Headlines: Catherine Blocked, Nanhe Banned, Ivan Drunk, Battle Re-enacted

I’m thinking of starting a weekly China Blogosphere round-up consisting of nothing but headlines and multi-media illustrations.    In this week’s news:

Catherine and I are proud to announce that our blog has become blocked by China’s Great Firewall

Nanheyangrouchuan has been banned from another blog:

The Battle of Pearl Harbor re-enacted on the blog from which Nanhe was banned:

And when I tried to reach Ivan for comment, he responded with this:

This entry was posted in Ivan's Bunker, media censorship, Ned Kelly's Pub, Wall of Shame and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Headlines: Catherine Blocked, Nanhe Banned, Ivan Drunk, Battle Re-enacted

  1. Richard is one petty little bitch, especially since he does his fair share of mud slinging. “Do as I say not as I do”.

  2. Anti-panda-lickin' brigade says:

    Richard is banning people left right and centre, and is clearly out to censor all opposition. Doen’t he remind you of someone? Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim Il-jong, all come to mind, right? Anyone who challenges his pandalicking tongue he silence. What a fascist propaganda mouthpiece for the CCP he has become.

    What does the face of a fascist look like? You can see into the cruel eyes of a fascist here:

    (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 And more seriously, we do not publish any personal information about anyone who does not authorise us to do so.)

  3. And Richard has dropped me from his blogroll because I’ve been seen hanging around the likes of y’all.

    So what exactly did Nanhe do to get banned by Richard?

  4. C.A. Yeung says:


    It seems Richard has purged his blogroll and you are not the only old friend that he has discarded. I don’t seem to be able to find, for example, Angry Chinese Blogger, Simon World or the Long Bow Paper on the list either.

    I deliberately tried not to get you involved in our little dispute because I respect your friendship with Richard and I don’t want to put you in a difficult position. If Richard is really dropping you because of us, then I’ll have to say that he is really over-reacting.

    Nanhe complained at this blog yesterday about Richard reprimanding him for using the expression pandalicker. For some reasons, his complaint really struck a cord with a few other people who had some previous run-ins with Richard. So Richard banned him and made up an excuse to accuse Nanhe of spamming his site. This is total nonsense. Our spam filter here also trapped several spams with excessive rhetoric, bordering on defamation. For ethical reasons, I can’t divulge the content. But I can say for sure that they have nothing to do with Nanhe. Richard is just making it up to justify his decision to ban Nanhe. Mind you, Richard also accused me of spamming his site, simply because I repeatedly posted a comment three time at his blog. I repeatedly posted that particular comment because I didn’t realise that they had been deliberately deleted. I thought there was a technical glitch and therefore I kept trying. So you really can’t taking Richard’s spamming accusation against Nanhe seriously.

  5. To say that I have a friendship with Richard would be a bit of a stretch.

    As for banning him for “spamming” or whatever, one of the last emails I’d written him prior to this was dealing with putting some sort of feedback in to the system to alert a poster that something had been deleted and possibly for whatever reasons or you’d run in to the problem that you and I did, which is double or triple postings due to the lack of feedback.

    And the reason given me made it sound like something far more sinister than calling him a panda licker.

    And if Richard had told me that he was dropping me because I wasn’t posting enough, well that would have been a completely different matter. But the fact that he defends keeping a certain lyin’ spinmeister and our friend Steve, the anonymous proxy using troll, on his blogroll tells me something isn’t quite on the up and up.

  6. Ned Kelly says:


    While concurring with what Catherine has written in response to your question, I also get the feeling – and mind you, this is just a speculation, a feeling in my gut – that the epidemic of bannings and purges at that other site might be a symptom of what Ren and Stimpy call, “Space Madness”, a kind of paranoia induced by living as an alien “out there” for too long.

    Relevant video clip of Ren and Stimpy’s “Space Madness”, here:

  7. What is occurring on Ricky’s website is that he is channeling the CCP’s hypersensitivity. No one can say anything bad about china or the party inside or outside China in domestic newspapers of other countries. Same with Richard. Other people’s blogs are now his business, and his picture is really stupid looking.

  8. C.A. Yeung says:

    @Tom, you wrote: “And the reason given me made it sound like something far more sinister than calling him a panda licker.”

    You are not telling me that he claims we are organising a witch-hunt after him. If it is the case, I’ll have to agree with Ned that Richard is seriously paranoid. By the way, when you have a chance, I would be grateful if you could enlighten me about the spinmeister and anonymous proxy using troll business. I’m not 100% sure I understand what you’re referring to.

    @Nanhe, you wrote: “What is occurring on Ricky’s website is that he is channeling the CCP’s hypersensitivity.”

    Not only that, he has also inherited CCP’s authoritarian way of dealing with dissent. There is no room for discussion, let alone criticism. You either do as he says. Or he’ll find an excuse (no matter how feable it sounds) to ban you or erase your site from his blogroll. He’ll then make up some stories about how you are a class enemy.

    It’s a pity though. Mor is one of my favourite commenters. But it seemed that he failed to see through Richard’s dishonesty. I take this opportunity to invite Mor to explain to us why he thinks our blog or Nanhe’s blog is “infamous”. Mor further wrote, “Now I know why certain people have been banned. You don’t enter somebody else’s house in order to trash the host.” No, Mor, that’s exactly the point. We did not enter Richard’s house and trash him. We looked at what’s happening at his house from a distance at our blog because we worried about the trend of what’s going on. But Richard could neither take the criticism nor have the gut to come forward and defend himself. So he retaliated by banning innocent people, such as Tom, simply by association. Please tell me you are not condoning this kind of childish behaviour.

  9. Ned Kelly says:

    To Nanhe’s and Catherine’s observations I’ll just add that I found one of Richard’s phrases significant (on the thread in which “they” – you know, “THEM” – were being discussed), he referred to nanhe participating in “a conversation outside this (TPD) blog”.

    Yeah well, if you ban people, then of COURSE their conversations will be “outside your blog.” ALL of their conversations, about EVERYTHING, will be “outside your blog.” So, what, now is the entire China blogosphere required to refrain from any mention whatsoever of TPD unless TPD authorises us to do so?

    A “One-China-Blogosphere” policy? The implication seems to be,
    “no public conversations about us, or public criticisms of us (the CCP, or TPD) are permitted (or socially acceptable) if they take place outside of our supervision and control.”

    Sorry, but no. You can ban the discussants from your own forum, but you can’t ban – or inhibit – any discussion outside your forum, nor complain about it as long as the “outside discussion” conforms to the law. And on THIS blog, that means Australian law (and the similar laws of North America, England and Europe), where everything except defamation or revealing private personal information, is fair game.

    And on that note, Catherine and I take the law very seriously, so maybe a cram course in the law of defamation is in order, for those who aren’t familiar with it:

    Defamation IS: False statements of alleged “FACTS” which tend to harm a person’s reputation and/or property interests. If someone wants to sue for defamation, it’s his burden to prove that someone has actually alleged something as a FACT.

    Defamation is NOT:

    1. Statements of opinion about verifiable facts, inlcuding the facts that a person has published some specific words;

    1.a Defamation is NOT speculative opinions about a person’s motives or purposes, or speculative opinions about someone’s personal character;

    2. Satire is not defamation.

    3. Opinionated representations of a person’s character are not defamation. Otherwise, Richard’s frequent posts about (inter alia) Michelle Malkin – usually including unflattering (but publicly available) photos of her, would be defamation.

    And on that note – about Richard’s unflattering posts about Michelle Malkin (et al) – well, THOSE “conversations” about Malkin also took place outside of HER blog. Isn’t freedom of the press a great thing? Except for the CCP, of course, and except for any Westerners who have personal interests in maintaining good public relations for the Beijing Olympics and – perhaps most importantly – for the Western business interests invested in the Beijing Olympics.

    And Catherine and I both DO understand that Richard does NOT work
    “for the CCP”. Yes, we believe him when he says he works for Westerners, and not for the CCP. We do not believe – and we have never said – that he is a “shill” for the CCP. But Catherine and I ALSO know and understand more about the CCP than (perhaps) Richard gives us credit for: we know that what (some of) the CCP and their Western business collaborators care about most, is not politics, not even criticism of “Human Rights” concerns (some criticism of Human Rights abuses IS acceptable to the Chinese government!) – but business as usual. Especially the business of the Olympics. THAT business is THE most “untouchable” topic in China in year 2008. And THAT business of the Olympics belongs as much – and perhaps even more – to Western businesses than to any Chinese.

    The Beijing Olympic motto of, “One World, One Dream”, is NOT mainly about Chinese ambitions of hegemony or spreading (dead) Communist ideology. No, it’s about money. One World, One Globalist Dream of outsourcing manufacturing to countries which still have slave-labour conditions and no environmental protection laws. And neither China nor the CCP are the main drivers of that dream; Westerners are. And Catherine and I will continue to take such WESTERNERS to task even more than we snipe occasionally at the PRC and the CCP, among whom she and I of all people know there are some noble people with good intentions – better people with better intentions than many Westerners in China these days.

  10. Well the spinmeister is ESWN. I think he’s written about being employed by a NY-based PR firm. I’m almost positive that it’s one of the large firms that has a contract with the HK & PRC governments. Roland’s comments on this are not a denial, but more of “I dare ya to pull out the evidence.”

    The proxy-usin’ mighty-morphin’ troll is Mr. Harris from China Law Blog. I said Steve up above, and it isn’t Steve, it’s Dan. mea culpa. Wrong China Law Blog partner. And I say this because I caught him using anonymous proxies and multiple user names to comment at my blog to provide himself support in posts that were critical of China Law Blog. The IP may have been different, but other telltale information identified Dan, even after using the proxies.

  11. Ned Kelly says:

    “The proxy-usin’ mighty-morphin’ troll is Mr. Harris from China Law Blog.”

    HAHA! “Mighty-morphing?”

    “It creeps, and leaps, and glides and slides across the floor, and through the door…beware of the Blob…”

    Original “Blob” song, dedicated to CLB:

  12. C.A. Yeung says:

    Thanks Tom, I’m not aware of Roland’s real profession. So in many ways he is very similar to our friend at TPD. Now that explains why sometimes jealousy factors will kick in between the two of them. I was also a bit surprised that Roland’s blog is back on Richard’s blogroll. It has disappeared for quite a while. They must have patched up their differences while we are not looking.

    The Blob theme song is such a classic. I highly recommend viewing for mature audience. That, unfortunately, will exclude Ferin.

  13. Having spent many many many too many hours in the comments at The Eschaton, you get used to the mighty morphin’ trolls.

    They change proxies to get past IP bans. They change usernames frequently to get past the social shunning that comes as their cover as a troll is blown.

    And my thinking about Roland is that he was brought on board for the PR firm to keep an eye on the press and blogosphere and to guide opinion in the blogosphere. Many too lazy to find other translations or use the Google Language tools or too lazy to bother checking his translations for accuracy or completeness are easily led by the nose by Roland.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s