How stupid do the Ciaobots really think we are?

Had anyone seen the latest newsletter?

Yet again, an 'interview' with an alleged member who - on checking - has a grand sum of 74 community points and has no personal info at all. Signed up in mid October.

Does anyone else suspect that these interviewed members are invented by the Ciaobots at head office?

And WHY would anyone in Germany (which is really environmentally concious) interview an AMERICAN about recycling issues?

Duh

Dreadful questions too..!! (In the "Global Warming" Interview)

I thought that was the incorrect media term for the problem!

A laugh as always! Lisa x

koshkha wrote:

And WHY would anyone in Germany (which is really environmentally concious) interview an AMERICAN about recycling issues?

Duh

Contrary to misguided generalizations like yours, concern and consciousness about environmental issues doesn't divide along international boundaries, koshka.

--"an AMERICAN"

I think statistics and history would support my comment that Germany as a nation has exhibited a lot more interest and concern in these issues than America. I stress this is at a National level. Which country consistently refused to sign up for the Kyoto agreement?

At an individual level, yes there will be Germans who don't divide their rubbish between the 15 different recycling bins and there are plenty of Americans who do give a damn and don't drive cars that do 10 miles to the gallon.

But at a national level, America doesn't have as good a record on environmental issues as Germany. That's not prejudice or misguided generalisation.

Show me the data that says that's not true?

koshkha wrote:

And WHY would anyone in Germany (which is really environmentally concious) interview an AMERICAN about recycling issues?

For a UK-focussed website.

Ciao are idiots. They prove me right with every passing day. Write to your MP and complain.

As was mentinoed (by me? I can't be arsed to check), I think there's a category for reviews on their newsletter.

Go on, start writing K. I dare ya.

Yep, that would win friends and influence people and probably ensure that every new product request gets a max of £.

I did think about writing a feedback on their dumb newsletter but they made it non-paying. I figured if they won't pay to get advice on their dumb newsletter, then I won't tell them what I think.

COnsidering they run consumer surveys and know that consumers expect to get a teensy payment for a survey, why would they expect free feedback.

koshkha wrote:

I think statistics and history would support my comment that Germany as a nation has exhibited a lot more interest and concern in these issues than America. I stress this is at a National level. Which country consistently refused to sign up for the Kyoto agreement?

Your generalization-poisoned post has absolutely nothing to do with ". . .Germany (or America) as a nation, environmental awareness ". . .at a national level, or ". . .(w)hich country consistently refused to sign up for the Kyoto agreement," so don't attempt to use these distraction-intended red herrings to cloud the issue. You talk about one, individual American (i.e., ". . .an AMERICAN," the newsletter's interview selection), as though he represents ALL individual Americans, and as though his simply "being an American citizen" automatically precludes him from being able to speak intelligently and knowledgeably about recycling issues, regardless of what his actual qualifications might be. This is the ONLY issue you raise in your post (I discuss this more fully further down).

koshkha wrote:

. . .And WHY would anyone in Germany (which is really environmentally concious[s.i.c.]) interview an AMERICAN about recycling issues?

Duh

YOUR GENERALIZATIONS: "Americans are environmentally unconscious and couldn't possibly speak knowledgeably about recycling issues"

WHAT THEY MEAN: "If you're "an American," you can't possibly be environmentally conscious." "If you're an American, you can't possibly be qualified to address non-Americans on recycling issues." Put another way, "a person is oblivious to environmental issues and knows nothing about recycling, simply by virtue of the fact that he or she happens to be an American." Your derogatory "Duh" tacitly asserts that the interviewer can only be a complete idiot for failing to recognize matters of common knowledge as patently obvious as the ones you so confidently, if ignorantly, set forth in your misguided generalization. "How could anyone overlook such a no brainer?!" (Well yes, it is a "no-brainer," a big one, but not for the reasons you appear to believe.)

THE ACTUAL FACTS: I'm an American and I'm very environmentally conscious. I'm an American and I could probably teach you a thing or two about recycling. One may therefore logically conclude that "being an American" doesn't render one environmentally unconscious, and that "being an American" doesn't prevent one from speaking intelligently and knowledgeably about recycling issues. Scratch two misguided generalizations.

koshkha wrote:

At an individual level, yes there will be Germans who don't divide their rubbish between the 15 different recycling bins and there are plenty of Americans who do give a damn and don't drive cars that do 10 miles to the gallon.

But at a national level, America doesn't have as good a record on environmental issues as Germany. That's not prejudice or misguided generalisation.

This is all utterly irrelevant to the very specific generalizations set forth in the unequivocal content of your post. Not a one of these issues is either expressly raised or indirectly alluded to by any of your post's wording.

koshkha wrote:

Show me the data that says that's not true?

No, YOU made the ignorant generalizations; YOU expressed those misguided and prejudice-propagating generalizations as though they were a matter of common knowledge (i.e., "Duh"), therefore, the burden is squarely upon YOU to show ME ". . .the data that says. . ." it IS true (assuming "it" was even the least bit relevant, which it clearly is not).

Your post addresses ". . .an AMERICAN," (i.e., the representative American selected for the interview; a random American about whom you appear to know nothing, environmentalist qualifications or otherwise), thus you apply your misleading generalization at an individual level. Your post's content contains no words or phrases that address either "America at a national level" or "the American government." If you contend otherwise, please quote for me the words that support your contention, or I will consider my point stipulated.

Neither your post, nor its misguided generalizations have anything to do with ". . .America's record on environmental issues. . .." They address some random, individual American about whom you know nothing other than that he's an American, and that therefore, and on that basis alone, he couldn't possibly be environmentally-conscious, nor offer any intelligent or knowledgeable commentary on recycling issues, thus, the newsletter/interviewer is a moron for having made such a foolish interview-candidate selection.

That IS (or rather, those are) undeniably...

koshkha wrote:

. . .prejudice(d AND) misguided generalisation(s).

--29th

Do you ACTUALLY get the Ciao newsletter which was the subject of this post? Did you actually read the interview referred to? Or were you just looking to turn a very old posting about the fact that Ciao appear to interview people who don't exist into a big political issue?

My posting was about the way that Ciao hoodwink members by interviewing people who - all evidence suggests - don't exist. And that the site is .co.uk and therefore why not create a fictitious Brit or (god forbid) even interview a real member once in a while. Why create a fictitious US member and then interview them?

I refuse to respond to the detail of your vitriolic attack because it's utterly irrelevant to the issue that this post was originally about. Your ability to put words into other people's mouths is astonishing.

And don't presume to know ANYTHING about my personal recycling habits - they are none of your business and you will only embarass yourself further by going down that direction.

If you look around all the old postings I'm sure you can find better things to get offended about. This won't be the only posting ever made that's less than glowing about the US or her people. I'm sure you can find plenty to waste a few hours bitching over.

koshkha wrote:

Do you ACTUALLY get the Ciao newsletter which was the subject of this post? Did you actually read the interview referred to? Or were you just looking to turn a very old posting about the fact that Ciao appear to interview people who don't exist into a big political issue?

Are you suggesting that I have to read Ciao's newsletter to know when a comment posted by you in a chat thread is blatantly offensive to Americans like me? Why? Is your comment posted in the newsletter as well? The "very old posting" is very new to me, and the message it communicates isn't subject to age. I don't take issue with ". . .the fact that Ciao appear to interview people who don't exist." Do you need to insult Americans in order to make this point? ...And who turned it into a "political" (cultural, actually) issue by needlessly bashing Americans to make her point, you or me?

koshkha wrote:

My posting was about the way that Ciao hoodwink members by interviewing people who - all evidence suggests - don't exist. And that the site is .co.uk and therefore why not create a fictitious Brit or (god forbid) even interview a real member once in a while. Why create a fictitious US member and then interview them?

As I've already noted, I don't have a problem with any of that. It's the needless slagging-off of Americans to make your point, that rankles me. I have no doubt it would rankle you if the circumstances were reversed.

koshkha wrote:

I refuse to respond to the detail of your vitriolic attack because it's utterly irrelevant to the issue that this post was originally about. Your ability to put words into other people's mouths is astonishing.

Once again, it's not ". . .the issue that this post was originally about," that is blatantly offensive, and I'm pretty sure you already realize that. To be sure, it's the unnecessarily demeaning way in which you communicate that issue that I take to task. You'll kindly note my first response to your post:

"Contrary to misguided generalizations like yours, concern and consciousness about environmental issues doesn't divide along international boundaries, koshka."

...consisted of one sentence, and was quite civil, considering what you said in that post. You could simply have acknowledged my rather valid point, moved on, and that would have been the end of it. Instead, you insisted upon adding insult to injury by attempting to deny what seemed like a rather obvious case of uncalled-for American-bashing to me. What appears to you to be a vitriolic attack, was simply my passionately-undertaken citation of actual examples from your text to substantiate the validity of a point you were unwilling to concede. In a debate over a given issue, the inability or unwillingness by one party to use factual examples and persuasive reasoning to validate or refute a contended point, enables onlooking 3rd parties to draw their own conclusions about the merits of that point, even if the unreasonable party refuses to concede it.

koshkha wrote:

And don't presume to know ANYTHING about my personal recycling habits - they are none of your business and you will only embarass yourself further by going down that direction.

Oh, I see... So what's good for the American goose isn't so good for the non-American gander, eh? You feel comfortable making broad, misguided "recycling" generalizations about Americans, but when it comes to an American making an unfounded presumption about your recycling habits, you get very touchy and defensive. Hmmm, it's apparent you get the point I've been making, even if you're unwilling to acknowledge it. Don't worry, I try not to make a practice of subjecting people to the same behavior I'm unwilling to tolerate from them. I'm not the one who has anything to be embarrassed about here.

koshkha wrote:

If you look around all the old postings I'm sure you can find better things to get offended about. This won't be the only posting ever made that's less than glowing about the US or her people. I'm sure you can find plenty to waste a few hours bitching over.

That's okay, koshka, I'm one who judges an individual on the merits of her own words and deeds, not like some people who foolishly rely on the broad, ignorant, misguided, and misleading generalizations they propagate about a given country or its people, though I thank you for your thoughtful concern in this regard. If I don't set a positive example, who will? You? All the evidence I've read here clearly suggests otherwise.

Cheers,

Are all Americans so easily offended and so prone to go off the deep end or are you just special?

I'm not even going to read that last post or any others you make on this point. Post what you like - I'll let the other members read my original comment and decide for themselves if they think it was intended to be offensive or whether you are just making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Tea?

Jaffa cake anyone?

how about a nice bourbon cream?

To be honest Koshka I dont think you meant to be offensive in your remark at all...but obviously 29th was offended...greatly.

I can see his point and to be honest I think we all generalise without thinking of how that may affect the individual.

I also dont think 29th meant to be offensive to you...I have read some of his reviews ... and its his writing style...and has been standing for what he believes in.


now...how about a nice chocolate digestive.....

koshkha wrote:

Are all Americans so easily offended and so prone to go off the deep end or are you just special?

As I've told you, I try to avoid communicating in sweeping generalizations because they are inherently misleading and unreliable. I doubt my "being American" has anything to do with why I'm "so easily offended and so prone to go off the deep end." Being incredibly obnoxious just seems to come naturally to me. I've never met "all Americans," but the comparative few with whom I've interacted seem to have to make a special effort to put people off the way I do. Same goes for the people I've encountered from other countries-- provoke them, and they react like human beings.

koshkha wrote:

I'm not even going to read that last post or any others you make on this point. Post what you like - I'll let the other members read my original comment and decide for themselves if they think it was intended to be offensive or whether you are just making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Okay.

29th_Candidate wrote:

koshkha wrote:

Are all Americans so easily offended and so prone to go off the deep end or are you just special?

As I've told you, I try to avoid communicating in sweeping generalizations because they are inherently misleading and unreliable. I doubt my "being American" has anything to do with why I'm "so easily offended and so prone to go off the deep end." Being incredibly obnoxious just seems to come naturally to me. I've never met "all Americans," but the comparative few with whom I've interacted seem to have to make a special effort to put people off the way I do. Same goes for the people I've encountered from other countries-- provoke them, and they react like human beings.

koshkha wrote:

I'm not even going to read that last post or any others you make on this point. Post what you like - I'll let the other members read my original comment and decide for themselves if they think it was intended to be offensive or whether you are just making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Okay.

Well, Barbara, l get a bit offended by people who make sweeping "Anti-American" generalisations, but l'm not usually as good at expressing myself as Jim, so usually hold my peace.

l am quite environmentally aware (as those of my family who live in USA also are); and, having married an Englishman, am domiciled in the UK . . . . and have been (re-)educating him for the last 31 years on reducing waste . . .

Learning to live more simply, and respecting what is available is not something l have noticed the UK population as a whole are perfect at either.


As regards "fake" interviewees ~ Aussieme1106 ~ recently interviewed in a newsletter is DEFINITELY not FAKE ~