I also asked you what specifically has been lacking in those media reports.
You are not just posting this information to share it. You are making a claim that the media's reporting has been incomplete, which claim you have not substantiated.
So, I ask again, what specific relevant information has been lacking from media reports?
That is, except perhaps for the emotional anguish that the poor woman was feeling, which can only really be discerned from her writing. The pain that led her to write this simply cannot be expressed accurately except through her own words.
Is that what you meant? That the western media has not painted a sympathetic enough picture of Peng Shuai? That the media has been too deferential to the Chinese government in not giving her voice a platform?
Whether that means that the media was or wasn't sympathetic enough, isn't my point. It also doesn't matter whether I think the media was/wasn't sympathetic enough.
Letting people read the original post allow people to individually determine whether they agree with the media's interpretation. It's not up to me (or the media) to decide what interpretation is right: it's up to each individual.
If you agree with the media's interpretation, good for you.
This sentence is rather condescending, and I believe it reveals something of your true intention here that you refuse to admit.
There is something about Peng Suai’s post that you believe exonerates Chinese officials or the Chinese government in some way, but you are unwilling to explain what it is for some reason.
> It's not up to me (or the media) to decide what interpretation is right: it's up to each individual.
Humor me. What is the alternate interpretation of these events that you believe is missing from western media reports? What are the different interpretations that people may arrive at other than “the media’s interpretation” as you put it?
> Letting people read the original post allow people to individually determine whether they agree with the media's interpretation.
You seem not to agree with the “media’s interpretation”. Why not? Why in your opinion would anyone disagree with the media’s interpretation of events after reading Peng Shuai’s post?
Look others have already said they found the extra information helpful. Respect the fact that others may find this information useful instead of going on a witch hunt, ok? You seem extremely angry at the possibility that others may think differently than you. You don't get to police of dictate others' thoughts.
All I am asking for is an articulation of the alternative interpretation of events that you have said is lacking in media reports.
I can only think of one reason why you would believe that my questions somehow show me to be “extremely angry” (when I am not) or that I want to “dictate others’ thoughts” (which I don’t) or that I am somehow on a “witch hunt” just because I am being persistent in responding to your comments (this is a two-way street). It is the same reason that you cannot articulate any other interpretation than the one found in media reports:
In your own heart you know that there is only one reasonable interpretation of these events and of Peng Shuai’s writings. This poor woman was abused—certainly emotionally and possibly physically—by a senior member of the Chinese Communist Party, and officials of the Chinese government have taken extraordinary steps to cover it up.
If there were any other reasonable interpretation you would say what it is!
See also @honglilai on Twitter ("Hongli Lai") for more exclusively pro-China commentary. I'm afraid that engaging him in honest debate is an exercise in futility.
(Note: I'm not attempting to dox the user, his Twitter handle/name can be found in his HN profile)
Come on man, aren't we supposed to be "only against the CCP and for the Chinese people"?
[1] https://twitter.com/honglilai/status/1256923741940068353?s=2...
[2] https://twitter.com/honglilai/status/1454718292191596551?s=2...
TLDR: no.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/19/tennis/peng-shuai-china-expla...
Relevant quotes:
> For almost three weeks following the accusation, Peng was not seen in public and her whereabouts were not publicly disclosed.
> WTA chief Simon told CNN he had been in conversation with counterparts at the Chinese Tennis Association, who had provided assurances Peng was unharmed in Beijing. However, attempts to reach Peng directly had proved unsuccessful, he said.
After her initial disappearance (not just from social media, but also from public) she has only been seen in stage-managed circumstances, only accompanied by state officials:
> New video clips of the tennis star were tweeted by members of Chinese state media on November 20 and 21.
> One clip appears to show Peng sitting with China Open tournament co-director Zhang Junhui and two women around a table in a restaurant in Beijing. The clips appear to deliberately emphasize specific dates. Throughout the video, Zhang is speaking to Peng, but she doesn't say anything.
> Then later on Sunday, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced its President Thomas Bach held a video phone call with Peng. The two were accompanied on the call by a Chinese sports official, Li Lingwei, as well as the Chair of the Athletes' Commission, Emma Terho.
The evidence points to her having been physically seized by state officials, who seem to be attempting to mitigate the PR crisis created by her accusations by controlling her physical person. Of course, this is only my opinion and personal interpretation of reported events.
The issue is that the woman was kidnapped by the Chinese government because simple because she spoke out publicly, and it seems to me that the media’s reporting has been very complete in that regard.
What specifically has been lacking?