Recommended by GA? That should put the kiss of death on it.

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.

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.

Then it's great and marvellous and they happily link to each other.

The mutual ass-kissing is hilarious.

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.

Editor or enema?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

PC PLOD = HKPhooey = nobserver = MJW

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)

Chris,

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.

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.

PC Plod,

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.

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.

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.

"I feel very sorry for his students having a very unsympathetic and patronising person for a lecturer."

A bit unsympathetic and patronising dear!

Well, maybe, but Hemlock writes so much more entertainingly, and no-one likes GA.