Americans doing Business in China – Part 7/16

Note from Blog host — another example of East meets West through business and trade: Bloomberg Businessweek says, “Amway salespeople started selling door to door in China in 1995… Their eventual collapse sparked riots. Beijing felt uneasy for another reason: Direct selling seemed custom made to spread religious beliefs or political dissent. The government banned all direct sales companies, including Amway, in 1998. Amway hung on, opening actual stores to show its commitment to the market. Executives made numberless trips to Beijing before the government relented in late 2006 and let Amway agents sell directly to consumers again.”


Guest Post by Bob Grant — publisher/editor for Speak Without Interruption, an international online magazine.

This guest post from Bob Grant had several photos. If you want to see them, I suggest you click on the Originally Published link and visit Speak Without Interruption. I will add two photos here that I took on my last trip, And yes, Bob, I also wish I had taken pictures every time I have visited China since 1999. I took my first pictures in 2008. Digital makes it easy.

Bob Grant wrote, During my trips to China, I wish I had taken more photos of the places I passed, to and from the factories I visited. In lieu of those photos, I am going to mix some that I found on the Internet with those that I took.

The one phenomenon that I experienced was the contradictions in times as I passed through the cities and into the countryside and back again. As I have mentioned in earlier postings, I have been traveling to China since 1998. My time spent there was mainly for business purposes—I rarely took time for sightseeing.

However, it was the “everyday” sights that interested me the most—not the so called tourist spots of which China has many. I would pass from new building construction to old crumbling buildings in a matter of blocks. I would drive by places in the countryside where it appeared to me that people were living the same way they had for millions of years. We would drive from beautiful multi-lane highways to rutted brick and dirt roads in a matter of miles. Workers were sweeping the freeways and other roads with large straw brooms. Everywhere I looked, I could see new and old in a single setting—a large high rise apartment building next to agricultural areas where people were working the land by hand and animals.

Our office was in Bao’an, which is a suburb, if you will, of Shenzhen which is in southern China across from Hong Kong. Here is a photo of the view from our office. Shenzhen has around 14 million people—according to the sources I checked—and it was nothing but swampland almost 30 years ago when it was designated China’s first economic zone.

The construction that goes on in this and other larger cities is unbelievable.

However, we visited one factory in what I would call the countryside where the owner was enticed to build a new factory because of the inexpensive cost of the land—somewhere around $4 per acre as I recall as the government wanted to build up business in this rural area.

This factory was in an extremely picturesque location and from the owner’s balcony, I took a photo of an older boat going down the river. It reminded me of how the setting (or view) must have been centuries ago. China has a tremendous amount of history associated with their country—I could see it, in many ways, as I looked out the vehicle window passing to and from our meetings during my numerous visits in country.

I certainly found China to be a country in transition—but as a visitor—I hope they never modernize their country to the extent that it is no longer a Contradiction of Times.

Note from Blog host – If you plan to do business in China, I recommend visiting the China Law Blog first.

Continued February 28, 2012 in Americans doing Business in China – Part 8 (a guest post) or return to Part 6


Lloyd Lofthouse is the award-winning author of The Concubine Saga. When you love a Chinese woman, you marry her family and culture too. This is the love story Sir Robert Hart did not want the world to discover.

Subscribe to “iLook China”
Sign up for an E-mail Subscription at the top of this page.

About iLook China

Note: This guest post first appeared on March 1, 2010

14 Responses to Americans doing Business in China – Part 7/16

  1. Betty Tredennick says:


    I was doing my rounds of China blogs when I came across this unfortunate exchange. I do not agree with Mr. Parfitt’s tone or style of dealing with the difference of opinion the two of you seem to have. Name calling is base and demeaning. It never helps the situation. However Loyd I find some of your statements unsettling too. Like this one:

    “In fact, I didn’t approve thirty-eight of Mr. Troy Parfitt’s comments for about a month starting early in January and then in an attempt to get him to stop harassing me….”

    Did you ask Mr. Parfitt directly to stop posting on your site? (I mean: several weeks or months ago) If you did you’re in the clear but if you did than why did you reply to so many of them? Why call it harrassment when it is really dialog or I would say disagreement? Posting someone’s IP address is inappropriate. Period. But what is most unsettling for me personally is this quote

    “The maximum jail term if found guilty by the Canadian legal system is ten years.Anyone that reads Mr. Parfitt’s comments and wants to forward the link to the proper authorities in Canada may do so.”

    Loyd I cannot believe you wrote this. I was going to write a post about two new China books I read when my husband and I were on vacation but seeing Mr. Parfitt’s comments and your comments Loyd makes me not want to do that. Even if Mr. Parfitt was a cyber bully which he is not because cyber bullying is a complex subject but it revolves around harm – doing harm to others. That is not the case here as far as I can see. Also why would others contact authorities about harrassment that has not happened to them? That does not make any sense.

    You invited Mr. Parfitt onto your site for a debate. You had the debate. But then you continued the debate alone implying if I remember right that Mr. Parfitt was ignorant. Well Loyd if he was ignorant that should have been proved in the debate. Mr. Parfitt responded (what would you do?) and you got into a long argument. Mr. Parfitt made comments to your posts, some intelligent but many very snarky. More arguing and then out of the blue after months of back and forth you accuse him of being a cyber bully and ask your readers to contact federal authorities in another country?

    I am very disappointed but I do hope to have the opportunity to read one of your wife’s books one day.


    • Betty,

      Did you read the thirty-eight comments that I deleted after I told him I would not approve of any comment that was not civil or constructive? Yes, I announced in a comment what I was doing and he refused to stop. Besides, he has his own Blog. He can say whatever he wants there.

      I told this other person I had a debate with that I would not post his comments if he was going to continue to insult me and others that did not agree with his opinions, and that is what I did. After that, he continued to send insulting comments, which, at first, I did not post.

      Eventually, about a month later, after thirty-eight of them [sometimes several at a time minutes apart], I posted them on one place. You may find them by clicking on the following link. I deliberately placed this post away from the Blog’s home page so only interested individuals would read them. I did not want to expose thousand of readers that only visit the home page to his ranting.

      I do not feel those comments are civil nor do they offer anything constructive to the topics of the posts they were intended for.

      I’m surprised that you would change your plans about visiting China due to an argument between two people that do not agree on China. In this series of posts, there are many other opinions and experiences of China by other people that have been there revealing more about China than one person’s own opinion and obvious bias for that country and its people.

      As for my comment about Canada’s Cyber Bully law, although the other person in this argument claimed I was threatening him I was only pointing out a fact. I did not threaten him as he claimed, and it would be up to a Canadian court to look at the comments I deleted (and later posted in one place so they were made public) and find out how that affected me to have someone continue to send insulting comments after being told they would no longer be posted. In addition, pointing out this law, which he may not have been aware of, may have stopped his obvious harassment.

      You may feel it wasn’t cyber bulling, but I disagree because I was the target.

      As for the many IP addresses, as I said to the other person in the argument, an IP address is an ID number for a machine and it is not an e-mail address, a postal address, a permanent physical location, a personal ID card, or a phone number.

      Use a different machine/computer, and the IP address changes. If the computer was a laptop and you took it with you around the world, the physical location of the IP address would change.

      In addition, the only people that can access that sensitive information from the Internet access provider through an IP address are the police but only after a court order, which means the police must show cause to a judge who agrees that those thirty-eight comments may be proof of alleged cyber bullying.

      In addition, now that this other person I argued with is a published author and he has written opinion pieces that have appeared in newspapers across North America and his opinions have appeared on media Blog Websites, he is a public figure and the laws that protect the privacy of a common citizen no longer apply, which is why so many famous people are often followed and photographed everywhere they go outside of their homes by paparazzi.

      If you check his YouTube video, you will discover that it has been viewed more than 38,000 times. Once the public is aware of your existence, privacy doesn’t exist except behind closed doors.

      In fact, if anyone wants to find out where the person lives that I debated and argued with, they may do so by using Google and visiting Wiki. The following link will take you there.

      For example, this pull quote from that Wiki post says, “Reviewer Bradley Winterton in the Taipei Times, reviewing his first book, described Parfitt as a “bad traveler, an insensitive loud-mouth ranting on about the absurdities of life abroad.”

      In addition, the post where the other person’s previously deleted comments appear was placed away from the home page so only people interested in seeing what he wrote and what I refused to post could find those comments and by keeping it off of the home page, I could track the traffic. So far, 80 have visited that post while there have been more than 190,000 visitors to the Blog. I feel strongly that continuing to harass me with thirty-eight comments for almost a month after I told him I would not post any more like them is cause for concern. He was told I was going to stop posting his comments. He did not stop and they became more insulting and at times appeared the ranting of a lunatic. Then suddenly, he sent one that was civil and constructive and I posted that one and one or two more before he returned to his earlier style of insults.

      In my opinion, this person is not a China expert and his opinions of China are biased. He is knowledgeable of China and its history but his obvious bias clouds his judgment, which is why I feel strongly that he is not a “real” expert on China, its people and culture.

      This is the second time that you appear to be coming to this other person’s defense. The first time was soon after I stopped posting his comments. Do you know this person? Are you related to him in anyway? A cousin maybe or through marriage to someone else he is related to or a friend of a friend?

      I’m curious because of eighty people that have read those thirty-eight comments and what others have to say about his work and what it reveals about him, you are the only one to write a comment that appears to be defending him.

      As for me continuing the debate alone, wrong! If that other person had something constructuve to say other than insults, he was welcome to leave comments that were civil and I did post a few but now–no more, and I will not mention his name again on this Blog. He is not welcome here.

      • Betty Tredennick says:


        I am not defending anyone. I am not changing my plans to visit China because of your debate. I would visit China if I had the opportunity but I never mentioned going to China. I do not know Mr. Partiff. I did read his comments. Loyd you have so many things in this answer which are wrong I do not know where to begin. Laws don’t apply to Mr. Parfitt because he has a You Tube video? He is not a real expert? What does that have to do with anything? The paparazi?


        I don’t have anything more to say. Maybe you will call me a cyber bully saying my posts are not contructive and ask your audience to call the police on me or maybe you will do that yourself.

        If people disagree with you in life and it happens all the time you can not ask others to call the cops or hint that you will call them. That is a very big overreaction.

        Thank you and have nice day,


      • Betty,

        Thank you. I’m glad you have not changed your plans to visit China because of that debate. Just because he had a very poor opinion of China and the Chinese does not mean everyone that has worked or visited China has had the same experience. In fact, I refer you to Tom Carter, author of “China: Portrait of a People”.

        If anyone has a right to judge China, he does. After teaching ESL in northeast China, he spent two years mostly on foot traveling to every province in China. He took tens of thousands of photos. Recently, he married his Chinese girlfriend of several years. He still lives in China and works there. For a time, he lived with his wife’s parents in a small-rural village of about twenty people in the tea-growing region of China. Tom has also read many books on China. If he had found that China was such a despicable country, do you believe he would have stayed. Tom earned a masters in the US and was and may still be a registered republican—an American conservative, who appears to find China’s politics and environment acceptable. I’m sure he also may have complaints about aspects of China and its culture, and Tom Carter is not alone. Many Western foreigners have visited and worked in China and stayed without developing the opinions of that person I debated.

        Actually, the start of the debate may be found through the following link. The argument grew out of that and eventually turned into what I consider harassment by a cyber bully.

        The definition of debate is to “Engage in argument by discussing opposing points … a formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.”

        Even the definition of the word augment says, “A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.”

        The debate started out about China. He had his opinions and I had mine. Others joined the debate through comments and most offered their opinions and supported them with facts. As his side of the argument/debate started to crumble, his tactics shifted to the use of logical fallacies to manipulate the debate and the emotions of viewers.

        Later, when his use of those logical fallacies was brought into the open, he resorted to insults and harassment that has nothing to do with the topic of the original debate/argument. When he was told that his insulting comments were going to be deleted from the posts they were intended for, he increased the number of harassing, insulting comments that had nothing to do with the original debate/argument.

        At one point, during the original debate, he claimed there was no way I could prove that he was wrong on one of his points about China, but I did come up with facts/evidence that cast doubt on his claim, so he switched topics by using logical fallacies known as red herrings, loaded questions or the straw man fallacy, etc.

        The original debate ended on December 8, 2011. After it ended, I wrote posts that explored topics he introduced in the debate and he left comments for those posts, which morphed into what I feel were insulting and harassment on a personal level that was uncalled for.

        Then on January 26, 2012, well over a month after the original debate ended, I started to post a series on intellectual dishonesty. As the ten-part series appeared over a period of ten days, his harassing and insulting comments increased. Eventually, I warned him that I would delete his comments if he continued to post them. Then he increased the intensity of his cyber bullying tactics and I started to delete them.

        That was when I changed the way comments were approved on my Blog so every comment had to be approved on an individual basis. Before that, once I approved an individual, that same person could post without going through the approval process, and I learned why so many Blogs do this instead of what I had done for two years.

        The following link leads to that series on intellectual dishonesty. Once I was aware that he was using such tactics, I started to study them and it took me more than a month to write the series, which led to more intense cyber bully assaults on my character that I see as an attempt to intimidate me. A younger person without my experience in combat or a classroom teacher in a tough school might have been bullied into submission. In fact, there are cases where teens have killed themselves when under this sort of vicious cyber assault on their character.

        Betty, you wrote, “Maybe you will call me a cyber bully saying my posts are not constructive and ask your audience to call the police on me or maybe you will do that yourself.”

        I see no reason to call you a cyber bully because you have not resorted to what he was saying about me—not even close.

        In addition, he and I debated in a series of twelve posts with many comments by several other people before the issue ever came to this. The reason I continued to follow up on topics introduced in the debate was due to his intellectual dishonesty, which I wrote another series about to reveal how one person may manipulate the emotions and opinions of others. Yes, maybe it was wrong of me to use examples of his intellectual dishonesty in that series, but I stand by the use of those examples too.

        In my opinion, he crossed a line, which you have not done. Maybe you cannot tell the difference. However, I will not allow him to slander and harass me on my own Blog. He has even called into question if I had ever been a teacher over something that has nothing to do with teaching. Do you know what pushing buttons means in a relationship of any kind? When someone pushes your buttons, they are looking for ways to control your emotions and cause you to react through emotion instead of reason and logic. This is what he has attempted many times when he has nothing constructive to support his opinions. Often, I had to take a day or two off to calm down and think about how to deal with his cyber bully harassment.

        Yes, people may disagree with each other but a disagreement should be civil and constructive instead of filled with harassing insults directed at others saying they are stupid, etc — much of what he wrote after I started to delete his comments are examples of a verbal cyber-bully attacking another person, which happened to be me.

        If he wanted to disagree with me, then he could have done so without the harassment and insults, which at times bordered on mania. Then he could support his opinions with evidence and facts. That’s how an intellectual debate is conducted between two civil individuals — not the slurs and insults and harassment that he showered on me and anyone that disagreed with his opinions.

        I will stand by my opinions that he is a cyber bully and the post that shows the original comments that I deleted for over a month will stand as evidence of that. As I said before, some people will side with him. Others will agree with me and still others will leave shaking their heads thinking we are both nuts.

        However, I will not tolerate being treated as he has treated me in those original thirty-eight deleted comments that appear in one post that also shows the comments of what others think of him. He wrote a very biased, opinionated mud-slinging book of China, which reveals much about his character.

        I suggest that before anyone reading the comments for this one post takes sides, that he or she read the post where the deleted comments appear together in context. I have already made my opinion clear about these comments that I originally deleted from the posts they were intended for. In fact, I spent hours searching and reading reviews on his second book to discover what others have said about him and his work and added those quotes after his harassing cyber-bully comments.

        After reading those comments, if anyone feels that it is acceptable to treat another person as he did of me (click on above link to read them), then so be it, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree or allow him total freedom to continue to post such comments on this Blog since he has the option to express his opinion on his own Blog and other forums. If he does, well, my Blog now offers my side to the debate that evolved into a mud-slinging contest as if I were suspended over a vat of mud and he was throwing balls at a target to cause me to fall into that vat and drown.

        However, the entire debate and the argument that followed appears in many other posts since all of his comments before I started to delete then in January, have not been removed. I did not go back and delete all of his comments before that point.

        After deleting thirty-eight of his harassing comments starting about the middle of January, he actually posted a few civil comments, which I approved and then he returned to his cyber bully assault.

        Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. He is not welcome on this site. I do not trust him to be or remain civil and offer constructive comments that are not insulting. The only explanation for why he resorts to such unacceptable tactics is because there is no merit to his opinions of China and the Chiense.

  2. Aussie in China says:

    “Beijing felt uneasy for another reason: Direct selling seemed custom made to spread religious beliefs or political dissent”.

    As far as religion goes, there is a continuous contingent of proselytizers predominantly from the US coming to China in the shadows of NGOs, business, and education and arrogantly conduction religious activities with total disregard to the LAws and Regulations of the PRC.

    As for the politics, it is well known among Chinese specialists and documented that the American foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funds Chinese exiles and dissadents and furbishes political and social tensions in the regions of Xinjiang and Tibet.
    No wonder Beijing is uneasy about door to door selling!

  3. Troy Parfitt says:

    “You are no expert on China.”

    You’re right. And I’ve never claimed to be. In fact, I no almost nothing about China. Don’t even know what its capital is.

    “Are you trying to hide something? Are you a professional cyber bully stocking others as you have stocked me attempting to hide so no one can trace your exact location in Canada, a country that has laws for cyber bullies with jail terms up to ten years?”

    Stocking? Like the thing you hang by the chimney with care?

    What is a cyber bully? Someone who steals kids’s milk online?

    How am I “stocking” you Lloyd? By writing comments on your blog?

    Are people’s IP addresses supposed to be listed for public consumption? Do you think listing my IP address on your blog for poking fun of one of your posts is a reasonable response? Do you think its an ethical reponse? What do you think your viewers will think Lloyd? Posting information from personal emails, posting my IP address…. Do you think anyone would see that as hitting below the belt? What about your remarks on Lost Laowai insinuating my book is self-published?

    Mr. Grant, you made mistake guest blogging on this site. There’s something Lloyd never told you about himself: one flew over his cuckoo’s nest and he’s a slandering paranoiac. He’s simply using you as a human testimonial to illustrate China’s not all the nasty things unfair Westerners constantly say it is.

    The cheese has slid off Lloyd’s cracker.

    • Troy Parfitt says:

      I had to look up cyber bully and cyber stalker. Here’s what it says on Wikipedia.

      Cyberbullying is the use of the Internet and related technologies to harm other people, in a deliberate, repeated, and hostile manner.[1] As it has become more common in society, particularly among young people, legislation and awareness campaigns have arisen to combat it.

      The practice of cyberbullying is not limited to children and, while the behavior is identified by the same definition in adults, the distinction in age groups is sometimes referred to as cyberstalking or cyberharassment when perpetrated by adults toward adults, sometimes directed on the basis of sex. Common tactics used by cyberstalkers are to vandalize a search engine or encyclopedia, to threaten a victim’s earnings, employment, reputation, or safety. A repeated pattern of such actions against a target by an adult constitutes cyberstalking.

      You wanna give me an example of how my comments on this bloh, which you screen and approve, constitute the above?

      You need to take your tablets mate.

    • There are so many IP addresses for Troy Partitt, how would anyone know which one belongs to him.

      • Troy Parfitt says:

        “then decide if he is a Cyber Bully. In my opinion, he is.”

        If that’s the case Lloyd, then why approve my comments for weeks and weeks? Why not ask me to stop posting on your sily site? Why this sudden accusation? I poke fun of you one day and you snap and call me a cyber bully hinting you might call the feds (in a foreign country no less!)

        It’s a bit like a restaurant owner letting a foreign customer into his establishment dozens of times – opening the door to allow him in personally – only to one day say, “You know. You’re a thief, and the maximum penalty for theft in your country is 10 years!”

        You’re mental. Absolutely bananas. Feng le. Not playing with a full deck. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

        But you’re right about one thing: your readers can make up their own minds.

        I suppose now you’ll write a 40 part series complete with YouTube videos from anonymous Frenchmen and other “living room spokespeople” explaing how I’m a “stocker”!

        Ha ha ha hah ha ah aha aha ha ha ha ha

        Oh no! The boys in blue are at my door! Hmmm, do I want to be charged in English or French? I’d better decide now. It’s my Canadian constitutional right.



      • Parfitt claims, “I poke fun of you one day and you snap and call me a cyber bully hinting you might call the feds (in a foreign country no less!)”

        THIRTY-EIGHT does not equal ONE!

        This has nothing to do with poking fun at someone for one day. There’s a history starting soon after I decided not to take your verbal abuse and insults any longer and stopped posting them.

        Anyone that wants to read all of those comments is free to click on the above link. The first comment from you that I did not post was dated January 11. Then there were thirty-seven more — sometimes several minutes apart. The last one was dated February 5. Now, it appears you are starting again.

        In addition, you appear to be paranoid. I never hinted that I might call the feds. I only mentioned it was against the law to harrass someone and the term for that is “cyber bully”.

        In fact, if anyone is “cuckoo”, the visitors to this site may read those thirty-eight comments you made, which I finally posted in one place in an attempt to get you to stop harassing me, and decide for him or herself who the nut case is.

        Moreover, revealing an IP address does not reveal a phone number, e-mail address and the physical address where a person lives. It is also not a personal ID such as a Social Security or national identity number or a credit card number. An IP is only the identification for the laptop or desktop where the comment or e-mail was sent from, which brings us back to the question you have ignored.

        Why do you have so many different IP addresses, which means you are sending the comments through more than one laptop or desktop? Are you moving around hitchhiking off other people’s wireless signals so it is harder for someone to trace you to a physical location, which only the police may do but only after a court order allows them too.

        I see no reason to feed your paranoia by even suggesting I’d ask for an investigation but if you have harassed others, maybe one of them might do it.

        I thought you might be interested in replying to this commnet. Someone you may have known and worked with in east Asia left you a comment on another post. He asked some questions. Here’s the link.

      • In fact, I didn’t approve thirty-eight of Mr. Troy Parfitt’s comments for about a month starting early in January and then in an attempt to get him to stop harassing me, I posted them together in one post so anyone could see what he was saying.

        After I said his comments were not welcome on this Blog, Mr. Parfitt wrote a “few” that were civil and because those few were civil, I posted them. It is obvious now that was a mistake.

        However, maybe because no police came knocking at his door, he decided to start up again with the insults and harassment, which I’m requesting that he stop doing. If so, I will start posting them where they belong —— with the others.

        This link will take anyone that is interested to those comments.


        In addition, this link will take anyone interested to Canada’s Department of Justice.

        This pull quote comes from the Introduction on the Canadian site: “criminal harassment generally consists of repeated conduct that is carried out over a period of time and that causes victims to reasonably fear for their safety but does not necessarily result in physical injury.”

        It seems that Canada and Australia have some of the toughest laws in the world for this sort of crime.

        NOTE: This is the last time that I will reply to Mr. Parfitt’s comments. His comments are no longer welcome on this Blog and I’m requesting that he stop posting them. However, I’m sure that will not stop him from rating posts with one star, which he has done in an obsessive manner and on a regular basis since I started to delete his comments in January from the posts where he leaves them.

        Since I posted this comment last night, Mr. Parfitt sent five more and none were civil or (in my opinion constructive either way. They mock. They insult. And they reveal his own opinions.

        Anyone interested in reading what Mr. Parfitt has to say, may find all of his comments through the following link:

        In the future, if the Canadian legal system feels that Mr. Parfitt is violating their laws regarding Cyber Bullies, that will be their decision, and that decision may be based partly on his comments found in one Post on this site. The maximum jail term if found guilty by the Canadian legal system is ten years.

        Anyone that reads Mr. Parfitt’s comments and wants to forward the link to the proper authorities in Canada may do so.

        However, because Mr. Parfitt often sends multiple comments minutes apart, those comments may not appear for some time since I will post them on my schedule—not Mr. Parfitt’s.

        In my opinion, this obsessive and insulting behavior from Mr. Parfitt due to repeated comments that are not welcome on this Blog is a sign that he may be mentally unstable, and I fear for the safety of my family since studies show that this sort of behavior often leads to violence as the stalker seeks revenge.

        I do not know Mr. Parfitt personally. I have never met him face to face. He is often verbally abusive with others that disagree with his opinions of China, of this Blog and of me. He may claim or insinuate that he is harmless and that I am crazy but there is no way for anyone to judge if that is true. To me, he is a mentally unstable stranger and mentally unstable people may say anything to justify their actions.

        Readers may read all of his comments and then stand in my shoes, and ask, “How would I feel if someone was sending those comments to me?”

        There is an old proverb (possibly Chinese) that says, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice; shame on me.”

        I request that Mr. Parfitt stop what I feel is harassment. This means that I’m asking Mr. Parfitt to leave no more comments of any kind on this Blog or any other Blog that I write.

        However, if he ignores this request, his comments will be posted as evidence of his possible mental instability along with all of his other deleted comments and they may be found at the following link:

  4. Troy Parfitt says:

    Mr. Grant strikes me as the perfect guest blogger for your site, Lloyd. He knows almost as little about China as you do.

    Wow. We learn that China has new buildings and old buildings…
    “I certainly found China to be a country in transition.”

    Penetrating stuff. This is the China site with all the heavy hitters. Why read The Economist?

    • Mr. Parfitt,

      You are no expert on China. Your claim to fame is that you worked in East Asia for more than a decade teaching ESL (mostly in Korea and Taiwan), learned some Chinese and forgot most of it after returning home to Canada several years ago. In addition, you have read many books about China mostly written by Westerners and a few Chinese that had to write what Western publishers wanted if they wanted to be published—that’s how publishing works.

      Moreover, if you haven’t noticed, the major media in the West tends to focus on the negative when it comes to China. But of course, you did notice, which is probably why you wrote what you did.

      Occasionally, in one of your comments, you will throw in a phrase in pinyin, which is the English language version of Chinese, to impress people with your vast knowledge of China culled from reading dozens of books on that country while training your students to behave more like Westerners than Chinese.

      Anyone can do what you are doing if they want to show off as you have done before. Here is a link to one pinyin translator. However, I have never used one of these sites like that, as you may have done.

      Here’s another one:

      In addition, some editor at CNBC (or some other network) was looking for something negative about China and found your book—that’s all, which was probably the only one out there mean spirited enough to pass that editors test. I know about the media and how it often manufactures the news to fill empty space. Your momentary claim to fame is based on being in the right place at the right time and nothing more. The media is a hungry beast that devours content 365 days a week 24 hours a day. Your work was not singled out because you are a great writer like a Paul Theroux, Pearl Buck, Hemingway or Steinbeck.

      I suspect that your moment of fame will fade and be forgotten by most of the world but not by you who are more impressed with yourself than most people will ever be. You are a small person infected with the virus of narcissism with a matching self-inflated ego more impressed by the words you churn out in insulting comments than most people are that read them will be.

      Mr. Grant was a businessman in China. He worked with the Chinese for several years traveling in China on business. He formed business and personal relationships with Chinese and his experience is based on that and nothing more and he does not pretend or claim to be an expert on China as you do.

      You are one individual with an opinion of China limited by your experiences and your own biases, which are evident from your work. You are not qualified to represent China.

      This pull quote of “The Publisher’s Weekly” Review of your second book says it best—” The result is mostly travelogue told from an outsider’s perspective, contextualized with overviews of major events in Chinese history,” which you probably culled from all the books you read of China.

      You were an outsider, as I am, and you will always be an outsider. However, in your case, you have convinced yourself that you are the consummate expert on China, its culture and its people. That is it. You are nothing more than your narcissistic opinion of yourself. There may be some truth to your opinions but your opinions are only opinions and much is missing.

      In fact, I am no expert on China either. I’ve read extensively on China, married a Chinese woman and learned more about China from her and by living with her and from her family and friends, and have traveled extensively in China getting to know individual people on a personal basis.

      Unlike Bob Grant, I have never done business in China and I suspect that you haven’t either.

      I have a question? Why is it that so many of your comments come from different IP addresses mostly in the same region. Each IP address comes from a different machine/computer.

      Are you trying to hide something? Are you a professional cyber bully stocking others as you have stocked me attempting to hide so no one can trace your exact location in Canada, a country that has laws for cyber bullies with jail terms up to ten years?

      This is your latest IP address and each IP address represents a different laptop or desktop since each machine has its own unique ID number.

      Here are a few others that identify that your comments have come from more than one computer mostly from the area around St. John, New Brunswick, Canada.

Comments are welcome — pro or con. However, comments must focus on the topic of the post, be civil and avoid ad hominem attacks.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: