Information Review Tribunal allows Tsai Ing-wen thesis lawsuit to proceed
Michael Richardson
Luby Liao
Luby Liao
The Information Review Tribunal is user friendly. You may file a lawsuit without cost by email. No service to parties, court costs, etc. Yes, the gatekeeper is the correct target. Although it turns out that UL not LSE is the actual gatekeeper. I do not have any vested interest in the outcome other than determination of the truth.Regards, Michael
Frank S T Hsiao
Dear MICHEL AND ALL:
“Tsai has publicly bragged about the examiners claiming they were so impressed they wanted to give her an extra degree. IT COULD BE SO. HER TOPIC WAS VERY NEW AT THAT TIME OF WRITING. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. THE THESIS RELATED TO THE LAW AS WELL AS INTERNATIONAL TRADE.
Tsai won’t say why she is keeping the examiners’ identities secret. The two London schools say they cannot tell because that is Tsai’s private information.”
IT SEEMS TO ME WE ALREADY KNOW WHO THEY ARE. I REMEMBER ONE IS DECEASED, ONE BECAME A WELL KNOWN COLUMNIST OR SOMETHING. I REMEMBER SOME UNINFORMED PEOPLE EVEN ACCUSED THEM THEY WERE GRADUATE OF OXFORD BA, NO PHD DEGREE. BUT, NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT AT THAT TIME. I HAVE ARGUED THAT IN 1984, MANY FACULTY MEMBER ONLY HAD BA, AND SO FAR AS LSE OR UL ACCEPTED THEM AS THE FACULTY MEMBERS, THAT WAS LSE OR UL TO DECIDE. MICHEL OR ANY OTHER OUTSIDER HAS NOTHING TO COMPLAIN.
I CAN DIG OUT THE NAMES. BUT IT MAY TAKE TIME.
FRANK HSIAO
--
--
This forum is restricted to NATPA members only. The views and opinions expressed in every post are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of NATPA.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "NATPA Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to
natpa...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
natpa_forum...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/natpa_forum?hl=en?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NATPA Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
natpa_forum...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/natpa_forum/CAEtN0SGaj_Sg%2B72S87o5bhPfx5-whK8VYDqPjcJreH7gT1Bx1w%40mail.gmail.com.
Shin Liu
Frank S T Hsiao
No, not at all.
The reality is there is a copy of the thesis displayed in the LSE library. Whatever it is, the LSE recognizes it as a PhD thesis of Tsai. That is the reality.
Nothing to do with your belief at all. That is the reality.
Frank
Sebo koh
On May 20, 2021, at 3:48 PM, 'Shin Liu' via NATPA Forum <natpa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/natpa_forum/129855191.875519.1621540123187%40mail.yahoo.com.
Luby Liao
“The Reality is what you choose to believe.”
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/natpa_forum/30B29DF6-6A1D-42E3-9902-1EFE203FF9E1%40mac.com.
Michael Richardson
Michael Richardson
Luby Liao
Tsai Ing-wen thesis had no external examiner
What began as a blatant attempt by Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen to silence her most vocal critic, backfired, with a stunning reversal and release of a secret she has long kept from the public.
Professor Peng has fought back against President Tsai’s attempt to imprison him for remarks about her LSE thesis.
Frank S T Hsiao
Dear Michael and all:
Ok, here they are. Both Elliott and Hindley passed away (you would think this is another evil conspiracy?)
And, apparently you even did not read her thesis made so much noise, and even made a blind accusation.
Also, in the thesis, there were several hand correction. It seems to me, at that time, hand corrections, especially the grammatical errors (metricculou to meticulous) not related to the thesis contents, were allowed, as it was very costly to retype and reedit the whole page?
Frank
Another point. I had a distinguished colleague, Kenneth Boulding. We hired him from U of Michigan as a full professor (against the regular protocol). It was said that he submitted his PhD thesis to Oxford (or Cambridge?) and was rejected for the PhD degree. He published it as a textbook. It was one of the best textbook in Economics for the past generation economists (before Samuelson). He was elected as a fellow of the American Economics Association and was then the President of AEA in the 1970s. But he had no PhD!! The point is, so far the academics and the university think one is good, then one is good, none of the business of non-academics and non-university community.
Besides, for the academics, today, the PhD degree is the lowest qualification for academic advancement. You have to go through assistant professor, tenure, associate professor, professor, and professor emeritus to finish the academic ladder. Except probably the medical doctor, nobody in the academic really care about PhD or not, and certainly, it is not required for being a president. Please stop much ado for nothing, and do some more meaningful writing, which is your forte.
Michael Richardson
Michael Richardson
Frank S T Hsiao
Sorry Michael, you don’t know how the way the thesis acknowledgment works.
The candidate acknowledges the thesis advisors and thesis committee members, among others (like parents), since they usually made some input to the thesis (in our department, you have to submit the thesis at least two weeks before the committee meeting before my retirement. The protocol might change now)
Apparently you don’t know anything about math. This is absolutely nothing to do with math. It is a convention and the custom of submitting the final version of the thesis. Naturally, since it is a custom, not a rule or law, there is individual variant (you may not mention a nasty thesis committee member, ☹ But still, as a courtesy, you should). You can safely assume they are committee members.
All the NATPA members have their experience, I like to know what our members think.
Frank
Michael Richardson
jkea...@ms67.hinet.net
It is or had been when I got my degree the convention that you wrote up that part after the dissertation/thesis for Brits had been reviewed and approved with recommendations to make etc.
I thanked the director of the dissertation and then the different people who had been on my review committee--the only one I left out was the guy from the Math Department who was there because at that time the University had made a new rule that someone from a totally different field or discipline be there. My degree was in the Humanities so they brought in someone from Math. He of course asked strange questions and everyone on the committee was annoyed at the time he was wasting, but still felt obligated to clue him in as to what was going on. I didn't want his name on it.
I don't know if the university kept that rule; it was one of those things that in theory seemed good for balance or such, but usually given the reality of the difference in disciplines and the depth of subject matter at a doctoral level, it wasted a certain amount of time. Anyway, I left him off of my list of thank yous and kept it to those others on the review committee.
I know that the Brit system is different from that in the US and of course even in the US it differs from university to university but to my experience, one does not use this to thank people who helped you from when you were at another university etc.
On grammar issues and final copy etc. I do remember that someone went back and got Ma Ying-jeou's dissertation and pointed out all the grammar issues etc. -- that was done because the KMT had liked to say how conversant Ma was in English etc. etc.
As I have said, having been in the system, I can see innumerable ways that something could have fallen through the cracks back in 1984, esp. if LSE has to officially give its degrees through Uof L, and therefore who was responsible to keep what records etc.
I don't expect any great or startling revelations. That is why I say, take it to the gatekeeper; don't bother me with asking me to read this or that etc.
Jerome
請隨時 造訪我們的網站 http://groups.google.com/group/i_love_taiwan
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/i_love_taiwan
若要退出這群組，請送電子郵件給 i_love_taiwa...@googlegroups.com 標題及本文空白就可.
To unsubscribe from this group, please send email to i_love_taiwa...@googlegroups.com
You can leave Subject and Body blank.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "i_love_taiwan" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to i_love_taiwa...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/i_love_taiwan/CAEUZ_rMdNmquajDpWJDuRjiFPnHiLeDnMeC3_M9_FnFc3wcVZg%40mail.gmail.com.
Shin Liu
I did not attend my commencement ant thus have no formal photo, but I did buy a formal robe and cap.
Taitzer, are you OK?What did Frank (and Jerome) say to Mike that made you so angry?Cheers, LubyOn Fri, May 21, 2021 at 7:54 PM Taitzer Wang <tai...@gmail.com> wrote:Now, disputant Michael Richardson has spoken (see his well-versed rebuttal mails below). Let me offer a few thoughts to congratulate him for having done so. Yes, as Michael says, Frank is “stuck out on a limb”. Frank deserves a harsh criticism for writing his nonsensical gap early this morning on prestigious NATPA forum.The flatterer Frank Hsiao said on NATPA Forum not long ago, “Count me one” —Yes, here is one frog looking at the sky from the bottom of a well 坐井觀天.
Yes, here is one NATPA elder “gatekeeper” Professor Frank Hsiao 蕭聖鐵 who utters nonsensical gab in his 5/21 mail.Yes, this has happened to this one senior member in the absence of the supervision of NATPA founder, the late Professor Liao Shutsung 故廖述宗教授.Yes, this one elder NATPA member really thinks of his younger fellow members as idiots, who, unlike him, are led by TIW herself to believe what she has to say about and do with her PhD thesis are all lies. 這個元老 NATPA 會員確實把比他年輕而相信蔡英文有關她的博士論文的所做所言都是在撒謊的會友當白痴。Yes, here is this one who does not know that TIW actually has single-handedly created all her own problems; nobody wants to accuse her of any wrongdoings in the first place.And yes, Michael, NATPA as a whole owe you a great deal for having spent so much time to try to find out what is true.Yes, Michael, NATPA members do have "a variety of protocols from the different institutions, none of which matter here. The only thing that matters is what was UL's policy and what did UL do.”Yes, Paracelsus (1493 - 1541) had long said “Anyone who imagines that all fruits ripen at the same time as the strawberries knows nothing about grapes.” (The Art of Loving by Erich Fromm, 1956, Harper & Row)Taitzer 5/21/2021
On May 21, 2021, at 2:18 PM, Michael Richardson <richards...@gmail.com> wrote:
Frank!I am really surprised (stunned actually) that a mathematician, of all people, would make a presumption of fact without any evidence. Tsai also acknowledged Barcelo. Under your theory that makes him an examiner also. However, because of Tsai's false campaign statement about the death of Barcelo we did learn that he had nothing to do with the thesis, much less conduct a viva examination. If Barcelo was not an examiner, and he is thanked just like Hindley, why do you name Hindley as an examiner? I may not have the degrees you do and lack your academic experience but I do understand simple logic and your presumption about Hindley is unsupported with evidence.Now that you are stuck out on a limb with Hindley as an examiner you should consider that a LSE attorney identified to ROC prosecutors that Elliott and Leonard Leigh were the examiners. I am not accepting the LSE assertion to ROC prosecutors as it was UL's responsibility not LSE. Still, the LSE attorney's assertion seems to be closer to proof than your theorizing about an acknowledgement.I am not a member of NATPA and will not be aware of any responses. I suspect if NATPA members do check in, we will find a variety of protocols from the different institutions, none of which matter here. The only thing that matters is what was UL's policy and what did UL do.Regards, Michael
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:47 AM Frank S T Hsiao <frank...@colorado.edu> wrote:
Sorry Michael, you don’t know how the way the thesis acknowledgment works.
The candidate acknowledges the thesis advisors and thesis committee members, among others (like parents), since they usually made some input to the thesis (in our department, you have to submit the thesis at least two weeks before the committee meeting before my retirement. The protocol might change now)
Apparently you don’t know anything about math. This is absolutely nothing to do with math. It is a convention and the custom of submitting the final version of the thesis. Naturally, since it is a custom, not a rule or law, there is individual variant (you may not mention a nasty thesis committee member, ☹ But still, as a courtesy, you should). You can safely assume they are committee members.
All the NATPA members have their experience, I like to know what our members think.
Frank
From: Michael Richardson <richards...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 8:58 AM
To: Frank S T Hsiao <frank...@colorado.edu>
Cc: Luby Liao <luby...@gmail.com>; i_love_taiwan <i_love...@googlegroups.com>; Forum NATPA <natpa...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [NATPA Forum] Seeking truth? [Was: Information Review Tribunal allows Tsai Ing-wen thesis lawsuit to proceed]
Frank!
You are a deep thinking math expert. However that does not qualify you to make incorrect assertions. In an earlier email you stated you had the names of the thesis examiners. Yet as evidence you cite Tsai's acknowledgements in the thesis. To my knowledge you are the first person to assert Hindley was one of the thesis examiners. You have inflated a mentor to the status of examiner without any apparent basis for doing so other than Tsai's thank you statement. Even with my limited math skills, that does not add up.
Regards, Michael
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 10:18 PM Frank S T Hsiao <frank...@colorado.edu> wrote:
Dear Michael and all:
Ok, here they are. Both Elliott and Hindley passed away (you would think this is another evil conspiracy?)
And, apparently you even did not read her thesis made so much noise, and even made a blind accusation.
<<UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_2138.jpg>
--
請隨時 造訪我們的網站 http://groups.google.com/group/i_love_taiwan
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/i_love_taiwan
若要退出這群組，請送電子郵件給 i_love_taiwa...@googlegroups.com 標題及本文空白就可.
To unsubscribe from this group, please send email to i_love_taiwa...@googlegroups.com
You can leave Subject and Body blank.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "i_love_taiwan" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to i_love_taiwa...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/i_love_taiwan/CAEUZ_rMdNmquajDpWJDuRjiFPnHiLeDnMeC3_M9_FnFc3wcVZg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
--
This forum is restricted to NATPA members only. The views and opinions expressed in every post are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of NATPA.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "NATPA Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to natpa...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
natpa_forum...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/natpa_forum?hl=en?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NATPA Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to natpa_forum...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/natpa_forum/CAEtN0SGQYbTrzNfWne7GmsPr1agJnTTHeyYbtX2eBz%3DhTJgjeQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--
This forum is restricted to NATPA members only. The views and opinions expressed in every post are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of NATPA.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "NATPA Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to natpa...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
natpa_forum...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/natpa_forum?hl=en?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NATPA Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to natpa_forum...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
Shin Liu
Frank S T Hsiao
Dear Michael and all:
I will answer your writing one by one below.
But, It was nice to know who were the examiners.
Thus, we know for sure there were thesis committee and examiners, whatever who they were. Thus, there are two possibilities, whether she passed the examine or failed.
Apparently, she passed the examination, and the thesis was duly deposited in the LSE and designated as her PhD thesis. Do you have “fact” to show otherwise?
That is the fact, all others are simply lies and speculation.
Now, you were questioning whether the protocol was followed. Since there was no definite protocol to follow in or out of a university, that is irrelevant question.
Frank
From: Michael Richardson <richards...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 12:18 PM
To: Frank S T Hsiao <frank...@colorado.edu>
Cc: Luby Liao <luby...@gmail.com>; i_love_taiwan <i_love...@googlegroups.com>; Forum NATPA <natpa...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [NATPA Forum] Seeking truth? [Was: Information Review Tribunal allows Tsai Ing-wen thesis lawsuit to proceed]
Frank!
I am really surprised (stunned actually) that a mathematician, of all people, would make a presumption of fact without any evidence. Tsai also acknowledged Barcelo. Under your theory NO, I DON’T HAVE “THEORY,” DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THEORY? IN MY RESPONSE, I JUST MENTIONED THE GENERAL CONVENTION AND CUSTOMS. THAT IS NOT THEORY. THEORY CAN BE DISPUTED ALSO. NOT TO SPEAKING OF CONVENTION AND CUSTOMS
that makes him an examiner also. HE MIGHT BE, BUT MIGHT NOT BE. HE MIGHT BE HAPPEN TO BE VISITING LSE AND SERVED AS THE EXAMINER. HE MIGHT NOT BE SINCE HE IS IN THE USA. BUT IT DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL?
However, because of Tsai's false campaign statement about the death of Barcelo we did learn that he had nothing to do with the thesis, much less conduct a viva examination. ARE YOU SURE HE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TSAI’S THESIS? WHAT IS YOUR “FACT” TO SAY SO? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HE DIRECTED HER MA THESIS IN CORNELL AND HER PHD THESIS IS/WAS A CONTINUATION OF THE MA THESIS IN CORNELL. THAT WHY SHE ACKNOWLEDGED BACELO. NOTHING WRONG ABOUT THIS.
If Barcelo was not an examiner, and he is thanked just like Hindley, why do you name Hindley as an examiner? NOT CLEAR ABOUT YOUR QUESTION. THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE RELATION BETWEEN BARCELO AND HINDLEY IN THE THESIS. I DIDN’T “NAME” HINDLEY AS THE EXAMINER, I JUST GUESSED BY CONVENTION AND CUSTOMS THAT HINDLEY MIGHT BE AN EXAMINER. I may not have the degrees you do and lack your academic experience FROM WHAT YOU WRITE, I WOULD THINK SO.
but I do understand simple logic and your presumption about Hindley is unsupported with evidence. THE EVIDENCE IS THAT HE WAS MENTIONED IN THE THESIS FOR HIS CONTRIBUTION, AND BY CONVENTION AND CUSTOMS, I GUESSED HE WAS AN EXAMINER. NOW YOU SAID HE WAS NOT. SO BE IT. TEMPEST IN TEA POT!
Now that you are stuck out on a limb with Hindley as an examiner you should consider that a LSE attorney identified to ROC prosecutors that Elliott and Leonard Leigh were the examiners. OK, SO YOU FOUND THE REAL EXAMINER, NO Hindley. THEN, WHY DID YOU ASK FOR THE NAME OF EXAMINERS IN THE FIRST PLACE? I WAS JUST RESPONDING TO YOUR QUESTIONS AND MADE A SUGGESTIONS. SO NOW, YOU SAID HINKLEY WAS NOT, SO WHAT?
I am not accepting WELL WHAT IS THE FACT? the LSE assertion to ROC prosecutors as it was UL's responsibility not LSE. NOT CLEAR. WHAT RESPONSIBILITY? SO FAR AS I KNOW, LSE WAS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF UL, BUT EXAMINATION AND DECISION WAS MAKE BY LSE, AND THEN APPROVED ANNOUNCED BY UL. THAT IS THE USUALLY CUSTOMS (THAT IS ALSO THE CASE IN MY UNIVERSITY IN THE1970-80 BETWEEN THE MAIN CAMPUS AND BRANCHES, THAT IS BOULDER AND DENVER CAMPUSES, BUT DENVER CAMPUSES BECAME AN INDEPENDENT UNIT).
Still, the LSE attorney's assertion seems to be closer to proof WHAT PROOF? than your theorizing about an acknowledgement. NOT CLEAR AGAIN. AGAIN, OK, HINKLEY WAS NOT AN EXAMINER? WHY DO YOU WORRY ABOUT WHO WAS THE EXAMINER? IMPORTANT MATTER TO ASK IS WHETHER THERE WERE
EXAMINERS. THE ANSWER IS THERE WERE AT LEAST TWO EXAMINERS.
I am not a member of NATPA and will not be aware of any responses. YOU STILL CAN GET THE INFO INDIRECTLY.
I suspect if NATPA members do check in, we will find a variety of protocols from the different institutions, none of which matter here. YOU ARE ABSOLUELY CORRECT. YOU KNOW THAT, DIFFERENT INSTITUTE HAS DIFFERENT PROTOCOL.
The only thing that matters is what was UL's policy and what did UL do. SINCE THERE ARE “A VARIETY OF PROTOCOLS” IN DIFFERENT INSTITUTE, THERE IS NO DEFINITE CRITERIA OF RECEIVING THE DEGREE, BA, MA, OR PHD. THERE IS NO NEED TO ASK WHAT IS/WAS THE PROTOCOL, EVEN NO REASON TO QUESTION WHETHER THE PROTOCOLS WERE FOLLOWED, SINCE IT MIGHT CHANGE DEPENDING ON THE ADVISOR, EXAMINERS, UNIVERSITY RULES AT THAT TIME, AND THE STUDENT THESIS. SO FAR AS THE DEGREE WAS GRANTED BY THE UNIVERSITY, THAT IS ALL MATER. ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOUR OR OTHER’S BUSINESS.
Regards, Michael
Frank S T Hsiao
Wah, this Taitzer is really wrathful. Since he chipped in with such a unusual hateful spurt, let me make some speculation and analogy.
AFTER FINISHED HIS IN PHD CHEMISTRY, TAITZER GOT A JOB AS AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT AN UNIVERSITY. HE WAS THEN “FIRED” FROM THE UNIVERSITY, AND COULD’T GET A JOB IN OTHER UNIVERSITY. HE STARTED TEACHING AS A TEACHER ON TAIWAN HISTORY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT (NOT HIS PROFESSION) AT A CONTINUING EDUCATION FOR ELDERS, MAKING SOME CURBING AS A HOBBY (CURVING HUMAN FACE LIKE A MONKEY). THUS TAITZER’S ACADEMIC CAREER WAS DISRUPTED AT THE LEVEL OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, JUST COULD NOT CLIMB UP THE REGULAR ACADEMIC LADDER I MENTIONED IN MY POST BELOW. IN MY VIEW, THAT WHY HE IS VERY SENSITIVE ABOUT WHO GOT THE PHD DEGREE. THAT IS THE SOURCE OF HIS INFERIOR COMPLEX, AND IT EXPLAINS ALL HIS CONTRARIANT BEHAVIOR AND BURST.
Of course, Taitzer argues that he was not “fired,” he “resigned” voluntary from his position at the end of 6 years. But some can-do-nothing else people do not believe him and still suspect all kind of reasons why he was “fired” : incompetent research, no publication, plagiarism, bad teaching, fight with students and/or colleagues, cantankerous behavior (sounds familiar), or even had some kind of moral turpitude? So where to clarify all these speculations and rumors? The only place to ask is to ask the university where he left. Almost every university (mine also) has a mentor for the incoming assistant professor to help. So the best place to clarify all these rumors and speculations is to check the university record, annual faculty report and evaluation, and the mentor. The university is the gatekeeper!!
This is the same as the Tsai’s case. Those contrarians speculate and rumored every possible cases, except they did not ask the LSE directly, and refuse to accept the confirmation by LSE.
Below is my response to Taitzer Wang’s emotional writing in capital letters.
From: Taitzer Wang <tai...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 8:54 PM
To: Richardson, Michael <richards...@gmail.com>
Cc: Frank S T Hsiao <frank...@colorado.edu>; Liao, luby <luby...@gmail.com>; I Love Taiwan <i_love...@googlegroups.com>; NATPA-forum <natpa...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [iLoveTW] [NATPA Forum] Seeking truth? [Was: Information Review Tribunal allows Tsai Ing-wen thesis lawsuit to proceed]
Now, disputant Michael Richardson has spoken (see his well-versed rebuttal mails below). NO, NOT A REBUTTAL AT ALL. YOU SHOULD NOT RUSH TO MAKE JUDGEMENT EMOTIONALLY.
Let me offer a few thoughts to congratulate him for having done so. Yes, as Michael says, Frank is “stuck out on a limb”. SAY THIS BEFORE YOU READ MY “REBUTTAL.”
Frank deserves a harsh criticism HARSH? UNLIKE YOU, I THINK MICHAEL WAS POLITE AND REASONABLE TO ASK. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IS “HARSH”? MAY BE THIS IS A CHEMISTRY TERM. YOU ARE TOO EMOTIONAL, TAITZER, WITH ONLY PHD IN HAND. NO MORE.
for writing his nonsensical gap early this morning on prestigious NATPA forum.
The flatterer Frank Hsiao said on NATPA Forum not long ago, “Count me one” — NOT CLEAR, ON WHAT? ON YOUR STUPIDITY?
Yes, here is one frog looking at the sky from the bottom of a well 坐井觀天. WHY SO? IS THAT TAITZER WANG, PHD.
Yes, here is one NATPA elder “gatekeeper” Professor Frank Hsiao
蕭聖鐵 who utters nonsensical gab in his 5/21 mail. SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT? WHY IS IT NONSENSICAL GAB? WHAT IS YOU PROOF OR ARGUMENT? A PHD COULD NOT MAKE AN PROPER ARGUMENT, THAT WHY YOU REMAIN A CHILD. STUPIDITY AT
INFINITUM.
Yes, this has happened to this one senior member in the absence of the supervision of NATPA founder, the late Professor Liao Shutsung 故廖述宗教授. NOT CLEAR. A PHD WILL ARGUE DIRECTLY, NO NEED TO QUOTE OTHER PEOPLE TO MAKE POINT.
Yes, this one elder NATPA member YAH? HOW OLD ARE YOU? ARE YOU TALKING TO YOURSELF?
really thinks of his younger fellow members as idiots, NOT CLEAR. BUT LIKE TAITZER PHD YOURSELF?
who, unlike him, are led by TIW herself to believe what she has to say about and do with her PhD thesis are all lies. 這個元老 NATPA 會員確實把比他年輕而相信蔡英文有關她的博士論文的所做所言都是在撒謊的會友當白痴。WHAT ALL THIS ABOUT? EXCEPT A EMOTIONAL BLAST, WHAT IS THIS TO DOW WITH 蔡英文有關她的博士論文?
Yes, here is this one who does not know that TIW actually has single-handedly created all her own problems; nobody wants to accuse her of any wrongdoings in the first place. THEN, WHY DID YOU JUMP IN? SINCE THE FACT IS SHE HAD THESIS COMMITTEE, LIKE MICHAEL WROTE, AND SHE PASSED THE EXAMINATION, DULY RECEIVED HER DEGREE, AND THE THESIS IS DISPLAYED AS SUCH IN THE LSE LIBRARY. EVERYBODY KNOWS, EXCEPT YOU AND SOME CONTRARIANS, WHICH ARE MINORITY. MOST PEOPLE ARE SANE AND REASONABLE. NOTHING TO ARGUE ABOUT. IF YOU ARE SANE, JUST GO TO ASK LSE TO WITHDRAW HER THESIS (WHATEVER IT IS) FROM THE LIBRARY CATALOGUE. THAT IS THE ONLY SANE THING TO DO.
And yes, Michael, NATPA as a whole owe you a great deal for having spent so much time to try to find out what is true. YES, MICHAEL JUST SHOWN THAT THERE WAS A THESIS COMMITTEE AND EXAMINERS. THE PROBLEM IS LONG SETTLED.
Yes, Michael, NATPA members do have "a variety of protocols from the different institutions, none of which matter here. THAT WAS ORIGINAL QUESTION OF THE MICHAEL. “The only thing that matters is what was UL's policy and what did UL do.” THIS DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL.
Yes, Paracelsus (1493 - 1541) had long said “Anyone who imagines that all fruits ripen at the same time as the strawberries knows nothing about grapes.” (The Art of Loving by Erich Fromm, 1956, Harper & Row) HEY, IS THIS PART OF YOUR CHEMISTRY TRAINING? DID YOU ALSO TEACH THIS IN YOUR CONTINUING EDUCATION CLASS FOR THE SENIOR? SORRY, I AM NOT A CHEMIST, EVEN NOT A FAILED CHEMIST, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO.
Taitzer 5/21/2021
On May 21, 2021, at 2:18 PM, Michael Richardson <richards...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
請隨時 造訪我們的網站 http://groups.google.com/group/i_love_taiwan
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/i_love_taiwan
若要退出這群組，請送電子郵件給 i_love_taiwa...@googlegroups.com 標題及本文空白就可.
To unsubscribe from this group, please send email to i_love_taiwa...@googlegroups.com
You can leave Subject and Body blank.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "i_love_taiwan" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to i_love_taiwa...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/i_love_taiwan/CAEUZ_rMdNmquajDpWJDuRjiFPnHiLeDnMeC3_M9_FnFc3wcVZg%40mail.gmail.com.
Luby Liao
Luby Liao
The Reality is what you choose to believe.
I would very much appreciate an answer to my question and a response to Sebo.
You can find the discussion here:
Taitzer Wang
On May 21, 2021, at 2:18 PM, Michael Richardson <richards...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
請隨時 造訪我們的網站 http://groups.google.com/group/i_love_taiwan
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/i_love_taiwan
若要退出這群組，請送電子郵件給 i_love_taiwa...@googlegroups.com 標題及本文空白就可.
To unsubscribe from this group, please send email to i_love_taiwa...@googlegroups.com
You can leave Subject and Body blank.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "i_love_taiwan" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to i_love_taiwa...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/i_love_taiwan/CAEUZ_rMdNmquajDpWJDuRjiFPnHiLeDnMeC3_M9_FnFc3wcVZg%40mail.gmail.com.
Taitzer Wang
<<image001.jpg>