From that day forward, "lin" continued to followup, respond, and enrich her post, essentially turning the review into a diary or blog on various issues surrounding the book. Her review attracted wide attention on the site and garnered more than 800 reader comments.
After the review's initial appearance, Fu Ping made an effort to reach out to "lin" and promised to address her questions in private. "lin" refused and insisted on public discussion.
On February 21, Amazon deleted "lin"'s original review, citing ""visually distractiveness". As a response, "lin" created a new reviewing thread which sarcastically gives Bent, Not Break a five-star rating instead. Her original review was archived by herself and some other interested users and was also eventually restored by Amazon.
Here is "lin"'s original review in its entirety, restored in chronological order:
As a Chinese, I lived through that period of time in China. I have similar family and educational background as hers and suffered during Culture Revolution as a child. I think her experiences in China mostly, if not all, are fabricated, imagined, overly exaggerated or deliberately miss leading.
If one just read the media reports about her book, he/she may think that media might just pick the sensational parts of the book and exaggerated a little bit to help her to sell the book. No, it is not the case. She lied from very beginning to the end in the book, even on the small detailed events. I am amazed by her audacity of telling so many blatant lies in such a well publicized book.
Here are some of the social and culture background of that period of time in China:
1. In traditional Confucius Chinese culture, children were considered as property of their parents. Parents had absolute rights to their children, including the rights to abuse or sell their kids. Since Mao's communists took over the power of China, parents can't sell their kids anymore, but all other rights were respected, including the rights of adopted parents (if the adoptions were legal and paper work complete). Culture Revolution didn't change any of that.
During Culture Revolution, many government officials, college teachers and professors, and intellectuals were persecuted or locked up. My parents were among those people just like Ping Fu's parents(if her claims are true). There were a period of time that both of my parents were locked up. My parents arranged me to be taken care by relatives, family friend or to live in a boarding child care center. Many of my relatives' children and other people in similar situation all had similar experiences as me. I had never heard of any kids being taken away by authorities, it is just against way of thinking. No one, including government could take people's children away. There isn't such agency to do that kind of job and no facility for that kind of children. That would cost money too and China was very poor at that time, children were burdens.
Red Guard were "revolutionists", they were busy criticizing and persecuting people like my parents (or Ping's parents), or fighting each other. They didn't care about little kids, and didn't interested in taking care of children. Kids like us were left alone, although often were discriminated in schools and in society in general. After Culture Revolution ended, Many people in China wrote about their experiences during that time. All of those stories regarding kids that I've read of were more or less similar to mine, I had never heard of or read about any camp like what Ping wrote in her book, nothing close to what she told. Ping's story as a child just sounds impossible and did not add up with many things in that time.
2. The culture on sex in China have been completely different from the West. China was extremely conservative on sex before 80's. Young people were very ignorant about sex and usually didn't have any sexual experiences before they met the person they would marry. People don't even talk or joke about sex. Rape committed by young men was rare at that time, especially in cities. Rape was a very serious crime in China and punishment could be the death decades ago. Raping or molestation of little children by young people was even rarer. Gang rape was unheard of. In my whole 20+ year living in China, the only gang rape I had heard of were committed by foreigners in 80's.
Red Guard were "revolutionists", not street thugs or rapists, they might beat or persecute people, but not rape. Ping's claim that she was GANG raped by young Red Guards (as reported by many media. But in her book, she was rape by a bunch of young teen boys under broad day light at a university campus) at age 10 because she saved her little sister against their will is just so unimaginable, so against China's sexual culture and thinking, especially against Red Guards' way of thinking and behaving.
3. The schools were re-open in 1968 in most of the places, and were free, even for kids whose parents being persecuted like me. Nanjing is one of the biggest city in China. I just couldn't imagine the reason that Ping could not go to school. Besides, in 70's, most of high school graduates had to go to poor and rural countryside, there were very limited job for them in the cities. Factory jobs were considered very good jobs and extremely hard to get in 70's. Many people had to bribe or use their connection to land their kids a factory job. And factory don't accept child as employee or labor unless they finished their schooling. Schools may organize kids to work in factories for several weeks to get experiences though. I did that in middle school.
So Ping's story of working in the factory as a child and not be able to go to school in one of the biggest and most developed city in China is just not impossible to be true.
4. China's college didn't admit any high school graduates from 1966 to 1976. The first college entrance exam after Culture Revolution was held in 1977. Any person who graduated high school between 1966 and 1976 could take the exam. The competition for limited college seats was fierce. In early 80's, when only currently year high school graduates could take the college entrance exam, only 4% could get into college. So you can imagine how competitive to get into college in year 77. The study materials and books were very limited at that time. Unparented and unschooled Ping Fu could get into college in 1977, she must be a supper human.
5. All college students in China had to take 4 years of English classes. The supper human Ping Fu could only speak three phrases of English when she came to the US, one year after graduating from college: thank you, hello, and help. Give me a break.
6. China's One Child policy officially started in later year of 1980. At that year, Ping should be a college junior. For a person grew up in city to think of writing her college senior year graduation thesis about killing of baby girls in rural countryside because of a newly started government policy, it is just sounds impossible for me. China's one child policy and related abortion issue wasn't caught international attention until 90's. So, even if Ping Fu wrote something about that, I don't think that government cared. Beside, after Cultural Revolution, Chinese government don't arrest people for political reason anymore, except few rare cases. In early 80's, there were several students at my college did something politically more influential and considered much more unacceptable to the government than Ping's paper, they got some trouble but not arrested or detained.
In 80's, China was still very poor. Ultrasound was rare and expensive medical equipment. Ultrasound exam wasn't a routine exam for pregnant women even in the best hospitals in the biggest city like Shanghai or Beijing. People also didn't have the knowledge that ultrasound exam can tell the gender of the fetus. I don't know how Ping Fu could find that there were prevalent practice of forced abortions of young girl fetuses in poor rural China between 1980-1981, .
Besides, US and China were still in honey moon in early 80's. China wasn't demonized and criticized so much by the West like nowadays. Two countries were kind of allies against then Soviet Union. China didn't started the practice of deporting dissidents to US until 90's. And each time before the deporting, the two government had to negotiate extensively. US don't accept nobody, they only accept those famous dissents. Ping Fu was nobody and unheard of.
She graduated from college in Spring of 1982, came to the US in 1983(some media says in 1982). In this short one year or even less, her college graduation paper reached media, gained domestic and international media attention(I was in China at that time, never heard of that story), she was detained by Chinese government and then deported to the US. None of the US and Chinese government was that efficient. Chinese media wasn't that free to dig and report that kind of news at early 80's. This is just impossible.
So this whole episode of imprisonment because of a paper and deportation to the US is just contradict with everything in that period of time.
7，"Child soldier". I don't know what this "Child soldier" she was. In China, there was no "Child soldier". During Cultural Revolution, military soldiers and personnels had the highest social status and relatively better paid. It was hard for even high school graduates to join the army. The only "Child soldiers" that I knew of were kids with special talents, such as singing, dancing, playing music instruments, or acting. They were recruited by entertainment units of the military. They would study, be trained and taken care of in those military entertainment units. Those were considered extremely lucky kids and envied by every body.
If anything we can learn from this book, it probably would be the audacity a person could have to lie. May be that's the only secrete of her success in the US. It is too bad that innocent American people have to learn about China, Cultural Revolution and Chinese people through this kind of lies.
1. I wrote my initial review on 1/22 after I heard news on NPR. The review were based on wikipedia page about her, NPR and several other media reports about the book, and first several customer reviews on amazon. I read the book last week after I wrote the review.
2. My local library has the book. A Barnes and Noble' retail store near my place puts the book in prominent place (I wouldn't spend a dime on lies). Looks like this book is on it way to the best seller lists.
I called Barnes and Noble today and asked them to take the book off the shelves in their retail stores. They shouldn't charge unsuspecting customers $27.95 for pure lies. I urge others who agree with me on this book to do the same.
3. Ping Fu herself commented on my review and wanted me to have a direct dialog with her through emails. She thinks that she can address most of the questions that I asked. My suggestion to Ping Fu is that she should address the questions to public either in Amazon's From the Author section or in some other ways. There is no meaning to communicate to me in private.
4. The book is hard to read for me, because it is full of sickening lies page after page from very beginning to the end. Here are some of her big lies in the book (there are a lots more) not published elsewhere:
At the beginning of the book, she claimed that one day in 1966, before she was sent to Nanjing, Red Guards came to her Shanghai parents home commanding her brothers to go with them. Her brothers were being "sent up to the mountain or down to the countryside" (This is her original words). Any one who experienced that period if time in China would remember that sending young people to the countryside started in 1969, not 1966, after Mao's instruction in December 1968 that encourage young people to go to countryside to be reeducated by peasants. The wrong time line alone tells me that this story is fabricated. Besides, Red Guards taking people from their home was not the way that young people being sent to the countrysides.
She claimed that in 1982, after One Child Policy were announced, officials at her university would check all female students' menstrual period by forcing them to turn in their sanitary pad each month. When some girls turned in their friends' soiled pads, officials would insert their fingers in to our vagina(yes, she used the word "OUR") to check for blood. How sick her mind have to be to make up such outrageous lies? We might be obedient to authorities due to the influence of 2000 years Confucian culture. But to let anybody sexually assault us all in this way and not to fight, it is an insult to all Chinese people. The chance that this story happened in a Chinese University is less than it happened at Harvard University.
None of the scenes that she described about her being taken away from her Shanghai home, about how she arrived in Nanjing, how she met her Nanjing mother on the street and met her then 4years old sister who was alone in a room are believable. According to the book, young Red Guard came to her home, took her under her Shanghai mother's watch and put her on a packed train to Nanjing. Not to mention that young Red Guard wouldn't do this kind of job in that time, just assume what she said was true. Her Shanghai mother were free and at home at the time, why wouldn't she follow her to Nanjing to make sure that she is safe and everything is alright? Was she such a stupid and irresponsible mother?
She said that in the fall of 82, while she was walking on campus and preparing for her graduation from university (she forgot that she should be graduated in Spring of 82 if she took 77's college entrance exam, or she should be graduate in summer of 82 if she took 78's exam), some one sneaked up to her, put a black canvas bag over her head, took her to an unknown place and arrested her. Why would our government have to arrest anybody secretly in this way? huh?
5. Many people who commented on my review posted a link([...] ) to a photo of Ping Fu in her youth on the website of fastcompany which has an article promoting her book and her company.
In that picture, Ping Fu and a bunch of kids were wearing Red Guard armbands under the Red Guard flag (which means they all were Red Guards). But Ping Fu claimed they were "children forced to live in government dormitories during China's Cultural Revolution".
6. Amazon customer Z. Li commented on my review and gave a link to Ping Fu's NPR interview in 2010. In that interview, almost every words that came through Ping Fu's mouth about China were outrageous lies.
1/30This story is getting really interesting now.
Chinese translation of the Forbes' article, One Woman's Journey From Chinese Labor Camp To Top American Tech Entrepreneur (by Jenna Goudreau)attracted people's attention in China. A famous blogger Fang Zhou Zi wrote about Fu Ping and considered her as a liar yesterday. That's why so many Chinese come to amazon to give 1 star review of the book starting yesterday.
In Forbes website, a reader wrote a comment following Jenna Goudreau's article claiming that she grew up with Ping Fu. I intend to believe what this person said. Because everything she said is consistent with what I know about China back then and with what I've read about Ping Fu so far, excluding her lies.
This reader claims that Ping Fu didn't grew up in Shanghai, but in Nanjing. When I read the book, starting from first chapter, I immediately felt that Ping Fu's story about her Shanghai home, her parents and what happened around her are fake. Those detailed small things in the book were not consistent with my knowledge about people who lived in that kind luxury houses in Shanghai back then.
Here is this Forbes reader's comment:
njydj 17 hours agoChina Story on Ping Fu is full of lies. I know Ping Fu and her family personally as we all grew up together in Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Aerospace (NUAA).
4 big lies:
1. she was growing up in Shanghai until 1966...No, she grew up in Nanjing.
2. she was sent to children labor camp for 10 yrs when she was 8 yrs old from 1966. Ask her when and where of such camp and find any supporting document for it! She was among us who were remained at University campus, young children such as her sister and myself, were boarding at University kindergarten while parents sent away somewhere for "re-education". Did she bring her 4 yrs old sister to children labor camp?
She was gang raped while trying to save her 4-yrs old sister
Since my first writing of this review on Jan. 22, many things have happened. As what Forbes reporter Jenna Goudreau put it in today's Forbes article 'Bend, Not Break' Author Ping Fu Responds To Backlash, "along with coverage by other media outlets serious questions have been raised in the Chinese blogosphere and elsewhere about Fu's credibility". Ping Fu herself commented my review on Jan 24th and wanted to address the questions I raised in private through email with me, which I refused.
Now she is trying to clear some of the questions in my review through Jenna Goudreau's article. The problem is she is defending her lies with more lies. At this moment, I'm kind of angry with this shameless, mentally sick, morally low and pathetic liar. So if my writing sound emotional, please forgive me.
In her response in 1/28 to a reader of her book, Ping Fu blamed reporter for the inaccuracies in Forbes article. Now in today's Forbes report on her response to the accusations of being lying, she also blamed the media for referring to her as a "child soldier" and a "factory worker." She shamelessly tried to explain away her lie of being deported to the US by saying "if someone wants to say this is not deportation, fine. That's my interpretation."". Because China and Chinese government have been demonized and discredited to such extend in the West, she knows that she can say whatever she wants about what Chinese government did to her, nothing from China can be used to dispute her on this, whether it is a government record or her former classmate's words .
Now she admits that she entered the college in the fall of 1978. We all know that class of college students in all of universities in China were graduated in the SUMMER of 1982. But in her book, she said that in the FALL of 82, while she was walking on campus and PREPARING for her GRADUATION from the university, someone sneaked up to her, put a black canvas bag over her head, took her to an unknown place and arrested her. How she can explain this contradiction in timeline here, huh? And now she suddenly claims "that she got in trouble with the police in 1983". Not fall of 82 any more?
In Jenna Goudreau's article, when Ping Fu was asked about the timing gap between getting trouble with the police in 1983 and deportation to the US in Jan 84, this is her response:" "That's true. That's a good question," Fu says. "Let me go back and verify that one." " So our successful CEO Ping Fu couldn't remember what happened and how it happened about the most important events in her life, she had to go back to verify that. Verify from where? Hasn't she been telling these stories to medias numerous times since 2005 if not ealier? If she has such a bad memory and can't remember these most important events happened to her in her 20's, how much those childhood memory in her book could be true?
According to her book, the words came through her own mouth on an NPR interview and many Western media reports, the timeline is: She spent 6 month to investigate in countrysides on infanticides due to One Child Policy, then did her senior year graduation thesis(should be in middle of 1982), the thesis was reported on Chinese newspaper People's Daily (which was the tightly controlled number one government mouth piece back then), the Chinese media reports caught international media attention, United Nation then sanctioned China, Chinese government was upset about this and arrested her in the Fall of 1982. How all this could happen in a such short time before in the fall of 82? Or even before January 1984 when she arrived in the US? College students in China usually wouldn't be able to start their graduation thesis until the last semester of their senior year, when did she start to investigate infanticides? When did she hand in her thesis? When did People's Daily reported her findings? Were international media and UN worked that fast and efficient in early 80's? Can anyone, Westerner or Chinese who is old enough to have memory of early 80's, comes out to say that he/she had ever heard of infanticides in China or UN sanction of China for this in that time period?
She also forgot that China's One Child policy is considered to be started in Sept. 1980, when central government of China published an open letter urging couple's to only have one child. I don't remember when detailed policies came out. So in 2 years between Sept. 1980 to the Fall of 82, infanticide became prevalent in China, which caught Ping Fu's attention to spend 6 month to investigate and wrote her graduation thesis, ..., UN sanctioned China and she was arrested in the Fall of 82(or 1983 according to her newest claim). Would anyone with a mind that can do minimum reasoning believe this?
In a Chinese media report which glorified her story of success and accomplishments in the US on 3/14/2012 [epaper.chinanews com html 2012-03 14 content_3303 "dot" htm), after she graduated from Suzhou University, she went to graduate school at Nanjing University, then came to the US. How would she explain about this? Where did the reporter get that information? Because Chinese media have been portrayed in the West as always lying and unreliable, so this one must be a lie or unreliable too, even it is a report all positive on her and glorifying her, right?
Then, let's see the report of her in Western media. In 2005, INC magazine ran a story about her in the article Entrepreneur of the Year: Ping Fu (inc com magazine 20051201 ping-fu "dot" html). It said: "In February 1981, without a trial or even a formal charge, the Chinese government locked 23-year-old Ping Fu in solitary confinement, in a wing of Nanjing prison reserved for political criminals."
February 1981 was the first semester of her junior year. So by then she had already spent 2 years (yes, in INC's report, she used 2 years to do that) to investigate infanticides due to a policy that started 5 months ago, finished her senior year graduation thesis on that,...., and got arrested? How ridiculous this could be? Who to blame for this inconsistency with her book and the ridiculousness of the story?
In fact, many things in Ping Fu's book are in contradiction with 2005 INC magazine's report, from how many sisters being taken from her Shanghai home to Nanjing, to time and year many things that happened. Again, she can blame the reporter for all the inaccuracies and mistakes.
Now Ping Fu's publicist told Jenna Goudreau that "The government asked Ping to leave a couple of weeks after her release," "However, getting a passport was very difficult, if not impossible". So Chinese government asked her to leave, but wouldn't issue her a passport, made her to wait for an year? Difficult to get passport? How come many college graduates that I knew of back then could get passport in about a month as long as they have foreign school's acceptation letter and I-20 form. US universities usually send out these documents to foreign student around March. It would take about a month to get passport, then we have to apply for visa from US consulate or embassy. Actually, what difficult to get was not the Chinese passport but American visa. The US government wouldn't accept poor foreign student come to the US without enough financial back up. Even if we had back then, many of us were still rejected (totally different from today).
Foreign students in the US are not allowed to work outside of their campus to support themselves. Ping Fu's claimed that she came here with no money, paid her way through school by working first as a babysitter, cleaning lady then as a waitress. Which means that she did all those work illegally. It also means that she fabricated her financial documents and lied about the source of her support when she applied visa from the US consulate.
So, Ping Fu, better stick with your deportation lies. The new lie will not only make your a liar, but also a law breaker.
Besides, how can a government ask its citizen to leave? If it were that easy, I suggest Chinese government to ask 3 billions poorest Chinese peasants to leave China and send them to the United States like it sent Ping Fu here. Those poor peasants will have much better life and wouldn't need to kill their infant girls any more. If this way could work, those illegal Mexican immigrants should just follow Ping Fu's path to tell INS that Mexican government asked them to leave, so they have a legal status here.
(to be continued)
(continued from 1/31)
It has puzzled me from the beginning why Ping Fu, with her success and status, has to make all these outrageous lies from first line in the first page to the very end in such a well publicized book. Anybody who lived in the US long enough would know that honesty and integrity is valued in this country. Price for lying could be high, especially for people with high status. Many business practices and social services are built on ordinary citizen's honesty. Telling this kind of lies just for the purpose of selling book and making money is not worth the risk for somebody with her status, and I don't think she is that stupid. So, why?
Before we can understand her motive, we have to figure out her real history through the lies. Today, several pieces of puzzle fell together, and she herself provided one of the crucial piece.
Around 1:00 am(amazon.com time) today, Jean Z. posted a link in this thread to a news archive from Spokane Chronicle Feb. 25, 1983 issue. The new was about Steven Mosher, a Ph.D student of Stanford University, being expelled from Stanford for writing about infanticides and forced abortion in China. Steven Mosher probably is the first person ever reported on China's infanticides and forced abortion due to One Child Policy.(http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19830225&id=SzwaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XycEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3230,3699112)
According to this news, Mosher did a 10 months field research from 1979-1980 in Guang Dong province ( which is adjacent to Hong Kong) in China, then published an article on May 1981 in a newspaper in Taiwan about infanticide and forced abortion in China due to the One Child policy (why he had to go to Taiwan to publish it, not in the US? Ping Fu said that Chinese government denounces him as a "foreign spy". spied for which country? Taiwan? or US?). His article "included photographs of women allegedly about to undergo forced abortions". Chinese government infuriated by his work, accused him using the article to attack China (according to Mosher), "sharply limited field work by American scientists after Mosher's departure". The Stanford committee investigated complaints that he violated "professional ethics and engaged in illegal activities" while doing research in China, ruled to expel him.
(A note about Chinese history here: 3 years of Chinese civil war ended in 1949 when Mao's Communist Party took over the power in mainland China, Chiang Kai-shek's and his Kuomintang Party retreat to Taiwan. Communists party changed China's official name from Republic of China to People's Republic of China, while Taiwan still kept the name of Republic of China. In 1979, the two government were still enemies, often do things to hurt each other. People in two China could not visit each other back then until late 80's, when mainland government allowed people from Taiwan to visit China. Taiwan's government didn't allow mainland people to visit until many years later. That's why Mosher published his finding in a Taiwan's newspaper indeed looks suspicious to me )
As I said before, China's One Child policy is started in 9/25/1980, on that day central government of China published an open letter urging couples to only have one child. All the concrete and detailed policies were made after that letter(I don't know how long). But Mosher was in China for 10 month between 79-80, he should have left China by 9/25/1980. How he could take pictures of women about to undergo forced abortions due to a policy before the policy even existed (do we accidentally catch another liar here)? No wonder Stanford expelled him. Chinese government's accusation of him seems valid.
About 80 minutes after Jean's post, Ping Fu posted two relies to Jean about Mosher. Unlike before when she couldn't answer Jenna Goudreau where she was between 83 and 84 and has to go back home to "verify", this time she showed that she has thorough knowledge and complete memory about Mosher, including who he married. Her knowledge about Mosher surprised me, because I have no idea who this guy is until today.
There is another piece of the puzzle. In 2012, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) awarded Ping Fu and 4 other immigrants Outstanding American by Choice. USCIS should have all of Ping Fu's immigration documents in their system. In their webpage for the award, they posted this information about Ping Fu :
"Ms. Fu arrived in the United States in 1983 as a 23-year-old student with virtually no money or English language skills. She grew up during the height of Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution in the 1960s and 1970s, and had to raise herself at the age of seven, as well as her younger sister when her parents were forced into a concentration camp. For ten years, Ms. Fu survived on her own determination. She was imprisoned during college for her research into China's history of infanticide. When she was expelled from China, she found her way to the United States. Ms. Fu chose a career in computers and software design earning both a Bachelor of Science degree and Master's degree in Computer Science.
Ms. Fu became a naturalized citizen in 1992."
This information suggests several things:
1, She got her green card in 87 or earlier (have to wait for 5 years to become citizen).
2, She told USCIS that she was expelled from China.
(She admitted to Forbes reporter Jenna Goudreau that she wasn't expelled, which means she lied to federal government agency to get the this reward and green card)
3, She came to the US in 83, not 84 as she said in her book (Who should be responsible for this inconsistency? reporter again?).
4, There are only 2 ways for her to be able to get green card in 3 years after coming as a student or visiting scholar: political asylum or marriage. But she wasn't married until 1991.
Several days ago, many reviewers of the book suspected that Ping Fu fabricated these lies to apply for political asylum so that she could legally work and stay. I didn't take this suspicion seriously. But now it is obviously the case.
Indeed, when an oversea Chinese website reported her getting the reward last year, it mentioned that she immigrated to the US through political asylum.
(http://oversea.stnn.cc/NY/201202/t20120224_1707578.html, thanks for fredxunsu to provide the link)
In Ping Fu's responses to Jean, she wrote:"The Mosher case became a cause célèbre in US in 1983.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Mosher successfully lobbied US to withhold $34 to $40 million per year for seven years from the U.N. Population Fund, the largest international donor to family planning programs". "He was not allowed to return to China before the Taiwan report you found came out. So the Chinese government is already angry at him in 1980."
Now we can have reasonable guess about what happened after she arrived the US in 83:
In 1983, around the time that she arrived in the US, "Mosher case became a cause célèbre in US", she noticed that. So she used Mosher's story to fabricate her own story that we have now.
Mosher's "research"(or fabrication?) on infanticides published in Taiwan in 1981---> Findings in her "research" reached Chinese media, reported in People's Daily (which was the tightly controlled no.1 government newspaper in China piece back then.). She still refuses to provide us the date of this report though, but some Western media (INC's report?)reported it was in 1981.
The Mosher case became a cause célèbre in 1983 --->Her research caught international attention. (year unknown).
Mosher successfully lobbied US to withhold $34 to $40 million per year for seven years from the U.N. Population Fund. ---> international attention on her research resulted UN sanction of China (She probably didn't know that UN can't sanction China, because China is the Security Council member, can veto the sanction resolution).
Mosher not allowed to return to China ---> She was arrested in Fall of 1982, then expelled (or deported) from China.
All other lies in her book about her childhood in China were just built to support this story. She used these story to file for political asylum and got green card in 1987 or even earlier. I don't know anything about this asylum procedure. Just guess that she should get work permit a lot earlier than 1987 and only need to pay in state student fees for her undergraduate study once she got the permit.
I'm really disappointed with huffingtonpost.
They let Ping Fu open a blog at their website yesterday. So now she is enjoying her free ride provided by huffingtonpost, accusing all the critics of engaging in a "smear campaign" against her personally and her book. She can cover, spin and spread her lies with more lies freely without being challenged or questioned. And huffingtonpost don't need to take any responsibility for that. I would say this is very irresponsible journalism.
At least Noalee Harel should take the responsibility for her 01/22/2013 article, like what Jenna Goudreau of Forbes did, question Ping Fu for the inconsistencies and contradictions in her book, in TV, radio and newspaper interviews. We have already provided you guys with mountain of ammunition. Don't tell me that you can't do an investigate report on her lies better than us amateurs.
Professor Erica Brindley, Ping Fu's supporter and friend, blames all Ping Fu's lies on all the unsuspecting reporters by saying Chinese nationalists are "basing their facts on mistakes by reporters". Are you really willing to be their scapegoat????!!!!!
It seems now that Ping Fu has backed off from all her stories except being Gang raped and being detained by the police.
In her book, she was gang raped in broad daylight by a about 10 teen boys on a university campus in one of the most developed city in China. Why can I say this is a lie with 100% confidence? Because, if anybody in the US dare to claim that she was gang raped by 10 teen boys in broad daylight on Pennsylvania ave without providing any evidence, everybody would know that is a LIE!!!
So, Professor Erica Brindley, the arguments you used to defend Ping Fu's rape lie showed us that you have 0 sense about Chinese culture, Chinese history and Chinese people. We have to seriously question what kind of Chinese history and philosophy professor you are. What stake you have in this book? Don't you care about you academic ethics and reputation at all?
I have to defend Forbes and Jenna Goudreau here.
In her huffingtonpost article Clarifying the Facts in Bend, Not Break, Ping Fu denied that she ever said or wrote that she was in a labor camp. So she blames Jenna Goudreau for the mistake. In her book, the building she lived could be a university dormitory, but the life there wasn't. What happened to her and other children in that university dormitory is zillion times worse than any labor camp or any prison. Even I couldn't figure out what is it, how to name it. It's not Jenna Goudreau's fault to use the words " labor camp", because there is no better words for it .
Here is an excerpt for her book about the life in that dorm.
npr.org books titles 169365841/bend-not-break-a-life-in-two-worlds#excerpt
Enough have been said about this book. I'll stop here and leave the rests for the professionals. This book should go down to the hall of shame in history.
After spending so much time here for pass ten days, I think that we should get something positive and constructive out of this events to make it worth of our time and to learn some lessons.
Last night, I asked Jean Z. to pile up a list of news organizations and reporters that reported the book.
There are about 20 news organizations ran the story, only one reporter showed to have some knowledge about China and questioned her. If only 5% of reporters have some knowledge about China. We can imagine how much an average American has. What does this mean to the US?
Sun Tzu, an ancient Chinese military strategist said: if you know yourself and your enemy, you will never lose. If you know yourself but not your enemy, you will win one and lose one. If you don't know yourself nor your enemy, you will always lose.
Will this book help either Americans or Chinese to know anything about China, Chinese culture, Chinese people or Culture Revolution? Think about it.
China is the second largest economy now. Americans can't afford not to know China anymore. Wake up!!! It's time to get to know the real China now for the future of America!!!
Erica Brindley opened a discussion thread named "Do not bomb this book if you have not read it! I am a professor of Chinese history and philosophy (PhD from Princeton) and I vouch that her story is a true reflection of what happened to some people in China during the Cultural Revolution".
Now I vouch that her story is a 100% false reflection of what happened to any body in China during the Cultural Revolution.
If American people don't eat something made from "dirt, animal dung, pieces of tree trunk, and anything else they could scoop off the ground", then no body in China would eat that.
If officials in the US universities have never forced female students to turn in their sanitary pad or put fingers in to their body to check for blood, then neither it happened in any Chinese universities.
If gang rape has never happened on Pennsylvania Ave in broad daylight to anybody, then it never happened to anybody on any university campus in China.
If sneaking up from behind and suddenly throwing a black bag over a person's head has never been the way that American police arrested anybody. Then it has never been the way of Chinese police. (Actually, I don't think Chinese police had car back in 1982, car was rare at that time).
This list can go on and on.
Reading or hearing those news reports is enough for any Chinese from China or in China to know that book is cooked, there is no need to read the book to know. I wrote my initial review without reading the book. The book is a lot worse than what I heard or read in the media.
During the Cultural Revolution, and even before that, people in China couldn't express their opinion honestly and freely. Those with wrong family background or wrong past experiences(served for the old government) had to be more careful. They could be easily labeled then discredited or criticized, they were second class citizens. So people would only say what Communists Party officials wanted to hear, even those were lies. Everybody have to talk in ways that politically "correct".
Critics of this book being labeled by Professor Erica Brindley and some other people as "Chinese nationalists" or "work for Chinese government", etc. really reminded me of that part of period in China. If we, the Chinese immigrants, who love this country and people, who know both country well, are not allowed to honestly express our opinions about China, only can say what others wants to hear no matter how ridiculous it is, is it really good for this country?
That is probably one of the reason this ridiculous book can be published and be promoted to such extend. Because, in the past, American public only heard what they wanted to hear, heard things that fit their imagination of China. Only those sensational stories can sell. So, there are people like Ping Fu with no integrity are willing to cater to that market with lies or distortions of the facts. People like me, the the silent majority, won't speak up, don't care to speak up and there are also no place for us to speak up. Because many of us are afraid of, or don't like to be label as "Chinese nationalists" or "Communists", because we are not!!!!
Wow, at this moment, Katie Baker and The Daily Beast choose to bet everything on Ping Fu :(.
Did I accidentally stumble onto something big??? Am I making history here? I feel like being dragged into a war---a modern time internet war which I'm not prepared for. The big establishments vs. grass roots, and American vs. American. Yes, this is American part of me that are fighting! What are we fighting for? I don't know what Katie Baker and The Daily Beast want to achieve. But for me, I'm fighting for my values: honesty, integrity, professionalism, ethics, courage, taking responsibility, etc. These are the values that I learned in this country and have become very core of me. These values are the foundation for the freedoms which we enjoy and treasure. Because of these values, I love this country, admire and respect American people, and want to be part of it.
I really didn't expect this when I wrote my very first review. If this will become a part of the history, then let me review it from the very beginning:
After I heard about the book from NPR, I immediately know this is a fabricated autobiography, nothing fits what I know about that time of China. So I googled and read several news report about this book, I also read all those 5 star customer reviews of the book on this website. Based on what I read and heard, my very first review was just about 3 or 4 lines, something like:
As a Chinese, I lived through that period of time in China. I have similar family and educational background as hers and suffered during Culture Revolution as a child. I think her experiences in China mostly, if not all, are fabricated, imagined, overly exaggerated or deliberately miss leading.
What response did I get?
the first one was from Fei & Tony:
"Personally I found very inspiring reading her stories and learned quite a few good lessons from a new immigrant as well as from an entrepreneur perspectives (which has quite a few good biz lessons in it). Also, I was quite able to relate to her experience because my mom kind went through similar suffering during and before the Culture Revolution. I recall how much my mom wanted to come to the US because it's the free land where everyone can realize their dreams if they are hardworking and persistent enough. However, I think everyone reads this book can learn something new and useful out from it, such as business integrity, the art of negotiation, valley for another mountain peak, etc." (I don't have copy of her original one, so I just copy from her review)
She later wrote her own review, then deleted this comment.
The second comment was from kate (I forgot her last name). She told me that I should go back to read Chinese history books to learn something about the Culture Revolution.
I responded to her with something like, "how could an American ask a Chinese who lived through that period of time to learn that part of history from books?"
These are the five deleted comments at the very beginning of this thread (I posted my response to Kate twice).
These two comments made me feel that I have to add more information to back up my initial review. So I added that lengthy social and culture background information. Later that week, I read the book, edited my review a little bit.
Then Chan McDermott commented on my review and on Kate: Hmm. Kate, do you have a mirror?---------
What happened since then are all recorded on this thread. Up till this moment, I did all these by myself. No body tried to contact me except Ping Fu, I contacted no one. I'm nobody, just a stay home mom with two young kids to take care of, one of the silent majorities, the real voiceless one. And I can't last long on this. I have been consumed by this events in past two weeks. My growing teen age son has been complaining that I haven't made any decent food for him.
I am among the two lone critics of this book until 1/29. On that day I didn't know what happened at beginning, why suddenly all these negative reviews started to pour in, and reviewers all seem to be oversea Chinese and Chinese immigrants to me. Later that day, I check the biggest north american Chinese website which I and many Chinese immigrants frequent (www.wenxuecity.com, ). Among it front page headlines, there was Fang Zhou Zi's blog article. No wander.
Katie Baker's article showed exactly what I'm worried about ---- Many people who are in power don't understand China and Chinese people. Katie and professor Brindley showed me that they are not only read people in China wrong, but also read Chinese immigrants wrong.
This is dangerous and bad for America! Because you don't understand us and don't trust us, so you keep making costly mistakes. That's why I have to fight this pathetic liar's book for the interests of America! American shouldn't be fooled by book like this, shouldn't be insulted by it.
Katie, I can assure you, we don't "take offense at the book's airing of China's dirty laundry-namely, of the traumas of the Cultural Revolution-to non-Chinese readers". What offended us is Ping fu's using disgusting lies to represent that part of the painful history, many tragedies happened during that time exactly because there were dishonest people telling lies. We can't let this happen again! And don't tell me American public like to hear lies. This book is an attack on American's basic values. It is also an insult to the intelligence of all human beings!!!
"Emily Parker, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and an expert on Internet and democracy. (Parker cautions that she is unfamiliar with Ping's case and therefore cannot speculate on who might be behind the attacks.)"
I can tell you who is behind the attacks ----Ping Fu herself and her book, especially the ways she covered up her lies angered people and invited more attacks. Now you guys join in, help this site attracting more attentions which can only help the grassroots side. This remind me of 1989's Tian An Men Square tragedy. In my view, it started with a small events, but the leaders didn't understand us students, refused to listen to the voice of people, blamed the "black hand" behind students, responded with all the wrong moves, eventually made small event escalate to the degree that became uncontrollable. There are lessons to be learned from history. Otherwise, there are no meaning to record those tragedies.
"recent hacking attacks on prominent American media outlets seem to have been aimed at publications deemed critical of China's leaders".
Actually, in online Chinese forum, I saw most Chinese immigrants responded positively to the articles published last year by NYtimes that exposed corrupted Chinese leader, I even emailed the article to my relatives in China. And exactly because most of the prominent American media outlets have high standard for their ethics and journalism, those reports are believable. No one can discredited American media outlets except the organization itself. Forbes didn't lose it's credit and reputation among us. To the contrary, Jenna Goudreau won my upmost respect and trust by doing the right thing.
Don't assume those you don't understand all have bad intentions, listen to WNYC radio station's The Leonard Lopate Show, ask Leonard Lopate for his opinion about the book. I'm trying to defend American media outlets here, really don't want to see you guys being dragged down by this dirty book. It will be bad for everyone.
The time is different now. No one can control the flow of information anymore. So, wake up!!!
(to be edited and revised)
Who is in charge of Ping Fu's wikipedia page? This is what I found there today:
"In 2012, Ping published a memoir Bend, Not Break , to positive reviews. Controversy arose from a Forbes article about the book using the term "labor camp". Forbes later issued a correction to the story. Other statements by Fu were subsequently challenged. Fu posted a clarification and admited that some of facts were from her distorted memories.  Articles in The Guardian and The Daily Beast covered it as an organized smear campaign and the publisher (Penguin) stood by the memoir." (wikipedia has made the correction on this since then 2/7)
I didn't see anything said in Guardian feb 4 article close to "covered it as an organized smear campaign". The only place it mentioned "smear campaign" is this sentence:
"Author of book describing her path from cultural revolution to head of US technology firm accuses critics of smear campaign".
(2/10 note:I posted this one one late night of feb 6, battle on her wiki page started on early morning of feb 7)
There is fierce battle going on now at Ping Fu's wikipedia page since 05:18, Feb 7 (click the "View history" button on her page to see it).
Her Professional Biography was dramatically changed at 5:09 this morning. Since her Personal Biography which is full of her proven lies is still there and so hard to be changed. I have to assume that it is somebody from Ping Fu's camp changed her Professional Biography. Does this means she also lied about her professional life in the US?
I'm also curious about how google works.
In the pass several days, every time when I google "ping fu", her Huffington Post blog and the Daily Beast articles always among the tops 3. And other articles that favored her also get to move up.
Telegraph.co.uk's article about the controversy never got the chance to show up, The Guardian's article showed but usually at bottom of the first page, and today it even off the first page while the Daily Beast's article that published on the same day is still among the top three.
hmmm, so strange....(Okay, I found out today (2/10) that google indeed could be manipulated).
Here is a list of reports by Western Journalists and news organizations that Fu's camp don't want people to see:
Chinese cast doubt over executive's rags to riches tale (The Guardian - Feb 4, 2013)
Doubts over Chinese author lauded by Michelle Obama (Telegraph.co.uk - Feb 5, 2013)
(There is a new one came out today (2/10) from Telegraph that they want people to see, different from this one)
Chinese readers annoyed that Ping Fu's memoir is (allegedly) full of lies (Shanghaiist - Feb 4, 2013)
xgz at dailykos.com nailed many of Ping Fu's lies from gang rape to her fantasized childhood life in Shanghai.
It seems to me that Ping Fu hired the wrong person to do the damage control. Our cards are all on the table and face up for every one to see, but they still keep playing the wrong cards which is very costly for her and for those who tried to defend her. I don't want more innocent people to get hurt by this. So coming up, I'll be her free consultant for once, analyze the battle field as I see it, tell her what I want, show who has what at stake, and who is losing and who is winning. Stay tuned.
Battle field analysis (1)
On the surface, there are only three parties are involved in this fighting for the truth: Ping Fu and her team, famous muckraking blogger Fang Zhouzi in China, and us ---- Chinese and Chinese immigrants who gave one star review for this book. But as I see it, there are several other parties could benefit or be hurt by this. The winners and losers so far as I see them are(only for now, and all parties fortune can be changed):
Winner No.1, The Chinese government.
It is very clear to me now that the biggest winner is the Chinese government. They can now mock at the Western free press, discredit the US media, and discredit the past and future critics of China all thanks to Ping Fu, the Daily Beast, Huffington Post and this guy --- en.wikipedia.org wiki Xiao_Qiang (replace space with "/"). Chinese government hasn't moved a finger yet in this events, Ping Fu and her defenders have already gave them so much ammunition for free.
Because no Chinese inside or outside of China would ever believe a word said in the book (the overwhelming 1 star review clearly shows this), this book and the controversy around it could only show people in China how crazy, how ridiculous, how dishonest, how stupid, and how lack of integrity Ping Fu, the few of her defenders and a few China-Bashers are, it won't be able to hurt Chinese government at all. China's image in the West is already bad, this stupid book about the Cultural Revolution happened 40 years ago won't be able to make it worse. This kind of things didn't stop China from fast growing in the past 30+ years, how could it slow China down in the future?
If I were those in charge of propaganda machine in China, I would collect every information about the controversy around this book, use it to educate and brain wash Chinese people what Western free press are all about, discredit the West, and make government's censoring and controlling of accessing to Western media through the Internet all legitimate and justifiable. The West will have no defend on this. THAT'S WHY THIS BOOK AND THE WAY HER LIES BEING DEFENDED WILL ONLY HELP CHINESE GOVERNMENT AND BAD FOR EVERYONE ELSE.
Winner No.2, Fang Zhouzi.
Fang is a famous muckraking blogger in China and among oversea Chinese immigrants community. He started with fighting academic fraud then move on to fight all sorts of fraud in China, has been an independent force for many years. He is also a controversial person, offended many people in the process of exposing dishonesty and misconducts of famous people or organizations in China. There are many people who really hate him. But in this case, almost every Chinese immigrant and Chinese in China is supporting him. He has already scored big, and could score much bigger, all depend on how he plays his hand. I have been watching Fang for years. Although I don't always agree with him, I still consider him as a very smart person, very courageous, good at writing and debating, could be a very formidable opponent for anybody. He has big crowd of followers for his blog, has plenty of good cards in his hand already, and is on a moral high ground. He is a clear winner now. How much more he can win, we'll have to wait and see.
I just saw on his blog now that he started his attack on Katie Baker and The Daily Beast yesterday. It is a very smart move for him. From watching his past battles against many famous and powerful people in China on internet, I hope those who involved in this don't underestimated him. Be prepared!
Loser No.1, The miserable me:(
It is very clear to me now that I probably missed my lifetime chance to get a big windfall of money when I rejected Ping Fu's invitation on Jan 24 to talk to her in private through email. Seeing how much she stands to lose, I probably could ask for a big payment from her then in exchange for shutting up or even joining her camp to serve as a consultant. Now I've wasted so much time on this and not been doing my job as a mother, was labeled as "Chinese nationalist", internet "bully", etc., just to get a little bit entertainment and be amused here, really not worth it. I consider myself to be the No.1 biggest loser here:(
Loser No.2, American people.
They have been lied to. They were not lied with small, forgivable or tolerable lies. American public were lied with bold and outrageous lies that are insults to their intelligence, common sense and values. Their kindness, their compassion for the unfortunate have been ruthlessly abused. Their trusts in people, in basic human decencies and in media are severely violated. Facing mountain of the evidences and continuing to make innocent American public to believe in this liar and to support her will make American people become the laughing stock of the world. Once people know the truth, I believe American public will be VERY VERY VERY ANGRY, JUST LIKE US!!!!
Loser No.3, The US government.
This big liar used fabricated documents and stories to win her 2012 Outstanding American by Choice from the US federal government agency----United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. She probably also cheated her way up to become a member of President Obama's National Advisory Council.
(to be continued)
Telegraph.co.uk today's report about Ping Fu's "Wikipedia page entry has been hacked" is very wrong.
My 2/6 and 2/8 (1) entry here recorded how it started and what happened. Her wiki page entry on this controversy is still misleading. H.Chen posted on 2/8 on comment section saying that wiki wouldn't allow people to edit her page anymore, so now only her people can edit her page which is not way wiki suppose to be. Other part of her wiki page is still full of lies in my opinion, but I only care about how this controversy is written for now and will not let she lie or distort about us so easily.
At this moment (7:00pm PST), H. Chen still can't edit Ping Fu's wiki page. He is not allowed to edit it until Feb 22nd, and the "under dispute sign" is gone.
Battle field analysis (2) (continued from 2/9)
Winner No.3, Ping Fu.
After Jan 31 Forbe's article on her was published, her credibility should be in question. After her Feb 1 clarification on Huffington post, it should be clear to everybody with reasonable sense that she lied in many times in her book and her interviews with the media. Yet she is still defended by Daily Beast and some other media organizations. On the other hand, we the Chinese immigrants who lived through that part of the history and raised questions about her were labeled as internet "bully", "Chinese nationalist", ..., "paid bloggers who virulently defend China's reputation against anything close to criticism of the country, past or present" (Motley Fool Feb 7), we were accuse of engaged in a smear campaign against her.
So, at this moment, I have to say she is clearly a big winner. And as long as she is the winner, American public and the US government can't be on the winner side as her, because her lies are attacks on American people and the government.
Loser No.4, The news organizations and people who defended her publicly and smeared us after Feb 1.
It should be clear to everyone by Feb 1 that Ping Fu lied, not small lies but big, intentional and audacious lies. Instead of questioning her, they tried to explain away her lies, defended her and smeared us.
This is a very big and costly mistake. What they didn't expect is, by doing so, they cornered the US government. The evidences were so indefensible against her not only on her lies in her book, but also on her violation of the laws and conning the US government agency USCIS: she used falsified financial documents to get F-1 student visa to enter the US, quite possible fabricated her storied to get her green card and her 2012 Outstanding American by Choice award from USCIS. Furthermore, this fraudulent con artist is sitting on President Obama's National Advisory Council.
What the President and USCIS should do about her now? Letting her stay on the council and keeping the award? But this will damage the government image and what they represents for. Or expel her from the National Advisory Council，strip away her award and punish her? If she is expelled and punished, then it would look like we, the "Chinese nationalists", "paid bloggers", etc, are right all along and we defended the US national interests, we should be labeled as "American nationalists" instead of "Chinese nationalists" (many of us are the US citizen after all). Isn't this ridiculous?
Some body in that camp probably has to take the responsibility for this mess.
Loser No.5, Those in China who genuinely believe in Western democracy and free press. This could be a blow to the democracy movement in China as many people have pointed out already. The Western media disappointed them this time. This kind of free press is not what they want. Probably will be difficult for them to criticize Chinese government's controlling over the press and internet in the future. On the other hand, those who don't want China to reform the political system would have good excuses for not doing so now. Chinese government can write this case into textbook to discredit the Western media.
The potential winners or losers here:
The news organization, journalists and American people who haven't spoken yet. They have the power to turned the tide, to make things right and to make American public and the government to be the winner.
I don't know much about who is who in the media, and was very angry for what Harold Evans wrote at the Daily Beast this morning. Now I know who Harold Evans is, even though I disagree with what he wrote at all, I still have to show my respect for his lifetime accomplishment and contribution in his career as a journalist. So I revised what I wrote this morning.
Hmm, Sir Harold Evans wrote an article at Daily Beast attacking me and other reviewers directly. In my opinion, disputing the mountain of evidences that we presented here against her is a better way to defend Ping Fu and to discredit us. What presented by Sir Harold Evans in his article isn't the whole story. And whatever we said are on here for people to see and to judge, we hide nothing. I didn't contact anybody in private, except Ping Fu left her email here on Jan 24 and wanted me to talk to her in private, which I refused. The evidence is here too. I have never joint any private discussion group anywhere, also have no control over other people's comments here.
(my apologies to Sir Harold Evans for the previous writing on this)
(I'm very angry now with this woman and what her camp has been doing. So if my tune sounds emotional, please forgive me)
Ping Fu, which one of your gang-rape story is true? The one in your book or the one you gave on your numerous recent book promotion interviews? How could you be so bold to tell two totally different versions of the story? How could you dare to insult American people with this kind of lies? Are you taking advantage of American people's kindness and decency or are you looking down on American people's intelligence?
(I explained in detail why her gang rape story is a lie in my initial review on Jan 22, in my reply to J. Taylor on Jan 27(page 2) and to VOICE on Jan 29 (page 3). XYZ also wrote an article explaining why gang rape couldn't happen to her (dailykos.com news Ping%20Fu (replace space with "/")). They follow my thread from very beginning, they know everything that we said here, but they still dare to repeat this lie and other lies, and smeared us in the article published in telegraph.co.uk on Feb 10, which made me very angry)
It seems to me that Ping Fu hired the wrong person to do the damage control. Our cards are all on the table and face up for every one to see since the very beginning, but they still keep playing the wrong cards which is very costly for her and for those who tried to defend her. I don't want more innocent people to get hurt by this. I'll serve as her consultant for free here, analyze the battle field as I see it, tell her what I want, show her and others who has what at stake, and who is losing and who is winning. So that people on Fu's side or anyone who wants to join her camp can have better understanding of the situation, know what they have done and what they are doing, what's the consequences of their conducts and not to make so many unintended mistakes again !!!
I think this battle for the truth is pretty much over by now. And thanks to Amazon's review by John that I can dig out an amazingly similar story to this one. The saga of the Holocaust Hoax book Misha: A Memoire of the Holocaust Years which was published in 1997. In that book, there was also no witness, so the author could say whatever she wanted, their defenses for the lies are very similar to this SAGA, except they didn't use the dirty blows to smear the critics (well, they were not as powerful though).
Will history repeat itself again(at least, the first half of the history has been repeated)? Will Meimei fox, Ping Fu, the publisher and the Daily Beast suit each other for the fall out of the book? Too bad that there is not much profit from this book yet and will never be:) Let's wait and see:) This is from a news report of Huffington Post in 2008, a must read, very interesting. How ionic it is for the Huffington Post:) huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080229/holocaust-book-hoax
Lets see if the final chapter of the fall out of this book will also follow the same script.:)
"Defonseca had been asked to write the book by publisher Jane Daniel in the 1990s, after Daniel heard the writer tell the story in a Massachusetts synagogue.
Daniel and Defonseca fell out over profits received from the best-selling book, which led to a lawsuit. In 2005, a Boston court ordered Daniel to pay Defonseca and her ghost writer Vera Lee $22.5 million. Defonseca's lawyers said Daniel has not yet paid the court-ordered sum." and more.
I think it should be a new chapter for this saga now:)
Today, after I reported on this review about the amazingly similar Holocaust hoax book Misha saga which was reported in huffingtonpost 5 years ago, someone (named M. Merwin) seems from Fu's supporter camp came to the comment section of my review(page 52). This person used the same low blow tricks as Sir Evans and many others in their camp had used on us, and tried to give me an English lesson on the word "OVERKILL". (this is also a stupid move of them too).
I will DO the OVERKILL this time. I wanted to quit and not to overkill many times before. I also warned them many times not to continue to make those stupid and costly mistakes for the good of them and this country. But they wouldn't listen and wouldn't let me to quit. Now after they have exhausted all their means and suddenly want me to quit? No way!
The fun time has just started for me, my cards haven't been played much yet, how could they expect me not to fully enjoy it? Also, that "OVERKILL" lesson won't work here. It is the lesson for those in power like them, not for the powerless us!! I have been the weak and voiceless one here as many other reviewers, was forced to take this one person's journey against rich and powerful establishments with the help of many other Amazon reviewers. I'll only consider to STOP the "killing" after they stop their low and dirty wrong doings. Don't anger and excite us anymore.
My wisdom lesson for them is:
Lesson1. It is time for everyone involved to think about how to cover for yourself(Misha saga could be the reference). It's going to be bloody.
Lesson2. Stop using those dirty tricks on us. As it has been proved, it won't work on us, will only cause backfires and further corner the US government as I've already pointed out in my Battle field analysis(2).
Battle field analysis (3)
In my 2/3 entry, I taught them an ancient Chinese wisdom that you have to know both yourselves and your enemies to be able to win the war. They wouldn't listen, they published that piece of article by Katie Baker on The Daily Beast on 2/4 defending Ping Fu's lies and smearing at us. A BIG mistake! In my response to Katie Baker's article, I told them how wrong they were about us and this is neither good for them nor for the country. They still wouldn't listen, continued to make mistakes at the costs of other (might be innocent) people's careers and reputations. That why I started this Battle field analysis to let them and others to see what I see. So, now in this part 3, I'll help them to know their enemy --- I.
Who am I, what is my past history, what are my goals here and when will I stop.
I've already talked a little bit about myself in my Feb 4 entry. I planed to tell more. But due to the new development in last two days, I figure it is not necessary anymore:). I promise I'll do this later. But don't expect me to reveal my real identity. No way! Seeing what these people have done and how low they can go without any principle or integrity in past two weeks, I have no confidence that I'll be safe if I do that. And I have two young kids need to be protected.
They have money, power, connections and all the resources, I have nothing.
But I can tell them what my goals are and when I will I stop. There are two goals that I(we) want to achieve:
1, We will nail this book as what it is --- a total fabrication, from cover to cover. EVERYTHING in the book about her experience in China are lies or distortion of the facts, they are also NOT reflecting what happened during that period of time. Let's no question about this. As long as we see any news report repeating or defending her lies, I (we) will speak up.
2, I will make those dirty tricks played on us to be useless now and for ever. As long as we are smeared by those dirty plays, we will fight back. I (We) will make sure that anyone, especially Chinese immigrants, can speak up without fear of being labeled in the future . Labeling people is wrong. This was what happened during McCarthy era in America, it was also happened a lot during the Cultural Revolution. My mother was persecuted because of that. I won't let this happen to me or any one else again. I don't want my son and daughter who were born and grow up in this country can't speak up the truth about China just because their parents are Chinese immigrants. I'll try my best to set a good example here, so that if anybody is labeled in future, they can use what we did here to defend himself. Let's be clear about that. Anyone wants to discredit us, has to show reasonable evidences like what we are doing here. So, think about what the ethics and integrity a journalist suppose to have, play by the book!
Let's review some AMERICAN HISTORY in case that some people have forgot or never learned about it:
"During the McCarthy era, thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and/or destruction of their careers; some even suffered imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned, laws that would be declared unconstitutional, dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute." (from wiki)
Here are some memorable moments and interesting events that happened during past few days :)
1, I feel very honored to be named and to be directly attacked by Sir Harold Evans in his Feb 11 article in the Daily Beast. So I have to record this events in detail. :))
On the night of Feb 10, 6:12:44 PM PST (9:12:44 PM EST), I posted my raw draft of Battle field analysis(2) in the comments section, hoped they would see it and stop making stupid mistakes. I told them that they will be the losers, because they cornered the US government by smearing at us. I also pointed out that other mainstream media and reporters have to power turn the tide around to make American public and the government to be the winner.
I think this is a big blow to them, made them realize that no one will come out to help them anymore and there are chances that other media outlet will speak up against them. That's probably why they rush out that article in the early morning at 4:45 AM EST next day using sir Harold Evans' name, in hope that the name could scare us and to deter other people in the field to speak up (I'm pretty sure they are monitoring my comment section 24/7). Did I guess right, Sir Evans or whoever in charge? :)
In his article, Sir Evans said: "Lin was still leading the reviews on February 9. How was this achieved when other genuine reviews of merit had appeared and the legend was unchanged that 1,301 of 1,379". Sir Evans made mistake on the date. I was leading the reviews on Feb 10 and Feb 11 too, whichever the date he wrote that article. And that 1,301 of 1,379 number ratio was still about the same in the morning of Feb 11 when I first read the article. Sir Evans said that I'm industrious. Yes, I am. But to my surprise, Sir Evans is even more industrious. At age 84, he worked at late night and into early morning to write that article to attack us. What a diligent and hard working man! And what a hurry, 4:45 am!!!. :))
After I wrote my initial angry and rude response to his article in my Feb 11 entry, somebody addressing him as "Sir" caught my attention. I googled his name and found out that he is a very accomplished journalist and writer. He was knighted by the British Crown for services to journalism in 2004. "In 2000 he was named one of International Press Institute's 50 World Press Freedom Heroes of the past fifty years" (wiki). No matter what, I have to show my respect to an old man with such achievement, so I immediately changed my Feb 11 entry and apologized to him. At same time, I knew that game is over for them. This is their last straw, too costly and useless.:)
I feel so sorry for Sir Evans. At this age, man with his accomplishment should care about his legacy more than anything else. I can't be sure that he knew what's going on and wrote that article on his own free will. But on Feb 5, he tweeted :"Rally to Ping Fu! This amazing woman targeted by Chinese saboteurs for her memoir. `Bend, Not Break'". I really don't know what to think about this, just feel sad sad sad for him:(
2, Started around 2/6, I had a feeling that somehow goolge was manipulated. So in my 2/8 entry, I asked if google search engine can be manipulated and listed Telegraph Feb 5 article as one of the news report that Fu's camp don't want people to see. Then on Feb 10, 3:00am EST, Philip Sherwell's article showed up at Telegraph's website. He repeated many of Ping Fu's lies (including gang rape lie) and smeared at us. I have been wondering if these two things are related.
I really feel sorry for Mr Sherwell. Did he do some homework and read what we presented here at all? Why couldn't he wait for me to finished my Battle field analysis? I already put first part here on Feb 9. If he waited one more day, I doubt that he would do that.
Here is the information about Philip Sherwell from Telegraph's website:
Philip is based in New York and reports on the Americas for The Sunday Telegraph in his role as US Editor. He is a former Chief Foreign Correspondent who covered the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo and was previously based in Bangkok and Berlin for the Telegraph titles.
3, On Feb 10, Philip Sherwell's article was immediately on the very top of google search for "Ping Fu" (and was able to stay at top for several days). While the previous Telegraph report has never even got much chance to show up in the first page since it came out. Most of time it was hid under News for Ping Fu button so that people have to click that. This was really suspicious to me. So I googled and found an article about how to manipulate google. I posted the link to that article (quantumseolabs.com/blog/seolinkbuilding/3-ways-you-can-manipulate-google/)
Next day on Feb 11, every negative news report about Ping Fu was blocked on google search result. Only those that smeared at us and defended her lies, or the old reports before 1/29, showed up on first page. Even under the News for ping fu button, I couldn't find The Guardian or the previous Telegraph reports. Several of us posted what we got from searching Ping Fu on the night of Feb 11.
My question is: did they learned something from the article that I posted here?:)
On Feb 13, The Guardian's new article came out, it also immediately on top of the search (I guess this is probably because that The Guardian is a big news organization and the report is fresh, it can't be totally blocked).
4, On Feb 9, there was a person named "chen" claimed to be a "Chinese law school student, who is still Chinese", gave a 5 star review to the book, and commented on my review about the "rape" part. His review only shows to all of us that he is not a Chinese nor a Chinese law school student. This tells us how stupid and how low some people are. I hope next time if somebody wants to do things like this, better to do some homework about China first. Oops, there probably aren't that many books or articles out there to tell you what the real China is. Things about China probably have to be politically "correct" like this one to be able to be reported or published:(
I copied his review and my answer to him to comments section on page 41. His review is here : amazon.com/review/RFZJDDJ08NMK8/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1591845521&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=#wasThisHelpful
5. Amazon Best Sellers Rank for this book's ( suppose to be in Product Details section followed Editorial Reviews) has disappeared today. This rank has swung wildly in last several days, often started at #2700 area in the early morning, climbed up quickly to #2000 range, by late night it could be as high as around #1600, then drop back to #2700 next morning. Its Kindle Edition's rank is #7,112 now:)
(I can't help to jump in on this. It is so fun now to act like Sherlock Holmes to piece together everything and to predict what's going to happen next. I missed my chance to ask for money from Ping Fu, I won't miss this fun. The entertainment is my payment for past three weeks hard work:) This may hurt some people, but also may help many. I'm not an expert on stock market. People have to decide for themselves)
Next interesting thing to watch: How will 3D system stock price to perform?
I haven't been able to understand why Ping Fu, with her wealth, position and status has to make so many blatant lies and so bold to publicize them. It is even harder for me to understand why those people, when facing mountain of evidence that we presented here and elsewhere, still defended her at all costs, broke all the rules.
Here are some interesting things that are worth to notice.
1. 3D system's stock performance in past 5 days.
2. On Feb 14
2:53:21 PM PST, Ne Zha posted a link to the article just published from Citron Research (citronresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/DDD-final.pdf), citing from the article that "It is obvious that Obama has been listening to Ping Fu, a representative for 3D Systems (CEO of a tiny software company acquisition target) as she has become a press darling and a mascot for the whole 3D printing industry. We are not going to use this column to disparage Ping Fu, but she is not shy of promoting herself or her industry beyond boundaries of realism: thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/11/the-persecution-of-ping-fu.html"" He also said that "FYI Citron Research is a famous stock shorting website and has been famous for indentifying companies that later became targets of regulatory interventions."
Wow, Citron Research jumped in on this a day after The Guardianan's article and helps to publicized the daily beast article, which will lead people to us!!!:)
8:21pm EST, Noel Randewich of Reuters reported that "Shares of companies that sell 3D printers fell on Thursday after Citron Research said they were vastly overvalued and that the technology, highlighted this week by U.S. President Barack Obama, has been hyped." He also said that "Citron Research focuses on stocks it believes have been fraudulently and intentionally overvalued. It said 3D Systems has made no significant advances in 3D printing technology in the past five years and that it has recently rehashed consumer products with little change." (finance.yahoo.com/news/influential-short-seller-warns-bubble-012113494.html)
Wow, Reuters!!! This thing will blow wide open, can't be covered anymore:)
3, Trail of events happened this week:
Feb 11, Harold Evan's article in the Daily Beast (their last straw)
Feb 12, No negative news, 3D system stock tanked more than 6% on big volume. In the morning, I told them game over for them. During his State of the Union address at night, President Obama shone a bright light on the 3D printing industry. And Ping Fu is a member of President Obama's National Advisory Council.
Feb 13, The Guardian's report came out, nailed more lies in Ping Fu's book. 3D system stock rallied 4% due to President's speech of previous night.
Feb 14, Citron Research article came out, 3D system stock fell 4%
Feb 15, 3D system stock continued slide.
After seeing the analysis of 3D system by Citron Research's article, we have to ask, did Ping Fu mislead the President too? The hype of the book and the stock,, the cover up of the lies in the book and the attacks on us, blocking the search result of google, etc., are all these related?
This initial 4 line book review on Jan 22 has unexpectedly turned into a real life soap opera. Everything has happened since Jan 22 is recorded here. The length of my review has exceeded Amazon's limitation, so the earlier part has been truncated. Two reviewers who support me, Jean and Posthuman, have put the truncated document in this webpage: goo.gl/EdVBp. Anyone who is not familiar with the case may start from there (just copy and paste goo.gl/EdVBp into the address bar of your web browser).
This is suppose to be a serious book review. But the critics of the book was attacked by medias supporting PingFu as "Chinese nationalist", "shills" of the Chinese government, "paid bloggers", internet "bullies", etc. without a thread of evidence. I was force to defend myself and fellow critics of the book. Along the way, I think we stumbled onto something bigger. We have to dig deeper and look into the reasons that made those people who defend Ping Fu's lies at all costs.
The author of this book, is still sitting on President Obama's National Advisory Council as reported by Sir Harold Evans in a THE DAILY BEAST article published on Feb 11. She is also keeping the award from US government agency USCIS. And we are questioning the truthfulness and authenticity of her documents used to apply for that prestigious award.