As always, another excellent round up. Thanks, Simon!

tomrsn@sympatico.ca
http://urielw.com

Ellen Sander vigorously denies her husband Joe Bosco's involvement in deleting the discussion of my China story (http://urielw.com/china2/ ) on Peking Duck:

-----------
I know this not to be the case! After several e-mail exchanges about Wittenberg and his web site, Richard asked Joseph if he should take Wittenberg's comment down. Joseph told Richard to make the call himself and do whatever he thought best. Richard took it all down. That's the whole story.

http://ellensander.com/2004_09_01_cp_archive.html#109469265998026230
-----------

But it's not quite the whole story. Sander studiously avoids any reference to Peking Duck proprietor Richard's own words, quoted in the story she denounces (she provides no link, but it's at http://urielw.com/bosco.htm ): "Joseph convinced me that debate on this point would not be productive and could cause unnecessary harm."

But the question of whether the discussion was deleted at Bosco's or Burger's initiative is a minor point. Sander also entirely neglects the primary offense against free speech principles here: the foul-mouthed attacks that she, Bosco and Burger have waged in their quest to discredit the scrupulously true and honest report I have written of my China observations.

Emulating her husband, Sander speaks of my disgruntlement, my defamations, my ineptness, my culpability, my contempt, my lengthy documented rant, my fulminating online rant, my revolting diatribe and my slander. But nowhere have she or Bosco questioned the accuracy of even one specific item from the mountain of detailed observations I present to readers.

Bosco's comments have made clear that his relations to the school authorities, his access to Communist Party officials, his regular appearances on Chinese TV, are near and dear to his heart. The man is conflicted. And the slanders are self-evidently his. That he does not even pretend to justify his slanders is a measure of his brazenness. His siding with corrupt and secretive Chinese officialdom against a Westerner who has been thoroughly open is a betrayal not only of fundamental American principles. It also betrays idealistic Chinese students and others who somehow admire the U.S. and its people as embodying the spirit of open debate.