2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
on August 15, 2012
Amazon has had many issues (see http://www.forbes.com/sites/suwcharmananderson/2012/11/07/amazon-tackles-review-problem-deletes-wrong-reviews/) due to their simplistic and inflexible review policies. Gartner estimates 10%-15% of Amazon reviews are but sneaking paid-for marketing copy and others believe that up to 30% of user-generated reviews are phony (with a suspiciously high 80% of reviews being four stars or higher, says Bing Liu at the University of Illinois at Chicago, since most real consumers don't write reviews unless they have criticisms to share). Staffers at Reverb Communications, a Twain Harte, California, public relations firm, posed as consumers and praised clients' products at the iTunes store before settling Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charges of deception in 2010. The reviewer who attacked me (more below) each month posts some 60 reviews of items he's not purchased. Jeff Bercovici of Forbes suggested expanding Vine to reviewing reviewers would be a relatively simple effort that could go a long way toward improving the quality of user-generated criticism on Amazon. Techcrunch's Paul Carr called for Amazon to change their "idiotic customer review policy" five years ago. Barry Ritholtz, economics commentator and author of Bailout Nation, describes it as "nothing more than collective bullying" and like many others have in vain called on Amazon to change their review policy. Consumer Affairs lists many complaints about the lack of review for Amazon's decisions and others, like me, have had problems getting their accounts removed. The bottom line is there's unfortunately no reason to think Amazon is any better than anyone including eBay.
Amazon has found me guilty of being a bully and so I must receive the sanctioned customer treatment (so rare a thing Amazon Customer Support says they've never heard of it - I am so special). How did I become such a "horrible" person - the worst of all Amazon customers? 40 years ago, a highly respected bullying personality identifying test, the Child Abuse Potential test, was developed and I am the first person to ever receive a perfect zero chance of abusing others. How did Amazon come to such an opposing conclusion? I copied word for word the abusive comments that someone left on one of my reviews, which I could not get deleted after repeated requests, until after I was already sanctioned and placed on poor standing for pasting it on their reviews. Plato defended himself by insulting Greece and the jurors and then stated he wanted to die if rudeness could be punished by death - and so, he is often known as the first martyr for free speech as his jury eagerly agreed. I similarly ask only the same of Amazon - moreover, if I must die defending free speech at least let it be a quick death. Why must they make me suffer, even longer than Plato? Why won't they delete my username, remove my 534 reviews, and refund the balance of my Prime account so we can be finally done with each other? I called, emailed, and confirmed my request weeks ago. It now seems like more than just incompetency. Well, perhaps it might help to review exactly how bullies are born or created?
In total opposition to humanistic beliefs, humans are all born selfish and mean - this is why personality disorders are called personality arrestments as 3-4 year olds are naturally narcissistic bullies. By lack of encouragement, consequences, or both, bullies never mature... or due to such environments, they later regress. The statisticians who authored Freakonomics, Drs. Steven Leavitt and Stephen Dubner, showed K-12 teachers are the most likely to lie and cheat specifically because we assume they won't. An example of the abuse I received was when my 8th Grade AP teacher said she was worried I wasn't smart enough to be a ditch digger. Then, the field of organizational behavior is based on the idea that social groups develop human like personalities - this means human disorders as well. It seems any individual or organization not able to perceive their / its own pathology will naturally destroy itself by refusing to acknowledge feelings of inadequacy and then projecting blame instrumentally everywhere. Although seeing problems as but the result of disrupted developmental needs using mirroring and idealizing can effectively provide an empathetic unifying framework as a basis for healing and performance strategies, such efforts are unfortunately never attempted lacking real social pressure to do so, especially when the blaming Plan B is so much easier. Amazon customers have no input and there are no appeals to their decisions about who may speak. What is more of an important American tradition than such rights and believing one is innocent until proven guilty?
The most important secret to success has traditionally been about simply finding someone else to blame for our failures. Dr. Kirk Duggan says "once a scapegoat is identified, the dominant group can release its rage and fear and violent sensibilities, and gain a sense of peaceful community. By psychologically or physically eliminating or purging everybody who is different, an assembly establishes itself." For similar reasons, over a third of American businesses have been giving job applicants baseless personality tests to confirm they will fit in to the prevailing culture (never truly supporting ideas of diversity or the "melting pot"). Entity Theory concepts such as a Western spiritual war of good and bad or opposing Eastern Yin and Yang left us only able to neurotically see problems in either our "bad" selves to be able to love others or to selfishly blame others ("bad" manipulative or weak people) in order to still be able to love ourselves. No matter how we define Hell, we all know somebody belongs there. In fact, no one has a greater need to blame and polarize than us Americans: for one instance, we have 4% of the world's population and yet 25% of its prisoners.
Then, Dr. Brodsky in 1976 and Dr. Leymann in 1984 independently showed pretty much all stress is but the sad consequence of "mobbing's" overwhelming victims into prolonged defenseless positions. Bullying is but the "hard sale" for a win-lose conclusion based on a position of power (a net zero sum called politics) every parent has done with the words, "Because I said so." Mobbing, in contrast, is about sociopaths manipulating the general public to commit their abuse, leaving the bully's hands clean. Mobbing is additionally sadly an American specialty. While anti-mobbing laws with an anti-psychopathic intent spread across Europe in the 1990's and in Canada in 2006, there are no such laws being considered in the United States. Dr. Nicola Bunting describes people (and organizations) whose personalities are so impoverished and immature they only mouth popular and self-serving thoughts as Zombies. Read the reviews of any of the Mobbing texts at Amazon and you will not find a single person who admits to ever being part of the "mob" despite studies showing at least 90% of us have done so - we are always able to find some scapegoat to prove we are blameless. Dr. Zimbardo (famous for his 1971 Stanford Prison experiment) has shown our potential for good and bad is largely based on situations and he challenges us in his The Lucifer Effect (2008) to look beyond glib denunciations of evil-doers and ponder our collective responsibility for all of the world's ills.
The result is that we currently only continue producing more sociopaths to turn into leaders. Dr. Robert Hare writes "our society is moving in the direction of permitting, reinforcing, and valuing the traits listed in the Psychopathy Checklist such as impulsivity, irresponsibility, lack of remorse." Dr. Marth Stout also believes American values are the perfect breeding ground for psychopaths (which are rarer in Asia). In fact, the 1991 Epidemiologic Catchment Area study, sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health, reported that in the fifteen years preceding the study, the prevalence of antisocial personality disorders had nearly doubled among the youth in America and most experts today believe childhood psychopathy and suicide rates (the natural consequence) are ever-increasing (Dr. Ramsland, 2011). Dr. Hare says it is inevitable that "you will have a painful or humiliating encounter with one." Dr. Kevin Dutton (2012) dares to argue for encouraging psychopaths as they are often fearless, confident, reward focused, charming, and shine at reading emotions - leadership qualities tailor-made for success in the 21st century (well, except for the trail of destroyed lives they leave in their wake). Malcom Gladwell similarly argues in David and Goliath for the advantages of an emotionally scaring childhood. Studies show most U.S. presidents have been marked with a psychopathic STJ (on the Briggs Myers test) need for controlling others and journalist Jon Ronson showed how often we equally prefer psychopaths for business, social, and govt leaders. Thus, psychopaths, zombies, and victims are just players in a great game where none are truly good or bad. In 1963, Dr. Eric Bernie, in The Games People Play, named these basic relationship roles Persecutor, Rescuer, and Victim. The Rescuer plays selfless helper without first verifying the Victim wants help. The annoyed Victim then switches to Persecutor using insults and escalating emergencies to make the Rescuer a Victim. Drs. Zimbardo and Singer later showed a person's identity is primarily based on these roles (with clearly indentified genetic components).
Even though Pygmalion in the Classroom (1962) by Dr. Rosenthal showed children have NO input to their grades, we still prefer to blame kids and not teachers (as per Williams Ryan's Blaming the Victim, 1970). It doesn't matter that "the Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (2006) makes a rather startling assertion: the trait we commonly call talent is highly overrated. Or, put another way, expert performers `whether in memory or surgery, ballet or computer programming' are nearly always made, not born." (Drs. Steven Leavitt and Stephen Dubner quote from The New York Times). We completely reject such a possibility as doing so would open the door for facing the reality that we must take responsibility for creating "stories of failure" as well. Although Dr. Elliot showed (1998) Zero Tolerance, DARE, Scared Straight, and boot camps are some of the best ways to increase violence, drug use, and delinquency in schools, we've made no changes in our social programs rather than admit our incompetence. And, despite Dambisa Moyo's Dead Aid (and all political scientists) showing relief efforts are the actual cause of most hunger and violence in Africa, we refuse to change. Why? Another American tradition is to shun losers with great shame and so everyone's a winner, making our kids terrified to risk losing and becoming so identified.
The MMPI (the grandfather of all personality tests) uses the failure to admit the fear of getting caught is the only thing that keeps us from say sneaking into a movie theater without paying as clear evidence of a lying personality as science has long documented we all know deep down (if we're honest) what thieves we are. It seems only a self-deluded sociopath can sincerely assert that they are sane, smart, kind, truthful, and without blame (exactly what we require of our leaders). Dr. Martha Stout writes in The Sociopath Next Door that one of their chief characteristics of bullies is a kind of glow or charisma making them more charming or interesting than the other, say, "Muggles" around them. They're more spontaneous, more intense, more complex, and sexier (although they dislike sex and only use it as a weapon) than everyone else, making them hard to identify and very seductive. We try to pretend such monsters don't exist and we certainly don't want to entertain the idea we may have created and support them. Dr. Satir identified False Levelers as the hardest people to spot and with which to deal with and yet never studied them. Dr. Livingston wrote in 1992, expressing great surprise, how he also never studied Negative Pygmalions (people who intentionally cause others to fail) despite knowing they were more prevalent and effective than Positive Pygmalions. Dr. Hare likewise regrets spending his life studying psychopaths in jail rather than those in business and govt. Why?
Most everything we believe is a lie (as per the Self-Confirmation Bias), most everything others tell us is a lie (as per the Misinformation Effect), even our memories are wholly unreliable (Dr. Loftus says "there are now no reliable ways to distinguish a true memory from a false one"), and individually we will never change (as per the Bias Blind Spot). That's not very cheery news. Sociopaths tell us to be more empathetic of other's feelings and learn to give and take (as well as how special we are). This sounds good - I mean, what wrong with this? Well, every top negotiator has identified compromise as nothing but a lose-lose outcome based on the "tyranny of the lowest common denominator" and Dr. David Schnarch (the most respected and often quoted relationship expert in the past 50 years) showed growing up actually requires caring less about how others view us. What's the advantage to bullies if we are more caring of how others' feelings, believe that people are naturally good, and have a zero tolerance for negative statements (and the losers that make them)? Well, studies (such as by S.D. Elliot in 1998) showed such societies make it easier for psychopaths (and psychopathic organizations) to manipulate others into zombies to "mob" those that threaten them with exposure (ironically often by falsely calling them bullies). Hermann Hesse wrote: "If you hate a person, you hate something in him or her that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us." This is why many studies show homophobes are likely either repressed latent gays or children of such parents.
Relationships can't exist unless there is space for everyone to speak their own mind and attain their own ambitions and dreams. Excessive attachment makes adults desperate like infants for but safety and security and prevents us from real growth. This is likely why Amazon continues to warn me of my pending losses (after randomly deleting half of my comments) while refusing to cancel my account here. Our goal then is differentiation by not caving into the universal pressures to conform. Being an adult, says Dr. Schnarch, means going against the whole drift of the prevailing culture by, among other things, soothing your own bad feelings without the help of others and standing on your own two feet. Intimacy, again says Schnarch, is only possible for those who are capable of handling their own emotional lives to meet their own and each other's ever-evolving agendas rather than on keeping one another from falling apart. Dependent partners, as Amazon seems to prefer, spend their lives only compensating for each other's limitations and needs. Like a young girl striking her schoolyard affection to hide her loneliness, such people can be awfully mean. Schanrch admits standing up for your own beliefs (in any relationship, but harder with enormous Amazon) is a tough feat but that he say it is an evolutionary mandate because it's the only way to be loved for yourself.
"To feel comfortable," says Schnarch, "you must confront conflicts you've swept under the carpet." To Dr. Schnarch, demanding empathy only encourages people to continue to seek others for validation in what he dubs "other-validated intimacy." Too many of us base all of our relationships on but reciprocal emotional disclosures when we should instead just calmly "say what you have to say and you either get a supportive response or you're told it's the stupidest thing ever heard. Either way, you pat yourself on the back, respect your own thoughts and feelings, and maintain your own sense of self-worth." If you can do that, you leave room for others to do the same. In this way, you can offer others a hand instead of your neurotic needs. Instead of avoiding conflict, we must embrace it - growth can only come from resolving differing opinions. Winning communities will be those geometrically improving their ability for conflict, failing, and learning.
The Indian constitution is one of the longest in the world while the U.S. constitution is one of the shortest. The U.S. one varies from most in its view on enforcing the spirit of the law over the letter. "You have become estranged from truth, you who attempt to be justified by law" (Galatians 5:4-7). Drug Courts (the first as well as 90% of all drug courts are in the U.S., so it is a distinctly American model) are a holistic but specialized problem solving idea to help people find recovery and become productive citizens, a sort of mass customization of the legal system product where everyone is treated differently as needed. This is a very difficult thing to design properly; it's almost impossible. AND, Half of Drug Courts consequently fail. Drug courts must start small and grow through an honest self-discovery process. It's more than just forcing people to do things while reducing the work load of other courts. "Therapeutic jurisprudence," involves not only a system of effective sanctions and rewards to change behavior (aka Taylorism from The Science of Management, 1911) but must embrace treating all people fairly at all times. Encouraging people to think for themselves (and more clearly) requires a spiritual depth as well as a relentless reviewing of relationships that is only possible in particularly compassionate social groups (Freedom of Mind: Helping Loved Ones Leave Controlling People, Cults, and Beliefs by Steven Hassan, 2012). As T. Ohno, past Toyota CEO, has observed, success in such efforts comes not from an organization's formal systems but from the spirit that supports those systems. For example, how is America so clearly over-lawyered and yet its people still so grossly under-represented? Why do most feel private arbitrators judge more fairly than public courts (so many, like Amex, require their use)? Problems come from detail without substance, like Amazon's policies.
Systems must be flexible and allow for in-field changes as needed with discretion of interpretation - without this, Zero Tolerance has only led to school environments that are increasingly violent. For another example, U.S. sentencing guidelines were overhauled in 1987 as an attempt to address clear inequalities in our legal system. Alas, it is commonly held within the legal profession today that these very complex reforms have wholly failed to achieve their stated goals, have entirely dehumanized the entire sentencing process, and have only eroded the constitutional balance of powers. Unfortunately, all also agree that the country with the world's greatest self-esteem despite the lowest test scores is not easily able to admit to making a mistake. The new U.S. guidelines stripped federal judges of their prior authority to determine the purpose of criminal sentencing, the factors relevant to sentencing, and the proper type and range of punishment in most cases. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 passed nearly unanimously in both the U.S. Senate and the House and was enthusiastically signed into law by President Reagan. It purged our legal system of paroles with the creation of appellate review of sentences but more importantly transferred all formal sentencing authority from federal judges to a 258-box grid called the Sentencing Table. In this way, the sentencing hearing has been changed to where the sentencing court must work to only determine which of the "Guideline crimes" the defendant has committed as per a continually amended Guideline Manual consisting of more than 900 pages of technical regulations, amendments, and appendices (roughly the size of the Internal Revenue Code). Before this de-evolution, our constitutional tradition had consistently provided for a formal distinction between the process of crime definition (the responsibility of the legislative branch) and the process of sentencing (the responsibility of the judiciary and, for several generations, parole officers) with the exception of an ever increasing congressionally mandated minimum and maximum imprisonment terms for particular crimes. The new guidelines break radically from traditional sentencing procedures by requiring confinement for all but the most minor offences (23 of the 258 boxes) resulting in non-imprisonment sentences having dropped from 50% to 15%. The process has become, in the words of Kennedy's previous Chief Counsel "the Rodney Dangerfield of federal agencies, despised by judges, sneered at by scholars, ignored by the Justice Department, its guidelines circumvented by practitioners and routinely lambasted in the press." Few Americans know of how their country's legal system has changed and how those efforts have wholly failed. Thus, it's no surprise when history repeats itself in the creation of Amazon's blind incapacitation procedures.
The Industrial Age was about "stuff" just as the Information Age was about "stuff" - making stuff, marketing stuff, buying stuff, and eventually filling huge landfills with old stuff. But, we're slowly realizing, bit by bit, that all that stuff never helped solve any of our problems. Is this Amazon, with its very survival so interwoven with maintaining our dependency on stuff and fitting in, truly ready to help us move into the Symbiotic Age of the next century? Economics Nobel Prize winner Dr. Fogel proposes that we are passing through a Great Awakening of equality of purpose (by cultivating shared values and visions) adding to improved education, opportunity, and accessible democracy as a fresh base for a Relational Age where end-to-end solutions in a New Economy are constructed with large networks of small companies (already producing over half of all U.S. growth). This will naturally cause disruptions in any antiquated social or business norms unsuccessful at crossing ethnic, class, and status boundaries. This change means less trust for our families (with higher divorce rates), our corporations (less customer loyalty), and strangers (with higher crime rates). "Spiritual (or immaterial) inequity is now as great a problem as material inequity, perhaps even greater." (Fogel, 2002) What might families look like if children had a greater say in things? What would it take to make the "head" of the household everyone? How would schools have to change to allow students to be in charge (like at Monument Mountain High School)? Is it in any way feasible for criminals to be involved in the decisions for their own incarceration? How might customers be more involved in how retail businesses are managed?
There have been thousands of successful companies built on just such an open management style starting with Jack Stack's turnaround effort for failing SCR in 1983 when he and other employees bought the failing company. His approach, called "The Great Game of Business," not only opened the company financials but made every employee a shareholder. It has been long shown a static rule-based approach is likely to lead to a culture of complacency while more open organizations are better at encouraging self-monitoring. For many decades, GM had to employ ten times as many people as Toyota to far less profitably manufacture a similar number of less reliable cars as Toyota relied on trust to sustain long-term relationships instead of soulless checklists. People work better in parallel and serial decision making only means greater complexity logically increases the probability of failure. A natural post-modern fear of increasing complications may be best defeated with trust's resulting enthusiasm, autonomy, and understanding. The future winners will be organizations where employees and customers all have equal opportunities on the same "playing field."
From: Amazon.com Reviews [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, 20 February, 2015 8:09 AM
Subject: Your review helped another customer shop for `Callaway Speed Regime 3,1-dozen,...'
TucsonShopper, a customer just told us your review was helpful to them while shopping on Amazon.
Callaway Speed Regime 3,1-dozen,...
Excellent ball that costs too much
You have published 531 reviews. Customers have found your reviews helpful 3,475 times.
Koolio says (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R3A68RLLTDA92N/):
I have never run into someone who took the time to write a concise and thorough review like yourself. I must say after reading your review it helped me and probably a lot of future buyers and saved us a whole lot of grief in the process. Words cannot express how appreciated I am for your review.
Thank you =)
Traveling Gal says (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R2HNERVWM0I7A8):
Thank you, thank you, thank you!! I've already sent an Email to Lacrosse support asking how to test 9-volt batteries but they haven't responded yet. I was searching thru testers for a replacement when I decided to check the reviews to see if someone mentioned 9-volts. I admit to being mechanically & technically challenged but I still think Lacrosse should have addressed this on the cardboard insert. Anyway, you saved me a lot of trouble reordering, repacking and returning, etc and I sure do appreciate it!
Jennifer M. Raney says (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R28C9KGDLF9CC/ ):
Your feedback was quite educational, thank you for taking the time to explain everything in such detail!
Paul Hardy says (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R3B5JFY4D1W7G2):
Excellent and very useful review, thank you! ... At any rate, thank you for the super review!
T. L. Harlan says (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R2FN7NHOS70EOM):
Wow! THANK YOU "TucsonShopper" for your incredibly well-written and well-researched article on this outmoded product. Amazon Dot Com owes you a Big Thanks for writing for them!
Amazon Customer says (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R2B62X9V6MUDQM/):
Wow hat off
One if not the best review I have read
Apart from the book, the comment is interesting and I will enjoy thinking through it again after I read it a few more times.
Gregory M. Matous says:
Some really great insights.
Steven Jong says (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R29IIG6FWIOG1Q/):
Thanks for the great review.
Analyst says (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R3CMGSI1Z889DC/):
I finally found an answer to the "blue" vs "brown"!
Very thorough review, thanks for that - it makes buying decisions easier.
Groovechampion says (at http://www.amazon.com/review/RW4Z1QZBYEUQA/):
Very nice review.
stoicblitzer says (at http://www.amazon.com/review/):
Mike Spalding says (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R2C7OK5ZS036N2/):
Thanks! You cleared up all my questions. I'm glad to hear I have no need of the more expensive gigabit ports.
Kenneth Knott says (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R1FDUHWZ8KO4NM):
Thank you for the useful review! I always worry that I'm `missing out' on something by not getting the premium models, but your review makes it clear that this is all I need and a steal at $30
I too appreciate your comments about differences in prices and what ya get. I'm not particularly good with this technical stuff, but I do need to know basic differences. Many thanks.
Todd Paddock says (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R1EG34XVQ6YBXS/):
You give a thorough and very helpful review, as you do for many items in Amazon. Keep up your good work.
Simbathekat says (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R1L1ASXOOHPX60/):
Your commentary has definitely given me some homework. Thanks for the thorough feedback.
Smackie says: (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R1518IDA31U3ZM/)
This is an excellent review.
Dave says (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R12NJYGC194SIE/):
Solid insight. Thanks for posting!
D. G. Lee says (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R3GPJBP86ZYOY0/):
Thank you! That's very helpful!
Tom22 says (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R1JE5PHKHG355T/):
I liked the post. I always like to hear everything someone considered when buying a product, their thoughts, impressions, buyers regrets... etc.
10 of 10 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R1FNPEUDE1YYTT/ and http://www.amazon.com/review/R1275CBJG6FKD/ and
11 of 11 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R345Q10CU5EA4J/ and http://www.amazon.com/review/R3UL6A89KCGOKO/)
12 of 12 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R1RKFWJA7DXEE3/)
17 of 17 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/RWQXPRCLZLHFV/ and http://www.amazon.com/review/RFDXOVTTD1FA4/)
20 of 20 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R2L8X1HWDQKHWY/)
21 of 21 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R2BXF65SATMQ7G/)
25 of 25 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R2PZUAJQKXE6UD/)
27 of 27 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/RRKGOK6XZ9C9F/)
32 of 32 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/RLETN2LEVZYD8/)
33 of 33 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R34NBHUV0KQDOX/)
80 of 80 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R1NDQKK02AAPFV/)
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/RQAPDAGDWDODD/)
11 of 12 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R1H26BLLPCWMI7/ and at http://www.amazon.com/review/R1NWJ3184SSWI7/)
12 of 14 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R2I4D7F5B8645J/)
13 of 14 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R2H8PXCDKA5NEG)
14 of 15 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R2D1D0CNWI5AQV/ and http://www.amazon.com/review/RYLJNUF8PODAC/)
17 of 19 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R38VEEKXSH7YTZ/)
21 of 22 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R3JX3P0OTGF34U/)
22 of 23 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R5K1L1R5VMZFO/)
22 of 24 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R24SX76GPGGZ4S/)
30 of 36 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/RT0J6K73FXQOU/)
37 of 40 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R3JYB5NC4UO4N6/)
41 of 52 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R1Q4OAV3DAR1C9/)
44 of 46 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R1RFGJM5Z6SE26/)
50 of 58 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R1CYR0D43OEQZJ/)
129 of 138 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/R3K24POG70DK0E/)
141 of 153 people found the following review helpful (at http://www.amazon.com/review/RTZNBHJF9ZMC5)