Great post! I am reading the comments and checking the vote because I have often wondered what to do with NH myself. I oppose most of his views, but that’s not the issue. He is generally pretty well mannered on my blog and when he crosses a line (my undefined line), which he rarely does, I just delete whatever I find to have crossed. When he actually tries, he does offer insight, but when he just posts something random without any support, he obviously does not. Like Richard, I will not allow “overt racism and hatred.”

But, the reason I was so interested in your post and the comments and my biggest concern about NH is that people are sick of him and sick of the retorts he elicits. I do not want a situation where NH says something of the wall and then the discussion goes down (or is it up) that wall. Seems the consensus (so far anyway) is that people are not all that concerned about that.

I appreciate your support, but Richard, it would appear, has already accused you of being merely a persona of mine, and he’ll do so again if you continue to leave coments here in defense or praise of me! I doubt very much that he will ever invite me back to comment on his site, which is fair enough. At any rate, I only have time to engage in the occasional debate these days, and the China Law Blog provides a well organised space for this, although the posts there tend to cover a narrower range than that offered by Richard on his site. This site is showing some promise though.

What’s wrong with citing other people’s arguments? MAJ uses credible sources to aid his own arguments, that’s what a good debater does and that’s what sets him apart from others.

I sense a little jealousy, perheps it’s because you know he read more books than you do?

1. Reduce taxes!
2. Increase civic improvements!
3. Get tough on crime!
4. Increase employment!
5. Two cars in every garage and a chicken in every pot!
6. Keep the China blogosphere from becoming a moribund exercise in kowtowing, soul-selling panda licking!

He does ccasionally offer a few valid criticisms worth considering and responding to, as Richard says. However, more often than not, the views he expresses are over the top, and he appears to be full of hate.

Richard likes to smear me whenever he gets the chance, which is fine, but I see nothing wrong with drawing from the views of others when formulating my own ideas and perspectives. I was wrong not to always acknowledge my sources when leaving comments, as I often did four years ago when I used to comment on Richard’s site, but as those who are familiar my my more recent debates with Anban over on the China Law Blog will know, I now take much more care to cite all of my sources when writing comments. See for example: http://www.chinalawblog.com/2007/11/china_pollutionchina_dissing_i.html

I look forward to contributing to similar friendly discussions here on this site, which I have only just discovered, thanks to a link provided by the China Law Blog.

It looks like most people agree with you about Nanhe.

BTW- the IP address for the MAJ defender did not match MAJ’s posts.

Also Josh, be sure to watch IP addresses, especially of strangers who suddenly appear and defend MAJ. You might be fascinated by what you see.

About Nanhe, I have chosen not to ban him from my ow blog because the guy is obviously bright and can actually offer some smart insights from time to time. I have threatened to delete individual posts in which he shows signs of overt racism and hatred,

Mark Anthony Jones is one of the best debaters on China-related blogs. He is apparently well-read and knowledgeable. You can call him biased at best, but comparing him with a hater like Mutton-On-A-Stick is a disgrace!

I don’t think we should ban Nanh. We should keep him for entertainment value.