Arthur

Your response to my comment in "What to do about China etc" on China diverting the Brahmaputra seemed unbelievable and beyond consideration by any reasonable thinking government.

I followed your search headings on Google plus other links and was shocked and then outraged at the results.

I have also found several references but get confused and experience problems in researching and locating many of the rivers, towns and geological features in the various articles. This project appears real. Can you provide more information?

Apologies for my caustic comments earlier.

Cyclops

Expat China Journo

What a relief, another with real information on China.

With so much international attention and Australia's increasing reliance on China, we need to know more.

Such intense world wide criticism of China cannot be attributed to just a few emotional minority groups and individuals, conspiracy theories, national egotism and personal agendas.

When it comes to China, the more we know the better we can understand the claims and counter claims, especially about Tibet, Xinjiang, human rights, media freedom, pollution and now water and media manipulation.

What else is there that we do not know?

Regardless of professed qualifications, why sit back and accept what is published?

Ignore uninformed and biased opinion, why not question and make it informed opinion?

These contentious issues need to be raised and that is what Online Opinion can do.

No more Romany and his mates for credible comment.

Keep it coming.

Cyclops

Cyclops

Researching China can be confusing when it comes to names due to various reasons that range from use of Wade-Giles, Pinyin, local names and various ethnic language names of old Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, etc.

The term Tibet can also be confusing. Chinese reports appear selective in the use of "Tibet" and "Tibetans". Tibet was occupied by the PRC in stages before the final invasion and occupation. Parts of the original Tibet is now incorporated into China's Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan, Yunnan and southeast Xinjiang. The area occupied also included a number of minority ethnic groups such as the Naxi in the southeast in the Three Rivers regions with their own unique language. In state media, the region now generally referred to as Tibet can be described as the Tibetan Autonomous Region, or TAR. Always check on the town to determine which region is being discussed. Check out maps on Tibet that have the historical boundaries and the excised and occupied territories.

Some reports referring to the presence of Tibetans suggest that the locations refer to the TAR and not parts of Tibet's other occupied regions.

To assist in your research of the proposed Brahmaputra Diversion the following may help. Spellings are often corruptions.

In general

He and Jiang can indicate river Chinese
Yalun, Yalung, Yarlung,can indicate river Tibetan
Ngulchu can indicate river Tibetan

Names Other names
Shoumatan Shuotian, Suma Tan, Shuomatan
Nu Jiang Upper Salween, Gyalmo Ngulchu
Upper Mekong Lancang, Zachu
Yangtze Chian Jiang, Ch'ang Chiang, Da Jiang
Upper Yangtze Tibet Jinsha, Drichu,Yalong, Ngagchu,Dadu, Tatu, yarong Ngulchu
Yellow River Huanghe, Machu
Yarlung Tsangbo Yalong Zangbo, Yalun, Yalun Zangbo
Medog Muotuo, Mo'to
Doxong Paiqu

Good luck in your research

Regards

Arthur T

Geez, Expat Journo, Cyclop etc.

What are you on about? I am NOT Chinese. I do not belong to any bloody organisations, CPP rings, propaganda units, or any of the sinister forces to which you attach me. I am not male.

There is a little icon up on the left hand side of the screen. It says "Users" Already on this thread I issued the invitation to press this and check out my history on OLO which goes back some five years to before I even came to live here. Its a simple thing to do, and quite sensible when going onto a new forum and not being familiar with the dramatis personae. Or do you make a habit of not checking out the terrain before you leap into new territory?

I dunno who your friends in China are that can't log onto to OLO, mate, but I can assure you not only that I do so with no trouble whatsoever - as is obvious - but none of my students have ever reported problems to me either. And as I also stated earlier - the sites that were posted by a previous poster are freely available from here as well.

As for the patronising remark that "he", (in my guise of propaganda merchant for the sinister regime) had cunningly chosen such an apt pseudonym? I am second generation Romany and proud of it: its pretty general knowledge on this site.

If this mish-mash of b.s. is any indication of your usual level of information garnering then I think it is your credibility, not mine, which is in doubt.

I also believe you owe me an apology for this nonsense as I have stated more than once EXACTLY what my motivation for posting (and for the articles I write and publish) is. You have ignored this and dismissed me as a liar, a plant and a communist agent. I am very, very angry.

Romany, I suspect that you have been mistaken for someone else and you are owed an apology by the person who wrote that. That being said, the information in it does actually apply to someone, and should not be dismissed lightly. This was aptly shown on tha ABC a couple of nights ago in their piece in "Foreign Correspondent" which I assume will be re-broadcast on Saturday and will ultimately be available on
http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/broadband.htm

David

What a weird thread.

AgScientist, you were immediately hostile to Romany without — as far as I can see it — good cause. You could have easily strenuously disagreed with her, instead, you personally attacked her: naïve, regurgitating what she has dreamt up, reads Dan Brown (the worst insult of all, if you ask me), believes in fairies at the bottom of the garden, etc. Your second email, where you try to claim Romany was pretending to be something she wasn't — "As a senior lecturer with extensive time in China" — was just weird. Who were you trying to convince?

There's a reason people insult others rather than just outline why they disagree with the argument. I don't know what it is, but I'm finding it more interesting than the actual article. Are you immediately aggressive in person? Do you resent Romany because she lives in China and you see that as encroaching on your expertise? (That's how it sounds.) Or, as someone else has suggested, have you mistaken Romany for someone else?

Either way, you are having an emotional response to a intellectual argument. Why not just be honest and upfront rather than assume this odd, defensive, insulting tone? It's not working.

As far as I can tell, Romany's point is that, to demonstrate real expertise, articles on China should be expertly researched and demonstrate a deep understanding of the people on the ground. Why on earth has this got so many of you into a lather?

This thread could be interesting. I know nothing of China and I'm curious. I think it's a pity to derail a thread by indulging in personal slights.