致伯明翰大学陶圆清（Yuanqing Tao）公开信
2011-8-25 05:36
阅读：6606
标签：方舟子, tao, 诽谤, 陶圆清, Yuanqing
寻正
我不断试图教育与沟通一位自称是中立者的方舟子粉丝，要有公正观念，从事件中学习。然而，每一次他都恶言相加，出言不逊。方舟子本人就是这样，你给他讲理的时候，他耍赖，你让他一尺，他绝对进一丈，而我自从开始爆光他的破事以后，他就变得规规矩矩的了，不时派粉丝来我面前变相地求情，要我把他当屁一样地放了，把时间花在做“伟大”的事情上。这个陶圆清看来也是如此，你跟他客气，他觉得这个世界围着他转。不懂规矩，本人就让现实教训你学会规矩。骂了人还不想听对方的辩解与说明，哪有那么便宜的事？
陶圆清在Root-Bernstein对方舟子发出公开信以后，向Root-Bernstein发出了一封对亦明及诸位批评方舟子的人极尽诽谤造谣攻击之能事的电邮，这封电邮随后被刘实爆光。鉴于陶是方舟子的支持者，对在Root-Bernstein发起的讨论方舟子剽窃事件的论坛中方的批评者有诸多攻击，我将他的电邮包括论坛群发邮件中，并对他的诽谤与谣言进行批驳。陶圆清要求我们把他从邮件中删除，我拒绝了他的要求，因为他的诽谤与谣言让他也成为争议一方，无法回避。我试图从各种角度分析其要求的不当，但他每次皆以恶言相加。在公共场合缺乏教养我没有进一步的教养义务，如果不依理，那么我们就只能寻求法制渠道了。
我正式向陶圆清发信要求他就他的诽谤与谣言道歉，否则将向伯明翰大学追究其诽谤责任。显然，这就是为什么方舟子粉丝都喜欢躲在黑暗中的原因，真名实性地做事，就有这种忌讳！
下面是我向陶圆清发出的公开信：
Dear Yuanqing Tao,（亲爱的陶圆清）
You have demonstrated the same level of defiance toward your own bad behaviors as Dr. Fang did. You insulted people and wanted to walk away. I am generally lenient toward students. That is why I tried to educate you what is appropriate and what is not. In return you insulted me more. You gave me no choice but to elevate the issue. Now you listen carefully. Dr. Fang can play his game his way because he has a network of relationships that protects him in China. But you are within a civil society that has rules and regulations.
（你象方博士一样表现出了对自己坏行为的挑衅态度。你侮辱了别人就想马上跑开。我对学生向来宽让，这是为什么我试图教育你什么是适当什么是不适当的行为。你的回报是变本加利地侮辱我。我不得不在处理这件事情上加码。现在你听清楚了。方博士可以自定规则是因为他在中国有一个保护他的关系网，但你生活在一个有规矩与规范的文明社会中。）
Herein I demand you, within two days, by the date of Aug 26, 2011 London time, to apologize openly to Dr. Ge and the rest of us for your slandering activity.
（在这里我正式要求你，在两天之内，于2011年8月26日伦敦时间之前，公开向葛博士及我们为你的诽谤行为道歉。）
Your insulting and slandering letters were sent through your university email system. You have used resources from your university to launch your attack on us, which essentially puts your university in risk for being liable for your actions. We could launch a legal action against you and your university, but we will not because of the cost. However, we can report you and your activity to your university and demand them to take away your email privileges. This will also tarnish your reputation there and help us tremendously by gaining wider audience of Dr. Fang’s case. We are not ready to do this yet simply for your “protection”. You choose carefully.
（你的侮辱与诽谤信件是从你的大学电邮系统发出来的。你使用了大学资源来攻击我们，这使你的大学承担了你行为责任的风险。我们可以起诉你及你的大学，但基于成本原因我们不会那么做。但是，我们可以向你的大学报告你的行为，要求他们取消你的电邮资格。这会影响到你的名誉，也大大有利于我们传播方舟子案例真相。我们现在还不愿意这么做，就是要“保护”你。请你三思而后行。）
Dr. Fang’s longtime supporters always hide their true identity and use proxies to hide their trails. They show no respect to civil rules. That is exactly why I always demand them to reveal their true identity and credentials. You can hide behind proxies, but at least it cost you credibility. Mr. Tao here has to learn his lesson.
（方博士的长期支持者总是隐藏他们的身份，使用代理服务器藏匿行踪。他们拒绝遵守文明规则。这就是我为什么总是要求他们出示自己资历与身份的原因。你可以躲在代理服务器后面，但起码这会损及你的信誉。陶先生显然还需要得到这个教训。）
Sincerely,（诚挚地）
Junlin Liao, Ph.D.（廖俊林博士）
附上此前我针对陶圆清的教育材料。
0） 陶圆清此前的诽谤与造谣信见先前的博文《方舟子的粉丝总是帮倒忙》
1） 陶要求不列出名单：
Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 8:15 AM
Delete my email address from your list. I quit.
2） 我的礼貌回复：
Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 4:43 PM
Dear Yuanqing Tao,
In your most recent email, you requested to have your name removed from the discussion list. As much as I want to grant you your wishes, I cannot. You have sent Dr. Root-Bernstein emails with the most outrageous lies and most insulting slandering words. You are in the same situation as Dr. Fang. By plagiarizing Dr. Root-Bernstein's article, Dr. Fang cannot simply excuse himself from this forum. Similarly, by insulting and slandering many members of this forum, you are a relevant part in the discussion and you cannot be excused either.
Your emails were slanderous in nature and Dr. Root-Bernstein did not want to address it. But I can certainly enlighten you on your key questions and some key points.
1) Fifteen years are not long. In the circle discussing plagiarism, we can dig out cases well over one hundred years. Dr. Fang himself had discussed cases in previous decades.
2) You may be truly naive or may be not. People in this forum do learn that Dr. Fang's plagiarism against Dr. Root-Bernstein is not an isolated case at all. Dr. Fang has been accused of plagiarism so many times that he has probably surpassed any of the suspects he has personally accused of plagiarism. For your record, I had accused Dr. Fang of stealing interest of New Threads from his partners, for which Dr. Fang has never been able to offer a rebuttal of any kind. By the way, my accusation was made solely based on Dr. Fang's account of the series of events, therefore, very unlikely to be biased. There is so much negative material you'll soon realize that it is definitely more than you bargain for. Of course, it depends on your capacity for facts or opinions.
3) You had slandered about those people who raised this issue to Dr. Root-Bernstein. You insulted Dr. Root-Bernstein by suggesting that he and Dr. Fang were "the same kind of persons". Let me confront you with the facts. Dr. Root-Bernstein has never plagiarized and those who informed Dr. Root-Bernstein have mostly (apparently I cannot vouch for everyone) not plagiarized. You also need to know, Dr. Root-Bernstein has been informed by us as much as by Dr. Fang and his supporters like you. We (including Dr. Root-Bernstein) are NOT like Dr. Fang. We do not plagiarize, we do not use double standards to excuse our own bad behaviors, and we do not have lying and slanderous supporters who would bend U.S. constitution or use insulting languages without evidence-supported arguments.
4) I am really amused by your comments "To say the least, even if Dr.Fang was willing to say sorry to you for that unintentional article, he wouldn't decide to do this freely, and if I was him, I would not as well. Could you please understand, that's right the purpose what the trap is designed for." Can you make your position understandable there? You are downplaying the severity of Dr. Fang's plagiarism--almost suggesting "unintentional" or "random" plagiarism. Interesting concept, but no, all writing is a conscientious process. Therefore, plagiarism is intentional. Your poor English is excusable, but you apparently need to do more work before you jump all over the place attacking Dr. Root-Bernstein's points. For example, in the same paragraph, by blog, Dr. Root-Bernstein meant interactive online publishing, not exactly a blog post on Dr. Fang's personal blogs maintained by "blogging" services. Blogging had existed before Jorn Barger coined the term "weblog" in 1997. You see, Dr. Root-Bernstein had made himself perfectly clear and you misunderstood the meaning of words and made a fuss about it.
You repeatedly demanded Dr. Root-Bernstein to support, the exact word "protect", Dr. Fang. Yet you have not clearly stated how he could do so. Do you mean Dr. Root-Bernstein should lie to the public that Dr. Fang had not plagiarized against his article? How can this offer any protection to Dr. Fang? Even if Dr. Root-Bernstein wants to, he cannot change the fact. He had indeed offered protection to Dr. Fang by demanding a simple apology and get over with this issue. It is Dr. Fang, with the help of your likes of course, that trashed this protection and made himself a big joke as a "fraud-buster".
Let me further expose your hypocrisy. You claim Dr. Fang as "GREAT" because he had busted frauds. Most of the frauds he had busted were plagiarisms. We are busting numerous frauds as well. Why aren't we "GREAT" the same? To our GREATNESS, you heaped insults and slander. What kind of person are you? You claim that you do not know Dr. Fang. Please think twice about this. It definitely makes you a better person if you do have connections to Dr. Fang and defend him like this. Will you be able to understand my logic here?
Sincerely,
Junlin Liao, Ph.D.
P.S. Dr. Fang had once accused me of plagiarism. But that was only to excuse of himself out of charges I made against him. He had not offered any evidence at all such as the essays and specific sections of words. Other than slanderous insulting languages, Dr. Fang and his supporters have accused me of nothing. Dr. Ge and many others in this forum are in similar situation as far as I know. We are insulted simply because we tried to bust Dr. Fang's frauds.
3）陶的再次要求：
Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:44 PM
I respected Dr. Root-Bernstein enough all the time until he opened our private correspondence to you. It doesn't make sense to do any discussions now because I was never expecting any answers from you.
Listen. I quit. All the names below have nothing to do with me from now on. It's my freedom and right to decide whether to stay on your sending list. Now I am regarding you as doctors, but If you still retain my email address in the list next time, I will only feel you are spammers who like producing harassment.
4）我的再次耐心解释，阐述其行为的公开性质并寻求对方的公正心态：
Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:20 PM
主题：Please play by rules
Dear Yuanqing Tao,
I'm sorry that I have to keep you on this list. I have stated reasons before. Since you are probably a student at the University of Birmingham, you may also benefit from learning how we deal with things and what pitfalls to avoid in your future career.
Dr. Root-Bernstein wrote an open letter. You have no relationship to Dr. Root-Bernstein and he had not solicited your comments and promised you to keep your comments private. Any unsolicited responses to open letters are public in nature! Additionally, even if the comments are solicited, unless with a promise of privacy, they are also public. If you are truly a fan of Dr. Fang, you should have noticed that the GREAT Fang of yours had regularly exposed the "private" defending responses.
Let's put it in another way. Why are you afraid of participating in public discussions? If you are truly as righteous as your words indicating, why do you need to slander us behind our backs? Don't defending a GREAT man give you confidence to speak in public? Don't you claim that you have a almost holy mission, academic integrity of China, right? Does the mission match your behaviors?
Your fellow 'protectors" have been twisting "fair use" principle in vain to defend GREAT Fang. Have you heard of "fair dealing"? Is it fair for you to vent all your insults and slander to Dr. Root-Bernstein and us and then cover your ears to our rebuttal? Don't you remember that you had made specific demands of Dr. Root-Bernstein to read your letters carefully and thoroughly? You broke the law by slandering and insulting us and you do not want to hear what we have to say? Do you have even the concept of justice and fairness? You are just like GREAT Fang, obeying nobody's but your own rules.
If your regards or respect means anything to me, it would be an insult (typo corrected). You can do whatever you like, I will always keep you on the list.
Sincerely,
Junlin Liao, Ph.D.
5) 陶的再次强求：
Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:14 AM
Dear Yiming and Junlin,
Again. I respected Dr. Root-Bernstein enough all the time until he opened our private correspondence to you. It doesn't make sense to do any discussions now because I was never expecting any answers from you.
Listen. I quit. All the names below have nothing to do with me from now on. It's my freedom and right to decide whether to stay on your sending list unless you are real hooligans. Now I am still regarding you as doctors, but If you retain my email address in the list next time, you are only spammers who like producing harassment.
The same automatic reply as above against harassment has already been set ready for your next email. It's you two idle doctors love penfriend games which are actually resolving nothing, rather than I. If you really love penfriends, ok, go to this website and contribute sales. http://www.jiayuan.com/.
All my advice is done. Shut up, please.
6）引发我的公开信。
我不断试图教育与沟通一位自称是中立者的方舟子粉丝，要有公正观念，从事件中学习。然而，每一次他都恶言相加，出言不逊。方舟子本人就是这样，你给他讲理的时候，他耍赖，你让他一尺，他绝对进一丈，而我自从开始爆光他的破事以后，他就变得规规矩矩的了，不时派粉丝来我面前变相地求情，要我把他当屁一样地放了，把时间花在做“伟大”的事情上。这个陶圆清看来也是如此，你跟他客气，他觉得这个世界围着他转。不懂规矩，本人就让现实教训你学会规矩。骂了人还不想听对方的辩解与说明，哪有那么便宜的事？
陶圆清在Root-Bernstein对方舟子发出公开信以后，向Root-Bernstein发出了一封对亦明及诸位批评方舟子的人极尽诽谤造谣攻击之能事的电邮，这封电邮随后被刘实爆光。鉴于陶是方舟子的支持者，对在Root-Bernstein发起的讨论方舟子剽窃事件的论坛中方的批评者有诸多攻击，我将他的电邮包括论坛群发邮件中，并对他的诽谤与谣言进行批驳。陶圆清要求我们把他从邮件中删除，我拒绝了他的要求，因为他的诽谤与谣言让他也成为争议一方，无法回避。我试图从各种角度分析其要求的不当，但他每次皆以恶言相加。在公共场合缺乏教养我没有进一步的教养义务，如果不依理，那么我们就只能寻求法制渠道了。
我正式向陶圆清发信要求他就他的诽谤与谣言道歉，否则将向伯明翰大学追究其诽谤责任。显然，这就是为什么方舟子粉丝都喜欢躲在黑暗中的原因，真名实性地做事，就有这种忌讳！
下面是我向陶圆清发出的公开信：
Dear Yuanqing Tao,（亲爱的陶圆清）
You have demonstrated the same level of defiance toward your own bad behaviors as Dr. Fang did. You insulted people and wanted to walk away. I am generally lenient toward students. That is why I tried to educate you what is appropriate and what is not. In return you insulted me more. You gave me no choice but to elevate the issue. Now you listen carefully. Dr. Fang can play his game his way because he has a network of relationships that protects him in China. But you are within a civil society that has rules and regulations.
（你象方博士一样表现出了对自己坏行为的挑衅态度。你侮辱了别人就想马上跑开。我对学生向来宽让，这是为什么我试图教育你什么是适当什么是不适当的行为。你的回报是变本加利地侮辱我。我不得不在处理这件事情上加码。现在你听清楚了。方博士可以自定规则是因为他在中国有一个保护他的关系网，但你生活在一个有规矩与规范的文明社会中。）
Herein I demand you, within two days, by the date of Aug 26, 2011 London time, to apologize openly to Dr. Ge and the rest of us for your slandering activity.
（在这里我正式要求你，在两天之内，于2011年8月26日伦敦时间之前，公开向葛博士及我们为你的诽谤行为道歉。）
Your insulting and slandering letters were sent through your university email system. You have used resources from your university to launch your attack on us, which essentially puts your university in risk for being liable for your actions. We could launch a legal action against you and your university, but we will not because of the cost. However, we can report you and your activity to your university and demand them to take away your email privileges. This will also tarnish your reputation there and help us tremendously by gaining wider audience of Dr. Fang’s case. We are not ready to do this yet simply for your “protection”. You choose carefully.
（你的侮辱与诽谤信件是从你的大学电邮系统发出来的。你使用了大学资源来攻击我们，这使你的大学承担了你行为责任的风险。我们可以起诉你及你的大学，但基于成本原因我们不会那么做。但是，我们可以向你的大学报告你的行为，要求他们取消你的电邮资格。这会影响到你的名誉，也大大有利于我们传播方舟子案例真相。我们现在还不愿意这么做，就是要“保护”你。请你三思而后行。）
Dr. Fang’s longtime supporters always hide their true identity and use proxies to hide their trails. They show no respect to civil rules. That is exactly why I always demand them to reveal their true identity and credentials. You can hide behind proxies, but at least it cost you credibility. Mr. Tao here has to learn his lesson.
（方博士的长期支持者总是隐藏他们的身份，使用代理服务器藏匿行踪。他们拒绝遵守文明规则。这就是我为什么总是要求他们出示自己资历与身份的原因。你可以躲在代理服务器后面，但起码这会损及你的信誉。陶先生显然还需要得到这个教训。）
Sincerely,（诚挚地）
Junlin Liao, Ph.D.（廖俊林博士）
附上此前我针对陶圆清的教育材料。
0） 陶圆清此前的诽谤与造谣信见先前的博文《方舟子的粉丝总是帮倒忙》
1） 陶要求不列出名单：
Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 8:15 AM
Delete my email address from your list. I quit.
2） 我的礼貌回复：
Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 4:43 PM
Dear Yuanqing Tao,
In your most recent email, you requested to have your name removed from the discussion list. As much as I want to grant you your wishes, I cannot. You have sent Dr. Root-Bernstein emails with the most outrageous lies and most insulting slandering words. You are in the same situation as Dr. Fang. By plagiarizing Dr. Root-Bernstein's article, Dr. Fang cannot simply excuse himself from this forum. Similarly, by insulting and slandering many members of this forum, you are a relevant part in the discussion and you cannot be excused either.
Your emails were slanderous in nature and Dr. Root-Bernstein did not want to address it. But I can certainly enlighten you on your key questions and some key points.
1) Fifteen years are not long. In the circle discussing plagiarism, we can dig out cases well over one hundred years. Dr. Fang himself had discussed cases in previous decades.
2) You may be truly naive or may be not. People in this forum do learn that Dr. Fang's plagiarism against Dr. Root-Bernstein is not an isolated case at all. Dr. Fang has been accused of plagiarism so many times that he has probably surpassed any of the suspects he has personally accused of plagiarism. For your record, I had accused Dr. Fang of stealing interest of New Threads from his partners, for which Dr. Fang has never been able to offer a rebuttal of any kind. By the way, my accusation was made solely based on Dr. Fang's account of the series of events, therefore, very unlikely to be biased. There is so much negative material you'll soon realize that it is definitely more than you bargain for. Of course, it depends on your capacity for facts or opinions.
3) You had slandered about those people who raised this issue to Dr. Root-Bernstein. You insulted Dr. Root-Bernstein by suggesting that he and Dr. Fang were "the same kind of persons". Let me confront you with the facts. Dr. Root-Bernstein has never plagiarized and those who informed Dr. Root-Bernstein have mostly (apparently I cannot vouch for everyone) not plagiarized. You also need to know, Dr. Root-Bernstein has been informed by us as much as by Dr. Fang and his supporters like you. We (including Dr. Root-Bernstein) are NOT like Dr. Fang. We do not plagiarize, we do not use double standards to excuse our own bad behaviors, and we do not have lying and slanderous supporters who would bend U.S. constitution or use insulting languages without evidence-supported arguments.
4) I am really amused by your comments "To say the least, even if Dr.Fang was willing to say sorry to you for that unintentional article, he wouldn't decide to do this freely, and if I was him, I would not as well. Could you please understand, that's right the purpose what the trap is designed for." Can you make your position understandable there? You are downplaying the severity of Dr. Fang's plagiarism--almost suggesting "unintentional" or "random" plagiarism. Interesting concept, but no, all writing is a conscientious process. Therefore, plagiarism is intentional. Your poor English is excusable, but you apparently need to do more work before you jump all over the place attacking Dr. Root-Bernstein's points. For example, in the same paragraph, by blog, Dr. Root-Bernstein meant interactive online publishing, not exactly a blog post on Dr. Fang's personal blogs maintained by "blogging" services. Blogging had existed before Jorn Barger coined the term "weblog" in 1997. You see, Dr. Root-Bernstein had made himself perfectly clear and you misunderstood the meaning of words and made a fuss about it.
You repeatedly demanded Dr. Root-Bernstein to support, the exact word "protect", Dr. Fang. Yet you have not clearly stated how he could do so. Do you mean Dr. Root-Bernstein should lie to the public that Dr. Fang had not plagiarized against his article? How can this offer any protection to Dr. Fang? Even if Dr. Root-Bernstein wants to, he cannot change the fact. He had indeed offered protection to Dr. Fang by demanding a simple apology and get over with this issue. It is Dr. Fang, with the help of your likes of course, that trashed this protection and made himself a big joke as a "fraud-buster".
Let me further expose your hypocrisy. You claim Dr. Fang as "GREAT" because he had busted frauds. Most of the frauds he had busted were plagiarisms. We are busting numerous frauds as well. Why aren't we "GREAT" the same? To our GREATNESS, you heaped insults and slander. What kind of person are you? You claim that you do not know Dr. Fang. Please think twice about this. It definitely makes you a better person if you do have connections to Dr. Fang and defend him like this. Will you be able to understand my logic here?
Sincerely,
Junlin Liao, Ph.D.
3）陶的再次要求：
Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:44 PM
I respected Dr. Root-Bernstein enough all the time until he opened our private correspondence to you. It doesn't make sense to do any discussions now because I was never expecting any answers from you.
Listen. I quit. All the names below have nothing to do with me from now on. It's my freedom and right to decide whether to stay on your sending list. Now I am regarding you as doctors, but If you still retain my email address in the list next time, I will only feel you are spammers who like producing harassment.
4）我的再次耐心解释，阐述其行为的公开性质并寻求对方的公正心态：
Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:20 PM
主题：Please play by rules
Dear Yuanqing Tao,
I'm sorry that I have to keep you on this list. I have stated reasons before. Since you are probably a student at the University of Birmingham, you may also benefit from learning how we deal with things and what pitfalls to avoid in your future career.
Dr. Root-Bernstein wrote an open letter. You have no relationship to Dr. Root-Bernstein and he had not solicited your comments and promised you to keep your comments private. Any unsolicited responses to open letters are public in nature! Additionally, even if the comments are solicited, unless with a promise of privacy, they are also public. If you are truly a fan of Dr. Fang, you should have noticed that the GREAT Fang of yours had regularly exposed the "private" defending responses.
Let's put it in another way. Why are you afraid of participating in public discussions? If you are truly as righteous as your words indicating, why do you need to slander us behind our backs? Don't defending a GREAT man give you confidence to speak in public? Don't you claim that you have a almost holy mission, academic integrity of China, right? Does the mission match your behaviors?
Your fellow 'protectors" have been twisting "fair use" principle in vain to defend GREAT Fang. Have you heard of "fair dealing"? Is it fair for you to vent all your insults and slander to Dr. Root-Bernstein and us and then cover your ears to our rebuttal? Don't you remember that you had made specific demands of Dr. Root-Bernstein to read your letters carefully and thoroughly? You broke the law by slandering and insulting us and you do not want to hear what we have to say? Do you have even the concept of justice and fairness? You are just like GREAT Fang, obeying nobody's but your own rules.
If your regards or respect means anything to me, it would be an insult (typo corrected). You can do whatever you like, I will always keep you on the list.
Sincerely,
Junlin Liao, Ph.D.
5) 陶的再次强求：
Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:14 AM
Dear Yiming and Junlin,
Again. I respected Dr. Root-Bernstein enough all the time until he opened our private correspondence to you. It doesn't make sense to do any discussions now because I was never expecting any answers from you.
Listen. I quit. All the names below have nothing to do with me from now on. It's my freedom and right to decide whether to stay on your sending list unless you are real hooligans. Now I am still regarding you as doctors, but If you retain my email address in the list next time, you are only spammers who like producing harassment.
The same automatic reply as above against harassment has already been set ready for your next email. It's you two idle doctors love penfriend games which are actually resolving nothing, rather than I. If you really love penfriends, ok, go to this website and contribute sales. http://www.jiayuan.com/.
All my advice is done. Shut up, please.
6）引发我的公开信。
相关专题：方舟子被指抄袭
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自廖俊林科学网博客。
链接地址：https://wap.sciencenet.cn/blog-460310-479274.html?mobile=1
收藏
当前推荐数：3
推荐到博客首页
网友评论5 条评论
