Not nasty enough (apparently)
February 14, 2005
A few months ago, Fumier and myself were berated by NTSCMP for some fairly harmless comments about the way people walk in Hong Kong. The headline was something like "Is it time for Fumier and Ordinary Gweilo to leave Hong Kong?".
Now someone has produced a whole blog whining about the horrible behaviour of Chinese people in Hong Kong. So you'd expect NTSCMP to disapprove.
Er, well, no, not exactly:
At last, a literate blog which promises to be more objectionable, vicious and pointed than NTSCMP - after he gets a few things off his chest about portable phones, lazy locals and ironing board figures.
The author of this blog also seems to share Conrad's view that people who live in the New Territories are uneducated savages. So, in summary, it's OK to be rude about Chinese people and the inhabitants of the New Territories (so unlike those civilized chaps in Stanley, don't you know), but not OK to make general observations about how some Hong Kong people behave.
No, I don't quite get it. Can you explain it again, more slowly?
George presumably likes this blog because it recommends his book, which also has things to say about the way people walk in Hong Kong - amongst many other subjects. Things, one might add, that are not all that different from what NTSCMP criticized Fumier for saying.
It's a strange world.
Recommended by GA? That should put the kiss of death on it.
Posted by: fumier | February 15, 2005 at 10:21 AM
Read that blog...its awful. The worst kind of expat imaginable. Constant moaning. Why is he here?
Posted by: observer | February 15, 2005 at 11:57 AM
It's not even well-writen, let alone literate!
On the other hand, it's cheaper than therapy, and I'm sure he'll be out of here when his contract ends.
Posted by: Chris | February 15, 2005 at 12:05 PM
It's almost like you're saying GA has double standards. Oh, the horror.
Posted by: Simon | February 15, 2005 at 01:49 PM
Well, yes. GA thinks blogs are nasty, horrible things - until he finds one that reflects his view of the world. Then it's great and marvellous and they happily link to each other.
In all fairness I have to point out that the original criticism of Fumier, myself and BWG was attributed to "QQ" rather than Dr Adams. However, GA frequently talks about "we at NTSCMP", and very few of their articles are signed.
However, it's the way that Dr Adams suddenly discovers that he likes a blog when it links back to his site (and has positive things to say about "his blog") that really amused me.
Posted by: Chris | February 15, 2005 at 03:04 PM
After reading the blog more thoroughly I reckon its Adams all along. The guy even claims to teach at the Baptist U (as did Adams) and has the same, bleak, humourless tone to his prose which indicates a life lacking in anything remoting approaching excitement - as does Adams.
Posted by: observer | February 15, 2005 at 04:27 PM
Then it's great and marvellous and they happily link to each other.
The mutual ass-kissing is hilarious.
Posted by: BWG | February 15, 2005 at 04:38 PM
It could well be a jape, but I don't think GA wrote it. To give George his due, his writing is better than that.
Posted by: fumier | February 15, 2005 at 05:45 PM
The question is whether someone could be sending up Dr Adams by writing all this nonsense and then mentioning him in approving terms to see if he falls for it.
However, it seems like a lot of work just to wind him up.
Posted by: Chris | February 15, 2005 at 06:02 PM
It doesn't take much to wind you guys up. HK Phooey badly needs an editor but he still deserves a place on the Web. Leave him alone and stop pontificating.
Posted by: Pontif | February 15, 2005 at 11:40 PM
Editor or enema?
Posted by: fumier | February 16, 2005 at 09:42 AM
It's a very turgid read, made worse by his choice of white text against dark puke purple.
Posted by: HKMacs | February 16, 2005 at 10:37 AM
Above, the 'observer' writes that "The guy even claims to teach at the Baptist U [...]". Perhaps the 'observer' (who likes to leave obscene messages on Hong Kong Phooey's blogboard) could furnish this forum with his source? This is simply FALSE.
On the blog, hong Kong Phooey writes that he was once "having lunch" at the BU, not that he works there. There is a public restaurant there.
Don't twist his words, 'observer' and please desist in leaving obscene messages on his board.
Posted by: nobserver | February 16, 2005 at 12:05 PM
Wow, there really are some sad people here! Hot a RAW NERVE with his writing did he? Good, serves you right. More elbow to him!
It doesn't take much to get your backs up, does it?
Posted by: wanderlust | February 16, 2005 at 12:15 PM
No-one is denying this gentleman a place on the web (only Dr Adams seems to believe in that type of censorship), but we have to take notice when no less an authority than NTSCMP informs us that this is a literate and worthwhile blog.
As they say, all publicity is good publicity, and presumably Hong Kong Phooey does want people to read his blog. People are reading it.
Posted by: Chris | February 16, 2005 at 12:29 PM
I am sure the fellow will overcome the stigma of having been recommended by Uncle George, and I wish him well. (Though I still wonder if it's a spoof.)
Posted by: fumier | February 16, 2005 at 02:15 PM
I’ve never contributed to this comments board before but some of the above has forced me to!
Love it or hate it, surely there's no reason to send foul mouthed messages to the blog writer? I emailed Hong Kong Phooey as I was interested about some of his remarks and he passed onto me some of observer's messages. Having read them I think Observer is in dire need of a life.
I feel a bit out of key with everyone else as I quite like the new blog. I think perhaps you all take it too seriously - I'm sure more serious than HKP takes it! Remember this guy is a lecturer, is doing a PhD in linguistics and already has one in evolutionary biology!
Having said that, I don't know if it is a spoof, though I suppose it may be a spoof of a spoof. I actually quite enjoyed reading his analysis of cell phones in HK - it's hard to argue with the substance of the message, isn't it? The only thing I think he missed which annoys me is how the silly girls wear their phone around their neck. Why on earth do they do that? What's wrong with the pocket or bag?
Also, concerning Observer’s comments, why, if someone so much as makes a criticism of HK and/or its people do people like Observer invariably snap back with 'why are you here' or 'if you don't like it, then go back home'. These people seem to think that you either accept everything as perfect - beyond reproach or even comment - or you put up or shut up, or you flee. This puerile 'logic' was mocked in an episode of the Simpsons once when Homer sees a TV show that mentions US gaols. He says, 'if you don't like it go to Russia'. Everyone laughs at this absurd 'logic' and, I imagine, everyone is laughing at Observer's perverted and twisted 'logic'.
I also liked HKP's analysis of crowd behaviour when he likens it to bees and ants! Great stuff and, contrary to what he says, highly original.
In sum, I think it a welcome and worthwhile addition to the HK blog community and I see why Adams appears to like it. After all, it is not rambling on about goldfishes and the like, is it?
AND, it’s also true that Observer is blatantly WRONG when he claims that HKP claims that he works at Baptist Uni. As the a poster above rightly notes, he says he was having a meal there. I too have had a meal there. Does that mean I claim to work there? How “thoroughly” could Observer have really read it? All and any credibility lost! Perhaps Observer suffers from a Neanderthal-like reading comprehension problem?
Posted by: MJW | February 16, 2005 at 03:20 PM
MJW and nobserver seem determined to disprove the fact that Phooey works at the Baptist U. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Perhaps he has suddenly realised the dangers of revealing too much personal information on the web, and got the jitters! Hilarious!
Posted by: detective | February 16, 2005 at 04:17 PM
agree with detective. most likely that phooey works at the baptist u - a simple and obvious deduction after a quick perusal of the information he has already - and foolishly, in my opinion - revealed on his blog.
anyway, it's not as if there are dozens of english-language tertiary institutions in hong kong is it? it should be easy to find out this chap's real identity using google.
let's see what he has to say for himself when he doesn't have the internet to hide behind.
Posted by: david | February 16, 2005 at 04:25 PM
More interesting is GA's linking to another blog from his own. If anyone can explain to me how ntscmp is any different to a blog I'd be most obliged. For a group who protest the evils of blogs, HKP would mark the second (after ESWN) they approve and endorse. What is the world coming to?
Posted by: Simon | February 16, 2005 at 04:28 PM
It's not a blog because George doesn't swap links (er, except this one).
Oh, and blogs have more readers.
Apart from that, just like a blog.
Posted by: Chris | February 16, 2005 at 04:31 PM
Are you going to link this blog to yours ? It is certainly nowhere near as bad as that Black & White blog you seem to be keen to promote. That particular blog is nothing more than a brothel guide by two local losers who are incapable of having sex without paying for it. It does you no credit at all.
Posted by: PC PLOD | February 16, 2005 at 04:37 PM
PC PLOD = HKPhooey = nobserver = MJW
Posted by: hmmm | February 16, 2005 at 04:54 PM
I'm not keen to promote it, but it's a Hong Kong blog and they asked me to link to them. I couldn't think of any valid reason to refuse. After all, several other blogs listed here are (at least in part) about similar subjects.
I have never claimed to like (let alone endorse) any of the blogs listed here. I did have a plan to deal with this dilemma, but (as usual) I haven't got round to executing it. Perhaps I should.
You are the first person to complain about my link to 'Black & White blog'. I do listen to any feedback I receive, particularly if I happen to agree with it.
I blame Spirit Fingers, by the way. I assume she was being ironic in endorsing that blog, but I'm not 100% sure.
Posted by: Chris | February 16, 2005 at 05:01 PM
I think most of the above are nothing but sad and sorry losers who need to get a life. One guy starts a new blog and look at the result above! All the trolls, cranks and stalkers come out of the woodwork. What's wrong? Have you got chinky wives and so don't like to be reminded how pathetic their behaviour is? Sad, really sad.
A) I had lunch at McDonalds.
B) You claim to work at McDonalds.
A) No, I said I had lunch there.
B) Proof that you work there!
(P A T H E T I C)
Posted by: hmmm=david=detective=observer | February 16, 2005 at 05:17 PM
Well Chris, it looks like you're now the home of Hong Kong's blogging stalker. Funny the stalker has a thing about chinky wives and asian women in general??
Posted by: HKMacs | February 16, 2005 at 05:50 PM
On quickly checking the other HK blogs, I find that you are the only one to link yourself with B&W. All the others, quite rightly, want to have nothing to do with them. So why YOU ???
As for your assertion that various other blogs you have linked to are also sex orientated, which ones are they exactly ? Batgung ? HKMacs ?
As one of "HK's Finest" it has been part of my duties to perform checks upon the very premises these two losers go to. They are dark, dank smelly places where you have the dubious pleasure of sitting in a box-like cubicle with a whore on your knee, singing karaoke together. Quite what the appeal of this is to your readers, I am not sure.
On a separate matter, these losers photograph the women they have screwed and publish them on their website without their knowledge/permission. I am no expert on the new Data Privacy Ordinance but if one of these women found out and took legal action, you could be in very, very serious hot water.
Do yourself, your readers and these women a favour by deleting this link NOW.
Posted by: PC PLOD | February 16, 2005 at 07:10 PM
To show just what a sad and sorry loser the cretin who goes by the name of 'observer' is, take a butchers at:
where this hideous little turd says (jn relation to Hong Kong Phooey):
"What an awful blog. Guy claims to be employed at the Baptist U. Well, not for long - as I have already emailed his employers and the SCMP with a link to his offensive, racist dribble. Back to the Uk you go!"
What a turd. I suppose they must give longer breaks to toilet cleaners now.
Posted by: far from ordibary laowei | February 16, 2005 at 07:36 PM
Er, no, obviously Observer is the stalker. Also, it is obvious he has never heard of academic freedom. Not surprising really given that his own academic experience is limited to compulsory education.
Posted by: Mi | February 16, 2005 at 09:26 PM
Bleh, who cares?
The bottom line is that GA is desperate for attention and everyone is giving it to him.
Posted by: Adam George | February 16, 2005 at 09:48 PM
I'm not the only one! Spirit Fingers was the first (I think), and Fumier and Hongkie Town are two others with links.
I am considering changing my links to feature the blogs that I actually read, with a secondary listing of other blogs.
However, I have to say that no-one else has objected.
Posted by: Chris | February 16, 2005 at 10:20 PM
I wonder if the IP addresses of all the 'stalker' posts in here are the same?
Posted by: dave | February 16, 2005 at 11:48 PM
PC Plod is talking crap "on a separate matter, these losers photograph the women they have screwed and publish them on their website without their knowledge/permission. I am no expert on the new Data Privacy Ordinance but if one of these women found out and took legal action, you could be in very, very serious hot water.
Do yourself, your readers and these women a favour by deleting this link NOW."
Bollocks, Chris is not liable for linking.
Posted by: HKMacs | February 17, 2005 at 12:10 AM
HKMacs is correct - linking to a site certainly doesn't imply approval (which was the point I was making) and it can't possibly create any legal issues.
Nevertheless, I have to say that I felt somewhat uneasy about putting a link to that site in such a prominent position, so I am moving it to another page.
Posted by: Chris | February 17, 2005 at 08:51 AM
PC Plod is a respected occasional contributor to my site, and the question of whether the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap 486) applies to Black and White's site is an interesting one.
I read the Ordinance some time ago, and I have just re-read it in light of his comment. My view, for what it is worth, is that these photos are not covered by the Ordinance, being exempted under sections 52 and 61. That is, assuming that the photos qualify as 'data'. (I am not certain they they do qualify as 'data', based on the wording of the Ordinance.)
By the way, as I shall shortly make clear on my own site, I link to sites primarily for my own convenience. Sites drop off the list if I stop reading them. While I sometimes post that I have added a link, sometimes I do not. Even where I do, my linking to a site is not intended to be an endorsement. In many cases, it is merely blogiquette (cringe), giving a new or overlooked site some exposure even, as in the case of HK Phooey, where my initial impression of the site is that I will not be visiting for long.
The seamy side of life may well be ... well, seamy, but that doesn't mean someone shouldn't write about it.
Posted by: fumier | February 17, 2005 at 10:32 AM
Seems to me the author of HK Phooey haven't travelled very much. All major cities in the world exhibit similar behaviour and some additional characteristic of its own.
Rudeness, in a hurry, ... try London, New York, Paris, ...
Ah well, there are always explanations for the kinds of behaviour he has sometimes greatly exaggerated and refused to find out, because he's all high and mighty about it.
For example, about cell phones being put on tables in restaurants or being strapped around their necks, this is simply to make sure they hear their phones ringing in noisy places. How many times have we gotten missed calls because we didn't hear them.
I feel very sorry for his students having a very unsympathetic and patroinising person for a lecturer.
Posted by: bloggering | February 17, 2005 at 11:03 AM
"I feel very sorry for his students having a very unsympathetic and patronising person for a lecturer."
A bit unsympathetic and patronising dear!
Posted by: Phoowatch | February 17, 2005 at 02:26 PM
Seems like most of the Bloggers in HK have something to say about HKP...
But his writing isn't that different to anything that Conrad, Hemlock or GA would of wrote and everyone loves those guys!
Posted by: Misohoni | February 18, 2005 at 08:11 AM
Well, maybe, but Hemlock writes so much more entertainingly, and no-one likes GA.
Posted by: Chris | February 18, 2005 at 10:33 AM