One of the reasons that writing becomes more and more difficult for me is because more and more subject matters enter my story. Since my goal is to provide as much as information as possible, the more I am able to write, the better. So I will start with a technical note and let my mind be the theme and take us wherever it wants to go.
As you probably noticed - or, did you? - that there is a stats counter at the bottom of each of my blogs. According to the stats, rarely do I have visitors.
So, it would appear to me that you read my blogs through some other means. I don't know how.
This unknown bothers me sometimes. One of the reasons is that, when I am on a certain subject, I don't know how much previous related information I should repeat in my new blog entry. For one thing, with my depression I am extremely unwilling to write. For another, with my recent physical problem, I can't sit up for very long at a time. (Those are the major reasons for my sloppier research lately.) Besides, I find it tedious to have to keep repeating myself.
For example, in my previous blog, I mentioned the three Guardian articles on January 20 as examples of propaganda tying me to either terrorism or separatism. Besides the editorial, the other two were:
Jonathan Steele: The textbook whitewash of our brutish empire is a lie.
Simon Jenkins: Of course the Chinese didn't discover America. But then nor did Columbus.
Actually, another columnist on this side of the Atlantic wrote about lies on the same day. Michael Kinsley's column on Washington Post was Why Lawyers Are Liars.
As I saw it, these columnists were attacking my second report published just three days before. Have I responded to these attacks? Yes, I did in the spring. So I just assumed, when I wrote my previous blog, that you knew that I had responded to them already.
As I wrote in Canadian Election 2006 (7): My decision of "limited participation" posted on April 15, "the major reason that I had left out Chinese government in my writings until February 27 was that I did not want to unnecessarily complicate my legal situation, considering that (1) I have been without a lawyer since the end of November [2005] and (2) I had a hostile media trying to put me down at every opportunity."
Another thing I omitted in my second report was the connection between General Zhu's nuclear comments and Bush administration's media nuclear bomb " lest it ignited a 'phony war' between U.S. and China during the election". But I did mention Zhu's comments in a separate blog within a very short time span of publishing my second report.
It is inevitable that you don't always get the complete information in my writings. The most obvious cause is, as I said before, I can not write fast enough to catch up with the development of my story. When I do withhold information on rare occasions such as above (I can't think of any other situations where I deliberately withheld information), it is done with a valid cause and not intended to mislead. And I don't lie. Every word I put on my web sites is true to the best of my knowledge at the time of writing. In fact, to maintain the integrity and authenticity of my writings, I refrain myself from much editing even when I find minor errors in them after posting. Whenever possible, I use email to post to my blogs so that I always have an original copy.
As always, I am open to serious interviews. Give me a clear question, I will give you a clear answer. Maybe even more. (But frankly, I do not have much hope on journalists' calling me, especially from those in Canadian media. My sad finding is that most of them are neither pro-liberal, nor pro-conservative. They are simply pro-bigotry. Sorry to be blunt.)
