Philip Cunningham Returns From Exile! The American Solzhenitsyn Is Allowed Back Into His Country!

This is great news for all Human Rights activists who have been concerned about the fate of Philip Cunningham, an American citizen who was recently in exile from America, according to an article he published in the Bangkok Post on September 3, 2005:

Philip J Cunningham, Chairman of America Watch (a non-existent, non-profit human rights group founded by American citizens in China in exile from the current US regime).

But now he has returned safe and sound to America, where he is a visiting fellow at Cornell University in New York.

Oh, Philip!    How and why did the “current US regime” let you back into the country?  After the Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn was forcibly deported from his country in 1974 and then charged with treason, he was not allowed to return from exile until 20 years later, after the Soviet regime had ended.  But the Bush administration under which Cunningham went into “exile” is still in office.  Philip, what did you do to change the American regime’s mind, to persuade them to let you back into the country?

Now, just in case any readers might search for that article in the Bangkok Post, it seems to have been taken down.   But the entire text has been preserved (at least as of this writing) on this blog post.

The author of that post lambasted Cunningham:

I love America. I love China. I acknowledge the deep and unforgivable faults in each. What I find inexcusable is a brilliant and charming American journalist going on CCTV and ranting against America, while never turning the spotlight onto his hosts. But then, Cunningham knows where his bread is buttered.

Yet a year and a half later, in a more recent post in 2008, the same blogger called Cunningham his “dear friend” and linked, with considerable implied approbation, to Cunningham’s most recent hatchet-job article about Stephen Spielberg’s decision to boycott the Beijing Olympics.

The only logical explanation I can think of, for this change of attitude towards Mr Cunningham, is that the Beijing Olympics truly has the power to work magical transformations!

Now, just to ensure that the post in which Cunningham’s Bangkok Article appeared does not, well, disappear, here is the entire post of July 24, 2006, except for the comments:


Philip Cunningham – Again??


Danwei has opened the door for Philip Cunningham to reply to commenters who responded to news of his banishment from Chinapol. [If you plan to go there to comment that’s your choice, but I urge you to avoid insults and snark, and keep the conversation relevant to the topic. Ad hominems and anonymous emotional outbursts only give Philip ammunition to position himself as a martyr, and to point to obnoxious commenters as haters.]


In his reply, Cunningham plays tribute to his host, and explains, to his own satisfaction at least, why so many commenters react to him with hostility.



Danwei is not stuck in the old paradigm, it’s open to the public, savvy, self-knowing. But individuals who post on Danwei frequently sound old paradigm in their shouts and screeds. As Philip Roth has noted in his biographical writing, it was his identity as a Jew writing critically and candidly about Jews that invited, mostly from other Jews, fiece and irrational criticism I find that as an American, trying to write critically and candidly about my own kind, at a time when America is riddled with insecurities, with real and percieved, a similar pattern emerges.


Why is this so? Well, Americans have a deep investment in the American identity as it has been constructed over the years and any truthful comment, or attempt at unearthing certain unpalatable truths about America is not just an intellectual exercise, it touches on identity issues. All the more so if you have been “in government” as many Chinapolers have.


For those Americans whose innate sense of pride and comfort is couched in the terms that US president Bush bandies about with such abandon; freedom-loving, democracy-supporting, generous and benevolent in helping foreigners to a fault, what I have to say is going to shake some deeply-held convictions, convictions so deeply-held that the unreflective are not entirely sure what makes them upset; thus the rants, the lame insults, the flames, in and out of Chinapol. Internet discourse is overloaded and burdened by such hate speech, and I credit Danwei’s Jeremy Goldkorn for trying to combat this quietly in his own way.




Cunningham has drawn a line: on the one side are those who criticize him, flame him and rant against him, and do so because they harbor a deep-seeded belief in the myth of a magnanimous America; on the other side are the open-minded, non-hating truth-seekers like himself. The implication is that those who take issue with Cunningham are, in effect, victims of brainwashing from the American government – the exact same argument made by one Jessica Copeland. Never mind that if Cunningham were to do some research on many of the commenters (and it’s not that hard to do) he’d see that many, perhaps most, have a track record of standing up to the Bush doctrine, of rejecting it, and of criticizing America in no uncertain terms. Philip doesn’t get this: that it is possible to be enraged by the CCP without having been hypnotized by US propaganda. (Maybe he should talk to Hao Wu’s sister Nina; maybe she can help explain why everyday people uninfluenced by American propganda can hate the CCP.)


I made my first observation of Cunningham nearly three and a half years ago, and I have to say I think I saw him for exactly what he is:



CCTV-9 is presenting nightly interviews with a very bright political analyst named Philip Cunningham, a Harvard-educated pundit with excellent credentials. Cunningham is articulate and insightful, and on some topics we even think alike. The only problem is that he’s virulently anti-Bush and anti-the-Iraq-War. That’s his privilege and he at least backs up his points with facts, figures and keen observations. But he goes unchallenged, and his opinions are greeted as universal truths.




Worse — the interviewer leads him on and provokes him to go even further in criticizing America, breaking every rule about the role of the interviewer. Every question is loaded and reeks of the state-sanctioned party line: “Considering the unprecedented disregard the US has shown for international law and its contempt for the rights of its citizens, wouldn’t you say….” (That’s not an exact quote, but trust me, it’s quite close.)


I don’t believe there is a word of hatred there, of prejudice or inanity. I believed then, as I believe now, that it is possible to criticize Cunningham using old-fashioned common sense and critical thinking. I am eager to praise Cunningham for his brilliance and charm, as I am eager to criticize him for allowing himself to serve as CCTV’s marionette. If anything, I believe I was too easy on Cunningham back in 2003. It wasn’t until much later that I realized his loathing of the US was pathological. Again, from today’s Danwei letter:



China has not invaded any sovereign state recently, nor has it had in my memory the temerity to roll its tanks down the streets of someone else’s capital city, shooting and killing foreign civilians with impunity, but the US gets away with such abominations in the name of spreading freedom and democracy. Increasingly, in no small part because of the mean-sprited, divisively-partisan Bush administration, American self-confidence in America’s proud manifest destiny has had cause to be shaken. Yet for the recalcitrants, it’s shaken but not stirred. For many Americans, despite a distaste for Bush, remain mired in a self-perception of unspoken superiority, assuming the American governmental bureaucracy has genuine altruistic intent and presumed democratic benevolence, which if ever was the case, and I’m not entirely sure it was, would have been a cogent argument only for a brief window of time, sometime between the liberation of Nazi death camps and the start of the anti-communist witchhunt and the wars it engendered in Korea and Vietnam.




While I agree the US government hasn’t always been noble and our history is pockmarked with horror stories, to juxtapose it against China in a manner that absolves the Chinese of similar guilt (and that’s exactly what Cunningham’s lead sentence in the above quote cunningly seeks to do) is rather, um, bold. If the Chinese weren’t shooting foreigners, they were shooting their own citizens. And while some Americans were getting drunk on Bush’s BS about liberty and freedom and democracy for the whole world, many more in China were sucking on the teat of the CCP propaganda machine, being force-fed utter crap about the CCP’s glorious achievements while stories about SARS were being covered up. And Americans like me, who saw Bush was giving us a snow job, were free to organize and set up blogs and launch campaigns to change things. Philip can’t credit this, because he would have to face the fact that in China there are no such options.


I don’t want anyone to take my word for it. I believe Cunningham’s own words paint the clearest picture of how his mind works and how he sees the world. Let’s revisit an article he wrote a year ago, An Open Letter to Hu Jintao. (The original article is gone, but luckily it was kept over at this blog, where you’ll find some excellent comments as well.) Attempting to be witty, Cunningham creates a a parody using fictitious human rights group, America Watch. Despite the usual brilliance, there are a couple of surprising typos (don’t they teach at Harvard that there is no such word as “irregardless”?), and the article borders on the unhinged – which is unusual for Cunningham, who usually strives to contain his vitriol. I urge you to read every word of this extraordinary article, and then see his essay today in Danwei in which he accuses those who criticize him of engaging in hate speech. Read the piece below, then talk to me about Cunning Ham’s sense of balance and objective journalism.



From the Bangkok Post, September 3, 2005


The wok calling the kettle black



From: America Watch, Beijing OfficeRe: America needs help now. Your Excellency President Hu Jintao’s upcoming visit to the United States is a welcome development with regards to China-US relations, but is at the same time fraught with political risk, as you will be dealing with a regime that is on one hand deeply in debt to China, but also burdened with natural disaster, a war with no end in sight, massive corruption, government malfeasance and documented human rights abuses.


China should first offer condolences to the Americans dead, displaced and dispossessed by the violent natural disaster of Hurricane Katrina. China, with its long history of battling floods, taming rivers and staging massive relief operations, is in an excellent position to offer money, manpower and engineering advice to the storm-battered American south. Although such humanitarian aid may ultimately be rejected by face-conscious US politicians for reasons of nationalistic pride, the offer should stand as a goodwill gesture between peoples.


China has a long-standing policy of non-interference in the domestic politics of other nations, but at this critical juncture, in dealing with a deeply divided debtor nation struggling to save the sunken city of New Orleans, a gas-guzzling nation facing rising prices and energy shortfalls, a politically divided electorate perhaps on the verge of economic collapse due to profligate spending on military adventures abroad, China can offer a helping hand.


In doing so, it needs to reach gingerly beyond the current narrowly partisan Bush administration to consult with the political opposition and express solidarity with all Americans, regardless of political persuasion.


Honest, hard-working Americans, just beginning to wake up and make themselves heard after four long years of being manipulated and misled in the name of a values revolution and a poorly executed political campaign on terror, are now beset by an unprecedented environmental disaster, a war no one wants and an increasingly fragile economy. Furthermore, the Iraq quagmire and emergency measures at home in the US have caused an unprecedented erosion of human rights and limited free expression. America’s traditional sense of fair play, long an inspiration to others, is less and less evident as a wealthy minority wrap themselves in material comfort while the poor die on the battlefield and before the neglected dykes and levies, bearing the brunt of gratuitous war and mis-governance.


Here in Beijing at America Watch, we understand that state-to-state relations must be preserved according to diplomatic protocol, irregardless of how incompetent the current US administration may be, and we are pleased that China has taken the high road, doing its best to constructively engage America at this during these trying times, in order to keep the peace. We look forward to the day when China and America can again fully engage as constructive Pacific partners committed to peace and justice. Reading the Chinese press, we are pleased to see that China has a profound appreciation for world affairs and has generally shown itself to be on the right side of history with its principled stands on current issues of war and peace, racism and social justice:


– China has consistently opposed the unpopular and unjustified American war of invasion in Iraq.
– China supports the United Nations and a multilateral approach to problem-solving among nations.
– China roundly condemns the shocking use of torture at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and other US military prisons.
– China is outraged that American religious fundamentalists are permitted to openly promote terror, especially those with close White House ties such as Pat Robertson, who recently called for the assassination of Victor Chavez, the elected president of Venezuela.
– China is dismayed that the US continues to harbour known terrorists such as Luis Posada Carriles, a Venezuelan citizen accused of terrorism by Cuba and Venezuela for bombing a Cuban Airlines flight.
– China notes the increase in US military spending and is concerned that the US has long been engaged in research and development of new nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological warfare agents and other weapons of mass destruction.
– China notes that over 50 journalists have been killed in Iraq, many by so-called “friendly fire”.
– The Chinese media is following the case of Bunnatine H Greenhouse, the chief overseer of contracts at the Army Corps of Engineers who lost her job for raising legitimate questions about defence industry corruption. Ditto for whistleblowers Joe Wilson and Richard Clark.
– China takes note that America maintains a vast gulag, as documented by Amnesty International, of unauthorised and inhumane detention centres in America and around the world.


If, during the upcoming presidential visit, a meeting with Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cannot be avoided, it is highly advisable not to permit any photographs of a potentially embarrassing handshake with the architect of the attack on Baghdad. Ditto for Vice President Dick Cheney, a key power behind the throne with deep ties to the bloated war industry.


These men, however controversial, should be treated with the same restrained courtesy that President Hu extended to Japanese Premier Koizumi Junichiro.


Bearing in mind that the American taxpayer pays the bill for environmental neglect, weapons production and war-profiteering that in the end benefit mainly the wealthy political base of President Bush, it would be encouraging if China would avoid doing business with Enron, Halliburton and the rest of the war industry.


According to the precedent established during US presidential visits to Beijing, President Hu’s Yale University speech on peace and cooperation should be carried live in full, without interruption, spin or prejudice by all major US television networks, including Fox TV and the Christian Broadcast Network. The question and answer session at Yale should not be pre-scripted by the American hosts as it was by Harvard during former president Jiang Zemin’s lecture at Sanders Hall in 1997.


Finally, China might consider establishing a short-wave radio programme called Radio Free America, to beam news reports into America around the clock to provide information that is unreported, under-reported or otherwise obscured or obfuscated at home, thus enabling Americans to get a fresh perspective on what is really going on in their country, and to better understand the profound effects current US policy is having on the rest of the world.


The American media, which once held itself to be the gold standard in news reporting, has in recent years lost its fabled objectivity and balance due to the incessant spin and pro-war propaganda disseminated by the White House.


Wishing you a safe and productive journey to my homeland.


Philip J Cunningham,


Chairman of America Watch (a non-existent, non-profit human rights group founded by American citizens in China in exile from the current US regime).




Yeah, we all know America’s sins, particularly under our Codpiece in Chief. But most of our Constitution remains intact. Public outcry and law suits have resulted in most of the Guantanamo prisoners being freed. Once we re-take the House Bush’s crimes will be investigated. We can and will throw the curent (sic) group of thugs out of office, a luxury the Chinese people do not share with us. No blogger ever gets put in jail in America. And for all of America’s warts and China’s magnanimity, I know of no Americans hiring snakeheads to get them out of America and into China.


I love America. I love China. I acknowledge the deep and unforgivable faults in each. What I find inexcusable is a brilliant and charming American journalist going on CCTV and ranting against America, while never turning the spotlight onto his hosts. But then, Cunningham knows where his bread is buttered. No one ever accused him of being stupid.


Baked by Richard TPD at 10:43 PM | TrackBack (0)



And now, see what kinds of magical transformations are happening?   Think it’s “impossible”?   Think again!    As Cinderella’s Fairy Godmother sings, “Impossible…things are happening every day”, during this Olympic year!   Thank you, Fairy Godmother, for creating “strange bedfellows”!




This entry was posted in Beijing Olympics, Ned Kelly's Pub, Wall of Shame and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Philip Cunningham Returns From Exile! The American Solzhenitsyn Is Allowed Back Into His Country!

  1. nausicaa says:

    He’s barely recognizable anymore.

  2. C.A. Yeung says:


    Welcome to our blog. We learnt a great deal about you from our mutual friend Ivan and it’s nice to have you here.

    Your comment is absolutely spot on. That’s exactly the point Ned is trying to make.

    It seems corporate media worldwide (particularly in America, and to a lesser extent in the UK and Australia) have more to lose than China if some untoward incidents happen prior to the Beijing Olympics. Of course we are talking about broadcasting rights, sponsorship and advertising income. This is my attempt to understand the logic behind this sudden change of attitude that would render someone “barely recognizable” in a fairly short period of time.

  3. Ned Kelly says:

    Nausicaa, a big welcome.

    I am travelling incognito at the moment (without my makeshift helmet), but I will return to my hideout in the Australian bush in early March. So until then …

  4. And Richard now stands on his soapbox against my use of the phrase “panda licker”.

    In the 1980s there was a guy from Pennsylvania who defected (with family in tow) to the USSR because of the opportunities there. Nary a word has been heard from him since then.

    Let these guys stay in China and rail against the US. They willfully ignore what happened to China during the Boxer Revolution and the period after the CCP took control (Communist youths were allowed to attack foreign dignitaries and teachers still in China and the British embassy was burned).

    When the helicopters are leaving the western embassy compounds, someone please block these guys from escaping. Shoot them if necessary.

  5. kevinnolongerinpudong says:

    I agree with nanghe, what’s the big deal with pandalicker? That website is becoming populated with commenters that perpetually suck party balls and spout hate without any repercussions. Proposing the extermination of Japan is suddenly politically correct, while “panda lickers” is faux pas?

  6. Ned Kelly says:

    Kevin, welcome. I’ll be able to post a response to
    your comment when I return to my hideout next week.

  7. C.A. Yeung says:

    Kevin, a big welcome from me as well.

    Nanhe, I just took a quick look at TPD. I can’t believe Richard actually calls you a moron. But don’t take it too personally. This is all too consistent with Richard’s style. He gets a kick out of scapegoating other people. In the past he had Uriel, MAJ and Ivan defamed and banned. It is through creating controversial public enemy number one that TPD gets its traffic. Richard knows that he will gain extra sympathy from his supporters when he was seen as under attack by some imaginery obssessive psychotic stalkers or some vulgar badmouth bullies. For Richard, Nanhe, you’re just a target of opportunity.

    It’s interesting how even CCT acknowledged that you made some very good points. And yet all Richard did was reprimanding you for calling him a pandalicker. I can’t recall Richard ever thanks you for bringing him so much traffic. Of course Richard will not admit to that. From Richard’s perspective, people only visit and post comments at TPD because of Richard and not for anyone else.

    Yes, for Richard , it’s all about traffic. If you don’t mind me saying, it’s about time for Nanhe to think about not giving TPD that much traffic.

  8. Hi Cat,

    Richard makes such a great target though. There are plenty of ways to poke at him without getting banned. Saying “panda licker” is sexual just shows where his mind is. Licking a wild, furry animal would be unpleasant enough…

    Even Ferin has calmed down a couple of times, he must’ve fired one up before posting. But in the end Richard’s real life job revolves around publishing slander and false bravado. He’s probably about 5’7″ and 140 lbs as well.

  9. C.A. Yeung says:

    Nanhe said, “There are plenty of ways to poke at him without getting banned…”

    Yeah, I’m with you, mate. I can see no harm in poking. Good luck with that. And I hope you can get out of the way fast enough when Richard has another hissy-fit and starts throwing handbags at you.

    You also said, “Even Ferin has calmed down a couple of times, he must’ve fired one up before posting …”

    I did notice that. Ferin firing one up – I wonder what with. Another reason for his good behaviour at TPD is because he has used up his energy throwing chidish temper tantrum at you blog. His behaviour resembles an immature 25 year old who wants to be taken seriously as some kind of expert in history, international conflicts and, recently, anthropology. If he didn’t get the attention he wants, he’ll probably disguise himself as a woman next. So again, you are doing Richard another favour by accommodating Ferin. Once again, Richard owes you one.

  10. The anti-panda-licker brigade says:

    “…in the end Richard’s real life job revolves around publishing slander and false bravado. He’s probably about 5′7″ and 140 lbs as well.”

    Richard’s life does revolve around slandering others. He enjoys calling his friends to arms every time he decides on a new person to bully. He himself wrote a post some time ago crying about how he had been bullied severely as a child. Explains a lot, doesn’t it? Being an online bully compensates for having been bullied all those years ago, I guess. He ain’t 5’7 and 140 ilbs though. He’s tall and lanky, middle-aged, a little ugly, with a hair “style” that screams “I’m a Nerd!!!!” You can check out his photo here, which he himself drew attention to on his panda-lickin’ site shortly after it was taken. So here he is, at the China Daily office in Beijing (proof that he really is a panda-licker, hanging out in the China Daily office like a wanna be journalist, keen to be the CCP’s PR officer):

    China Daily visit by Richard Burger, the Peking Duck blogger

  11. KLS says:

    Richard did have “MAJ defamed and banned”, and at the time I expressed my regret at having drawn attention to MAJ’s copying and pasting, because I felt sorry for the way he was humiliated and driven out. But as I recall it, most of Richard’s readers enjoyed the hunt, and I remember MAJ himself comparing the tribal calls of “ban the MAJ” to the chanting of “kill the pig” (from Golding’s “Lord of the Flies”).

    But isn’t MAJ one of the “panda lickers” you all so keenly despise? Why draw attention to him here, as someone “defamed” by a (now) fellow “panda licker” for being a “panda licker”? Or are you simply pointing out that Richard defames whoever he pleases, regardless of their views, simply because he has an inner need to empower himself through the manufacturing of an enemy as a rallying cry to his tribe? Another Hitler, or Jack (from “Lord of the Flies”)? First Uriel (whover he or she is, or was), then MAJ, then Ivan, now Nanhe…who might be the next scapegoat? My money is on the Raj – he’s arrogant and prolific enough as a contributor to one day develop into a threat, don’t you think?

  12. gb says:

    Looks like lots of other people out there have had run-ins with Richard too. He banned me for “life” about three years ago after I emailed him asking for an explanation on why he deleted my first ever comment. I had criticized him politely for being too dismissive of the CCPs efforts to tackle the country’s many environmental problems, and he deleted my comment within minutes, replacing it with the words, “don’t be so idiotic.” I was stunned, and upset, and so I emailed him asking for an explanation and and apology. He emailed me back a nasty few sentences, telling me that he had banned me for life! I hate to have to say this, but the guy is a real jerk. When I posted another comment a few days later from another computer, he unleashed his bulldogs on me, allowing them to poke fun at me for having a Chinese-Malaysian wife, who they made fun of using the most vulgar of language and sexual imagery. My conclusion: stay right away from the Peking Duck. It’s run by a sociopath happy to slander anyone he feels like picking on, even if it means being racist and sexist.

    Calling him a panda licker is being polite. I can think of more appropriate labels to tag Richard with, but I shall not drag down the tone of this blog by sharing them here.

  13. kevinnolongerinpudong says:

    Sorry, I didn’t mean for my comment to be used for mean personal attacks. This is unnecessary.

  14. C.A. Yeung says:

    Yes, Kevin, it surprised me how this thread and subsequent comments generated so many grievances. Ned is non communicado at the moment. If he has a chance to read the comments, he’ll be surprised too. Ned certainly intends to throw a bit of satire on the likes of Richard and Cunningham, for what they represent. But launching mean personal attacks was definitely not his intention.

    My run in with Richard TPD is public knowledge and I don’t intend to dwell on it. For those who are interested to find out more, please pay a visit to Nanhe’s blog.

    Gb, the way Richard treated me was very similar to the way he treated you. He didn’t like being criticised, even though it was done in a reasonable and polite way. So he simply deleted my comments without a proper explanation. Another thing I may have in common with you is that we both run our own blog. You might have signed off at TPD with a link to your blog. I certainly did. I have an impression that Richard does not approve of the content of my blog and does not want to give it any publicity. That’s why I was banned. Coincidentally, shortly after I was banned from TPD, a friend of mine in Beijing, who had been a regular reader since I started blogging, emailed me to let me know that my blog was no longer accessible in China without a proxy. What a coincidence, hmmmm….

    KLS, as you can see from above, my grievance with Richard is personal. I don’t particularly like labelling people as pandalickers. But I’ll make an exception with Richard. As Nanhe mentioned in one of his comments above, Richard makes such a great target. He really asks for it and he deserves it. I welcome people with different opinion and ideological orientation to comment at my blog. I will have a discussion with anyone who genuinely wants to voice his opinion about issues raised in our blog posts. But I do reserve my right to monitor and to moderate, just to make sure that I won’t get on the wrong side of the law. MAJ made some interesting comments about one of my articles on religious persecution in China. And I welcome his contribution. I gave Richard a chance to respond to Ned’s criticism of TPD. But Richard chose not to do so. Well, that’s just too bad. I will reciprocate the ban that he had unfairly imposed on me. So KLS, I hope I have answered your question with regard to MAJ.

  15. Holidaying in Germany at the moment, but plan a stopover in China next week, so googling China blogs led me to this. What a surprize! Richard banning readers STILL. No, I’m not surprized at all really. He banned me back in 2006 after I left a few polite comments criticizing his extreme China-bashing views. What does surprize me however is to read here that Richard is now banning people for expressing anti-China views!!!! What a chameleon! He changes his colours with whatever is in fashion. Next year, after the Olympics, he’ll probably revert back to being a China-basher again.

    Seems to me like Richard cares only about getting hits so that he can maximize his advertizing returns. So he panders to whatever views are in fashion. He takes criticizm of his views very personally, and reacts like a spoilt child, deleting the comments and banning those who challenge his behaviour. If you then draw attention to his childishness elsewhere, he responds with smear.

    Advice: stay well away from his crappy site.

  16. Anti-panda-lickin' brigade says:

    “Richard makes such a great target. He really asks for it and he deserves it.”

    Yeah, he sure does, bein’ the panda-lickin’ CCP whore that he is. I bet he’ll attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics later this year, and will write about how spectacular it all was, and how it made him realize just how great China is, and will be, once it takes over the US of A. And then he’ll brag on for an entire thread about how proud he is to be paid in RMB instead of dollars, and we’ll hear more about his imaginary gold investments, his wonderful “portfolio”. (The rest of this comment has been deleted by Ned and Catherine because the (now deleted) portion speculated about Richard’s personal life. Our blog will not tolerate any speculations about anyone’s personal life, nor will we publish any personal information about anyone without that person’s consent.)

  17. Anti-panda-lickin' brigade says:

    Richard now doesn’t want anyone to see him photographed inside the Beijing China Daily office, so he has blocked the site that I linked to in my earlier comment. Typical, yet he originally linked to it on his own blog. If you want to see how ugly he is, I just found another photo of him:

    (The proffered link has been deleted by Ned and Catherine, because our blog is not about beauty contests. And more seriously, we do not publish any personal information about anyone who does not authorise us to do so.)

    Watch him now accuse us all of stalking him, in a childish hizzy fit! He allows photos of himself to be put online, and sometimes even draws attention to them, and then later tries to hide them when critics refer to them. When they do, he then accuses them of being stalkers! Never mind Richard, poor poor Richard, don’t cry.

  18. Ned Kelly says:

    Hello All,

    I’ve returned from abroad so I’ll respond at more length to some of your comments soon. But especially to Kevin, yes I appreciate that your intention was not to provoke any personal attacks, and that is not what this blog is for – although well-deserved satire is always on this pub’s menu!

    But then to be fair to some of you welcome commenters who have ventilated some personal grievances here, it seems fair to allow you to ventilate a bit, considering how the windows on another major China blog have made the air there rather stale. “Someone open up a window” reminds me of this song from the movie, “1776”:

    And just one thing I’d like to point out about MAJ (and I agree with KLS’ comment about MAJ): has anyone noticed that he has not commented on this thread? (I can see that he’s not using any pseudonyms here, from the commenters’ IP addresses.) It seems to me that MAJ is behaving with real integrity by keeping his promise to avoid any further personal conflict with Richard -even to the extent of avoiding this thread – and I salute MAJ for that.

    But in the future, let’s remember that Satire is Ned Kelly’s pub’s main menu. And “BYOS” (“bring your own satire”) is especially welcome!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s