brushed up on a particularly interesting headline, and a blogger named Half Branch Lotus 6 made a serious criticism of me, which is particularly interesting:
Here, first of all, I would like to thank @Optimistic Maple Leaf QZ for affirming me.
At the same time, I also thank Miss Maple Leaf for giving me a chance to face the criticism of Half Branch Lotus 6.
This blogger criticized me for being too long. The screenshot can't be screenshotted.,The link is placed below.,If you're interested, look at it yourself.
https://m.toutiao.com/is/ijQUFnUx/?= Is there a problem with the Nobel Prize in Literature citation? Listen to the wonderful reasoning of the "big bar spirit" - today's headlines
The following is the reply to Half Leaf Lotus 6:
With such a long article, I'm afraid you don't have the patience to read it, so I'll focus on the key points.
Although the article is long, there are only two main points.
The first important point is: I defended Mo Yan by saying that there was no problem with the award speech, and the evidence cited was that the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China endorsed Mo Yan, and you said that this evidence was wrong.
Because this article was published on October 11, 2012, and Mo Yan was awarded on December 10, 2012.
Here I would like to thank you for your correction, I checked and it was true.
That's right, Mo Yan's award was given two months later.
In other words, when the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China released that article, Hong Lei had not heard the award speech.
I want to admit my mistake to the majority of netizens.
12 years ago, I just heard the news that Mo Yan won the Nobel Prize, but I didn't have an in-depth understanding.
And the matter of the award speech was only paid attention to when Sima Nan was crusading against Mo Yan two years ago.
At that time, I only searched and watched the video, and I really didn't pay attention to the real award time.
Thank you again for your correction, and at the same time apologize again to netizens for my own lack of rigor.
However, I will only admit that I made a mistake about the timing of the award speech, and I still firmly adhere to the original opinion.
Yes, my point of view remains the same.
My original view was that the Chinese government highly recognized Mo Yan's Nobel Prize in Literature.
It's just that the evidence cited at the time is invalid, but I have more evidence to support my argument.
At that time, my article quoted an article from the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China.
As you said, this is not evidence.
So what kind of evidence is authoritative enough?
Of course, China's top state-run media "People's Daily":
If, after December 10, 2012, the whole of China has heard the award speech, the Chinese state media still recognizes Mo Yan and does not raise doubts about Mo Yan's award, does it prove that there is no problem with the award speech?
@半支莲6女士: Don't you only have doubts about the timing of the evidence I presented? - The Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China, represented by Hong Lei, did not hear the Nobel Prize award speech two months ago, so their recognition does not count - is that what it means?
Then change to an official media that is sure and has definitely heard the award speech, and it is China's top official media, and it is our party's organ newspaper, you have no opinion, right?
Oh well, I've got you covered.
People's Daily article of December 11, 2012:
There's no problem with this time, right?
Of course, you will also say: this is just a report, and does not represent the official attitude of the Chinese government.
Ms. Banzhilian: I can think of anything you can think of.
Let's come again.
The following are the editorials of the People's Daily in the next few days, in fact, there are far more than that, I just took a few random screenshots.
Do you see the attitude of the authorities?
Of course, you can say: no, no, no, no! That's not for sure!
Less than three months, the following year, Mo Yan was appointed as a deputy to the National People's Congress, and this still doesn't show the attitude of China's official state?
Do you know what it means to be a deputy to the National People's Congress in China?
Will the Chinese government make a bad guy who is "full of benevolence, righteousness and morality, a belly full of male thieves and prostitutes, and will let his grandchildren learn badly" to be a deputy to the National People's Congress?
Of course, you didn't say this, you just paraphrased someone else's words like Mr. Sima.
But I think if you don't think so yourself, you won't sing with the gang (your teacher Sima is particularly fond of using this word), right?
Am I making it clear?
I've always been, I've always been:
I listen to the party.
I listen to the government.
I support the attitude of the party and the government: Mo Yan is proud to have won the Nobel Prize.
This attitude was the one when you wrote the article you criticized, and it is still now, and if Mo Yan does not change his original intention, it will definitely be the same in the future.
Unlike your teacher Sima Nan, who went around and around for a while to praise Mo Yan to the sky, and gritted his teeth for a while and scolded him to hell.
Okay, that's all I have to say.
I haven't forgotten that you also raised the second question.
You say, "Shouldn't there be three big question marks?"
I don't quite understand what you mean.
Should I hit this question mark or should you hit it?
If you think that this question mark should be typed by you, then I will tell you: I admit that I am not capable enough, and indeed I have not found an authoritative translation of this award speech, which is indeed a flaw for me, who is used to writing articles and pasting evidence.
If you think that this question mark should be typed by me, then I would like to ask: can you give me an authoritative official translation text, except for the translation text that is widely circulated on the Internet and may be uncomfortable to listen to?
You say: This is the root of reasoning about whether there is a problem with the award speech.
That's a good point, and I don't object to it at all.
I'm sure you're not an unreasonable person, and I think you should like to learn as much as I do.
Since we get to the root of it, can you help me trace it back to the source?
Where is the "root" you are talking about?
I've confessed it, I can't find it, so what about you? Have you found a credible translation?
You don't need to take out the one that is circulating on the Internet, I have that one in my hand, but is that credible?
Let's peel off the phenomenon and look at the essence, don't listen to what Zhang San says, what Li Si says, and what Wang Wu says.
Just like what they said Li Ao said, Liu Baiyu said, and Li Yang said, whether it was the person who praised him or the person who scolded him, it was mixed with personal emotions and was definitely not objective.
We are all people who understand, and we are all people who were born in New China and grew up under the red flag, is it good to listen to the party?
Is it good to listen to the country?
There are many authoritative media in China, such as People's Daily, China Daily, Guangming Daily, Party Daily, Xinhua News Agency, People's Daily Online, Reference News, CCTV, any media can be.
Oh yes! At the end of the article, you also accused me: "Hiding from the world, pointing a deer as a horse, and labeling those who oppose Mo Yan as "anti-government", "traitor", "lackey", "kneeling and licking the scum of the West", "spies", and receiving "bones" and "wages".
Can you give me a specific example, which sentence I said that the deer is a horse?
Also, I think it is very necessary for me to explain: "anti-government", "traitors", "lackeys", "scum who kneel and lick the West", "spies", "bones" and "wages", etc., these words are not for whom I deduct the hat.
If you look at the comments below my article, you will know that these hats were given to me by your allies, and I just gave them back.
Of course, these people I am talking about do not include you, I didn't know you before, how could I return the hat to you for no reason?
Dear Ms. Banzhilian, I am only targeting those who have given me hats for no reason.
These are not good hats, please don't pick them up and put them on yourself, at this time it is better to leave them behind.
If you have the patience to read a few more of my comments, you will find that the words I have given them are so gentle.
They had too many vicious and dirty things to say, but my tutor wouldn't let me say them.
In order to cooperate with the network clearance operation, I usually report them directly.
Can you answer my question now?
Do you think it's wrong that I think it's okay to say that the award speech is okay, so what did you tell me wrong?
Tell me what's right, shall I listen to it?
We're not kids anymore, and again, don't fool me with that translation circulating on the Internet.
Would you like to help you find a translation that everyone can trust?
Ms. Hanzhiren: Because the headline was just pushed to me, my answer was late.
So are you still satisfied with my late answer?
If there's anything I haven't said, just mention it, and it's not too nonsense, I'll answer it.
Of course, I'm a person like a crane, and when I am interested, I sometimes write several articles a day.
When you're not interested, you may not be using your phone for a long time.
When I'm busy with other things, it's possible that I won't reply to you for a month.
But this by no means means that I am rude, the old lady I am over half a hundred years old, and sometimes I will spend a lot of time willfully doing interesting things, and I don't care about the world, you won't be surprised, right?
Even though you've written several articles about my not-so-friendly appearance, I still have a lot of respect for you.
Except for those who I think have evil thoughts in their hearts, even if they are scolding me, I will not be different.
It's great to return a tooth for a tooth, and if you say it, you will turn the page, and you generally won't have too much anger.
I'll try to get back to you one by one, but I don't promise enough time to do it.
Thank you again for correcting me, good night!