主题：【讨论】方舟子和中国科学与学术诚信基金会 -- 老班长
亦明声明
方舟子终于忍耐不住了，2010年10月16日，他拿出了自己威吓别人的最后一个招数——公布对方的隐私，然后开展群攻。对此，本人作出如下声明：
第一，本人在三年前所作的如下自我介绍，完全属实：
“亦明，男，从中国大陆获得学士、硕士学位，所学专业在生命科学领域；从美国大学获得博士学位，专业是分子生物学。本人在国际学术刊物发表本专业科学论文多篇，发表这些论文的杂志包括那个‘曾专文介绍’方舟子学术打假的‘美国《科学》’。在过去十余年间，本人的业余时间几乎全部用在研究自己自幼喜爱的文史课题上，而在2003-2004两年间，主要研究分析中国当代的学术腐败问题。本人在国内出版本专业书籍一部、文科类著作两部，总字数大约120 万字。”
第二，方舟子早在三年前就知道本人的真实身份，但他一直不敢和本人正面交锋，所以一直替本人隐瞒至今。方舟子知道本人真实身份的证据如下：一、本人在2003年期间，给新语丝投稿，使用的都是实名注册的电子邮件信箱；二，本人从来不使用代理上网；三、本人从来都亲自发信；四、本人从未去过罗彻斯特；五、方舟子在昨天撒谎说：“2000年就在Columbia了？2003年来稿是从Rochester寄的[，]也许是去开会或度假了” （http://www.xys.org/forum/db/7/191/98.html），以掩盖上述事实，但却欲盖弥彰。
第三，方舟子之所以不敢公布本人的真实身份，就是因为本人的方学研究成果让他恨得要死，怕得要命，他根本就不敢和本人公开对垒。
第四，方舟子此时之所以要把自己隐藏了三年的秘密透露出来，是因为本人昨天曾在网上宣布，将向《科学》杂志及方舟子的母校举报他在密歇根州立大学读书期间，抄袭自己的一位老师。在此之前，本人曾多次给方舟子提供机会，逼他暴露本人身份，但他一直不敢。
第五，由此可见，方舟子在此前对本人的如下污蔑诽谤，全部是蓄意的造谣：
“对‘方学家’亦明躲在美国南卡罗来那大学威尔士人文大楼的某个角落数年如一日炮制出来的那些造谣传谣、捕风捉影、断章取义、罗织罪名诽谤我的长篇大论，反科学文化人当然要吹捧其为‘对当今中国的一大贡献’。”——方舟子：《植物所首席造谣员和反科学文化人联手造谣》（见新语丝2010年1月8日新到资料，http://www.xys.org/xys/netters/Fang-Zhouzi/blog/jianggaoming4.txt）
“另一个职业骗子‘亦明’曾经造谣说，美国人吃的甜玉米都是‘天然’的。”——方舟子：《“美国人不吃转基因玉米”的谣言可休矣》（见新语丝 2010年4月12日新到资料，http://www.xys.org/xys/netters/Fang-Zhouzi/blog /transgenic14.txt）
“‘方学家’亦明（一个冒充‘生物学家’的文科人士）”（见2010年9月27日方舟子新浪微博：http://www.xys.org/xys/netters/Fang-Zhouzi/blog/weibo17.txt）
第六，关于方舟子对本人的最新污蔑，以技术员身份“回国冒充副教授”：本人在“回国”期间，就是副教授头衔，虽然不是tenure track类；第二，本人从来没有在Dr. L.Bowman的实验室当过“技术员”；本人从2004年以后基本上与南卡大学生物系没有隶属关系，那个“技术员”网页显然建于2004年以后。事实是，因为南卡大学生物系Dr.Vance的实验室仍需要本人做一些实验，本人也有一些自己的项目需要开发，因此借用Dr. L.Bowman的实验室的一席之地。本人从来没有参与南卡大学生物系植物科学研究组的任何活动。
第七，关于“一稿多投”：本人根据自己的硕士论文，总共发表了六篇文章，《大豆花叶病毒种子传毒率测定方法的比较》是其中的一篇，全文载1986 年 第1期《病毒学报》。这篇论文在1985年底的一个学术会议上宣读，《中国农业科学》向本人索取论文摘要。笔者曾告知对方该论文已经投稿其他刊物，但《中国农业科学》编辑部认为二者没有冲突。该刊当时发表多篇论文摘要，都是他们认为具有一定水准的研究结果。本人参与的这个研究项目，获得1988年国家教委科技进步一等奖。本人对此作出了自己的贡献。
第八，关于“跑到河南去骗”：本人当时参加团中央组织的回国创业活动，合理合法，请方舟子提供本人行骗的证据。
第九，方舟子在此时发起对本人的人身攻击，其目的只有一个，就是要阻止本人对他的举报，并且给人造成他与亦明的关系是私仇的印象。虽然方舟子有足够的理由痛恨本人，但本人却与他没有任何私仇。我与他的关系，就像是一个手持解剖刀的人在解剖癞蛤蟆：我不过就是在向世人演示癞蛤蟆的内部构造，对癞蛤蟆本身并没有任何感情。显然，癞蛤蟆有痛恨对方的充足理由。
第十，本人的方学研究，不会受到方舟子一伙下流攻势的任何干扰，本人将一如既往，直到把《方舟子Y传》全部完成，并且出版问世。感谢各位网友对本人的厚爱和大力支持。
最好连真实姓名，工作单位，个人职称都写出来。
To:
Dr. Kim A. Wilcox, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. Karen Klomparens, Dean of Graduate School
Email: [email protected]
Thomas D. Sharkey, Chairperson of Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
CC:
ROBERT ROOT-BERNSTEIN, Professor of Physiology
Justin Harris, Editor in Chief of The State News
Dear Doctors.,
Shimin Fang (aka Fang Zhouzi), a Ph. D. student in the department of Biochemistry at Michigan State University, during 1990 to 1995, has been a controversial figure in China for about 10 years. On the one hand, he is called “China’s Fraud Buster” by some leading western journals, on the other hand, many Chinese scholars have found his so called “fraud busting” activity is nothing but a path to get fame, monetary profit, and to avenge personal enemies. One such example has been well documented in one of my books (in Chinese), The Feud between Drs. Fang Zhouzi and Xiao Chuanguo, which will be published in China soon.
In this letter, I’d like to bring your attention to another aspect of Dr. Fang, his plagiarism activity. Dr. Fang has been accused of plagiarism for many times in China, the earliest incidence was reported to Science magazine by Dr. Xiao Chuanguo in 2001 (thus the feud started). However, while doing research on Dr. Fang, I have discovered an even earlier case of his plagiarism.
In 1995, Fang wrote an essay in Chinese and published it on the internet and kept it in the “Fang Zhouzi’s Collected Poetry and Essays” on his website. That essay was almost a word-for-word translation of Dr. R. Root-Bernstein’s paper, but Fang never acknowledged that fact. According to MSU Graduate School’s Guidelines for Integrity in Research and Creative Activities, plagiarism is defined as “appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.” (see: http://grad.msu.edu/publications/docs/integrityresearch.pdf). I’m presenting to you evidence to demonstrate that Dr. Fang did commit an act of plagiarism while he was a student of your school. (see attachment 1.)
Please note that stealing other people’s articles is a constant and habitual behavior of Fang’s. I have attached two papers to this email to illustrate this point. The articles were written by Dr. Liu Huajia of Beijing University, and Dr. Liao Junlin of University of Iowa, in 2006 and 2009, respectively, which give detailed accounts of two separate cases. (see attachments 2-3.) These cases are examples that Dr. Fang writes his Chinese articles, which is his only income source in China, by directly translate an English articles.
It is well known that reputation is the life of any academic institutions, and integrity is at the core of reputation. Obviously, the reputation of MSU is tarnished by what Dr. Fang has been doing, at least to many Chinese oversea scholars it is so, that’s why I write to you.
I can be contacted by email, or you can call me at XXX-XXX-XXXX.
Thanks for your attention.
Sincerely yours,
Xin Ge, Ph. D.
XXXXXX
Columbia, SC XXXXX
List of attachments:
1. Xin Ge. China's Science Cop Plagiarized His Professor While a PH.D. Student at MSU. A manuscript to be submitted.
2. Huajie Liu. Shimin Fang’s scheme of “transportation”. Social Sciences Forum. July of 2006. (in Chinese)
3. Junlin Liao. Dr. Shi-min Fang Plagiarizes Against Articles Exposing Plagiarism. Unpublished communication. (in English)
4. Fang’s original paper, What Is Science.
已向《科学》投稿，并且抄送《自然》、《纽约时报》。
China's Science Cop Plagiarized His Professor While a PH.D. Student at MSU
Fang Shimin (aka Fang Zhouzi) is a well known figure in the world of academia. Science magazine and Nature journals have several times reported his fraud busting, whistleblowing activities in China. Science magazine alone has given him the titles of “China’s science misconduct watchdog”, “China’s Fraud Buster”, “Chinese Whistleblower”. [1-4] These articles have been widely circulated in China, and Fang himself has been using them to promote his personal agenda.
Unfortunately, Science magazine has failed to present a fuller picture of Dr. Fang’s efforts. One of Fang’s primary whistleblowing areas is exposing other Chinese scholars’ plagiarism. However, many of these cases have been found to be groundless. At the same time, Fang himself has been found to have committed acts of plagiarism on multiple occasions. The first such case has been traced back to 2001, when Dr. Xiao Chuanguo, whose recent fight against Fang has attracted worldwide attention, reported to Science magazine that Fang did a verbatim translation of a Science paper, and then published it as his own writing.
Here, I would like to draw your attention to another case of Fang\\\\\\'s plagiarism. In this case, Dr. Fang deliberately plagiarized a paper by one of his professors at Michigan State University (MSU) in 1995 while he was a graduate student there.
On May 16, 1995, while studying in the department of biochemistry at MSU as a Ph. D. student, Fang wrote an essay on philosophy of science (in Chinese), entitled “What Is Science”. The essay was published on the internet shortly after being written, and has been archived ever since on Fang’s own website New Threads in “Fang Zhouzi’s Collected Poetry and Essays”.[5] The theme of the essay is about how to determine whether a theory is scientific. According to Fang, a scientific theory must comply with all four sets of criteria, i.e. logical, empirical, sociological, and historical criteria. Each criterion consists of 2 to 4 sub-standards. In the essay, Fang did not cite a single reference, and he did not mention any other author’s names. It appears that the whole content of that writing belongs to Fang himself.
The fact is, 11 years earlier, in 1984, Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein, a professor at MSU, published a paper titled “On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered”, in a book, Science and Creationism.[6] In that paper, Dr. Root-Bernstein on the philosophy of science and summarized four sets of criteria which define a scientific theory. After comparing Dr. Root-Bernstein’s paper with that of Fang’s, it is clear that Fang’s What Is Science was based on Dr. Root-Bernstein’s On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered. Here are the comparisons:
Dr. Root-Bernstein wrote:
“There are four primary logical criteria for a theory. It must be (1.a) a simple unifying idea that postulates nothing unnecessary (‘Occam’s Razor’); (1.b) Logically consistent internally; (1.c) logically falsifiable (i. e., cases must exist in which the theory could be imagined to be invalid); (1.d) clearly limited by explicitly stated boundary conditions so that it is clear whether or not any particular data are or are not relevant to the verification or falsification of the theory.”
Fang wrote:
“Logically, a theory must be 1) in accordance with ‘Occam’s Razor’, i. e. simple, without unnecessary details, without lots of postulates and conditions which could be used as excuses for a failure; 2) logically consistent internally. You could not first say that animals were created first, human being later, then you say human beings first, animals later; 3) falsifiable. It should not be always correct, under any circumstances, without any modifications; 4) with clearly defined application boundaries, so that it is only applicable to certain area under certain conditions, not to every area under the sky.”【在逻辑上，它必须是：1）符合‘奥卡姆剃刀’的原则，即必须是简明而非繁琐的，而不是包含一大堆假设和条件，为以后的失败留好了退路；2）本身是自恰[洽]的，不能一会说先造动物再造人，一会又说先造人再造动物；3）可被否证的，不能在任何条件下都永远正确、不能有任何的修正；4）有清楚界定的应用范畴，只在一定的条件、领域能适用，而不是对世间万事万物，无所不能，无所不包。】
Dr. Root-Bernstein wrote：
“Three empirical criteria are of primary importance as well. A theory must (2.a) be empirically testable itself or lead to predictions or retrodictions that are testable; (2.b) actually make verified predictions and/or retrodictions; (2.c) concern reproducible results; (2.d) provide criteria for the interpretation of data as facts, artifacts, anomalies, or as irrelevant.”
Fang wrote:
“Empirically, a theory must 1) have a testable predictions, rather than only be a fantasy; 2) actually have had verified predictions, that is, a scientific theory should not only have been falsified, but have never been verified, otherwise, the theory is useless; 3) have reproducible results. It should not be an one shot deal, or be the only store in town, only yourself could get that result, other people could not duplicate it, and in that case, you would blame these people not as skillful as you are; 4) provide criteria for the interpretation of data as facts, artifacts, anomalies, or as irrelevant, or as systematic errors, or as random errors, they all should be classified and separated clearly, rather than interpreted based upon you own wish.”【在经验上，它必须：1）有可被检验的预测，而不是只是一套美丽的空想；2）在实际上已有了被证实的预测，也就是说，一个科学理论不能只被否证，而从未被证实，否则这样的理论是无效的；3）结果可被重复，而不是一锤子买卖，或者是只此一家别无分店，只有你一个人作得出那个结果，别的研究者重复不出来，还要怪别人功夫不如你。4）对于辨别数据的真实与否有一定的标准，什么是正常现象，什么是异常现象，什么是系统误差，什么是偶然误差，都要划分得清清楚楚，而不是根据自己的需要对结果随意解释。】
Dr. Root-Bernstein wrote：
“Sociological criteria also exist for determining the validity of a theory. A theory must (3.a) resolve recognized problems, paradoxes, and/or anomalies, irresolvable on the basis of preexisting scientific theories; (3.b) pose a new set of scientific problems upon which scientists may work; (3.c) posit a ‘paradigm’ or problem-solving model by which these new problems may be expected to be resolved; (3.d) provide definitions of concepts or operations beneficial to the problem-solving abilities of other scientists.”
Fang wrote:“Sociologically, a theory must 1) be able to resolve recognized problems. If it could not do that, then it has no reason for its existence; 2) pose a new set of scientific problems, and propose models for scientists solving these problems, i. e. not only it should have explanations, but also could provide predictions. Otherwise, it is useless; 3) provide definitions of concepts which must be operable, not like the fake concepts such as ‘Qigong field’, ‘Nature-human responsiveness’, which are not beneficial to the problem-solving abilities of other scientists.” 【在社会学上，它必须：1）能解决已知的问题，如果连这也办不到，这种理论就毫无存在的必要；2）提出科学家们可以进一步研究的新问题和解决这些问题的模型，也就是说，它不光要有解释，还要有预测，否则也没什么用处；3）提供概念的定义，而且必须是切实可行的，不是象“气功场”、“天人感应”之类子虚乌有、对解决问题没有任何帮助的伪概念。】
Dr. Root-Bernstein wrote：
“Finally, there is a fourth set of theory criteria as well: historical ones. A theory must (4.a) meet or surpass all of the criteria set by its predecessors or demonstrate that any abandoned criteria are artifactual; (4.b) be able to accrue the epistemological status acquired by previous theories through their history of testing—or, put another way, be able to explain all of the data gathered under previous relevant theories in terms either of fact or artifact (no anomalies allowed); (4.c) be consistent with all preexisting ancillary theories that already have established scientific validity.”
Fang wrote:
“Historically, a theory must 1) interpret all the data which has been already interpreted by old theories, i. e. you should not pick out only the data which is beneficial to you, and ignore the unbeneficial one. If you do, the theory is not as good as the old ones. The theories claiming how accurate fortune-telling is, how effective prayers are, use the following customary tactics: they exaggerate the successful incidences and hide the countless failed cases; 2) be consistent with all preexisting ancillary theories that already have established scientific validity. For example, if ‘Scientific Creationism’ wants to replace an old theory like evolution, it not only should explain the data which has been explained very well by latter, it should also not ignore the other sciences which are consistent with evolution theory, such as the other branches of modern biology, astronomy, geology, physics, chemistry. By the same token, if someone claims ‘Qigong Science’ is the most advanced science, then that theory not only should be consistent with the research results of modern medicine, it also should not be conflict with other parallel subjects such as physics, chemistry, and biology.”【在历史上，它必须：1）解释已被旧理论解释的所有的数据，也就是说，你不能只挑对自己有力的数据作解释，而无视对己不利的数据，否则就还不如旧理论；那些宣扬算命多准、祷告多有效的，其惯用伎俩就是挑出成功的巧合大肆宣染，而隐瞒了无数失败的例子；2）跟其它有效的平行理论相互兼容，而不能无视其它理论的存在。比如，“科学的神创论”如果要取代进化论这种“旧”理论，就不仅要解释已被进化论很好地解释了的所有的数据，而且不能不理睬与进化论相容得非常好的现代生物学的其它学科以及天文学、地质学、物理学、化学等的成果。同样，有人声称“气功科学”是最尖端的科学，那么它不仅要包容现代医学的研究成果，还必须与物理学、化学、生物学等等平行学科不互相抵触。】
In summary, Fang’s essay contains 1462 Chinese characters, among them, 777, or 53%, were derived from Dr. Root-Bernstein’s paper, directly or indirectly. Fang copied all four sets of criteria, in the same sequence as they appeared in the original paper. Fang also copied 13 of 15 sub-standards presented by Dr. Root-Bernstein, also in the same order. Some sentences of Fang’s Chinese writing are verbatim translations of Dr. Root-Bernstein’s paper. The dissimilarities between the two articles are caused mainly by the following reasons: 1. Fang’s ignorance of certain area, such as Thomas Kuhn’s “paradigm” theory, and Karl Popper’s falsifiability theory; 2. Fang’s misunderstanding of Dr. Root-Bernstein’s writing, such as the first sub-standard of set 4; and 3. Fang’s own extension or interpretation of Dr. Root-Bernstein’s writing.
Whether or not Fang’s above writing constitutes plagiarism by western standards, it is indeed an academic crime according to most Chinese people’s, and even Chinese laws. Mostly ironically, even by Fang’s own definition, his act is precisely plagiarism.
On March 23, 2010, when responding to yet another accusation of him using direct translations as his original writing, Fang states:
“It is commonly accepted that an article which was translated directly from the English original is an act of plagiarism. I have been regarded by others as an ‘academic fraud-fighter’, exposing others\\\\\\' plagiarism all the time, if I have also committed an act of plagiarism, like those whom I have exposed, I should be then included in the group of the most despicable creatures.”[7]
Well, in the eyes of many Chinese scholars, Fang is indeed such a person.
By Xin Ge, Ph.D.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Columbia, SC XXXXX
References
1. Hepeng J, Xin H. China’s Fraud Buster Hit by Libel Judgments; Defenders Rally Round. Science. 2006 Dec 1;314:1366-1367.
2. Hao Xin. Assailants Attack China\\\\\\'s Science Watchdog. (see:http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/08/assailants-attack-chinas-science.html)
3. Hao Xin. Urologist Arrested for Attacks on Chinese Whistleblowers. (see:http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/09/urologist-arrested-for-attacks.html)
4. Hao Xin. Doctor Sentenced in Beijing for Attack on Critics. (see:http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/10/doctor-sentenced-in-beijing-for.html)
5. 《方舟子诗文集》, (see: http://www.xys.org/fang/doc/science/science.txt)
6. Root-Bernstein, R.. On defining a scientific theory: Creationism considered. In A. Montagu (Ed.), Science and creationism (pp. 64–93). New York: Oxford University Press. 1984.
7. The original wording is: “‘直接是英语文章翻过来的’却公认是抄袭。我被人称为‘学术打假人士’，整天揭发别人抄袭，如果自己也干抄袭的勾当，这样的 ‘人’是该被分到最卑劣的一群里头去的。”。 (see: http://www.xys.org/forum/db/6/133/167.html)
对所有学人的呼吁书：老鼠过街，人人喊打，不仅要喊，而且要打
老鼠过街，人人喊打，不仅要喊，而且要打
揭露方舟子及其团伙的丑恶嘴脸和险恶用心，已经成了当务之急。但是，揭露不能仅限于嘴头，要有实际行动。那么，应该采取哪些实际行动呢？那就是把你所知道的事实，以及你的想法，都说出来，并且告诉全世界所有的人，不管他们愿不愿意听。拿起你的电话，打开你的电脑：
第一，给科技部、卫生部、以及所有相关的政府部门写信；第二，华中科技大学党委、校长写信；第三，写短评，向中国媒体投稿；第四，向光明网投稿，篇幅可以很长；第五，给西方媒体，特别是那些报道过方舟子以及肖、方案子的西方媒体写信；第六，到各大网站开博客，发表文章，转载文章；第七，到大论坛发贴。
注意：给政府部门和传统媒体写信，一定要用实名，但是可以注明不希望实名被披露。
诚然，一块砖瓦，成就不了摩天大厦；一棵树木，成就不了茂密的森林；一把铁锤，砸不烂万恶的巴士底狱；一枝秃笔，写不成人类历史的辉煌。但是，假如这一块砖、一棵树、一把锤、一枝笔变成了千千万万，难道还有什么样的事情干不成吗？
在《方舟子恶斗肖传国始末》中，我曾说过这样一句话：“与新语丝团伙生活在同一个时代，是一种不幸；与这些人同属一个族类，是一种耻辱。”（321页）
让我们把这种不幸和耻辱当作激发我们行动起来的动力，来铲除这种不幸和耻辱的根源。如果您还在对自己要不要出手而犹豫不决，那么，就想一想这个问题：几十年后，你能不能自豪地对自己的孙子说出这样的话：当年，我为除掉中国社会的一颗毒瘤，我出过一把力气！
肖案告一段落了，方案粉墨登场了。不知道方会不会也被逼的举锤子。
还有菊花的那篇“苟活着”也被举报到新华社了。
但是我觉得老方的赢面大一些。
肖在美国的动物试验尚无下文的时候
经人牵线到平顶山煤矿做人体试验
然后海归
然后有鉴定会
然后得奖
然后和医院合作开始搞收费给小白鼠做手术
然后开始找老外做试验
肖的名声？
嘿嘿...嘿嘿...
对方同学不满
等着挑错落井下石什么的可都是你自己说的
碰上凡是方同学说的都拥护的铁杆
你就是方黑了
我个人觉得
对于方同学本人，至少就他自己说的那些原则来说
你的话比粉丝的无条件拥护要有意义多了
我自己平时有看xys
几年来有个感觉
和饶毅:批判方舟子里第一点说的基本一致
不知道以理想主义者示人的方同学为什么会如此
没见过说谎这么脸不红心不跳的？
至于说“方学研究”--如果真的是那么看重一个人是不是作假，一定要去纠方舟子的论文是否抄袭，那么就事论事，方舟子纠别人的假，是不是该得到你的尊重呢？
显然这是企图抓住方的小辫子罢了
作者提供了一些证据，如果这些证据是真实的，那么也只能说明了一点，即方舟子是受到了一个美国的基金会的资助
问题在于受到美国基金会的资助就能够说明方舟子的科学打假（诸如打肖传国等人的假）是为了维护美国利益？
这个关键的逻辑链都不要了
抛弃关键逻辑链而迅速的得出自己想要的结论是什么呢？就是在文革中得到了充分表演的“捕风捉影，无限上纲”的手段
这样的手段在中国是有深厚的历史根源的，已经成为了自唐朝的党争以来文人想要达成自己的目的而打击异己的利器了
这篇文章对自己一稿多投的解释也是非常轻描淡写的，把责任完全推给编辑---这样推卸责任的水平还真的是高啊，或者说脸皮的厚度是达到了好几个数量级的了
怎么说肘子也是以什么什么狗屁黑带。
但是，这样，起码我会觉得，肖配得上血性这个词。
http://www.talkcc.com/article/3124470
这里面您的回复就算揭过了，我不介意，您就留着吧。
看到您从对我不理解到理解我，我很欣慰。
我觉得，方打假，是一把好手，绝对得支持，但是，这并不是说方这人就是完人，就没错误。
我支持方打假，同时我也看不起方的人品，虽然我自己的人品也没好到哪里去，但是起码我不折腾。
支持方打假，反对方搞臭钱老。
这是我的原则。
说完收工。
老柒不是一直盯着方的么
一审判决书(2005)汉民一初字第1834号
方的民事上诉状
二审判决书(2006)武民二终字第817号
全文都能在网上搜索到
找媒体寻求支持？
除了当地媒体，很难啊，特别是看过以上材料的
比如一审判词
非常有“创造力”的文字
方坚持他的科学精神
是顺其自然的事情
我可不敢自认算理解你了
不过觉得你选择你的"传统文化"和"道德"
我选择我自以为的"科学精神"
不同价值取向本身不至于到了"逢X必反"的地步