>>Such a reaction would merely demonstrate that we - the Dutch - have hardly any feeling with the outside world. That we hardly understand the impact of our actions on the perception people have of the Dutch.
>>
>>Do you, not-childish Americans, realize the impact of such audiences on the perception of the average American? Why on earth should a foreigner know that such audiences are composed of only a handful of idiot Americans? How could 'we' know that it's all unreal? First you not-childish Americans must tell us so.
>
>
>Hi Peter,
>
>I don't believe was anything wrong with that audience. What was really there to strike your attention ?! From all you described in your original post -there was absolutely noting out of ordinary there, warranting you to draw any particular conclusion. If Oprah was there dealing on behalf on someone,
>then whole audience knew right away without any propmters or displays, that she would simply pay whole amount (if not doubled) if she lost.
>So them yelling 'No Deal, No Deal' is only natural. They just knew it!

Nice analysis. Let's hope I am the only person they 'fooled'.

>Where did you come up with idea that this represent anything at all ??
>
>What to say about people going to watch those American Wrestlers ?
>Or regular heavy weight! box matches? Or European soccer hot derby matches?
>KickBoxing ? What conclusion you wld draw from audiences there ??? I personnaly get sick watching
>Spanish Corrida for instance; Should I draw conclusion like 'Spanish are sick' because they cheer person killing an animal ?

Stereotypes do exist. I'm not aware of any stereotype of the Cypriotics, but you can tell one for sure. Stereotypes are either too negative or too positive, or correct.

>What I believe caused people to react was the fact that you
>placed remark 'silly' with tone of seriosenes, which actually insulted people and got everybody on yr neck. I noticed that you even repeated it later in another post, which made me think that you were simply unaware of
>that people took it personally (and seriosely).

Using a stereotype is not the same as insulting. In my case I wanted to provoke. And I want to preserve the right to provoke, also using stereotypes, prejudices and generalizations, at least to begin with.


>If you used some other tone of voice or placed simple joke, I don't believe
>anybody would (over)react. If you told me something like ;
>
>'...I went to Gucha trumpet festival - Those Serbs are Crazu!!!' folowed by smiley or green I would just laugh.
>But if you tried to make socio study out of it, and try to seriosely prove that all Serbians are alcoholics because of what is going on there (You better don't go! <g>) - then this would hv been trully insulting.

There was a kickoff remark that can be regarded as a stereotype. Suppose that people would have replied with details (facts and arguments) to prove that the stereotype is incorrect and I'd still continue to adhere to the stereotype, then people have all right to kick my *ss. But not so on the first mention of the stereotype.


>I believe it is all big missunderstanding on both your, and offended people part. I also believe If you caused people to be really upset then you owe them an apology for simply making them feel angry. No matter who understood what.

People need not apologize to me and I won't apologize to them. We're grownups (non-childish), rational enough to eventually understand what has happened and what our own role and responsibility was.

>Then life goes on, and we all put this simply behind :)

Thanks for your serious reply.