或許就因為我們不是科學家，不是有必要負學術責任的學者，或要為真偽判斷負更大責任的專家，我會希望它們獲得更大的注意。我更關心的是社會這個集體最後能為我們百姓所作，是真是假（很慚愧）我並不關心，最好能引起更多人的質疑（或者憤怒也是好事，我不確定）。畢竟這個國家還只是介乎成年階段的發展狀態，我白癡和樂觀地希望＂教訓越大＂，政府的＂責任和反省越大＂。

(a). In my 2nd paragraph, I mentioned that他們一部分…另一部分, by which I meant ‘part of them’, … and ‘another part’, but not the remaining parts, in which case, I should have said something like其餘的部分、餘下的部分; hence unless I mentioned that overseas Chinese are divided into two categories, then 他們一部分…另一部分will definitely mean all overseas Chinese. Yet I’m sympathetic that it’s easy for such a minor point to have escaped the loose attention of an overseas Chinese with血濃於水的感情。

(b). If (a) is agreeable to you, then you may accept that I was referring to他們一部分as土共。For土共，they are happy and obliged to支持祖國，包括不顧一切地支持政府。As for other overseas Chinese, they may do so, unconditionally, or conditionally, or when with justifiable grounds, as the case may be. Obviously, these people have been omitted in my passage.

(c). “I have never heard that the overseas Chinese look down on the Chinese citizens themselves because they are poor.” The original phrase:對仍未衣食足的內地中國人作嚴厲批評，was to mean “to criticize those 仍未衣食足的Mainland Chinese (as compared with those already wealthy western people mentioned in the 1st paragraph)”, whereas your sentence, if translated into Chinese, could be: 對內地中國人作嚴厲批評，因為他們仍未衣食足。仍未衣食足was used as an adjective in my passage, but, in your article, as part of a compound sentence with the conjunction “because”. They carry different meanings, as “because” is used to present a reason, judgment, etc.

On the questions raised, I’m not going to answer any of them, as I have made it clear in the passage that 我哋用今時今日今地的條件去批評內地的人與物，必須注意兩地物質條件的差異。It’s clearly not my intention to ask anyone not to make any adverse comments on the Chinese Government, but just to remind people to note兩地物質條件的差異while making comments. It would be fair and acceptable to the Chinese Government, if critics did so.

On the article you recommended, I regret that I see no sign of bravery.

Note in particular the following passasges:

“对不起，我伤害了网友的感情；但同样我还想说一声对不起，因为我不能不伤害你的感情，因为如果我不伤害你的感情，我觉得对不起自己的良心，觉得对不起现在还在等待救援的所有灾民。正因为灾难发生后，很多民众一面倒地站在救灾一边，来一个政治正确，不停为政府的努力而感动，好像我们提一点建议就把几百万人民解放军的士气给打下去了，这些人往往忽视了灾民的切身感受。所以造成一些滑稽的现象，那就是当一个灾民抱怨的时候，有人会出来指责，你还想怎么样？没有看到政府做了这么多事？没有看到温总理那么大年纪了，还亲赴第一线？这样的事情出现在年初的雪灾时，雪灾过后，我们听到的一片歌颂之词，至于灾民，他们只不过又一次成了陪衬而已。

…我很清楚，对于一个写作人，谁都不想在这个时候和主流人群发出相左的意见，成为众矢之的，而事实上也确实是这样，无论是西藏问题还是奥运火炬，或者爱国大游行，我很多知识分子也警告过我，而且他们中相当一部分人也保持了沉默。我当然知道在这个时候写一些批评的意见，对我没有一点好处。可是我确实没有办法保持沉默，因为在这个国家和民众遭遇灾难的时候，在还无法知道那些灾民死活的情况下，我挨点骂没有什么，我也不是一名作家，更不想当一名受欢迎的作家，因为此时此刻，我把自己当成一名灾区的灾民——就像很多文笔优美的知识分子们写的那样!”

I heartily disagree with the above false dichtomisation of overseas Chinese, given that I am a member of the group you’re referring to. I have heard lots of harsh criticisms against the Chinese government, but I have never heard that the overseas Chinese look down on the Chinese citizens themselves because they are poor. Would you care to give examples where overseas Chinese 對仍未衣食足的內地中國人作嚴厲批評? What kind of criticisms exactly? Criticisms against rampant capitalism and disregard for health and safety regulations, or criticisms against people’s disrespect for fellow citizens’ privacy, are hardly examples of overseas Chinese not caring about ordinary people in China. In fact, the opposite is true, as such criticisms demonstrate precisely that the overseas Chinese have 血濃於水的感情 towards our fellow compatriots within China, that we care enough to hold the CCP-run government to do better for the people.

It’s rather disingenious for you to again conflate support for the motherland as equivalent to unquestionable support to the government. “支持祖國，包括不顧一切地支持政府” is a nationalist formula. True patriots will dare ask tough questions of the government, because it is the only way that the powers that be could be hold accountable to the poor and powerless in the society.

May I refer you to this article to see how truly brave mainland Chinese are not easily giving up their right to question their government at this time of national emergency: http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20080516_1.htm

我其實不認為該存有立場的想法，我的意思是，說出自己的想法，而這些想法與「主流」是否吻合，與「權威」是否吻合，倒不應放在考慮中。

我想說出的只是，很多時人們不自覺地認為「權威」、「主流」是盲從附和，這種想法其實一樣危險。

I am sorry about my ignorance in my previous message. After spending much more time on goggling, at least, I find that 李世輝 is a real person.

http://www.tdsrjz.org/message4/20040400033.html

I believe that an extraordinary claim needs an extraordinary proof. I am always skeptical to those internet articles which cannot be verified by other sources.

The blog post is harmonized. I have a dream that the media will try their best to dig out the authenticity of that post. However, even if that blog post depicted the truth, still, nothing will happen. Who dares to file a lawsuit?

That’s why nobody cares.

Extended reading:
EastSouthWestNorth Blog
Section [027]
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/200805b.brief.htm#027

前文己寫得很清楚，軍人們跟記者不同，他們進入災場後已沒機會再洗澡或換鞋。澗水看來或者很有型，但在非必要的情況下把鞋或任何裝備弄濕，只會影響部隊在惡劣環境下的生存能力；我奉勸閣下平時除了要多用腦外，也應要多用心看、多用心想想別人的評語，這對提升你的逆境智商很有幫助