Mao offered U.S. 10 million women

[Xavier_Onassis]

Whatever the provenance or credentials of Dr Li, his biography is immensely popular in Taiwan. Pretty much everyone with any interest in politics has read it, according to my Taiwanese colleague. What seems to impress people the most is Mao's insistence on not cleaning his teeth. He said that "a tiger does not clean his teeth, either", supposedly.

Mao was a political genius, but a poor national leader. I suspect anyone with his power would have had many of his flaws. Absolute power, as they say, corrupts absolutely. These days the leadership of the PRC is divided.

[Michael Tee]

<<Why debate with you if you continue to find reasons to dispute facts? Must I spend hours locating more authoritaitve sources? Perhaps, but I simply haven't the the time. >>

I appreciate the problem, but the fact remains that you produced one highly suspect source in support of the slander and the allegation remains supported only by very thin ice.  That the authenticity was "confirmed" by "experts" whom the publisher itself declined to name is highly suspicious.  (I don't know if you realized that the website you were quoting from was that of the same obscure organization that published the book.)


<<The man, regardless of his deed of expelling the Nationalists, was a pervert and personally was scum.>>

The problem is obvious:  You had already been brainwashed to hate and despise the man, the book confirmed your opinion, and now that it's under attack, rather than recognize the shakiness of its authority, you choose instead to cling to it.   Some people need objects on which to focus their hatred, Mao was such an object - - (this is very similar to the concept of "Emmanuel Goldstein" in George Orwell's novel, 1984, in which the citizens of Oceania were shown Goldstein's image on their TVs every morning for the "Three Minute Hate") - - and since you NEED an object to focus your hatred on, he (as a villain) becomes very precious to you, and you'll fight like hell against any rational attempt to portray him in any light other than demonic.  Interesting psychological manipulation but I'm surprised that a man of your obvious intelligence has fallen for it.  Apart from the one book, how do you know that he was (a) a pervert and (b) scum?

[Michael Tee]

<<Whatever the provenance or credentials of Dr Li, his biography is immensely popular in Taiwan. >>

Oh, as a marketing ploy, I'm sure it's brilliant.  I'm sure that a similar book purporting to be by George W. Bush's personal physician and detailing coke and alcohol orgies, bad personal hygiene, rape and torture in the basement of the White House or in a bunker at the Crawford ranch, would be a best-seller in the Arab world (if only they read books!) or, closer to home, even in France.  Probably sell like hot-cakes in Japan, too.

[Amianthus]

Why debate with you if you continue to find reasons to dispute facts? Must I spend hours locating more authoritaitve sources? Perhaps, but I simply haven't the the time. The man, regardless of his deed of expelling the Nationalists, was a pervert and personally was scum.

It would be useless; every source you find would be dismissed as lies by enemies of the "Revolution." Same with anything bad said about Castro. I spent a month or so a few years back (around 2000 or 2001) digging up sources about Castro's treatment of political prisoners and all were dismissed.

Of course, any claim that Mikey makes is right, even if there is no evidence. And when no evidence is presented, then it's just proof that Bush and company did a good job of covering up the evidence...

[Michael Tee]

<<I spent a month or so a few years back (around 2000 or 2001) digging up sources about Castro's treatment of political prisoners and all were dismissed.>>

Yeah, funny how all the evidence you dug up in that whole month all comes back to one guy, Armando Valladares.

[Michael Tee]

<<Of course, any claim that Mikey makes is right, even if there is no evidence. >>

Oh, what claim did I make without evidence?

<<And when no evidence is presented, then it's just proof that Bush and company did a good job of covering up the evidence...>>

Of course, circumstantial evidence when presented by Mikey just doesn't count as evidence.  Only written confessions of wrongdoing signed by Bush himself count as evidence.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Mao's stupidity of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution is about as obvious as anything that has ever occurred.

 I would imagine that Mao's dental hygiene could be verified from thousands of photos.

Either there was a Dr Li or their wasn't. Either he was Mao's physician or he wasn't. I hardly think that books agreeing with Li's book would be published in the PRC. I imagine that anyone attesting to Li's veracity would have to be an escapee, refugee, immigrant from the PRC, and unworthy of credibility in your book.

 

[Amianthus]

Oh, what claim did I make without evidence?

There have been lots.

I mean, here's one. Should be simple to prove / disprove, yet you have failed to do so:

Coffee at 190 degrees F in a non sealed cup at standard temperature and pressure can spontaneously boil.

[Michael Tee]

The proposition was not as you stated.  It was that hot coffee in a sealed cup which was not boiling could spontaneously boil if suddenly depressurized by the removal of the lid.  There was  no specific temperature associated with the proposition - - the coffee in fact could have been at higher than 212 F. and kept from boiling by the ambient atmospheric pressure inside the cup.

And I thought I made it clear that my opinion was purely theoretical, therefore did not rely on evidence, although obviously an experiment could easily provide the evidence for or against.

[Amianthus]

The proposition was not as you stated.  It was that hot coffee in a sealed cup which was not boiling could spontaneously boil if suddenly depressurized by the removal of the lid.  There was  no specific temperature associated with the proposition - - the coffee in fact could have been at higher than 212 F. and kept from boiling by the ambient atmospheric pressure inside the cup.

And I thought I made it clear that my opinion was purely theoretical, therefore did not rely on evidence, although obviously an experiment could easily provide the evidence for or against.

A plastic lid hand attached is not "sealed." I have yet to see a sealing machine in a McDonalds used to seal a coffee cup. Also, the temperature of the coffee in the testimony was maintained between 185 - 190.

And the experimentation has been done already - you don't accept the results.

[Michael Tee]

<<And the experimentation has been done already - you don't accept the results.>>

I wouldn't deny the results of a valid scientific experiment  that applies to our fact situation.

And the "seal" I referred to was not a 100% effective airtight seal, I meant merely that the free escape of water vapour would be prevented by the lid enough to raise the atmospheric pressure inside the cup.

[Amianthus]

And the "seal" I referred to was not a 100% effective airtight seal, I meant merely that the free escape of water vapour would be prevented by the lid enough to raise the atmospheric pressure inside the cup.

If it was not an airtight seal, then the pressure would equalize. You might have a higher partial pressure of water vapour inside than you would have outside, but the total pressure would be the same. There would be no energy differential to cause boiling.

Besides, what you claim is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. There was a certain amount of energy in the cup before the lid was put on - not enough to bring the coffee to boiling. Putting a lid on - sealed or not - does not add energy to the system. No matter how much pressure buildup inside the cup occurs, the energy restored to the liquid on the pressure release would have to total to LESS than the energy originally present. If the liquid didn't have enough energy to boil previously, it would not have enough to boil afterwards. If it did, you've discovered a perpetual motion machine - you could "create" energy just by putting a lid on a cup and then taking it back off.

The experimentation has been done. I looked up the constants for pure water and posted them. A pressure differential of about 400 millibars would be required to cause 190 degree water to boil. This would, assuming the surface area of a standard 12oz coffee cup, equate to about 36 kilos of pressure on the cup. Please find a styrofoam coffee cup that can withstand 36 kilos of pressure. And before you say "but the numbers were for pure water" - a solution or suspension would require a HIGHER pressure differential, so that would be a minimum requirement.

And again, this is another example of you posting a claim and requiring others to prove you wrong.

[Michael Tee]

<<And again, this is another example of you posting a claim and requiring others to prove you wrong.>>

Excuse me?  This is a forum for the exchange of ideas by ordinary people.  Every fucking idea that is posted here is only an opinion, and I've got as much right to express mine as anyone else.  Right or wrong, supported or not, that was MY opinion and anyone who disagrees is welcome to say anything they like against it.  Stop whining.  If anyone reading the post disagrees, he or she is EXPECTED to prove it wrong.  What fucking planet did you say you were from?

[Amianthus]

Excuse me?  This is a forum for the exchange of ideas by ordinary people.  Every fucking idea that is posted here is only an opinion, and I've got as much right to express mine as anyone else.  Right or wrong, supported or not, that was MY opinion and anyone who disagrees is welcome to say anything they like against it.  Stop whining.  If anyone reading the post disagrees, he or she is EXPECTED to prove it wrong.  What fucking planet did you say you were from?

The planet where, if you're asked to provide evidence for your claims, you provide them. Not say "if you think I'm wrong, prove me wrong."

[Xavier_Onassis]

I suggest that hot coffee in a cup that boils or does not has nothing at all to do with Mao.

The supposed contention is that Tee has misstated a case in one instance, and therefore because he might have erred on a post about coffee, his opinion of Mao is also incorrect.

This does not compute. Or if it does, please explain why and how.