中國歷史筆記 Chinese History Notebook: 扭曲祖國歷史事實以擠進美國主流社會

(1) 扭曲祖國歷史事實以擠進美國上流社會的中國女企業家
(1) The Chinese Woman Enterpreneur who Squeezed Herself into Mainstream America by Distorting Historical Facts of Her Motherland

故事開始在“福布斯”上的一篇文章, 講述一個在美國的中國女企業家的奮鬥故事, 這篇文章, 讀後，感嘆良多 ! 為什麼一篇充滿了虛假信息的文章能在這樣的大牌雜誌上發表？為什麼作者這樣的不尊重時代背景歷史事實這樣的沒有專業操守精神仍然可以在“福布斯”這樣的大公司寫文章 ? 我讀了所有的評論，我自己也留下了評論: 無論是真實或虛構，這並不重要。美國人喜歡這樣的故事。市場決定產品！說謊是美國文化的重要部分, 騙子在美國比誠實的人更有可能實現所謂的美國夢, 試想：尊重歷史事實, 糾正所有的錯誤, 根據事實重寫這篇文章, 故事就會變成 "只是另一個中國女企業在美國", 故事會變得乏味, 缺乏吸引力，沒有銷路。美國人不喜歡面對真相, 他們喜歡迪斯尼, 相信聖誕老人，在美國，你不能給孩子說: 這個世界上有沒有聖誕老人, 被你身邊的美國人聽到他們是不會原諒你的, 這就是為什麼我說: 市場決定產品! 有什麼樣的讀者，就有什麼樣的雜誌!

This story began with an article on Forbes talking about the "struggling story" of a Chinese woman tech. enterpreur in America. After reading it, I have a lot of sighs. Why an article filled with false messages, errors, contradictories and misleadings could be published on such a big-name-magazine ? Why the author so disrespecting historical facts and background and so lack of professionalism still can write articles for such a big company like "Forbes" ?

I read all the comments and I also left my own comment: " Whether it's true or fabircated, it doesn't matter. Americans love this kind of stories. Market determines the product ! "

Whether it's true or fabricated, it doesn't matter. Americans love this kind of stories. Market determines the product !

Lying is an important part of the American Culture. Liars in America are more likely than the honest folks to achieve the so-called "America Dream".   Think about it: Respect historical facts, correct all the errors and rewrite this article based on facts ! The story would become " Just another Chinese woman enterpreneur in America".
The story would become uninteresting, unattractive and unmarketable ! Americans don't like to face with the truth. They love Disney. They believe in Santa Clause. In America, you cannot tell children, " There is no Santa Clause in this world. " Americans around you will not forgive you if they hear you saying that to kids.   That's why I said, "Market determines the product ! " What kind of readers are there, what kind of magazines there will be !

==============================================

英文版 English Version : One Woman's Journey From China's Cultural Revolution To Top American Tech Entrepreneur

中文版 Chinese Version : 《从劳改犯到高科技企业家：傅苹的人生路》http://www.forbeschina.com/news/news.php?id=22981&page=1

註: 題目已改為>>> [从文化大革命到高科技企业家：傅苹的人生路]

==============================================

(2) "祖國母親"的回擊
(2) "Mother-China" Fought Back
[方舟子] (Fang Zhou Zi)
(1) 傅苹的“人生传奇”
近日国内门户网站和微博公知都在传福布斯中文网的一篇报道《从劳改犯到高科技企业家：傅苹的人生路》http://www.forbeschina.com/news/news.php?id=22981&page=1 ，傅苹被称为“3D打印机的创始人”——其实她和她的前夫创建的杰魔公司（Geomagic）是做3D数据采集、分析和建模的，并非做3D打印机；又被称为“奥巴马团队的人”——其实她只是美国商业部组织的创新和创业国家咨询委员会（National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship）的二十多个委员之一。福布斯的这篇报道，是为傅苹新书《弯而不折》（Bend, Not Break）造势的众多报道之一，关于她在中国的经历，离奇得让人难以置信。五代之后就绝迹了。四马分尸是古代西方的酷刑，竟在20世纪60年代的中国南京被红卫兵复活了，这中国历史上的首个活人被四马分尸，傅苹是唯一的公开的亲历者，不值得酷刑研究者找她好好探讨吗？把受害者和其他目睹者查个清楚吗？其实傅苹在文革期间是个红卫兵，有她自己提供给美国媒体的老照片为证：在照片中他们这帮小孩打着“红卫兵团”的旗帜，戴着“红卫兵”袖标，到南京灵谷寺游玩，并笑眯眯地拍照留念。黑帮分子是当不了红卫兵的。http:www.fastcompany.com3004166bend-not-break- leadership-lessons-resilience-amid-struggle 　　福布斯报道说，“在（苏州大学）毕业前几个月，傅苹发表了一篇毕业论文，讨论中国农村溺杀女婴的现象，引起了全国新闻界的关注。但她也因此入狱，被判劳教。” 　　2005年傅苹接受《公司》（Inc.）采访时，对这段经历说得更详细：1980年她向教授递交了关于中国农村溺杀女婴的现象的论文。几个月后，1981年1月，上海最大的报纸（在电台采访中，她说是《文汇报》）报道了她的研究结果。随后《人民日报》也报道了。然后引起了国际舆论谴责，联合国对中国实施制裁。于是在1981年2月，她被关进监狱。http:www.inc.commagazine20051201ping- fu_pagen_3.html 　　我检索了1981年1～2月的《人民日报》，并没有关于傅苹或有关中国农村溺杀女婴的报道。实际上有点中国政治常识的人都知道，那个时期《人民日报》关于国内的新闻都是歌功颂德的，怎么可能有这种影响中国形象的报道呢？说联合国制裁中国，也是没有常识的说法，联合国怎么可能去制裁安理会常任理事国？她不知道中国作为安理会常任理事国对联合国的制裁决议有否决权吗？为什么没有其他中国人知道联合国曾经在1981年制裁中国？傅苹是怎么知道的？　　在接受美国电台采访时，傅苹对自己被捕的经历描述非常有戏剧性：她在校园里走，突然被人用黑布套住头，塞进车里带走……这完全就是黑帮电影里的镜头嘛。在1981年，中国公安要在中国大学校园带走一个学生，竟不敢光明正大地来？　　据《公司》的报道，傅苹只是被关了三天就放出来了，并没有被判“劳教”，而是判决把她驱逐出境，驱逐去美国留学。两周后她被送往去美国的飞机，到新墨西哥大学学英语，她说她不知道为什么要被送去那所大学。　　因为写了一篇负面报道的论文，就被驱逐去美国留学，天底下居然有这样的好事？中国判决驱逐出境只限于对外国人，到90年代才有把异议人士赶到美国的做法，那也只限于非常著名的异议人士。傅苹当时是一个默默无闻的大学生，就享受了驱逐到美国留学的待遇，那真是个奇迹。在80年代初要自费去美国留学，是多么困难的一件事，没有特殊的海外关系，根本不可能实现。　　她说她不知道为什么会被送去新墨西哥大学，但是在其新书《弯而不折》中，她却说她到达美国后，试图和一个姓盛的先生联系，此人是她父亲的学生

　　该报道称，傅苹在文革期间，“离开父母身边后，傅苹需要照顾自己和年幼的妹妹，在南京劳改队里度过了十年。她在那里接受思想改造，忍饥挨饿，饱受折磨，惨遭轮奸，被迫在工厂里当了一名童工，没有接受良好的教育。”

（她父亲是南航的教师），她去新墨西哥大学是盛先生联系的。　　福布斯的报道说：“傅苹在美国开始了她的新生活，当时她独自一人，身无分文，只会说3个英文单词。” 　　傅苹在接受采访时，多次说她刚到美国时只会说3个英文单词。但是对哪3个英文单词，她每次的说法却不一样。《公司》说这三个单词是please, thank you, help。其新书的介绍说这三个单词是thank you, hello, help.（http:www.bendnotbreak.comabout.php）她接受NPR采访时，说这三个单词是thank you, help, excuse me。把这三种说法综合起来，都有五个单词了。　　据《公司》报道，傅苹去苏州大学时，是想学工程或商业，但是党分配她去学英语，怎么可能只会三个英语单词呢？即使她不是英语专业的，上大学期间总要上英语公共课的，即使没学好，又怎么可能只记得最简单的三个英语单词呢？　　所有这些说法，都只能骗骗对中国情况不了解的老外。傅苹也知道这一点，所以当她面对中国人时，就老实多了。比如她在接受美国之音中文部的采访时，对她在文革期间的经历是这么说的：　　“在中国的时候，我成长的时候是文化大革命，没有读过什么书，大多就是下乡、学农、学工那样的经历。”http:www.voachinese.comcontentarticle460383.html 　　下乡、学农、学工，不就是当时所有中国学生的普通经历吗？有什么稀奇的？怎么一面向美国英文媒体，就换了另外一幅嘴脸？福布斯的报道原本是英文的，她大概也没有想到会被翻译成中文并广为传播吧？　　真实的情况可能是这样的：相比于当时的其他中国学生，傅苹在文革期间受到了比较好的教育——毕竟她有一个在大学当教师的父亲，所以高考一恢复她就能考上大学。大学毕业后，又通过她父亲的关系，到美国语言学校读书，后来去读计算机科学的学位。她说她留学期间是通过当清洁工、在餐馆打工来谋生的，这属于非法打工，且不去管她。当时的中国留学生，为了能在美国留下来，会想尽各种办法。其中一种做法是编造自己在中国受迫害的离奇经历申请政治避难。反正再离奇的经历，美国人也会信以为真的。有的人编着编着，连自己也当真了。　　2013.1.28

　　傅苹出生于1958年，文革期间她还未成年，未成年人和年幼妹妹被送进劳改队的，闻所未闻，不见于其他人回忆文革的任何资料，算是傅苹一个人的独特的残酷经历吧。问题是，1977年文革结束恢复高考，傅苹就考上了苏州大学（苏州大学是1982年才办的，也许她上的是其前身江苏师范学院）。1977年的高考是要政审的，傅苹既然一直在劳改队，怎么通过的政审？1977年的高考竞争极为激烈，录取率不到5%，傅苹既然是在劳改队长大的，没有接受良好的教育，她是怎么考上苏州大学的？天才吗？

五代之后就绝迹了。四马分尸是古代西方的酷刑，竟在20世纪60年代的中国南京被红卫兵复活了，这中国历史上的首个活人被四马分尸，傅苹是唯一的公开的亲历者，不值得酷刑研究者找她好好探讨吗？把受害者和其他目睹者查个清楚吗？其实傅苹在文革期间是个红卫兵，有她自己提供给美国媒体的老照片为证：在照片中他们这帮小孩打着“红卫兵团”的旗帜，戴着“红卫兵”袖标，到南京灵谷寺游玩，并笑眯眯地拍照留念。黑帮分子是当不了红卫兵的。http:www.fastcompany.com3004166bend-not-break- leadership-lessons-resilience-amid-struggle 　　福布斯报道说，“在（苏州大学）毕业前几个月，傅苹发表了一篇毕业论文，讨论中国农村溺杀女婴的现象，引起了全国新闻界的关注。但她也因此入狱，被判劳教。” 　　2005年傅苹接受《公司》（Inc.）采访时，对这段经历说得更详细：1980年她向教授递交了关于中国农村溺杀女婴的现象的论文。几个月后，1981年1月，上海最大的报纸（在电台采访中，她说是《文汇报》）报道了她的研究结果。随后《人民日报》也报道了。然后引起了国际舆论谴责，联合国对中国实施制裁。于是在1981年2月，她被关进监狱。http:www.inc.commagazine20051201ping- fu_pagen_3.html 　　我检索了1981年1～2月的《人民日报》，并没有关于傅苹或有关中国农村溺杀女婴的报道。实际上有点中国政治常识的人都知道，那个时期《人民日报》关于国内的新闻都是歌功颂德的，怎么可能有这种影响中国形象的报道呢？说联合国制裁中国，也是没有常识的说法，联合国怎么可能去制裁安理会常任理事国？她不知道中国作为安理会常任理事国对联合国的制裁决议有否决权吗？为什么没有其他中国人知道联合国曾经在1981年制裁中国？傅苹是怎么知道的？　　在接受美国电台采访时，傅苹对自己被捕的经历描述非常有戏剧性：她在校园里走，突然被人用黑布套住头，塞进车里带走……这完全就是黑帮电影里的镜头嘛。在1981年，中国公安要在中国大学校园带走一个学生，竟不敢光明正大地来？　　据《公司》的报道，傅苹只是被关了三天就放出来了，并没有被判“劳教”，而是判决把她驱逐出境，驱逐去美国留学。两周后她被送往去美国的飞机，到新墨西哥大学学英语，她说她不知道为什么要被送去那所大学。　　因为写了一篇负面报道的论文，就被驱逐去美国留学，天底下居然有这样的好事？中国判决驱逐出境只限于对外国人，到90年代才有把异议人士赶到美国的做法，那也只限于非常著名的异议人士。傅苹当时是一个默默无闻的大学生，就享受了驱逐到美国留学的待遇，那真是个奇迹。在80年代初要自费去美国留学，是多么困难的一件事，没有特殊的海外关系，根本不可能实现。　　她说她不知道为什么会被送去新墨西哥大学，但是在其新书《弯而不折》中，她却说她到达美国后，试图和一个姓盛的先生联系，此人是她父亲的学生

　　福布斯的报道称，傅苹回忆：“我们被告知自己身份低下——我们的父母犯下了反对人民的罪行，我们待在这里替他们赎罪。他们给我们吃泥土和树皮。我们还被拉到现场，亲眼看到我们的老师被杀害。”

　　在2010年傅苹接受美国国家公共电台（NPR）的采访时，说红卫兵为了吓唬他们这些黑帮小孩，在他们面前处决了两名教师，其中一名教师是用四马分尸的方式处死的：身体被绑在四匹马上，马朝四个方向跑，身体被撕裂了。（见：http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_988_Ping_Fu.mp3 从13:30开始）

　　关于文革虐杀的情形，有很多回忆，有活活打死的，有活埋的，但四马分尸的酷刑，也是闻所未闻，只见于傅苹的口中。问题是，按她的说法，这并非像她被轮奸那样死无对证，劳改队的其他小孩也都被集中起来目睹了，为什么这些小孩没有一个人后来出来说他们见过如此奇特的惨无人道的一幕，难道这些小孩都死绝了？

　　要把一个大活人用四马分尸，说起来容易，做起来难，光是要找到四匹训练有素的马就不容易，红卫兵如此大费周章处死一个人，就为了吓唬小孩？中国传统有五马分尸的说法，那是对车裂的通俗说法，车裂时犯人是被绑在马车上的，而不是直接绑在马上，用马车显然更容易操作。而且车裂是酷刑之最，在中国历史上就没有搞过几次，每次都有记载，五代之后就绝迹了。四马分尸是古代西方的酷刑，竟在20世纪60年代的中国南京被红卫兵复活了，这中国历史上的首个活人被四马分尸，傅苹是唯一的公开的亲历者，不值得酷刑研究者找她好好探讨吗？把受害者和其他目睹者查个清楚吗？

其实傅苹在文革期间是个红卫兵，有她自己提供给美国媒体的老照片为证：在照片中他们这帮小孩打着“红卫兵团”的旗帜，戴着“红卫兵”袖标，到南京灵谷寺游玩，并笑眯眯地拍照留念。黑帮分子是当不了红卫兵的。http://www.fastcompany.com/3004166/bend-not- break-leadership-lessons-resilience-amid-struggle

　　福布斯报道说，“在（苏州大学）毕业前几个月，傅苹发表了一篇毕业论文，讨论中国农村溺杀女婴的现象，引起了全国新闻界的关注。但她也因此入狱，被判劳教。”

　　2005年傅苹接受《公司》（Inc.）采访时，对这段经历说得更详细：1980年她向教授递交了关于中国农村溺杀女婴的现象的论文。几个月后，1981年1月，上海最大的报纸（在电台采访中，她说是《文汇报》）报道了她的研究结果。随后《人民日报》也报道了。然后引起了国际舆论谴责，联合国对中国实施制裁。于是在1981年2月，她被关进监狱。http://www.inc.com/magazine /20051201/ping-fu_pagen_3.html

　　我检索了1981年1～2月的《人民日报》，并没有关于傅苹或有关中国农村溺杀女婴的报道。实际上有点中国政治常识的人都知道，那个时期《人民日报》关于国内的新闻都是歌功颂德的，怎么可能有这种影响中国形象的报道呢？说联合国制裁中国，也是没有常识的说法，联合国怎么可能去制裁安理会常任理事国？她不知道中国作为安理会常任理事国对联合国的制裁决议有否决权吗？为什么没有其他中国人知道联合国曾经在 1981年制裁中国？傅苹是怎么知道的？

　　在接受美国电台采访时，傅苹对自己被捕的经历描述非常有戏剧性：她在校园里走，突然被人用黑布套住头，塞进车里带走……这完全就是黑帮电影里的镜头嘛。在1981年，中国公安要在中国大学校园带走一个学生，竟不敢光明正大地来？

　　据《公司》的报道，傅苹只是被关了三天就放出来了，并没有被判“劳教”，而是判决把她驱逐出境，驱逐去美国留学。两周后她被送往去美国的飞机，到新墨西哥大学学英语，她说她不知道为什么要被送去那所大学。

　　因为写了一篇负面报道的论文，就被驱逐去美国留学，天底下居然有这样的好事？中国判决驱逐出境只限于对外国人，到90年代才有把异议人士赶到美国的做法，那也只限于非常著名的异议人士。傅苹当时是一个默默无闻的大学生，就享受了驱逐到美国留学的待遇，那真是个奇迹。在80年代初要自费去美国留学，是多么困难的一件事，没有特殊的海外关系，根本不可能实现。

　　近日国内门户网站和微博公知都在传福布斯中文网的一篇报道《从劳改犯到高科技企业家：傅苹的人生路》 http:www.forbeschina.comnewsnews.php?id=22981&page=1 ，傅苹被称为“3D打印机的创始人”——其实她和她的前夫创建的杰魔公司（Geomagic）是做3D数据采集、分析和建模的，并非做3D打印机；又被称为“奥巴马团队的人”——其实她只是美国商业部组织的创新和创业国家咨询委员会（National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship）的二十多个委员之一。福布斯的这篇报道，是为傅苹新书《弯而不折》（Bend, Not Break）造势的众多报道之一，关于她在中国的经历，离奇得让人难以置信。　　该报道称，傅苹在文革期间，“离开父母身边后，傅苹需要照顾自己和年幼的妹妹，在南京劳改队里度过了十年。她在那里接受思想改造，忍饥挨饿，饱受折磨，惨遭轮奸，被迫在工厂里当了一名童工，没有接受良好的教育。” 　　傅苹出生于1958年，文革期间她还未成年，未成年人和年幼妹妹被送进劳改队的，闻所未闻，不见于其他人回忆文革的任何资料，算是傅苹一个人的独特的残酷经历吧。问题是，1977年文革结束恢复高考，傅苹就考上了苏州大学（苏州大学是1982年才办的，也许她上的是其前身江苏师范学院）。1977年的高考是要政审的，傅苹既然一直在劳改队，怎么通过的政审？1977年的高考竞争极为激烈，录取率不到5%，傅苹既然是在劳改队长大的，没有接受良好的教育，她是怎么考上苏州大学的？天才吗？　　福布斯的报道称，傅苹回忆：“我们被告知自己身份低下——我们的父母犯下了反对人民的罪行，我们待在这里替他们赎罪。他们给我们吃泥土和树皮。我们还被拉到现场，亲眼看到我们的老师被杀害。” 　　在2010年傅苹接受美国国家公共电台（NPR）的采访时，说红卫兵为了吓唬他们这些黑帮小孩，在他们面前处决了两名教师，其中一名教师是用四马分尸的方式处死的：身体被绑在四匹马上，马朝四个方向跑，身体被撕裂了。（见：http:thestory.orgarchivethe_story_988_Ping_Fu.mp3 从13:30开始）　　关于文革虐杀的情形，有很多回忆，有活活打死的，有活埋的，但四马分尸的酷刑，也是闻所未闻，只见于傅苹的口中。问题是，按她的说法，这并非像她被轮奸那样死无对证，劳改队的其他小孩也都被集中起来目睹了，为什么这些小孩没有一个人后来出来说他们见过如此奇特的惨无人道的一幕，难道这些小孩都死绝了？　　要把一个大活人用四马分尸，说起来容易，做起来难，光是要找到四匹训练有素的马就不容易，红卫兵如此大费周章处死一个人，就为了吓唬小孩？中国传统有五马分尸的说法，那是对车裂的通俗说法，车裂时犯人是被绑在马车上的，而不是直接绑在马上，用马车显然更容易操作。而且车裂是酷刑之最，在中国历史上就没有搞过几次，每次都有记载，

　　她说她不知道为什么会被送去新墨西哥大学，但是在其新书《弯而不折》中，她却说她到达美国后，试图和一个姓盛的先生联系，此人是她父亲的学生（她父亲是南航的教师），她去新墨西哥大学是盛先生联系的。

　　福布斯的报道说：“傅苹在美国开始了她的新生活，当时她独自一人，身无分文，只会说3个英文单词。”

　　傅苹在接受采访时，多次说她刚到美国时只会说3个英文单词。但是对哪3个英文单词，她每次的说法却不一样。《公司》说这三个单词是please, thank you, help。其新书的介绍说这三个单词是thank you, hello, help.（http://www.bendnotbreak.com/about.php）她接受NPR采访时，说这三个单词是thank you, help, excuse me。把这三种说法综合起来，都有五个单词了。

　　据《公司》报道，傅苹去苏州大学时，是想学工程或商业，但是党分配她去学英语，怎么可能只会三个英语单词呢？即使她不是英语专业的，上大学期间总要上英语公共课的，即使没学好，又怎么可能只记得最简单的三个英语单词呢？

　　所有这些说法，都只能骗骗对中国情况不了解的老外。傅苹也知道这一点，所以当她面对中国人时，就老实多了。比如她在接受美国之音中文部的采访时，对她在文革期间的经历是这么说的：

　　“在中国的时候，我成长的时候是文化大革命，没有读过什么书，大多就是下乡、学农、学工那样的经历。”http://www.voachinese.com/content/article/460383.html

　　下乡、学农、学工，不就是当时所有中国学生的普通经历吗？有什么稀奇的？怎么一面向美国英文媒体，就换了另外一幅嘴脸？福布斯的报道原本是英文的，她大概也没有想到会被翻译成中文并广为传播吧？

　　真实的情况可能是这样的：相比于当时的其他中国学生，傅苹在文革期间受到了比较好的教育——毕竟她有一个在大学当教师的父亲，所以高考一恢复她就能考上大学。大学毕业后，又通过她父亲的关系，到美国语言学校读书，后来去读计算机科学的学位。她说她留学期间是通过当清洁工、在餐馆打工来谋生的，这属于非法打工，且不去管她。当时的中国留学生，为了能在美国留下来，会想尽各种办法。其中一种做法是编造自己在中国受迫害的离奇经历申请政治避难。反正再离奇的经历，美国人也会信以为真的。有的人编着编着，连自己也当真了。

　　2013.1.28

(2) 再说傅苹的“人生传奇”

由于福布斯的报道《从劳改犯到高科技企业家：傅苹的人生路》引起我对美国杰魔公司创始人、“奥巴马团队的人”傅苹在中国经历的注意，我根据她几年来接受美国媒体的采访以及其新书《弯而不折》（Bend, Not Break）中的说法，写了一篇质疑文章。很多中国读者纷纷在福布斯网站留言和在亚马逊写书评，指责傅苹是个骗子。傅苹新书在亚马逊的评分一夜之间从5分降到1.5分，有趣的是华人都给它打最低分1分，美国人都给它打最高分5分，并怀疑打低分的华人是被中国政府组织起来的五毛。

　　福布斯中文网站一度把《从劳改犯到高科技企业家：傅苹的人生路》删除，后来把标题改成《从文化大革命到高科技企业家：傅苹的人生路》重新登出。但写该报道的记者Jenna Goudreau从众多质疑中挑了三个问题给傅苹，傅苹做了回答，完全是狡辩。我们先看第一个问题，傅苹文革期间，在她8～18岁时，是否在劳改队里呆了十年？傅苹将这归为翻译的问题：

　　【傅苹告诉我，它直译成中文（即“劳改队”）就成了强制劳动的监狱场所之意，因此有失精准。但她也表示，从 8岁开始，她确实曾在政府管理的一所撤空的大学校园内一个单间宿舍中，与妹妹相依为命。她证实，9岁时，她没有去上学，而是被分配到工厂干活。其自传的新闻稿称其曾为“儿童兵”（child soldier）以及“工厂工人”。而中国批评者质疑她是如何小小年纪就得以成为工厂工人的，在那时候，当工人是一种荣誉。对此，傅苹回应称，她当时并非中国传统意义上所指的“工人”，因为她并没有获得报酬，而是作为正规学校教育的一种替代。】

　　傅苹的父母是南京航空学院的教师。所谓大学校园撤空，指的是文革期间大学教师下放到五七干校劳动，这是 1968年10月开始的，1971年“九·一三事件”后，1972年春起教师们返校，各个高校恢复办学招收工农兵大学生，所以大学校园撤空的时间只有三年，而不是傅苹说的十年。何况据2005年她接受《公司》（Inc.）采访时的说法，1968年她母亲已被允许回校了（http://www.inc.com/magazine/20051201/ping-fu_pagen_6.html ），所以她和她妹妹相依为命的日子，最多也就几个月。据傅苹的发小Diana Luo的说法，在南航教师下放五七干校期间，教师子女被集中起来管理。这被傅苹说成了她及其妹妹作为黑帮子弟受红卫兵监禁。其实傅苹本人就是红卫兵，有她戴着红卫兵袖章，和其他红卫兵打着“红卫兵团”旗帜在南京灵谷寺游玩的合影为证（http://www.fastcompany.com/3004166 /bend-not-break-leadership-lessons-resilience-amid-struggle ）。

那样的经历”。　　Goudreau说：　　【另一个争议焦点是，她表示自己是被从中国放逐或驱逐出境的，但实际却不存在相应的官方记录。当我要求其对此给予回应时，她表示，“放逐”一词不对 ——虽然这是在发往媒体机构的宣传其新书的新闻稿中所使用的措辞。该新闻稿先是写到了“傅苹被驱逐出境（deported）”，随后又重复了一遍称，“傅苹遭到放逐（exiled）”。　　“在书的开头，我写了中国政府暗中驱逐了我。”她说。实际上就是该书开篇第一句话。“可以说这是一种文字上的演绎。我被要求离开。我的父亲帮我弄到了去美国的签证。我被告知不要谈论此事或者申请政治避难。我对此的理解是，我并非出于自愿而离开了中国……如果有人想说这不算驱逐出境，可以。但这就是我的解读。”那么要求她离开的是谁呢？“警方。”她说。】　　原来她所谓被中国政府驱逐出境和被放逐，只是她自己的“理解”。但是她此前在接受各种采访和书中，反反复复地说的是中国政府把她驱逐或放逐，其中一个版本甚至说她被硬塞进飞机送到新墨西哥大学（she was bundled on a plane and sent to the University of New Mexico, http:www.uiaa.orgillinoisnewsillinoisa lumni0707_b.html）。　　好吧，我们姑且相信在她写了导致“联合国制裁中国”的论文之后，中国政府不是把她劳教、判刑，而是宽宏大量地要求她去在当时被中国人视为天堂的美国，但是Goudreau发现了在时间上有问题：　　【在第一次采访中，傅苹谈到她在大学毕业前夕被警方逮捕，没能毕业，并被要求离开中国。她说，“我被要求离开，而我只有两周时间。”我回溯了她所提供的时间线并发现，在她参加苏州大学入学考试（1977年）并抵达美国（1984年1月）之间存在六至七年的时间。当我要求就这一事实进行确认时，她表示，她到1978年秋才入学，她说这样一来毕业就是1982年，而她与警方发生纠缠是在1983年。我问：这其中不是有一年的时间间隔吗？“的确。问得好。” 傅说，“让我回去确认一下。”】　　对这个人生重大转折点，傅苹居然一时想不起来是怎么回事了，需要想一想怎么回答。那她是怎么回答的呢？这回是由她的公关人员出面了：　　【昨晚，傅苹的公关人员发来电子邮件称，他们“确认傅苹于1978年入学，1982年秋在被政府扣押之后离校。她于1984年1月14日抵达美国。” 也就是说，在警方要求她离开中国之前，她在国内待了一年多的时间？“在获释数周之后，政府要求她离开，”该公关人员在邮件中写道。“但在当时，要弄到护照，即便说不是不可能，但也是很难的。就算傅苹被要求离开中国，她也不得不等待护照发放下来。”】　　这就怪了，护照是在公安局办的，既然公安局命令她2周内离开中国，怎么又在办护照时刁难了她一年呢？这只能说明她其实是按正常程序申请的护照，而在上个世纪80年代，要申请因私护照是极为困难的，通常是要有海外关系。按Diana Luo的说法，傅苹的叔叔（或伯伯）在美国，她是通过其叔叔的资助到美国留学的。傅苹到美国一年以后，傅苹的妹妹也到了美国，难道也是被驱逐的？　　从1982年大学本科毕业到1984年年初去美国留学这一年多时间内，傅苹也没有闲着。据《中国新闻》报去年的报道：“傅苹在恢复高考后进入苏州大学中文系，后到南京大学念比较文学硕士

　　傅苹说她在文革整整十年都没有上学，而是从9岁起就分配到工厂工作。文革初期中、小学瘫痪，但1967年11月起开始“复课闹革命”，傅苹作为大学教师子女，一直不回校上学，不可思议。贫困家庭子女可能会退学去当童工贴补家用，但是傅苹又说她在工厂的工作没有报酬，这就莫名其妙了，她整个文革期间不上学在工厂里干了十年的义务劳动？

　　其实对文革有一点了解的人都知道，她所谓的在工厂不拿报酬工作，以及当“儿童兵”，就是当时的中小学生都经历过的短时间的学工、学军，那是当时正规学校教育的一部分，并不是惩罚，红卫兵、红小兵也都要学工、学军。她自己接受美国之音中文部采访时也说了“大多就是下乡、学农、学工那样的经历”。

　　Goudreau说：

　　【另一个争议焦点是，她表示自己是被从中国放逐或驱逐出境的，但实际却不存在相应的官方记录。当我要求其对此给予回应时，她表示，“放逐” 一词不对——虽然这是在发往媒体机构的宣传其新书的新闻稿中所使用的措辞。该新闻稿先是写到了“傅苹被驱逐出境（deported）”，随后又重复了一遍称，“傅苹遭到放逐（exiled）”。

　　由于福布斯的报道《从劳改犯到高科技企业家：傅苹的人生路》引起我对美国杰魔公司创始人、“奥巴马团队的人”傅苹在中国经历的注意，我根据她几年来接受美国媒体的采访以及其新书《弯而不折》（Bend, Not Break）中的说法，写了一篇质疑文章。很多中国读者纷纷在福布斯网站留言和在亚马逊写书评，指责傅苹是个骗子。傅苹新书在亚马逊的评分一夜之间从5分降到1.5分，有趣的是华人都给它打最低分1分，美国人都给它打最高分5分，并怀疑打低分的华人是被中国政府组织起来的五毛。　　福布斯中文网站一度把《从劳改犯到高科技企业家：傅苹的人生路》删除，后来把标题改成《从文化大革命到高科技企业家：傅苹的人生路》重新登出。但写该报道的记者Jenna Goudreau从众多质疑中挑了三个问题给傅苹，傅苹做了回答，完全是狡辩。我们先看第一个问题，傅苹文革期间，在她8～18岁时，是否在劳改队里呆了十年？傅苹将这归为翻译的问题：　　【傅苹告诉我，它直译成中文（即“劳改队”）就成了强制劳动的监狱场所之意，因此有失精准。但她也表示，从8岁开始，她确实曾在政府管理的一所撤空的大学校园内一个单间宿舍中，与妹妹相依为命。她证实，9岁时，她没有去上学，而是被分配到工厂干活。其自传的新闻稿称其曾为“儿童兵”（child soldier）以及“工厂工人”。而中国批评者质疑她是如何小小年纪就得以成为工厂工人的，在那时候，当工人是一种荣誉。对此，傅苹回应称，她当时并非中国传统意义上所指的“工人”，因为她并没有获得报酬，而是作为正规学校教育的一种替代。】　　傅苹的父母是南京航空学院的教师。所谓大学校园撤空，指的是文革期间大学教师下放到五七干校劳动，这是1968年10月开始的，1971年“九·一三事件”后，1972年春起教师们返校，各个高校恢复办学招收工农兵大学生，所以大学校园撤空的时间只有三年，而不是傅苹说的十年。何况据2005年她接受《公司》（Inc.）采访时的说法，1968年她母亲已被允许回校了（http:www.inc.commagazine20051201ping- fu_pagen_6.html ），所以她和她妹妹相依为命的日子，最多也就几个月。据傅苹的发小Diana Luo的说法，在南航教师下放五七干校期间，教师子女被集中起来管理。这被傅苹说成了她及其妹妹作为黑帮子弟受红卫兵监禁。其实傅苹本人就是红卫兵，有她戴着红卫兵袖章，和其他红卫兵打着“红卫兵团”旗帜在南京灵谷寺游玩的合影为证（http:www.fastcompany.com3004166bend-not-break-leadership-lessons-resilience-amid-struggle ）。　　傅苹说她在文革整整十年都没有上学，而是从9岁起就分配到工厂工作。文革初期中、小学瘫痪，但1967年11月起开始“复课闹革命”，傅苹作为大学教师子女，一直不回校上学，不可思议。贫困家庭子女可能会退学去当童工贴补家用，但是傅苹又说她在工厂的工作没有报酬，这就莫名其妙了，她整个文革期间不上学在工厂里干了十年的义务劳动？　　其实对文革有一点了解的人都知道，她所谓的在工厂不拿报酬工作，以及当“儿童兵”，就是当时的中小学生都经历过的短时间的学工、学军，那是当时正规学校教育的一部分，并不是惩罚，红卫兵、红小兵也都要学工、学军。她自己接受美国之音中文部采访时也说了“大多就是下乡、学农、学工

　　“在书的开头，我写了中国政府暗中驱逐了我。”她说。实际上就是该书开篇第一句话。“可以说这是一种文字上的演绎。我被要求离开。我的父亲帮我弄到了去美国的签证。我被告知不要谈论此事或者申请政治避难。我对此的理解是，我并非出于自愿而离开了中国……如果有人想说这不算驱逐出境，可以。但这就是我的解读。”那么要求她离开的是谁呢？“警方。”她说。】

　　原来她所谓被中国政府驱逐出境和被放逐，只是她自己的“理解”。但是她此前在接受各种采访和书中，反反复复地说的是中国政府把她驱逐或放逐，其中一个版本甚至说她被硬塞进飞机送到新墨西哥大学（she was bundled on a plane and sent to the University of New Mexico, http://www.uiaa.org/illinois/news/illinoisalumni/0707_b.html）。

　　好吧，我们姑且相信在她写了导致“联合国制裁中国”的论文之后，中国政府不是把她劳教、判刑，而是宽宏大量地要求她去在当时被中国人视为天堂的美国，但是Goudreau发现了在时间上有问题：

　　【在第一次采访中，傅苹谈到她在大学毕业前夕被警方逮捕，没能毕业，并被要求离开中国。她说，“我被要求离开，而我只有两周时间。”我回溯了她所提供的时间线并发现，在她参加苏州大学入学考试（1977年）并抵达美国（1984年1月）之间存在六至七年的时间。当我要求就这一事实进行确认时，她表示，她到1978年秋才入学，她说这样一来毕业就是1982年，而她与警方发生纠缠是在1983年。我问：这其中不是有一年的时间间隔吗？“的确。问得好。”傅说，“让我回去确认一下。”】

　　对这个人生重大转折点，傅苹居然一时想不起来是怎么回事了，需要想一想怎么回答。那她是怎么回答的呢？这回是由她的公关人员出面了：

　　【昨晚，傅苹的公关人员发来电子邮件称，他们“确认傅苹于1978年入学，1982年秋在被政府扣押之后离校。她于1984年1月14日抵达美国。”也就是说，在警方要求她离开中国之前，她在国内待了一年多的时间？“在获释数周之后，政府要求她离开，”该公关人员在邮件中写道。“但在当时，要弄到护照，即便说不是不可能，但也是很难的。就算傅苹被要求离开中国，她也不得不等待护照发放下来。”】

　　这就怪了，护照是在公安局办的，既然公安局命令她2周内离开中国，怎么又在办护照时刁难了她一年呢？这只能说明她其实是按正常程序申请的护照，而在上个世纪80年代，要申请因私护照是极为困难的，通常是要有海外关系。按Diana Luo的说法，傅苹的叔叔（或伯伯）在美国，她是通过其叔叔的资助到美国留学的。傅苹到美国一年以后，傅苹的妹妹也到了美国，难道也是被驱逐的？

　　从1982年大学本科毕业到1984年年初去美国留学这一年多时间内，傅苹也没有闲着。据《中国新闻》报去年的报道：“傅苹在恢复高考后进入苏州大学中文系，后到南京大学念比较文学硕士。”（http://epaper.chinanews.com/html/2012-03/14 /content_3303.htm ）也就是说去美国之前她在南京大学读研究生。如果她惹上了政治麻烦，坐过牢，在当时的政治条件下，她怎么可能被录取上研究生？Goudreau怎么不去问问，那篇给她带来麻烦的关于其论文的《人民日报》报道，究竟登在哪一天的《人民日报》上？而且，从1978年中国恢复研究生招生开始，上研究生都要有入学考试的，初试科目都包括英语。如果傅苹只懂三个英语单词，她是怎么通过研究生入学考试的？

　　傅苹在1992年加入美国国籍。（http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site /uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176 543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=651214f929685310VgnVCM10 0000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=34165c2af1f9e010VgnVCM10 00000ecd190aRCRD ）加入美国国籍需要至少有5年的永久居民身份，也就是说她最迟在1987年拿到美国绿卡。当时她是个还没有毕业的计算机系本科生，不可能办技术移民。当时她也还未结婚（1991年结婚），也不可能通过和美国公民结婚办绿卡。她能获得绿卡的唯一途径是申请政治避难。她在中国的恐怖经历应该就是当年为申请政治避难编造出来的。后来发现美国人很轻信，能博得同情心，有助于推销自己，就反复地讲。的确，她去年接受采访时，就说她的故事有助于在做生意时别人了解她（http://www.nctechnology.org/news/files/techpose/pingfu_techspose.pdf ）。当然还能树立起励志的高大形象，获得更多的社会尊重和荣誉。

　　傅苹在去年被美国移民局授予“杰出归化美国人”（Outstanding American by Choice），这是极高的荣誉，一年只有5个人得。移民局介绍她在中国受的苦难与她接受采访时相同，甚至也说她是被中国驱逐出来的（不过换了另一个词，expel），不知是根据她归化时提交的材料，还是根据美国媒体的报道？授予她这个荣誉的原因很显然是她在中国经受的苦难与她在美国的成功形成了鲜明对比，是实现美国梦的典型。可惜这是一个虚假的梦。美国人也喜欢虚假的梦。所以即使没有一个中国人相信她的苦难故事，即使海外华人对她的质疑一浪高过一浪，也不会影响她在美国人心中的形象，不影响她这几天为了推销新书不停地接受美国各大媒体的采访，一遍又一遍地讲述她在中国的悲惨经历，不影响她的书成为美国畅销的励志书，感动无数的美国人，因为美国人、美国媒体愿意相信，即使那是个彻头彻尾的谎言。

　　2013.2.1.

。” （http:epaper.chinanews.comhtml2012-0314content_3303.htm ）也就是说去美国之前她在南京大学读研究生。如果她惹上了政治麻烦，坐过牢，在当时的政治条件下，她怎么可能被录取上研究生？Goudreau怎么不去问问，那篇给她带来麻烦的关于其论文的《人民日报》报道，究竟登在哪一天的《人民日报》上？而且，从1978年中国恢复研究生招生开始，上研究生都要有入学考试的，初试科目都包括英语。如果傅苹只懂三个英语单词，她是怎么通过研究生入学考试的？　　傅苹在1992年加入美国国籍。（http:www.uscis.govportalsiteuscismenuit em.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176 543f6d1a?vgnextoid=651214f929685310VgnVCM10 0000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=34165c2af1f9e010VgnVCM10 00000ecd190aRCRD ）加入美国国籍需要至少有5年的永久居民身份，也就是说她最迟在1987年拿到美国绿卡。当时她是个还没有毕业的计算机系本科生，不可能办技术移民。当时她也还未结婚（1991年结婚），也不可能通过和美国公民结婚办绿卡。她能获得绿卡的唯一途径是申请政治避难。她在中国的恐怖经历应该就是当年为申请政治避难编造出来的。后来发现美国人很轻信，能博得同情心，有助于推销自己，就反复地讲。的确，她去年接受采访时，就说她的故事有助于在做生意时别人了解她（http:www.nctechnology.orgnewsfilestechposeping fu_techspose.pdf ）。当然还能树立起励志的高大形象，获得更多的社会尊重和荣誉。　　傅苹在去年被美国移民局授予“杰出归化美国人”（Outstanding American by Choice），这是极高的荣誉，一年只有5个人得。移民局介绍她在中国受的苦难与她接受采访时相同，甚至也说她是被中国驱逐出来的（不过换了另一个词，expel），不知是根据她归化时提交的材料，还是根据美国媒体的报道？授予她这个荣誉的原因很显然是她在中国经受的苦难与她在美国的成功形成了鲜明对比，是实现美国梦的典型。可惜这是一个虚假的梦。美国人也喜欢虚假的梦。所以即使没有一个中国人相信她的苦难故事，即使海外华人对她的质疑一浪高过一浪，也不会影响她在美国人心中的形象，不影响她这几天为了推销新书不停地接受美国各大媒体的采访，一遍又一遍地讲述她在中国的悲惨经历，不影响她的书成为美国畅销的励志书，感动无数的美国人，因为美国人、美国媒体愿意相信，即使那是个彻头彻尾的谎言。　　2013.2.1.

Fang's arguments in English

John Kennedy's blog (of SCMP) : 'Liar-hunter' Fang Zhouzi accuses Ping Fu of selling fake tragedy to Americans

Published on South China Morning Post (http://www.scmp.com)

'Liar-hunter' Fang Zhouzi accuses Ping Fu of selling fake tragedy to Americans

Submitted by john.kennedy on Jan 30th 2013, 12:00pm

Comment›Blogs

John Kennedy

What hurts more than a beating that never took place? Getting a lesson in truthiness from China's most-hated myth-buster, academic and otherwise, Fang Zhouzi [4].

While not as painful to watch as that time [5] Christopher Hitchens went after myths surrounding Mother Teresa, what Fang seeks to expose now are a number of claims by Geomagic CEO Ping Fu [6], who found corporate success in the United States after arriving in 1983 to attend graduate school, claims Fang argues range from the unlikely to the seemingly impossible and yet which journalists have taken at face value here [7], here [8] and elsewhere [9].

Of the recent heartrending coverage of Fu's new memoir, "Bend, Not Break", it seems to have been this [10] piece from Inc. magazine that prompted Fang's takedown [11] earlier this week (that and Forbes had the piece linked to above translated for its Chinese site here [12]).

First up, Fu's claim she was sent to a labour camp at age 8 or 9 with her younger sister where for the duration of the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) she was kept apart from her parents, brainwashed, starved, tortured, gang-raped, forced into child labour and deprived of education.

Fu would have been a minor throughout the Cultural Revolution, Fang points out, never mind her younger sister; children that young being forced into labour camps was unheard of: "I haven't seen this in anyone else's memoirs of the Cultural Revolution, it must have been a tragic experience had only by Ping Fu herself."

As for Fu's claim of being deprived of education those ten years, Fang points out that in 1977 - when the holding of university entrance examinations resumed and Fu was accepted by Suzhou University - not only were all applicants get pre-screened for eligibility, but also less than 5 per cent of applicants were accepted that year. "Was she a prodigy?," he asks.

In 2010, Fu told NPR (13:30 here [13]) she witnessed Red Guards execute one teacher by tying each limb to a separate horse and dismembering her by having each horse run simultaneously in a separate outward direction, done specifically to frighten the kids into submission.

Of all the different cruel ways people were killed during the Cultural Revolution, Fang writes, with many beaten to death or buried alive, dismemberment using four horses was unheard of, except for Ping Fu's having said so. She says all the other kids in the labour camp were assembled to watch this, he asks, so why didn't even a single one of them step forward to say they'd witnessed such a rare and inhumane thing? Were all the other children killed?

Getting technical, Fang adds dismemberment by horse sounds easy, but would have been quite difficult to pull off even if Red Guards had been able to find four horses trained to do such things. "Would Red Guards go to such great lengths just to scare these kids?"
Several hundred years ago there was rumoured to have been dismemberment by five horses, Fang goes on, but in fact that was just a legend:

Criminals have been dismembered using horse carriages, which is obviously easy to carry out, but not using horses themselves.

Dismemberment by carriage has been carried out several times in Chinese history, he says, but records of it were kept each time and the practice died out hundreds of years ago. Dismemberment by four horses was used in ancient times in the West, and if China's Red Guards actually resumed the practice in Nanjing in the 1960s, making that the first time in Chinese history a living human was dismembered using four horses, and Ping Fu is the only person to publicly acknowledge having witnessed this, then shouldn't those who research incidents of torture call her to talk? Shouldn't the victims and other eyewitnesses also be sorted out?

In an interview with Forbes, Fu also appears to have claimed to have written her undergrad thesis at Suzhou University on the practice of female infanticide in rural China and that her research received nationwide press converage at the time. In 2005, speaking to Inc., Fu went on to explain that after she submitted her undergrad thesis in 1980, her findings were later covered by Shanghai's Wen Hui Bao newspaper and later also by People's Daily, resulting in condemnation from around the world, sanctions imposed by the UN, and Fu getting tossed into prison.

Fang says he went back and checked People's Daily archives for the period Fu says her research would've been published there and found nothing regarding female infanticide in rural China:

In fact anyone with a bit of political common sense knows that People's Daily at that time was full of nothing but glorious and wonderful news and it's impossible anything affecting China's image as much as this would've received coverage.

As for the UN imposing sanctions on China, does she not know that China, as a member of the UN Security Council, also has the power to veto motions? Why does nobody else in China know that the UN placed sanctions on China in 1981? And how does Ping Fu know that?

Regarding Fu's claim to NPR she was walking on campus when a black bag was suddenly thrown over her head and she was stuffed into a car before being arrested:

This is like a scene from a gangster film. In 1981, was there actually any university campus in China where the Public Security Bureau would have had any reservation about taking away a university student?

On Fu's claim she was then held three days and narrowly avoided being sentenced to reform through labour when authorities decided instead to send her into exile:

Getting exiled to the United States to study just for writing a thesis with negative content, could there be anything more wonderful in this world? The only people China sentences to be deported are foreigners. The practice of sending dissidents off to the United States didn't begin until the 1990s, and that was only reserved for the most high-profile of dissidents.
Ping Fu was an unheard-of university student at the time, which makes being deported off to the United States to study a true miracle. Being allowed to pay your own way to study in the United States in the early 1980s was remarkably difficult to achive; without special connections overseas, it would've been impossible.

Noting Fu told Forbes she arrived in the United States knowing only three words of English, Fang remembered hearing the same anecdote in interviews she'd given to other media, so he went back and checked and found different sets of those first three words:

Inc.: Please, thank you, help;
Bend, Not Break: Thank you, hello, help;
NPR: Thank you, help, excuse me.

Not only that:

According to the Inc. report Ping Fu arrived at Suzhou University wanting to study engineering or business, but the Party assigned her to study English. How then could she have only learned just three words? Even if she wasn't an English major, English was still one of the core courses. And even if she was a poor student, how is it possible she was only able to remember the three most basic words in English?

All these claims are only good enough to fool laowai [14] who don't know anything about China. Ping Fu knows that, which is why she's so much more honest when speaking with Chinese.
[...]
At the time, Chinese international students had many ways of being able to stay there in the United States. One of those was to fabricate bizarre tales of having faced persecution in China and apply for political asylum. It didn't matter how fantastic you made your experiences, Americans would still believe them to be true. Some people told so many lies they even started believing it themselves.

Topics:

Fang Zhouzi

Ping Fu

Cultural Revolution

Source URL (retrieved on Feb 4th 2013, 8:58am): http://www.scmp.com/comment/blogs/article/1139194/liar-hunter-fang-zhouzi-accuses-ping-fu-selling-fake-tragedy-americans

Links:
[1] http://t.co/v0y0dov3
[2] https://twitter.com/pfugeomagic
[3] https://twitter.com/SteveCase/status/294122081275219968
[4] http://www.scmp.com/content/search/Zhouzi
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping_Fu
[7] http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2013/01/24/bend-not-break-enduring-maos-china-led-geomagics-ping-fu-to-see-the-world-in-3d/
[8] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/20/ping-fu-s-journey-from-cultural-revolution-orphan-to-geomagic-ceo.html
[9] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9788066.stm
[10] http://www.inc.com/leigh-buchanan/ping-fu-geomagic-leadership.html
[11] http://fangzhouzi.blog.hexun.com/82986007_d.html
[12] http://www.forbeschina.com/news/news.php?id=22981&page=1
[13] http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_988_Ping_Fu.mp3
[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laowai
[15] https://twitter.com/jeanzpoh
[16] https://twitter.com/pfugeomagic/status/295992561808576512

======================================

傅苹的逻辑硬伤：美国故事在中国穿帮(ZT)

这张照片在南京拍摄，前排右起第二位是傅苹。他们身后旗帜上有“红卫兵团”四个大字，很多老美应该看不懂。照片背景是南京灵骨塔。
　　傅苹所写的《弯而不折》这本书适合外国市场。它在美国广受好评，销售情况似乎也不错。不过，卖回中国的时候，需要注意，小心穿帮。
　　作者傅苹很会讲故事，她善于适当（或者过分）地夸大其词。用形容词的时候，要带上有强烈主观色彩。最后以亲身经历的名义讲出来，甚至写成书发表出来。白纸黑字印出来，甚至显得更有权威。
　　不过，故事既要符合人之常情，也要切合时代背景，最重要的，逻辑上不能有硬伤。否则要穿帮。

　　傅苹目前在美国，是一名女性华裔商人，被媒体多次报道，也多次得奖，生活好像不错。

　　傅苹本人1958年生于南京，父亲是南京航空航天大学的一名教授，母亲是一名会计。但是，傅苹离开了亲生父母，和养父母生活在一起，在上海长大。

　　1966年，受到文化大革命的影响，傅苹离开上海，回到南京。按照傅苹的故事，当时，红卫兵闯进她家，强行把她带走，送回原籍。那时，她在南京的亲生父母已经被送往农村接受“再教育”。

　　傅苹当时只有7岁，而比她更为年幼的兄弟姐妹们被送到了劳改营。有网友Henry表示不可理解，孩子们太年幼，就这么送过去不可思议。

美国之音中文部(Voice of America)曾采访傅苹。傅苹说：“在中国的时候，我成长的时期是文化大革命，没有读过什么书，大多就是下乡、学农、学工那样的经历。”
　　不过，傅苹在接受《福布斯》采访的时候，提供的信息可有点区别。傅苹说，她小时候住的地方“像监狱一样”，她遭受红卫兵的“毒打和轮奸”，吃的饭也是“粪便和泥土”，而这一切只是为了“侮辱她”。
　　这两种经历差别可不小，该信哪一个呢？
　　傅苹把自己包装成文革的受害者，称文革时期，红卫兵对她百般压榨迫害。不过，从一张照片看来，傅苹本人更像是一名红卫兵。

　　姑且把照片放在一边，相信傅苹在文革中是一名受害者，继续讲故事。

　　傅苹说她政治背景不好，在文革中遭受打压；而本人下乡多年，学识也很平庸。1977年刚恢复高考的时候，傅苹一举考上苏州大学。

　　有网友Lin说，光看政治背景一项，傅苹就很难被大学录取。而她自己承认没受过什么教育，最后一举中的，真实匪夷所思。

　　傅苹说，她在大学进行了为期2年的努力，采访了村民，赤脚医生，和医护人员，1980年写出一篇论文，披露杀害女婴的现象，并以此批评中国的计划生育政策。

　　有美国媒体说，上海最大的报纸在1981年1月发表了傅苹的论文。《人民日报》后来也刊登了这篇论文。《人民日报》绝对是中央媒体，政治路线上一贯挺共产党。不过，在傅苹口中，《人民日报》居然收起了自己的办报理念，刊文批判中国政府。不知道是傅苹自己做白日梦，还是《人民日报》丢了节操。 ...华岳论坛 - "http://washeng.net"

　　先不管《人民日报》，继续听傅苹讲故事。傅苹说，她的论文在中国内外都引起“强烈反响”。联合国甚至因此“制裁”中国。真有趣，联合国会用什么手段制裁自己的常任理事国呢？

　　书中说，傅苹本人因为论文惹下祸端。1982年秋天，她即将毕业的时候，正走在校园里，突然被人用黑布蒙头，绳索绕手，绑架似的抓了起来。

　　美国《Inc.》杂志2005年报道说，中国政府在1981年2月就逮捕了傅苹，把她关进监狱里。

　　网友Lin爆料说，傅苹本人事后承认她在1978年进入大学，而她所在的班级1982年夏天已经全部毕业。那她怎么还能在同一年秋天还走在校园里，等着毕业？傅苹有没有把时间回忆清楚？

　　汇总所有信息，我们把时间梳理一下。1981年1月，上海媒体发表了傅苹的论文。1981年2月，中国政府逮捕了傅苹。此后《人民日报》又发表傅苹的论文。1982年，傅苹还能大学毕业。而且1982年还有一次戏剧性的逮捕。

傅苹讲的这么多故事，究竟哪个版本是真实的？退一百步说，傅苹没有存心捏造，只是事情过去几十年，这种重大事件有点儿记不清了。嗯，人的记忆力有限，可以理解。但这整本书都是来自傅苹一个人的回忆。毕业、被捕算是故事的高潮情节，傅苹如果记不清这样的重点内容，那其他情节准确吗？这本故事书可靠吗？ ...华岳论坛 - "http://hua-yue.net"

　　和朋友聊天，怎么说都行。但是要把故事白纸黑字写成书，印出来，就一定要把事实搞准确，弄清楚，这是每一个作者应有的基本道德。单凭记忆写书，而缺乏资料核对事实，风险很大。误导读者可是要承担责任的。

傅苹被捕以后，被关在南京的一个监狱里。美国大编辑Tina Brown说，傅苹经历了“无穷无尽”的牢狱之灾。傅苹出来以后发现，她在监狱里呆了3天。
　　傅苹的故事还在继续。出狱以后，官员告诉傅苹，禁止她向任何人透露论文中的内容。而政府下一步要做的，就是把她流放到美国，并且永远不准回到中国。而这一切还都是中国政府的意思，傅苹本人毫不知情。

　　我很好奇，在傅苹眼中的中国政府究竟是什么智商？对付异己，肯定是放在手里控制，不让闹事。按照傅苹的故事，中国政府一边不想让她闹事，一边把她送到美国。美国的教育很好，发言的平台很好，美国也喜欢反共的异见人士。傅苹去了美国，要想散播言论，应该是如鱼得水才对。傅苹讲故事的时候，究竟在想什么？傅苹以为，中国政府究竟在想什么？

　　2个星期以后，傅苹就坐飞机离开上海，到达旧金山，并在新墨西哥大学继续自己的高等教育。那时候是1983年，当时傅苹25岁。

在中国，傅苹克服了政治背景的不利因素，一举考上大学，应该是个了不起的人才。不过，傅苹经历4年大学教育，刚刚来到美国的时候，居然只会说3个英语单词：please, thank you和help。

来到美国以后，傅苹彻底摆脱了4年只学会3个英语单词的阴影，很快就学好了英语，功课成绩很棒，老师同学们都喜欢她。真是奇迹。

《弯而不折》这样的书在美国很多，它绝对不是第一个，也不可能是最后一个，更不是最有说服力的一个。

　　这样的书很取巧，价值也很有限。书中讲述的内容大多是作者的一家之言，无从考证。作者只需要回忆一下自己过去的经历，遇到细节太具体而记不清楚的时候，可以用某些形容词一笔带过，蒙混过关。

这样的书，没那么容易辩驳。因为它本身证据不足，所提的论点也不稳固，不值得较劲。即使认认真真去考证，很多历史细节也确实难以一一确认。因为作者本人加了很多形容词，算是用上了障眼法。
　　这样的书也可以很畅销，很有影响。毕竟，不少美国人喜欢看这样的书。他们不爱看中国的好，需要有人跳出来对中国指指点点，心里才会舒服些。
　　而傅苹很清楚市场的需求。她在回顾的时候，只需要适当地添加改动，夸大其词，措辞也要注意带上感情色彩，最好还是批评中国的。

　　最后，傅苹这本书也充满好莱坞式的惊悚元素：女主角遭到绑架、虐待、轮奸、被捕，还有牢狱之灾。在故事的结尾，傅苹不负众望，逃离“魔窟”，来到美国，小有所成。看似励志的故事，典型的美国梦。

　这样的书，只要情节够惊悚，就会有人看。真实性有没有打折，似乎不重要。不过，《弯而不折》是不是应该放到“fiction”的分类里呢？（来源：中国日报网编辑：信莲）

==============================================

(3) 騙子的面具被撕裂以後還是在鬧
(3) The Liar continues to make a lot of noise after her mask is being torn apart
傅蘋對"祖國母親"的指控有以下的回應 Ping Fu has the following response regarding to the accusations from" Mother-China"

(1) Clarifying the Facts in Bend, Not Break Posted: 02/01/2013 10:36 pm

(2)

This piece is so American-market-oriented >>>> Sad, But Not BrokenPosted: 02/01/2013 10:41 pm

===============================

[方舟子] (Fang Zhou Zi) :
谎话连篇的傅苹“澄清”声明

　傅苹今天在其博客上针对我的批评，贴了一篇澄清声明：　　傅苹今天在其博客上针对我的批评，贴了一篇澄清声明：　　http:www.huffingtonpost.comping-fuclarifying-the-facts-in-bend-not-break_b_2603405.html 　　傅苹声称，虽然我的批评是正确的，但是是根据福布斯不准确的报道，而不是根据她新出的书，福布斯的报道后来更正了（意思是我的批评成了无的放矢）。　　

事实上，看过我对她的批评文章的就知道，虽然福布斯的报道引发了我的批评，但是我的批评并非仅仅针对福布斯的报道，而是针对自2005年以来美国媒体对傅苹的各种报道、傅苹的电台和视频访谈。我也看了傅苹新书放在google book上供试读的前面两章。它们的内容都相当的一致。如果说福布斯的报道有错的话，那么此前美国媒体的其他报道、傅苹接受电台和视频访谈亲口说的话，也全都错了。怪罪到福布斯上面是无济于事的。　

傅苹声称，“我没有说过或写过我是在劳改营；我说的是我在南航校园的一个大学宿舍里生活了10年。中国儿童不被送去劳改营。我也没有说我是一个工厂工人。我说毛要我们向农民、战士和工人学习。”（我的翻译）　　
就在10天前，傅苹接受谷歌的视频访谈时，还说整个文革十年她都生活在隔离区（ghetto）（http:www.youtube.comwatch?v=s4vRtvswO8s 大约7分15秒开始）。

NPR 采访她时，说她十岁时被送到劳改农场（correctional farm）达10年之久，她有声有色地讲述如何从劳改农场带东西回来喂她妹妹的故事（ http:thestory.orgarchivethe_story_988_Ping_Fu.mp3 15:50开始）。她好意思怪美国记者理解错了她的意思？　　

在此前她接受美国英文媒体的所有采访中，她从来说的是从9岁起她被迫在工厂工作，整个文革期间没有受过教育，何时说过她在工厂的工作指的是“毛要我们向农民、战士和工人学习”？（只在中文媒体上这么说过）那不就是当时每个中国学生都经历过的学工、学农、学军吗？那不就是正常教育的一部分吗？怎么就成了她个人的苦难了？是不是所有经历过文革的中国学生都可以向她学习，声称自己在十年间都在工厂工作，没有受过学校教育？

为什么所有这些采访过她的美国媒体全都搞错了？都认为她和其他中国学生不一样，没受过任何正常教育？傅苹在视频里亲口说：“在10年间我实际上从来没有进过教室。我去农村种水稻。” （http:www.youtube.comwatch?v=Ulq55Z9O3bc ，10:30) 　　

傅苹声称，到现在她还记得她目睹了教师被红卫兵四马分尸。

但是在看了我的分析后，她承认我的分析比她的记忆靠谱。她说中国对这种虐杀有一种说法，而她为此做了很多噩梦。　　这意思是她承认把噩梦当成了现实。中国的说法是“五马分尸”，而不是四马分尸。四马分尸是西方的酷刑。她小时候要做噩梦也应该梦的是五马分尸，而不是四马分尸。更可能的是，她根据西方人的口味来编造四马分尸的故事。　　

傅苹承认她关于一胎化政策导致溺婴的论文从未发表过，也从未被《人民日报》报道过。

但是她说她记得在1982年读过《人民日报》一篇呼吁男女平等的社论。　　此前她在接受美国媒体采访时不是一直在说她的论文一度引起了轰动，《文汇报》《人民日报》都不点名地报道了其研究结果了吗？甚至连邓小平都对她的论文感兴趣吗？（听她亲口在NPR说：http:thestory.orgarchivethe_story_988_Ping_Fu.mp3 18:00）既然她的论文从未发表过，报纸怎么知道她的研究成果？就算报纸有秘密通道知道其研究，所谓的报道居然就是一篇呼吁男女平等的社论？当时中国报纸呼吁男女平等那是一点都不奇怪的，她有什么理由相信那和她的论文有关？在其声明中她甚至不敢明确地说《人民日报》的社论与她的论文有关。　　

傅苹声称，所谓联合国因为其论文而制裁中国的说法是她在等护照时听人说的。 　　

原来这么重大而离奇的事件，最多只是她的道听途说，然后就在美国媒体上到处宣讲？　　

傅苹提到美国斯坦福大学学生Steven W. Mosher在1981年发表中国溺婴的研究，在1984年出版了有关著作，并称那一年她正在等护照。她并提到《洛杉矶时报》曾报道说Mosher成功游说小布什政府不向联合国提供用于中国的资金。她认为这与她在国内的经历一致。　　

1984年1月傅苹已经到美国了，为了跟Mosher扯上关系，怎么又改口说成那一年她还在等护照？

小布什政府因为反对中国的人口政策而不向联合国人口基金会提供资金，那是小布什政府制裁联合国，和联合国制裁中国有什么关系？

而且小布什是2001年上台的，那时候傅苹已在美国生活17年了，和她所谓被迫离开中国，又怎么能扯上关系？　　

Mosher在1980年左右曾在中国做人口学研究，他关于中国强迫人工流产的文章1981年在台湾发表后，惹怒了中国政府，斯坦福大学于1983年以其违背研究伦理、从事非法活动为由将他开除。

他起诉斯坦福大学。这个案件在1984年——也就是傅苹到美国那一年——非常有名，但现在已很少有人知道了。

傅苹突然提起她刚到美国时很著名而现在已鲜为人知的这个案子，让我不得不怀疑她当年正是根据Mosher的案子来捏造她的论文故事，以此申请政治避难的。　　

傅苹声称，因为其论文政府要求她离开中国，但政府没有给特定期限。她通过在新墨西哥大学的一个家庭朋友获得了学生签证。 　　

在此前她接受采访时，全都说是她被中国政府要求在两周内离开中国。直到前天她还在对福布斯记者这么说。

最离谱的是她10天前接受谷歌的采访，这是她亲口说的：她的论文引起了国际轰动，联合国对中国进行制裁，她被投入监狱关了三天，因为邓小平问写论文的那个人现在怎么样了，她才被放出来，两周后警方交给她护照要她离开中国。（http:www.youtube.comwatch?v=s4vRtvswO8s 从10：30开始）她的案子连邓小平都被惊动了，她两周就得到护照了——没错，这是她十天前对着镜头亲口说的。仅仅过了十天，她就改口说因为办护照极其困难，她被释放后等了一年多才拿到护照。这不是撒谎、骗人，是什么？　　

傅苹声称，在她上大学时英语是选修课，不是必修课，她从未学过英语，她的英语水平是零，在抵达美国时只记得几个英语单词。 　　

不再说只懂三个英语单词了？但是这仍是谎言。第一、从恢复高考开始，英语就是大学的必修课，她不可能没上过英语课。第二、她的大学同班同学滋兰斋主人（傅苹承认是她的大学同班同学）在批评傅苹的文章中说：“当年我们中文系1978级两个班，这个人的英语水平算是高的，在快班。”第三、傅苹承认自己考上了南京大学比较文学硕士专业的研究生，只是因故没有去上。研究生入学考试必考英语。　　顺便说一下，傅苹声称其大学同班同学滋兰斋主人的文章是对我的回应，和她的说法一致，这也是谎言，是欺骗不懂中文的美国读者。事实上，滋兰斋主人的文章是在揭露她的谎言的：http:zilanzai.i.sohu.comblogview253678027.htm

傅苹声称，自1972年开始学校复课，她从此不知疲倦地学习。 　　

文革期间的学校复课是从1968年就开始的。我们姑且相信南京学校比较特殊，迟至1972年才复课吧。

但是此前美国媒体的报道全说她整整10年没有上过学，例如《公司》的报道（http:www.inc.commagazine20051201ping-fu.html ），WeNews的报道（http:womensenews.orgstorywomen-in-science100505geomagics-ping-fu-rises-in-tech-firmament?page=0,1#.UQzHxqVkw1I ），NPR甚至说她十年间没进过教室(http:www.npr.org200603185279787ping-fu-recreating-the-world-in-all-its-dimensions )。《伊利诺校友杂志》则说她被关了10年，18岁时才被释放。（http:www.uiaa.orgillinoisnewsillinoisa lu

傅苹声称，在那张红卫兵合影照片中，如果放大的画可以看出她没有戴红卫兵袖章，那是他们在她读书的学校的红卫兵旗帜前照的。

实际上，在那张照片中，每个人的左手臂都戴着红卫兵袖章，包括傅苹。那张照片并非是在学校照的，而是在南京灵谷寺照的，是他们打着“红卫兵团”旗帜去那里游玩时的合影。　　

傅苹声称，她没有申请政治避难。 　　

但是《星岛日报》去年2月份关于她参加美国国土安全部移民局举办的首届移民企业家峰会，并获得美国移民局授予“杰出归化美国人”称号的报道明确说她是通过政治避难获得绿卡的：“坐在主讲台上的四位移民企业家都有各自的故事，杰魔公司华裔董事长傅苹出生在中国大陆，成长于文革时期，1983年来美国后申请了难民庇护得到身分，之后创立了自己的公司。” （http:oversea.stnn.ccNY201202t20120224_1707578.html ）如果傅苹不是通过政治避难获得美国绿卡，她又是通过什么途径在1987年之前获得绿卡的？其他途径都更不适合她。　　

傅苹声称批评不是诽谤，而是讲述或寻找真相的方式，她欢迎建设性的批评。 　　

她一直在说假话，讲了很多年，现在发现谎言圆不了了，就用新的谎言掩盖，这如何建设得起来？揭露一个说谎的人说谎，揭露一个骗人的人骗人，那不叫诽谤，那只是指出事实真相。　　2013.2.2.

(4) 讀者的反饋 Selected posts of readers' comments from various sites :

"欲要亡其國,必先滅其史，欲滅其族,必先滅其文化” _^"For_{^{the death of a country, first destroy its history; want to destroy a race , first destroy its culture}}_{^{. "}}

以下的讀者意見，大多是來自中國/美國的中國讀者。我非常感動，因為我們來自地球上一個有數千年歪曲歷史的悠久傳統的國家，但我們很多人竟然變成如此認真地要求對方尊重歷史的真相和事實，我們的未來還是有希望的。 The following readers' comments are mostly posted by Chinese / American Chinese readers. I am very impressed because we came from a country on earth with several-thousand-year-long tradition of distorting history but we turned out to be so demanding on respecting the truth and facts of history. There are hopes for our future.

===================================================

Fugang Sun 5 days ago

I experienced Culture Revolution and know a lot horrific stories happened in that era in person. Frankly to say, this lady might have very bad childhood, as a person who were categorized to “black 5″‘s children. We all hate that time and, as a person who attended 6.4, I hate this communist ruling class a lot. However, most of the stories listed in article are faked.

Forbes publish this kind of article without minimum fact checking is ridiculous. This will help Chinese communist government to discredit the western journalist.

Jenna Goudreau, Forbes Staff3 days ago

Thank you for your comment. Please see the update to this piece: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2013/01/31/bend-not-break-author-ping-fu-responds-to-backlash/

A 3 days ago

Hi Jenna, first of all, I should thank you for covering the stories of successful businesswomen. I might be true that Fu Ping has become a successful businessperson of some sort, but the fact that she runs a company does not negate an equally, if not more, important fact that she has told many lies about her life back in China. As the old Chinese saying goes, “it takes 1000 lies to patch up a lie (One lie makes many / one lied about lying about lying)”, Fu Ping is exactly in this situation. I cannot help but imagine how Fu Ping managed to deceive the US immigration authority to obtain her US citizenship, by telling the same lies. I cannot help but imagine how Fu Ping managed to become “somebody” from “nobody” by telling the same lies. It is not only a lack of honesty or personal integrity, but also a blatant violation of US law against perjury. It is a criminal offense. So I would welcome you to do more research about her, to expose her lies, and stop becoming her accomplice in her perjury offense.
A 2 days ago

Hi Jenna, I appreciate your effort to “update” the piece and try to make everything alright. However, if every basic fact in her story is a lie made up by herself, no matter how many updates ensue, the problem remains unsolved. I should still thank you for covering the stories of successful businesswomen. It might be true that Fu Ping has become a successful businessperson of some sort, but the fact that she runs a company does not negate an equally, if not more, important fact that she has told many lies about her life back in China. As the old Chinese saying goes, “it takes 1000 lies to patch up a lie (One lie makes many / one lied about lying about lying)”, Fu Ping is exactly in this situation. I cannot help but imagine how Fu Ping managed to deceive the US immigration authority to obtain her US citizenship, by telling the same lies. I cannot help but imagine how Fu Ping managed to become “somebody” from “nobody” by telling the same lies. It is not only a lack of honesty or personal integrity, but also a blatant violation of US law against perjury. It is a criminal offense. So I would welcome you to do more research about her, to expose her lies, and stop becoming her accomplice in her perjury offense. The sad truth is, some people make up stories to obtain political asylum in the US and seek to stay in the US by illegal/immortal means. It not only wastes US tax money, harms US employment, but also compromises the integrity of the US justice system.

A Reader 5 days ago

Perhaps the capability and will to use deception as a means to go up in society have more to do with Ms Fu’s success in US than anything else, especially the so-called “entrepreneur spirit”.

There are already many voices questioning the validity of Ms. Fu’s story. From my view and experience it may very well be what it is: a story. Someone even pointed out that the picture submitted by Ms. Fu her very self to press indicates she was a member of the Red Guard. If that’s true then those who thrived through Culture Revolution also find their places in contemporary US. It is truly a sad commentary of human nature. By comparison the (non-existing) journalistic integrity that help to propagate this sort of garbage is but just an unnoticeable speck.

I highly suggest Forbes review this story and find out how and why it got published in the first place.

-----------------------------------------

Jie James
5 days ago

Her stories are ridiculous fabrications. Yes the CCP is evil, but anyone lived in China during that period of time knows her stories make no sense. See the top review of her book in Amazon. This is exactly why traditional journalism is dying – what’s the point of reading Forbes if they don’t even do the most basic fact checking.
Ping Fu didn’t dare to repeat the same lies when she talks to journalists in China though.

Haoxi Kan 5 days ago

It is obvious that her stories are fabricated: Labor camps in China must be the heaven for children because after she was sent to the labor camp, she traveled with her red guards friends to a torist attraction and took a picture under a flag of red guards; she must have gotten good education when she was in the labor camp because she passed the most difficult entrance exam for universities in history after she came out the labor camp; there must be no discriminations against the enemies of the communist party and their children because as someone in the labor camp (a place for enemies of the communist party) and as a child of enemies of the communist party, she was allowed to be admitted to the university; Chinese media must already have freedom in the early 80′s because one Chinese newspaper published her article that exposed the dark side of the Chinese society; the communist party treated its enemies wonderfully because she was exiled to US because she offended the communist party.
I was one year younger than her. I was also born and grew up in Shanghai. There are many many people suffered after the communist party took over in 1949. None of them were treated so nicely by the communist party. There are people and even children who were killed publiclly during the first few years of the cultural revolution. But none of these people have the luck to be sent to such a wonderful and heaven-like labor camp.

I will never trust anything published by Forbes any more.
njydj 4 days ago

China Story on Ping Fu is full of lies. I know Ping Fu and her family personally as we all grew up together in Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Aerospace (NUAA).
4 big lies:
1. she was growing up in Shanghai until 1966…No, she grew up in Nanjing.
2. she was sent to children labor camp for 10 yrs when she was 8 yrs old from 1966. Ask her when and where of such camp and find any supporting document for it! She was among us who were remained at University campus, young children such as her sister and myself, were boarding at University kintergarden while parents sent away somewhere for “re-education”. Did she bring her 4 yrs old sister to children labor camp?
She was gang raped while trying to save her 4-yrs old sister, never heard of when growing up together.
3. she graduated from Suzhou university in English (or Chinese), different places she said different things. She did not graduated from Suzhou Univ but Nanjing Normal Univ. How could she graduate with English major after 4 yrs colleges and only knew 3 English words. Do you believe it? If anyone who learned any English date back then, he/she must have learned “Long Live Chairman Mao”!
4. she was sent by Chinese Government for exile in US because of her thesis on one child policy…NO, NO, NO. She came to US because of family sponsorship, her uncle (father’s brother) was in US and sponsored her.

Her father and my father worked together in the university since 50s until they retired, although both had passed away. It is shame to see how she describe the univ campus where she grew up.
Ping Fu was also a “red guard” herself!

Forbes, wake up. Go to NUAA to research the truth about her!

source

====================================================

TenTenEleven

0 Fans

you studied for 5 years (1972-1977) and then aced at the college entrance exam. And you were known as the girl who doesnt turn off the light. This shows your strong learning desire and ability. However, when it comes to English: you said "I tried to learn more English when I knew I was going to the U.S., but when I arrived, I only remembered a few." Then after you arrived in US, your English magically improved in a month or two to a level that you had little trouble having class or communicating with people.
All these are just too odd and seriously lack of credibility to me.

------------------------

MC2007

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/entrepreneur-ping-fu/

Little did I know that was the very first time Chinese newspaper admitted that was happening. That's what got me in trouble, and I got thrown in jail for that."

In her "clarification" two days later, in which I have to note that she accuses those casting doubts on her story as "mounting a smear campaign" against her, she said the following,

"I remember reading an editorial in a newspaper in 1982 that called for gender equality. It was not a news article and not written by me, and I didn't know it had anything to do with my research" and "Correct; I did not publish my research and it was never published."

She had an elaborate story of how her research got published in China's state media, and how significant it was that it caused her arrest. Now she wants us to completely forget about all that, but continue to believe that she did do her research and did get arrested?

Reply Fave Share 17 hours ago Flag

-----------------------------

source

============================================================

Kurutoga twokseven 2 days ago
Hello Mr. Russell,

We need to make a few things straight. Ms. Fu’s book is written by an American for the general English-speaking audience in this country. It is published by an American company and reviewed by the English language media. But other than a few tens of thousands of Chinese Americans, seldom everyone else can read chinese language materials. Therefore, even though Cultural Revolution is a popular topic in chinese for many years, it is still a new and curious topic in the States.

I do not think the current chinese government endorse CR. In fact, Deng made his fame by making a U-Turn on CR and everyone in China celebrated the downfall of 4-people-gang. Regardless of political views, Chinese American overwhelmingly condemn CR. So Ms. Fu’s book’s publishing and promotion is purely a matter in the English speaking market at this time. If the work is translated into Chinese, it will be paled by many other that were already published in the past.

Before I get to any details, the overall theme of Ms. Fu’s story painted her as a high middle class young girl. Even though her parents were taken to the Cow-Pit (whose didn’t), she enjoyed a peaceful and resourceful life (relatively speaking). Going to a University in 1977/78? That means she is among the social elite of the top 1%. Immigrating to US after college graduation? that puts her in the top 0.01% chinese youth who can somehow gain an oversea scholarship. This is remarkably rare and lucky. Apparently Ms. Fu is not in a position to complain. In fact, none of these will be possible if Ms. Fu is not a Red Guard. None of these will be possible if her family was considered counter-revolutionary and was punished.
You’ve got to be kidding me!

Getting a factory job when she was young, even though her parents are intellectuals? That is like she won the lottery, because factory jobs were so rare, they were reserved to those whose ancestors were among the poorest farm hands for generations. At that time, the chinese class is: (1) soldiers or any military personnel are on the top (2) factory workers (3) farmers (4) the average citizens (5) intellectuals

Raped by Red Guard in a school campus? That is unbelievable because she herself is a Red Guard. Red Guard punish counter-revolutionist severely and publicly. However, these type of punishments is rarely in private in cities. Counter revolutionists are resources that you use to educate the public in meetings and gatherings. As I said earlier, because of Ms Fu’s family status she is very unlikely to be attacked. That is to say, she is not worthy of being attacked because it is not a real good educational material. Since she herself is a Red Guard, it makes no sense at all.

I have to go. I like to get into details when I have time
.

Kurutoga twokseven 2 days ago

Now let’s get back to the raping claim. At the time, Chinese youth were not sexually active as they are today. There is virtually no books for sexual education because all such books were burnt! Porn material is unheard of even for adults. I do remember a few things. One is in mid 80s young adults pass along “manually copied books”, which are essentially soft porn stories without explicit descriptions. These are rare and you’d better not get caught. I also remember one incident in late 80s that I know a college student had consensual sex with a female classmate. They were adults at the time but the school expelled both swiftly, without hesitation. They were probably in love and had fun. However, sex is not tolerated socially before marriage.

Red Guards, are simply young people who supposedly followed Mao’s instructions. They are not criminals. Attacking children is not accepted. You see so many counter-revolutionists being punished. Their children had a very hard time but they are not punished directly. There is no concentration camp for children. Let’s take a step back, assuming there are labor camps for young children and I do not have knowledge of. Ms. Fu’s parents are not significant counter-revolutionists, that putting Ms. Fu in the hypothetical labor camp would not be worth it, since it does not really educate anyone.

So, let’s see in Fu’s book, a group of young Red Guards tried to rape her young sister and she stopped them but get gang raped in day light. If that really happened, my best estimation is these young Red Guards probably do not know what to do with a women. And if the situation really really happened, it is a “conflict among people”. These Red Guards are caught with their pants down. They would be caught and swiftly executed by their Red Guard leaders by raping a fellow Red Guard. Because investigation would be too much trouble and the evidence is overwhelming. This happened in a university campus, is also incredible. If you tell me such thing happened in a remote farmland to a daughter of a counter-revolutionist. I would probably believe you. But even during CR, there is order in college campus especially when the matter involves children.
I am sure Ms. Fu will be mocked in school. Or maybe even physically attacked by classmates. However, the fact she is still going to school and later on went to a college, suggested that she is not that significant to be singled out and punished. She is among one of us. And her family situation is not rare at all.
Kurutoga twokseven 2 days ago

I have to stop and again envy how lucky Mrs. Fu was. According to her book, Mrs. Fu grew up in Nanjing/Shanghai, which is the most developed area in China. That means she enjoyed many of the social benefits most children in the countryside or small cities can only envy. For example, sometimes candy is available in big cities only. I got some during special holidays because a relative went to ShangHai and brought some back. That was vivid memory because it was so rare.
Living close to a factory and even getting a factory before she is 18, wow! If that is the truth, her family must have bribed the officials. Nobody is giving you a factory job as punishments. Chinese were following Soviets systems in which school is mandatory. The nation wants to train its youth to be worthy workers when they grow up. So children are considered resources. You will be discriminated in schools because your parents are counter-revolutionists. However, nobody is interested in arresting you as a child. It simply not worth it.

The one child only policy was became widely spread in 1980. It was strictly enforced only years later. First a couple cannot have more than two children. Then later on it was one child only. However, in the countryside, the law is not really enforced in the early 1980s. I know this because I have relatives in the country side. It was very expensive to set up the personnel and organizations to monitor and enforce one child policy. It is so expensive in the big cities. The countryside simply do not have enough administrative manpower to enforce it. I can remember clearly even among the city officials, this is just a rule but not a very strict rule. People laughed about it. And there are so many loopholes in the early years. A lot of people can still get pass the policy.

The wide spread horrid stories related to one child policy start to emerge in the 1990s. Partially due to the chinese society was more opened up. More people can go to the western world. And more people start seek political asylum. I am going to be honest here. Some of these accusations could be fabricated just to get political asylum. Because there is no way to verify.
Then you tell me. How can Ms. Fu investigated one child policy when she was in college (early 80s), wrote an essay, published in a newspaper, get caught, expelled to the US?
In early 80s, no media would accept such story even if Ms. Fu was able to produce it. No way. There are multiple levels of censorship. Even if her story was true, her punishment would be a political crime which she will be sent to the prison, most likely.
Expelled to the US? She must be on weeds when she wrote this. US at the time was very friendly, almost an ally. Only the most influential (Harry Wu) political criminals get sent to US, many many years later after US-China relation deteriorated after 1989. Ms. Fu is not that important. Frankly, writing about one child policy is not that big of an offense in the 1990s. Even less so in the 1980s which the chinese public did not begin to grasp the impact of one child policy yet.

Using ultrasound to detect the gender of unborn children? What? in the 1980s in remote rural areas? She is out of her mind! This is not economically possible. Anyone wants to believe her story on forced abortion vastly overestimated the resources available to chinese for this type of law enforcement. This is absolutely joke.
Kurutoga twokseven 2 days ago

I can go on and on but what this really means? The publishing process here in this country and the taste of the book-buying public have become so sickening. Only the more exotic stories get published or translated into movies. People need to pause and question why these books get written. If the trend continues, I can see more and more fabricated stories become books and the public is too ignorant (language barrier in this case) to tell.

If Ms. Fu is writing a novel, she did a good job. But, a memoir? I felt as if nowadays books are for the older generations. The young people in both China and the US can get on the internet and do their own research if they are interested in a topic. It is the older generations who are easily misled by books/journals/tv since they tend to believe what’s in books/on TV.

For such a profound topic, you’ve got to look for more than one sources of information. I hope more materials relating CR can be translated into English, and the unsuspecting general public in the west can get some idea what it was like. And how far China has changed since then. Peace.

source

====================================

qin hui 2 days ago

Some of Fu Ping’s childhood friends and college classmates have spoken out. Go find them and interview them…sorry I am telling you how to do your job, because you seem don’t know how. Or just pretending not know.
Author

Russell Flannery, Forbes Staff 2 days ago

Qin Hui, Thank you for your note. I asked another reader which fabrication he/she would consider to be the most important just because hundreds have been suggested, and I was curious what, from the point of view of someone who was living through that era on the ground here in China, would actually be the key ones from his/her own point of view (and not mine). Good journalism is very often all about being good at listening to other people. I think it’s the words and description of people who themselves were here and have lived to talk about the era that will best keep the historical record straight and help others understand what it was like to be in China then. (Isn’t that in fact what is happening through this global discussion of Fu Ping’s book on the web?) In turn, I think that process benefits Chinese society today as it searches for its own future. And it also benefits people from other countries that increasingly will need to understand China better as the country advances in global wealth and power. We’ll keep following up on this. Thanks again –
Reply
A 2 days ago

Mr. Flannery, Fu Ping make her clarifications on Huffington Post today. Apparently, Fu Ping is now blaming Forbes and other US media outlets for the “typos, mistakes, misinterpretation and miscommunications”. As a matter of fact, the stories Fu told the outside, including to the media, on a number of occasions, can be easily proved to be fake. Many of these were video taped or recorded. To be fair, despite a few wording/translation problems of Forbes, the blame should go to Fu Ping herself, the source of the all these information, not the media. (True, news media should be responsible to double check the fact; but how about every incredible story she told is lie from head to toe?) It is time Forbes stand up and defend yourself against Fu Ping’s manipulation and abuse of the media.

As to your question (“which fabrication he/she would consider to be the most important just because hundreds have been suggested”), let me answer you below. My answer reflects the latest clarifications made by Fu Ping on Huffington Post today.
No. 1. Gang rape: Admittedly, it is very difficult to prove whether a gang rape actually took place. Among many incredible stories of Fu, this is the ONLY one that cannot be proved fake with solid evidence.

No. 2 “She knows only 3 English words” when she came to the US. — Unlike what was previously said, She changed this to “a few” in her clarifications. However, Fu’s university classmates testifies here (zilanzai(dot)i(dot)sohu(dot)com blog view 253678027 htm) that during college, English course was mandatory and students were assigned into two classes based on their level of proficiency, i.e., an advanced class and a basic class, and Fu was in that advanced class during college.

No. 3: “Research of female infanticide, persecution, arrest by police and reason to go to US”. — The truth is, Fu was among the most lucky of her generation to be admitted into university in 1978, and even more privileged to have the opportunity to study overseas in a US university thereafter. Sadly, every story she told relating to her journey to the US is fake and made up by herself. She is indeed a bold lady, because she dare to mention Steven W. Mosher’s research on female infanticide and Los Angeles Times coverage of his story. She claimed that “his story and the timeline are consistent with my experience”. However, it is more plausible that Mosher’s story inspired Fu Ping and she simply copy cat Mosher’s experience and make his her own.

Even worse, Singtao Daily, a Chinese language newspaper in the USA reported in 2012 that Fu Ping obtained her permanent resident status by seeking political asylum in the US. One can’t help but think that Fu Ping managed to deceive the US immigration authority to obtain her US Permanent Residency and later citizenship, by telling the same lies. It is not only a lack of honesty or personal integrity, but also a blatant violation of US law against perjury. It is a criminal offense. The sad truth is, some people make up stories to obtain political asylum in the US and seek to stay in the US by illegal/immorral means. It not only wastes US tax money, harms US employment, but also compromises the integrity of the US justice system. So I would encourage you to do more research about her, to expose her lies, and stop becoming her accomplice in her perjury offense. Sadly, Fu Ping set a bad example (role model?) who tarnishes those honest Chinese Americans and gives the American society a wrong impression that Chinese people are dishonest and dare do anything (illegal or immoral) to achieve their purpose. It is so unfair!
To Jenna: I appreciate your effort to “update” the piece and try to make everything alright. However, if every basic fact in her story is a lie made up by herself, no matter how many updates ensue, the problem remains unsolved. I should still thank you for covering the stories of successful businesswomen. It might be true that Fu Ping has become a successful businessperson of some sort, but the fact that she runs a company does not negate an equally, if not more, important fact that she has told many lies about her life back in China. As the old Chinese saying goes, “it takes 1000 lies to patch up a lie (One lie makes many / one lied about lying about lying)”, Fu Ping is exactly in this situation.
qin hui 1 day ago

After reading her blog, I think I can highlight her life for you, which is typical for a city girl at that time:
—When she was 7, her parents were sent to country side to “reform” by doing labor work there. This happened to many Chinese families in cities. Usually only one parent go, but some were unlucky. Most of them returned to cities later.
—She and her younger sister lived in the dome provided by the university her father worked for. They would also eat in university cafeteria (Shi Tang). Anyway their parents still belong to the university and still have salary. She went to school, too.
—At that time, students in elementary and middle schools spent much time in factories, farms and even armies, to learn from workers, farmers, and soldiers. Good or bad, it was usually safe for children.
—Most of the students would also join Red Guard, or it’s counter part “Little Red Guard” in elementary school. Except the early years, Red Guard was not that bad. It simply means good students according to the standards at that time.
—When she was younger, she may witnessed or heard teachers being tortured and some were even beaten to death.
—I don’t know what did she do after she graduated from middle school. Most young people similar to her went to country side or factories, or joined army. To become a factory worker was considered to be lucky.
—In 1977, China held the first college entrance exam since Culture Revolution started. She passed the exam. English was not taken into account because most students never learnt English.
—She should studied English in college. And according to her classmates, she did quite well in Advanced English Class. No wonder she was accepted to the Master Program in Comparatory Literature.
—She was accepted by the Master Program but she didn’t actually go there. Instead, her father’s brother or friend in US helped her to apply for scholarship. She applied for and successfully got visa to US. In 1982, she was really lucky.
—She definitely knew more than 3 English words, but she may indeed had only $80 when landed in US. When I arrived Japan in 1993, the first thing I did was to borrow money from my boss. China was hungry for foreign currency at that time.
—Another hurdle for Chinese students in US like her was, to get the green card. There were really no many ways. She succeed again.
—She changed her major to Computer Programming, as many did later.

I hope you have seen my point: her experience was ordinary in that time. No one here is trying to say her life was good. But it was decent compared to most Chinese back then. Terrifying things happened here there. It might be fine if she was writing a fiction, though some stories still sounds too exaggerated.
clutchfan 1 day ago

Mr.flannery, thanks for following the story. Among all the questionable points of the entire controversy, the most annoying one is the thesis or research work she claimed that led her expel. I remember a Stanford student first reported stories about forced abortion when one child policy was carried out in China, which eventually caught attention from international media. I read his story on reader’s digest and I think ordinary Chinese people still owe the student who had the courage to tell the truth. I just don’t believe Ms fu contributed anything to this and I am seriously doubt if the thesis even exist based on the fact that she keeps changing her story. If she didnt write the thesis on this subject, the story about the arrest and deport might not be true either
Forced abortion had dramatic impacts on Chinese people when one child policy was carried out. If ms fu fabricated a story that she played a role to influence a historical event, her integrity is really questionable.
David 20 hours ago

Dear Russell,

To your question “What do you feel are some of the most important points that were fabricated — say, one or two examples, and why are they the most important ones? “, it is all about the human integrity and decency. One of the problems facing in China right now is lacking of confidence of honesty. If a model of Chinese who lives in USA, a country of example for promoting human integrity and decency, fabricates almost everything and makes great success from it, what kind of the message will bring to other Chinese and people around the world? How can we to educate our next generation? Shall we tell them that dishonesty still can make you success in US? I think that is the most important ones.

source
----------------------------------------

Normad 13 hours ago

I think the most important point that outrages Chinese is that Ping was not prosecuted in China. She lived a better than average life.
She was a member of the Red Guard that prosecuted others. She did not get chased out of China because of her imaginary senior project. On the contrary, she received a college education, which only a fraction of percentage of Chinese students were privileged enough to receive at that time, and which definitely required “red” family, three generations of firm followers of the Party.

Russell Flannery, Forbes Staff 13 hours ago

Normad– Thank you for writing. Just fyi, Ping told the HuffPost this weekend that she wasn’t a member of the Red Guard.

David 11 hours ago

Russell – Let me also feed you some info about the red guard, thought you might be interested in.

Red Guard (RG) was established in the very beginning of CR (1966) as a result of broken school structures. RG members were mostly students of middle schools. At the early years of CR, RG was notoriously persecute teachers, including violent ways. There were cases that teachers were injured and even killed by RG members. Few years later, the role of RG diminished mostly because of restoration of school structures and there was no need for RG to participate in. RG then gradually turned to as a communist youth group, only those who act as role models could be members. By the time Ping Fu was a middle school student (I guess that was 1972), RG was a pure youth group and not involved in anything. So actually it was not a big deal if Ping Fu was a RG member at that time (1972 after). RG was replaced by Communist Youth Group in the later stage of CR. After CR, some notorious RG members were prosecute and jailed because their past activities, mostly involving killing teachers.

source
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Linda Du 2 days ago

1. I was born in 1954 in China and had similar experiences as Ping Fu. During the culture revolution, my mother she attempted suicide in 1968 when she was detained by people about a year. My father was in a labor camp since 1958, I lived alone from 1967-1969 without any adult relatives in home. In Summer of 1969, I were sent to a “May 7th” Cadre school, a kind of labor camp, where we worked in farmland for three years. The culture revolution, a horrible experience for me , left scars never heal. but from my personal experiences , Ping Fu simply went too far in distorting facts regard to the Cultural Revolution. Since Chinese Communist Party always hid and lies in modern history , most of young Chinese do not know how evil Mao and his dictatorial system was, we need to tell them and people in world modern history of China, but we still should base on the truth.
2. I came to the US in 1984 to study, even though I was not major in English and my English was not good enough in my graduate studies, I learnt more than 3 sentences.
3. Ping’ s case is a good example in differences between Chinese and American. American should not be too fond of adventures. Since honesty was never been very important in China’s education after Communist party took over, and the Party directly taught or pressing lying. As a Chinese , it will be long time to make correction no matter where they are . As a media, please do more study and investigation before you report somebody as a model.

Reply
manoe 2 days ago

Almost all miserable experiences she claimed she had in the book are either against the common sense, the social/financial/economical condition of China back then, or apprently grossly exaggerated to Chinese who lived through the same period of time. Here are the most important examples in my opinion:
1. Wrote a thesis about forced abortion caused by one-child policy, got published by People’ Daily which resulted in exile to US. People’ Daily is the Party’s mouthpiece and would have never published an unknown college student’s thesis criticizing the Party’s policy. If it did, it would be such a political incidence that everyone noticed it, but no one heard her name until this book came out. Being able to study overseas, in US particularly, was a huge prize, not a penalty. Unless Ms Fu was already a US citizen, there was no reason for Chinese government to force her to leave China for US as a penalty of political offence.
2. Was gang raped at 10 years old by teenager Red Guards on campus during the day. Sexual crimes are sometimes committed by people in high power privately at the time. But it was impossible even for them to drop their pants publicly, not alone for teenager Red Guards! They would have be heavily senteced in jail if they were caught.
3. Was forced to live in “government controlled environment” and worked for free as a child. This is apparently delibrate mis-presentation of the facts. As I explained in another post, dormatroy provided by the government was a major benefit for university faculty and staff, most of people would have to compete for the rights to live there. Almost all Chinese city residents lived in “government controlled” housing for many years until private real estate market started to develop in 1990s. Children were sent to factories and farms to learn farming and factory experience during certain period of cultural revolution. They were under supervision, and their involvment was largely nominal. For people who had similar experience, their would never count it as forced child labor.

4. Witnessed a cruel execution of a teacher with 4 horses. Execution without appropriate trial was not uncommon during cultrual revolution. But nobody had ever heard of anyone being excuted in such a bizzarly horrifying way since horses were not easily available in eastern China, especially in the cities.

We can go on and on with the list. If you examine all the details in her books, you will find too many abnomaly and incongruities to make her book believable, even for a person who does not know much about Chinese history. Ms Fu did not have to lie to make her case. She did start humbly, for US standards, and she did succeed as a business woman, but there are too many success stories like hers on the market. Her book won’t sell without all the sensational details.
Most Chinese are infuriated not because she is successful, or because she paint a sureally bad picture of certain dark period of Chinese history, but because she is trying to capitalize on the misery of people who really suffered. It is a insult to all the people who genuinely believe in the virtue of hard work, resilience, and honesty, Chinese or American. History should not be remembered through lies.

wic4 8 hours ago

Mr. Flannery,
I want to complement your effort in addressing some of readers’ comments regarding to Ms. Fu’s book and the dependencies of many facts regarding her life in China before she eventually reached US.
As you mentioned in your opening, Jenna is more focused on “women in biz”, and you are more of China expert, I hope that I might be able to rely on you to verify certain facts passed along in various reports (video, audio, and written) through various media outlets.

There was supposed to be a “Chinese version of Autobiography” Ms Fu published in China back around 1996, based on her interview with NPR (NYC, Radio), which was published exclusively in China for domestic distribution.

I hope that you might be able to direct your staff to verify:
1. if there is such a book
2. if there is, how that content is different from what in the “facts”
My philosophy is always: Trust and Verify (not intend to quite Ron, sorry sir).
My issues with Ms. Fu: (as I posted in Jenna’s piece):

1. I cannot figure out what year Ms. Fu entered US: 1982 (Ms. Fu in many interviews), 1983 (USCIS), 1984 (Jenna’s piece, based on Ms. Fu’s Publicist)
If an event of so important to Ms. Fu’s life journey, I would think that will be etched in her mind — date, time, and all. Not being diverged from 1982 to 1984…

2. The “teacher split by 4 horses”
For something so dramatic and so disturbing, if it is only a pigment of Ping’s memory (see HoffingtonPsot of Ping’s clarification), would it be fair for anybody, especially media (and those who promoted the book as “fact”) to ask Ms Fu to clarify what other facts might be… (shall we say) based on her nightmare?

3. For some of the supporters of Ms Fu’s claim:
this is an organized “by Chinese government” to smear…; let’s just say, they are mistaken: first of all: the current Chinese denounced CR, (from 3 generation of leadership ago); secondly, Ms. Fu is too small a potato for the Chinese Gov to fry; thirdly, if Ms Fu actually did publish her book around 1996 (in China), she was mostly kissing up to the Chinese government, thus they were more in cahoots than most Chinese American.

I sincerely hope that you can help to look into this. Why I am asking for this?
Simple: Lying about history (during CR) diminishing the suffering of 2 generation of Chinese; Millions of people suffered, it will be a crime to humanity to make it a fairy tale. We have to remember history as is, if we want to have any chance to avoid that from happening again.

Thank you for your time in advance,
A simple minded number cruncher

source

============================================

wang p 4 hours ago
About Ping Fu’s lies, I do not want to repeat since so many people already point them out. In the interview, Ping Fu admitted that she was accepted by Nanjing University with major in English Comparative Literature. By that reason, we know that her English at time must be pretty good, otherwise Nanjing University would not admit her.
Now, I want to turn another question, mainly ignored by others.
Here some facts. Ping Fu majored in literature in college and does not have much background in mathematics, especially in geometry. On the other hand, her former husband, Herbert Edelsbrunner, a professor and a young Illinois faculty member and expert in algorithms and computational geometry. （http://business.illinois.edu/publications/ANN/ANN.2006Summer.pdf）
Whose ideas do you think used to build that company in 3D modeling? It was because he worked at university (UIUC, then Duke University), she got to manage the company. After their divorce, she gain the control of the company.
In my view, most if not all of credits should go to him instead of her! Therefore, her success is not earned but married to!

Now he is not around, Ping Fu lacks idea and creativity. I believe that is the REASON the company was sold!

source

==============================

Monday, September 9, 2013

扭曲祖國歷史事實以擠進美國主流社會

'Liar-hunter' Fang Zhouzi accuses Ping Fu of selling fake tragedy to Americans

傅苹的逻辑硬伤：美国故事在中国穿帮(ZT)