Sorry.

at reviews by people who either didn't read the book (or use the product) and/or are paid for the reviews.

I doubt any of the people who are writing the most recent reviews have actually read the text book... but they have read or seen the Fox News account of what the textbook says.

They're upset over how their beloved hero Ronald Reagan is portrayed. I haven't read the book either, so my opinion of it is no more valid than theirs. What I would do, though, is pay closer attention to the reviews of the people who've actually read the book... not those who have not, but feel they've formed an opinion about it.

You know... critical thinking.

critically, thank you. I just don't write bogus reviews...which was my point.

for those of us who haven't read the book.

I did mark as many negative reviews as I could "unhelpful" because they were not at all helpful.

At the very least you can do that.

I swear, give it thirty years and Reaganism will be conservatism's dominant religion.

Like "Try reading this book before reviewing on it"

Particularly those negative reviews after Feb 17 2014.

And leaving more comments like "Another idiot writing a review of a book they obviously never read"

And just sitting back watching freeper heads explode.

You are not a culture warrior, you are background noise.

#1 - You will not see a review of the book by me because that was not what I was asking people to do.

#2 - If you clicked on the link and examined the options available to you, besides writing a review, you could click on whether a given persons review was helpful or not. You could also comment. You will note that several persons have done both things on reviews that were written after the various articles came out on the book.

#3 - You will notice that my followup comments have indicated my suggestion that people indicate that reviews were not helpful.

As I noted, it would be helpful for you to know what you are talking about before leaping to nasty assumptions and posting.

Yes. By all means, please link to this and spread the word. Thanks.

What does that mean?

Wouldn't you say that is pretty cowardly?

And yes, your attacking me when you knew I had you on ignore and thus with the expectation that I wouldn't defend myself was pretty cowardly.

It looks like you are the one who ended up with egg on your face for whomever reads this thread.

she said that conservatives view others as selfish.....(don't remember exact wording). I suspected the text actually made claims about both liberals and conservatives, but the histrionic student from U of South Carolina didn't dare point that out. I'm quite certain the information about Reagan was taken from another author or study as well.

It seems pretty clear the whole thing was a set up. It's on every right wing website in the world. There is little interest in correcting their slander. They just wanted another notch in the liberal elite indoctrination camps that are American universities bedpost.

Especially when they see swarms of Yahoos going in and giving it one star. I did click on a bunch of them and say they were "not helpful" reviews.

ok they got it down to 2 stars, but think about this book, called "Introduction to Social Work & Social Welfare: Critical Thinking Perspectives " how many people are going to come across this book in a search, where they would be looking at star ratings, compared to all the national publicity they are giving it.

Reviews for anything that I have not used, read, or consumed. It is dishonest

But what you are suggesting...very strongly, I might add...is that we descend upon Amazon en masse to screw with the reviews of others.

In essence, acting no better than they are.


Because, you know...the people most likely to benefit from reading something on critical thinking are going to suddenly decide to read the book because someone went there to point out how utterly stupid all those Fox News viewers really are.


and, on the other side, non-Reagan-worshippers are too STUPID to figure out that a majority of those reviews might actually be bogus, and meant to turn people away from reading the book.

Sorry...I don't play those games.

Dishonesty is dishonesty, no matter what one's politics (or motives) are.

You seem to be defining "screw with" as

"Screw with":


Sending a bunch of people to a site to give an opinion on someone's review just because one doesn't agree with that person's politics.


I took a look at some of those reviews and some of the comments. Not much to say about the people who said the review didn't help them, but there were the usual sticks being poked at people who made typos in their reviews.

Ooooh...how terribly witty! If one can't refute an argument any other way, there's always the last resort...finding fault with the person's grammar or spelling.

Disgusting.


Also, I find the occasional entreaties to "DU this poll" on some other site to be rather pointless and childish. Again...screwing with results which, in the larger view, don't mean shit.


The irony is that this sort of thing is expected from Freepers, and when they do it, people here are outraged.

But double standards and all....they can't do it but we can.


I dunno...maybe it's my poor upbringing that makes me believe that double standards suck.

internet poll. This is no different, particularly when Amazon itself invites any and all customers to comment upon the usefulness of any other customer review. Some of the 'reviews' are nothing but right wing blather, pretty easy to honestly say that's not helpful.
I fully support this endeavor.

Amazon offers that option once you click no on the helpful/unhelpful option. I have no idea how the company deals with trolls, but you could certainly try pointing them out.

On edit: Here's a Fox News story that explains why their fans' collective underwear is twisted:

[url]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/17/college-textbook-paints-reagan-as-sexist-conservatives-as-pessimists/[/url]

--that there was no need for the author to tell some really obvious lies. Didn't appoint women to high ranking positions? What about Sandra Day O'Connor?

This author clearly had a very biased view, and it's too bad that an objective view of history isn't being taught in whatever colleges use this textbook.