Part XLIV: The Hanly War (V): The Incriminator_3 (1169 查看) 附件

亦明 November 19, 2014 03:36PM

Part XLV: The Hanly War (VI): The Intimidator_1 (1182 查看) 附件

亦明 January 11, 2015 02:05PM

Part XLV: The Hanly War (VI): The Intimidator_2 (1078 查看)

亦明 January 11, 2015 02:08PM

Part XLV: The Hanly War (VI): The Intimidator_3 (1238 查看)

亦明 January 11, 2015 02:10PM

Part XLV: The Hanly War (VI): The Intimidator_4 (1090 查看)

亦明 January 11, 2015 02:12PM

Part XLVI: The Hanly War (VII): The Pseudoscholar_1 (1203 查看) 附件

亦明 January 28, 2015 12:23PM

Part XLVI: The Hanly War (VII): The Pseudoscholar_2 (1024 查看)

亦明 January 28, 2015 12:25PM

Part XLVI: The Hanly War (VII): The Pseudoscholar_3 (962 查看)

亦明 January 28, 2015 12:26PM



对不起,只有注册用户才能发帖。

登陆

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

This forum powered by Phorum.